Replies

Using your rationale here, the "abomination of desolation" is "armies surrounding Jerusalem". Is that what the abomination of desolation means to you?

Jesus said it. Luke interpreted it. Take it up with them.

Just because something is parallel doesn't mean that it is identical or coincidental as these two passages prove. They may be similar but not the same.

Come on, Chipper, in order to discount the obvious parallelism and intent of Luke to be interpreting Jesus’ words for first century gentile readers, you need to have a better argument that "nu-uh".

You seem to have a very wooden understanding of the phrase "abomination of desolation" as used by Jesus. Jesus was using the phrase in much the same way was we would use a phrase like "Potemkin village". It conjures up a concept in the mind of the hearers based on historical facts. It can be applied to a modern situation for effect. E.g., "The CFO of the bank constructed a Potemkin village in order to hide his embezzlement." No one would read that sentence and think the CFO had anything to do with Catherine the Great.

So Jesus uses the phrase "abomination of desolation" (which comes from Daniel) to give His hearers a sense of the sort of destruction that was about to fall upon Jerusalem and the temple. Remember, He wants to impress the Jewish Christians that they need to flee at the first sign of the "abomination of desolation". If they waited until ensigns were actually set up in the temple or pigs sacrificed (as dispensationalists suppose) it would have been too late for the believers to flee.

Making any sense yet?

Are Matt 24:15 and Luke 21:20 identical passages??? Yes or No --

Similar but not identical and not parallel.

So what is the abomination of desolation: the armies surrounding Jerusalem or something abominable standing in the holy place??? It's one or the other -- choose, but choose wisely.

You seem to have a very wooden understanding of the phrase "abomination of desolation" as used by Jesus. Jesus was using the phrase in much the same way was we would use a phrase like "Potemkin village". It conjures up a concept in the mind of the hearers based on historical facts. It can be applied to a modern situation for effect. E.g., "The CFO of the bank constructed a Potemkin village in order to hide his embezzlement." No one would read that sentence and think the CFO had anything to do with Catherine the Great. So Jesus uses the phrase "abomination of desolation" (which comes from Daniel) to give His hearers a sense of the sort of destruction that was about to fall upon Jerusalem and the temple. Remember, He wants to impress the Jewish Christians that they need to flee at the first sign of the "abomination of desolation". If they waited until ensigns were actually set up in the temple or pigs sacrificed (as dispensationalists suppose) it would have been too late for the believers to flee. Making any sense yet?

Christ used the word in the sense that Daniel used it in, that is why He makes a reference to him.

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

No one has tried to explain this little factoid:

So Jesus uses the phrase "abomination of desolation" (which comes from Daniel) to give His hearers a sense of the sort of destruction that was about to fall upon Jerusalem and the temple. Remember, He wants to impress the Jewish Christians that they need to flee at the first sign of the "abomination of desolation". If they waited until ensigns were actually set up in the temple or pigs sacrificed (as dispensationalists suppose) it would have been too late for the believers to flee.

Do the dispensationalists have an answer?