Part One. Jerusalem, Ground Zero for Bible Prophecy The first year of the new millennium began like nothing out of the ordinary ... just the familiar din of intifada in the Israel news. Then the Manhattan Massacre happened on September 11th, and President Bush announced our world had changed forever. Immediately, Islamic Jihad was declared against the U.S., and global alliances were forged. Meanwhile, Fundamentalist Jews threaten to build a new temple in place of Islam's great shrine on Jerusalem's Temple Mount. They promise it will bring Armageddon. The events in this two-part series would sound like a Tom Clancy novel with fanatical prophecy overtones, except they're pulled from mainline news sources. They also have striking connections to what may be the most important sign of the end times in Bible prophecy. (This first article gives the historic background of the Temple Mount and its prophecy.) This first article in a two-part series introduces some essential background, and the second article targets a potential event that could quickly become the epicenter of the most intense and confounding conflict the world has seen. As I write this article, it's just a little over a year ago that intifada was declared against Israel because the yet-to-be prime minister, Ariel Sharon, walked with armed guards onto Mount Zion, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. He walked up to the Islamic shrine known as the Dome of the Rock, which now stands on what is arguably the most revered holy place in the world. He boldly proclaimed the right of all Jews to stand in that place. Immediately, the peace talks between Prime Minister Barak and Yasser Arafat collapsed, as such talks have failed so many times in the past. There can be little doubt that a military hawk like Sharon knew he was striking a spark in a tinder box. Concerned that Prime Minister Barak was giving away the farm, he did what he knew would bring the peace talks to an end. It worked. Shortly thereafter, Sharon was elected as prime minister. More peace talks were proposed by intervening parties, but never came to pass because both sides now gave the other side justification for more violence. * "Peace, peace," they say, "when there is no peace."
And all of this happened on the exact ground where Jesus stood 2,000 years ago when he predicted the end of ancient Israel. Now, am I suggesting that all of this means another end is soon upon us? Well, not necessarily, but all of the potential is there, most of it resting against a hair trigger — a small group of Jewish Fundamentalists who threaten the existence of the mosque and shrine that stand on the Temple Mount. They've said they fully expect their actions to bring on the equivalent of Armageddon, and they're ready to bring it on. They don't care because their understanding of prophecy leads them to believe their actions will force the Messiah to come and bring world peace under Israeli rule — not unlike those Islamic Fundamentalists who don't mind dying because they believe their actions will bring them assured eternal peace in heaven. It's easy to look at the sweeping events of the last quarter of the first year of this new millennium and read such things as signs of the end — if you're so inclined — nation rising against nation, advances toward greater globalism, and religious extremists talking about Armageddon or Crusades or Jihads. And one may be right to do so, for we all know World War III is a real possibility; and Jesus did list such things as signs of "the end," didn't he? Maybe we should look at his exact words: * "And Jesus began to say to them, 'Take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, "I am he!" and they will lead many astray. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs." (Mark 13:5-8, RSV)
Some have taken this to mean that such things as famines, wars, rumors of war, and earthquakes are precursors to the end, but I take it to mean that things like famines and earthquakes and wars are all going to happen, but they don't mean the end is here. The end of this age may be made up of such things — a dark period of transition, a long and bitter night before the world's new dawn — but these things are not reliable as signs of the end because they are the kinds of events that happen throughout human history. That's why Jesus says, "Do not be alarmed. These things must take place, but the end is not yet." If these are uncertain signs, is there any sign of the end that is more certain? The end we're talking about, by the way, is not end of the entire earth, but the end of wars and rumors of wars and famines — the end of aggressive human empires, the end of a period of history during which famines and wars and earthquakes have plagued mankind. The end makes way for the beginning of a period in which earth will finally have its sabbath rest. Unfortunately, according to biblical prophecy, the evil in this world will not simply give up and walk away. Evil makes its last stand in a grand hurrah. It blows itself out and takes as many with it as it can. But beyond this long history of evil that earth has known is a time of promised goodness. That's our millennial hope. Many would like to know when all of that is going to happen or, at least, know when it has begun — if it has begun. Is there any sign, then, given by Jesus, that could not be confused with the violence that nature and mankind have dished out over the past 2,000 years — perhaps a unique event that would tie his departure from this earth to the time of his eventual return, bridging across those 2,000+ years? The Abomination of Desolation I think there is. Just one. He calls it "the Abomination of Desolation," or mores specifically "the abomination that causes desolation": * "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel — let the reader understand — then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. . . . For then there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now- and never to be equalled again. If those days had not been cut short, no-one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." (Matthew 24:15,21,22, NIV)
Jesus spoke about all the signs described in this article after predicting the destruction of the Jewish temple that stood on the exact site where Ariel Sharon walked with his armed guard, igniting the intifada that plagued Israel in 2001. Jesus had just rejected the leadership of Israel for their failure to recognize him as their Messiah and had walked out of the temple warning, * "Upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth. . . . For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (Matthew 23:35,39, NIV)
That's when the following conversation took place: * "Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 'Do you see all these things?' he asked. 'I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.' As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. 'Tell us,' they said, 'when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?'" (Matthew 24:1-3, NIV)
There are actually two questions here, being asked by his disciples because they mistakenly assumed that the destruction of this enormously fortified temple had to be the end of the age described by the Old Testament. They just assumed something that big would happen in conjunction with the time in which Jesus would "come" to power as they had hoped. Since they were not aware he was going to be killed, they couldn't have known he was going to be leaving this earth. So, when they asked, "What will be the sign of your coming" they probably meant the sign of his coming into power, and they assumed all of this would happen when the temple was destroyed. Jesus walked off of the Temple Mount and over to the hill just across from it where he sat down and answered their two questions, but he didn't unthread their questions for them. Instead, he answered both questions by keeping the events linked together, perhaps because the temple's destruction and the events connected with his return are, in deed, linked across time, as I think you'll see in this article and the one to follow. First, Jesus told them about wars and rumors of war and earthquakes and famines and told them not to worry about such things because they did not mean the end was here ("but the end is not yet"). They were the kinds of things that had to happen in times to come. He also told them (in a few verses not quoted here) that they would soon face persecution in their synagogues for their beliefs. Having said all of that, he makes this statement about the "Abomination that causes Desolation" and speaks of a time when events would be more horrifying than anything the world had ever seen or ever would see again. Suddenly, it appears his words have moved into a different time than the days when the temple would be destroyed. While those were horrifying days for people living in Israel, they were no worse than many a siege that had been laid against many a city for days immemorial, and they were not as bad as the holocaust of the twenty-first century. Terrible, yes, but not the worst days the "world" would ever see. He goes on to give several other signs, but the one to really focus on is this one that he calls "the Abomination that causes Desolation." He offers no indication of what the abomination may be, and one might wonder why he wasn't more clear, especially if this was the key sign of his return. * ". . .when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel. . . ."
That's all he says about it. Typically, prophecy gurus have said this implies some desecrating object like an idol will be set up in the temple — the holy place that Jesus had just exited. That's because Jesus was alluding to a verse in Daniel that seems to describe the Antichrist and says, * ". . . And on a wing [of the temple or of the holy place] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him." (Dan. 9:27, NIV)
Mention of the temple, however, was added by Bible translators because the verse is so ambiguous the translators wanted to clarify what "holy place" the prophecy was talking about. But the temple that stood in Jesus' time was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. Obviously, an abomination cannot be erected in a temple that no longer exists. So, those who take Jesus' warning of an abomination as a sign that will precede his return naturally believe the temple must be rebuilt on the Temple Mount. (For a detailed analysis of this Fundamentalist view, click here. Link will open in a new window. Close window to return here) There's actually no reason the "Abomination of Desolation" has to be fulfilled at all for the prophecy to be true because it was perfectly fulfilled shortly after the life of Jesus. In A.D. 70, when the temple was destroyed, its altar was desecrated by Jews. A group of insurrectionists against Rome holed up in the temple, which had huge walls around its courts, and used it for a military fortress. That, in itself, would have been considered an abomination by any Jew who cared about his religion, but it got much worse than that. As armaments of various kinds were hurled over the walls by the Romans and people inside died, these insurrectionists piled the corpses on the temple altar. According to the Jewish historian, Josephus, the dripping bodies filled the gutters around the sacrificial altar with human blood. Now, that was an abomination! The religious laws that God had given to Moses made it clear that no human blood was ever to be shed inside his temple. In fact, the rule was so strict that a woman in her period was not allowed into the temple because she might drip blood onto its pavement stones. Neither could anyone with an open wound enter the temple. God gave that command in order to put an absolute end to the pagan practice of human sacrifice. Now, here was the altar itself piled with bodies and dripping with human blood that overflowed the gutters and collected in puddles in the temple court. The desecrated temple was destroyed by the Romans and so was the entire city of Jerusalem and most of Israel around it, so the desolation was great. These events happened forty years after the death of Christ, forty being a highly significant number to numerologists who lived in Jesus' time. Forty was the number of days for the embalming ritual of the Egyptians when the Jews lived in Egypt. It was the number of days for mourning the dead. It was the number of years the Children of Israel had wandered the wildnerness because they were too faithless to enter the promised land. Now it was the number of years between the death of Christ and the death of Israel as the promised land. Wouldn't such a complete cataclysm after the abomination of the temple mean the sign of the end given by Jesus was finished? Well, yes and no. Parts of Jesus' prophecy in its full context certainly fit the time of the temple's destruction, but Jesus obviously didn't return when the temple was destroyed, and his return was unwittingly implied by the second half of the disciples' question. His full answer in Matthew 24 says a lot about his return, too. It could be that he chose this vague prophecy about the abomination as the key sign to watch bor because a similar "abomination that causes desolation" would be the precurser for his return, a kind of event that would link his exit and his return. Certainly the abomination that desecrated the temple and its altar in A.D. 70 brought the end of the entire period recorded in the Old Testament. The end of the temple meant the end of Jewish sacrifices, so it brought the end of the old Jewish religion, leading to a reformed Judaism. The destruction of Israel that went along with it, caused the remaining Jewish people to be dispersed into the surrounding nations, so it brought the end of Israel as a nation and the beginning of the Diaspora. Those were certainly end times for Jesus' disciples. Something like 1.2 million Jews were killed in the rebellion against Rome, yet this is a small number compared to more than 6 million killed in the holocaust of the twentieth century that brought an end to the Diaspora. So, the destruction of Israel and the end of the Old Testament sacrificial religion was not the worst thing the world had ever seen or ever would see, and obviously Jesus did not return. All the same, it was the end of a period that had been building in the Bible for centuries. But the end was also the beginning. With the dispersion of people from Jerusalem, Christianity also spread into the world. It no longer had Jerusalem as its center. This new religion was the first reformed Judaism, and it flourished. Eventually many of the lands of the Diaspora became predominantly Christian, and Judaism learned to survive under Christians who were mostly no longer Jews. The tables were entirely turned from when those disciples were persecuted in the synagogues. The end of Israel was, in essence the beginning of a new era in religious history, but was it the end time when Jesus predicted, ". . . there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equalled again. . . ." In PART TWO of this series, I'll describe a new way of understanding this sign called the "abomination of desolation" (or "abomination that causes desolation"), which could have serious relevance to our own times and explain why Jesus might have overlaid the temple's destruction after he left the earth with an event that would be its mirror image shortly before he returns. If that event happens, it has the potential to be the most explosive event in history. | 
Index to Articles on 
through because distractions prevent the police from stopping them? 