Why 70 AD Wasn’t The Abomination of DesolationExcerpt from Kevin Kluetz Other people have speculated that Titus, the Roman commander whose forces besieged Jerusalem in 70 AD, was the “prince who is to come.” Logically, this is impossible for three reasons. First, the passage tells us that the “prince who is to come” confirms a covenant after the Temple is destroyed. In the middle of the ‘one week’ period of that covenant (after half a ‘week,’ which is 1,260 days, or about 3 years and 5˝ months, from the time he confirms the covenant), he puts an end to sacrifice and offering.
It would have been impossible for Titus to have made a covenant after the Temple was destroyed, and then in the middle of the ‘week’ of that covenant (after 1260 days--about 3 years and 5˝ months) to have put an end to sacrifice and offering. This is because after the Temple was destroyed there was no sacrifice and offering to abolish since there was no Temple. The second reason Titus could not have been the “prince who is to come” is that Jesus prophesied that “the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel,” will happen after the gospel has been preached to all nations, at the time of the end. Matthew 24:14-15 NKJV The third reason that Titus could not have been the “prince who is to come” is that at the end of the 70th ‘week’of Daniel, all of the following conditions must be met, which was not the case after the time of Titus: Daniel 9:24 NKJV Based on a logical analysis of the chronology of Daniel’s prophecy, the “prince who is to come” has not yet come. It is important to note this, because Daniel chapter 9, using a minimum number of words, tells us that a future Temple will be standing in Jerusalem at the time of this “prince.” † |
