Jasher

i thought Jesus was talking to the Jews, that the world will hate them, not hating the Chrisitans. You're exactly right! Somehow, many "Christians" have made out Scriptures that were intended for the Jews as though they were intended for the "Christians!" But, they do this FREQUENTLY! It's all part of the remnants of the Replacement Theology that was formed in the mire and muck of Antisemitism and Allegorical Interpretation of Scripture in the 200s and 300s A.D., acquiring a foothold under Roman Emperor Constantine. It's like trying to pull weeds that break off at the surface of the ground; they keep growing back! We just can't seem to get rid of them! It's shameful! It's disgusting! And, IT'S WRONG! That's NOT what the Scriptures teach AT ALL! I always get very confused when people talk about "Replacment Theology." These explanations do not fit my paradigm of the Bible logically. Are you saying that the Old Covenant is still running parallel to the New? Futurism seems to be saying this when they talk about one plan of God for the Church and a different one for the Jews. What would we call this? parallelism? Can anyone define this in a simple way that I can understand?

Close but not exactly. NIV Daniel 9:27 27 He [God] will confirm a covenant [Abrahamic] with many for one seven (Daniel's 70th week). In the middle of the seven he [God] will put an end to sacrifice and offering [the sacrifice of Jesus - once and for all]. And on a wing of the temple [Chamber of Hewn stones - Sanhedrin] he [God] will set up an abomination [the unjust condemnation of Jesus] that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed [death by crucifixion] is poured out on him [Jesus - his suffering and death]. Comments: 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven. Confirmation of the already existing covenant of Abraham and the OT fathers. Confirm, to make strong. In the middle of the seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. God did this in making the final once and for all sacrifice so that animals no longer had to be sacrificed. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. This makes a lot of sense to me because a �wing� of the temple was a structure on the Temple compound. It relates to a building. May I suggest to you that this wing of the temple was the place where the Sanhedrin met, which was called the chamber of hewn stones and was located in the "Holy Place" of the Temple on the North side of the structure. This "chamber of hewn stones" was destroyed at the time of the crucifixion - that very same day because there was a severe earth quake the day Jesus died. The Sanhedrin had to move to other quarters when this happened. The chamber of Hewn Stone was built half in and half out of the Temple Holy Place - thus it was a wing of the Temple. What greater abomination could there be than for the Sanhedrin - sitting in their "wing" of the Temple - to condemn the Lord of the universe to death just for the sake of ENVY. This was the ultimate abomination of the Jewish nation and it, along with other Abominations, caused the complete desolation of the Temple of God, the city and Nation itself - all that remained of the Jewish nation in 73AD was the Fortress of Antonia, which was the garrison of the Roman legion. The Fortress Antonia is today errantly called the "Temple Mount." In 70AD the Temple had been totally destroyed down to the foundations at bedrock. Remember Josephus said the pinnacle of the Temple had a 450 foot high wall - the real Temple Mount was actually a very high Tower. Another 150 feet of wall was under the earth and went down to bedrock. So in places (south east corner or pinnacle of the temple where the devil took Jesus) the total wall height at this point was about 600 feet high. The real Temple Mount tower was totally destroyed in 70AD so that not one stone was left upon another. One historical reason for this was that the temple contained probably hundreds of tons of silver and gold. The walls of the Heichel room (including the Holy of Holies) was covered with gold plate as well as all of the doors. When the Temple was burned all of this Gold and Silver melted and flowed down through the crevasses in the huge stones making up the wall of the tower. All of the stones were displaced in search of the gold. Some of the rooms around the Heichel were used as a repository for people's wealth. It was stored there for safekeeping as the only alternative that people had was to bury their treasures in the ground somewhere. I think the cross is the greatest event in the history of the universe. Larry Why is it that you think that the covenant is Abraham's and not the New Covenant? Messiah confirmed the New Covenant in His blood at the final Seder. Wouldn't that be the covenant He confirms? To confirm a covenant means that the covenant was already in existance with a significant interval in between the origin and the confirmation. This long interval is the reason that it has to be confirmed. (Abraham to Christ) The New Covenant was created by the blood of Jesus. How do you confirm a covenant that was freshly made in the middle of Daniel's 70th week? Luke 22:20 (NASB) And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. Again I say the New Covenant was not cut until the crucifixion. The only reference in the OT to the "New Covenant" is a prophesy from Jeremiah. A prophesy is not he same as a covenant. Jeremiah 31:31 (KJV) Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a "new covenant" with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Daniel prophesied events that would happen 500 years into his future ending in 70AD. In that long period of time he uses the term Abomination that causes Desolation three times. Each was about a different event. Chronogically the first mention of AoD was in reference to the war with Antiochus when he desecrated the Temple - around 164 BC. The second mention of the AoD was the one I wrote about above. What greater AoD could there be than to unjustly murder the Creater of the universe in 29AD? The third mention of the AoD was fulfilled when Eleazar ben Simon the terrorist in 66AD took over the temple and also desecrated it. He was the man of sin that Paul prophesied about. He took over the Temple and used it as a bloody fortress against the armies of Agrippa II and a few weeks later the army of Cestius who had led the 12th legion to Jerusalem to put down the rebellion. These were the two events that Jesus told his followers to watch out for and when they appeared they should flee the city and Judea. It is commonly stated that it was the armies of Rome that was the AoD when they finally broke into the Temple in 70AD. Not so. First of all the forces of Titus did not enter the burned out Temple until very late in the war of 70AD. The Temple was just an unusable burned out shell at the time. The Abomination comes first followed by the Desolation. If the Romans were the abomination then it has to be reversed as they only arrived after the desolation. It doesn't work. Jesus told his followers to get out of Judea and the city when they saw the AoD. In 70 AD. When the Romans broke through the walls it was way too late for the Christians to try to escape. The war was at its end at that point. No the Christians fled when the terrorists took over the Temple and the armies surrounded the city in 66 AD. Also the fortress of Antonia was right next door to the Temple in Jesus day. This was never seen as an abomination. So it wasn't the Romans that was the AoD.

Dear friend, Catholic = Amillennial. You are right on the money. This has been the standard scholarly viewpoint for a long time now. The only thing I can add is some of the scribes did not use the final "N" in NeroN which made it come out 616 because N = 50. This is really just another proof that the early copyists or scribes knew that Nero was intended in the Text of the Apocalypse. Larry

Although some and maybe even much of this is true, it appears that you are really stretching this scenario to fit your beliefs. I see some major problems with these things. Why would Paul's prophecy have to be fulfilled within 14 years just because it was written in AD 52? Do you realize that some prophecies have still not been fulfilled after over 2500 years? True, it was prophesied that the temple would be destroyed, Jerusalem would become desolate and the Jews would be scattered through out the nations of the world, and what you have written shows that it was fulfilled. We can all see that, but you are really reaching to stretch this into the fulfillment of the great tribulation. There is a far worse time of trouble and/or tribulation coming in the near future, when (all) nations will be gathered against Jerusalem (Joel 3:2). And when you see this happen, the Roman armies on horseback in AD 70 will look a lot more like a picnic in comparison. But I will commend you for recognizing that Daniel 12 and Matthew 24 or the Olivet Discourse are very much related and even mirror each other. Okay, it appears that you believe that the Shekinah Glory of God is the restrainer. That doesn't bother me, for many believers have lots of different beliefs about this, but to me it doesn't even matter. Now, you also claim that Eleazar Ben Ananius convinced the priests to stop the daily sacrifice to the Emperror of Rome. If this is so, then it appears that he would have been successful at ending an abomination, not beginning one. Did Josephus also say that he opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God? If not, this puts a major hole in your theory. But even if he did, this still does not have to be the fulfillment of the abomination of desolation, because it still may only be a shadow of the future reality to come. We can know positively that this was not the fulfillment of the abomination of desolation because there are still some major events that are missing that leave gaping holes in your theory. In Daniel 12, after the abomination of desolation chapter 11, Daniel tells of a time of trouble (tribulation) such as never was since there was a nation in verse (1). But in the very next verse, he tells about the resurrection of many of the dead, when shortly after this he was told to shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end; many will run to and fro and knowledge would increase. Now fast forward about 500 years, when Christ would come and bring the increase of knowledge that Daniel was not permitted to know. Christ said that immediately after the tribulation of those days, which would be cut short for the sake of the elect, that we would see a sign with the sun, moon and stars. Then the nations will mourn when they see Him coming in the clouds and then He would send the angels to gather His elect. So Daniel saw the dead rise but was ordered to stop the prophecy. Then later, Christ came to increase the knowledge that Daniel was given, or to add to it, sending His angels to gather the elect from among those that are still living. Then He gave several clues, two would be in a field, one would be taken and the other left, etc., etc..... When you add the prophecies of Daniel and Christ together, it appears to be an exact match of what Paul would later say about this mystery: 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. I wonder, did Josephus happen to mention anything at all about a resurrection/rapture during the time of the destruction of the temple? If not, I would scrap that theory in a New York second, because it's nothing but a cheap imitation of the real thing to come. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 (NASB) Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, [4] who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. [5] Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? [6] And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he may be revealed. [7] For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. [8] And then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; Paul was not prophesying an event that would not happen for over 2,000 years or more. Since Thessalonians was written in 52AD he was writing about events that would happen in only 14 years in his future. Josephus tells us that a few days before Passover in 66AD - a bright light was seen leaving the Temple – The Shekinah Glory of God. It moved to the top of the Mount of Olives and remained there for about 3 1/2 years all through the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The same identical thing happened before the destruction of Solomon's Temple. Jesus was crucified on this very location around 30AD. On Pentecost 66AD a commotion was heard in the Temple and voices said in unison, "We are departing Hence.” And the Heavenly host left the Temple of God. It was now totally abandoned by God and the restraining Shekinah was now gone. A short time later the rebellion began in the city. The event that triggered the rebellion is when Eleazar Ben Ananius [the grandson of the Ananius of Jesus' day] convinced the Priests in the Temple to stop offering the daily sacrifices to the Emperor in Rome. This in itself was an act of war. Eleazar was the governor of the Temple. From this point the rebellion escalated [see Josephus]. When the news of the rebellion reached Agrippa II – he dispatched an army to put down the rebellion. While fighting Agrippa's Army in the city the Zealots or terrorists took refuge in the Temple because it was in itself a fortress. These were the two signs that Jesus had told his followers to watch for. The Abomination in the Holy Place and the army around the city. Eleazar was that man of lawlessness that Paul talked about. This is the record of history – it is not Futuristic and does not need to be speculated about at all. When these two signs appeared in Nissan 66AD – Daniel's clock started running and 1,290 days later the daily sacrifice failed for want of Priests to offer it. This was on Tammuz 17th – a day of infamy in Jewish history. Much to everyone's shock and surprise the Zealots surrendered just 45 days later and the war was over. This was Daniel's 1,335 days. God cut this time short for the elects sake. The obedient Christians had fled in 66AD but I believe that there were many people who came to the realization that Jesus was indeed the Messiah during this time of extreme tribulation – these were the elect.

That's the idea - first determine what it meant to the people to whom it was originally written then take the underlying principles and apply them to any point in history - including today of course. Some things in scripture are of a local interpretation, but most are not. The same is true of the symbolic book of Revelation. To understand its message we have to search history and the OT to determine what it meant to those to whom it was written. Once we discover what it meant to the first century Christians and all of them living under the Roman empire - then we can apply its principles and teaching to today. Today it is a common practice to move all of prophesy to yet our future, which is a serious error. And so this practice produces endless speculations - ll of which never come true. I guess it is fun to speculate but one will never understand the message of the writer. I think you are on the right track.

If you don't understand the historical background of Hebrews - you never will have a full understanding of what the writer is saying. Having a 21st century opinion of the Bible is a disaster as we see on boards like these all of the time - especially on the subject of Eschatology. We must ALWAYS ask these questions below before reading a book of the Bible - ALWAYS. Who wrote Hebrews? Hebrews smacks of the thinking of Paul. Best info is that Paul wrote this originally in Hebrew (which was lost to history) and the letter extant that we have was translated into Greek by Luke who wrote for the Disciples and Apostles. Thus the thinking was crafted by Paul, but the style was that of Luke. But there is no documented proof of this. To whom was the letter written? Specifically to the Messianic Hebrew Christians in Rome. When was it written? Some time after the burning of Rome in July of 64AD and the Spring of 65AD. It was written in that 9 month interval. After the fire, Nero was fomenting hatred against the Christians via the Roman citizens who had lost everything in the fire of Rome, which consumed 10 out of 14 precincts in the city. Roman citizens lost their homes, possessions, businesses, temples, and they were highly susceptible to Nero’s accusations toward the Christians. History believes that it was Nero himself that caused the fire to clear an area for his ambitious new building projects. The book of Hebrews says that they had "not yet come to resist unto blood." This happened later in the spring of 65AD when Nero started to cruelly kill Christians. Over the next three years he killed an estimated 5,000 Christians. The Christians in that era were suffering harassment and persecution from the Roman populace. It was a very grave and serious time in history. Why was it written? The Messianic Christians were reverting back to Judaism to escape persecution by Nero. At this particular time it was only the Christians and not the Jews who were being persecuted. What was the historical context? The book of Hebrews was written to the Messianic Christian Jews to convince them that they should not go back to Judaism, but to contend for their Christian New Covenant faith. The book is a review of Jewish history and a comparison of the Old and New Covenants. The great theme of the book is that the New Covenant is a better covenant (Than the Old to which they were returning to - to escape persecution.) Here is just one example of what I am speaking of… Under the Old Covenant there was no sacrifice for willful and deliberate sins. The best example that I can think of is when the Israelite was gathering sticks for a fire on the Sabbath when he knew this was against the Old Covenant Law. Numbers 15:27-36 (KJV) And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. [28] And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the Lord, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. [29] Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them. [30] But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, [willfully] whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. [31] Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. [32] And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. [33] And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. [34] And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. [35] And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. [36] And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses. There was no sacrifice for willful sin - only for sins done in ignorance. Proven willful sinning was punishable by death. In this case stoning. Under the New Covenant, which is a better covenant - there is forgiveness for willful and deliberate sinning. Big Improvement. 1 John 2:1 (NASB) My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; No differentiation between willful and un-willful. Another reference. Acts 2:36-38 (NASB) "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified." [37] Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" [38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. What Peter basically said was that God had surreptitiously brought about the cross and now that his purposes had been fulfilled in the sacrifice of his son now everyone could come and receive forgiveness. Don’t tell me that their was not willful sin on the part of the religious leaders of that day. They may not have repented, but they were offered the opportunity. Under the new covenant there was forgiveness through our advocate for willful sin. Hebrews 10:26-31 (NASB) For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, Remember the Hebrews were reverting back to Judaism and the Old Covenant to evade persecution. [27] but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Still speaking of the Old Covenant - good example of the guy picking up sticks. 29] How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? [30] For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge His people." [31] It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. You trample underfoot the Son of God by ignoring the cross and going back to Judaism. All of the Old Testament symbols, types and shadows in the OT were pointing forward to the crucifixion. God offered us the Grace of the New Covenant - to go back to Judaism is an insult to the spirit of Grace - isn’t it? You have to hold in mind all of these things as you read the book of Hebrews.

kris kristofferson wrote it and I like Elvis and JD Summer's randition of it.

I count it very reliable in the time frame that he was an eyewitness of - like the fall of Jerusalem. The only bias that I can see is in his loyalty to the Flavians who more or less sponsored him. So don't expect that he will be saying much in a negative tone about the Romans. The rest of his accounts are obviously from the historical records of his day. Depends on who you call "respected scholars." The Jews have not been very open to his history because it contradicts their political agenda. For example: The dimensions Josephus gave for the Temple and Temple Mount in his day are different from what modern archeologists are saying in Israel today. Today they are calling the Fortress Antonia "The Temple Mount." The Fortress Antonia was the only structure to survive the destruction of 70ad.

I take the position that the book was written to the Christians who lived under the Roman Empire. They were facing centuries of persecution and the book was written to comfort them. God is giving his viewpoint of their situation. He is telling them that things are not as they appear. So the question that I have to ask is "What did the four horses mean to the first century Christians." White Horse - with bow Symbol of those who conquer by violence. In this case it was a code name for Rome. Beast was also a code name for Rome and the Emperor. Red Horse - follows along with the white horse in that it brings war, death, and destruction. Black Horse - brings famine and want. There were periods of famine in Roman history. Agabus foretold of this in the times of Claudius. The Christians were going to face this in that they were mostly out of work. Tradesmen back then belonged to Guilds (Unions) These Guilds were involved with a patron god where food was offered to idols and other detestable practices, so Christians didn’t belong and they were mostly out of work because of this. In this case there was no famine, but the problem was no money. Pale Horse - Mass killing by wild beast, famine, and war. All four are interlinked and represent life in the Roman Empire. These principals have also followed all through history. You can find all of these elements in WWII. It was only 20+ years earlier that they saw the destruction of Israel and the might of the Roman occupation.

The book of Revelation is a book of contrasts. The bride and the harlot, the gentle lamb and the beast. The real and false prophet, etc. The white horses of Revelation is another contrast. Rev 19:11 is very obviously Jesus. The white horse of Rev 6:2 is a contrasting horse. The four horses represent life as it would be during the Roman Empire. And from history we can see that these principles have existed all through time to our day. The late Sir William Ramsay was an expert in Biblical Archaeology and writings of the New Testament. He said that any first century Christian would immediately connect the rider with the bow to the Parthians. The Parthian kings did ride white horses and were in John's day the fiercest fighting force in existence. Rome lost to them repeatedly and could not stand up against this army of archers in open warefare. The "turtle" formation of the Romans with their shields was little protection from the Parthians with their arrows and fast Arabian horses. Both Rome and Parthia were conquerors and that is what John is alluding to - death and destruction via warfare. Ever hear of the Parthian shot? One of their tricks was to flee their enemies and then to turn around in the saddle and shoot 180 degrees behind them - with accuracy. They traveled with wagons of quivers full of arrows. The Roman forces were basically ground forces with a cavalry attached. Once you understand what Revelation meant to the first century Christians then you can trace its principles all through history. In the 20th century alone an estimated 180,000,000 people died in wars. This number is commensurate with the world's growing population, which is now about 13 times as great as it was in the first century. So, the rider on the white horse (symbol of a conqueror) with the bow was represenative of those who conquer, plunder, and enslave by violence. The four horses as a whole also include natural disasters and all of the tribulation that follows. Larry

Luke 21:24 (KJV) And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Quotation of Jesus words from approximately mid April 29AD: a few days before the cross. Who were the

Oh brother where art thou? Another preterist to the rescue? Another misguided believer who believes that all prophecy was fulfilled on or before 70AD? Lots of luck to you when the real tribulation begins. I am not a preterist for your information - this is an Amil view if you are looking for labels. You are right of course - If it comes to the facts of history vs. 21st century western speculation - speculation always supercedes. After all Josephus was only an eyewitness - what good is he?

This is an old thread but I thought to comment on it. Second post. The full text reads... Daniel 12:6-13 (NASB) And one said to the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long will it be until the end of these wonders?" How long will be the destruction of Israel. [7] And I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed. Literal years. It was the length of time that the city of Jerusalem had confronted the Romans until they had lost the war and were totally destroyed. [8] As for me, I heard but could not understand; so I said, "My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?" [9] And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time. [10] "Many will be purged, purified and refined; but the wicked will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand. Daniel did not understand the Angel and asked for clarification. The Angel added to his first saying more specifics. [11] "And from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. [12] "How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days! [13] "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age." Of course 1,290 days is also 3 ½ years, but it is a little more specific. Here we have more information to consider. From the time the Abomination of Desolation is set up until the daily sacrifice fails will be 3 ½ years or more specifically 1,290 days. Why the Prophet listed the two in reverse order I do not know. From the time that Agrippa II sent his army of 2,000 men to put down the rebellion in Jerusalem until the daily sacrifice failed was 1,290 days. Josephus tells us the day that the daily sacrifice failed was Tamuz 17th 70AD. If you count backwards from Tamuz 17th 1,290 days it brings you to the appearance of Agrippa’s army at Jerusalem. Agrippa’s attempt failed so Nero sent Cestius with the 12th legion to Jerusalem to deal with the riot. This was just a month after Agrippa. The murderous zealots took over the Holy Place in the Temple and that of course was the AoD that was spoken of. The 1,335 days was 45 days after the daily sacrifice had failed. This was to everyone’s shock and surprise when the zealots gave up and surrendered. Josephus said that they could have continued on for quite some time. And so God said he would shorten those days for the elect’s sake and he did. The elect being the people who had found the lord in the city while it was under extreme tribulation. Remember the Christians were gone - escaped to Pella starting with Judea. THis fits exactly with Matt 24. And there is a lot more to say on the history of this subject.

This is my first post. I am a history person so that is my bent. The hooks mentioned in Ezekiel was the practice of putting hooks in the lips of prisoners in order to control them easily. One soldier could hold a whole handful of tethers attached to the hooks. So one soldier could control quite a number of prisioners. As I recall the verse applies to the second excursion of Antiochus when he was returning to Syria from a failed campaign against Egypt. "Antiochus besieged Alexandria but he was unable to cut communications to the city and he also needed to deal with a revolt of Maccabees in Judaea so, at the end of 169, he withdrew his army. In his absence, Ptolemy VI and his brother were reconciled. Antiochus, angered at his loss of control over the king, invaded again. The Egyptians sent to Rome asking for help and the Senate despatched Gaius Popilius Laenas to Alexandria. Meanwhile, Antiochus had seized Cyprus and Memphis and was marching on Alexandria. At Eleusis, on the outskirts of the capital, he met Popilius Laenas, with whom he had been hustlas during his stay in Rome. But instead of a friendly welcome, Popilius offered the king an ultimatum from the Senate: he must evacuate Egypt and Cyprus immediately. Antiochus begged to have time to consider but Popilius drew a circle round him in the sand with his cane and told him to decide before he stepped outside it. Antiochus chose to obey the Roman ultimatum. The "Day of Eleusis" ended the Sixth Syrian War and Antiochus' hopes of conquering Egyptian territory." Returning from Egypt defeated by the threat of Roman confrontation an evil thought entered his mind - plunder Jerusalem. Why not he was passing it on his way back to Syria. This was his second excursion to Israel. He needed plunder to support his army. God said he would put a hook in his mouth and draw him back to Israel again.