Order of End Time Events:

70 weeks for the Jews. Daniel 9: 25, 26, 27 This is past

Times of the Gentiles. Luke 21:24 This is past

The Tribulation. Luke 21:25 This is current

The Great Tribulation Luke 21:27 This is Future

@drusilla
i dont even know what to tell you. i dont even understand any of the things you said above.

Drusilla,

Can you please back your conclusions with some hard facts.  When did each of those events begin and when did each one end, or will end as the case may be?  What events mark the beginning of each, and what event will clearly show the end of each? 

Trying to push your view down our collective throats will not cut it at all.  You may even be right, but please let's have some proofs.

And by the way, couldn't we have dealt with this on the other similar topics you and Bobbaf have posted? I think this multiplicity of posts will not help us address this issue very well. I personally don't fancy repeating myself which is what this multiplicity will bring about. Some of my responses on the earlier threads do find relevance here, and I don't think I will like to post the same thing here again. If you can, let's try and merge both topics together.

Anyway, does any one else agree or is it just me?

@TayoD,

Obviously we all have our various interpretations of Scripture and I'd like to respect the persuasions of others whatever they choose to believe or be persuaded by. However, I'd agree with you.

TayoD,

I'll just start with number 1 and we can go from there:

The seventy weeks:

69 weeks:

Dan 9:25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

70th week:

Dan 9:26  And [size=16pt]after [/size] threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Notice the bible does not teach that the Messiah was cut off in the 69th week as many Christians are told.

The 70th week has to be past because it was [size=16pt]only after [/size] the 69th week that the Messiah cut off.

Dan 9:27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The next verse shows what Jesus did.

Confirmed the ccovenant

1. Confirmed the covenant.

Cut off in the midst of the week

2. Jesus preached for 3 and half years.

Desolation for the Jews

3. Refers to the Jews loss for not accepting their Messiah

@ Drusilla

I'll just start with number 1 and we can go from there:

The seventy weeks:

69 weeks:

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

70th week:

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Notice the bible does not teach that the Messiah was cut off in the 69th week as many Christians are told.

The 70th week has to be past because it was only after the 69th week that the Messiah cut off.

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The next verse shows what Jesus did.

Confirmed the ccovenant

1. Confirmed the covenant.

Cut off in the midst of the week

2. Jesus preached for 3 and half years.

Desolation for the Jews

3. Refers to the Jews loss for not accepting their Messiah

I posted a similar response in my secret raprure thread, but I agree with you on this one.

Uh-oh, @Dru,

Something's really not quite it in your summations.

Drusilla:


Notice the bible does not teach that the Messiah was cut off in the 69th week as many Christians are told.

The 70th week has to be past because it was only after the 69th week that the Messiah cut off.

It didn't say that the 70th week was past before the Messiah was cut off.

Drusilla:

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

To interpret this verse as referring to Jesus seems to me to miss the point altogether. You've completely jumped off the previous verse that identifies the one who causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease - he's "the prince that shall come", and who destroys the city and the sanctuary (v. 26). Is that Jesus as well?

@ Malik

To interpret this verse as referring to Jesus seems to me to miss the point altogether.

The grammer shows clearly it has to be Jesus the Messiah, lets take another look at the grammer again,


25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

1. There are two uses of the word prince mentioned overall:

(a) the Messiah the prince

(b) the people of the prince

In (a) the Messiah is the subject, and in (b) people is the subject, and not prince.

The Messiah the prince in verse 25, and the Messiah in verse 26 are the same person being the main clause of the each sentence. The people of the prince becomes the subject of the sub-ordinate clause being used here to introduce the reality of the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem.

The He in verse 27 is a continuation of the main subject, ie the Messiah who was the only person who made the sacrificial system null and void through His death, being the same thing as "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"

Also in verse 27 the expression "and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation" is confirmed in Matthew by Jesus' own words when he said:

Matthew 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

The "he" is Jesus again telling us that he will make jerusalem desolate even until the end, whih is the same thing as saying shall make it desolate, even until the consummation The word end and consummation mean the same thing, and of course the word end would naturally mean the end of this system of things.

In other words and in keeping with what was said before, is that after the Jerusalem temple was destroyed in AD70 it would never be restored again.

@Bobbyaf,

You guys just need to prayerfully consider the context of Scripture before you pour out anything. Please. If you are asserting that Jesus is the figure in Dan. 9:27, then try again looking hard enough at the context and identifying the traits of the one in that verse:

From verse 26 -

who is this personality? - he is "the prince that shall come" (clearly in reference to someone else)

what does he do? - he "shall destroy the city and the sanctuary"

what will mark his era? - (a) "the end thereof shall be with a flood"

(b) "unto the end of the war desolations are determined"

From verse 27 -

what else shall he do? - (a) "he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week"

(b) "and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"

what characterizes this event? - "the overspreading of abominations"

what's his next move? - "he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation"

what's the effect of all this? - "that determined shall be poured upon the desolate"

Your use of grammar does not correctly identify this character, for you're misconstruing the figures the one for the other by the word "prince". When you made mention of Matt. 24:15, does it not become all the clearer that the character identified there could not be pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ? See again:

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

Here is a figure - an individual - called simply "the abomination of desolation". This sinister being is abominable in his character, causing desolation in his operations, and seeking to establish his base in the holy place. No one in their right mind would ever think that Jesus is the "abomination of desolation" unless such a person is saying that Jesus is abominable!!

Besides, the Lord Jesus was speaking prophetically of events in the endtime (see verse 3). So, He could not have been referring to Himself as the "abomination of desolation" that would cause such unspeakable catastrophe in the world at that time (verses 15-21 inclusive).

Malik,

Historically Christians have always said that Daniel 9:27 has always been said to be about Jesus Christ. It is only the recent rapture folks who have reinterpreted this to mean the 'antichrist'. Having this many and more christians who have been preaching that Dan. 9:27 was about Jesus for hundreds of years, doesn't make it any more true. I just want you to understand that you are in fact the one with the 'new' belief about who this is.

You do not have to go through each one but I just offer these so you can see how what are considered some of the biggest christian leaders and some of the oldest bible commentators have always said it is about Jesus.

I will deal with the construction of the verses in my next post.

John Calvin

Daniel 9:27

27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


The angel now returns to Christ. We have explained why he made mention of the coming slaughter; first, to shew the faithful that they had no reason for remaining in the body of the nation in preference to being cut off from it; and next, to prevent the unbelievers from being satisfied with their obstinacy and their contempt of their inestimable blessings, by their rejecting the person of Christ. Thus this clause was interposed concerning the future devastation of the city and temple. The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week. This clause answers to the former, in which Christ is called a Leader. Christ took upon him the character of a leader, or assumed the kingly office, when he promulgated the grace of God. This is the confirmation of the covenant of which the angel now speaks. As we have already stated, the legal expiation of other ritual ceremonies which God designed to confer on the fathers is contrasted with the blessings derived from Christ; and we now gather the same idea from the phrase, the confirmation of the covenant. We know how sure and stable was God's covenant under the law; he was from the beginning always truthful, and faithful, and consistent with himself. But as far as man was concerned, the covenant of the law was weak, as we learn from Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 31:31, 32.) I will enter into a new covenant with you, says he; not such as I made with your fathers, for they made it vain. We here observe the difference between the covenant which Christ sanctioned by his death and that of the Jewish law. Thus God's covenant is established with us, because we have been once reconciled by the death of Christ; and at the same time the effect of the Holy Spirit is added, because God inscribes the law upon our hearts; and thus his covenant is not engraven in stones, but in our hearts of flesh, according to the teaching of the Prophet Ezekiel. (Ezekiel 11:19.) Now, therefore, we understand why the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week, and why that week was placed last in order. In this week will he confirm the covenant with many. But I cannot finished this exposition just now.


Matthew Henry:

But others think, because it is said that in the midst of the weeks (that is, the last of the seventy weeks) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, they end three years and a half after the death of Christ, when the Jews having rejected the gospel, the apostles turned to the Gentiles. But those who make them to end precisely at the death of Christ read it thus, "He shall make strong the testament to the many; the last seven, or the last week, yea, half that seven, or half that week (namely, the latter half, the three years and a half which Christ spent in his public ministry), shall bring to an end sacrifice and oblation." Others make these 490 years to end with the destruction of Jerusalem, about thirty-seven years after the death of Christ, because these seventy weeks are said to be determined upon the people of the Jews and the holy city; and much is said here concerning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. [3.] Concerning the division of them into seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, and one week; and the reason of this is as hard to account for as any thing else. In the first seven weeks, or forty-nine years, the temple and city were built; and in the last single week Christ preached his gospel, by which the Jewish economy was taken down, and the foundations were laid of the gospel city and temple, which were to be built upon the ruins of the former.

JFB:
(Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown)


27. he shall confirm the covenant--Christ. The confirmation of the covenant is assigned to Him also elsewhere. Isa 42:6, "I will give thee for a covenant of the people" (that is, He in whom the covenant between Israel and God is personally expressed); compare Lu 22:20, "The new testament in My blood"; Mal 3:1, "the angel of the covenant"; Jer 31:31-34, describes the Messianic covenant in full. Contrast Da 11:30, 32, "forsake the covenant," "do wickedly against the covenant." The prophecy as to Messiah's confirming the covenant with many would comfort the faithful in Antiochus' times, who suffered partly from persecuting enemies, partly from false friends (Da 11:33-35). Hence arises the similarity of the language here and in Da 11:30, 32, referring to Antiochus, the type of Antichrist.
with many-- (Isa 53:11; Mt 20:28; 26:28; Ro 5:15, 19; Heb 9:28).
in . . . midst of . . . week--The seventy weeks extend to A.D. 33. Israel was not actually destroyed till A.D. 79, but it was so virtually, A.D. 33, about three or four years after Christ's death, during which the Gospel was preached exclusively to the Jews. When the Jews persecuted the Church and stoned Stephen (Ac 7:54-60), the respite of grace granted to them was at an end (Lu 13:7-9). Israel, having rejected Christ, was rejected by Christ, and henceforth is counted dead (compare Ge 2:17 with Ge 5:5; Ho 13:1, 2), its actual destruction by Titus being the consummation of the removal of the kingdom of God from Israel to the Gentiles (Mt 21:43), which is not to be restored until Christ's second coming, when Israel shall be at the head of humanity (Mt 23:39; Ac 1:6, 7; Ro 11:25-31; 15:1-32). The interval forms for the covenant-people a great parenthesis.


Barnes:

Dan 9:27 -
And he shall confirm the covenant - literally, “he shall make strong” - והגביר vehîgebîyr. The idea is that of giving strength, or stability; of making firm and sure. The Hebrew word here evidently refers to the “covenant” which God is said to establish with his people - so often referred to in the Scriptures as expressing the relation between Him and them, and hence used, in general, to denote the laws and institutions of the true religion - the laws which God has made for his church; his promises to be their protector, etc., and the institutions which grow out of that relation. The margin reads it, more in accordance with the Hebrew, “a,” meaning that he would confirm or establish “a covenant” with the many. According to this, it is not necessary to suppose that it was any existing covenant that it referred to, but that he would ratify what was understood by the word “covenant;” that is, that he would lead many to enter into a true and real covenant with God.

Coffman commentaries:

Now, the prophecy in Dan. 9:27, to the effect that Christ should make the covenant firm with many for one week is a clear reference to the public ministry of Jesus Christ. It is here called "a week," indicating a seven year period; but with this limitation! He the Messiah was cut off "in the midst of the week," that is after three and one half years, which corresponds exactly to the facts. The further references to the destruction of Jerusalem, "the flood," and "the war," etc. are prophecies of the great tribulations that should overwhelm Jerusalem at the times when her doom was executed by the armies of Vespasian and Titus in the year 70 A.D.

John Wesley:

Verse 27
He shall confirm - Christ confirmed the new covenant, 1. By the testimony of angels, of John baptist, of the wise men, of the saints then living, of Moses and Elias. 2. By his preaching. 3. By signs and wonders. 4. By his holy life. 5. By his resurrection and ascension. 6. By his death and blood shedding. Shall cause the sacrifice to cease - All the Jewish rites, and Levitical worship. By his death he abrogated, and put an end to this laborious service, for ever. And that determined - That spirit of slumber, which God has determined to pour on the desolate nation, 'till the time draws near, when all Israel shall be saved.


Geneva Bible:

9:27 And he a shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to b cease, c and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.
(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.
(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

Malik,

The he in verse 27 refers to Christ. Not to the antiChrist.

Let me show you the exact same identical contruction in another passage.

Jehoram being talked about

2Ch 21:5 Jehoram was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.

Jehoram being talked about

2Ch 21:6 And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD.

The Lord being talked about

2Ch 21:7 Howbeit the LORD would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that he had made with David, and as he promised to give a light to him and to his sons for ever.

Now this next one just says HIS, according to the way you have read Daniel, we must now believe that this HIS goes with the person talked about in the verse 7, that would mean this verse 8 was talking about the Lord

2Ch 21:8 In his days the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Judah, and made themselves a king.


Which as you can clearly see, that it is refering to in Jehoram's day, not the Lord's day.

This is the first one, I am going to show it to you again in another one.

Malik,

Here is another. According to the way you are reading Daniel, we must believe the "he" in verse 27 is talking about the Anti Christ mentioned in verse 26 and NOT to Christ mentioned in all 4 verses.

Watch this now:

This is about Jesus

Mar 7:34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.

This is about the deaf and dumb guy

Mar 7:35 And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.

According to the way that you insist that we must read Daniel, then this NEXT he in 36 must be the deaf and dumb guy, just referred to in 35

Mar 7:36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;


But it is not, is it?

So the idea that the Daniel Verse 9:27 MUST refer back to the antiChrist in verse 26 because he is the last one talked about, does not pan out.

It's just not true. The verse refers to the Messiah.

Malik,

In plain language, the sentence construction argument doesn't work to prove that the he in verse 27 must be talking about the last person talked about in the previous verse.

Malik,

"Notice the bible does not teach that the Messiah was cut off in the 69th week as many Christians are told.

The 70th week has to be past because it was only after the 69th week that the Messiah cut off. "

It didn't say that the 70th week was past before the Messiah was cut off.

I just mean to show that what happenned to Jesus happenned in the 70th week.

Thus the 70th week has to be past because we know that what happenned to Jesus 2000 years ago just about.

@Dru,

Thanks for those references, but I'm usually not one to read commentaries before I've read the Bible. There surely are big names in the commentaries that have been much used by God. However, I'm not the one with the 'new' belief, and just because people have been preaching something for years doesn't mean that I'd have to swallow what they say if it does not correspond to what the Bible actually teaches. There's just no substance to the inference that the figure in Dan. 9:27 and Matt. 24:15 has to be Jesus Christ, unless such a person is bent on calling Him the 'abomination of desolation'.

Malik,

Abomination just means = HATED
Desolation just means = EMPTY

Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel, is when God kept the Jews out of Israel.

Kept Israel Empty
And of course they hated it.

That's all.

@Dru,

Matthew 24:15 -

ABOMINATION - bdelugma [Gk. βδέλυγμα], meaning detestation; specifically idolatory.

DESOLATION - erēmōsis [Gk. ερήμωσις], meaning despoliation, pillaging, spoiling.

Is Jesus Christ the "idolatory" that causes "despoliation"?

Just as an example of why I really don't lick the boots of commentators but rather get my understanding straight right out of Scripture, Barnes would see Christ in daniel 9:27, but he plays politics in Matt. 24:15 - go check it out. Unfortunately not all commentators are consistent with what they state.

Malik,

Jesus is the speaking to the Jews:

Mat 23:38  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Luk 13:35  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

It was because of their treatment of Jesus that the their house was left to them DESOLATE.

Malik,

Mat 24:15-16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

History records that a lot of Jews did just that, when the desolation came to Israel.

Bobby,

Smile.

Dru, why don't you calm down and look at the context rather than snatch texts to drive a pretext? Read the whole context of Matt. 24:15-21 inclusive, please.

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 ¹⁶Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: ¹⁷Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: ¹⁸Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. ¹⁹And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! ²⁰But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: ²¹For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

I think verse 21 gives the clue when the event in verse 15-20 inclusive will take place. This is the sad reason why all the major commentators got it wrong! Barnes et al said Daniel 9:27 refers to Christ; but when they came to Matt. 24:15, they were not so sure who was being referred to there! Why? Simply because when they got it wrong in Daniel 9, they expectedly got it knotted in Matthew 24. This is usually what happens when someone takes texts and treats them in isolation.

My basic question has been and still is: Is Jesus Christ the "idolatory" ("bdelugma" [Gk. βδέλυγμα]) that causes the "desolation" ("erēmōsis" [Gk. ερήμωσις]) spoken of by the prophet Daniel? Those who say 'yes' are calling Him the idolatory!

@ Dru

Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel, is when God kept the Jews out of Israel.

Just wanted to share this point with you from another angle. let us vew the text again:

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

Notice what Jesus said to those who were in his hearing by the expression "when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, "

Have you ever wondered why Jesus would expect anyone to actually see "the abomination of desolation"? From all indications it was meant to be a sign of salvation to warn them against something worse that was to arrive. Listen to what Jesus said to those who would see the "abomination of desolation"

"Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains"

"Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house"

"Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes."

"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!"

"But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day"

History verifies what exactly was this abomination of desolation. Before AD70 when the actual destruction came upon the temple by the Roman army, there was a previous attempt by the same Roman army to destroy the temple, which took place in AD66. This activity was seen by the Jewish people as an abomination because of the presence of a pagan army with their banners approaching the temple walls. In fact these soldiers were actually driven off by the Jewish zealots at the time.

It was this sign that Jesus referred to that when noticed by those who understood the prophecy of Daniel would be a clue for the those who believed Him to flee for the mountains. Jesus in His mercy gave them a sign. Those who overlooked the sign were either slain or suffered immensely because of the seige that took place around the temple. There was immense hunger within which witnessed parents eating their own children.

Of course the desolation came 4 years after when the entire temple was completely destroyed leaving no stone upon the other as Jesus predicted.

The reference "the people of the prince" as seen in Daniel 9:27 represents the general and soldiers who represented the Roman emperor. It was they who destroyed the sanctuary and killed thousands of people in the city of Jerusalem itself.

Malik,

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 16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

I think verse 21 gives the clue when the event in verse 15-20 inclusive will take place.

I would just like to ask if the Jews may have not experienced a great tribulation at that time? Do you think they were sitting in mountains of Judea, thinking to themselves that there was something worse to come, than the slaughter of over a million Jews and the rest taken as slaves, and their temple and such destroyed?

As you know scriptures have meaning for more than one time period. Isreal is an an example to us.

My basic question has been and still is: Is Jesus Christ the "idolatory" ("bdelugma" [Gk. βδέλυγμα]) that causes the "desolation" ("erēmōsis" [Gk. ερήμωσις]) spoken of by the prophet Daniel? Those who say 'yes' are calling Him the idolatory!

Why would the bible call any human being an "idolatry", when there is a perfectly good greek word for "idolater"?

G1496
εἰδωλολάτρης
eidōlolatrēs
i-do-lol-at'-race
From G1497 and the base of G3000; an image (servant or) worshipper (literally or figuratively): - idolater.

The word Abomination there does not refer to a person. Period. Not Jesus nor the antichrist. It is a hated event of desolation for the Jews. If it had of refered to a person, it would have been a different word.

I got to run for a minute. Any replies, I will deal with as soon as I get back.

See ya then. Smile.

@Drusilla,

I beg you again to look at the text in Matthew 24:15. The exact words used in that text are -

οταν ουν ιδητε το βδελυγμα της ερημωσεως το ρηθεν δια δανιηλ του προφητου SBεστως TAεστος εν τοπω αγιω ο αναγινωσκων νοειτω.

Notice the two words emboldened in red - (a) βδελυγμα = (bdelugma) - detestation, specifically idolatory.
                                                                   
                                                         (b) ερημωσεως = (erēmōsis) - despoliation, pillaging, spoiling.

The word used for 'abomination' in that verse is not  ειδωλολάτρης (eidōlolatrēs) but βδελυγμα (bdelugma), and the latter is used in Greek to express something 'detestable' and specifically idolatory (See a Greek NT lexicon or Strong's Exhaustive Concordance or Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries).

At any rate, the question still stands as to if at all the figure called "abomination of desolation" refers to Jesus Himself? This is where a lot of commentators and Bible students get confused, because they understand that the context would not point to Jesus as "the abomination," and then they wonder if actually Daniel 9:27 was referring to Jesus in the first place. It is clear that those who say that Jesus was the one referred to in Matt. 24:15 are in fact calling Him "the abomination!" Does that make any sense according to the context?

Drusilla:

I would just like to ask if the Jews may have not experienced a great tribulation at that time? Do you think they were sitting in mountains of Judea, thinking to themselves that there was something worse to come, than the slaughter of over a million Jews and the rest taken as slaves, and their temple and such destroyed?

Again, the answer to your question is in that very verse, and perhaps you'd like to look at it again - "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matt. 24:21). Notice a few things about the tribulation spoken of here:

     (a) it would be "such as was not since the beginning of the world"

     (b) "to this time" (at the time Christ spoke)

     (c)  "no, nor ever shall be"

Nothing in history was comparable to the tribulation that would befall the Jews as Jesus prophetically declared in that verse. There have been times in history when Jews came under heavy tribulation - during Daniel's time as well when the Jews were carried off captive by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; back in AD66 and AD70; . . . and not too long ago in the last century when Hitler murdered millions more then at anytime in history. All these are not to be compared to the tribulation spoken of by Jesus, for there would be none like it in the history of the world, no, nor ever shall be!

Drusilla:

As you know scriptures have meaning for more than one time period. Isreal is an an example to us.

Glad you know that, and it helps to very carefully consider all things before fixating our idea on any particular interpretation of events.

Drusilla:

Why would the bible call any human being an "idolatry", when there is a perfectly good greek word for "idolater"?

I'm not the writer of the Bible, only shared what I saw there. It is in carefully reading the context and construct of that verse that in fact most commentators are agreed that "abomination of desolation" could not be referring to an event but rather to a person or persons who shall "stand in the holy place" (Matt. 24:15). They would see the figure (whether an individual or group of persons collectively) stand in the holy place as a sign for them to understand the events that would follow.

Drusilla:

The word Abomination there does not refer to a person. Period. Not Jesus nor the antichrist. It is a hated event of desolation for the Jews. If it had of refered to a person, it would have been a different word.

You'd have to speak to your commentators and convince them otherwise than they stated. Even Bobbyaf here does not agree with you -

Bobbyaf:

The reference "the people of the prince" as seen in Daniel 9:27 represents the general and soldiers who represented the Roman emperor. It was they who destroyed the sanctuary and killed thousands of people in the city of Jerusalem itself.

In any case, other commentaries on that verse mostly identify "the abomination of desolation" not as an event; but rather as either a sinister individual or an enemy army force.

Robertson's Word Pictures
"The desolation in the mind of Jesus is apparently the Roman army (Luke 21:20) in the temple, an application of the words of Daniel to this dread event."

Barnes (Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible)
"This is a Hebrew expression, meaning an abominable or hateful destroyer. The Gentiles were all held in abomination by the Jews, Acts 10:28. The abomination of desolation means the Roman army, and is so explained by Luke 21:20. The Roman army is further called the “abomination” on account of the images of the emperor, and the eagles, carried in front of the legions, and regarded by the Romans with divine honors.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
"This abomination of desolation, St. Luke, (Luke21:20-21), refers to the Roman army; and this abomination standing in the holy place is the Roman army besieging Jerusalem; this, our Lord says, is what was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in the ninth and eleventh chapters of his prophecy; and so let every one who reads these prophecies understand them; and in reference to this very event they are understood by the rabbins."

The context of Matthew 24:15 does not identify "the abomination of desolation" as an event - as the event does not "stand in the holy place."

@Bobbyaf & Dru,

I notice you both have some difficulty being consistent with your convictions, and you're not making it any easier for your pals. In a moment you stated that the figure in Daniel 9:27 that causes desolation was Jesus or Christ, and Bobby you went on to quote Matt. 24:15 as confirming that. However, you stated retracting on that assertion when you saw that the context does not give credence to your previous idea, so that while Dru denies her previous assertion that she saw Christ in the texts, for Bobby the Jesus you earlier saw in those texts becomes a Roman Emperor! Let me show you -

In reference to Daniel 9:27

Drusilla said:

Drusilla:

[size=10pt:
m4malik[/size] link=topic=19243.msg533647#msg533647 date=1154278828]
To interpret this verse as referring to Jesus seems to me to miss the point altogether. You've completely jumped off the previous verse that identifies the one who causes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease - he's "the prince that shall come", and who destroys the city and the sanctuary (v. 26). Is that Jesus as well?

Malik,

The he in verse 27 refers to Christ. Not to the antiChrist.

And Again,

Drusilla:

Malik,
Here is another. According to the way you are reading Daniel, we must believe the "he" in verse 27 is talking about the Anti Christ mentioned in verse 26 and NOT to Christ mentioned in all 4 verses.
. . .

So the idea that the Daniel Verse 9:27 MUST refer back to the antiChrist in verse 26 because he is the last one talked about, does not pan out.

It's just not true. The verse refers to the Messiah.

Now you can see that Drusilla was convinced that the fugure in Daniel 9:27 was Christ, the Messiah.


The Case of Matthew 24:15

Now tying the strings together, Bobbyaf introduces Matt. 24:15 and said -

Bobbyaf:

[size=10pt:
m4malik[/size] link=topic=19243.msg533647#msg533647 date=1154278828]
To interpret this verse as referring to Jesus seems to me to miss the point altogether.

@ Malik

The grammer shows clearly it has to be Jesus the Messiah, lets take another look at the grammer again, . . .

The He in verse 27 is a continuation of the main subject, ie the Messiah who was the only person who made the sacrificial system null and void through His death, being the same thing as "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease"

Also in verse 27 the expression "and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation" is confirmed in Matthew by Jesus' own words when he said:

Matthew 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

The "he" is Jesus again telling us that he will make jerusalem desolate even until the end, whih is the same thing as saying shall make it desolate, even until the consummation The word end and consummation mean the same thing, and of course the word end would naturally mean the end of this system of things.

So, Bobby says that the figure in Daniel 9:27 "clearly has to be Jesus the Messiah", and he next quotes Matt. 24:15 to buttress his assertion, making the inferences that (1) "is confirmed in Matthew by Jesus' own words" that Dan. 9:27 was pointing to the Messiah; (2) the "he" is Jesus who would make Jerusalem desolate even until the end.

So far so good until. . . the moment you both began to realise that the contexts of the texts you quoted did not give credence to your assertions, you began to retract and renege on your earlier convictions. Take a look -

Drusilla:

Malik,

The word Abomination there does not refer to a person. Period. Not Jesus nor the antichrist. It is a hated event of desolation for the Jews. If it had of refered to a person, it would have been a different word.

And Bobbyaf? This is his reneged opinion -

Bobbyaf:

The reference  "the people of the prince" as seen in Daniel 9:27 represents the general and soldiers who represented the Roman emperor. It was they who destroyed the sanctuary and killed thousands of people in the city of Jerusalem itself.

Whatever happened to your earlier conviction that - "The grammer shows clearly it has to be Jesus the Messiah"?? So, which is it in Daniel 9:27 - "Jesus the Messiah," or "the general and soldiers who represented the Roman emperor"??

This is just my observation, and the reason I have begged time and again that you guys just calm down and prayerfully consider any text before you pour out anything. None of us is above mistakes; but I hardly know what to do with a mistake that is strongly opinionated without carefully reading texts in their contexts.

Wow, @m4malik! Good job, you're very persuasive with your careful analysis.

@Drusilla & Bobbyaf, you guys should really look into the way you interpret issues. It helps to not treat verses in isolation so that we don't read you wrongly. Cheers.

@ Malik

Ok I could have made a quoting error when I used verse 27 for the people of the prince. Sorry about that! It wasn't done for the reasons you have quoted.

Just to make it clear let me quote Daniel 9:25-27


25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

There can be no doubt who that prince is, right?

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

In this verse as was said before, the people of the prince represents the Roman attempt in destroying the temple in AD66, and its final success in so doing in AD70.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I am saying that the he here in verse 27 is Christ, and not the prince used in the second half of verse 26, which grammatically cannot be correct when it is seen as the same he in verse 27. The people in verse 26 is the subject. It is they who do the work of the prince or that person who is in command, or who issued the order for the temple dstruction.

There are different commenteries about who is the prince in the latter half of verse 26. Some say it was the Roman general Titus, and some say it could have been a sub-ruler to Caesar. In either case such a prince had no power to confirm the covenant, which no doubt was the New Covenant.

Only the real Prince of peace could have confirmed(strengthened), seeing that is what the word means, with His blood, the New Covenant.

Another point I'd like to raise is about another function that would be performed by the Messiah, and which is:

he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This means that Christ through His death abolished the ceremonial sacrifices. Christ also shall cause the demise of the temple, and since He is in control of the affairs of history, no power on earth would have been able to prevent such a demise, or attempt to reverse it. Thats why the text went on to say that through the overspreading of abominations, the temple would not only be destroyed, but remain that way until the end of the world.

Dear @Bobbyaf,

You keep making the same mistakes over and over again. When carefully considering the whole event of the prophecy in Daniel 9, you'll find that verses 26 through 27 is a whole picture of a sinister individual (no doubt with an army) who wrecks havoc in the holy place. The problem with some interpretations is that in Daniel 9:27 they see Christ; but when in Matt. 24:15 Christ Himself made reference to the same Daniel's prophecy, they no longer see Christ there.

Secondly, you're reading things into it that are not there, and it's only understandable because you're being carried along by the word 'covenant'. Why do you think that the 'New Covenant' is in that text when it actually is not? The new covenant is ratified as an everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20), so it could not be the same as you're reading in Daniel 9:27 which is only for one week!

If you keep reading "Christ" into Daniel 9:27, you'll continue to have the same problems with Matt. 24:15. Take your eyes off commentaries for a moment and prayerfully read the whole texts in their contexts, and you'll see that Christ is neither the figure in Daniel 9:27 nor in Matt. 24:15. It is not the Messiah who wrecks the havoc in Dan. 9, nor is He the one who does so in Matt. 24. You can't see Him in one text and refuse to see Him in the other text that makes reference to the same thing. And because it is clear that Christ is not the figure called "the abomination of desolation" in Matt. 24, it equally does not apply to Him at all in Dan. 9.

@ Malik

Dear @Bobbyaf,

You keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

Well, that is easy for you or anyone else to say! But I doubt that.

When carefully considering the whole event of the prophecy in Daniel 9, you'll find that verses 26 through 27 is a whole picture of a sinister individual (no doubt with an army) who wrecks havoc in the holy place.

Lets look at verse 26 again.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Didn't it mention the Messiah also and not only the other prince? Didn't it say that after the 62 weeks, (not including the previous 7 weeks mentioned before about the walls of the temple being restored), that the Messiah would be cut off? That would logically mean that the Messiah would have to be cut off in the 70th week, and to be exact in the midst of the 70th week.

Look at the logics of continuity. If you interpret the cutting off of the Messiah as having taken place in AD31, to which history has alluded, then how is it that you'd readily desire us to believe that the he in verse 27 is some future Anti-Christ that will exist beyond the 21st century. There cannot be a 70 weeks or 490 years determination upon the jews if the period isn't continuous. Logics alone makes that fact un-disputed. In other words, if the 70th week is cut off from the 69th and separated as you would want us to believe, then Daniel could not in his right mind say that 70 weeks were determined upon God's people. Logic also requires that the 70th week follow immediately after the 69th week. If it doesn’t, then it cannot properly be called the 70th week!

It is illogical to insert a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th week. No hint of a gap is found in the prophecy itself. There is no gap between the first seven weeks and the following sixty-two weeks, so why insert one between the 69th and 70th week?

This is like saying "son be in bed in 70 minutes" What if after the 69th minutes he slides out of bed and said "Dad the 70th minute hasn't started as yet."


Besides, Daniel 9:27 says nothing about a seven-year period of “tribulation,” a “rebuilt” Jewish temple, or any “antichrist.” You people are reading into the scriptures so as to suit a teaching. The stated focus of this prophecy is the Messiah, not the antichrist.

As a matter of fact Daniel 9 is a continuation of Daniel 8, which makes mention of a longer time prophecy of 2300 days from which the 70 weeks were cut off from. That is what the word determined means. It means cut off from, and in this case the 2300 days.

BC457, AD1844 = 2300 years from this longer period was to be

Bc457<, Temple restoration, >BC408<, 3 score & 2 weeks, >AD27<, Confirmation of New Covenant, >AD34
<-------49 yrs-------------> <--------434 yrs----------> <------------------7 yrs.------------------>

After 49+62 weeks up to AD27 Christ was baptised and annointed from whence He commenced His ministry. In the middle of the last week being AD 31 He "was cut off" leaving the remaining 31/2 years for the finishing by His disciples of the New Covenant confirmation. Chrsit started it, and His disciples finished it. During this period the covenant was to appeal to the house of Israel specifically until AD34 where the probationary period allotted to Israel would be complete. Is it strange that after Stephen became the first martyr of the church in AD34, the very end of the period allotted, that Paul being a witness of such became the missionary to the gentiles?

Ever wondered why soon after Christ died that the temple was destoyed there after? In fact 39 years after Christ died, and went back to His father, the temple was destroyed. This is more likely to fit the prophecy mentioned in verse 26 referring to the people of the prince coming to destroy. Look at what Jesus said about Jerusalem even before He died.

Matthew 23:
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

This is the desolation of which Christ spoke that was already predicted by Daniel 9:27.

The problem with some interpretations is that in Daniel 9:27 they see Christ; but when in Matt. 24:15 Christ Himself made reference to the same Daniel's prophecy, they no longer see Christ there.

That doesn't apply to my argument at all, because I have no problem seeing that the He in verse 27, is the Christ in matthew 24 causing the desolation by allowing the Romans to destroy the temple. God has ultimate control, and it is He who determines the course of history. Thats why Jesus implied a condition in Matthew 23. In other words if the Jewish people had fulfiled their God-given task of obeying the voice of the prophets that were sent by God through the ages, all this would not have befallen them.

Secondly, you're reading things into it that are not there, and it's only understandable because you're being carried along by the word 'covenant'. Why do you think that the 'New Covenant' is in that text when it actually is not? The new covenant is ratified as an everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20), so it could not be the same as you're reading in Daniel 9:27 which is only for one week!

If it were everlasting then why is it new?

If you keep reading "Christ" into Daniel 9:27, you'll continue to have the same problems with Matt. 24:15. Take your eyes off commentaries for a moment and prayerfully read the whole texts in their contexts, and you'll see that Christ is neither the figure in Daniel 9:27 nor in Matt. 24:15.

I have been doing that but thanks for the advice anyway.

It is not the Messiah who wrecks the havoc in Dan. 9, nor is He the one who does so in Matt. 24. You can't see Him in one text and refuse to see Him in the other text that makes reference to the same thing. And because it is clear that Christ is not the figure called "the abomination of desolation" in Matt. 24, it equally does not apply to Him at all in Dan. 9.

But He allowed it! He caused it! He could have prayed to His Father and stop it, but His praying wouldn't change anything you see. It was time for action. Remember what happend to Jerusalem of old? Wasn't it the same God who allowed the babylonians to plunder it?

@Bobbyaf,

You haven't brought anything new, but have kept going round in circles and recasting your ideas in new clichés. It's really simple: if Christ is the one who in Daniel 9:26 "shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary", then you're saying that the same Christ is the one called "the abomination of desolation" that stands in "the holy place" in Matthew 24:15!

The new interpretation you've brought up now is "the He in verse 27, is the Christ in matthew 24 causing the desolation by allowing the Romans to destroy the temple". Please look well again - the verse did not say that He "allowed" - rather, it directly says in Daniel 9:26 that "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." In Matthew 24:15, there's no sense of Christ being "the abomination of desolation" who wrecks the havoc there. It is not Christ who causes the desolation, for that would make Him directly the abomination of desolation!

With regards to the "covenant" in Daniel 9:27, you inserted the word "new" there where it does not say so. A covenant confirmed for only one week is hardly an everlasting covenant.