Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I , II . עַם S 5971, 5972, 5993 as is used for people, is singular in the original language.

So the translation is correct as diagrammed out in the English: the people (singular in the Hebrew) (cause to) destroy (subject/verb) the city and the sanctuary (connected objects).

"of the prince" is a prepositional clause, attached to the people.

"who will come" modifies the object of the prepositional clause.

The prepositional clause does not destroy the city and the sanctuary; the people do.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Tell me, what covenant with Jerusalem and many did Vesparian cause to prevail which was only for seven years?

What idol (abomination) did he erect halfway through that period? 

What desolations by God were poured out on him?

What was the aftermath of the complete destruction from the desolations God wrought?

When did war cease at the end of the seven year period?

Edited June 20, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Marcus O'Reillius]

On 6/19/2016 at 0:37 PM, WilliamL said:

And as I have already pointed out, twice, the people are not the subject of the Hebrew Hiphil verb -- the coming prince is:

But you continue to deny the Hebrew syntax and verb parsing, because you have no understanding of them:

יַשְׁחִית is a 3rd person masculine singular verb, agreeing with the singular noun nagyd/leader -- look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. This singular-in-person verb does not agree with the plural noun "people." According to Hebrew grammar, the subject of the verb cannot be "people," it has to be "ruler."

Therefore, this coming ruler/captain/prince who caused these events, must have come during the very era of all the events of verses 26-27 which he caused: there is no other possible reading of the text.

I do not deny Hebrew syntax or verb parsing.  And while I do not speak the language, I do reference those who do and I rely on their scholarly understanding.

Now, you are quite correct on the 3ms (third person masculine singular) conjugation of "shall destroy" (parsing that to shall cause to destroy because of the Hiphil stem of the verb destroy/decay) which in the inflected is rendered in the Hebrew as: יַשְׁחִית 

However, while you have logically from the English eliminated the plural "people" from being its subject, and so say it is the prince - that is not correct in the original Hebrew for which you upbraid me for not understanding.

So I went to Brown Driver and Briggs, and the word for "people" in Daniel 9:26 that Gabriel uses is: עַם  and this is what I found:

עַם S 5971, 5972, 5993 TWOT 1640a, 1640e, 2914 GK 6638, 6639 , עָם 1840 n.m. Gn 11:6 ( v. infr. ) people ( NH id. , plebeian, common man; å עַמָּא people , pl. people, tribes , etc.; Syriac ܥܰܡܳܐ ( ˓amo ); Arabic عَمٌّ ( ˓ammun ) v. supr .; orig. meaning prob. those united, connected, related , cf. We ^GGN 1893, 480 ) ;— abs. עַם Gn 11:6 + , עַם Ju 9:36 +, הָעָם Jos 8:11 +; cstr. עם Nu 21:29 +; sf. עַמִּי Ex 3:7 + , עַמְּךָ 22:27 +, etc.; pl. עַמִּים Is 2:3 +, עֲמָמִים ( cf. Biblical Aramaic) Ne 9:22 ;cstr. עַמֵּי 1 K 8:43 +, עַמְמֵי Ne 9:2 4; pl. c. sf. v. II . עַם ;—( Thes cites foll. as f. וְחָטָאת עַמֶּ˜ךָ Ex 5:16 [but corrupt and unintellig.; read perhaps וְחַטָאתָ לְע׳ , so Ö ã D i]; Ju 18:7 [but ישֶׁבֶת must agree with lost word city , or the like, v. GF M]; Je 8:5 [but read שֹׁובַב for שֹׁובְבָה Gi e]);— 1. a people, nation(sometimes || גֹּוי ), n. coll. ( sg. Ex 21:8 Jos 17:1 4, 15 , 17 2 S 17:29 + often, or pl. Ex 20:1 5; 24:2 Je 5:31 +

Now, as is first delineated in this quoted section of BDB, עַם ('am) is Singular - Strongs' 5971.  That is the word which is found in the Hebrew for people in Daniel 9:26.

Thus, your reasoning, from the English, is contradicted by the Hebrew which has perfect noun-verb number agreement.

The plural of people is עַמָּא - that is not used in Daniel 9:26.  If it were, you would be correct.
_______________________________

Now I am the first to admit that I do not like certain ways words have been translated - as with gabar.  I think the KJV have done a terrible disservice to English-speaking people for four centuries in using an archaic form of the adjective meaning of gabar to be strong, to make strong/firm which is "confirm," which has a totally different connotation today, and using that sense of the word in verb form instead of its proper usage as to prevail when gabar is used as a verb.

However, I cannot re-write the Bible wholesale, nor need I.  For 99.99% of the Bible, translators do an excellent job.

What we have in the English for Daniel 9:26 is correctly presented; the people is the subject of the sentence.  They shall (cause to) destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The whole point of mentioning this prophetic fact, in my opinion, is to give an indication from whom the prince who shall come arises.  This prophetic fact, fulfilled historically with the Roman ruin of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount confirms what Daniel has been given previously in chapter 2: the end-time kingdom Jesus will smash is Roman.  This also agrees with Daniel 11 which uses Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a template for the end-time prince who will come as the King of the North.  (Daniel 11:31-36 acts as the lens of dual focus, jumping from Daniel's near-future to the distant future.)  Likewise in Revelation, this "beast of a man" arises out of the sea - which figuratively is the Mediterranean/Europe as a 'sea of peoples'.

It will be interesting to see if you take this correction, after studying it yourself of course, and re-evaluate your take on this verse as to whom is doing the destroying.

[WilliamL]

4 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Now, as is first delineated in this quoted section of BDB, עַם ('am) is Singular - Strongs' 5971.  That is the word which is found in the Hebrew for people in Daniel 9:26.

Thus, your reasoning, from the English, is contradicted by the Hebrew which has perfect noun-verb number agreement.

I am finding it is not as clear as either one of us would like to believe. Sometimes עַם takes a singular verb, at other times a plural verb. Examples of the latter:

Ezek. 46:3 ... the people of the land shall worship...   הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ עַם־הָאָרֶץ  Here the verb is Hithpael Perfect and plural.

Hos. 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...   נִדְמוּ עַמִּי מִבְּלִי הַדָּעַת  Here the verb is Niphal Perfect and plural.

In other cases, עַם takes a singular verb. Go figure. My Hebrew isn't skilled enough for me to know when one is required over the other. I don't know if anyone else's is either. Many parts of the OT Hebrew remain in the head-scratching category for the best of scholars.

More later.

 

[WilliamL]

On 6/19/2016 at 7:03 PM, Marcus O'Reillius said:

1. Tell me, what covenant with Jerusalem and many did Vesparian cause to prevail which was only for seven years?

2. What idol (abomination) did he erect halfway through that period? 

3. What desolations by God were poured out on him?

4. What was the aftermath of the complete destruction from the desolations God wrought?

5. When did war cease at the end of the seven year period?

1. There was no covenant with Jerusalem, either made or spoken of in the text. Where did you get this?

As far as the made and/or confirmed covenant Vespasian caused to be in effect with many, I already answered that on June 10.

2. Abominations, plural. Not necessarily referring to idolatry, and nothing about "erecting" one -- your words, not the text's.

In 70 A.D., the “midst of the week/7 years” – no mention here of the 3½ times/1260 days prophesied elsewhere in Daniel – the Romans captured the Antonia Fortress on the northwest “corner/wing” of the Temple Mount, which provided access to the Temple complex via a narrow passage. Josephus, The Jewish War VI:i. Jewish Temple “sacrifice and (meal) offering ended” soon after, on Tammuz 17 = July 15. Ibid., VI:ii:1. The “desolating abominations” that ensued consisted of the most savage combat between the Romans and Jews, including instances of Jewish fratricide; piles of corpses within the Temple complex; and the Jews setting fire to the Temple’s own cloisters on the corner opposite the Roman-occupied Antonia. Ibid. VI:ii-iii. Also, the Romans began bringing their idolatrous ensigns (Aquilae) into the Temple precincts, to which sacrifices were offered. VI:iv:1; vi:1.

3. None, because none such were called for in the prophecy. The "desolating one" -- the Hebrew word is an active participle used as a noun -- may refer to John the Zealot, who caused his men to slaughter Jews worshiping in the inner Temple on the day of Passover in 70 AD. He was the leader of the original group that militarily occupied Jerusalem and made it the center of the Jewish rebellion against Rome; therefore, he was single person most responsible for the city's desolation.

4. The aftermath was the end ever afterward of the authority of the House of Aaron's priests, along with the Levites, over the Jewish nation. Henceforth the rabbis took over from them as the leaders of the Jews. The management of the Temple and its Mosaic ordinances had been the basis of the House of Levi's authority.

5. The fall of Masada on Passover in 73 AD marked the end of the Jewish rebellion, after which Roman military rule over Judea ended not long thereafter, and civilian rule was re-instituted. The rebellion lasted 7 years, 66-73 AD, and the prophecy was fulfilled, just as Jesus prophesied it would be:

Matt. 23:29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! ... 35 ...upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come upon this generation. ... 38 Behold, your house [i.e. the Temple] is left to you desolate."

Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. ... 22 “For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written [only in Daniel 9:26-27] may be fulfilled."

JESUS SAID THE PROPHECY THAT WAS WRITTEN WOULD BE "FULFILLED" IN "THIS GENERATION".

IF DANIEL 9:26-27 IS NOT WHERE THE FULFILLED PROPHECY OF JERUSALEM AND THE TEMPLE'S DESTRUCTION AND DESOLATION IS WRITTEN -- ENDING ALL MOSAIC-LAW BLOOD SACRIFICE AND MEAL OFFERING, 9:27 -- THEN SHOW US WHERE THAT WRITTEN PROPHECY IS!

[Marcus O'Reillius]

5 hours ago, WilliamL said:

1. There was no covenant with Jerusalem, either made or spoken of in the text. Where did you get this?

I say ostensibly with Jerusalem, because any treaty which allows Israel to build on the Temple Mount is going to have to include Israel, and since this prophecy focuses on Daniel's "people" and the city, which just happens to be the capital of Israel, ostensibly by the subject matter, the treaty is outward from that point with many.

It does not make sense to allow any treaty to suffice for the start of the 'seven', as the focus for God's end-time plan centers so much on Jerusalem.

And do not discount the applicability of Revelation 11:1-2 in this formula because John is sent out to measure a Temple, and by no mere coincidence, Ezekiel records a man doing just what John was told to do.  This "third" Temple of Ezekiel also exists in the Millennium peace as evidenced by its recuperative and miraculous waters which go to heal the waters, both fresh and salt - which are utterly destroyed by the desolations of the Trumpets and the Bowls.

It is in the "Holy Place" where the abomination(s) of Daniel 9:27 is set up.  And do not lecture me on plurality; the suffix -im can also show how great, or alternately, how terrible something is.  And in the line of abominations, none have ever spoken - that is, until the abomination set up mid-week as is further revealed in Revelation 13:14-15.  Paul says this happens in the Temple (naos) and Jesus further specifies it as happening in the "Holy Place" which is also inside the Temple, before the Curtain.  And before you complain that Jesus did not reference Daniel 9:27, but 12:11 - 12:11 is the generic reference again going back to the first utterance of this phenomenon of evil which is set up at the middle of the week: 1260 days.  What 12:11 does is to extrapolate upon the one 'seven's second half and add two more time periods, the 30 and the 45 days, before the Millennium.  One to allow for the travel to the encampment, and the other for the temporary housing in the shelter of Mount Zion.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Marcus O'Reillius]

5 hours ago, WilliamL said:

As far as the made and/or confirmed covenant Vespasian caused to be in effect with many, I already answered that on June 10.

There is no formal treaty, no overarching plan.  What was done was the piecemeal subjugation of a people already under Roman rule.  It is only the sign of their empty right hand - i.e., no weapon - that he allowed them to live in peace.  He was putting down a revolt; not bargaining on terms!  He had to divide friend from foe, or in this case, those who accepted iron Roman rule over those who resisted.

You cannot point to any single bona-fide covenant setting forth terms of each with which to start this all important coup-de-gras 'seven' of God's overall plan for Daniel's "people" (which includes more than just the Jews) and Jerusalem which is spread out over seventy 'sevens'!  What sufficed for an explanation for centuries has been upended by an unprecedented historical turn-of-events which has seen a nation returned to prominence from the ash-heap of history: Israel.

Now there has been, for decades now, an overarching plan to solve the Middle East crisis: the Roadmap.  In George Bush's waning years, 54 delegations met at Annapolis in November 2007.  Israel, the Palestine Authority, were joined by the Quartet, and all the moderate Arab countries (notable exceptions were Iran, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan) as well as the EU crowd, and even some other countries from the Americas.  Interestingly enough, the Vatican, the IMF, and the World Bank attended as well.  Now that is many; and movers and shakers were there too.  The most notable presence in my opinion: Javier Solana as the EU High Representative, whose name literally means savior - sun.

So you answered, but that answer does not suffice to have fulfilled this seminal event.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

7 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Abominations, plural. Not necessarily referring to idolatry, and nothing about "erecting" one -- your words, not the text's.

Idols are always abominable to the Lord (Dt 7:25).
Worship can be considered abominable. (Exodus 8:26).
Defiling oneself and not keeping the Commandments are abominable - first and foremost is not worshiping the True God (Lev 18:20-30).
Abominable is any rejection of true worship of the Living God of Israel (Dt chapter 13).
Sin is abominable to the Lord (Dt 24:4).

Now those are some of the things which are abominable to the Lord - Strongs' 8441 - to'eba - abominable.

In Daniel 9:27, the word is siqqus - abomination - Strongs' 8251 - detestable thing, idol.

Here is what the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says of this word.
.....This noun is always used in connection with idolatrous practices, either referring to the idols themselves as being abhorrent and detestable in God's sight, or to something associated with the idolatrous abomination (Jer 16:18; Exk 5:11; 7:20; II Chr 15:8, etc).  Not only are the idols an abomination, but they that worship them "become detestable like that which they love" (Hos 9:10), for they identify themselves with the idols.
.....Antiochus Epiphanes, as prophesied in Dan 11:31, and who is typical of Antichrist, set up an altar to, and image of, Zeus in the temple.  This is called the "abomination that causes desolation," a desecration of the altar which destroys its true purpose.  Just so will Antichrist establish an abomination in the sanctuary, a demonic counterfeit worship (Dan 9:27, 12:11).

So the text does describe an idol.

The erection of this talking image of the man who was wounded by a weapon of war (a gunshot will suffice to fulfill the prophecy as a rifle is the modern sword) and suffered a mortal wound but did not die - in the temple building, in the Holy Place - will cease the offering and sacrifice that goes on with the Temple.  Revelation, the Olivet Discourse and 2nd Th 2 are all just as concerned about this seminal apex of the anti-Christ's rise to assuming the godhead as it were, over the whole world.

And again, the plural in the Hebrew can also denote how great, or alternatively, how terrible something is.
 

Edited June 22, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Quote

In 70 A.D., the “midst of the week/7 years” – no mention here of the 3½ times/1260 days prophesied elsewhere in Daniel –

Gabriel split the one 'seven' in half at the abomination(s).

This is later revealed in Revelation to be what scholars call "prophetic years" of 12 months of 30 days each.

This half-time period is spoken of five times in the book of Revelation between chapters 11 and 13.

To those days, in Daniel 12, the Man in Linen adds two time periods bring the total number of days the Remnant Jews will have to survive in order to 'make it' to the Millennium: 1290 and 1335.

This allows for the travel mentioned in Zechariah 8:23, and the subsequent Sukkot encampment at the newly cleft Mount Zion in Isaiah 4:5.

So it doesn't have to be explicitly numbered in Daniel 9 for it to be there: the idol abomination is in the middle of the one 'seven'.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Marcus O'Reillius

[Marcus O'Reillius]

15 hours ago, WilliamL said:

The “desolating abominations” that ensued consisted of the most savage combat between the Romans and Jews, including instances of Jewish fratricide; piles of corpses within the Temple complex; and the Jews setting fire to the Temple’s own cloisters on the corner opposite the Roman-occupied Antonia. Ibid. VI:ii-iii. Also, the Romans began bringing their idolatrous ensigns (Aquilae) into the Temple precincts, to which sacrifices were offered. VI:iv:1; vi:1.

The Zealots were less than honorable, and by the end after the siege reduced them to stealing so as not to starve, were hardly a fighting force.

This small skirmish hardly rises to even a battle; it pits Roman soldiers against religious zealots.  The whole of the First (yes, first, this didn't even end Jewish rebellion, they did it again 60 years later) Jewish Revolt didn't even rise to the level of a war so as to punctuate and interrupt the Pax Romana - the Roman Peace.

To call the ensuing bloodbath, because it was so one-sided, "the most savage combat" and then say this satisfied the "desolating abominations" of siqqusim mesomen - hardly measures up to a blip in the horrendous acts man commits upon man in war.  This was not a horrendous battle which left devastation across miles and hundreds of thousands dead.  This was a rather unspectacular siege in the history of siege warfare.

Finally, Roman ensigns, the standards they bore before their formations, are not idols.  They are symbols, but not actual representations of gods - of which Rome had many.  At no time did Titus or his troops erect any symbol upon which they directed worship and veneration in the Temple.  Sure they paraded; they were victorious!  Sure they trampled upon the Temple Mount; that was a measure of their disrespect for their enemy: the Jews.  Yes, they tore the Temple down: because that was the focus for the zealots' rebellion.  Later on, the Romans will sweep in again, and this time obliterate the whole nation, dispersing the Jews so they no longer are a nation, and renaming their land Palestine - because Romans love to insult their vanquished enemies.

The whole point of the First Jewish Revolt, having the city and the sanctuary destroyed; is to point to the future ruler who will come.  Meanwhile, war goes on.