Does Daniel 9:26b-27 Prophesy About End Time Events?

[Uriah]

Galatians 3:17- And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

And if you look a few verses back, Paul said He redeemed US in connection with "the covenant."

To any Jew reading Daniel, "covenant" will only mean one thing. And it isn't about a treaty with some foreign dictator. 

I have spoken to a number of Jewish folks as well, even a Rabbi. They don't have the best track record of getting things right about Messianic prophecies.

In fact an Israeli gentleman was quoted as saying how much they resent American Christians wanting them t build a Temple for an evil blasphemous mocker so Jesus will come back.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Uriah
sp

[Diaste]

I guess whether it's Daniel 9, or Daniel 11, or Daniel 12...or if there is yet 70 years, or 7, or if some time was fulfilled or not, or it's yet to be fulfilled...

It cannot be denied that Jesus told us to look to Daniel for the understanding of the A of D connected to the end of the age, as His answer to What? and When? in Matt 24 is in the greater context of the end of the age and the time of His return. 

So when Jesus said, "...as spoken of by Daniel the prophet..." it's meaning must be 'as spoken of'. That means:

"And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation,j until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him"

"They will abolish the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation."

"And from the time the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation set up, there will be 1,290 days. "

are all relevant to the understanding Jesus called for, "...let whoever reads understand..." in the relation to, and the context of, the end of the age and the return of our Lord. 

Fulfilled or not there is one coming before the Return of the King. It's imperative we understand based on what we are told is relevant information. If that is true, and it is, then it's more than likely the details surrounding the A of D "...as spoken of by Daniel the prophet..." are also relevant to the end of the age and the return of the King. That would mean this, "...And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week,i but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering." has bearing on the imperative, "...So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination of desolation,’a described by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand)..." as 'standing in the holy place' is inextricable with "...an end to sacrifice and offering..." as the end to sacrifice and offering is the precursor to "...And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation..."

This is nearly the same as Daniel 11 above. In Daniel 11 the A of D is set up. Jesus tells us it 'stands' in the holy place. Clearly Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 11:31 are speaking to the same event in the description even if not time/space.

We cannot discount the the facts. Did it already happen? Yes it did. Jewish history tells us an A of D did occur in the distant past. That does not mean it will not happen again nor that the future occurrence or a past fulfillment negates relevant information. Nor does it tell us the past act was the one and only fulfillment, or even the prophesied one; Jesus said one is coming in proximity to the end of the age. I would argue Dan 9, 11 and 12 have this distant future in view.

 

[Uriah]

5 hours ago, Diaste said:

I guess whether it's Daniel 9, or Daniel 11, or Daniel 12...or if there is yet 70 years, or 7, or if some time was fulfilled or not, or it's yet to be fulfilled...

It cannot be denied that Jesus told us to look to Daniel for the understanding of the A of D connected to the end of the age, as His answer to What? and When? in Matt 24 is in the greater context of the end of the age and the time of His return. 

So when Jesus said, "...as spoken of by Daniel the prophet..." it's meaning must be 'as spoken of'. That means:

"And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation,j until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him"

"They will abolish the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation."

"And from the time the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation set up, there will be 1,290 days. "

are all relevant to the understanding Jesus called for, "...let whoever reads understand..." in the relation to, and the context of, the end of the age and the return of our Lord. 

Fulfilled or not there is one coming before the Return of the King. It's imperative we understand based on what we are told is relevant information. If that is true, and it is, then it's more than likely the details surrounding the A of D "...as spoken of by Daniel the prophet..." are also relevant to the end of the age and the return of the King. That would mean this, "...And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week,i but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering." has bearing on the imperative, "...So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination of desolation,’a described by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand)..." as 'standing in the holy place' is inextricable with "...an end to sacrifice and offering..." as the end to sacrifice and offering is the precursor to "...And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation..."

This is nearly the same as Daniel 11 above. In Daniel 11 the A of D is set up. Jesus tells us it 'stands' in the holy place. Clearly Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 11:31 are speaking to the same event in the description even if not time/space.

We cannot discount the the facts. Did it already happen? Yes it did. Jewish history tells us an A of D did occur in the distant past. That does not mean it will not happen again nor that the future occurrence or a past fulfillment negates relevant information. Nor does it tell us the past act was the one and only fulfillment, or even the prophesied one; Jesus said one is coming in proximity to the end of the age. I would argue Dan 9, 11 and 12 have this distant future in view.

 

Hi Diaste

Good stuff here ,bro. I'd be glad to talk these things over with you a bit. I would start by saying that Dan. 11 is about Antiochus. Some people are tripped up where it says "at the time of the end..." I think we must take a look at it as meaning the time of the end of the scenario being described-Antiochus.

Dan. 12:1, saying "and at that time...", does not fit with the Antiochus scenario. Obviously it was NOT a time of of trouble, the likes of which were not since there was a nation, nor since. So there be a misunderstanding or translational issue here (at that time is also rendered in plenty of ways including "the time"). People did NOT rise from the dust either so it seems plain that after v. 4 the angel goes back to revisit the Antiochus scenario. He moved forward then back, as I think Jesus did too.

...more to come...

[Diaste]

15 hours ago, Uriah said:

Hi Diaste

Good stuff here ,bro. I'd be glad to talk these things over with you a bit. I would start by saying that Dan. 11 is about Antiochus. Some people are tripped up where it says "at the time of the end..." I think we must take a look at it as meaning the time of the end of the scenario being described-Antiochus.

Dan. 12:1, saying "and at that time...", does not fit with the Antiochus scenario. Obviously it was NOT a time of of trouble, the likes of which were not since there was a nation, nor since. So there be a misunderstanding or translational issue here (at that time is also rendered in plenty of ways including "the time"). People did NOT rise from the dust either so it seems plain that after v. 4 the angel goes back to revisit the Antiochus scenario. He moved forward then back, as I think Jesus did too.

...more to come...

Hey Uriah,

That's really what my arguments are centered around; did all these things occur in relation to the other prophesied events? Matt 24 is a good example. From at least verse 15 to verse 31 we have a series of conditions and events that occur in the sight of the people who remain alive to witness all of them. Some say this is the last 3.5 years. I concur. That really settles the debate on whether or not the A of D is going to occur or not. Obviously it will at the time when the age of the government of man draws to a close, in association with the time of, "... great tribulation, unmatched from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again.", and the events of Matt 24:29-31. 

I don't think we can or should delineate the three mentions of the A of D in the words of Daniel. Sure, Antiochus IV did that thing, but what Jesus said was to to look to the Prophet Daniel for understanding of the A of D that comes near to the time of Jesus return. I would suppose from this I should consider everything that Daniel said on the matter. That would mean the A of D occurs in the middle of some agreement, the Jewish liturgy is ended, a dark blasphemous pall covers the Temple, and some thing, an idol perhaps, stands erected in the Temple. Or maybe it's a spiritual desecration instituted by decree and all manner of evil practices are committed in the Temple; could be either as 'stand' can mean to 'establish or appoint'. I think this is the concept and not some statue or pagan idol.

So even though Antiochus IV did do his thing and it could well be Daniel 9:26-27 speak to the coming grandson of Seleucus, I don't see where that eliminates the information and evidence of the A of D in Daniel 9 from consideration as the direction to which Jesus pointed to find understanding of the A of D associated with the time of His return. It's pretty obvious, as you point out, many other things did not happen at the time of Antiochus IV that must happen at the end of the age. Antiochus IV must be some partial, or shadow, fulfillment. Or maybe he read the prophecies of Daniel and decided to make it come to pass in his own way. That has happened before so it's not out of the universe of possibility.

I think 'at that time' concerns what directly preceded; the willful king and his actions and behaviors. I'm convinced all of chapter 11-12 are directly related to the last days. One can debates just what that means but it seems clear from Dan 10 this is the revelation of the Jesus, "Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision concerns those days.” and it's all about the end of the age and that concept continues though both of the last two chapters. Daniel 11:36 speaks to the time of wrath so we should understand the timing of the willful king and his reign, and obviously chapter 12 is the end of the age near to Jesus return.

Well that's a lot. :-)

[Uriah]

On 3/1/2020 at 4:30 AM, Diaste said:

Hey Uriah,

That's really what my arguments are centered around; did all these things occur in relation to the other prophesied events? Matt 24 is a good example. From at least verse 15 to verse 31 we have a series of conditions and events that occur in the sight of the people who remain alive to witness all of them. Some say this is the last 3.5 years. I concur. That really settles the debate on whether or not the A of D is going to occur or not. Obviously it will at the time when the age of the government of man draws to a close, in association with the time of, "... great tribulation, unmatched from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again.", and the events of Matt 24:29-31. 

I don't think we can or should delineate the three mentions of the A of D in the words of Daniel. Sure, Antiochus IV did that thing, but what Jesus said was to to look to the Prophet Daniel for understanding of the A of D that comes near to the time of Jesus return. I would suppose from this I should consider everything that Daniel said on the matter. That would mean the A of D occurs in the middle of some agreement, the Jewish liturgy is ended, a dark blasphemous pall covers the Temple, and some thing, an idol perhaps, stands erected in the Temple. Or maybe it's a spiritual desecration instituted by decree and all manner of evil practices are committed in the Temple; could be either as 'stand' can mean to 'establish or appoint'. I think this is the concept and not some statue or pagan idol.

So even though Antiochus IV did do his thing and it could well be Daniel 9:26-27 speak to the coming grandson of Seleucus, I don't see where that eliminates the information and evidence of the A of D in Daniel 9 from consideration as the direction to which Jesus pointed to find understanding of the A of D associated with the time of His return. It's pretty obvious, as you point out, many other things did not happen at the time of Antiochus IV that must happen at the end of the age. Antiochus IV must be some partial, or shadow, fulfillment. Or maybe he read the prophecies of Daniel and decided to make it come to pass in his own way. That has happened before so it's not out of the universe of possibility.

I think 'at that time' concerns what directly preceded; the willful king and his actions and behaviors. I'm convinced all of chapter 11-12 are directly related to the last days. One can debates just what that means but it seems clear from Dan 10 this is the revelation of the Jesus, "Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision concerns those days.” and it's all about the end of the age and that concept continues though both of the last two chapters. Daniel 11:36 speaks to the time of wrath so we should understand the timing of the willful king and his reign, and obviously chapter 12 is the end of the age near to Jesus return.

Well that's a lot. :-)

Hi Diaste

                Though I am no historicist, it is intriguing that even though the angel says that he will tell about the later days, he dedicates plenty of time to what looks a lot like Antiochus et al. And yes, Jesus does speak of something Daniel said that has not happened yet. I also take some things in Daniel as a foreshadowing of what is to come.

What immediately precedes the "and at that time" statement is a man planting his tabernacles between the seas who comes to his end with nobody to help. Then in chapter 12, the reference to tribulation and resurrection are followed by a seeming return to the Antiochus scenario with a re-dedication of the temple after the Maccabees victory if you believe those who say the 1335 days of cessation of sacrifice/worship. Is that scenario true?  

[Diaste]

8 hours ago, Uriah said:

Hi Diaste

                Though I am no historicist, it is intriguing that even though the angel says that he will tell about the later days, he dedicates plenty of time to what looks a lot like Antiochus et al. And yes, Jesus does speak of something Daniel said that has not happened yet. I also take some things in Daniel as a foreshadowing of what is to come.

It does indeed look like Antiochus IV. I read a bit of Jewish history about that. But I'm not convinced it's about Antiochus only. That dual fulfillment thing, which I don't know if I agree with or not. It may look that way on the surface but is that what's really going on? 

8 hours ago, Uriah said:

What immediately precedes the "and at that time" statement is a man planting his tabernacles between the seas who comes to his end with nobody to help. Then in chapter 12, the reference to tribulation and resurrection are followed by a seeming return to the Antiochus scenario with a re-dedication of the temple after the Maccabees victory if you believe those who say the 1335 days of cessation of sacrifice/worship. Is that scenario true?  

I agree. But can't we back up a few more verses? Would it be a stretch to say everything in Chapter 11 is the last days and not history? Just saying. I have never been completely sure.

"Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision concerns those days.” - Dan 10

This is interesting; "a re-dedication of the temple after the Maccabees victory if you believe those who say the 1335 days of cessation of sacrifice/worship." Could you expand on this?

Sure Antiochus put an end to the sacrifice and oblation and set up a statue (supposedly), and from what I read it would certainly seem Daniel 11:31 speaks to Antiochus IV. However, as the narrative continues about the resistance to this flattering conqueror, and it's rewards and consequences we see, "Some of the wise will fall, so that they may be refined, purified, and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time."  leading me to see this as all eschatological near to the return of the King. 

One other point that may or may not be related:

In Matt 24 we have a section from v 4-8 that seems a little out of place. All that has been going on for millennia past and continued in millennia future. We all know it. Why mention it? I think because it's specific to a time period and a place and not a general commentary on ages past and future. Those 5 verses seem a bit irrelevant to me if they span 2000 years. What if they are condensed into a short period of time that's wholly recognizable and are related to the acts of Dan 11?  Just speculating.

Have a good day!

 

[Uriah]

11 hours ago, Diaste said:

It does indeed look like Antiochus IV. I read a bit of Jewish history about that. But I'm not convinced it's about Antiochus only. That dual fulfillment thing, which I don't know if I agree with or not. It may look that way on the surface but is that what's really going on? 

I agree. But can't we back up a few more verses? Would it be a stretch to say everything in Chapter 11 is the last days and not history? Just saying. I have never been completely sure.

Quote

"Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision concerns those days.” - Dan 10

It seems as though between the above statement and the end of the book there is only a small portion about what we see as the "latter days". Ironically, what makes it "fit" is the way we now use the word latter, as in next or ensuing/following things. 

Quote

This is interesting; "a re-dedication of the temple after the Maccabees victory if you believe those who say the 1335 days of cessation of sacrifice/worship." Could you expand on this?

Briefly, I've seen a correlation with the 1335 days to the amount of time the temple was desecrated until it was re-dedicated. Going by memory here, I'll try to dig it up online again as soon as I can. and I think there was a connection to the Seleucid empire as well.

Sure Antiochus put an end to the sacrifice and oblation and set up a statue (supposedly), and from what I read it would certainly seem Daniel 11:31 speaks to Antiochus IV. However, as the narrative continues about the resistance to this flattering conqueror, and it's rewards and consequences we see, "Some of the wise will fall, so that they may be refined, purified, and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time."  leading me to see this as all eschatological near to the return of the King. 

One other point that may or may not be related:

In Matt 24 we have a section from v 4-8 that seems a little out of place. All that has been going on for millennia past and continued in millennia future. We all know it. Why mention it? I think because it's specific to a time period and a place and not a general commentary on ages past and future. Those 5 verses seem a bit irrelevant to me if they span 2000 years. What if they are condensed into a short period of time that's wholly recognizable and are related to the acts of Dan 11?  Just speculating.

Have a good day!

 

I agree that Matt 24:4-8 is about a specific time yet future. Yet the next verses show that 4-8 was a digression by returning to the times of persecution etc. that came in the first century, perhaps beyond.

[Diaste]

11 hours ago, Uriah said:

I agree that Matt 24:4-8 is about a specific time yet future. Yet the next verses show that 4-8 was a digression by returning to the times of persecution etc. that came in the first century, perhaps beyond.

Well...

"At that time many will fall away and will betray and hate each other"

"At that time' seems to denote a specific time frame. So then at the time when there is some significant and unerring understanding of v 4-8 'many will fall away and hate'

"and many false prophets will arise and mislead many"

Go to YouTube. This is everywhere concerning doctrine in general and the rapture and return of Jesus specifically. But I don't think these prophecies are fully realized yet. Verses 4-8 are just too general and could be applied since the Fall and most certainly to the prophecies of Daniel 8 which occurred circa 500 to 160 BC. 

I think we are going to see this manifest in eye opening fashion at some point. 

[WilliamL]

On 2/29/2020 at 3:38 AM, Diaste said:

 

"And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation,j until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him"

"They will abolish the daily sacrifice and set up the abomination of desolation."

"And from the time the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation set up, there will be 1,290 days. "

are all relevant to the understanding Jesus called for, "...let whoever reads understand..." in the relation to, and the context of, the end of the age and the return of our Lord. 

The first quote is from the Septuagint version of Daniel 9:27. Out of all the books of the Old Testament, the Septuagint version of Daniel is the least accurate in being in agreement with the Hebrew text. (See the last paragraph below.) The Hebrew reads,

…וְעַל/And upon/over כְּנַף/a wing/corner/border, שִׁקּוּצִים/abominable things/idols of מְשֹׁמֵם/one who destroys/a destroyer [Polel verb stem (like Piel: intensive) Active Participle ms]…

“… And upon/over a wing/corner shall be abominations/idols of a destroyer…”

Comment: All kinds of presumptions have been imposed by different translators upon this phrase. For example, עַל means “upon, over,” never “for” or “by.” (Compare what your Bible says.)

כְּנַף is a noun here; this spelling is never a verb participle, as the KJV mistranslates it (“overspreading”). It has no prefix ה/the.

שִׁקּוּצִים is plural, not singular. Although many people presume that this phraseשִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם/shiqqutzim məshomame is equivalent to the similar-sounding phrase שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם/shiqqutz shomame of Daniel 12:11, they are significantly different. Only the latter phrase fulfills the prophecy by Jesus about “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” Matt. 24:15 Both shiqqutz and shomame are singular and lack the prefixה, so shomame can act as an attributive participle, thus as a modifier of shiqqutz: “a desolating abomination” = “an abomination of desolation.”

In contrast, 9:27ʼs shiqqutzim is plural, while məshomame is singular, so cannot be its modifier: it has to be a noun, “destroyer.” (Attributive participles must agree in number – both being singular or plural; in gender – both being masculine or feminine; and in definiteness – both having or not having the definite articleה. See Part 4 for the three kinds of participles.)

The NIVʼs “an abomination that causes desolation” utterly corrupts the meaning of the Hebrew text. The NIV rejects the Hebrew, following the Greek Septuagint, which grossly varies from the Hebrew text of the Book of Daniel. Contrary to the understanding of many people, the original Septuagint scholars did not translate anything beyond the Torah, the five books of Moses. Translations of the other Old Testament books were added later by unknown translators at unknown times. Those translations significantly varied in quality.

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/blogs/entry/1598-daniel-924-27-examined-part-5-verse-27/

 

The second of your two quotes comes from Daniel 11:31, and refers to the desolation of the Temple by Antiochus in 168 BC.

The last of your quotes comes from Daniel 12:11, which was the only passage Jesus referred to that will be fulfilled in the End Times.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by WilliamL

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

 

The last two of your quotes comes from Daniel 12:11, which was the only passage Jesus referred to that will be fulfilled in the End Times.

 

 

I'm not sure Jesus said, "...as spoken of by Daniel the prophet IN CHAPTER 12..."

Daniel 9 speaks to a pall of disgusting things spread over the Temple.

Daniel 11 speaks to an appalling sight of a detestable thing.

Daniel 12 relates the same idea as 9 and 11; some appalling sight causing abject horror.

The whole point is Jesus said, "...as spoken of  by Daniel the prophet..."

We see three instances where this disgusting horror is written. "As spoken of..." is inclusive as Jesus did not refer to chapter and verse. 

It has no bearing on the imperative, "...let whose breadth understand..." whether Dan 9, 11 or 12 has already occurred or not. The point is the understanding of the act and the person committing the act that we might see and understand the ramifications of the coming A of D; not when, or who did what, in an antiquity unrelated to the end of days. Except for the conceptual part.