Daniel's 1260 vs. 1290 vs. 1335 vs 2300 Days Prophecies (Abomination of Desolation Was the Crucifixion)

[Exegesis]

There was no abomination of desolation that stood in the holy place when He was crucified.

Jesus was the Holy Place. We could even go as far as to suggest that Jerusalem itself was Holy, i.e., the Holy City until the Crucifixion was finished.

If you look at the parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21 of Luke 21:20-24, you can see that the abomination of desolation was related to the time when armies would surround Jerusalem before destroying it and making it desolate along with its temple buildings. So, the abomination of desolation has to relate to what happened in 70 AD.

The Crucifixion absolutely relates to 70AD. You all know the verses:

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

According to your logic, the destruction of Jerusalem happened right when Jesus said that. As I have already demonstrated, the timing of the events determine when the Abomination of Desolation occurred:

Daniel 12:11 "And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days."

0 = A place is prepared for Her Seed <- Tabernacle in the Wilderness
1260 = Birth of Jesus
1290 = Begins Ministry <- Abomination of Desolation is set up here
1335 = Destruction of Jerusalem <- Forty five years after 1290 is too long to be the Abomination of Desolation

The Bible does not contradict. 1290 is set in stone.

Remember, the word 'see' in these verses:

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:"

Mark 13:14 "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judæa flee to the mountains:"

...are not referring to seeing physically with the eyes. It means to see spiritually and discern from God:

3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

Strong's Greek: 3708. ὁράω (horaó) -- To see, perceive, attend to

The verses go out of their way to inform us that indeed, we need to understand, not see physically with the eyes.

"...let him that readeth understand..."

The instructions are right there. When you 'see', i.e., understand the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, then you will know the exact year to flee. It even describes these people that understood! It is right there in Daniel:

(Daniel 11:31-33) "And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days."

"Let he who reads, understand". There it is in the Old Testament. Those that could 'see' tried to warn others but sadly they did not listen.

Again, you folks are not interpreting the word 'see' correctly.

 

[Exegesis]

Hello again' the great tribulation is on the church not Isreal

Why not everyone?

And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation...

Seriously? This sounds like Seventh Day Adventists teachings.

I do believe that it started the day Stephen was killed and it is still happening today.

This sounds like Seventh Day Adventists teachings.

 

[Exegesis]

13 Then one of the elders asked me, “These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?”

By the way...

These are all of the redeemed. They are in Abraham's Bosom resting until the marriage.

 

[ScottA]

I do believe that this happened back in 70AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem

Unfortunately, that does not give the full scope of the greater tribulation/salvation timeframe, and was only a summary event fulfilling the events spoken to that particular generation (that only point to the greater timeframe).

 

[Randy Kluth]

I made a point of pointing out that Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11:31 are not linked and I gave the reason, so I'm not following your point about this.

I wasn't referring to anything in particular in your post--just stating my general philosophy in the way I interpret prophecies.

Daniel 9:26-27's abominations (which are mentioned in the plural in all English translations) are associated BY THE TEXT with the destruction of the Temple and of the city.

Yes, there were lots of Roman soldiers. They were "abominations"--plural. They were pagans in a city dedicated to the worship of God, and had eagle standards, representing Roman idolatry.

Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11-12 are not associated BY THE SURROUNDING TEXT with the destruction of either the Temple or of the city. The Temple was cleansed afterward.

Yes.

Daniel 11:31 is associated with a temporary cessation of the daily sacrifices.
Daniel 9:27 is associated with a permanent cessation of the daily sacrifices.

Yes, Dan 11.31 had to do with Antiochus 4 and his defiling of the temple, along with a massacre of the Jews. Dan 9.27 had to do with ending Temple worship altogether, which took place in 70 AD.

THE TEXT surrounding Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11-12 associates the 1,290 days, 1,335 days and 2.300 evenings and mornings with Antiochus IV, Epiphanes and a temporary cessation of daily sacrifices that are not associated with the destruction of the Temple or the city.

Exactly, the 2300 days encompasses a time when the troubles began before Antiochus' reign of terror. J. Barton Payne explains this very well in his Encyclopedia of Prophecy, which I've detailed elsewhere.

Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 11:31 are not linked, as I said. Daniel 9:26-27 was fulfilled by the Roman armies in 70 A.D - and a permanent cessation of the daily sacrifices was the result of the destruction of the Temple.

I'm not sure why you repeated what I said as though you were disagreeing with me when what you did say was in agreement with me that the two are not linked?

As I said, I agreed with much of what you said. I was just adding my philosophy of interpretation, giving examples from the material you were discussing. It wasn't at all a statement of disagreement on any particular matter, though there may have been some mild disagreement somewhere?

I disagree with the rest of what you said. The book of Maccabees in the Apocrypha, and the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus both link Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:31 to Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" and to the second century, BC, and the Jews' annual celebration of Hanukkah is based on this history - so there must be "something" that occurred in history that fulfilled the prophecy, and all historians and secular encyclopedias that do not have a religious motive for adjusting the facts know what that "something" is.

But I agree that Dan 11.31 and 8.11 refer to Antiochus 4! Where are you disagreeing?

So do all the Jews. Hannukah is a remembrance of the re-dedication of the Temple after the abomination of desolation was removed, the Temple cleansed, and the daily sacrifices resumed.

Most 20th and 21st century Christians need to rewrite history to fit almost everything into their favorite folder titled "the end of this age and the return of Christ".

But that 4th beast and the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes are only a biblical type of the end of the age 4th beast - because Antiochus IV did not complete all the prophecies surrounding the abomination of desolation in the holy place: Some aspects of that prophecy will be completed by the man of sin in the holy place (Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4) - which is not a physical temple but the body of Christ,

Here we may have some disagreement. I think the 4th Beast was Rome, and continues in this age via European Culture. It is an Imperial Culture underneath the facade of Democracy. Consider Russia, which also springs out of European Civilization. They pretend Democracy, and really represent Fascism.

Also, I do not hold to "Dualistic Interpretation." Antiochus 4 fulfilled the representative prophecy speaking of him, and are not merely prototypical of a futuristic fulfillment. At best, Antiochus can be said to be comparable to the future Antichrist, though not a fulfillment of the same prophecy.

The Ancient of Days destroying the 4th beast and the Kingdom being given to the saints of the Most High forever and ever was not completed at the time of Antiochus. Nor was the resurrection and great tribulation mentioned in Daniel 12:1-3. The type of what is to come is the tribulation of the Jews under the hand of Antiochus. But Daniel 12:1-3 is not ultimately referring to the Jews but to the saints at the end of this age - the antitpye is Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and Matthew 24:21-22.

But there will be no daily sacrifice to temporarily take away again (the 1,290 and 1,335 days) because as Daniel 9:27 informs us, those daily sacrifices were caused to cease completely and permanently by the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ when He confirmed the New Covenant with many, and those daily sacrifices were permanently put a stop to by the Roman armies 40 years later.

The 1,290 and 1,335 and 2,300 evenings and morngins are linked BY THE TEXT in Daniel to the temporary suspension of the daily sacrifices in a Temple that was not destroyed, and to Antiochus IV.

It's possible that the 1,290 and 1,335 days may be repeated just before Christ returns - but NOTHING in Daniel OR in the Revelation OR in anything that ANY of the apostles EVER said suggests or implies that the 1,290 and 1,335 days will be repeated - which is exactly why there is so much speculation and disagreement about those numbers.

The Revelation speaks only of 42 months or a time, times and a half a time. Nothing else.

You might want to read what I said I believed again, to see if we really have much disagreement at all? It's hard to tell for me. A lot of what you say I agree with.

 

[Marty fox]

Why not everyone?



Seriously? This sounds like Seventh Day Adventists teachings.



This sounds like Seventh Day Adventists teachings.

I have no idea what your talking about I posted the verses. How can I sound like an Seventh Day Adventists when its the angel that said “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation..."?

Its the church because they are they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. The church is made up of a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language

 

[Exegesis]

I have no idea what your talking about I posted the verses. How can I sound like an Seventh Day Adventists when its the angel that said “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation..."?

Sorry, but the word 'the' in that translation makes it sound like the only ones in Heaven are those that went through the Great Tribulation.

I prefer the more inclusive KJV translation:

Revelation 7:14 "And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

Why limit the redeemed to a small time slot?

 

[Exegesis]

@Zao is life . I appreciate you taking the time to post some research. I will check them out. I'm so busy with work it's difficult to respond to everything.

 

[Marty fox]

Sorry, but the word 'the' in that translation makes it sound like the only ones in Heaven are those that went through the Great Tribulation.

I prefer the more inclusive KJV translation:



Why limit the redeemed to a small time slot?

No it doesn’t they are just the topics of that verse

Its not a small time slot it’s been going for 2000 years

 

[Zao is life]

Most scholars agree that the Two Witnesses are symbolic of the Law and Prophets.

The above is not true. There is a lot of disagreement among scholars, and it depends upon other things also such as which theological college the scholars whose interpretations you are prepared to consider, were educated in.

What your post is doing is beginning with a Preterist interpretation, and building your understanding on top of that (Preterist) foundational understanding of biblical prophecy. The scriptures do not allow for that sort of thing. You have to let scripture speak for itself and develop its own interpretations, while considering the time Daniel wrote those prophecies, and what and who he (Daniel) was prophesying about.

Your illustration is well done though

 

[Exegesis]

The above is not true.

It's Bible 101 stuff:

 

[Zao is life]

It's Bible 101 stuff:

View attachment 65447

"Often interpreted as" is not the same as your statement which is "Most scholars agree that". The word "often" does not equate with the word "most".

When you start playing with the obvious meaning words, you lose any debate - because it proves that you must have certain things be the case when they are obviously NOT the case.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus was the Holy Place. We could even go as far as to suggest that Jerusalem itself was Holy, i.e., the Holy City until the Crucifixion was finished.



The Crucifixion absolutely relates to 70AD. You all know the verses:



According to your logic, the destruction of Jerusalem happened right when Jesus said that. As I have already demonstrated, the timing of the events determine when the Abomination of Desolation occurred:



0 = A place is prepared for Her Seed <- Tabernacle in the Wilderness
1260 = Birth of Jesus
1290 = Begins Ministry <- Abomination of Desolation is set up here
1335 = Destruction of Jerusalem <- Forty five years after 1290 is too long to be the Abomination of Desolation

The Bible does not contradict. 1290 is set in stone.

Remember, the word 'see' in these verses:



...are not referring to seeing physically with the eyes. It means to see spiritually and discern from God:

3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

Strong's Greek: 3708. ὁράω (horaó) -- To see, perceive, attend to

The verses go out of their way to inform us that indeed, we need to understand, not see physically with the eyes.



The instructions are right there. When you 'see', i.e., understand the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, then you will know the exact year to flee. It even describes these people that understood! It is right there in Daniel:



"Let he who reads, understand". There it is in the Old Testament. Those that could 'see' tried to warn others but sadly they did not listen.

Again, you folks are not interpreting the word 'see' correctly.

Do you deny that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21? Luke was writing to a Gentile audience, so he spelled out what Jesus was talking about. He said "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies then you will know that its desolation is near" and then those in Judea would need to flee into the mountains. He was clearly talking about something that would happen around 70 AD.

The Olivet Discourse was spawned from Jesus telling the disciples that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and their first question was directly about when that would happen. His answer to that question is found in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24.

You are the one not interpreting the word "see" correctly. This is a case of someone making things more complicated than they are, which is a common theme on this forum.

 

[covenantee]

The instructions are right there. When you 'see', i.e., understand the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, then you will know the exact year to flee. It even describes these people that understood!

The Judaean Christians saw the approach of 70 AD literally, and understood Jesus' literal warning, and literally fled, and literally survived.

If they'd used your eisegesis, they would have perished.

 

[Exegesis]

"Often interpreted as" is not the same as your statement which is "Most scholars agree that". The word "often" does not equate with the word "most".

When you start playing with the obvious meaning words, you lose any debate - because it proves that you must have certain things be the case when they are obviously NOT the case.

Good advice @Zao is life . I updated the OP.

 

[Marty fox]

Do you deny that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21? Luke was writing to a Gentile audience, so he spelled out what Jesus was talking about. He said "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies then you will know that its desolation is near" and then those in Judea would need to flee into the mountains. He was clearly talking about something that would happen around 70 AD.

The Olivet Discourse was spawned from Jesus telling the disciples that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and their first question was directly about when that would happen. His answer to that question is found in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24.

You are the one not interpreting the word "see" correctly. This is a case of someone making things more complicated than they are, which is a common theme on this forum.

Yes amen see post #16

 

[Exegesis]

Do you deny that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21?

I am not sure how much 'parallel' you are referring to, so I will do a quick analysis with commentary:

Luke 21:20 "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

This is referring to the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD. Note that there is no 'let him who reads understand' message. The word 'see' therefore in this case is to see physically with the eyes. There is no 'abomination' mentioned. Some folks conflate this with the Abomination of Desolation event. They are not the same.

Luke 21:21 "Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto."

This is a last chance warning to leave the area immediately.

Luke 21:22 "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."

I do not believe that 'all things' is referring to every prophecy in the Bible. This is just referring to the 1260, 1290, 1335 and 2300 days prophecies.

Luke 21:23 "But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people."

Unfortunately, those in Jerusalem are going to experience God's wrath.

Luke 21:24 "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Those in Jerusalem that survived are now going to be scattered throughout the word. Thus the prophecy of Daniel 12:7 is fulfilled:

Daniel 12:7 "And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."

Note that in Luke 21:24, we have a sort of 'new prophecy'. The Times of the Gentiles begins after 70AD and keeps going until the Blessed Hope that is still future:

​

Thus we also have the beginning of what so many refer to as 'The Great Tribulation'. This 'Great Tribulation' continues for thousands of years, even until now. Soon, we will see this next prophecy be fulfilled:

Luke 21:25 "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;"

We are not there yet. Next:

Luke 21:26 "Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken."

There is coming a time that is going to be absolutely terrifying. I keep warning about fallen angels, i.e., the 'falling away' but it appears to be 'falling' on deaf ears.

Luke 21:27 "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."

And there you have it. The Blessed Hope. Easy peasy.

Now for Mathew:

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 Abomination of Desolation was the Crucifixion. As I mentioned previously, the word 'see' is to be interpreted as 'understand' per the instructions given right there in the verse. Moreover, it is directly connecting this 'understanding' concept to this verse in Daniel:

Daniel 11:33 "And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days."

Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 11:33 directly relate to each other. Let he who readeth. Readeth what? Readeth Daniel.

Matthew 24:16 "Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"

Then, at that future time in 70AD, those in Jerusalem better get out of there fast. Just because the language is similar to Mark does not mean we should conflate them together.

Matthew 24:17-20 "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:"

That is referring to 70 AD.

Matthew 24:21 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Once again, we see the so called 'The Great Tribulation' beginning in 70AD and continuing to this day. There is no 'seven years' or 'three and a half years' or whatever. That is nonsense.

Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened."

What are 'those days'? It could be the siege in 70AD, or it could refer to the end of the Tribulation/Times of Gentiles:

Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"

Are those days being shortened as we read this? Maybe. Sudden destruction can happen at any moment.

Matthew 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

There you go. We have the still future Blessed Hope once again.

Matthew 24:31 "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Sounds like the Harpazo to me.

 

[Zao is life]

Do you deny that Luke 21:20-24 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21? Luke was writing to a Gentile audience, so he spelled out what Jesus was talking about. He said "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies then you will know that its desolation is near" and then those in Judea would need to flee into the mountains. He was clearly talking about something that would happen around 70 AD.

The Olivet Discourse was spawned from Jesus telling the disciples that the temple buildings standing at that time would be destroyed and their first question was directly about when that would happen. His answer to that question is found in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24.

You are the one not interpreting the word "see" correctly. This is a case of someone making things more complicated than they are, which is a common theme on this forum.

Do you deny that Matthew was recording what Jesus said to all His disciples, who at the time were all or mainly Jewish?

Do you deny that Luke was not an eyewitnesses and was recording what Jesus said to all His disciples, who at the time Jesus spoke, were all or mainly Jewish, after having collected information from Jesus' Jewish eyewitnesses?

Do you deny that whether Luke's record or Matthew's record, Jesus was talking to His mainly Jewish audience in what both Matthew and Luke recorded?

Do you deny that to the Jewish mindset of Jesus' day, "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place" would have immediately been identified with Christ's audience at the time, with the abomination of desolation placed in the holy place by Antiochus IV in the 2nd century BC?

Do you deny that Jesus Himself celebrated channukah on which the above historical occurrence it was based?

Do you deny that in order to split Matthew 24:15-21 out from the rest of the passage in terms of what period of time its talking about, you defy the common use of English grammar and the Greek grammar that Matthew 24:9-31 is correctly translated from, which connects the entire passage into one and the same period of tribulation at the end of the age by the use of the words "and", "therefore", "for", "but" etc?

Do you deny that Luke 21:20-24 is not a parallel passage to Matthew 24:15-21 and that Luke 21:20-24 was talking about the wrath of God that would come upon Jerusalem, and that the disciples should therefore flee Judea when they see armies gathering against Jerusalem?

Do you deny that Matthew 24:9 and verses 21-22 and verses 29-31 are talking about a period of tribulation that Jesus was saying His disciples would endure - and that the period would be shortened for the elect's sake (Matthew 24:22)?

Quite clearly, you do deny all this.

 

[Exegesis]

There is coming a time that is going to be absolutely terrifying. I keep warning about fallen angels, i.e., the 'falling away' but it appears to be 'falling' on deaf ears.

Hello? Giants?

Matthew 24:37-38 "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,"

Remember?

 

[Zao is life]

The Judaean Christians saw the approach of 70 AD literally, and understood Jesus' literal warning, and literally fled, and literally survived.

If they'd used your eisegesis, they would have perished.

@Exegesis The above person uses eisegesis a LOT of the time, so I wouldn't worry too much about his accusation about your using eisegesis. LOL. That's just how it goes around here. They think what they believe to be someone else's eisegesis proves their own eisegesis to be be exegesis.

I don't agree with your OP, but I'd rather just give my reasons which I believe are biblical, while I go about it.