The Great Tribulation Began in 70AD and Continues to This Very Day

[ewq1938]

Thanks for your reply and your extensive knowledge about the Jews and the 490 years. However, scripture in KJV Dan. 9:27 clearly reveals that "he [Jesus] shall confirm the [New] covenant with many for one week [7 years]".

Context and Grammar show it is not Jesus that does that:

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.
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 he is the bad prince destroying and causing desolations. Christ spoke of this when he mentioned the AoD:

Mat 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:)

 

[covenantee]

Context and Grammar show it is not Jesus that does that:

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.
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 he is the bad prince destroying and causing desolations. Christ spoke of this when he mentioned the AoD:

Mat 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 grammatical referent of "prince" in verse 26 is "Messiah the Prince" in verse 25.

His people who destroyed the city and sanctuary were both the Roman armies and the Jewish Zealots.

All of the events of 70 AD were under the ultimate command and control of Messiah the Prince.

 

[quietthinker]

The Great Tribulation Began in 70AD and Continues to This Very Day​

The Great Tribulation began when Adam ate the fruit. It was a pain, they felt compelled to put clothes on in front of each other 'cuz there wasn't anyone else around. It wasn't as if their Johnie and Johnette's were secrets. I mean, would you feel the need to put clothes on in front of an elephant or a squirrel?....maybe your dog or cat?
Not long after after this imposition, the man and his wife had to contend with their youngest being murdered by their oldest....who knows what else unfolded between the apple and the murder.......and this seems not to have abated to this very day.
Those who feel they are realllllly right, set about putting those down they feel are realllllly wrong. Isn't that what Jesus bore the brunt of?

 

[CTK]

Thanks for your reply and your extensive knowledge about the Jews and the 490 years. However, scripture in KJV Dan. 9:27 clearly reveals that "he [Jesus] shall confirm the [New] covenant with many for one week [7 years]".

In KJV Rom.15:8** Paul reminds us of the fact that though Jesus completed the first half of the 7 years [3.5 yrs], immediately AFTER the "midst of the week", Jesus' ministry of confirming the [New] covenant continued for the remaining 3.5 years, thus completing the 7 year prophecy of the 70th week.

**15[8] Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision  FOR the truth of God, to confirm [G950-establish] the promises made unto the fathers:
[9] And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

Comments on 9:27​

I look at Daniel 9:27 very differently, and for me it really hinges on two things:

Who the whole chapter is actually about, and​

​

What the Hebrew in verse 27 really says.​

1. The big picture: Who is Daniel 9 centered on?

Daniel 9 is not a loose collection of end-time puzzle pieces. The entire chapter—Daniel’s prayer and Gabriel’s answer—is laser-focused on the coming Messiah: when He would appear, what He would accomplish, and how God would restore His people after the Babylonian destruction.

The 70 weeks (490 years) are given as one connected time prophecy to answer Daniel’s concern about the desolation and restoration of Jerusalem. Because of that, I understand the last week (the final 7 years) not as an empty space reserved for a future antichrist, but as the specific, God-appointed period for the arrival and ministry of the Messiah, who would:

Be the “Presence of God” among the restored people after exile, and​

​

Fulfill the mission described in Daniel 9:24 (finish transgression, make an end of sins, make reconciliation, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, anoint the Most Holy).​

And this mission is exactly what God had already promised through Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 31, God says He will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah, not like the one made at Sinai. He promises to put His law within them and write it on their hearts, and to remember their sins no more. That’s the covenant the Messiah comes to confirm—not a random political agreement, but God’s own promised new covenant with His people. So everything in 9:24–27 is tied to that 490-year span, and the crucial events are centered on what the Messiah does during the final week, bringing Jeremiah’s new covenant into reality.


2. What does the Hebrew in 9:27 actually say?

The opening line of 9:27 in Hebrew reads literally:

וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד​

​

vehegbīr berit la-rabbim shavuá échad​

​

“And he will make strong a covenant with many one week.”​

A few key points here:

a) “He will confirm / make strong”

The verb vehegbīr (from gābar) means to make strong, to strengthen, to confirm. It does not mean “to invent a brand-new 7-year agreement.” It’s about strengthening or confirming a covenant that already exists. From the wider biblical context, that fits perfectly with the Messiah confirming the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31—the covenant where God writes His law in hearts and grants full forgiveness—not with a future world ruler signing a temporary treaty.

b) “A covenant” – which covenant?

Daniel doesn’t suddenly introduce some random, brand-new 7-year treaty. The context of chapter 9 is:

God’s covenant with His people,​

​

The promised Messiah,​

​

The restoration after exile,​

​

And—when read alongside Jeremiah—the coming new covenant God said He would make with Israel and Judah.​

So when we read “he will confirm a covenant with many,” the natural reading is that the Messiah is confirming God’s covenant—that new covenant Jeremiah foretold—bringing it to its fulfillment, not that a future antichrist is signing a short-term peace deal.

c) “With many” (la-rabbim)

“Many” is exactly how Isaiah 53 describes the Messiah’s work—He will justify many, bear the sin of many. It fits very well with Christ confirming the covenant with many through His ministry and death.

3. The “for 7 years” issue: there is no Hebrew word “for” here

This is where the grammar really matters. In 9:27, the phrase is simply:

שָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד (shavuá échad)​

​

literally: “one week”​

There is no Hebrew word here that means “for,” as in “for one week.”

Hebrew often expresses time by just putting the time word after the verb—what’s called an accusative of time. For example, in English we might say:

“He worked one day.”​

​

“He reigned forty years.”​

You don’t have to say “for” in the original language. Daniel 9:27 works the same way:

“He will confirm a covenant with many one week.”​

English translators then have to decide whether to render that as “for one week,” “in one week,” or “during one week.” That’s an interpretive choice, not a reflection of some hidden Hebrew word.

Now look at the very next phrase:

“And in the middle of the week he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease…”​

That makes it crystal clear that the “week” is a time frame in which events happen (ministry plus cross), not a 7-year contract that starts and then expires.

So I would phrase it like this:

The Hebrew says “one week,” and then immediately speaks of the middle of that week. The most natural sense is that the Messiah confirms the covenant during that final week of the 490 years, and in the middle of that week He goes to the cross and brings an end to sacrifice and offering. The text is marking when He does this, not limiting the covenant itself to a 7-year lifespan. The idea of a special “7-year covenant” as its own separate thing comes much more from later futurist systems than from the Hebrew grammar of Daniel 9:27.


4. So what does 9:27 actually describe?

Putting all this together, I don’t read 9:27 as saying:

“He will make a 7-year covenant that only lasts for one week.”​

Instead, I see it saying something like:

“He (the Messiah) will cause the covenant to prevail / confirm the covenant with many one week”—that is, during that final week.​

His public ministry (roughly the first half of the week) and His sacrificial death (in the middle of the week) are the climactic moments in which the covenant Jeremiah promised is confirmed and sealed—not temporarily, but once for all. That’s exactly what the New Testament says when Jesus calls the cup “the new covenant in My blood,” echoing Jeremiah 31.

From this perspective:

There is no separate, future 7-year “antichrist covenant” in the text.There is a final 7-year period—the last week of the 70— in which the Messiah appears, ministers, and dies, confirming God’s covenant (the Jeremiah 31 new covenant) and bringing the sacrificial system to its intended end.

The popular picture of Daniel 9:27 as a future peace treaty, rebuilt temple, and end-time antichrist comes from a particular futurist tradition that developed many centuries after Daniel, especially through some Jesuit writers in the 16th century. One of its effects was to move the focus away from seeing Christ as the center of the last week and away from historical identifications of the little horn. That’s a bigger historical discussion—but the main point here is that it’s not demanded by the Hebrew text or by the covenant promises in Jeremiah.

So I’m not asking you to just drop your view, but I hope you can see why I’m convinced of this:

All of Daniel 9 is focused on the Messiah—when He comes and what He does.​

​

The last week is the appointed period for His arrival, ministry, and cross.​

​

The Hebrew of 9:27 speaks of Him strengthening / confirming the covenant with many “one week”—that is, during that final week of the 490 years.​

​

And the covenant He confirms is the very new covenant God promised in Jeremiah 31.​

For me, the last week belongs squarely to Christ: His presence among His restored people, His fulfillment of the mission in 9:24, His death in the middle of the week, and His confirming of God’s new covenant in that final segment of the 490 years—not to a future seven-year treaty made by someone else. Today's accepted teachings come from the Jesuit priest Ribera in the 16th century. He was commissioned to create a new interpretation that would remove the label of the little horn from the papacy. He attacked Daniel 9-26-27 by changing who the pronouns speak to and move much of 9:26-27 some 2000 years in the future (from the time of the cross). Daniel is about the Messiah and His plan of restoration and salvation for His people, His city and mankind.

 

[CTK]

The Judaean Christians physically saw the abomination of desolation i.e. the physical Roman armies, physically heeded the warning Jesus had physically issued years previously, physically fled, and physically survived.

The Judaean Christian Church would not have physically survived otherwise.

FYI, earlier you asked what scripture supports the AOD is the crucifixion. I could also ask you what scripture supports the AOD is the destruction of the Temple. The abomination of desolation requires us to seach all of scripture and possibly put together a complete picture - this interpretation takes us from Leviticus, to Daniel to the gospels and will also connect in Revelation. The destruction of the buildings are just one of the consequences from the rejection and crucifixion of their Messiah.


Part 1

I actually agree with a big part of what you’re saying.

The Judaean Christians really did see something very concrete. They saw the Roman armies, they remembered what Jesus had said years earlier, they took His warning seriously, they fled, and they survived. I’m not arguing against any of that. In fact, I think their survival is a powerful confirmation that Jesus’ words were true and practical, not just symbolic.

Where you and I differ isn’t so much on what happened in 70 AD, but on what Jesus meant by “the abomination of desolation” at the deepest level, and how the different Gospels handle it.

Daniel 9:26 is a good place to start. There, Daniel is very clear: the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed by “the people of the prince that shall come.” That, to me, is exactly what happened in 70 AD. Jerusalem and the Temple were torn down by the Romans. That’s destruction—real stones falling, real bloodshed, real fire. I don’t disagree with that at all.

But I don’t think that destruction is the abomination itself. I see it more as the consequence, the visible outworking of something that had already gone terribly wrong. Daniel talks about an “abomination that causes desolation.” To my ear, that language suggests a cause and its effect. The abomination is the root; the desolation is what follows.

So the question becomes: what was so evil, so offensive to God, that it justified that kind of desolation?

If you go back to Leviticus, “abomination” is used for things that profane God’s holy things—mishandling sacrifices, blurring the line between clean and unclean, copying the corrupt practices of the nations. In other words, an abomination is when God’s holy order is turned upside down. Now carry that forward to the Gospels: the true Temple, the true Lamb of God, the true High Priest—Jesus Himself—stands in the midst of His people, and they reject Him, condemn Him, and hand Him over to be crucified. If desecrating animal sacrifices is called an abomination in Leviticus, what do we call it when the very One those sacrifices pointed to is nailed to a cross?

That’s why I see the crucifixion as the core “abomination.” It’s the ultimate profaning of God’s holy One. The Roman armies, the fall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Temple are then the desolation that flows out from that earlier act. They are the rod in God’s hand, not the original offense.

This is where I think the different Gospels actually help us.

In Matthew and Mark, Jesus uses Daniel’s exact phrase: “the abomination of desolation,” and then He adds, “let the reader understand.” That’s a hint that there’s more going on than just “watch out for soldiers.” Matthew, especially, is writing for a Jewish audience. His focus is very much on Temple, covenant, and fulfillment of prophecy. Mark also preserves the phrase, but with his own emphasis.

In those two Gospels, I see Jesus pointing us back to the deeper spiritual break that happens when Israel rejects and crucifies her Messiah. That is when the covenant relationship is made desolate. God turns His face away, and what the New Testament calls “the times of the Gentiles” begins. So in Matthew and Mark, the “abomination of desolation” language, in my understanding, is tied mainly to that spiritual turning point—the crucifixion—rather than just to the later fall of the building.

Luke, however, takes a different angle. His Gospel presents Jesus very much in the flow of human history—Roman rulers, timelines, events on the ground. When Luke covers the same end-times discourse, he doesn’t repeat the phrase “abomination of desolation.” Instead, he says, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.” That’s exactly what you’re highlighting: believers in Judea literally saw the armies, literally fled, and literally survived. Luke seems to be focused on those concrete, on-the-ground consequences. He describes what desolation will look like—siege, flight, and destruction—rather than using the Daniel phrase to define the abomination itself. In other words, Luke is talking about the effects of the abomination; Matthew and Mark preserve the prophetic phrase that points us to its cause.

There’s another layer here that I think is worth noticing. The warning in Luke would especially have been heard and taken seriously by Jews who had accepted Jesus as their Messiah. By 70 AD, the ones who trusted Him would remember His words, recognize the signs, and leave the city. The Jews who rejected Him, on the other hand, had no reason to concern themselves with anything He said in Matthew, Mark, or Luke—His words carried no authority for them.

That means the physical desolation Luke describes—the siege, the starvation, the burning of the city—is something everyone in Jerusalem would see, believer and unbeliever alike. But only the believing remnant would understand why it was happening and how to escape. The unbelieving majority would experience the outward destruction, yet remain blind to the deeper spiritual desolation that had already begun when they rejected and crucified their own Messiah.

In that sense, the visible, physical destruction in 70 AD becomes a kind of symbolic echo of a greater judgment they could not see. The city falls, the Temple burns, families are scattered—those are the things their eyes can register. But the true desolation—the broken covenant relationship, the turning away of God’s face, the long “times of the Gentiles”—is exactly what Jesus is talking about in Matthew and Mark with the “abomination of desolation” language. Unbelieving Israel feels the consequences in history, but does not recognize the spiritual cause that Matthew and Mark are pointing to.

 

[CTK]

The Judaean Christians physically saw the abomination of desolation i.e. the physical Roman armies, physically heeded the warning Jesus had physically issued years previously, physically fled, and physically survived.

The Judaean Christian Church would not have physically survived otherwise.

Part 2

There’s also a good reason the three Gospels sound a bit different here. Matthew and Mark are both closely tied into Israel’s covenant story, so they preserve Daniel’s exact phrase, “the abomination of desolation,” and let it carry that deep prophetic weight. Their focus leans toward the spiritual break—the rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah—which leaves Israel’s relationship with God desolate. Luke, on the other hand, is writing more as a historian for a wider Gentile audience. Instead of repeating Daniel’s phrase, he describes what people will actually see: Jerusalem surrounded by armies, siege, flight, and destruction. In other words, Matthew and Mark highlight the abomination itself; Luke highlights the visible consequences of that abomination in 70 AD. Put together, they tell one story: the cross as the root offense, and the fall of the city as its outward, historical result.

And this is where, for me, it really matters for how we interpret Daniel. If the “abomination of desolation” is centered on the rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah, then it is not some future end-time event where we’re waiting for a mythical antichrist to make a seven-year peace treaty with Israel and then break it halfway through. That whole scheme—future rebuilt temple, seven-year covenant, antichrist sitting in a literal Jerusalem sanctuary—depends on moving the AOD out of the first-century work of Christ and into a completely future timeline. This is one of the reasons Daniel is so difficult to interpret – so much of Daniel has been thrown 2000 years into the future when these most important prophecies are speaking to the coming Messiah – His first arrival.

From my perspective, that framework isn’t just a minor difference of opinion; it actually pulls our eyes away from what Daniel, the Gospels, and the cross are really talking about. Historically, a lot of that futurist package was developed and promoted in the 16th century, especially by some Jesuit scholars, in part to deflect the Reformers’ identification of the papacy with the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8. That’s a larger discussion of its own, but the net effect is that many Christians today are looking for an AOD that is still ahead of us, tied to a seven-year treaty, instead of seeing how powerfully it was fulfilled in the crucifixion and its aftermath.

So I’m not saying you’re wrong about the historical experience of the Judaean Christians. I think you’re right: their obedience to Jesus’ warning saved their lives. I would just say it like this:

Daniel 9:26 and Luke’s account highlight the destruction of the city and the sanctuary—what everyone could see in 70 AD. Matthew and Mark keep the phrase “abomination of desolation” and, in my view, point us back to the deeper, spiritual offense that made that destruction necessary—the rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah.

Put simply: the Christians in Jerusalem saw the Roman armies and fled. That was the sign that desolation had arrived. But the reason that desolation was coming at all was because, years earlier, the Holy One Himself had been treated as an unclean thing and nailed to a cross. The armies are the symptom; the cross is the disease. The fall of Jerusalem fits Daniel 9:26 as the destruction. The abomination that caused that desolation, I believe, is found first at Calvary. But the most unfortunate consequence of the “abomination” is not some buildings that were no longer relevant in God’s plan of salvation – they have fulfilled their purpose indeed, but the desolation the Jews would experience from their God over the coming 2000 years is the real suffering.

So I don’t see our views as completely opposed. I just think we’re standing at different points in the same story. You’re looking at the moment when the believers ran and survived. I’m looking back to the moment that set all of that in motion—the moment when the true Temple was rejected, and the long desolation of Israel’s relationship with God began.

 

[Earburner]

Thank you Brother,

Something to ponder = the AC makes a covenant for one week

In reference to my post #239, I will need a direct quote verbatim from your source of study. As you know not all Bibles/study materials agree with each other word for word. Thanks.

 

[Earburner]

Context and Grammar show it is not Jesus that does that:

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.
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 he is the bad prince destroying and causing desolations. Christ spoke of this when he mentioned the AoD:

Mat 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:)

Do you not see that the prophecy of the 70 weeks has interjections, revealing that God, for the sake of our salvation through Christ, purposely intended to keep the time/date of the first coming of Jesus a "secret"?
KJV Rom. 16
[25] Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
KJV 1 Cor. 2
[7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
[8] Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

In other words, without the Holy Spirit teaching us (1 Cor. 2:13) one CANNOT know the Truth of which "he" it is that is being spoken of in KJV Dan. 9:26-27.

I can tell you most emphatically, that KJV Dan. 9:26-27 is definitely speaking about Jesus and no one else!!

 

[rwb]

The Judaean Christians physically saw the abomination of desolation i.e. the physical Roman armies, physically heeded the warning Jesus had physically issued years previously, physically fled, and physically survived.

The Judaean Christian Church would not have physically survived otherwise.

Yes, this is true, but most of the Old Covenant people failed to understand the abomination that made them a desolation unto God was not physical but spiritual apostasy. The true abomination of desolation is the crucifixion of Christ. That's when those of true faith understood the Old Covenant was abolished because the New Covenant through the blood of Christ had come. Those who were of true faith in Christ began to worship Him in spirit and truth and several years after the cross the faithful saints remembered the words of warning Christ had given them regarding the physical fall of Jerusalem and the Old Temple through the power of the Holy Spirit in them after Pentecost. That's when they heeded Christ's warning and fled from Jerusalem, that the remnant would remain alive to continue to preach the gospel of the Kingdom of God unto all the nations of the earth.

 

[rwb]

Here is the full narrative... (Part 1)

Reflective narrative: The identity of the AOD
The Abomination of Desolation: When the Holy One Is Treated as Unclean​

The phrase abomination of desolation has stirred the imagination of readers for centuries. Most interpreters immediately turn to ruined temples, defiled altars, or future political events in Jerusalem. The focus tends to be on stones—walls torn down, cities laid waste, altars polluted by pagan armies or future tyrants. But what if the center of this warning is not ultimately a building, but a Person? What if the “abomination” reaches its fullest meaning not in the destruction of the Temple but in the crucifixion of the One to whom the Temple, the sacrifices, and the whole Levitical system were pointing? If we dare to let Scripture define its own terms, and if we read Daniel together with Leviticus and the Gospels, a surprising picture begins to emerge. The cross itself stands at the very heart of what abomination means, and the desolation that follows is not merely architectural; it is relational. The holy place that is finally left desolate is not a room of stone, but the covenant relationship between God and His people,

Abomination in Leviticus: Profaning What Is Holy​

We begin with the law, because Leviticus gives us our first vocabulary for “abomination.” There, the word is not just a label for “really bad sins.” It is used in specific situations where God’s order is overturned and His holy things are polluted. Leviticus calls it an abomination when holy sacrifices are mishandled—when meat set apart for God is treated as though it were ordinary, or even spoiled. It uses the same language for crossings of the boundaries between clean and unclean, when Israel eats what God has forbidden or imitates the corrupt practices of the nations. It is the language of polluted worship, blurred distinctions, and covenant betrayal. In other words, an abomination is not just rebellion in general; it is the deliberate reversal of what God has called holy, clean, and precious. It is when His symbols are treated as common, His boundaries are ignored, and His covenant identity is trampled underfoot. With that in mind, ask a simple question: If mishandling animal sacrifices is called an abomination, what happens when the true Sacrifice, the true Temple, the true High Priest stands before His people—and they condemn Him, mock Him, and hand Him over to be crucified?

Leviticus gives us the categories. The Gospels show us their ultimate fulfillment.
The Cross as the Ultimate Levitical Abomination​

Jesus steps into history as the living fulfillment of everything Leviticus anticipated. He is the Lamb of God, the true Passover, the great High Priest, the embodiment of the Temple in human flesh. Every symbol, every ceremony, every sacrifice was a shadow cast before Him.

And how is He treated?​

He is seized by the leaders who guard the Temple and the Law. He is accused by false witnesses in a mock trial. He is scourged, spit upon, crowned with thorns, and nailed to a Roman cross outside the city walls. The testimony of Scripture is that He who knew no sin is “made to be sin for us,” counted as the unclean thing, the cursed One. Leviticus warns Israel not to mishandle holy offerings, not to imitate the abominations of the nations, not to bring corruption into God’s holy place. Yet at the cross we see the entire pattern reaching its climax: holy flesh (in the deepest sense) is mocked and destroyed; the only truly clean Person is treated as defiled; the covenant people choose a murderer over the Author of Life and openly declare, “We have no king but Caesar.” If abomination in Leviticus is to treat what is holy as common, to blur God’s boundaries, and to betray His covenant, then the cross is the ultimate Levitical abomination. It gathers every warning into a single, terrible moment: the Holy One Himself is handed over to die.

And Daniel has already told us that such an abomination will bring desolation.
Daniel’s Abomination and the Desolation That Follows​

When Daniel speaks of the abomination that causes desolation, most interpreters immediately rush to ruined temples. The focus becomes stone, architecture, and armies. But the pattern of Scripture pushes us deeper. First, the Temple itself was never an end in itself. It was a stage, a picture, a set of shadows arranged to point to a reality greater than itself. That is why God could allow the first Temple to be completely destroyed, but not permanently. It had to be rebuilt. Everything had to be restored—priesthood, altar, sacrifices—so that when Messiah came, the whole Levitical system would be ready to find its fulfillment in Him. That restoration was in place by the end of the sixty-nine weeks, so that on the first day of the seventieth week, Jesus could step onto the stage of history and begin His public ministry as the One who would “put an end to sacrifice and offering.” Only after the reality arrived and fulfilled every shadow would God allow a permanent destruction. He could permit the first Temple to fall and rise again, because its purpose was not yet complete. But once the true High Priest, the true Sacrifice, and the true Temple had come—and had been rejected—there would be no going back to the old system. When that abomination occurred, the desolation that followed would be of another order entirely. So when we look for the abomination that causes desolation, we must look beyond the fall of a building and ask: where do we see the most concentrated violation of God’s holiness, the most profound pollution of His holy things, the deepest betrayal of His covenant?

The answer the New Testament quietly but firmly points to is the cross.
“Standing in the Holy Place” – Two Gospels, One Event​

Jesus Himself directs our attention back to Daniel when He speaks of this abomination. In both Matthew and Mark, He warns, “When you see the abomination of desolation… standing in the holy place,” and then adds an unusual note: “Let the reader understand.” That small phrase is an invitation. He is telling His disciples—and every reader of the Gospels—to pay attention. He is pointing us toward the fulfillment of Daniel’s words, and more than that, He is hinting that the surface reading is not enough. Matthew, writing primarily for a Jewish audience, presents Jesus as the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. He is the son of David, the true King, the true Passover Lamb, the true Temple. When Matthew records Jesus’ warning and uses the phrase “standing in the holy place,” it resonates with Jewish expectation. Where should Messiah, Priest, and Lamb be found? In the holy place. The Holy One belongs there. Mark, writing more for a Gentile audience, emphasizes Jesus as the Suffering Servant. In that world, a servant has no right to stand where only priests and kings may go. So Mark preserves a different nuance: “standing where he ought not to be.” From that angle, the same reality—Christ in the place of ultimate holiness—becomes an offense, a scandal, an “abomination.” The servant, as the world sees Him, has no rightful place there. Thus, through two Gospels, Jesus gives us two complementary ways of recognizing Him as the AOD: to the Jewish mind, He stands in the holy place as the rightful Priest and Lamb; to the Gentile mind, He stands where no mere servant ought to be. In both, He is the center of the drama Daniel foresaw. When this Holy One is rejected, condemned, and crucified, the abomination is complete. And the desolation begins.

If another temple is physically built in Jerusalem, it will be the cause for further cursing of them by God. The Old is gone FOREVER since the advent of Christ and shall never be made new again!

 

[Earburner]

If another temple is physically built in Jerusalem, it will be the cause for further cursing of them by God. The Old is gone FOREVER since the advent of Christ and shall never be made new again!

Yes indeed!
KJV Dan. 9:27......and for the overspreading [continuation] of abominations [of animal sacrifices] he [Jesus] shall make it [the temple] desolate, even until the consummation [the end of time].....

I would remind all that the original words about "the abomination of desolation" are found in KJV Dan. 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 [1290] days.
[12] Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Of course, there is much, much more to learn and understand BY the Holy Spirit: ....there shall be 1290 days...blessed is he that WAITETH and comes to the 1335 days", of which speaks about the 3.5 year ministry of Jesus in the flesh, and then the Day of Pentecost.
KJV Dan. 9:26-27 is packed full of information about Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the saints on Pentecost.

Did you all ever stop to think as to who it was that took away the daily sacrifice?
You all do know the answer, but are too afraid to think about what "the Holy Spirit teacheth" and would much rather listen to the religion of "church-ianity".
Yes!! The answer is: Jesus took away the "daily sacrifice", by the holy Sacrifice of Himself!!

 

[CTK]

If another temple is physically built in Jerusalem, it will be the cause for further cursing of them by God. The Old is gone FOREVER since the advent of Christ and shall never be made new again!

Well, that certainly would make sense, but I firmly believe we are very close to the end of the “times of the Gentiles.” Meaning, God will intervene well before any rebuilding takes place. He will remove the blindness from their eyes and they will recognize the One they pierced.

There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that speak of a 3rd Temple but because the Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, it does cause them to want to rebuild.

But, you are correct.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, this is true, but most of the Old Covenant people failed to understand the abomination that made them a desolation unto God was not physical but spiritual apostasy.

Yes, there's no question that the desolation of Jerusalem was judgment for Israel's spiritual rebellion, unfaithfulness, disobedience, and apostasy.

The true abomination of desolation is the crucifixion of Christ.

Not according to the specific Scriptural definitions and descriptions of "abomination of desolation" in Daniel, Matthew, and Luke.

But yes, the desolation of Jerusalem by the abomination i.e. the Roman armies (Luke 21:20), was judgment for Israel's spiritual rebellion, unfaithfulness, disobedience, and apostasy

 

[Earburner]

Well, that certainly would make sense, but I firmly believe we are very close to the end of the “times of the Gentiles.” Meaning, God will intervene well before any rebuilding takes place. He will remove the blindness from their eyes and they will recognize the One they pierced.

There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that speak of a 3rd Temple but because the Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, it does cause them to want to rebuild.

But, you are correct.

Yes, it does cause them to WANT to rebuild their temple, but KJV Dan 9:27 says that God forbids it:
[27].....he shall make it [the temple] desolate, even until the consummation [the end of time],......

 

[rwb]

Well, that certainly would make sense, but I firmly believe we are very close to the end of the “times of the Gentiles.” Meaning, God will intervene well before any rebuilding takes place. He will remove the blindness from their eyes and they will recognize the One they pierced.

There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that speak of a 3rd Temple but because the Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah, it does cause them to want to rebuild.

But, you are correct.

Where in Scripture does it say that blindness in part shall be removed from unbelieving Israel after the last Gentile has been grafted into the same good olive tree with Israel of faith? I find Scripture repeatedly saying only the "remnant" of them shall be saved.

 

[rwb]

Yes, there's no question that the desolation of Jerusalem was judgment for Israel's spiritual rebellion, unfaithfulness, disobedience, and apostasy.

Not according to the specific Scriptural definitions and descriptions of "abomination of desolation" in Daniel, Matthew, and Luke.

But yes, the desolation of Jerusalem by the abomination i.e. the Roman armies (Luke 21:20), was judgment for Israel's spiritual rebellion, unfaithfulness, disobedience, and apostasy

Sorry Covenantee, although I understand historical record proves the words Christ spoke regarding Jerusalem and the Temple, came to pass in 70 AD, I do not believe the Bible speaks of 70 AD anywhere in Scripture as the abomination of desolation.

 

[covenantee]

Sorry Covenantee, although I understand historical record proves the words Christ spoke regarding Jerusalem and the Temple, came to pass in 70 AD, I do not believe the Bible speaks of 70 AD anywhere in Scripture as the abomination of desolation.

No need for sorry, bro; we agree on much more than we disagree on.

But I'm mystified as to why you don't consider Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 to illuminate and interpret each other.

Dispensational futurists don't; but you're not a dispensational futurist.

 

[rwb]

No need for sorry, bro; we agree on much more than we disagree on.

But I'm mystified as to why you don't consider Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 to illuminate and interpret each other.

Dispensational futurists don't; but you're not a dispensational futurist.

I consider all those verses, and passages yet understand the AOD was the crucifixion of Christ. I don't deny Christ warned Israel of their impending destruction, but that was not that they might believe the abomination that brought them to utter desolation would be with the physical destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. The city and Temple of Old had become an abomination unto God well before the first advent of Christ. And Israel of faith began to understand this after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. But it would not be until the literal destruction that they would fully understand that God had brought the Old Covenant ceremonial and sacrificial Levitical system to a complete and total end FOREVER.

 

[Davidpt]

I consider all those verses, and passages yet understand the AOD was the crucifixion of Christ.

And that is not a blatant example of blasphemy? Not to mention that makes sense of the following text exactly how?

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: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

When Christ was crucified, thus the AOD per your view, thus they see the AOD at the time, why then wasn't anyone doing what is recorded in verses 16-17, in any sense, at that time? After all, one can't divorce what I have underlined in verse 15 with what I have underlined in verses 16-17.

BTW, no amount of explaining is going to convince me, that to understand the AOD was the crucifixion of Christ, is not blasphemy. Because, clearly it is. There was zero abominable about Christ being crucified. Granted, it wasn't a pleasant experience for Christ. Yet His crucifixion wasn't an abomination that led to desolation.

I don't know what it is about some interpreters? Some interpreters apparently think it is reasonable for God to use abominable acts to fulfill His will rather than God is against abominable acts, period. For example. Some interpreters insist the Roman army was the abomination. That then equals God is pro-abominations rather than anti-abominations.

 

[CTK]

Where in Scripture does it say that blindness in part shall be removed from unbelieving Israel after the last Gentile has been grafted into the same good olive tree with Israel of faith? I find Scripture repeatedly saying only the "remnant" of them shall be saved.

Part 1

If you sit with Romans 11 for a while, you can almost hear Paul trying to hold two truths together at the same time: God has not abandoned Israel, and God is showing incredible mercy to the Gentiles. Right in the middle of that, he introduces the ideas you’re asking about: “blindness in part,” the “fullness of the Gentiles,” and the promise that “all Israel will be saved.” Paul calls this a “mystery” and says he doesn’t want us to be ignorant of it:

“For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion: that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.’” (Romans 11:25–27)​

Here Paul says very plainly that Israel’s blindness is partial, not total, and that it has an “until” attached to it. It lasts until “the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” Only then does he speak of “all Israel” being saved, and he bases this on Old Testament promises about God turning away ungodliness from Jacob and taking away their sins.

Earlier in the chapter he uses the image of an olive tree to explain what is happening. The tree itself represents the people of God rooted in His covenant promises. Some of the natural branches (unbelieving Jews) have been broken off. Wild branches (Gentiles who believe in Christ) have been grafted in among the natural branches and now share the same root and fatness of the olive tree. Paul warns the Gentile believers not to boast, because they “do not support the root, but the root supports” them (Romans 11:18). He also says that if God did not spare the natural branches because of unbelief, He will not spare arrogant Gentile branches either. And then he adds this crucial line:

“And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.” (Romans 11:23)​

So the picture is not two separate peoples of God, but one tree: believing Jews and believing Gentiles together, sharing the same promises. Some branches are broken off, some grafted in, and some can be grafted back in again. You are right to point out that Scripture also speaks of a “remnant,” and Paul fully affirms that. In Romans 9:27 he quotes Isaiah:

“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved.”​

And in Romans 11:5 he says:

“Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”​

So in Paul’s own day only a remnant of Israel believed in Jesus. Most of Israel was hardened. He says, “Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Romans 11:7). That is the present situation Paul is describing: a remnant saved by grace, and the rest in partial blindness.

The turning point comes with that little word “until” in Romans 11:25. “Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” That implies a sequence. There is a period where most of Israel remains hardened, while the gospel goes out to the nations and Gentiles are being grafted into the olive tree. That period continues until God’s purpose for the “fullness of the Gentiles” is complete. Only then does Paul say, “and so all Israel will be saved.”

Different interpreters define “all Israel” in different ways, but we do not have to force it into meaning every individual Jew who has ever lived. Scripture never teaches automatic salvation by ethnicity. The language makes best sense if we see it as a large-scale, covenantal turning of Israel as a people—a time when the current hardened majority is changed, the veil is removed, and Israel is restored as a believing people. Even then, it is still a remnant in the sense that salvation is always by grace through faith; but the remnant is no longer a tiny minority scattered through history. It becomes a “fullness” of Israel responding to their Messiah after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Paul is not inventing this out of nowhere; he is stitching together themes found elsewhere in Scripture. Jesus Himself said:

“Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24)​

Paul speaks in another place about a veil lying over the hearts of those who read Moses without turning to Christ:

“But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament… But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” (2 Corinthians 3:14–16)​

The prophets echo the same pattern. Zechariah speaks of a future moment when God pours out a spirit of grace and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem:

“They will look on Me whom they have pierced; they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son…” (Zechariah 12:10)​

And immediately after that he adds:

“In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.” (Zechariah 13:1)​

When you lay all of this alongside Romans 11, you can see the same rhythm. There is a present veil over Israel. There is a time when Jerusalem is trampled and the Gentiles are central in the story. There is a promised future moment when Israel looks upon the One they pierced, a fountain is opened for cleansing, and God turns ungodliness away from Jacob. Paul gathers these threads and sums them up: “blindness in part… until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved.”

The “remnant” language and the “all Israel” language are not contradictions. They describe different aspects of the same story. Right now there is a remnant of believing Jews and a partial hardening over the rest. During this time Gentiles are being grafted into the one olive tree by faith in Christ. When the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, God will act in mercy toward Israel as a people, removing that hardening and bringing about a wide, covenantal turning to the Messiah. Even then, those who are saved from Israel are the remnant of grace—but now the remnant is no longer just a tiny thread; it is “all Israel” in the sense of a restored, believing nation.

So if someone asks, “Where does Scripture say that blindness in part will be removed from unbelieving Israel after the last Gentile is grafted in?” the honest answer is that this idea comes from Romans 11 itself. Paul says there is a partial hardening “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,” and then immediately speaks of “all Israel” being saved, quoting promises about God taking away their sins. At the same time he fully affirms that, in any age, it is only the remnant who are saved. Romans 9–11 holds these truths together: a remnant now, a partial hardening now, and a future moment when God, in mercy, removes that hardness and brings Israel back into the story—not as a separate tree, but as natural branches grafted back into the same good olive tree with Gentiles who have come to faith.

In the end, the picture is meant to humble everyone. Gentiles cannot boast, because they are grafted in by mercy. Israel cannot boast, because their restoration is also by mercy. Paul can only end by worship, saying, “For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all” (Romans 11:32).