This is the context of how Dan. 9:24-27 should be considered!

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,936
6,865
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
If the present tense verb implies immediate action it means it’s happening now, at the very moment from the authors point of view.
It doesn't imply that. It does not have to refer to an immediate action as of the time He said it. I thought you indicated that you understood that? Apparently not. He was talking about something that He was going to do in the future. He was going to come quickly. That's all He was saying. And the Greek word translated as "quickly" means immediately and without delay, which you have agreed with. So, He couldn't come quickly as an immediate action when He said "I am coming quickly" since He did not come immediately after saying that. You are contradicting the meaning of the word "quickly" if you try to claim that He was already coming at the time He said "I am coming quickly".

So if the coming quickly is an “instantaneous” action, then grammatically, it’s happening when John was told it.
No, that's not possible because He did not come at that time. Again, you are contradicting what the word quickly means with your understanding.

In other words, Christ would be immediately in the sky in front of John or over Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
Huh?! That's all I can say in response to that.

If the preset tense verb implies a future action, it’s not happening immediately right now, but “continuous” in the future .
Not continuous. Immediate. Whenever He comes in the future, He will come quickly/immediately/without delay. That is what He was saying. I thought you had agreed with me about this, but now that does not appear to be the case. I don't know how much more of this I can take. I certainly have better things to do than continue a ridiculous discussion like this. Just believe what you want. I'm moving on.
 

CTK

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2024
1,515
315
83
72
Albuquerque
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is a difference, Lk says "when you see Jerusalem be surrounded flee". Matt. and Mark say "when you see THE AoD flee. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was not the AoD. That is one signal thing spoken of in Dan. 11:31 and 12:11 "not" 9:27. You can see what the fulfillment will look like in Rev. 13:14-15. There is a reason why we are told to "rightly divide the truth". We do this by noticing all the little things that makes one scenario different from another scenario. This also happens when one realizes that the ToJT and the GT are two separate events upon two different peoples for two different reasons. I believe the ToJT began in 70ad.

Part 1.


1. the "abomination that causes desolation

Among the many interpretations offered, most focus on the physical destruction of the Temple—whether in 70 AD by the Romans, during the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes two centuries earlier, or in a theorized future third Temple expected to be ruined during an end-time tribulation. While these perspectives attempt to connect historical or future events to Daniel’s prophecy, they often miss the deeper covenant meaning behind the phrase “the abomination that causes desolation.” Daniel 9:24–27 is not a prophecy about a building. It is a prophecy about the Messiah, the covenant, and what follows when the Messiah is rejected.

The Temple was sacred because it represented the presence of God among His people. But it was also a shadow—an earthly pattern pointing to a greater reality. If the Messiah is the true fulfillment of that reality, then the greatest desecration imaginable would not be the fall of stones, but the rejection of the One to whom those stones testified. In that light, the “abomination” reaches its deepest meaning at the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was not merely a moment of sorrow; it was covenant betrayal of the highest order—the Holy One of Israel rejected and “cut off” in the very time Daniel said He would come. No military campaign, no political upheaval, and no destruction of masonry can match the spiritual gravity of that act.

This is why the desolation that follows cannot be reduced to the burning of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. That destruction was real and devastating, but it was the consequence, not the cause, of desolation. The true desolation is spiritual: the severing of communion that occurs when the Messiah is rejected—the loss of covenant nearness, the leaving of the “house” empty. Only later does that desolation become visible in history, when the city falls.

The Gospels themselves invite the reader to understand Daniel’s language through the words of Jesus. Three passages speak directly to Daniel 9:27e:

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand) …” (Matthew 24:15)

“But when you see the abomination of desolation… standing

whereStanding where it ought not (let the reader understand) …” (Mark 13:14)

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.” (Luke 21:20)


All three writers are preserving the same discourse from Jesus, yet each presents it with distinct emphasis and nuance. Luke omits the phrase “abomination of desolation” and speaks directly to the visible realities that would soon confront Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark retain the phrase and explicitly identify Daniel as the prophetic source. These differences are not contradictions. They are deliberate distinctions shaped to communicate unique messages to different audiences—and taken together, they help confirm both the timing and the identity of what Daniel foretold.

A Daniel 9:25–26 Lens: The Prince and the One “Cut Off”

Before Matthew and Mark even differ in phrasing (“holy place” versus “where it ought not”), they agree on something crucial: Jesus says this is what was “spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” That invitation is not incidental. It directs the reader back to the heart of Daniel 9, where the Messiah is presented in two complementary portraits that function like a hinge in the prophecy.

In Daniel 9:25, the Messiah is revealed as the Prince—the One who comes with covenant authority, restoration, and purpose. This is the Messiah in His rightful place, arriving exactly on time within the seventy-weeks framework.

Then in Daniel 9:26, the same Messiah is revealed in the shock of the Gospel: He will be “cut off, but not for Himself.” This is the Messiah in unjust suffering—rejected, condemned, sacrificed, not for His own sin, but for others.

Daniel already holds these two portraits together: the Prince who comes to restore (v.25), and the Messiah who is cut off to redeem (v.26). The Gospels do not invent this tension—they unveil its fulfillment. This is why Matthew can place the Messiah where a King and Priest belongs, while Mark places the Messiah where He ought not be—and yet both remain true and converge on the same event: the cross.
 

CTK

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2024
1,515
315
83
72
Albuquerque
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no difference. "Judaea" is the same "Judaea" in all three accounts. The flight is the same in all three accounts. The AoD was the armies surrounding Jerusalem, the sign to flee.

That is accurately handling the Word of Truth, not dispensatanally contorting and mutilating it.

You still haven't told us, who is the grammatical antecedent/referent of "the prince that shall come"?

Part 2.

Matthew: Standing in the Holy Place

In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is presented as the Messianic King and covenant High Priest, fulfilling the Law and the Prophets and establishing the long-anticipated kingdom of heaven. Matthew writes primarily to a Jewish audience and meticulously links Jesus to the Hebrew Scriptures—His royal lineage from David, His legal authority as heir to the throne, and His covenant mission as the fulfillment of what God promised. Therefore, when Jesus speaks of the abomination “standing in the holy place” (Matthew 24:15), the phrase is critical because it places the Messiah precisely where a King and a Priest would be found standing. The “holy place” evokes far more than geography. It represents covenant space—the sphere where God’s presence was honored, where priestly mediation occurred, and where Israel’s worship was centered. If Jesus is the true Temple—the ultimate dwelling of God among His people—then the greatest abomination is not the destruction of a building, but the crucifixion of the Son of God: the rejection of the One in whom God’s fullness dwells. Matthew’s own Gospel provides an interpretive key to what “desolation” means at its deepest level. Jesus laments over Jerusalem:

“See! Your house is left to you desolate.” (Matthew 23:38)

This is not merely a prediction of coming ruins. It is the language of severed communion—a sanctuary emptied because its rightful inhabitant has been rejected. And when Jesus dies, Matthew records a decisive sign:

“The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.” (Matthew 27:51)

The tearing of the veil signals that the old order has reached its fulfillment point. What the Temple signified is now centered in the Messiah. When He is rejected, the “house” is left desolate. The Roman siege that follows is a historical judgment, but Matthew presses the deeper cause: the abomination has already occurred in covenant terms, and the desolation begins spiritually before it becomes visible in history.

Matthew also preserves an unusually direct summons placed right in the middle of Jesus’ warning: “whoever reads, let him understand.” Whether spoken by Jesus in that moment or preserved by Matthew as an inspired prompt, the effect is the same—the reader is being commanded to slow down, return to Daniel, and recognize that understanding will not be automatic.

Mark: Standing Where He Ought Not

Mark preserves the same warning, but with different phrasing:

“Standing where it ought not…” (Mark 13:14)

Mark does not mention the “holy place.” Instead, he speaks morally and symbolically.

In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as the Suffering Servant—the One who came “to give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). A servant does not belong in the sanctuary as a ruler. And the Holy One does not belong at a Roman execution site as a criminal. The cross itself is the place where He “ought not” to be—and yet it is precisely there that redemption is accomplished.

Mark’s Passion narrative highlights this inversion: the innocent Servant mocked, humiliated, abandoned, and treated as cursed. In Mark’s framing, the abomination is the moment humanity places the Servant of God where He does not belong—on the cross, bearing the sins of the world. It is not only Israel’s betrayal but also Rome’s injustice: the Son of God condemned and executed as though guilty. Jew and Gentile alike stand implicated in the world’s rejection of its only Savior.

And here the contrast becomes decisive: Matthew places the Messiah where a King and Priest belongs— “in the holy place.” Mark places the Messiah where He ought not be—on the cross, the place of shame. Both are true, and together they point to one fulfillment: the Messiah rejected and “cut off,” not for Himself.

Luke: Jerusalem Surrounded—Desolation Made Visible

Luke takes yet another path. He does not cite Daniel by name, nor does he use sanctuary language (“holy place”) or symbolic language (“where it ought not”). Instead, he provides the visible historical sign:

“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies…” (Luke 21:20)

Luke’s emphasis is direct. He shows how desolation becomes outwardly evident. The siege is the visible manifestation of a spiritual rupture already underway. Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD was not merely a political or military disaster; it was the earthly reflection of what happens when the presence of God is refused and covenant communion collapses.

Luke also widens the horizon beyond Israel. His Gospel moves beyond Jewish prophetic framing to underscore the global consequence of rejecting the Son of Man. The desolation is not only Jerusalem’s; it is the human condition wherever Christ is refused. Yet Luke’s broader emphasis also magnifies hope: even as the world rejects its Creator, mercy is offered. Jesus gives Himself to save mankind from the deepest desolation of all—separation from God.

And this is where the prophecy ultimately presses the reader. The desolation that begins with rejecting the Messiah is real and enduring—but it is not forever. The time of spiritual distance will end. The Messiah will return—not as the rejected King, not as the suffering Servant, but as the victorious Son of Man, restoring what was lost. The question is not whether the prophecy will be fulfilled, but whether we will be ready when desolation gives way to restoration and the King is finally received.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,936
6,865
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Part 1.


1. the "abomination that causes desolation

Among the many interpretations offered, most focus on the physical destruction of the Temple—whether in 70 AD by the Romans, during the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes two centuries earlier, or in a theorized future third Temple expected to be ruined during an end-time tribulation. While these perspectives attempt to connect historical or future events to Daniel’s prophecy, they often miss the deeper covenant meaning behind the phrase “the abomination that causes desolation.” Daniel 9:24–27 is not a prophecy about a building. It is a prophecy about the Messiah, the covenant, and what follows when the Messiah is rejected.

The Temple was sacred because it represented the presence of God among His people. But it was also a shadow—an earthly pattern pointing to a greater reality. If the Messiah is the true fulfillment of that reality, then the greatest desecration imaginable would not be the fall of stones, but the rejection of the One to whom those stones testified. In that light, the “abomination” reaches its deepest meaning at the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was not merely a moment of sorrow; it was covenant betrayal of the highest order—the Holy One of Israel rejected and “cut off” in the very time Daniel said He would come. No military campaign, no political upheaval, and no destruction of masonry can match the spiritual gravity of that act.

This is why the desolation that follows cannot be reduced to the burning of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. That destruction was real and devastating, but it was the consequence, not the cause, of desolation. The true desolation is spiritual: the severing of communion that occurs when the Messiah is rejected—the loss of covenant nearness, the leaving of the “house” empty. Only later does that desolation become visible in history, when the city falls.

The Gospels themselves invite the reader to understand Daniel’s language through the words of Jesus. Three passages speak directly to Daniel 9:27e:

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand) …” (Matthew 24:15)

“But when you see the abomination of desolation… standing

whereStanding where it ought not (let the reader understand) …” (Mark 13:14)

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.” (Luke 21:20)


All three writers are preserving the same discourse from Jesus, yet each presents it with distinct emphasis and nuance. Luke omits the phrase “abomination of desolation” and speaks directly to the visible realities that would soon confront Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark retain the phrase and explicitly identify Daniel as the prophetic source. These differences are not contradictions. They are deliberate distinctions shaped to communicate unique messages to different audiences—and taken together, they help confirm both the timing and the identity of what Daniel foretold.

A Daniel 9:25–26 Lens: The Prince and the One “Cut Off”

Before Matthew and Mark even differ in phrasing (“holy place” versus “where it ought not”), they agree on something crucial: Jesus says this is what was “spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” That invitation is not incidental. It directs the reader back to the heart of Daniel 9, where the Messiah is presented in two complementary portraits that function like a hinge in the prophecy.

In Daniel 9:25, the Messiah is revealed as the Prince—the One who comes with covenant authority, restoration, and purpose. This is the Messiah in His rightful place, arriving exactly on time within the seventy-weeks framework.

Then in Daniel 9:26, the same Messiah is revealed in the shock of the Gospel: He will be “cut off, but not for Himself.” This is the Messiah in unjust suffering—rejected, condemned, sacrificed, not for His own sin, but for others.

Daniel already holds these two portraits together: the Prince who comes to restore (v.25), and the Messiah who is cut off to redeem (v.26). The Gospels do not invent this tension—they unveil its fulfillment. This is why Matthew can place the Messiah where a King and Priest belongs, while Mark places the Messiah where He ought not be—and yet both remain true and converge on the same event: the cross.
There's a couple problems with seeing Christ's death on the cross as the abomination of desolation that Jesus spoke about in the Olivet Discourse. First, Jerusalem was not surrounded by armies when Jesus died on the cross. Second, no one fled to the mountains when Jesus died on the cross. So, I can't agree with your conclusions here because of those things. Yes, His death was an abomination because of how He was treated and rejected, and it did cause desolation, but it did not occur when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies and no one fled to the mountains when it happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
7,773
3,438
113
75
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
LOL! You think trying to argue that the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD is some future Antichrist is convincing? In what way would a future Antichrist be the prince of people who died long ago? LOL! If only you knew how ridiculous your arguments are. But, you clearly don't because you continue to embarrass yourself with them repeatedly.
Amen bro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
7,773
3,438
113
75
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
In vs. 26, "the prince to come" isn't the important part
Messiah the Prince is undeniably the most important part. If you understood antecedents/referents, you would agree. But you don't.
it is prophesying about the future a/c
Where in the passage does the word "antichrist" occur?
The "people of the prince" are
The people of Messiah the Price are of secondary importance. They were the Romans and Jews, both of whom destroyed Jerusalem, under the command and control of Messiah the Prince.
It is the people of those nations from the eastern part of the empire that the a/c will form his ten nation confederacy in the latter days.
Dispen futurized fantasy and fallacy.
It was never Titus's intention to burn it down, but it was God.
True. Messiah the Prince commanded and controlled its destruction.
God set things in motion for 70ad and My God, at least, doesn't make abominations against himself.
Messiah the Prince used the Roman army with its abominations to destroy Jerusalem.
Judaea fleeing is prophesied twice for two different reasons, the latter day events will occur in Israel again, which prior to 1948 was considered impossible for the historicists of the 1800's +.
The Judaean Christians fled once. There will never be another flight, because those Christians are no longer alive on earth.
One would think they would be honest w/ themselves and say Oops, we got that one wrong, instead they doubled down on their false teachings and denied the obvious.
Provide links to evidence of your pharisaic talmudic zionist antichrist claims.
 
Last edited:

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,680
311
83
70
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Part 1.


1. the "abomination that causes desolation

Among the many interpretations offered, most focus on the physical destruction of the Temple—whether in 70 AD by the Romans, during the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes two centuries earlier, or in a theorized future third Temple expected to be ruined during an end-time tribulation. While these perspectives attempt to connect historical or future events to Daniel’s prophecy, they often miss the deeper covenant meaning behind the phrase “the abomination that causes desolation.” Daniel 9:24–27 is not a prophecy about a building. It is a prophecy about the Messiah, the covenant, and what follows when the Messiah is rejected.

The Temple was sacred because it represented the presence of God among His people. But it was also a shadow—an earthly pattern pointing to a greater reality. If the Messiah is the true fulfillment of that reality, then the greatest desecration imaginable would not be the fall of stones, but the rejection of the One to whom those stones testified. In that light, the “abomination” reaches its deepest meaning at the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was not merely a moment of sorrow; it was covenant betrayal of the highest order—the Holy One of Israel rejected and “cut off” in the very time Daniel said He would come. No military campaign, no political upheaval, and no destruction of masonry can match the spiritual gravity of that act.

This is why the desolation that follows cannot be reduced to the burning of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. That destruction was real and devastating, but it was the consequence, not the cause, of desolation. The true desolation is spiritual: the severing of communion that occurs when the Messiah is rejected—the loss of covenant nearness, the leaving of the “house” empty. Only later does that desolation become visible in history, when the city falls.

The Gospels themselves invite the reader to understand Daniel’s language through the words of Jesus. Three passages speak directly to Daniel 9:27e:

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand) …” (Matthew 24:15)

“But when you see the abomination of desolation… standing

whereStanding where it ought not (let the reader understand) …” (Mark 13:14)

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near.” (Luke 21:20)


All three writers are preserving the same discourse from Jesus, yet each presents it with distinct emphasis and nuance. Luke omits the phrase “abomination of desolation” and speaks directly to the visible realities that would soon confront Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark retain the phrase and explicitly identify Daniel as the prophetic source. These differences are not contradictions. They are deliberate distinctions shaped to communicate unique messages to different audiences—and taken together, they help confirm both the timing and the identity of what Daniel foretold.

A Daniel 9:25–26 Lens: The Prince and the One “Cut Off”

Before Matthew and Mark even differ in phrasing (“holy place” versus “where it ought not”), they agree on something crucial: Jesus says this is what was “spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” That invitation is not incidental. It directs the reader back to the heart of Daniel 9, where the Messiah is presented in two complementary portraits that function like a hinge in the prophecy.

In Daniel 9:25, the Messiah is revealed as the Prince—the One who comes with covenant authority, restoration, and purpose. This is the Messiah in His rightful place, arriving exactly on time within the seventy-weeks framework.

Then in Daniel 9:26, the same Messiah is revealed in the shock of the Gospel: He will be “cut off, but not for Himself.” This is the Messiah in unjust suffering—rejected, condemned, sacrificed, not for His own sin, but for others.

Daniel already holds these two portraits together: the Prince who comes to restore (v.25), and the Messiah who is cut off to redeem (v.26). The Gospels do not invent this tension—they unveil its fulfillment. This is why Matthew can place the Messiah where a King and Priest belongs, while Mark places the Messiah where He ought not be—and yet both remain true and converge on the same event: the cross.
That sounds very nice but it goes off into symbolic land and doesn't stay w/ the literal. The AoD is one specific thing that had nothing to do w/ 70ad. Were there general abominations and desolations? Of course, but that happened several times in Isreal's history not just in 70ad. Do you know what the abomination of desolation was when AE was in charge? It was the image of Zeus in the temple that he demanded the Jews to worship. It was a real thing and so will the future one. It's not in the spirit or soul of a person and no the three gospels do "not" speak of the same event. When Messiah is "cut off", the narrative about Him is over, it jumps to 70ad next. It doesn't go back to Christ and the NC, that was already spoken of by Christ's appearance and death. In vs. 27 it says "to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease". The sacrifices didn't stop until the temple was burned and oblations have never stopped, because they are the voluntary, gifts and donations to the synagogues around the world even to this day. If a fulfillment isn't 100% fulfilled as written, it/s not the actual fulfillment, just a near copy, 99% isn't good enough. If you want see what the actual fulfillment of the AoD will look like, read Rev. 13:14-15.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,680
311
83
70
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Messiah the Prince is undeniably the most important part. If you understood antecedents/referents, you would agree. But you don't.

Where in the passage does the word "antichrist" occur?

The people of Messiah the Price are of secondary importance. They were the Romans and Jews, both of whom destroyed Jerusalem, under the command and control of Messiah the Prince.

Dispen futurized fantasy and fallacy.

True. Messiah the Prince commanded and controlled its destruction.

Messiah the Prince used the Roman army with its abominations to destroy Jerusalem.

The Judaean Christians fled once. There will never be another flight, because those Christians are no longer alive on earth.

Provide links to evidence of your pharisaic talmudic zionist antichrist claims.
Oh please you can do the better than that, Christ was dead and gone before the prince to come was mentioned, believing that is still speaking of Christ is nonsense because neither He, nor his church had anything to do w/ 70ad. That is grasping at straws trying to defend a belief that has always been wrong because of a lack of understanding the whole prophetic story as told in Daniel.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,936
6,865
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Oh please you can do the better than that, Christ was dead and gone before the prince to come was mentioned, believing that is still speaking of Christ is nonsense because neither He, nor his church had anything to do w/ 70ad. That is grasping at straws trying to defend a belief that has always been wrong because of a lack of understanding the whole prophetic story as told in Daniel.
Look in the mirror. You try to claim that the prince of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD will be some future Antichrist. How can a future Antichrist be the prince of people who died a long time ago? You have no room to criticize someone else's interpretation when your own interpetation is so extremely farfetched.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CTK and covenantee

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
7,773
3,438
113
75
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Oh please you can do the better than that, Christ was dead and gone before the prince to come was mentioned, believing that is still speaking of Christ is nonsense because neither He, nor his church had anything to do w/ 70ad. That is grasping at straws trying to defend a belief that has always been wrong because of a lack of understanding the whole prophetic story as told in Daniel.
The Roman commander Titus was considerably smarter than you. :laughing:

"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

Who didn't have "anything to do w/70ad"? :laughing:
 

CTK

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2024
1,515
315
83
72
Albuquerque
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That sounds very nice but it goes off into symbolic land and doesn't stay w/ the literal. The AoD is one specific thing that had nothing to do w/ 70ad. Were there general abominations and desolations? Of course, but that happened several times in Isreal's history not just in 70ad. Do you know what the abomination of desolation was when AE was in charge? It was the image of Zeus in the temple that he demanded the Jews to worship. It was a real thing and so will the future one. It's not in the spirit or soul of a person and no the three gospels do "not" speak of the same event. When Messiah is "cut off", the narrative about Him is over, it jumps to 70ad next. It doesn't go back to Christ and the NC, that was already spoken of by Christ's appearance and death. In vs. 27 it says "to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease". The sacrifices didn't stop until the temple was burned and oblations have never stopped, because they are the voluntary, gifts and donations to the synagogues around the world even to this day. If a fulfillment isn't 100% fulfilled as written, it/s not the actual fulfillment, just a near copy, 99% isn't good enough. If you want see what the actual fulfillment of the AoD will look like, read Rev. 13:14-15.
It was Christ’s fulfilling the 6 elements in verse 24 and His perfect sacrifice on the cross that eliminated any further need for animal sacrifices and offerings. The Temple, the Gigh Priest, the Passover lambs, etc., were all types and shadows of the coming Messiah

It doesn’t matter if the Jews continued to follow their pre-cross ceremonies- that was the point! Some would accept Jesus as their Messiah and some would reject Him and crucify Him. Their continued disbelief and following the ceremonies, including animal sacrifices meant absolutely nothing to God. Those 40 years after the cross were akin to the 40 years in the wilderness when they would be tested … their final time to accept Jesus as their Messiah. But, at the end of the 40 years, their judgement was made visible: it was the complete destruction of the Temple, the city, and everything. This is what is spoken about in both Luke and in Daniel 9:27. But the AOD indeed does belong to the cross and where Matthew speaks to the verse in Daniel 9:25 while Nark speaks to Daniel 9:26. Both are directly referring to Jesus and the desolation that would come upon His people who rejected Him for the next 2000 years (times of the Gentiles), while Luke speaks to the visible destruction that results from the cross. All 3 are separated in Daniel and in the Gospels.

Almost 90% of Daniel covers the period (details) between Babylon at 606BC to the end of the 70 weeks of years prophecy in 33/34 AD. The remainder covers the post cross period to the coming to full power of the little horn by 500 AD.

Daniel was written to His people and His city - and the complete understanding of the restoration and salvation of His people and His city and the coming Messiah.

Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off. Also, there is no anti-Christ figure, not 7 year tribulation, etc. However, God clearly provides a mountain of information that speaks to the “little horn” of Daniel 7, 8 and 11. He is the one that comes after the cross and continues until the end of time. You really can’t miss him - he is all over those 3 chapters.
 

CTK

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2024
1,515
315
83
72
Albuquerque
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Oh please you can do the better than that, Christ was dead and gone before the prince to come was mentioned, believing that is still speaking of Christ is nonsense because neither He, nor his church had anything to do w/ 70ad. That is grasping at straws trying to defend a belief that has always been wrong because of a lack of understanding the whole prophetic story as told in Daniel.
It is the “people” of the prince who is to come that destroys the Temple in 70 AD. That would be the Romans headed by Titus. But it is “they” (pagan Rome) who were the people of this later coming prince- he is the little horn of Daniel 7,8 and 11. This is the main antagonist that will go against the kingdom of God that was established at the cross. He will speak pompous things, think to change times and laws and even claim divinity and the ability to forgive sin - tell me- what more could a person / institution do against God that would be greater than these things and replace God on earth?
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
7,773
3,438
113
75
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
He will speak pompous things, think to change times and laws and even claim divinity and the ability to forgive sin - tell me- what more could a person / institution do against God that would be greater than these things and replace God on earth?
  1. All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17
  2. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”
  3. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CTK

CTK

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2024
1,515
315
83
72
Albuquerque
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That sounds very nice but it goes off into symbolic land and doesn't stay w/ the literal. The AoD is one specific thing that had nothing to do w/ 70ad. Were there general abominations and desolations? Of course, but that happened several times in Isreal's history not just in 70ad. Do you know what the abomination of desolation was when AE was in charge? It was the image of Zeus in the temple that he demanded the Jews to worship. It was a real thing and so will the future one. It's not in the spirit or soul of a person and no the three gospels do "not" speak of the same event. When Messiah is "cut off", the narrative about Him is over, it jumps to 70ad next. It doesn't go back to Christ and the NC, that was already spoken of by Christ's appearance and death. In vs. 27 it says "to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease". The sacrifices didn't stop until the temple was burned and oblations have never stopped, because they are the voluntary, gifts and donations to the synagogues around the world even to this day. If a fulfillment isn't 100% fulfilled as written, it/s not the actual fulfillment, just a near copy, 99% isn't good enough. If you want see what the actual fulfillment of the AoD will look like, read Rev. 13:14-15.
Part 1 of a narrative that comes just after the narratives recently given re: the AOD (parts 1 and 2) found in the New Interpretations commentary on Daniel (if you want a free copy, please PM me or if you have an interest to purchase it directly from Amazon, PM me and I will give the the ISBN # - released as of 3/10/26):



Reflective Narrative:
The identity of the AOD through the lens of Leviticus



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.
 

CTK

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2024
1,515
315
83
72
Albuquerque
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That sounds very nice but it goes off into symbolic land and doesn't stay w/ the literal. The AoD is one specific thing that had nothing to do w/ 70ad. Were there general abominations and desolations? Of course, but that happened several times in Isreal's history not just in 70ad. Do you know what the abomination of desolation was when AE was in charge? It was the image of Zeus in the temple that he demanded the Jews to worship. It was a real thing and so will the future one. It's not in the spirit or soul of a person and no the three gospels do "not" speak of the same event. When Messiah is "cut off", the narrative about Him is over, it jumps to 70ad next. It doesn't go back to Christ and the NC, that was already spoken of by Christ's appearance and death. In vs. 27 it says "to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease". The sacrifices didn't stop until the temple was burned and oblations have never stopped, because they are the voluntary, gifts and donations to the synagogues around the world even to this day. If a fulfillment isn't 100% fulfilled as written, it/s not the actual fulfillment, just a near copy, 99% isn't good enough. If you want see what the actual fulfillment of the AoD will look like, read Rev. 13:14-15.
Part 2 of the Reflective Narrative:


Desolation of a Relationship: The Long “Times of the Gentiles”

If we think only in terms of destroyed buildings, we will look no further than A.D. 70 and the fall of the second Temple. But Desolation in Daniel is deeper than stones; it reaches into the heart of the covenant people and the presence of God among them. By rejecting and crucifying their Messiah, Israel as a nation steps into a long, prophesied season in which God turns His face away. The Temple is soon destroyed, yes—but more importantly, the living fellowship between God and His people enters a state of spiritual desolation. For roughly two thousand years, the majority of Israel remains blind to the One who fulfilled their own Scriptures. This is the same period the New Testament calls “the times of the Gentiles,” a long parenthesis in which the gospel spreads primarily among the nations while Israel, as a whole, remains hardened. The desolation is not total annihilation; it is a withdrawal of intimacy, a pause in the visible covenant favor that once marked them. The holy relationship is left desolate. And yet, Daniel’s story—and the story of Scripture—does not end there.

The End of Desolation: They Will Look on the One They Pierced

The same God who allowed this desolation for a time has also promised its end. When the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, He will remove the veil from Israel’s eyes. They will look upon “the One they have pierced” and recognize in Him the very Messiah they once rejected. At that moment, the meaning of the abomination will be fully revealed to them. They will see that the greatest sin in their history—the crucifixion of the Holy One—was both the darkest abomination and the very means by which God provided atonement for them and for the nations.

In our understanding of Daniel’s timeline, this awakening leads to a final, intense period of witness. The Jubilee “clock,” paused by Israel’s rejection, resumes when relationship is restored. For a brief 3.5-year span, a faithful remnant of Israel—those identified with the 144,000—will go out into the world preaching the Good News with a clarity and purity not seen since the days of the apostles.

Revelation gives this final witness window a precise form. John writes that God appoints His witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days (Revelation 11:3). That detail matters. “Days” is witness language—meant to be felt. It tells us this will not be an abstract era or a distant prophetic symbol. It will be lived out one day at a time: daily testimony, daily dependence, daily endurance. Their message will expose just how deeply the Word and testimony of God have been distorted over the last fifteen centuries, especially wherever human systems have claimed divine authority yet twisted the character of Christ.

Yet John also describes the same span using a second time marker: 42 months—the period in which what is holy is trampled (Revelation 11:2). This is dominion language. It reveals that the same 3.5-year witness will unfold under a measured, permitted season of opposition. The witnesses speak in days; the opposing system pushes in months. Heaven is showing two sides of the same final segment: 1,260 days of proclamation and 42 months of trampling.

The conflict will not merely surround the witnesses; it will answer them, resist them, and seek to silence them. The result will be a world turned upside down. Old religious structures will be shaken. The little horn will not remain quiet as its authority is challenged and its claims unmasked. The clash of kingdoms will reach its peak.

This is the great tribulation—not merely political turmoil, but the final, global confrontation over worship: whether humanity will bow to the systems of the little horn or to the true Christ. That last 3.5-year window becomes the final crossroads. The same crucified Messiah who once stood as the abomination in the eyes of His nation now stands revealed as the only hope of salvation for Jew and Gentile alike. And when that witness is complete—when the final appointed days have been lived and the final months have run their course—the desolation ends, the 4th Jubilee cycle is finished, and the world stands before the living King.

From Stone to Flesh: The Holy Place God Cares About Most

In the end, the identity of the Abomination of Desolation calls us to look beyond stone walls and shattered altars to the deeper holy place God has always cared about most: the relationship between Himself and His people, and the Person of His Son. Leviticus taught Israel that to profane what is holy, to blur the lines between clean and unclean, and to betray the covenant is an abomination. Daniel warned that such an abomination would bring desolation.

The Gospels quietly reveal that all of those threads meet at Calvary, where the Holy One is treated as the unclean thing, the covenant is seemingly shattered, and the desolation begins. Yet even in this, God is not defeated. He weaves the very worst abomination into His plan of redemption. The crucifixion that brings desolation becomes the sacrifice that opens the way for restoration. The Messiah who was crucified outside the city becomes the cornerstone of a new, living Temple made of people whose hearts have finally turned back to Him.

To see the Abomination of Desolation as the crucifixion of the Messiah is to see Daniel, Leviticus, the Gospels, and the long history of Israel not as scattered pieces, but as one unfolding story. It is the story of a God who allows His own holiness to be violated in order to save those who violated it, who permits desolation for a time in order to bring about a deeper and everlasting reconciliation.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,680
311
83
70
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
The Roman commander Titus was considerably smarter than you. :laughing:

"We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?"

Who didn't have "anything to do w/70ad"? :laughing:
Titus wasn't the "prince to come" and the "people of the prince" weren't Romans. They were conscripted soldiers from the nations surrounding Israel. It's the "people of" that is the important in the context, they not being Romans, who were responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. These will be people of the same 10 nations that the a/c will control. The A/C has many names: The Man of Sin, Son of Perdition, The Lawless One, The Beast, The Wicked One, The Little Horn, The Prince that shall come, Vile Person, Willful King, Idol Shepherd, to name a few, all speaking of the same future person.
 

Trekson

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2012
2,680
311
83
70
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Part 1 of a narrative that comes just after the narratives recently given re: the AOD (parts 1 and 2) found in the New Interpretations commentary on Daniel (if you want a free copy, please PM me or if you have an interest to purchase it directly from Amazon, PM me and I will give the the ISBN # - released as of 3/10/26):



Reflective Narrative:
The identity of the AOD through the lens of Leviticus



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.
No thank you because this is nowhere near reality.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,936
6,865
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
It is the “people” of the prince who is to come that destroys the Temple in 70 AD. That would be the Romans headed by Titus. But it is “they” (pagan Rome) who were the people of this later coming prince- he is the little horn of Daniel 7,8 and 11. This is the main antagonist that will go against the kingdom of God that was established at the cross. He will speak pompous things, think to change times and laws and even claim divinity and the ability to forgive sin - tell me- what more could a person / institution do against God that would be greater than these things and replace God on earth?
Are you claiming that the prince to come mentioned in Daniel 9:26 was not actually the prince/ruler of the people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD, but was some future prince to that time?
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,936
6,865
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Titus wasn't the "prince to come" and the "people of the prince" weren't Romans. They were conscripted soldiers from the nations surrounding Israel.
200w.gif
 

claninja

Active Member
Dec 11, 2022
602
117
43
the south
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
It doesn't imply that. It does not have to refer to an immediate action as of the time He said it. I thought you indicated that you understood that? Apparently not. He was talking about something that He was going to do in the future. He was going to come quickly. That's all He was saying. And the Greek word translated as "quickly" means immediately and without delay, which you have agreed with. So, He couldn't come quickly as an immediate action when He said "I am coming quickly" since He did not come immediately after saying that. You are contradicting the meaning of the word "quickly" if you try to claim that He was already coming at the time He said "I am coming quickly".

Good grief, I know it doesn’t imply that in that context. I said “IF”. I was simply demonstrating the different ways the present tense work……

Present tense verbs demonstrate continuous or linear action.

  • The present tense indicates continuous or linear action. It may represent action that is ongoing as in the above example in 1 John 1:7c; or it may represent action that was in the past, but it is described as though it were occurring now for emphasis sake; and at times it is used to express an event as occurring right now in the view of the writer, versus an ongoing action. Regardless of its nuances, the kind of action is linear or continuous. (Greek Grammar - Greek Verbs Part One)
Christ coming quickly from heaven to earth is a continuous or linear action - “coming from point a to point b”. It’s not continuous as in unending. Christ is constantly coming but never arriving makes no sense. It’s conintuous action between 2 points. I am running a race , is continuous, present tense. “I ran a race”, not continuous, Aorist tense.

If you said to me” what?!? You are not coming to the party tonight”, and I responded, “ oh don’t worry, I am coming to the party tonight”, the action of coming is present tense but not happening right now. It will occur tonight. the present tense talking about the future represents certainty. The action of coming is continous or linear from me leaving my place of origin until I arrive at the party.

You only know the timing of the coming based on context. So Christs says he “is coming quickly”. In a vacuum, without context, grammatically that would be now.

But we have the phrase “do not seal up the vision for the time is near”, which indicates the coming (present tense verb) of Christ quickly is not occurring now, but in the near future from the point of view of John.