The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives

[Davidpt]

Thank you, but I am not saying that. But I am saying it is so difficult at times to discover or uncover the reason why God would place something in His scriptures.—- because there is nothing that does have a purpose. We may never find them until we come face to face with Him but we can ask “why is He telling us this, or does this mean something else?

But what if this issue does tie into something else AND it does not detract from the prophecy AND it does not contradict or prevent one your own interpretations?

What is your understanding of points #1,2, 9 and 10?

Before I get to some of those others you asked about, I will take a go at (8 first

8) Did God have a special reason for waiting 40 years before the Temple would be destroyed - after the cross?

My guess would be in order to give them plenty of space to repent. There could be other reasons as well. Such as the number 40 being significant.

1) Is the second half of the 70th week reserved for the conflict with the beast in Revelation?

Yes, and it's been my position all along. But it's complicated. Not too complicated to understand, but complicated, meaning there's a lot involved in reaching these conclusions.



9) What do we do, if anything, with the final 3.5years after the cross? Are they simply ignored and discussed no further or is there a purpose for them?

That's the problem around here. Very few will even admit that the entire verse, verse 27, pertains to the 70th week. Which then means this is applicable during the final half---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. What we end up with per these that won't admit all of verse 27 is fulfilled during the 70th week, is this. The 2nd half ended with the stoning of Stephen, or something like that. But where can I read about any of that in verse 27, meaning after the part pertaining to the midst of the week? There is nothing even remotely connected to that in verse 27 that I can see.

But I tend to read verse 26 and 27 like such. And once I started doing that, I no longer took a future AC to be meaning the one that fulfills the midst of the week. Initially I placed the gap between verse 69 and 70 but no longer do.

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. And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

When read in that manner it means the 'he' meant in the 2nd half of verse 27 is not meaning the Messiah. It is meaning the prince that shall come, which clearly isn't meaning the Messiah. When read like it is written, it makes the prince that shall come to be meaning all the pronouns in verse 27. Thus you end up with a future AC fulfilling in the midst of the week that the Messiah already fulfilled 2000 years earlier.

Likewise, I read the rest of these 2 verses like such.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. 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

This accomplishes the same things. It means the pronouns meant in the first half of verse 27 are clearly meaning the Messiah. Thus are not meaning the prince that shall come. Even though I place the 2nd half in the future, I'm not making the same mistake others that project the 70th week into the future are making. If those verses are read as written, it can only mean exactly what they are concluding, that all the pronouns in verse 27 are meaning the prince that shall come. Except all of the pronouns are not meaning the prince that shall come.

10) Is there any sort of "gap" pretaining to this prophecy?

Clearly, there is. Verse 27 alone proves it, the fact that verse is pertaining to the 70th week, and that it is absurd that the 2nd half of that verse belongs with the first half of that verse. Therefore, a gap is required. But once again, the way some try and get around that, they flat out deny that all of verse 27 pertains to the 70th week. Which then makes it impossible to reason with a mindset like that.

 

[Davidpt]

Why not? There is no basis whatsoever for your claim. In each case, there is a description of an event that requires those in Judea to flee to the mountains followed some verses later by a description of the second coming of Christ. There is nothing explicit in Luke 21 telling us that there is a time period of at least 2,000 years between Luke 21:20 and Luke 21:27 and, yet, you can still discern that. But, somehow, it's not possible for there to be 2,000 years between a description of an event requiring people in Judea to flee to the mountains and the second coming of Christ in Matthew 24? Where is the consistency in this? If there can be 2,000 years between Luke 21:20 and Luke 21:27 then there is no basis for thinking that there can't also be 2,000 years between Matthew 24:15 and Matthew 24:30. You have to resort to denying that Luke 21:20-24a and Matthew 24:15-22 are parallel passages in order to draw this conclusion despite them so clearly being parallel passages.

Some of what I'm factoring in, which you apparently aren't, is this.

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:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.



This---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be--- clearly equals this in Daniel 12:1, IMO---and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time. But there is more to verse 1 than just that. Where everything else in that verse clearly proves 70 AD isn't meant.

But you are not disputing that Daniel 12:1 is not involving 70 AD. You are disputing that Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 are involving the same events, thus the same of era of time. But if you accepted that they are indeed involving the same events, the same era time, you would then be interpreting Matthew 24:21 exactly like I do. You would have no choice but to, otherwise you would be blatantly contradicting yourself if you agreed both passages are involving the same events, same era of time.

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

Plus, I'm applying Matthew 24:23-26 to that of Matthew 24:15-21. Where it is crystal clear to most of us, maybe even you, that verses 23-26 are involving 2 Thessalonians 2, for one. And since 2 Thessalonians 2 obviously fit in the end of the age, verses 15-21 can't be meaning 70 AD if verses 15-21are involving verses 23-26, where most interpreters tend to agree they do. Probably everyone except for maybe you and anyone else that holds the same view as you do. Which I would guess aren't that many. Definitely a minority view, having verses 15-21 mean 70 AD then having verse 30 mean the 2nd coming. Then you not even accepting that verses 23-26 belong with verses 15-21.

 

[grafted branch]

Does that mean it also includes some Amils interpreting it in that manner as well? Of course though, they wouldn't be taking the millennium to be future still. But that is beside the point. TBH, this is the first I have ever heard of anyone viewing it in this manner. Therefore, I'm not exactly certain what you are meaning?

I don’t know about any Amil folks believing that, some of the preterist folks I talk with thought it was a definite possibility.

I have a Premil friend that we occasionally discuss eschatology and he’s the one that explained it to me, I’m not sure where he got it from. He said the word “transgression” <6588> means a willful rebellion, not just a sin but a deliberate act against God. He said this aligns with our current situation and the Gog/Magog event after the millennium, but in the future millennium deliberate rebellious acts against God won’t take place because that’s when they will be imprisoned which has to do with Satan being bound in the bottomless pit. I disagreed with my friend on this, but that’s how he interpreted that part of Daniel 9:24.

 

[CTK]

I don’t know about any Amil folks believing that, some of the preterist folks I talk with thought it was a definite possibility.

I have a Premil friend that we occasionally discuss eschatology and he’s the one that explained it to me, I’m not sure where he got it from. He said the word “transgression” <6588> means a willful rebellion, not just a sin but a deliberate act against God. He said this aligns with our current situation and the Gog/Magog event after the millennium, but in the future millennium deliberate rebellious acts against God won’t take place because that’s when they will be imprisoned which has to do with Satan being bound in the bottomless pit. I disagreed with my friend on this, but that’s how he interpreted that part of Daniel 9:24.

I will attempt to address some of David’s comments tomorrow and hopefully, at least some will be accepted. But I will have to agree that anytime someone offers a very different interpretation, it is usually not accepted until….

But regarding your thoughts on the “transgression that causes desolation, and in another verse the phrase used is “abomination that causes desolation,” is it possible these phrases point to the Messiah?

If we pull the phrase apart, what are we showing:

1) an abominable act,
2) causes .. this act causes something to happen,
3) desolation - what does this mean, what is being made desolate? Are we concerned about the destruction of the Temple? Didn’t Jesus do away with the Temple, the first 4 feast days, the animal sacrifices, isn’t He our High Priest? So, those things found in Leviticus we’re pointing to the coming Messiah… He fulfilled all of them so should they have any further importance? (Regardless of whether the Jews who rejected Him may still consider them important).

What could possibly be the most “abominable” act in the history of mankind that ALSO is spoken of in Leviticus? Just something to consider…

 

[grafted branch]

I will attempt to address some of David’s comments tomorrow and hopefully, at least some will be accepted. But I will have to agree that anytime someone offers a very different interpretation, it is usually not accepted until….

But regarding your thoughts on the “transgression that causes desolation, and in another verse the phrase used is “abomination that causes desolation,” is it possible these phrases point to the Messiah?

If we pull the phrase apart, what are we showing:

1) an abominable act,
2) causes .. this act causes something to happen,
3) desolation - what does this mean, what is being made desolate? Are we concerned about the destruction of the Temple? Didn’t Jesus do away with the Temple, the first 4 feast days, the animal sacrifices, isn’t He our High Priest? So, those things found in Leviticus we’re pointing to the coming Messiah… He fulfilled all of them so should they have any further importance? (Regardless of whether the Jews who rejected Him may still consider them important).

What could possibly be the most “abominable” act in the history of mankind that ALSO is spoken of in Leviticus? Just something to consider…

I think you’re putting the most abominable act as crucifying the Messiah, and having the AOD being fulfilled and transgression being finished at the cross.

Let me get your thoughts on the word “finish” in Daniel 9:24.

In our English vocabulary the word finish usually means to stop an activity or task after reaching the point at which there is nothing left to do. The word “finish” <3607> doesn’t quite seem to have the same English meaning, <3607> appears to mean to restrain. That restrainment causes something to be finished as long as it remains restrained but not necessarily finished in absolute terms. The noun form of the word “finish” <3607> is <3608> which means prison, confinement, enclosure.

Putting all this together, the transgression is imprisoned and if that imprisonment is a life sentence without parole then the transgression will never happen again. However if the imprisonment has a shorter sentence, say one thousand years, then the transgression will happen again.

Daniel 9:24 gets fulfilled during the seventy weeks, which tells us when the transgression is imprisoned but doesn’t tell us how long the imprisonment is. Do you see any other verses in Daniel that point to the length of the imprisonment?

 

[Davidpt]

But regarding your thoughts on the “transgression that causes desolation, and in another verse the phrase used is “abomination that causes desolation,” is it possible these phrases point to the Messiah?

No there is not. There are numerous clues in the text itself in Matthew 24 that prove otherwise. Such as verses 16-21. Regardless how verses 16-20 need to be understood, verse 21 alone proves that you can't apply "abomination that causes desolation" to the Messiah, in any sense. It was simply not true, that during the death and resurrection of the Messiah, that this was the case at the time---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


One cannot divorce that from verse 15. You can't have verse 15 without it involving verse 21. You can't have verse 21 without it involving verse 15. Whoever has been filling your head with the idea that maybe "abomination that causes desolation" can point to the Messiah, you need to quit listening to them. They are liars since "abomination that causes desolation" does not point to the Messiah. But the Messiah puts an end to the AOD per His bodily return in the end of this age. And it's not like the NT is silent about anything abominable. If some think it is, well they apparently forgot to read Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Revelation 17 then, for one.

But getting back to the OP...

It really makes sense doesn't it, that in light of chapters such as Revelation 17, that the AOD pertaining to Matthew 24 and Mark 13 fit 70 AD, not the final days of this age. Wow, imagine that, there was an AOD involving 70 AD but it is not involving Revelation 17 in any way. And that the one involving 70 AD was greater in scale. Has no equal, nor can be surpassed. After all, one can't divorce Matthew 24:21 from that of verse 15.

But if Matthew 24:21 isn't clear enough as to what is meant, try Mark 13 then--For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. Seriously, what part of--neither shall be--is difficult to comprehend? If we apply that to 70 AD, it simply means this era of time was greater in scale than the abominations involving Revelation 17. That not even the abominable acts in Revelation 17 can equal it nor surpass it.

What a joke. These interpreters can't be taken seriously in regards to what their interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 implies in light of chapters, such as Revelation 17. Not to mention, their interpretation implies that great tribulation allegedly involving 70 AD was and is greater in scale than great tribulation involving Revelation 7. After all, Mark 13 says--neither shall be--meaning in regards to this--For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time. Except Jesus didn't stop there. He also added this--neither shall be

And these people who are interpreting these things in this manner and are insisting they are interpreting Scripture with Scriptures, don't even fully grasp what it means to interpret Scripture with Scripture to begin with. They prove it time and time again per their interpretations. Because they are interpreting a lot of these things in a vacuum. Probably because it involves too much digging deeper on their part, and that it's simply easier to apply these things to 70 AD despite Revelation 17 and what all that involves simply does not fit 70 AD.

And that Revelation 17 is clearly more abominable than what they assume Mathew 24:15 is. Per their interpretation, they have Matthew 24:15 being more abominable than everything written in Revelation 17 put together. After all, Jesus did say this in regard to verse 15 , no, nor ever shall be. Which clearly means it can't be equaled nor surpassed in intensity and greatness by anything that preceded it nor follows it. As if Revelation 17 would not surpass it in intensity and greatness, in regard to abominable things. That assuming Matthew 24:15-21 is involving 70 AD. Except the abominable acts per Revelation 17 can't surpass 70 AD per their interpretation. Jesus already makes that clear via this--no, nor ever shall be. The way to square things then, in order to not make nonsense out of Revelation 7 nor Revelation 17, is simple. Matthew 24:15-21 is not involving the first century leading up to 70 AD. Now there are no conflicts with Revelation 7 nor with Revelation 17.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Before I get to some of those others you asked about, I will take a go at (8 first

8) Did God have a special reason for waiting 40 years before the Temple would be destroyed - after the cross?

My guess would be in order to give them plenty of space to repent. There could be other reasons as well. Such as the number 40 being significant.

1) Is the second half of the 70th week reserved for the conflict with the beast in Revelation?

Yes, and it's been my position all along. But it's complicated. Not too complicated to understand, but complicated, meaning there's a lot involved in reaching these conclusions.



9) What do we do, if anything, with the final 3.5years after the cross? Are they simply ignored and discussed no further or is there a purpose for them?

That's the problem around here. Very few will even admit that the entire verse, verse 27, pertains to the 70th week. Which then means this is applicable during the final half---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. What we end up with per these that won't admit all of verse 27 is fulfilled during the 70th week, is this. The 2nd half ended with the stoning of Stephen, or something like that. But where can I read about any of that in verse 27, meaning after the part pertaining to the midst of the week? There is nothing even remotely connected to that in verse 27 that I can see.

But I tend to read verse 26 and 27 like such. And once I started doing that, I no longer took a future AC to be meaning the one that fulfills the midst of the week. Initially I placed the gap between verse 69 and 70 but no longer do.

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. And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

When read in that manner it means the 'he' meant in the 2nd half of verse 27 is not meaning the Messiah. It is meaning the prince that shall come, which clearly isn't meaning the Messiah. When read like it is written, it makes the prince that shall come to be meaning all the pronouns in verse 27. Thus you end up with a future AC fulfilling in the midst of the week that the Messiah already fulfilled 2000 years earlier.

Who do you think are the people that destroy the city and the sanctuary and what is your understanding of the identity of the city and the sanctuary?

 

[CTK]

I think you’re putting the most abominable act as crucifying the Messiah, and having the AOD being fulfilled and transgression being finished at the cross.

Let me get your thoughts on the word “finish” in Daniel 9:24.

In our English vocabulary the word finish usually means to stop an activity or task after reaching the point at which there is nothing left to do. The word “finish” <3607> doesn’t quite seem to have the same English meaning, <3607> appears to mean to restrain. That restrainment causes something to be finished as long as it remains restrained but not necessarily finished in absolute terms. The noun form of the word “finish” <3607> is <3608> which means prison, confinement, enclosure.

Putting all this together, the transgression is imprisoned and if that imprisonment is a life sentence without parole then the transgression will never happen again. However if the imprisonment has a shorter sentence, say one thousand years, then the transgression will happen again.

Daniel 9:24 gets fulfilled during the seventy weeks, which tells us when the transgression is imprisoned but doesn’t tell us how long the imprisonment is. Do you see any other verses in Daniel that point to the length of the imprisonment?

This might appear to be a focus on the word “finish,” but I think meaning of the word has to be understood within the full context of Daniel 9:24, not in isolation. The verse doesn’t present a single action, but a series of six parallel purposes: finishing transgression, making an end of sins, making reconciliation for iniquity, bringing in everlasting righteousness, sealing up vision and prophecy, and anointing the Most Holy.

If “finish” is taken to mean only a temporary restraint, then it becomes difficult to see how that fits with the rest of the verse. For example, “making reconciliation for iniquity” and “bringing in everlasting righteousness” don’t naturally describe something temporary or reversible. They point to something decisive and foundational. So even if the word carries a nuance of restraint, the broader context seems to require more than that—it points to the decisive dealing with sin at its root, not merely holding it back for a period of time.

I also think there’s an important distinction between sin continuing to exist in the world and sin being decisively addressed. The New Testament consistently presents the cross as the point where reconciliation is made and righteousness is established, even though the full effects of that work are not yet universally realized. So the question may not be whether sin still appears after the seventy weeks, but whether something happened within that period that fundamentally dealt with it. And when Daniel 9 is read as a whole—especially with the Messiah being “cut off” and confirming the covenant within that same framework—it seems to point in that direction.

I’m not sure the “imprisonment” idea fully accounts for the rest of the verse, especially when all six purposes are taken together. Thanks for your response!

 

[grafted branch]

This might appear to be a focus on the word “finish,” but I think meaning of the word has to be understood within the full context of Daniel 9:24, not in isolation. The verse doesn’t present a single action, but a series of six parallel purposes: finishing transgression, making an end of sins, making reconciliation for iniquity, bringing in everlasting righteousness, sealing up vision and prophecy, and anointing the Most Holy.

If “finish” is taken to mean only a temporary restraint, then it becomes difficult to see how that fits with the rest of the verse. For example, “making reconciliation for iniquity” and “bringing in everlasting righteousness” don’t naturally describe something temporary or reversible. They point to something decisive and foundational. So even if the word carries a nuance of restraint, the broader context seems to require more than that—it points to the decisive dealing with sin at its root, not merely holding it back for a period of time.

I also think there’s an important distinction between sin continuing to exist in the world and sin being decisively addressed. The New Testament consistently presents the cross as the point where reconciliation is made and righteousness is established, even though the full effects of that work are not yet universally realized. So the question may not be whether sin still appears after the seventy weeks, but whether something happened within that period that fundamentally dealt with it. And when Daniel 9 is read as a whole—especially with the Messiah being “cut off” and confirming the covenant within that same framework—it seems to point in that direction.

I’m not sure the “imprisonment” idea fully accounts for the rest of the verse, especially when all six purposes are taken together. Thanks for your response!

Yes, I actually did bring up the point about how all six points are eternal and permanent to my friend as a rebuttal to his view. He counter that with this … “to make an end” of sins uses the same word <2856> that is translated as “to seal up” the vision in Daniel 9:24, and Daniel 12:4,9 uses seal up <2856> the book till the time of the end. He then argued that the two points of sin and the vision being sealed up take place during the 70 weeks but then are no longer sealed at the time of the end, similar to what happens with transgression being finished. My friend has three points eternal and three point temporal. I didn’t give a counter argument to that, I just disagreed with his thinking and said I need to look at it further before I come to a conclusion about it.

 

[CTK]

No there is not. There are numerous clues in the text itself in Matthew 24 that prove otherwise. Such as verses 16-21. Regardless how verses 16-20 need to be understood, verse 21 alone proves that you can't apply "abomination that causes desolation" to the Messiah, in any sense. It was simply not true, that during the death and resurrection of the Messiah, that this was the case at the time---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


One cannot divorce that from verse 15. You can't have verse 15 without it involving verse 21. You can't have verse 21 without it involving verse 15. Whoever has been filling your head with the idea that maybe "abomination that causes desolation" can point to the Messiah, you need to quit listening to them. They are liars since "abomination that causes desolation" does not point to the Messiah. But the Messiah puts an end to the AOD per His bodily return in the end of this age. And it's not like the NT is silent about anything abominable. If some think it is, well they apparently forgot to read Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Revelation 17 then, for one.

It really makes sense doesn't it, that in light of chapters such as Revelation 17, that the AOD pertaining to Matthew 24 and Mark 13 fit 70 AD, not the final days of this age. Wow, imagine that, there was an AOD involving 70 AD but it is not involving Revelation 17 in any way. And that the one involving 70 AD was greater in scale. Has no equal, nor can be surpassed. After all, one can't divorce Matthew 24:21 from that of verse 15.

But if Matthew 24:21 isn't clear enough as to what is meant, try Mark 13 then--For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. Seriously, what part of--neither shall be--is difficult to comprehend? If we apply that to 70 AD, it simply means this era of time was greater in scale than the abominations involving Revelation 17. That not even the abominable acts in Revelation 17 can equal it nor surpass it.

What a joke. These interpreters can't be taken seriously in regards to what their interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 implies in light of chapters, such as Revelation 17. Not to mention, their interpretation implies that great tribulation allegedly involving 70 AD was and is greater in scale than great tribulation involving Revelation 7. After all, Mark 13 says--neither shall be--meaning in regards to this--For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time. Except Jesus didn't stop there. He also added this--neither shall be

And these people who are interpreting these things in this manner and are insisting they are interpreting Scripture with Scriptures, don't even fully grasp what it means to interpret Scripture with Scripture to begin with. They prove it time and time again per their interpretations. Because they are interpreting a lot of these things in a vacuum. Probably because it involves too much digging deeper on their part, and that it's simply easier to apply these things to 70 AD despite Revelation 17 and what all that involves simply does not fit 70 AD.

And that Revelation 17 is clearly more abominable than what they assume Mathew 24:15 is. Per their interpretation, they have Matthew 24:15 being more abominable than everything written in Revelation 17 put together. After all, Jesus did say this in regard to verse 15 , no, nor ever shall be. Which clearly means it can't be equaled nor surpassed in intensity and greatness by anything that preceded it nor follows it. As if Revelation 17 would not surpass it in intensity and greatness, in regard to abominable things. That assuming Matthew 24:15-21 is involving 70 AD. Except the abominable acts per Revelation 17 can't surpass 70 AD per their interpretation. Jesus already makes that clear via this--no, nor ever shall be. The way to square things then, in order to not make nonsense out of Revelation 7 nor Revelation 17, is simple. Matthew 24:15-21 is not involving the first century leading up to 70 AD. Now their are no conflicts with Revelation 7 nor with Revelation 17.

I think it might help to step back and look at the structure of both Daniel and Matthew more simply, because both passages actually describe more than one event.

First, Daniel

In Book of Daniel 9:26–27, we are not given one single event, but a sequence of related events:

The Messiah is cut off
This is a personal, covenantal event involving the Messiah Himself.​

Desolation follows​

This is the result of what has taken place—a spiritual and covenantal consequence.

The city and sanctuary are destroyed
This is a later, visible, historical event involving Jerusalem.​

So Daniel already shows us that these things are connected, but not identical. They happen in sequence, not all as one single moment.


Now, Matthew 24

In Gospel of Matthew 24:3, the disciples actually ask three different questions:

When will these things be?
(referring to the Temple’s destruction)​

​

What will be the sign of Your coming?​

​

What will be the end of the age?​

Those are three different issues. They may be related, but they are not the same question. If we assume all three questions are about the exact same event at the exact same time, then everything Jesus says afterward will be forced into one single interpretation—usually an end-time scenario.

But that is the same kind of flattening that we just saw in Daniel.

Daniel shows:

Messiah cut off​

desolation​

later destruction​

Matthew shows:

Temple destruction​

His coming​

end of the age​

So in both cases, we are dealing with multiple related events, not one single event described in different ways. When Jesus refers back to Daniel in Matthew 24:15, He is pointing to a prophecy that already contains layers—a central act involving the Messiah, followed by desolation, and then historical judgment. So the question is not whether verse 21 describes real tribulation—it does. The question is whether everything in the passage must refer to one single event in one single time period.

Daniel does not do that.
Matthew does not do that.​

So it may be more accurate to say that Jesus is describing a sequence of connected events—some immediate, some later, and some final—rather than one single moment that has to carry the full meaning of every verse. I don’t think verse 21 cancels out a deeper / Messianic reading of verse 15. It may actually be describing what unfolds from the very event Daniel places at the center of the prophecy.

Finally, in the commentary, I do indeed discuss the Olivet Discourse as it pertains to the prophecies in Daniel. Further, I believe I have supported the idea the crucifixion of the Messiah is the “abominable” act THAT CAUSES DESOLATION. But candidly, these are very deep conversations that should / might take place after the earlier questions have been discussed. Meaning, so many folks may not spend enough time interpreting the verses in Daniel BEFORE they jump to a Matthew or Revelation verse. Remember, Daniel was written to His people as they will return from captivity and they will soon be meeting their Messiah. God is giving them all the information / prophecies that point to His first coming. They do not have any of the NT books to search through – but that is indeed why they were written - to point them back to the Hebrew scriptures. So, we might first stay in Daniel to see what it says and then we can see if it the interpretation is confirmed in the NT. Daniel is easily the most complicated and difficult book in Scripture to unpack and interpret.

Now, I am not sure where we left off from our discussion of the 10 questions identified earlier, but I will leave that up to you - perhaps you might review them again and tell me which question we should focus on ---(one at a time). Thanks.

 

[CTK]

Yes, I actually did bring up the point about how all six points are eternal and permanent to my friend as a rebuttal to his view. He counter that with this … “to make an end” of sins uses the same word <2856> that is translated as “to seal up” the vision in Daniel 9:24, and Daniel 12:4,9 uses seal up <2856> the book till the time of the end. He then argued that the two points of sin and the vision being sealed up take place during the 70 weeks but then are no longer sealed at the time of the end, similar to what happens with transgression being finished. My friend has three points eternal and three point temporal. I didn’t give a counter argument to that, I just disagreed with his thinking and said I need to look at it further before I come to a conclusion about it.

Thanks for your reply. I understand the connection you’re making with the word “seal.” But I think the key issue here is how the word is functioning in its context, not just that it’s the same word. I am sure you will agree that Scripture will use the exact same Hebrew word in different books of the bible and yet mean very different things. For example, the words “tree,” “anointed one.” “spirit,” “day,” “house,” “horn,” and “servant.”

In Daniel 12, when the book is “sealed,” it clearly means something like concealed or preserved until a later time—something hidden that will be opened. This is because Daniel was written to “His people” and would be read, studied, and hopefully properly interpreted BEFORE HIS FIRST COMING. But in Daniel 9:24, the phrase “seal up vision and prophecy” seems to function differently. In that context, it appears to point more toward bringing prophecy to its intended fulfillment or confirmation, not temporarily closing it off.

I also think it’s important to look at all six purposes in Daniel 9:24 together. The verse presents them as a unified set: finishing transgression, making an end of sins, making reconciliation for iniquity, bringing in everlasting righteousness, sealing vision and prophecy, and anointing the Most Holy. There isn’t anything in the text itself that divides these into temporary versus eternal categories.

If “making an end of sins” is taken as something temporary, then it raises a question about how that fits with “everlasting righteousness” in the same list. One seems temporary in that reading, while the other is explicitly permanent, which makes the structure harder to hold together. So I think the stronger approach is to let the context guide the meaning. In Daniel 12, “seal” is about concealment until a future time. In Daniel 9, it seems to be about fulfillment—bringing the prophetic message to completion through the Messiah. That allows all six purposes to remain coherent as part of one unified redemptive work rather than splitting them into different categories.

 

[grafted branch]

Thanks for your reply. I understand the connection you’re making with the word “seal.” But I think the key issue here is how the word is functioning in its context, not just that it’s the same word. I am sure you will agree that Scripture will use the exact same Hebrew word in different books of the bible and yet mean very different things. For example, the words “tree,” “anointed one.” “spirit,” “day,” “house,” “horn,” and “servant.”

In Daniel 12, when the book is “sealed,” it clearly means something like concealed or preserved until a later time—something hidden that will be opened. This is because Daniel was written to “His people” and would be read, studied, and hopefully properly interpreted BEFORE HIS FIRST COMING. But in Daniel 9:24, the phrase “seal up vision and prophecy” seems to function differently. In that context, it appears to point more toward bringing prophecy to its intended fulfillment or confirmation, not temporarily closing it off.

I also think it’s important to look at all six purposes in Daniel 9:24 together. The verse presents them as a unified set: finishing transgression, making an end of sins, making reconciliation for iniquity, bringing in everlasting righteousness, sealing vision and prophecy, and anointing the Most Holy. There isn’t anything in the text itself that divides these into temporary versus eternal categories.

If “making an end of sins” is taken as something temporary, then it raises a question about how that fits with “everlasting righteousness” in the same list. One seems temporary in that reading, while the other is explicitly permanent, which makes the structure harder to hold together. So I think the stronger approach is to let the context guide the meaning. In Daniel 12, “seal” is about concealment until a future time. In Daniel 9, it seems to be about fulfillment—bringing the prophetic message to completion through the Messiah. That allows all six purposes to remain coherent as part of one unified redemptive work rather than splitting them into different categories.

Do you know of any examples where the word “sealed” is meant as permanent, never to be opened again? Besides in Daniel 9:24.

 

[Davidpt]

So it may be more accurate to say that Jesus is describing a sequence of connected events—some immediate, some later, and some final—rather than one single moment that has to carry the full meaning of every verse.

Pretty much how I see things to begin with. Therefore, I find this perfectly reasonable, and that I fully agree with you here. As to the Discourse, it's not all past nor all future. It simply means what transpires during His ascension, then what transpires when He returns. And that 70 AD was part of that, but not the main focus throughout as Preterists would have us believe. Nor all future as some Futurists would have us believe.

I don’t think verse 21 cancels out a deeper / Messianic reading of verse 15. It may actually be describing what unfolds from the very event Daniel places at the center of the prophecy.

Maybe the problem is me, that I'm just not seeing what you are meaning? So maybe you are meaning something that is not even what I think you might be meaning? I just don't know what you are trying to say and are meaning by these things? So I guess until I do, assuming I eventually do, in the meantime maybe I should allow you more time to elaborate further before doing what I already did---shooting first, then asking questions later.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Some of what I'm factoring in, which you apparently aren't,

There is nothing that I'm not factoring in. You should know by now that I've looked at this from every angle that you have.

is this.

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:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.



This---For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be--- clearly equals this in Daniel 12:1, IMO---and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time. But there is more to verse 1 than just that. Where everything else in that verse clearly proves 70 AD isn't meant.

Do you actually not remember that we've already discussed this several times before? Apparently so, since you act like I haven't factored this in. What is the point of discussing anything with you when you don't remember anything that we discuss?

What YOU apparently don't factor in is that the location of the great tribulation Jesus talked about there is said to be in Judea, not the entire world. So, that's a big fail on your part to miss the context of the passage.

Also, Jesus did NOT say it would be a tribulation greater in scope than any other before. How can there be a tribulation greater in scope than the flood in Noah's day? Impossible. So, that's not what He was saying. What He was saying is that it would be UNLIKE any other tribulation that had occurred before or ever would again and what happened in 70 AD fits that description. Nowhere before or since was there a time of tribulation like what happened in Judea and in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

But you are not disputing that Daniel 12:1 is not involving 70 AD.

Exactly. That is talking about a tribulation unlike any other as well, but that is referring to global tribulation like what is described in 2 Peter 3:10-12.

You are disputing that Daniel 12:1 and Matthew 24:21 are involving the same events, thus the same of era of time. But if you accepted that they are indeed involving the same events, the same era time, you would then be interpreting Matthew 24:21 exactly like I do. You would have no choice but to, otherwise you would be blatantly contradicting yourself if you agreed both passages are involving the same events, same era of time.

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

Plus, I'm applying Matthew 24:23-26 to that of Matthew 24:15-21. Where it is crystal clear to most of us, maybe even you, that verses 23-26 are involving 2 Thessalonians 2, for one. And since 2 Thessalonians 2 obviously fit in the end of the age, verses 15-21 can't be meaning 70 AD if verses 15-21are involving verses 23-26, where most interpreters tend to agree they do. Probably everyone except for maybe you and anyone else that holds the same view as you do. Which I would guess aren't that many. Definitely a minority view, having verses 15-21 mean 70 AD then having verse 30 mean the 2nd coming. Then you not even accepting that verses 23-26 belong with verses 15-21.

Yes, I believe that Matthew 24:23-26 applies to the same thing as 2 Thessalonians 2. But, how are you concluding that I have the minority view on this? Show me the results of the global study you did which backs up your claim. Not that it matters, though. The majority view is not always right, of course. Actually, it might be wrong more often than it's right.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Pretty much how I see things to begin with. Therefore, I find this perfectly reasonable, and that I fully agree with you here. As to the Discourse, it's not all past nor all future.

But, somehow, you conclude that the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 accounts of the Olivet Discourse are all future. That's a major weakness in your view since you have no explanation whatsoever for why Matthew and Mark would have chosen not to record Jesus's answer to the disciples' first question.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Now, Matthew 24

In Gospel of Matthew 24:3, the disciples actually ask three different questions:

When will these things be?​

(referring to the Temple’s destruction)​

​

What will be the sign of Your coming?​

​

What will be the end of the age?​

Those are three different issues. They may be related, but they are not the same question. If we assume all three questions are about the exact same event at the exact same time, then everything Jesus says afterward will be forced into one single interpretation—usually an end-time scenario.

If the disciples asked three different questions then why are only two questions recorded in the Mark 13 and Luke 21 accounts? I personally see the question about the sign of His coming and the end of the age as one question. Do you not believe that His coming occurs at the end of the age?

 

[Davidpt]

Who do you think are the people that destroy the city and the sanctuary and what is your understanding of the identity of the city and the sanctuary?

I think it's meaning the people that fall away and worship the beast instead, that they corrupt the city and sanctuary spiritually. I Also use Daniel 11 to help determine that, except most interpreters are brain-washed by past Commentators insisting those verses are involving the days of A4E.

Unfortunately this ended up somewhat lengthy and was obviously a big waste of my time, in regards to submitting this to you for food for thought if nothing else. But since I already typed it out, I may as well post it, then get it over with that you reject all of this as well. That I couldn't possibly be onto anything here.


Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.


Clearly, involving Daniel 12:10-11 by comparing both passages. Except nothing in Daniel 12 could possibly be involving the days of A4E. Daniel 12 is only involving an era of time when a resurrection event is possible at the end of it. There was no such era of time pertaining to the days of A4E. In Daniel 12, one can't divorce verse 1 from verse 10 and 11. Matthew 24 proves that.

Take verse 33 above, for instance. Compare that with Revelation 13:10. I'll be the first to tell you, I'm not certain what Revelation 13:10 is meaning. But what I notice is this, it has this in common with Daniel 11:33--captivity and sword. Just a coinencedence? Maybe. But then again, maybe not. Something else interesting about verse 33 is this---many days.

Except the text never tells us what is meant by this 'many days'. Does that mean we just keep on guessing? Or could there eventually be something that tells us what are meant by this 'many days'? I tend to think there is. And that the same chapter I'm already connecting with, Revelation 13, provides the answer. That being in verse 5---and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. Therefore, IMO, these 'many days' in question is meaning this 42 months the beast is allowed to continue.

And if we look further in Daniel 11, we see this.

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.


Compare some of that with 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Compare this--and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods--with this in Revelation 13:5-6---And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things---And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

But getting back to your initial question, me still using Daniel 11. Notice in Daniel 11:31-35 that it is involving some, such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries, that are likely meaning the people of the prince that shall come, that prince meaning the one meant in Daniel 11:31, which in turn is meaning the king meant in Daniel 11:36, and that they are trying to corrupt something, and not destroy literal buildings and literal places.

Also notice that it involves the covenant, the same thing Daniel 9:27 is involving. And that it is these in verses 33-35 that Christ continues confirming the covenant with during the 2nd half of the 70th week in the end of this age. Thus is involving the last half of verse 27. It's not like Daniel 11:31-35 and Daniel 9:27 have nothing in common. They both have this in common, both are involving a covenant. Where some are doing wickedly concerning the covenant but some aren't. Both are involving abominations. Both lead to a final end eventually, but that the final end is shown in Daniel 12 not Daniel 11, and is shown in Daniel 9 per the remainder of verse 27.

This also connects with Daniel 8 as well, yet another chapter a lot of interpreters insist is involving A4E, and not the one meant in Revelation 13:5-6 instead. But I don't want to get into all of that as well. This subject is very complex. It's way over all of our heads, incuding mine. But even so, I can kind of tell what's going on with some of it, but not fully. But at least maybe better than some. This subject is spread out over 2 testamants and numerous books in those testaments. And to think any of these things have to do with A4E or even 70 AD, is aburd, IMO.

And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white. This is also echoed in Daniel 12, where in Daniel 12 there is nothing, as in zero, in that entire chapter that is meaning before Christ was born. Nor is there anything in that entire chapter that is meaning before Christ died, then rose, then ascended back into heaven. Therefore, the fact this is also echoed in Daniel 12, it is ludicrous to apply anything in Daniel 11:31-45 to that of the days of A4E. The fact Daniel 12 disagrees. Keeping in mind, Daniel 12:1 continues where Daniel 11 left off. As if this gets fulfilled twice and at different times---And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think it's meaning the people that fall away and worship the beast instead, that they corrupt the city and sanctuary spiritually.

What city and sanctuary are you referring to exactly?

I Also use Daniel 11 to help determine that, except most interpreters are brain-washed by past Commentators insisting those verses are involving the days of A4E.

Unfortunately this ended up somewhat lengthy and was obviously a big waste of my time, in regards to submitting this to you for food for thought if nothing else. But since I already typed it out, I may as well post it, then get it over with that you reject all of this as well. That I couldn't possibly be onto anything here.


Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.


Clearly, involving Daniel 12:10-11 by comparing both passages. Except nothing in Daniel 12 could possibly be involving the days of A4E. Daniel 12 is only involving an era of time when a resurrection event is possible at the end of it. There was no such era of time pertaining to the days of A4E. In Daniel 12, one can't divorce verse 1 from verse 10 and 11. Matthew 24 proves that.

Take verse 33 above, for instance. Compare that with Revelation 13:10. I'll be the first to tell you, I'm not certain what Revelation 13:10 is meaning. But what I notice is this, it has this in common with Daniel 11:33--captivity and sword. Just a coinencedence? Maybe. But then again, maybe not. Something else interesting about verse 33 is this---many days.

Except the text never tells us what is meant by this 'many days'. Does that mean we just keep on guessing? Or could there eventually be something that tells us what are meant by this 'many days'? I tend to think there is. And that the same chapter I'm already connecting with, Revelation 13, provides the answer. That being in verse 5---and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. Therefore, IMO, these 'many days' in question is meaning this 42 months the beast is allowed to continue.

And if we look further in Daniel 11, we see this.

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.


Compare some of that with 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Compare this--and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods--with this in Revelation 13:5-6---And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things---And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

But getting back to your initial question, me still using Daniel 11. Notice in Daniel 11:31-35 that it is involving some, such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries, that are likely meaning the people of the prince that shall come, that prince meaning the one meant in Daniel 11:31, which in turn is meaning the king meant in Daniel 11:36, and that they are trying to corrupt something, and not destroy literal buildings and literal places.

Also notice that it involves the covenant, the same thing Daniel 9:27 is involving. And that it is these in verses 33-35 that Christ continues confirming the covenant with during the 2nd half of the 70th week in the end of this age. Thus is involving the last half of verse 27. It's not like Daniel 11:31-35 and Daniel 9:27 have nothing in common. They both have this in common, both are involving a covenant. Where some are doing wickedly concerning the covenant but some aren't. Both are involving abominations. Both lead to a final end eventually, but that the final end is shown in Daniel 12 not Daniel 11, and is shown in Daniel 9 per the remainder of verse 27.

This also connects with Daniel 8 as well, yet another chapter a lot of interpreters insist is involving A4E, and not the one meant in Revelation 13:5-6 instead. But I don't want to get into all of that as well. This subject is very complex. It's way over all of our heads, incuding mine. But even so, I can kind of tell what's going on with some of it, but not fully. But at least maybe better than some. This subject is spread out over 2 testamants and numerous books in those testaments. And to think any of these things have to do with A4E or even 70 AD, is aburd, IMO.

And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white. This is also echoed in Daniel 12, where in Daniel 12 there is nothing, as in zero, in that entire chapter that is meaning before Christ was born. Nor is there anything in that entire chapter that is meaning before Christ died, then rose, then ascended back into heaven. Therefore, the fact this is also echoed in Daniel 12, it is ludicrous to apply anything in Daniel 11:31-45 to that of the days of A4E. The fact Daniel 12 disagrees. Keeping in mind, Daniel 12:1 continues where Daniel 11 left off. As if this gets fulfilled twice and at different times---And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white

I feel sorry for you. I really do. You often make things far more complicated than they are. It's sad that you do that, but that's just you. Do you believe that the physical city of Jerusalem and the physical sanctuary were destroyed because the Messiah was cut off and rejected?

 

[CTK]

Do you know of any examples where the word “sealed” is meant as permanent, never to be opened again? Besides in Daniel 9:24.

I don’t think the issue is whether “seal” always means “permanently closed and never opened again.” It often does not. But it also does not always mean “temporarily hidden until later.”

In Scripture, sealing can mean to authorize, confirm, ratify, or make something legally established. For example, royal letters were sealed to show authority (1 Kings 21:8), the Persian decree sealed with the king’s ring could not be revoked (Esther 8:8), Jeremiah sealed a deed of purchase as a legal confirmation (Jeremiah 32:10–14), and the people sealed a covenant in Nehemiah 9:38–10:1.

So in Daniel 12, sealing the book clearly means concealing it until the time of the end. But in Daniel 9:24, “seal up vision and prophecy” may function differently: not hiding prophecy temporarily, but confirming, ratifying, or bringing the prophetic vision to its intended fulfillment.

So context decides the meaning. My point is that Daniel 12 cannot automatically define Daniel 9, even if the same word is used.

 

[CTK]

Pretty much how I see things to begin with. Therefore, I find this perfectly reasonable, and that I fully agree with you here. As to the Discourse, it's not all past nor all future. It simply means what transpires during His ascension, then what transpires when He returns. And that 70 AD was part of that, but not the main focus throughout as Preterists would have us believe. Nor all future as some Futurists would have us believe.



Maybe the problem is me, that I'm just not seeing what you are meaning? So maybe you are meaning something that is not even what I think you might be meaning? I just don't know what you are trying to say and are meaning by these things? So I guess until I do, assuming I eventually do, in the meantime maybe I should allow you more time to elaborate further before doing what I already did---shooting first, then asking questions later.

Very kind of you and lets start over and let me ask you ... do you want to begin with 9:24-27? Or should we try and discuss interpretations before that and lead up to them? Thanks.