70 AD revisited

[covenantee]

Take the time to look up several different translations of Daniel 9:27 and you'll realize that it must be very difficult to translate.

As you say, the passage is difficult to translate.

I've found the following to be a reasonable explanation:

In the Daniel 9:27 Hebrew is seen:

3671 [e]
kə·nap̄
כְּנַ֤ף
the wing
N‑fsc

3671 points to "kanaph".

The definition of "kanaph" includes:

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
bird, border, corner, end, feathered, flying, one another, overspreading,
From kanaph; an edge or extremity; specifically (of a bird or army) a wing

The Roman bird was the eagle, a prominent symbolic standard ensign of the empire and the army. From Wiki:

"
An aquila (Classical Latin: [ˈakᶣɪla], lit. 'eagle') was a prominent symbol used in ancient Rome, especially as the standard of a Roman legion. A legionary known as an aquilifer, the "eagle-bearer", carried this standard. Each legion carried one eagle.

The eagle had quasi-religious importance to the Roman soldier, far beyond being merely a symbol of his legion.

The signa militaria were the Roman military ensigns or standards.

Under the eagle or other emblem was often placed a head of the reigning emperor, which was to the army an object of worship or veneration.
"

Thus the "wing" of Daniel 9:27 refers to the symbolic eagle associated with the Roman army.

The worship of the emperors' visages on these ensigns was an abomination to the Jews, hence the Scriptural description of the Roman army as an abomination.

The foregoing also explains Jesus' description in Matthew 24:28:

28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

The Roman army was gathered over the carcase of destroyed Jerusalem.

 

[CadyandZoe]

In Romans 9:6-8, which is what I referenced, he wasn't just defining who is Israel. He was also defining who is not Israel. He said " For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". So, he was speaking of two Israels here.

To fully comprehend Romans 9:6-8, it is crucial to analyze it within the larger context of Paul's argument. The concept of "Israel" and its identity cannot be fully grasped unless viewed within its context. It is incorrect to assume that there are two Israels, as there is only one being observed over time, following a promise that God made to the nation.

Paul claims that only his kinsmen are entitled to the "adoption as sons." He then proceeds to explain why and how some of his kinsmen will not receive this promise. In this part of his argument, Paul introduces the idea of God's choice as the reason why some of his kinsmen will not be given the "adoption as sons."

According to Paul, being a member of the "nation of promise" is not determined by one's spirituality, as God can choose to bestow his spirit upon anyone. This means that God's choice of a person does not depend on any pre-existing conditions or attributes they possess.

To coin a phrase from the passage, Paul is talking about "the Israel of promise." Not all of those descended from Jacob will be found among the "Israel of promise" at the time when the promise will be fulfilled.

So, he was clearly talking about an Israel of which those who were part of it were not part of it because of anything physical.

I have a different interpretation. Paul provides two historical examples where God favored one boy over another, both of whom were descendants of Abraham. This suggests that biology may play a role in the decision-making process. In each case, a blood relative of Abraham was chosen over another. These examples illustrate a process of separation within a group of blood relatives, as God had a specific purpose for each boy.

So, with that being said, I'm not sure why you would deny that Paul spoke of an "Israel besides the physical nation of Israel that is entirely spiritual in nature", as I had said.

Not sure what Marks would say, but I should point out that Paul's argument doesn't depend on or even mention spirituality.

It is only those who are the spiritual children of Abraham, of God and of the promise who are counted as being part of the Israel of which all are, all are being and all will be saved.

I also do not agree with this interpretation. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul argues that those who have the same faith as Abraham are considered "sons" in terms of receiving the blessings of Abraham, including the Holy Spirit and eternal life. Paul is making a different point here and acknowledges that the "Adoption as sons" is granted to his relatives by blood. He would not argue against this. Instead, he explains why some of his relatives will not receive this promise.

And would you agree that the basis for being part of true Israel is not anything physical but rather is based on faith?

From my understanding of Paul's argument, being a member of the "Israel of Promise" is determined by God's purpose for each individual. It is not dependent on one's faith or level of spirituality, although these can be indications of God's work in our lives. Paul suggests that God creates individuals with certain attributes, rather than choosing them based on pre-existing ones.

Paul said "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, so why are you trying to make a difference between them?

Both Jews and Gentiles are indeed justified by faith, without any distinction. However, the subject of Romans 9 is specifically focused on Paul's kinsmen who belong to the same nation as him. In this chapter, Paul is primarily concerned with exploring the differences between those among his people whom God has chosen and those who God has not chosen.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The explicit Hebrew term for "temple" isn't in verse 27 as far as I can tell. (I haven't studied Hebrew so take this with a grain of salt.) Instead, Gabriel uses the Hebrew word for "wing."

That wasn't even my point. My point is that verse 26 establishes the context of the desolation described in verse 27. It relates to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary described in verse 26.

The NET bible translator's notes contain the following reference.

The referent of the Hebrew word כְּנַף (knaf, “wing”) is unclear here. The LXX and Theodotion have “the temple.” Some English versions (e.g., NAB, NIV84) take this to mean “a wing of the temple,” but this is not clear.​

From what I remember, the word refers to a perimeter or boundary that surrounds a particular space, such as the edge of a table. In my opinion, the term "wing" should be interpreted as a maximum limit. In this case, "the wing" refers to the point beyond which intolerable acts will not be accepted, resulting in God's judgment. However, if you're correct that the word "abomination" is singular instead of plural, then my argument may have a flaw.

I believe it is correct and, again, the fact that Jesus referred to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings strongly suggests that He had Daniel 9:26-27 in mind.

It appears that Daniel 11 aligns more closely with Jesus' statement, as it suggests that the mentioned event signifies the moment when believers must flee and evacuate the city to avoid danger. However, this assumption may change if the NIV translation is accurate.

As you say, the passage is difficult to translate.

I feel certain that Jesus had Daniel 9:26-27 in mind for the reasons I've stated and I don't really see anything that would change my mind about that.

 

[Phoneman777]

I've been sharing this forever. But for the sake of any new readers I will repost this.

If you will compare Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse it appears to me that Jesus interpreted the "People of the ruler to come" as the Roman Army who, under the Roman general, destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD. Jesus said, in that Discourse, that Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies. That happened twice, once in 66 AD and again, in 70 AD. The 1st approach to Jerusalem by the Roman Army gave warning to Christian believers in Israel to escape to the nearby mountains. This they did by leaving for Pella, an area beyond the reach of the invading Army.

I've been relentlessly attacked by strict Futurists and called a Preterist for this belief. But this was the predominant belief in the Early Church. Only a couple of Church Fathers projected the "70th Week of Dan 9" to be something future (Irenaeus and Hippolytus). Largely, the entire 70 Weeks Prophecy has been interpreted to be fulfilled in the time in and around Jesus' earthly ministry, which was completed at the cross, and followed by the judgment of the Jewish People in 70 AD.

For the record, historical interpretations like this does not make one a Preterist, and I am not--not even a Partial Preterist. Nor does it make one a strict Historicist Interpreter--I'm not that either. It's just that some prophecies were, in fact, fulfilled historically, such as the 586 BC destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Some prophecies remain future--not the 70 Weeks Prophecy, however, in my opinion.

Dan 9.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it.

In my view, the Roman Leader "confirmed" God's covenant of destruction upon the Jewish People for breaking their agreement under the Law. And he began by having the Jewish Messiah killed, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

What this plainly says is that the "Great Tribulation," so often cited by strict Futurists as the Reign of Antichrist, actually began as a punishment against the Jewish People. And this led to an age-long Diaspora of the Jewish People, until the Gentile nations have had their opportunity to be nations of God, and God tires of their own apostacies and hostilities towards the Jewish People.

Thanks for this post.

It's clear that "the people of the prince that shall come" can either refer to "Prince Jesus" or "prince Titus" of the Roman army.

We can say that the Roman soldiers of prince Titus destroyed Jerusalem, or we can say that the Jews of the Prince of Peace destroyed Jerusalem by pushing away the hand of God's protection through sin...but anyone who says it refers to the "Antichrist" is simply reading something that's not there, and should redirect their attention to Paul's "restrainer" which drives the final nail in the coffin of any Daniel 9:26 "Antichrist".

 

[covenantee]

Thanks for this post.

It's clear that "the people of the prince that shall come" can either refer to "Prince Jesus" or "prince Titus" of the Roman army.

We can say that the Roman soldiers of prince Titus destroyed Jerusalem, or we can say that the Jews of the Prince of Peace destroyed Jerusalem by pushing away the hand of God's protection through sin...but anyone who says it refers to the "Antichrist" is simply reading something that's not there, and should redirect their attention to Paul's "restrainer" which drives the final nail in the coffin of any Daniel 9:26 "Antichrist".

The only individual identified as a prince in the passage is Messiah.

His people were both the Romans and Jews, who both were His agents in accomplishing His purposes of judgment and destruction upon the apostate nation of Israel.