Daniel 9:27 Ancient Greek Septuagint

[Tony P]

The temple here is the visible church. Please see Paul's repeated usage of the term. There is no rebuilding mentioned here. There is no rebuilding mentioned by Jesus, Paul, John or any other NT writer. The reason is: the temple is destroyed forever. There is no need for it. Christ is the temple.

Sure. As you well know Paul also talked about the literal Temple in Jerusalem. Why does a NT write have to mention a "rebuilt" temple? Paul said in plain words the the day of the Lord would not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed. The man who stands in the Temple of God prclaiming to be God. It doesn't get much more plain than that. Therefore, it is a faith issue, not a text issue.

This occurred in AD70.

The AoD is a noun in the Greek. What "thing" was set up in/on the Temple in 70 AD?

This is talking about the great commission.

That might be the biggest dismissal of God's covenant that I have ever seen. What do you have against the sons of Abraham? Further, if you think God's unconditional covenant with Abraham is gone forever, why would you have any hope that God would fulfill His promise about Abraham's seed?

[Tony P]

Fascinating !!!

Daniel 9 is mainly about Jesus, the coming of the anointed one:

So in year 483 we have the coming of the anointed one.
At the same time, year 483, we have a Messianic promise confirmed, God's promise to send Messiah is confirmed..
In year 486.5 we have the sacrifice "lifted up"

Yes some parts of this prophecy are clearly historical (the destruction of Jerusalem)
Yet some parts of this prophecy occur at the end times, even Jesus refers to the :abomination" of the "prophet Daniel" in Matthew 24 as occurring just before the Second Coming.

So I suggest that the first half of Daniel 9:27 refers to Jesus, and there are only 3.5 years left of this timeline, this period will start when the antichrist comes to power at the temple, declaring himself God.

Further confirmation of this, is that no-one has managed to explain why MOST translation separate the identity of the one who confirms the covenant, and the one who sets up the abomination:
27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease (to be lifted up); and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

Thanks. I do agree that the AC will reign 3.5 years. However, that doesn't have to be from Dan 9. The AoD is in Dan 8 and 11 as well. I actually think the last half of the last week in this prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus' disciples. Remember, "70 weeks are decreed for YOUR PEOPLE," the Jews. 3.5 years after Jesus died is about when Peter gets the vision of the unclean animals that God makes clean. Then he goes to the Roman Centurion in Acts 10. This is the first Gentile convert. The time was up. There isn't a single reference to any Gentile hearing the gospel from Jesus or anyone else until Acts 10.

[wpm]

1. The temple continued long after Jesus died.
2. The temple had not been visited by God in ages when Christ was here,, (the high priest never would have made it of the Holy of Holy's if God was present, they would have pulled his dead body out) Jesus called it his house, and a house of worship. It was never intended to take away sin,
3. Jesus did mention a temple. He said when we see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel Standing in the holy place...There must be a temple for this to occur This did not occur in 70 AD.



The temple was destroyed in 70 AD. not maade unclean,

you can not make a temple that does not exist unclean by placing an unclean thing in it.

It has made redundant through the cross. There is no need for it. It is gone forever.

[wpm]

Sure. As you well know Paul also talked about the literal Temple in Jerusalem. Why does a NT write have to mention a "rebuilt" temple? Paul said in plain words the the day of the Lord would not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed. The man who stands in the Temple of God prclaiming to be God. It doesn't get much more plain than that. Therefore, it is a faith issue, not a text issue.

The falling away occurs with the visible church prior to the end, not some imaginary Jewish temple in Jerusalem that is gone forever.

That might be the biggest dismissal of God's covenant that I have ever seen. What do you have against the sons of Abraham? Further, if you think God's unconditional covenant with Abraham is gone forever, why would you have any hope that God would fulfill His promise about Abraham's seed?

I am sure you acknowledge the seismic change from the favor of God being focused on one lone small nation (singular) in the OT to the nations (plural) throughout the world after the First Advent receiving it in the NT. I believe most commentators from all views are in wholesale agreement on this. This is surely indisputable.

[eternally-gratefull]

It has made redundant through the cross. There is no need for it. It is gone forever.

And this proves it will not be rebuilt? Please...

Jews in sin can rebuild it, to roster their sinful ways of rejecting the messiah, and a future roman prince can enter it and defile the sanctuary (abomination which makes desolate) which is a sign For people to flee, because of the prophecy of Daniel and warning by Jesus (it comes to remembrance) Because 3.5 years of hell are about to break lose in Israel and on the earth, To be stopped only by the return of Christ.

Prophesy is fulfilled. No one said the temple is needed or will forgive one person of one sin, IT NEVER SAVED ANYONE, it did not in the OT (it was a sign) and it will not in the tribulation.

So your point is mute, an does not prove a thing..

[DurbanDude]

This makes sense, And would explain why they will so easily adopt to his promise of peace, and feel secure. Which will make the "abomination" so horrific..

Whats amazing, we had a group go over there a few decades ago, Was talking to a merchant, After discussion (about the temple) we found they do not even read Daniel, or consider it Gods word (Of course, they would have to because messiah did not come when he was supposed to, even though he was crucified immediately after the completion of the 69th week, as prophesied) so unless they know something of the NT writing and Jesus words,, I wonder what will get them to start seeing the "light" and cause them to run when they see this happen..

I think that those who must run are the Christians and Christians Jews. And those Jews who recognise the antichrist as an imposter and do not wish to compromise their Judaism with an Islamic flavor.

ie some Jews will remain neutral as far as Christianity is concerned , yet will be very biblical as per their Messianic expectations and therefore will not bend before this imposter. They may prefer to run, I assume there will be ISIS type beheadings for those who dissent.

Many Jews are very Kabbalistic in their belief system which can easily open them up to compromise a literal Torah based belief system in favor of a so-called New Age of peace.

[RogerW]

Sure. As you well know Paul also talked about the literal Temple in Jerusalem. Why does a NT write have to mention a "rebuilt" temple? Paul said in plain words the the day of the Lord would not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed. The man who stands in the Temple of God prclaiming to be God. It doesn't get much more plain than that. Therefore, it is a faith issue, not a text issue.

Paul is not speaking of bricks and mortar building literally in Jerusalem. Know ye not that there are false among the true? Many who call Christ Lord are false workers, deceivers, of their father the devil, but who show themselves to be true. They won't be able to continue the charade when Christ comes again, because then they will be known by who they truly are, "man of sin, son of perdition."

1Co*3:16 ¶ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Co*3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1Co*6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

2Co*6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Blessings,
RW

[DurbanDude]

Thanks. I do agree that the AC will reign 3.5 years. However, that doesn't have to be from Dan 9. The AoD is in Dan 8 and 11 as well. I actually think the last half of the last week in this prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus' disciples. Remember, "70 weeks are decreed for YOUR PEOPLE," the Jews. 3.5 years after Jesus died is about when Peter gets the vision of the unclean animals that God makes clean. Then he goes to the Roman Centurion in Acts 10. This is the first Gentile convert. The time was up. There isn't a single reference to any Gentile hearing the gospel from Jesus or anyone else until Acts 10.

Okay, so you have the historical view of Daniel 9:27

I just think that at the moment of crucifixion there was no convincing abomination, and the events of Daniel 9:24 were not fulfilled in a satisfactory manner 3.5 years later.

Added to that, in 2 other places in the bible an abomination is mentioned just before the second coming/resurrection, also showing a 3.5 year period ending with a more satisfactory fulfilment of Daniel 9:24 at the second coming.

The wording of Dan 9:27b matches this final period so perfectly, yet history does not match the wording of Daniel 9:27b. So on the balance of arguments I feel a future fulfilment of Dan 9:27b makes more sense.

[eternally-gratefull]

Okay, so you have the historical view of Daniel 9:27

I just think that at the moment of crucifixion there was no convincing abomination, and the events of Daniel 9:24 were not fulfilled in a satisfactory manner 3.5 years later.

Added to that, in 2 other places in the bible an abomination is mentioned just before the second coming/resurrection, also showing a 3.5 year period ending with a more satisfactory fulfilment of Daniel 9:24 at the second coming.

The wording of Dan 9:27b matches this final period so perfectly, yet history does not match the wording of Daniel 9:27b. So on the balance of arguments I feel a future fulfilment of Dan 9:27b makes more sense.

I Agree

26 and 27 shows not only a period of time after the temple is destroyed, up until the abomination occures, But How the events are limited, (things have to happen after the abomination) and that these things which are determined to take place, will continue until a time which has already been predetermined. .

[Tony P]

Paul is not speaking of bricks and mortar building literally in Jerusalem. Know ye not that there are false among the true? Many who call Christ Lord are false workers, deceivers, of their father the devil, but who show themselves to be true. They won't be able to continue the charade when Christ comes again, because then they will be known by who they truly are, "man of sin, son of perdition."

1Co*3:16 ¶ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Co*3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1Co*6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

2Co*6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Blessings,
RW

That is an assumption you are making. Paul also writes about the literal Temple building. 1 Cor 3 being true, doesn't preclude a literal Temple from also being true.

Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

27 Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him

Is this a person or a building?

Matt 24:Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Was Jesus talking about a person here too?


Nice try at the dig by the way. Would calling God's covenants a lie be considered deception?

[Tony P]

Okay, so you have the historical view of Daniel 9:27

I just think that at the moment of crucifixion there was no convincing abomination, and the events of Daniel 9:24 were not fulfilled in a satisfactory manner 3.5 years later.

Yes, I agree. Although, Proverbs says shedding innocent blood is an abomination. Jesus was innocent. Dan 9 talks about desolations, plural in the original language. It is referring to long periods of time in which the Temple Mount will be desolate. That has happened exactly as it was written. The pagan temples that have been built on that mount have been abominations as well. I realize the AC will set up an AoD as well. That doesn't mean that it is the only abominaion in history.

I would say you are right about 9:24 not being fulfilled at all really. That is the point. Once time was up and the criteria wasn't fulfilled, the gospel left Jacob and went to the Gentiles. That really is the whole point of the first advent.

Added to that, in 2 other places in the bible an abomination is mentioned just before the second coming/resurrection, also showing a 3.5 year period ending with a more satisfactory fulfilment of Daniel 9:24 at the second coming.

Yes, there certainly is an AoD to come that will be set up in/on the Temple of God. If you read all the end time prophecies, Dan 9:24 is never fulfilled until Jesus returns. Evil only gets worse from here, not better. If you have some scripture that indicates Israel will fulfill 9:24 before Jesus returns, I would like to know about it.

The wording of Dan 9:27b matches this final period so perfectly, yet history does not match the wording of Daniel 9:27b. So on the balance of arguments I feel a future fulfilment of Dan 9:27b makes more sense.

That is perfectly okay with me. It really doesn't make any difference between how you see it and how I see it. In the end, there is still a 3.5 year period of horror to come either way. Therefore, both our views are the same from here on.

The main problem I see with others is the 7 year trib theory. That is where a faulty understanding can be harmful. For example, let's say for example the AC does offer a peace treaty to Israel for 7 years. Everyone who holds the 7 year trib theory will expect it to be broken at the half way point. If I were satan and knowing how many are confused about Dan 9, I would keep the peace longer than the first 3.5 years just to throw them off. Then destroy them later in the treaty once their guard is down. Of course this is wild speculation. I'm just saying how the 7 year trib folks could get fooled. The trib period may be 20 years and the last 3,5 years is the fulfillment of the beast. How many would get fooled by that? A bunch.

As far as I understand your view, it sounds like you wouldn't be fooled by the scenario above. That is more important than quibbling over a 2000 year gap in Dan 9:27. So, kuddos to you, brother!

[DurbanDude]

Yes, I agree. Although, Proverbs says shedding innocent blood is an abomination. Jesus was innocent. Dan 9 talks about desolations, plural in the original language. It is referring to long periods of time in which the Temple Mount will be desolate. That has happened exactly as it was written. The pagan temples that have been built on that mount have been abominations as well. I realize the AC will set up an AoD as well. That doesn't mean that it is the only abominaion in history.

I would say you are right about 9:24 not being fulfilled at all really. That is the point. Once time was up and the criteria wasn't fulfilled, the gospel left Jacob and went to the Gentiles. That really is the whole point of the first advent.

I have heard the argument of conditional prophecies before. I am not sure if you are claiming a conditional prophecy regarding Daniel 9:24. I see no conditions there, therefore Daniel 9:24 should have been fulfilled if Daniel 9:27b is historical. The lack of fulilment ruins your historical theory of Daniel 9:27b. I am claiming that the clear future abomination plus 3.5 years as described by Daniel 12 and implied by Matthew 24 has such a close wording overlap with Daniel 9:27b as to make a future fulfilment the most likely scenario. This would then complete Daniel 9:24 properly, satisfactorily.

Yes, there certainly is an AoD to come that will be set up in/on the Temple of God. If you read all the end time prophecies, Dan 9:24 is never fulfilled until Jesus returns. Evil only gets worse from here, not better. If you have some scripture that indicates Israel will fulfill 9:24 before Jesus returns, I would like to know about it.

I believe as you do, that the second coming fulfils Daniel 9:24. This ruins your historical view of the 70 sevens because the wording says : Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin ......

Yet you are saying 70 sevens historically PLUS 2000 or so years until the second coming, which contradicts the wording which says 70 sevens are decreed. You need to decide, historical or future, context requires one or the other.

That is perfectly okay with me. It really doesn't make any difference between how you see it and how I see it. In the end, there is still a 3.5 year period of horror to come either way. Therefore, both our views are the same from here on.

True I have no big problem with the historical view, as long as people still acknowledge a future 3.5 year period. But in a pedantic way, I still like people to have a coherent view, yet the historical view of Daniel 9:27b has flaws.

The main problem I see with others is the 7 year trib theory. That is where a faulty understanding can be harmful. For example, let's say for example the AC does offer a peace treaty to Israel for 7 years. Everyone who holds the 7 year trib theory will expect it to be broken at the half way point. If I were satan and knowing how many are confused about Dan 9, I would keep the peace longer than the first 3.5 years just to throw them off. Then destroy them later in the treaty once their guard is down. Of course this is wild speculation. I'm just saying how the 7 year trib folks could get fooled. The trib period may be 20 years and the last 3,5 years is the fulfillment of the beast. How many would get fooled by that? A bunch.

As far as I understand your view, it sounds like you wouldn't be fooled by the scenario above. That is more important than quibbling over a 2000 year gap in Dan 9:27. So, kuddos to you, brother!

Yes I have the same concerns as you. But wont that be a great surprise as well for some discouraged Christians. When they are thinking how can we survive another 3.5 years of this, Jesus will come! But my great concern is that they will be discouraged after some years whereas 3.5 years is not a long wait. 7 years is.

Yes Satan will play the situation. Looking at Islamic prophecy it appears he will play on misunderstanding about the so-called wounded antichrist as well, by bringing in an earlier blatantly evil antichrist with a healed wound, so when the true antichrist kills the early blatantly evil antichrist, the world will think the antichrist is a hero for killing the blatantly evil guy.

(ISA kills the Dajjal according to Islamic prophecy, Sunni Islam will love and support ISA and Israel at first , then will join Shi-ite Islam to invade ISA at Armageddon). but I guess that's another topic altogether.

[Tony P]

The falling away occurs with the visible church prior to the end, not some imaginary Jewish temple in Jerusalem that is gone forever.

I guess you have forgotten what salvation by faith means. Once Jesus is revealed, faith is no longer an option. He is seen and proven.

I am sure you acknowledge the seismic change from the favor of God being focused on one lone small nation (singular) in the OT to the nations (plural) throughout the world after the First Advent receiving it in the NT. I believe most commentators from all views are in wholesale agreement on this. This is surely indisputable.

Paul makes it quite clear that the Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled. Any commentators that try to make God a liar by dismissing His covenant with Abraham are fools. And they will answer for it at the Bema seat. Especially those who teach.

[Tony P]

I have heard the argument of conditional prophecies before. I am not sure if you are claiming a conditional prophecy regarding Daniel 9:24. I see no conditions there, therefore Daniel 9:24 should have been fulfilled if Daniel 9:27b is historical. The lack of fulilment ruins your historical theory of Daniel 9:27b. I am claiming that the clear future abomination plus 3.5 years as described by Daniel 12 and implied by Matthew 24 has such a close wording overlap with Daniel 9:27b as to make a future fulfilment the most likely scenario. This would then complete Daniel 9:24 properly, satisfactorily.

Here's the thing. Daniel 9:24 will never be fulfilled by people. Not in history, nor the future. I don't read any passages that suggest a righteous Jerusalem from this point on. The ONLY way 9:24 is fulfilled is when Jesus himself makes it happen. But, I don't think that was the point of the prophecy. God laid out the criteria for Jerusalem to be saved at the first advent. IF they had done these things, Jesus would have remained and ushered in the kingdom then. Jerusalem had the choice. At the end of the 70 weeks, they failed all six criteria. Therefore, the vine was uprooted. The gospel went to the Gentiles in Acts 10.

I believe as you do, that the second coming fulfils Daniel 9:24. This ruins your historical view of the 70 sevens because the wording says : Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin ......

Yet you are saying 70 sevens historically PLUS 2000 or so years until the second coming, which contradicts the wording which says 70 sevens are decreed. You need to decide, historical or future, context requires one or the other.

Jerusalem never will accomplish the criteria in 9:24. That is the whole reason Gentiles ever had a chance in the first place. I'm glad they failed. If they hadn't, we would be lost.

True I have no big problem with the historical view, as long as people still acknowledge a future 3.5 year period. But in a pedantic way, I still like people to have a coherent view, yet the historical view of Daniel 9:27b has flaws.

The biggest flaw I see is the future view. Is it reasonable to insert 2000 years in the midst of a time prophecy? Also, the 70 weeks are determined for Jews ONLY, "your people." Are Jews the only ones that can accept Jesus during the AC's 42 months? I hope not. That would be rather cruel for the 99% of the world that are Gentiles.

Yes I have the same concerns as you. But wont that be a great surprise as well for some discouraged Christians. When they are thinking how can we survive another 3.5 years of this, Jesus will come! But my great concern is that they will be discouraged after some years whereas 3.5 years is not a long wait. 7 years is.

Yes Satan will play the situation. Looking at Islamic prophecy it appears he will play on misunderstanding about the so-called wounded antichrist as well, by bringing in an earlier blatantly evil antichrist with a healed wound, so when the true antichrist kills the early blatantly evil antichrist, the world will think the antichrist is a hero for killing the blatantly evil guy.

(ISA kills the Dajjal according to Islamic prophecy, Sunni Islam will love and support ISA and Israel at first , then will join Shi-ite Islam to invade ISA at Armageddon). but I guess that's another topic altogether.

Uh, oh! Someone is bringing out the big guns. The lead characters are indeed shown here. Good job! The whole situation that leads to the AC is an Islamic civil war. North vs South. Iran and Assyria vs Arabia with Egypt. Non-Arabs vs Arabs. The Arabs lose in the end.

[RogerW]

That is an assumption you are making. Paul also writes about the literal Temple building. 1 Cor 3 being true, doesn't preclude a literal Temple from also being true.

Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

27 Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him

Is this a person or a building?

Matt 24:Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Was Jesus talking about a person here too?

Nice try at the dig by the way. Would calling God's covenants a lie be considered deception?

So how does any of this prove your assumption that a temple will be re-built in Jerusalem? A temple in which you argue the man of sin will literally stand up in? All you've shown is that a temple existed in Jerusalem before it was utterly destroyed.