Olivet Discourse revisited

[Douggg]

What "transgression of desolation" are you talking about? This one?...

Dan 8.13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?”

Yes, but I am reading from the kjv....

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

__________________________________________________________________________

Allow me to put it in perspective.

There are two books in the old testament (Tanach to the Jews) that put end times events into relative position with each other. The two books are Ezekiel and Daniel.


Gog/Magog - Ezekiel 38-39. The event precedes the 7 year 70th week.

The prince who shall come - Daniel 9:26 - into the middle east following Gog/Magog, from north and west of Israel, Daniel 8:9.
The Jews perceive him to be the messiah - and he confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for the 7 years, Daniel 9:27, as required by Moses.

The 70th week begins.

7 months into the 7years, i.e. 2300 days before Jesus returns - Daniel 8:14 - the animal sacrifices start again.
3 years (thereabouts) into the 7 years, in the middle part of the 7 years, the person stops the daily sacrifice, Daniel 8:12, by reason of transgression (the ToD).

God then has the person killed for his audacious act, Ezekiel 28:1-10.
God in disdain for the person, does not let his soul remain in hell, and brings him back alive.

The person is now the beast.

The false prophet has an image made of the beast and has it placed on the Temple mount - the AoD - Daniel 12:11-12
The great tribulation then begins - Daniel 12:1

 

[claninja]

The set up of the Kingdom of God will be by Jesus when He returns to rule the nations with a rod of iron. It is in the Lord's prayer - may Your kingdom come - Jesus taught, fundamental to Christianity.

The kingdom was to come with power before some standing before Christ tasted death.

Mark 9:1 “1Then Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God arrive with power.”

 

[claninja]

The little horn and his transgression of desolation are time of the end in the text of Daniel 8:17. That he will be broken not by hand, but by the Prince of Princes in Daniel 8:25 - is endtimes - of what happens to the beast person being cast into the lake of fire at Jesus's return

I guess it’s hard to follow your position on Daniel 8

Daniel 8:21-23
21The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece,b and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power.

23In the latter part of their reign, when the rebellion has reached its full measure, an insolent king, skilled in intrigue, will come to the throne.


Per the angel, the shaggy goat represents Greece, and its large horn the first king. The four hour represent 4 kingdoms that rise from Greece. Historically Speaking, this would be the Seleucids, ptolemies, pergamon, and Macedon.

the the angel explains it would be during the “latter” time of those kingdoms that the insolent king would arise.

Those kingdoms are long gone.

 

[Douggg]

I guess it’s hard to follow your position on Daniel 8

Daniel 8:21-23
21The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece,b and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power.

23In the latter part of their reign, when the rebellion has reached its full measure, an insolent king, skilled in intrigue, will come to the throne.


Per the angel, the shaggy goat represents Greece, and its large horn the first king. The four hour represent 4 kingdoms that rise from Greece. Historically Speaking, this would be the Seleucids, ptolemies, pergamon, and Macedon.

the the angel explains it would be during the “latter” time of those kingdoms that the insolent king would arise.

Those kingdoms are long gone.

kjv...

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

Verses 21-22 are indeed historic to us, agreed. The four kingdoms are just as you say.

Verses 23 switches to the kingdom of the transgressors. When their number is fully in place. It is talking about the ten king group of Daniel 7 which the little horn person emerges as the leader of in the end times. Verses 23-24 is about the little horn person, who will commit the transgression of desolation at the time of the end.

He will be a king of fierce countenance, it says in verse 23. And in Daniel 7:20, it says similarly that his look, more stout than his fellows.

 

[Douggg]

The kingdom was to come with power before some standing before Christ tasted death.

Mark 9:1 “1Then Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God arrive with power.”

Mark 9:1 is a continuation of Mark 8, which Jesus was teaching to a gathering from the towns Caesarea and Philippi. Mark 8:27, Mark 8:34.

____________________________________________________________________________________________


In Mark 9:1 I think Jesus was talking about the forthcoming powerful preaching of the Holy Ghost inspired apostles regarding the kingdom of God, after Jesus had left this world.



Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:


8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

 

[claninja]

Verses 23 switches to the kingdom of the transgressors.

It says at the latter time of “THEIR” kingdoms. Who is the antecedent of “their”?

 

[claninja]

Mark 9:1 is a continuation of Mark 8, which Jesus was teaching to a gathering from the towns Caesarea and Philippi. Mark 8:27, Mark 8:34.

____________________________________________________________________________________________


In Mark 9:1 I think Jesus was talking about the forthcoming powerful preaching of the Holy Ghost inspired apostles regarding the kingdom of God, after Jesus had left this world.



Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:


8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

I’m not following you. It says the kingdom of God would come before they tasted death. Seems pretty straight forward

 

[Douggg]

I’m not following you. It says the kingdom of God would come before they tasted death. Seems pretty straight forward

Jesus was speaking about the power of the kingdom of God, they would see in their lifetimes. The apostles preached with that power after they received the Holy Spirit.

 

[Douggg]

It says at the latter time of “THEIR” kingdoms. Who is the antecedent of “their”?

It does not say in the latter time of their kingdoms - plural in verse 23.

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom [singular], when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

The transgressors is the antecedent of "their" . It is talking about the latter time of kingdom of the transgressors - i.e. the EU which has gone through several evolving stages since its inception. We are very close to knowing who exactly are the ten kings and the little horn person. Personally, I am keeping an eye on Zelensky.

 

[DavidPT]

I’m not following you. It says the kingdom of God would come before they tasted death. Seems pretty straight forward

But doesn't that contradict what the Jews claimed Jesus said in regards to this subject? Keeping in mind, Jesus never disputed that He said those things.

John 8:52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

Compared with.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.


We then have---If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death---vs---some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God

Which is it then since both can't be true unless there is a way to understand this without there being a contradiction. I know of a way to do that, except when I proposed it in the past, it basically got shot down. What do you propose is a way to solve it to where there is no contradiction here?

 

[TribulationSigns]

The kingdom was to come with power before some standing before Christ tasted death.

Mark 9:1 “1Then Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God arrive with power.”

I see that you and Douggg misunderstood Mark 9:1.

How did Christ's disciples see "the kingdom of God coming with power"? The question is what is "power"? According to God's Word:

Rev 12:10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Did not Christ's victory over Satan seal salvation for God's Elect? Is not Salvation by the power and strength of Christ's Kingdom? The answer is yes indeed, some disciples would live to see the outworking of the power of Christ in establishing the Kingdom of God, even to the utmost ends of the earth. They have witnessed salvation. We MUST agree that the Son of Man -- the Lord Jesus Christ, coming in His Kingdom, is a way of saying Christ was King is building HIS KINGDOM since the Cross.

Again...

Col 1:13
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

1Co 4:20
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

Christ's Kingdom has already been established His Kingdom through His New Testament Congregation, the Church, at the Cross/Pentecost and will continue until salvation has reached to all Elect God intended to be sealed.

Not kingdom yet to come in the future like Premillennialists thought.

 

[RandyPNW]

Yes, but I am reading from the kjv....

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

__________________________________________________________________________

Allow me to put it in perspective.

There are two books in the old testament (Tanach to the Jews) that put end times events into relative position with each other. The two books are Ezekiel and Daniel.


Gog/Magog - Ezekiel 38-39. The event precedes the 7 year 70th week.

I don't see that, but I understand that's your position.

The prince who shall come - Daniel 9:26 - into the middle east following Gog/Magog, from north and west of Israel, Daniel 8:9.
The Jews perceive him to be the messiah - and he confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for the 7 years, Daniel 9:27, as required by Moses.

The 70th week begins.

7 months into the 7years, i.e. 2300 days before Jesus returns - Daniel 8:14 - the animal sacrifices start again.
3 years (thereabouts) into the 7 years, in the middle part of the 7 years, the person stops the daily sacrifice, Daniel 8:12, by reason of transgression (the ToD).

God then has the person killed for his audacious act, Ezekiel 28:1-10.
God in disdain for the person, does not let his soul remain in hell, and brings him back alive.

The person is now the beast.

The false prophet has an image made of the beast and has it placed on the Temple mount - the AoD - Daniel 12:11-12
The great tribulation then begins - Daniel 12:1

My problem with your scenario is that you have come up with it by putting different passages together--not by basing your points on explicit statements in each passage. As such, it's purely hypothetical, and not based on Scriptural statements themselves.

I don't at all see Daniel's 70th Week as being the "Reign of Antichrist," as it is often thought among contemporary prophecy enthusiasts. I see the 70th Week as fulfilled when Christ was "cut off." What made Jesus' death so "final" was the fact that immediately afterwards Jerusalem and the temple were desolated.

This is hardly future prophecy because it was fulfilled at the time of Jesus' death and in 70 AD, when the Romans successfully invaded Jerusalem. Your whole scenario is based on the assumption that the 70th Week is the last week of the present age, which is never said except perhaps by interpreting "the time of the end" as the endtimes.

And I don't think that can be assumed, since like words, phrases also are to be understood "in context." The "time of the end" appears to be the time of the end of Israel's covenant with God under the Law of Moses.

 

[RandyPNW]

The term transgression of desolation is not in the text of 2Thessalionians2:4. But what he does is an act - a transgression. That act of sitting in the temple of God - will make the temple desolate - empty of - worship of the One True God.

Yes, "transgression" is an "act," but there is nothing that renders this technical term to the Antichrist in 2 Thes 2. The "transgression of desolation" refers, I believe, to the Jewish acts of sin that led to Antiochus 4 desolating the people and their worship.

In the time of Jesus' death, once again the Jewish people committed acts of treason against God, which led to the desolation of their temple worship, as well as to the deaths of many of the people. Nothing ties together the "transgression of desolation" in Dan 8 with the "abomination of desolation" in both Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse. And nothing ties it to the crimes of Antichrist, which does bring major judgment not just upon God's wayward people, but upon all the people on earth who rise up together against Christianity.

Antichrist does try to destroy Christian worship, and he will lead many into religious apostasy and rebellion against the laws of God. But nothing in the book of Revelation refers back to the "transgression of desolation," nor to the "abomination of desolation." I believe you're getting them mixed up. But we can form our own opinions.

 

[RandyPNW]

@RandyPNW

The expression "time of the end" is found in 5 places in the book of Daniel.


View attachment 330316

I answer this elsewhere, but I'll reiterate here. The "time of the end" is a phrase that can be used flexibly. I can refer to the end of a king, the end of an empire, the end of a period of time, the end of a covenant, or the end of the age, etc. It is the *context* that determines how the author meant the term to be used.

I believe it is incontestable that the phrase "time of the end" is *not always* a reference to the end of the age. I feel that God views His covenants with His people as inviolable--even if His people destroy that covenant, God will find a way to redeem them.

So when He says that there will be a "time of the end," it can mean the time in which Israel is brought low enough to cancel their agreement with God. It signals the end of an era, the end of Israel's covenant relationship with God.

Though that relationship can be restored, there will be a "time of the end" because Israel could never be saved, as a nation, by the Law alone. They needed to be separated between believers and unbelievers, and Christ had to redeem them legally, by his own works.

In a sense I can see at least two "times of the end." 1st, Israel had to fail under the Law, and appear to fail completely as a people and nation. Indeed, we see that in the NT period when God has passed the Kingdom of God from Israel to other Christian nations.

But I can also see a "time of the end" when Christ comes back to restore Israel. He will come back to separate out the goats from the sheep, and establish the new nation on faith alone.

This, however, will not be the end of Israel, but rather, the end of rebellion in Israel. It will actually be the beginning of Israel's new era.

So I don't think it's called the "time of the end" in the biblical sense, because Christ's Coming, though full of judgment, is actually designed to restore Israel, as well as all nations who have covenanted with God to serve Him. Biblically, the "time of the end" appears to focus on Israel's failure at the time of Christ's 1st Coming, when Israel entered into their age-long Diaspora. It appeared to be an "end," but eventually they will have a new beginning.

 

[Marilyn C]

I'm aware that Daniel was written in two languages--my brother's fascination has been learning to translate the OT. But I'm not aware that the Bible indicates the reason for this is to make one part of Daniel about the nations, and another part of Daniel about Israel. That appears to be a view you've come up with--not what the Bible itself teaches?

I don't believe that the Kingdom of God will be set up "through Israel." I believe He will set up his rule through the Church, whether they are from Israel or from any other nation.

The reason I believe the Bible emphasizes Israel's restoration is because historically He has made Israel an example of grace for the nations. All nations who wish to adopt the true God should take lessons from Israel's history as a theocracy. Much to learn there!

Hi Randy,

Dan. 1 - 7 we read of God revealing Himself to the kings -

1. God`s Wisdom through Daniel.
2. God`s Time Frame for the Gentile Rulership.
3. God`s Power through keeping the 3 men from being burnt in the fiery furnace.
4. God`s Judgment upon the proud king.
5. God`s Mercy when the king repented.
6. God`s authority over man`s laws, keeping Daniel from the lions.
7. God`s time for the completion of the Gentile`s ruling.

Dan. 8 - 12 we read of God revealing the events for Israel before they rule the world.

Now God did not create a nation (Israel) work for centuries with them and then discard them. God has purposes for Israel as well.

 

[claninja]

Jesus was speaking about the power of the kingdom of God, they would see in their lifetimes. The apostles preached with that power after they received the Holy Spirit.

Not following you. Jesus didn’t say they would only see the power of the kingdom. Jesus literally said the kingdom of God would come in power before they tasted death.

“Power” is a dative noun following the Greek word “en”. This means power is the agency by which the kingdom of God comes.

Again, it’s pretty straight forward. The kingdom would come by means of power before the apostles tasted death.

We can even look at the parallel passages:

Luke 9:27 27But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 16: 28Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom [singular], when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

The transgressors is the antecedent of "their" . It is talking about the latter time of kingdom of the transgressors - i.e. the EU which has gone through several evolving stages since its inception. We are very close to knowing who exactly are the ten kings and the little horn person. Personally, I am keeping an eye on Zelensky.

Grammatically transgressors shouldn’t be be the antecedent. In the Hebrew, transgressors is a verb participle, so it wouldn’t make sense to be an antecedent to “their”. In the Septuagint, kingdom and transgressors are genitive and both contain “their”. In other words the Septuagint says the kingdom of “them” being full of the transgressions of “them”. So again, grammatically, it wouldn’t make sense for the “them” in the “kingdom of them” to be the antecedent to the “transgressions of them”.

The antecedent that makes the most sense grammatically is “kings” in vs 22. “Four kings” is nominative in the Greek.

At the end of the the kingdom of them (four kings from vs 22).

Edit: additionally “their” is plural so any antecedent cannot be referring to a singular person, as you claim.

 

[claninja]

But doesn't that contradict what the Jews claimed Jesus said in regards to this subject? Keeping in mind, Jesus never disputed that He said those things.

John 8:52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

Compared with.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.


We then have---If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death---vs---some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God

Which is it then since both can't be true unless there is a way to understand this without there being a contradiction. I know of a way to do that, except when I proposed it in the past, it basically got shot down. What do you propose is a way to solve it to where there is no contradiction here?

John 8:52 contains an additional phrase: “to the age”. Whoever believes in Christ will never taste death “to the age”. In other words, will never taste death ever or forever. To me, that implies he is talking about eternal life. Additionally, Jesus is talking generically about whoever believes in him.

Luke 9:27 does not contain “to the age” and contains the word “until”, and is talking to a specific group- those standing in front of him. So, as Jesus doesn’t say those standing here will not taste death “to the age” UNTIL the kingdom of God has come, I don’t think it’s appropriate to conflate “not tasting death to the age” in John 8 with “not tasting death until” in luke 9:27.

It wouldn’t really make sense to say there are some standing here who will never ever ever die “until” the kingdom comes. “Until” is giving a time reference point.

 

[claninja]

I see that you and Douggg misunderstood Mark 9:1.

How did Christ's disciples see "the kingdom of God coming with power"? The question is what is "power"? According to God's Word:

Rev 12:10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Did not Christ's victory over Satan seal salvation for God's Elect? Is not Salvation by the power and strength of Christ's Kingdom? The answer is yes indeed, some disciples would live to see the outworking of the power of Christ in establishing the Kingdom of God, even to the utmost ends of the earth. They have witnessed salvation. We MUST agree that the Son of Man -- the Lord Jesus Christ, coming in His Kingdom, is a way of saying Christ was King is building HIS KINGDOM since the Cross.

Again...

Col 1:13
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

1Co 4:20
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

Christ's Kingdom has already been established His Kingdom through His New Testament Congregation, the Church, at the Cross/Pentecost and will continue until salvation has reached to all Elect God intended to be sealed.

Not kingdom yet to come in the future like Premillennialists thought.

I believe the kingdom of God came with power in the first century, which agrees with what you just said. Not sure how I’m misunderstanding that. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I believe the kingdom of God came with power in the first century, which agrees with what you just said. Not sure how I’m misunderstanding that. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote?

No.

The kingdom of God came with power AFTER the fall of the Old Testament Congregation and pouring of the Spirit at Pentecost that empowered people of God to preach the salvation gospel, right here and then. Not when the physical temple was destroyed in 70AD.

 

[RandyPNW]

Hi Randy,

Dan. 1 - 7 we read of God revealing Himself to the kings -

1. God`s Wisdom through Daniel.
2. God`s Time Frame for the Gentile Rulership.
3. God`s Power through keeping the 3 men from being burnt in the fiery furnace.
4. God`s Judgment upon the proud king.
5. God`s Mercy when the king repented.
6. God`s authority over man`s laws, keeping Daniel from the lions.
7. God`s time for the completion of the Gentile`s ruling.

Dan. 8 - 12 we read of God revealing the events for Israel before they rule the world.

Now God did not create a nation (Israel) work for centuries with them and then discard them. God has purposes for Israel as well.

Your theory that the Hebrew and Chaldean parts of Daniel relate to whether they're Israel-centered or not is interesting. I hope to see my brother today to visit him and ask him this question. I have no clue!

But on Israel's unique calling as a nation, I agree. I just don't think God is partial among nations. His call to Israel is for Israel, and thus, Israel will have her own unique kind of national salvation. I could say the same for every nation in history that has adopted the Christian State and the Christian religion for its people.

But I definitely am *not* a Replacement Theology advocate. Thanks!