Full preterist/ failed prophet dilemma

jubalsqaud

Puritan Board Freshman
Isn't Jesus' response also given in the context of him being asked  two questions?

"Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying,
¹“Tell us, when will these things be? ²And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered and said to them: ..."

Matt 23 : 3-4

Superscripts added by me for emphasis.

So he isn't bound by responding in reference to  one event only.
Right but that's a trivial observation the thing being disputed is whether those events are bolted together in such a way that they should play out at approximately the same time.

Jesus remarks that the Great tribulation starts at the abomination of desolation.

Daniel for tells the end of the Great tribulation will be the resurrection of the Dead and since it seems Jesus intends a literal fulfillment of Daniel it seems that Jesus does intend to tie these events together.

Daniel's prophecy has the evil one set up the abomination of desolation rule during a period of Great tribulation that ends with the resurrection of the Dead both Good and evil.

In order to provide a real defeater for the atheists position we need positive reasons to disbelieve his account of what Jesus is doing.

The atheist position has Daniel to back him up.

It seems the atheist is right however that Jesus is predicting the coming of an event that was already foretold in graphic detail by the prophet Daniel

So far the reasons posted here as responses are arguments from the grammar of the olivet text read in isolation.

We (team Jesus )are reading the text as if it is not commenting on anything that is known before.

It seems we have two credible options for defeating his position.


We either need to deny Daniel already laid out the framework for the olivet discourses' subject matter

or

we need to find a reason why Jesus is not specifically talking of the second temple.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Right but that's a trivial observation the thing being disputed is whether those events are bolted together in such a way that they should play out at approximately the same time.

Jesus remarks that the Great tribulation starts at the abomination of desolation.

Daniel for tells the end of the Great tribulation will be the resurrection of the Dead and since it seems Jesus intends a literal fulfillment of Daniel it seems that Jesus does intend to tie these events together.

Daniel's prophecy has the evil one set up the abomination of desolation rule during a period of Great tribulation that ends with the resurrection of the Dead both Good and evil.

In order to provide a real defeater for the atheists position we need positive reasons to disbelieve his account of what Jesus is doing.

The atheist position has Daniel to back him up.

It seems the atheist is right however that Jesus is predicting the coming of an event that was already foretold in graphic detail by the prophet Daniel

So far the reasons posted here as responses are arguments from the grammar of the olivet text read in isolation.

We (team Jesus )are reading the text as if it is not commenting on anything that is known before.

It seems we have two credible options for defeating his position.


We either need to deny Daniel already laid out the framework for the olivet discourses' subject matter

or

we need to find a reason why Jesus is not specifically talking of the second temple.
We have already given good reasons for why the atheist's claim does not work. No one is reading the Olivet discourse in isolation.
 

DanSSwing

Puritan Board Freshman
Jesus quoted Isaiah 61:2 "to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God" as referring to separate events at least 40 years apart. Everything else He prophesied about the events of AD 70 came to pass. I'm more comfortable admitting that there's some things about the prophecies that I don't understand than seriously suggesting He could be right about so many prophecies yet wrong about one.

The atheist needs to explain how Jesus got so much right. The tricky thing is that the Bible was all written BEFORE Rome sacked Jerusalem, so you have to go to historical sources, and there are great non-Christian sources like Josephus and the Talmud that show those events aligning very well with Bible prophecy:

 

jubalsqaud

Puritan Board Freshman
We have already given good reasons for why the atheist's claim does not work. No one is reading the Olivet discourse in isolation.
Your reasons though (assuming your talking about the link you posted )argue against 70 ad fulfilling it.

The atheist agrees it doesn't fulfill it.

He's saying the only hope for a fulfillment is 70ad cause that's when the second temple was destroyed.

P1 if Jesus is a true prophet the antichrist destroyed the second temple

P2 antichrist did not destroy the 2nd temple (Titus did)

C1 Jesus not a true prophet

Your other suggestions just amount to saying he was asked multiple questions so grammatically he might be discussing unrelated things.

That's fine if that's all the info we have.

But we have more info

The atheist uses Daniel to connect these events together.

Likewise the apparent equivalence of "surrounded by armies" and the "abomination of desolation".

Your article ultimately is valid reason to think 70 ad doesn't fulfill it, but the atheist agrees.

The article's reasoning if modified to deal with the atheist is a vicious circle.

"Jesus couldn't have meant the second temple would be destroyed by antichrist cuz then he would be wrong"

But his capacity to be wrong is what is in dispute.
 

TylerRay

Puritan Board Graduate
Good thing we have 21st century atheists to set us straight on apocalyptic literature. I mean, Christians have missed these inconsistencies for 2000 years now!
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
P1 if Jesus is a true prophet the antichrist destroyed the second temple

P2 antichrist did not destroy the 2nd temple (Titus did)

C1 Jesus not a true prophet

Even though I am anti-preterist, this conclusion does not follow. A preterist could salvage the argument and say Titus was the Antichrist.
 

ryanpresnell

Puritan Board Freshman
Atheists tend to be of the persuasion that the gospels were written after 70 AD. Why would the gospel authors portray Jesus as preaching the eschatological view offered by your atheist friend, knowing that it is false (assuming for the sake of argument that the events of Daniel did not occur in 70 AD)? One of these opinions has to go; otherwise, your friend advocates the absurd view that the gospel authors intentionally present Jesus as a false prophet!

If your friend admits that the gospels were written before 70 AD, Dan is spot on, in my opinion-- isn't it much more likely that your friend is simply misinterpreting Jesus' words (given that Jesus correctly predicted that one stone of the temple would not be left upon another) than that Jesus is a false prophet?
 

Clark-Tillian

Puritan Board Freshman
Brother, you wrote...
P1 if Jesus is a true prophet the antichrist destroyed the second temple

P2 antichrist did not destroy the 2nd temple (Titus did)

C1 Jesus not a true prophet

This is not a correctly structured syllogism. If you want to argue syllogistically, then I respectfully suggest you read Gordon H. Clark on this topic. It's obvious your concern is genuine, but this thread is circling the drain.
 

Alan H

Puritan Board Freshman
The atheist chooses darkness because his deeds are evil. His problem isn’t the nuances of interpretation of the Olivet discourse.
Scripture interprets Scripture, with the Holy Spirit assisting and enlightening, which is absolutely necessary, and Him graciously giving us a correct understanding according to God's mind and will. And this, only after prayerful consideration and supplication for His aid. So, how can any atheist, who doesn't believe in God, and, therefore, does not believe, but rather denies the Scripture to be God''s Word; nor does he have the indwelling of Holy Spirit, who is the Author of the Word and the Spirit of truth; nor does he have the Lord Jesus Christ, who is light and life, and our deliverer from death and darkness; nor can he pray and ask God for spiritual understanding because, to him, there is no God, but self, to pray to; so, how can he who is carnal, sensual, and earthly, both in darkness and himself darkness, a servant of the devil, be expected to rightly interpret anything correctly, much less, God's Holy and Divine written Word.

If we can't first discern the reality and existence of God by His general revelation of Himself in creation, how can we be expected to understand anything concerning His Divine Written Revelation and that express Revelation of himself in Jesus Christ, which the natural man believes are foolishness...
 

jubalsqaud

Puritan Board Freshman
I asked the atheist I know if his video was done, he said it wasn't but the transcript is.

He sent it to me so you can see his reasoning in his own words.

Below is his texts from his video, he also said that this is intended to be ran threw a text to speech program so some of capitalization and abbreviation quirks exist to force the ai to pronounce it correctly

Christians will tell you that Jesus will return one day and wake the dead, banish evil, and bring about ever lasting justice.

They derive this claim from the Olivet Discourse, which is a speech Jesus makes that is found in Luke 21, Mark 13 and Matthew 24 and 25.

They are correct that Jesus does promise these things, however the Christians do not reveal all the relevant details.

For Jesus does not simply say he will return. He says that the will return around the time the second temple is destroyed by the evil one foretold in Daniel and complete the general resurrection of the dead as foretold by daniel.

This video will prove conclusively the previous interpretation.

None of my verse citations and arguments will be translation specific, for the benefit of the viewer I will use the "N""A"'S"B" translation. However all major translations will have equivalent meanings to the verses I cite.

Let us begin.

So what exactly is the Olivet Discourse I mentioned earlier?

It is a speech Jesus gave during the last week or so of Jesus' life before being murdered by the roman slash Jewish courts.

Jesus tells his followers he will make one last extended stay in Jerusalem before he is killed.

On one of those days Jesus is asked a bunch of questions by the Pharisees to challenge his authority.

The events i am about to describe take place all on the same day.

Jesus refuses to tell the Pharisees by what authority he speaks

Jesus gives the Parable of the Vine-growers and answers the following questions: if it is acceptable to pay taxes to Caesar, whether angels marry and there will be a resurrection of the dead, what is the greatest commandment and how is the messiah David's son.

After this Jesus witnesses a widow offer a small amount of money and he praises her for it.



Matthews version omits the widow story, but mark are otherwise the same.



then in all versions Jesus hears people remarking on the beauty of the temple as he is leaving to stay on the mount of Olives for the night. He then reveals the temple is doomed.

They then leave the city and camp on the Mount of Olives where his disciples ask some variation of matthew 24 verse 3

" And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”"

At this point the speech commences.

Jesus warns his followers not to panic when you see generic disasters for the gospel must be spread first then then the end times prophecy of Daniel will come to pass



How do we know he is talking about daniel's prophecy specifically though?

The answer is Matthew's version 24 verse 15 which says

“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—let the reader understand"

Here you can see that Jesus does name drops daniel explicitly as the original giver of this prophecy.

But what is daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation

In Daniel 11 and 12 Daniel speaks of a evil king who enters his story in daniel 11:21.

This king in verse 31 attacks Jerusalem and sets up something called "the abomination of desolation , and midway through his rule the end times begin. In verse 45 he is defeated and the next to verses read

"Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued."

Compare daniel's words to Jesus words " For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again."

As we can see after name dropping daniel he paraphrases daniel 12 verses 1 and 2.

At this point we are all aware Jesus' is claiming that the temple will be destroyed by Daniel's evil king.

Now why should we think that Jesus means that the second temple specifically will be destroyed by the evil king and not the temple 2000 years in the future?

Well there are two reasons.

Reason one is found in Lukes version of the story.

when the people remark upon the beauty of the temple the following takes place

"And while some were talking about the temple, that it was decorated with beautiful stones and vowed gifts, He said, “As for these things which you are observing, the days will come when there will not be left one stone upon another, which will not be torn down.”"

Here you see Jesus says it is the beautiful stones and gifts etcetera that the people are looking at with there eyeballs that very moment that will be cast down.

Notice he did not say "one day this institution will be abolished" or that "some new structure will be built and that will be torn down"

The second reason to think he means the second temple is Luke's version of the abomination of desolation line.

Lukes version reads “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are inside the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled."

Lukes version of the prophecy simply decrees when you see armies surrounding Jerusalem its time to get out for daniel events are about to take place.

Jerusalem has been surrounded by hostile armies at least once since this prediction was made.

Once during the siege of 70ad when titus cleared the country side around Jerusalem of timber for 90 furlongs to build a siege wall around the parts of the city the jews still controlled.

We know this because of a witness to the battle, his name is Flavious Josephus and he mentions this fact twice

"For all the trees that were about the city had been already cut down, for the making of the former banks. Yet did the soldiers bring with them other materials from the distance of ninety furlongs; and thereby raised banks, in four parts, much greater than the former; though this was done only at the tower of Antonia." War of the Jews Book five chapter 12 section 4

and

"And now the Romans, although they were greatly distressed in getting together their materials, raised their banks in one and twenty days; after they had cut down all the trees that were in the country that adjoined to the city: and that for ninety furlongs round about; as I have already related." - War of the Jews book 6 chapter 1 section 1

Here we see roman wood cutters worked to clear the countryside of trees all around the city.

This brings us to our final point.



So far we have shown Jesus thinks that the second temple will be destroyed in fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy and that the second temple is already destroyed.



So you might ask "how do we know the prophecy didnt already come true? or that the great tribulation is still ongoing?"



The answer is what Jesus says in matthew 24:29- 31

29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other."



Notice the second coming where Jesus gathers his elect takes place immediately AFTER great tribulation.

This creates a problem.



The great tribulation was not going on at the time of Jesus first life when judea was a roman province around 30 ad.

The jewish quality of life wasn't excellent during this time, there were frequent acts of violence but people got by relatively alright.

So a average quality of life that is as good or better than gospel era Judea cannot exist during the great tribulation, as a great tribulation must worsen the status quo.

But modern Israel clearly has something as good or better, Israel is independent that at worst could be considered a client state of the United states. The various riots and disturbances that exist as part of the Palestine conflict are similar in character to the roman era disturbances under Pontius Pilate.



In the end we have proven the following things:

Jesus prophesied that the second temple would be destroyed by daniel's end times event.

The second temple was destroyed long ago.

Since we know Jesus and Daniel promised that the great tribulation would be ended by the general resurrection of the dead (I.E. the second coming) and we have a modern jewish state that offers it citizens a great quality of life we cannot be living during the great tribulation and thus cannot be "rescued"
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I asked the atheist I know if his video was done, he said it wasn't but the transcript is.

He sent it to me so you can see his reasoning in his own words.

Below is his texts from his video, he also said that this is intended to be ran threw a text to speech program so some of capitalization and abbreviation quirks exist to force the ai to pronounce it correctly
His first sentence is wrong. We start with 1 Corinthians 15
 

MyCrows

Puritan Board Freshman
“And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."

Daniel 12:11

Either way, there is still a set period of time described after the abomination of desolation is set up(whatever event you interpret this to be). Problematic if those days are interpreted as something other than literal days, and still problematic for your friend if they are 24 hour days.
 

jubalsqaud

Puritan Board Freshman
“And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."

Daniel 12:11

Either way, there is still a set period of time described after the abomination of desolation is set up(whatever event you interpret this to be). Problematic if those days are interpreted as something other than literal days, and still problematic for your friend if they are 24 hour days.
What's the problem?
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
EJ Young commenting on Daniel back in the middle of the 20th century--someone with impeccable Reformed credentials and a scholar of the first rank--presented a well-reasoned argument and coherent reading of Daniel's prophecy not beholden to the deniers of prophecy or to them on the other side that insisted on the most literalistic reading of Daniel's timeline. Young regards the timeline (and persuades me) that it is not intended to map precicely to man's calendar; but our calendar and time measurements are analogous to the true meaning (and authorial intent) embedded in the prophecy.

One of the most curious aspects of modern polemics regarding Bible prophecy is how consistently wooden are the treatments of both the unbelieving camp and those who posture as the "most conservative" or "most faithful" on the believing side. You know who the latter are, because of how quick they are to throw overboard any potential ally (believer) unwilling to adopt their passion for one-dimensional literary simplicity. As if the Bible was composed for readers of no more than elementary school sophistication, by writers bound within their lives during previous "dark" ages.

As for the Olivet Discourse, there are numerous treatments ancient and modern that fairly regard Jesus' teaching, even when they dissent from each other, that manage to do justice to his words without forcing him into a contradiction or a failure. Again, it is a perverse sort of reading (the atheist and the fundy all agreed!) that shows little interest in Jesus' intent as conveyed by the Gospel writer, and more interest in preserving either a Jesus-in-a-dunce-cap picture, or preservation of a certain prophetic-school hermeneutic.
 

Apologia Christou

Puritan Board Freshman
I asked the atheist I know if his video was done, he said it wasn't but the transcript is.

He sent it to me so you can see his reasoning in his own words.

Below is his texts from his video, he also said that this is intended to be ran threw a text to speech program so some of capitalization and abbreviation quirks exist to force the ai to pronounce it correctly

But Daniel 11 speaks of the taking away of the sacrifices, not the ceasing of it. So this is better applied to Antiochus, who did just that. In Daniel 9:27 we read of the ceasing of the sacrifices, so Jesus would refer to this prophecy in the context of the destruction of the temple.

Here John Owen on that, in his Exposition of the Hebrews Volume 1, where he argues against somebody who wants do identify the figure in Daniel 9 with the so called "Antichrist" of Daniel 8 and 11:

17. He proceeds: “From the beginning of the second half of the last week, or of the three years and an half, a prince is said to ‘cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,’ verse 27; a phrase ascribed unto Antichrist, chap. 8:11, 11:31.”
Ans. (1.) I have showed before that the similitude of phrases in different places is no ground to conclude a coincidence of the same things intended. (2.) The phrases are not the same, nor alike, in the places compared. Concerning him who is spoken of, chap. 8:11, it is said, הֻרַים הַתָּמִיד; and of them, chap. 11:31, הֵסִירוּ הַתָּמִיד,—“They shall take” (or “remove”) “away the continual offering;” that is, hinder the observation of it and attendance unto it, when it ought to be observed. Of the prince, chap. 9:27, it is said, יַשְׁבִּית זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה,—“He shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering,” so that, de jure, they ought no more to be observed.
18. “In the same time,” saith he, “the said prince is said, verse 27, ‘for the overspreading of abominations to make desolate;’ a phrase attributed unto Antichrist, chap. 8:12, 13, 11:31, there said to set up the ‘abomination making desolate.’ ”
Ans. Although, great desolations and destructions being treated of in all these places, it would not be strange if the same author should express the alike events in the same terms, yet those which we are referred unto are not the same in the original, nor of any considerable correspondency. And the like may be said of another instance, which he adds in the ninth place, between an expression, chap. 9:27, 11:36, wherein is no agreement at all, and the places treat directly of things different, yea, contrary.


John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, Bd. 18, Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1854), 315.
 

jubalsqaud

Puritan Board Freshman
But Daniel 11 speaks of the taking away of the sacrifices, not the ceasing of it. So this is better applied to Antiochus, who did just that. In Daniel 9:27 we read of the ceasing of the sacrifices, so Jesus would refer to this prophecy in the context of the destruction of the temple.

Here John Owen on that, in his Exposition of the Hebrews Volume 1, where he argues against somebody who wants do identify the figure in Daniel 9 with the so called "Antichrist" of Daniel 8 and 11:

17. He proceeds: “From the beginning of the second half of the last week, or of the three years and an half, a prince is said to ‘cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,’ verse 27; a phrase ascribed unto Antichrist, chap. 8:11, 11:31.”
Ans. (1.) I have showed before that the similitude of phrases in different places is no ground to conclude a coincidence of the same things intended. (2.) The phrases are not the same, nor alike, in the places compared. Concerning him who is spoken of, chap. 8:11, it is said, הֻרַים הַתָּמִיד; and of them, chap. 11:31, הֵסִירוּ הַתָּמִיד,—“They shall take” (or “remove”) “away the continual offering;” that is, hinder the observation of it and attendance unto it, when it ought to be observed. Of the prince, chap. 9:27, it is said, יַשְׁבִּית זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה,—“He shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering,” so that, de jure, they ought no more to be observed.
18. “In the same time,” saith he, “the said prince is said, verse 27, ‘for the overspreading of abominations to make desolate;’ a phrase attributed unto Antichrist, chap. 8:12, 13, 11:31, there said to set up the ‘abomination making desolate.’ ”
Ans. Although, great desolations and destructions being treated of in all these places, it would not be strange if the same author should express the alike events in the same terms, yet those which we are referred unto are not the same in the original, nor of any considerable correspondency. And the like may be said of another instance, which he adds in the ninth place, between an expression, chap. 9:27, 11:36, wherein is no agreement at all, and the places treat directly of things different, yea, contrary.


John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, Bd. 18, Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1854), 315.
My beef with the antiochus interpretation is daniel 11:40 says guy who set up the abomination is alive at the end fighting people

40 “And at the end time the king of the South will wage war with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them, and pass through. "

So antiochus should have been around to see the end of the world as we know it
 

MyCrows

Puritan Board Freshman
I don't claim to fully understand the book of Daniel, but I think there is something missing here.

I don't belive all the events in ch 11 and ch 12 of Daniel necessarily occur "rapid fire", one right after the other, especially ch 12.

Consider Daniel 12.

----

¹“At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book. ²And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt. ³Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament,
And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever.

⁴“But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”

⁵Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank. ⁶And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?”

⁷Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, “My lord, what shall be the end of these things?”

⁹And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. ¹⁰Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.

¹¹“And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. ¹²Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.

¹³“But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.”

----



In reference to part of verse 1 [And at that time your people shall be delivered]

What is that time, except the time after Jesus' and Paul's "Time of the Gentiles"?

²⁰“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. ²¹Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. ²²For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. ²³But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. ²⁴And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Luke 20:21-24



²⁵For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
²⁶And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

²⁷For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.

Romans 11:25-27


Maybe I'm not seeing this properly. But it seems to me that Daniel's people [the elect in Israel] are saved out of the time of desolation.
The time of desolation being the entire time of the Gentiles trampling them underfoot. Which leaves plenty of room for the end of days to come after the initiation of the time of desolation.
 

Apologia Christou

Puritan Board Freshman
My beef with the antiochus interpretation is daniel 11:40 says guy who set up the abomination is alive at the end fighting people

40 “And at the end time the king of the South will wage war with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them, and pass through. "

So antiochus should have been around to see the end of the world as we know it
Yes, but since Antiochus typifies the Antichrist, there is no real problem with that. So we find in the prophets, that sometimes they do make the switch from the type to the antitype in their discourse. For example in Ezekiel 28, when he starts talking about the king of Tyre, but then going on to say that he is a cherub who was in the garden of Eden. Now this certainly isn’t true of the king of Tyre in any meaningful way, but only as in some respect he was a proper type of this cherub.

And so in Daniel 11, Christian interpreters see a switch being make from the type to the antitype from Vers 36 onward. Let me quote one example from Goodwins commentary on revelation:

„But in the 11th chapter of Daniel, where this Antiochus is prophesied of, he is in this made the type of Antichrist; and therefore after that the prophet had thus set forth and ended that his tyranny at ver. 35 of that chapter, he begins, ver. 36, to set out the Pope and his tyranny unto the end of the chapter: so passing from the type to the antitype, even as Christ doth, in the 24th of Matthew, from the story of the destruction of Jerusalem to that of the end of the, world because that was a type of it. And therefore it is that Daniel useth this transition, ver. 35 of that 11th chapter, when he had ended Antiochus’s story, that there remains yet ‘a time ordained,’ so Graserus and others read it,—that is, yet another series of the fates to be related, whereof this was the type; and so he passeth on to describe Antichrist (who is that king mentioned ver. 36) unto the end of that chapter, whose ruin and end, he says, should be after ‘ill tidings to him out of the north’—that is, the reformation of religion in these northern countries—had so enraged him as to cause him to ‘go forth in fury,’ at his last endeavouring utterly to root out, &c.“
 
Top