Daniel’s “Final Week” (70th Week) Has ALREADY Been Fulfilled

cv5 · Jul 15, 2026

Vucesa said:
The book of Daniel was sealed because the 70 weeks for example where still hundreds of years off. The book of Revelation wasn't sealed because its fulfillment began shortly after being written.

Few passages in the Hebrew Scriptures are as critical to mapping out the "time of the end" as Daniel 12:4:
"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."

Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a prominent Messianic Jewish theologian and founder of Ariel Ministries, approaches this passage through a strict literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic. His exegesis strips away common modern misconceptions and anchors the passage squarely within the progress of prophetic revelation.

1. What Does it Mean to "Seal the Book"?
Fruchtenbaum emphasizes that "sealing" the book did not mean the text of Daniel was to be hidden away physically or kept secret from readers of his day.

Preservation, Not Hiddenness: In ancient Near Eastern treaty and legal contexts, to "seal" a document meant to preserve it intact, certifying its authenticity and protecting it from tampering so it could reach its destination unaltered.

Locked Until the Appointed Time: More importantly, it meant that the full comprehension of the prophecies—specifically those regarding the Great Tribulation and the sequence of end-times events—was locked. The complete theological and historical sense of these visions could not be fully unraveled until the historical context of the "time of the end" actually arrived.

The Contrast with Revelation: Fruchtenbaum frequently contrasts this command with Revelation 22:10, where John is told, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand." Because John was writing after the First Coming of the Messiah, the timeline was now actively unfolding, whereas Daniel's visions remained sealed because they pointed to a far-off dispensational era.

cv5 · Jul 15, 2026

cv5 said:
Few passages in the Hebrew Scriptures are as critical to mapping out the "time of the end" as Daniel 12:4:
"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."

Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a prominent Messianic Jewish theologian and founder of Ariel Ministries, approaches this passage through a strict literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic. His exegesis strips away common modern misconceptions and anchors the passage squarely within the progress of prophetic revelation.

1. What Does it Mean to "Seal the Book"?
Fruchtenbaum emphasizes that "sealing" the book did not mean the text of Daniel was to be hidden away physically or kept secret from readers of his day.

Preservation, Not Hiddenness: In ancient Near Eastern treaty and legal contexts, to "seal" a document meant to preserve it intact, certifying its authenticity and protecting it from tampering so it could reach its destination unaltered.

Locked Until the Appointed Time: More importantly, it meant that the full comprehension of the prophecies—specifically those regarding the Great Tribulation and the sequence of end-times events—was locked. The complete theological and historical sense of these visions could not be fully unraveled until the historical context of the "time of the end" actually arrived.

The Contrast with Revelation: Fruchtenbaum frequently contrasts this command with Revelation 22:10, where John is told, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand." Because John was writing after the First Coming of the Messiah, the timeline was now actively unfolding, whereas Daniel's visions remained sealed because they pointed to a far-off dispensational era.

Because John was writing after the First Coming of the Messiah, the timeline was now actively unfolding, whereas Daniel's visions remained sealed because they pointed to a far-off dispensational era.

Which of course proves that the "last days" are the ENTIRE Church age, the final age before the Second Coming and the AGE TO COME, aka the Day of the Lord.

[1Pe 1:20 KJV] 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

[Heb 1:2 KJV] 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

[Mat 12:32 NKJV] 32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the [age] to come.

[Mar 10:30 NKJV] 30 "who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time--houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions--and in the age to come, eternal life.

[Luk 18:30 NKJV] 30 "who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life."

[Eph 1:21 NKJV] 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.

**********************

Another futurist dispensationalist grand slam. We simply cannot lose!

Patrick0269 · Jul 15, 2026

JustThinking said:
Here is part of the narrative found within my commentary on Daniel (3/10/26) speaking to the 2300 days prophecy:

Part 1 of 2

In verses 13–14, Daniel is allowed to overhear a brief but extraordinary exchange between two heavenly beings. One is the “Certain One” (often understood as the Lord Himself), and the other is Gabriel, who asks a direct, weighty question:

“How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?”

At first glance, it sounds like a simple “How long?” But—as in verses 11–12—these words bring together more than one actor and more than one time period. In 11–12 we saw this clearly: part of the interpretation described the Messiah’s work in the final week of the seventy-weeks-of-years prophecy, and part described the later activity of the little horn. Verses 13–14 follow the same pattern and need the same careful attention.

Gabriel is asking about the length of the chazon—the broad, sweeping vision that began back in 8:1–2 and runs all the way to “the time of the end.” His question gathers up four elements: the daily sacrifices, the transgression of desolation, the trampling of the sanctuary, and the trampling of the host. These do not all belong to the same moment in history.

The daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation point us into the final “week” of the seventy-weeks-of-years prophecy—the time of the Messiah’s ministry and crucifixion.

The daily is brought to an end not by force, but by fulfillment: Christ’s once-for-all offering of Himself brings the entire sacrificial system to its true completion. The “transgression of desolation” refers to the climactic act of rejection—when the Holy One is delivered up and crucified by His own people. That act, though carried out by earthly authorities, becomes the moral turning point of the covenant. It is the desolating transgression that reveals the depth of human rebellion even as it accomplishes divine redemption.

The trampling of the sanctuary and the trampling of the host belong later, in the long post-cross period tied to the rise of the little horn. This corrupt, self-exalting power casts truth to the ground, distorts the meaning of Christ’s finished work, and brings prolonged spiritual oppression both to God’s people and to His sanctuary. So in verse 13 the question is explicitly about the chazon—the long-range panorama of kingdoms, conflicts, and rebellion that stretches to the time of the end. But before Gabriel receives an answer to that broad “How long?”, something striking happens in verse 14: God Himself steps in and answers Daniel directly. It is as if the Lord says:

Daniel, the rise and fall of empires matters—but what matters most is the moment when I step into history Myself. The heart of this whole vision is the appearance of the Messiah and the cleansing He will accomplish. I want you to know when that will happen.

So the Lord answers—not Gabriel, but Daniel:

“For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”

Here the focus narrows from the vast chazon to the inner core: the mareh vision, the appearance-centered vision of the Messiah and His redemptive work. The 2,300 evenings and mornings are not a vague symbol; they are the time measure God gives for this central work to reach its goal: the cleansing of the sanctuary. Just as verses 11–12 required us to separate two actors and two time periods within one explanation, verses 13–14 ask us to do the same—but now with the added weight of a specific time prophecy. The 2,300-days prophecy sits at the very heart of the chapter: it ties the Messiah’s once-for-all sacrifice to the cleansing of the sanctuary and anchors that saving work on a precise, God-appointed timeline.

Evenings and Mornings – Creation, Daily Sacrifices, and the Cross

The phrase “evenings and mornings” is precise and deeply symbolic. First, it echoes Genesis, where each day is marked by “evening and morning.” That pattern signals God’s order, intentionality, and completeness in creation. Second, it recalls the daily rhythm of the morning and evening offerings in the earthly sanctuary. In the Temple, the continual sacrifice framed each day before God and represented an ongoing covenant relationship between Him and His people.

That language is not accidental. The Messiah’s suffering and death occur within that same sanctuary-shaped framework of time. The Gospels mark His crucifixion and death with specific hours, and the shadow of the daily offerings stands behind the scene. The “evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 therefore do more than measure a span of days—they point to the entire daily system that foreshadowed Christ and reaches its completion in Him.

By using this phrase, God ties together the redemptive arc. In creation, “evening and morning” marked each completed day. In the sanctuary, the daily offerings marked each day of covenant life. At the cross, the true Lamb of God fulfilled what those offerings could only symbolize. Once His sacrifice is offered and accepted, the earthly daily no longer carries a divine role. The system it sustained is brought to its God-intended conclusion, and the focus shifts from the earthly pattern to the reality—the heavenly sanctuary and the cleansing work that follows.

This is why Daniel’s vision becomes so remarkable at this point. The mareh is not showing us merely a distant ritual in an earthly building, but the Messiah’s own work at the center of redemption—work that fulfills the sacrificial system and anchors the sanctuary message in heaven itself. And just as God once gave Moses the Ten Words as a foundation within the larger Torah, and the Torah is found within the Tanakh, so here He gives Daniel the time-marker tied to the Messiah’s appearance and offering as a foundation within the broader vision. The mareh belongs within the final week of the seventy-weeks-of-years prophecy, and that seventy-week block belongs within the larger chazon. The Messiah’s sacrifice is therefore not a side-note in the prophecy—it is its beating heart, the turning point around which both the mareh and the larger chazon must be understood.

Interpretive Paths for the 2,300 Evenings and Mornings

The 2,300 evenings and mornings has been read in more than one way. Many interpreters apply a year-for-a-day principle and treat it as 2,300 years, often anchored to 457 BC alongside the seventy weeks. Others take “evenings and mornings” as related to the daily offerings and therefore understand the period as 1,150 days. The range of views shows how much debate this text has generated.

In this chapter, however, the phrase “evenings and mornings” is bound tightly to sanctuary language—especially the daily—and to the Messiah’s fulfillment of what the daily system foreshadowed. For that reason, I understand the number in Daniel 8:14 as a literal span of 2,300 days is tied to the mareh (the appearance-focused portion of the vision), not as a measure for the entire chazon horizon. In this reading, the 2,300 evenings and mornings:

Belong to the mareh vision rather than measuring the full chazon.

Fall within the Messiah-centered portion of the seventy-weeks framework, which Daniel 9 will clarify.

Mark the sanctuary turning point: the Messiah’s offering, its acceptance in heaven, and the decisive end of the daily system’s covenant function.

Through His death as the true Passover Lamb, the Messiah completes the purpose of the daily sacrifices. The earthly pattern is “cast down” in the sense that its role is fulfilled. And as He rises and ascends, the focus of atonement shifts from the pattern to the reality—the heavenly sanctuary—where His priestly work is established and the sanctuary message reaches its true intent.

Look up Warren Miller. He was a Baptist preacher in the 1800s. He figured out all the prophecies in Daniel correctly.

JustThinking · Jul 15, 2026

cv5 said:
The Reformers correctly identified the papacy as the little horn described in Daniel 7 and 8

The typical (and utterly Biblically illiterate) Reformer trope.
The Reformers attempts at exegesis were a train wreck, this because of their failure to grasp JEWISH concepts, thought, and principles.

Oh and BTW, the "little horn" is ALWAYS an individual person.

Fruchtenbaum’s interpretation directly contradicts the historicist claim that the papacy as an institution is the “little horn.” His argument is that Daniel’s little horns are presented as personal rulers, not ecclesiastical systems spanning many centuries.

Daniel 7: the little horn is an individual Antichrist

Daniel 7:8 says:

The horn possesses distinctly personal characteristics:

Eyes like the eyes of a man

A mouth speaking

He personally persecutes the saints

He personally changes times and laws

He personally rules for “a time and times and the dividing of time”

He is personally destroyed when the Ancient of Days judges him

Daniel 7:24 explicitly interprets the horns as kings:

The text does not say that the little horn is a religious office, an institution, a succession of popes, or an ecclesiastical system. It says another king shall arise.

For Fruchtenbaum, this is the future Antichrist: an individual ruler who rises from the final form of the fourth Gentile empire, subdues three rulers, persecutes the saints during the Tribulation, and is destroyed at Messiah’s return.

Daniel 8: the little horn is also an individual ruler

Daniel 8:9 introduces another little horn:

This horn:

Exalts himself

Removes the daily sacrifice

Desecrates the sanctuary

Casts truth to the ground

Is ultimately broken by divine judgment

The angel’s interpretation again identifies him as an individual king:

Fruchtenbaum identifies the immediate historical fulfillment as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king who desecrated the Jewish Temple. Antiochus also functions typologically as a foreshadowing of the future Antichrist.

Thus:

Daniel 7 little horn: the future Antichrist.

Daniel 8 little horn: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, with possible typological implications for Antichrist.

Neither horn: the papacy as a multigenerational institution.

The decisive grammatical point

The inspired interpretation does not leave the symbol undefined:

Both passages interpret the horn as a king—a personal ruler. Therefore, identifying the little horn with the papacy requires replacing Daniel’s own interpretation of the symbol with a later historicist construction.

I understand the point you are making, but I do not think it is as decisive as you are claiming. Your argument depends on the assumption that when Daniel uses the word “king,” it must always mean one single individual man. But Daniel itself shows that this is not how the symbols always work.

In Daniel 7:17, the four beasts are called “four kings.” But in Daniel 7:23, the fourth beast is called “the fourth kingdom.” So Daniel can use “king” language in a representative way. A king can stand for a kingdom, dominion, ruling power, or line of authority. That matters when we come to the little horn.

Daniel 7:24 says the ten horns are ten kings, but when it speaks of the little horn, it does not explicitly say, “another king shall rise.” It says, “and another shall rise after them.” Another what? In the immediate context, another horn, not another king. That distinction matters.

The little horn rises out of the fourth beast, among the ten horns, after them, and continues long enough to speak great things, wear out the saints, think to change times and law, and remain until divine judgment removes its dominion. That can certainly be understood as a ruling power, not merely one short-lived individual.

The same issue appears in Daniel 8. Daniel 8:21 says, “the rough goat is the king of Grecia,” but the goat clearly represents the Greek kingdom, not merely one man. Then the great horn represents the first king, and the four horns represent the divisions that come afterward. So even in Daniel 8, “king” and “horn” language moves between individual rulers and broader ruling powers. For that reason, I do not believe the historicist interpretation is replacing Daniel’s inspired interpretation. It is reading Daniel according to Daniel’s own symbolic usage.

The real question is not whether the little horn exercises ruling authority. It clearly does. The question is whether Daniel forces us to identify the little horn as one individual man only. I do not believe it does.

Fruchtenbaum may interpret the little horn as an individual Antichrist, and he is free to make that argument. But the grammar does not force that conclusion. Daniel’s own language leaves room for the little horn to represent a continuing ruling power that arises from the fourth kingdom, speaks with arrogant authority, persecutes the saints, seeks to change times and law, and continues until God’s judgment removes it.

I would also be careful about building too much on the word “Antichrist.” There are only four verses in the entire Bible where the term “antichrist” appears, and they are all in the New Testament writings of John. The word does not even appear in the Book of Revelation. And in those verses, John speaks not only of antichrist but also of the “spirit of antichrist” and of “many antichrists.” So the Bible itself does not require the little horn of Daniel to be reduced to one future individual called “the Antichrist.”

By contrast, God gives us a great deal of prophetic detail about the little horn. Daniel tells us where it arises, when it arises, how it comes to power, what kind of character it has, what it speaks, what it changes, whom it persecutes, and how long its dominion continues. God has not been vague with His prophetic description. The little horn can be identified by the marks Daniel gives, not by forcing it into a later system that Daniel itself does not require.

Also, Scripture does no require us to bring Antiochus into Daniel (in any chapter). Antiochus is known from history, but Daniel never names him. The text does not name the Seleucids either. I understand why some see Antiochus as reflecting certain features of the prophecy. He did persecute the Jews and defile the temple. But Daniel 8 presents the little horn as growing “exceedingly great” toward the south, the east, and the glorious land. It magnifies itself even to the Prince of the host, casts truth to the ground, attacks the daily, and is eventually broken without human hand.

That language reaches far beyond Antiochus. Not only is the timing a major concern, but the scale of the prophecy is much larger than a brief Seleucid ruler whose reign lasted only about thirteen years. Antiochus may have been brutal, but that does not mean he fulfills the full prophetic weight of Daniel 8.

So I would not say Fruchtenbaum’s interpretation settles the issue. I do not say that disrespectfully. He is certainly entitled to his view. But I would hesitate to limit Daniel’s meaning to his framework, especially when Daniel’s own symbolic method allows for a broader ruling power rather than one isolated individual.

Patrick0269 · Jul 15, 2026

JustThinking said:
I understand the point you are making, but I do not think it is as decisive as you are claiming. Your argument depends on the assumption that when Daniel uses the word “king,” it must always mean one single individual man. But Daniel itself shows that this is not how the symbols always work.

In Daniel 7:17, the four beasts are called “four kings.” But in Daniel 7:23, the fourth beast is called “the fourth kingdom.” So Daniel can use “king” language in a representative way. A king can stand for a kingdom, dominion, ruling power, or line of authority. That matters when we come to the little horn.

Daniel 7:24 says the ten horns are ten kings, but when it speaks of the little horn, it does not explicitly say, “another king shall rise.” It says, “and another shall rise after them.” Another what? In the immediate context, another horn, not another king. That distinction matters.

The little horn rises out of the fourth beast, among the ten horns, after them, and continues long enough to speak great things, wear out the saints, think to change times and law, and remain until divine judgment removes its dominion. That can certainly be understood as a ruling power, not merely one short-lived individual.

The same issue appears in Daniel 8. Daniel 8:21 says, “the rough goat is the king of Grecia,” but the goat clearly represents the Greek kingdom, not merely one man. Then the great horn represents the first king, and the four horns represent the divisions that come afterward. So even in Daniel 8, “king” and “horn” language moves between individual rulers and broader ruling powers. For that reason, I do not believe the historicist interpretation is replacing Daniel’s inspired interpretation. It is reading Daniel according to Daniel’s own symbolic usage.

The real question is not whether the little horn exercises ruling authority. It clearly does. The question is whether Daniel forces us to identify the little horn as one individual man only. I do not believe it does.

Fruchtenbaum may interpret the little horn as an individual Antichrist, and he is free to make that argument. But the grammar does not force that conclusion. Daniel’s own language leaves room for the little horn to represent a continuing ruling power that arises from the fourth kingdom, speaks with arrogant authority, persecutes the saints, seeks to change times and law, and continues until God’s judgment removes it.

I would also be careful about building too much on the word “Antichrist.” There are only four verses in the entire Bible where the term “antichrist” appears, and they are all in the New Testament writings of John. The word does not even appear in the Book of Revelation. And in those verses, John speaks not only of antichrist but also of the “spirit of antichrist” and of “many antichrists.” So the Bible itself does not require the little horn of Daniel to be reduced to one future individual called “the Antichrist.”

By contrast, God gives us a great deal of prophetic detail about the little horn. Daniel tells us where it arises, when it arises, how it comes to power, what kind of character it has, what it speaks, what it changes, whom it persecutes, and how long its dominion continues. God has not been vague with His prophetic description. The little horn can be identified by the marks Daniel gives, not by forcing it into a later system that Daniel itself does not require.

Also, Scripture does no require us to bring Antiochus into Daniel (in any chapter). Antiochus is known from history, but Daniel never names him. The text does not name the Seleucids either. I understand why some see Antiochus as reflecting certain features of the prophecy. He did persecute the Jews and defile the temple. But Daniel 8 presents the little horn as growing “exceedingly great” toward the south, the east, and the glorious land. It magnifies itself even to the Prince of the host, casts truth to the ground, attacks the daily, and is eventually broken without human hand.

That language reaches far beyond Antiochus. Not only is the timing a major concern, but the scale of the prophecy is much larger than a brief Seleucid ruler whose reign lasted only about thirteen years. Antiochus may have been brutal, but that does not mean he fulfills the full prophetic weight of Daniel 8.

So I would not say Fruchtenbaum’s interpretation settles the issue. I do not say that disrespectfully. He is certainly entitled to his view. But I would hesitate to limit Daniel’s meaning to his framework, especially when Daniel’s own symbolic method allows for a broader ruling power rather than one isolated individual.

A colleague of his identified the prophecy in Daniel about the fall of the Ottoman empire. He predicted it on the exact day and year that the Bible said it was going to happen and on August 11, I believe 1841. The prophecy came true like he said. So I believe that he nailed it perfectly.

JustThinking · Jul 15, 2026

Patrick0269 said:
Look up Warren Miller. He was a Baptist preacher in the 1800s. He figured out all the prophecies in Daniel correctly.

I have read so many commentaries / intepretations on Daniel... but I do not remember reading Miller - unless I completely forgot.... So, i do not know if he agrees or disagrees with the comments mentioned in the post you are referencing. Would you care to discuss them with me? Thanks.

JustThinking · Jul 15, 2026

Patrick0269 said:
A colleague of his identified the prophecy in Daniel about the fall of the Ottoman empire. He predicted it on the exact day and year that the Bible said it was going to happen and on August 11, I believe 1841. The prophecy came true like he said. So I believe that he nailed it perfectly.

Oh, I see... thank you very much.

Patrick0269 · Jul 15, 2026

JustThinking said:
I understand the point you are making, but I do not think it is as decisive as you are claiming. Your argument depends on the assumption that when Daniel uses the word “king,” it must always mean one single individual man. But Daniel itself shows that this is not how the symbols always work.

In Daniel 7:17, the four beasts are called “four kings.” But in Daniel 7:23, the fourth beast is called “the fourth kingdom.” So Daniel can use “king” language in a representative way. A king can stand for a kingdom, dominion, ruling power, or line of authority. That matters when we come to the little horn.

Daniel 7:24 says the ten horns are ten kings, but when it speaks of the little horn, it does not explicitly say, “another king shall rise.” It says, “and another shall rise after them.” Another what? In the immediate context, another horn, not another king. That distinction matters.

The little horn rises out of the fourth beast, among the ten horns, after them, and continues long enough to speak great things, wear out the saints, think to change times and law, and remain until divine judgment removes its dominion. That can certainly be understood as a ruling power, not merely one short-lived individual.

The same issue appears in Daniel 8. Daniel 8:21 says, “the rough goat is the king of Grecia,” but the goat clearly represents the Greek kingdom, not merely one man. Then the great horn represents the first king, and the four horns represent the divisions that come afterward. So even in Daniel 8, “king” and “horn” language moves between individual rulers and broader ruling powers. For that reason, I do not believe the historicist interpretation is replacing Daniel’s inspired interpretation. It is reading Daniel according to Daniel’s own symbolic usage.

The real question is not whether the little horn exercises ruling authority. It clearly does. The question is whether Daniel forces us to identify the little horn as one individual man only. I do not believe it does.

Fruchtenbaum may interpret the little horn as an individual Antichrist, and he is free to make that argument. But the grammar does not force that conclusion. Daniel’s own language leaves room for the little horn to represent a continuing ruling power that arises from the fourth kingdom, speaks with arrogant authority, persecutes the saints, seeks to change times and law, and continues until God’s judgment removes it.

I would also be careful about building too much on the word “Antichrist.” There are only four verses in the entire Bible where the term “antichrist” appears, and they are all in the New Testament writings of John. The word does not even appear in the Book of Revelation. And in those verses, John speaks not only of antichrist but also of the “spirit of antichrist” and of “many antichrists.” So the Bible itself does not require the little horn of Daniel to be reduced to one future individual called “the Antichrist.”

By contrast, God gives us a great deal of prophetic detail about the little horn. Daniel tells us where it arises, when it arises, how it comes to power, what kind of character it has, what it speaks, what it changes, whom it persecutes, and how long its dominion continues. God has not been vague with His prophetic description. The little horn can be identified by the marks Daniel gives, not by forcing it into a later system that Daniel itself does not require.

Also, Scripture does no require us to bring Antiochus into Daniel (in any chapter). Antiochus is known from history, but Daniel never names him. The text does not name the Seleucids either. I understand why some see Antiochus as reflecting certain features of the prophecy. He did persecute the Jews and defile the temple. But Daniel 8 presents the little horn as growing “exceedingly great” toward the south, the east, and the glorious land. It magnifies itself even to the Prince of the host, casts truth to the ground, attacks the daily, and is eventually broken without human hand.

That language reaches far beyond Antiochus. Not only is the timing a major concern, but the scale of the prophecy is much larger than a brief Seleucid ruler whose reign lasted only about thirteen years. Antiochus may have been brutal, but that does not mean he fulfills the full prophetic weight of Daniel 8.

So I would not say Fruchtenbaum’s interpretation settles the issue. I do not say that disrespectfully. He is certainly entitled to his view. But I would hesitate to limit Daniel’s meaning to his framework, especially when Daniel’s own symbolic method allows for a broader ruling power rather than one isolated individual.

The little horn is the papacy. That’s why the prophecy of 1260 years is correct. The starting point of that is 538AD emperor Constantine. Thus concluding the 1260 years to 1798. When the general for Napoleon conquered Rome and put the pope in prison where he later died. That 1260 years represents the torture of Christians by the Catholic Church.

JustThinking · Jul 15, 2026

Patrick0269 said:
The little horn is the papacy. That’s why the prophecy of 1260 years is correct. The starting point of that is 538AD emperor Constantine. Thus concluding the 1260 years to 1798. When the general for Napoleon conquered Rome and put the pope in prison where he later died. That 1260 years represents the torture of Christians by the Catholic Church.

Patrick, thank you for your comments. There is no question the little horn is the papacy. However, I don't agree with the rest of your comments... they are clearly taken from the SDA folks. Now, I will admit, among the individuals / groups / religious organizations within the Christian community, I do not believe there is anyone who has spend more time and effort studying the Book of Daniel - AND, their interpretations are very impressive. However, they are also guilty of interpreting much of Daniel through the lens of our historical records. In other words, they are also guilty of sitting at their desk with the Book of Daniel on the left side of the desk while the right side of the desk has almost every history book they could find in order to try and match the prophetic verses in Daniel to the actors and events within our history books. This approach is fine when Daniel speaks of the actual historical kingdoms, kings, conflicts and transitions of empires from the time of Babylon to Rome, but when the verses in Daniel take on a truely prophetic nature, that approach does not work.

God is not giving us His view or prophecies of the coming kingdoms from Babylon onward. He is providing His prophecies through and within the four and only four kingdoms that will be found WITHIN His plan of restoration and salvation. Thus, He is not giving us just a history lesson where we can match Daniel to our history books.

Now, looking at your comment above, it appears you are treating a 1260 year time element from the date of 538 AD - the date when Justinian transferred power, both civil and religious over to the RCC. So, if you would like to discuss this point I would welcome it but as I mentioned above, it does not follow / agree / connect with the historical events that have been identified by the SDA interpreters. So, where did you find this 1260 years and what is the verse where you found it suppose to accomplish? Thanks so much.

LTTexan · Jul 15, 2026

tablet123 said:
Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Israel as a nation has 70 weeks, 490 years, to make an end of sins, and anoint the most Holy who is Jesus.

Which at the end of the 70 weeks Israel has to accept Jesus as their Messiah.

But they did not do that but they were punished and scattered in to the nations.

So how did the 70th week get fulfilled.

69 weeks have gone past with one week left to go.

Which is the time that God gives the world their way to cause all people who do not love the truth to follow the antichrist.

And cause Israel as a nation to come to the truth.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Israel shall not see Jesus until they acknowledge Him as Lord and Savior.

That means Israel has to come to the truth before salvation can continue because all people will encounter Jesus whether saved or not.

The 70th week has not been fulfilled for if it were Israel as a nation would be in the truth.

But they are not in the truth.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Since the 70 weeks has not been fulfilled this is not speaking of Jesus but it is speaking of the antichrist.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Jeremiah 46:27 But fear not thou, O my servant Jacob, and be not dismayed, O Israel: for, behold, I will save thee from afar off, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be in rest and at ease, and none shall make him afraid.

28 Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the LORD: for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee: but I will not make a full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; yet will I not leave thee wholly unpunished.

God will restore the kingdom to Israel in the future.

Which Israel is blinded in part until salvation is no longer available to the Gentiles.

Which all Israel shall be saved and be the only operating nation on earth for all Gentile nations will have a full end.

Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Isaiah 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

Israel will never cease from being a nation and God has not cast away His people.

Ezekiel 39:25 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;

26 After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid.

27 When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations;

28 Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which caused them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.

29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

God will bring the whole house of Israel back to their land and leave none of them in the nations anymore.

And they will know the LORD their God from that time forward and they will always be in the truth.

So this is a future prophesy.

Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

The antichrist will negotiate peace in the Middle East resulting in a 7 years peace treaty.

The nations will come together to work to have peace on earth.

It will pave the way for all Hebrews to go to Israel for the Gentile nations will see to it.

The orthodox Jews will build their temple with no hassle from the Palestinians and go back to animal sacrifices.

The antichrist will push his agenda for three and one half years and at the end of that time he will step in to the Jews temple and tell them to stop sacrifices.

Which he will then claim to be their God.

When the world follows him and takes his mark salvation is no longer available to them and the fullness of the Gentiles have come in.

God will send Israel 2 witnesses to turn them to the truth for three and one half years and at the end of that time Israel as a nation will be in the truth.

And the 70th week will be fulfilled.

Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The Bible states that Israel has 70 weeks to anoint the most Holy who is Jesus.

But they did not do that in the first century and still have not done it.

Which Jesus said their house is left desolate until they do that.

And they were punished in the first century for not coming to the truth.

So how was the 70th week fulfilled.

This is the truth.

cv5 · Jul 15, 2026

JustThinking said:
I understand the point you are making, but I do not think it is as decisive as you are claiming. Your argument depends on the assumption that when Daniel uses the word “king,” it must always mean one single individual man. But Daniel itself shows that this is not how the symbols always work.

In Daniel 7:17, the four beasts are called “four kings.” But in Daniel 7:23, the fourth beast is called “the fourth kingdom.” So Daniel can use “king” language in a representative way. A king can stand for a kingdom, dominion, ruling power, or line of authority. That matters when we come to the little horn.

Daniel 7:24 says the ten horns are ten kings, but when it speaks of the little horn, it does not explicitly say, “another king shall rise.” It says, “and another shall rise after them.” Another what? In the immediate context, another horn, not another king. That distinction matters.

The little horn rises out of the fourth beast, among the ten horns, after them, and continues long enough to speak great things, wear out the saints, think to change times and law, and remain until divine judgment removes its dominion. That can certainly be understood as a ruling power, not merely one short-lived individual.

The same issue appears in Daniel 8. Daniel 8:21 says, “the rough goat is the king of Grecia,” but the goat clearly represents the Greek kingdom, not merely one man. Then the great horn represents the first king, and the four horns represent the divisions that come afterward. So even in Daniel 8, “king” and “horn” language moves between individual rulers and broader ruling powers. For that reason, I do not believe the historicist interpretation is replacing Daniel’s inspired interpretation. It is reading Daniel according to Daniel’s own symbolic usage.

The real question is not whether the little horn exercises ruling authority. It clearly does. The question is whether Daniel forces us to identify the little horn as one individual man only. I do not believe it does.

Fruchtenbaum may interpret the little horn as an individual Antichrist, and he is free to make that argument. But the grammar does not force that conclusion. Daniel’s own language leaves room for the little horn to represent a continuing ruling power that arises from the fourth kingdom, speaks with arrogant authority, persecutes the saints, seeks to change times and law, and continues until God’s judgment removes it.

I would also be careful about building too much on the word “Antichrist.” There are only four verses in the entire Bible where the term “antichrist” appears, and they are all in the New Testament writings of John. The word does not even appear in the Book of Revelation. And in those verses, John speaks not only of antichrist but also of the “spirit of antichrist” and of “many antichrists.” So the Bible itself does not require the little horn of Daniel to be reduced to one future individual called “the Antichrist.”

By contrast, God gives us a great deal of prophetic detail about the little horn. Daniel tells us where it arises, when it arises, how it comes to power, what kind of character it has, what it speaks, what it changes, whom it persecutes, and how long its dominion continues. God has not been vague with His prophetic description. The little horn can be identified by the marks Daniel gives, not by forcing it into a later system that Daniel itself does not require.

Also, Scripture does no require us to bring Antiochus into Daniel (in any chapter). Antiochus is known from history, but Daniel never names him. The text does not name the Seleucids either. I understand why some see Antiochus as reflecting certain features of the prophecy. He did persecute the Jews and defile the temple. But Daniel 8 presents the little horn as growing “exceedingly great” toward the south, the east, and the glorious land. It magnifies itself even to the Prince of the host, casts truth to the ground, attacks the daily, and is eventually broken without human hand.

That language reaches far beyond Antiochus. Not only is the timing a major concern, but the scale of the prophecy is much larger than a brief Seleucid ruler whose reign lasted only about thirteen years. Antiochus may have been brutal, but that does not mean he fulfills the full prophetic weight of Daniel 8.

So I would not say Fruchtenbaum’s interpretation settles the issue. I do not say that disrespectfully. He is certainly entitled to his view. But I would hesitate to limit Daniel’s meaning to his framework, especially when Daniel’s own symbolic method allows for a broader ruling power rather than one isolated individual.

Do yourself (and everyone else) a big favor: dump your Reformer bags and get with the futurist program.
The alternative is to take a shellacking (like this) every time you post, and expose yourself as a biblically illiterate hack.
And this nonsense that "all views are equally true" is more fuel for the dumpster. There is only ONE truth and correct interpretation.
ONE and ONE only.

The Reformation identification of the papacy with Daniel’s little horn is not supported by the text. Daniel’s inspired interpretation identifies the horn as a king, not as a centuries-long ecclesiastical office:

“And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them … and he shall subdue three kings.”
— Daniel 7:24

The little horn is therefore a personal ruler emerging among ten contemporary rulers. A kingdom or governmental system may stand behind him—as “beast” imagery can represent both a kingdom and its ruler—but Daniel’s focus rests unmistakably upon one final king.
Arnold Fruchtenbaum explicitly labels Daniel 7:24–26 “The Antichrist Stage” and distinguishes it from the preceding one-world and ten-kingdom stages. In his correlation with Revelation 13 and 17, he explains that “beast” refers both to the final governmental form and to its final ruler, the Antichrist.
There is, however, an important qualification:

Daniel 7’s little horn is the future Antichrist.
Daniel 8:9–14’s little horn is historically Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
In Fruchtenbaum’s interpretation, Daniel 8:23–25 moves beyond the historical type to the final Antichrist, “the king of fierce countenance.”

Thus, “little horn” consistently represents a personal king, but the two visions do not necessarily refer to the same historical individual at every point. Fruchtenbaum’s Daniel outline expressly labels Daniel 8:9–14 “The Little Horn: Antiochus Epiphanes,” while identifying 8:23–25 as “The Antichrist.”

Fruchtenbaum’s eleven names of the Antichrist (no Papacy here! Only a unique individual king/person)

In The Footsteps of the Messiah, under the heading “The Names of the Antichrist,” Fruchtenbaum gives exactly eleven names, titles, or descriptions:

Title	Passage	Personal significance
The seed of Satan	Genesis 3:15	The ultimate personal seed of the serpent opposing the Seed of the woman
The little horn	Daniel 7:8	An individual ruler rising among ten kings
The king of fierce countenance	Daniel 8:23	A singular king characterized by cunning and destructive power
The prince that shall come	Daniel 9:26	A coming ruler belonging to the people who destroyed Jerusalem
The desolator	Daniel 9:27	The person responsible for the final abomination and desolation
The willful king	Daniel 11:36	A king who exalts himself above every god
The man of sin	2 Thessalonians 2:3	A specific man in whom rebellion reaches its climax
The son of perdition	2 Thessalonians 2:3	The same doomed individual
The lawless one	2 Thessalonians 2:8	The individual destroyed by Christ’s appearing
The Antichrist	1 John 2:18, 22	The coming personal counterfeit and opponent of Christ
The beast	Revelation 11:7; 13:1–8	The final ruler and, secondarily, the empire embodied in him

Fruchtenbaum says these titles portray different facets of one person’s character, just as the many titles of Christ describe different aspects of the one Messiah.

cv5 · Jul 15, 2026

1. The little horn is expressly interpreted as a king

Daniel does not leave the horn uninterpreted:

“The ten horns … are ten kings … and another shall rise after them.”
— Daniel 7:24

The correspondence is direct:

ten horns = ten kings;
another horn = another king;
three horns uprooted = three kings subdued;
the horn speaks = the king speaks;
the horn persecutes = the king persecutes;
the horn is judged = the king loses his dominion.

The text repeatedly uses personal characteristics:

“eyes like the eyes of a man” — Daniel 7:8;
“a mouth speaking great things” — 7:8;
“whose look was more stout than his fellows” — 7:20;
“he shall speak great words” — 7:25;
“he shall wear out the saints” — 7:25;
“he shall think to change times and laws” — 7:25;
“his dominion” is taken away — 7:26.

This is not merely grammatical personification. Verse 24 authoritatively interprets the symbolic horn as another king.

2. Daniel’s little horn and Revelation’s beast perform the same acts

The strongest identification comes from the near-verbal correspondence between Daniel 7 and Revelation 13.

Daniel’s little horn	Revelation’s beast
Arises in connection with ten horns — Daniel 7:7–8, 24	Possesses ten horns — Revelation 13:1; 17:12
Speaks “great things” — Daniel 7:8, 20	Is given a mouth speaking “great things” — Revelation 13:5
Speaks against the Most High — Daniel 7:25	Blasphemes God and heaven — Revelation 13:5–6
Makes war against the saints — Daniel 7:21	Makes war with the saints — Revelation 13:7
Prevails over them temporarily — Daniel 7:21	Overcomes them temporarily — Revelation 13:7
Rules for “a time, times, and half a time” — Daniel 7:25	Exercises authority for forty-two months — Revelation 13:5
Is destroyed when the heavenly kingdom comes — Daniel 7:11, 26–27	Is captured and judged at Christ’s return — Revelation 19:19–20

A time, times, and half a time equals:

one time;
two times;
half a time;

for a total of three and one-half years, exactly corresponding to Revelation’s forty-two months.
Fruchtenbaum specifically notes that Revelation 13 repeats Daniel 7’s marks: speaking great things, blaspheming heaven, warring against the saints, and exercising absolute control for three and one-half years.
That degree of correspondence identifies Daniel’s horn and John’s beast as the same final ruler.

3. The little horn and Paul’s man of sin have the same self-exaltation

Daniel’s king:

“He shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods.”
— Daniel 11:36

Paul’s man of sin:

“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:4

Both figures:

exalt themselves above God;
speak blasphemously;
operate at the culmination of the age;
invade the sphere of divine worship;
are destroyed directly by the coming Messiah.

Paul’s figure is explicitly “the man” of sin and “the son” of perdition. He is subsequently called:

“That Wicked”—or more literally, “the lawless one”—“whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:8

Daniel’s horn likewise continues until the divine court sits, his dominion is removed, and the Son of Man receives the kingdom. Paul is not describing an institution gradually losing influence. He is describing an identifiable man personally destroyed at Christ’s appearing.

cv5 · Jul 15, 2026

4. The little horn and the prince to come occupy the same prophetic period

Daniel 9 introduces:

“The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
— Daniel 9:26

Grammatically, the antecedent of “he” in verse 27 is the coming prince:

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

The final week contains:

a covenant involving Israel;
one “week” of seven years;
a midpoint violation;
cessation of sacrifice;
the abomination of desolation;
final judgment upon the desolator.

That is the same framework found elsewhere:

Daniel 7: the horn dominates for the final three and one-half years;
Daniel 9: the prince breaks the covenant at the midpoint;
Daniel 11: the willful king exalts himself and profanes the sanctuary;
Matthew 24: Jesus places Daniel’s abomination in the future crisis preceding His return;
2 Thessalonians 2: the man of sin enters the temple and proclaims himself divine;
Revelation 13: the beast receives worldwide worship for forty-two months.

Fruchtenbaum identifies “the prince that shall come” as the Antichrist already described in Daniel 7 and 8.

5. The little horn and the willful king possess the same character

Daniel 11:36 says:

“And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods.”

Compare Daniel 7:

“He shall speak great words against the most High.”
— Daniel 7:25

Compare Revelation 13:

“There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.”
— Revelation 13:5

Compare 2 Thessalonians 2:

“Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:4

The shared language is too specific to be accidental:

Daniel 7: great words against the Most High;
Daniel 11: marvelous words against the God of gods;
2 Thessalonians 2: exalts himself over every object of worship;
Revelation 13: speaks great things and blasphemies.

These are four descriptions of the same final act of self-deification.

6. The horn, man of sin, and beast share the same destruction

The manner and timing of destruction provide perhaps the most decisive identification.

Little horn

“They shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.”
— Daniel 7:26

This occurs immediately before the kingdom is given to the saints in verse 27.

Willful king

“Yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”
— Daniel 11:45

Lawless one

“Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:8

Beast

“And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet … These both were cast alive into a lake of fire.”
— Revelation 19:20

The sequence is identical:

the ruler blasphemes God;
persecutes the saints;
exercises final-world authority;
is active when Christ appears;
is personally destroyed by Christ;
is followed by Messiah’s kingdom.

This is not the history of the papal office. No pope or continuing papal succession is personally destroyed by Christ at the Second Coming immediately before the establishment of the Messianic kingdom.

cv5 · Jul 15, 2026

Why the papal interpretation fails textually

1. Daniel says “king,” not priesthood, church, bishopric, or succession

Daniel 7:24 supplies the interpretation: the horns are kings, and the little horn is another king. A papal succession lasting more than a millennium must be imported into the text.

2. The ten kings exist before the little horn rises

The sequence is:

fourth kingdom;
ten kings;
another king arises after them;
he overthrows three;
the remaining kings submit;
he rules for three and one-half years;
Christ destroys him.

Historicist schemes ordinarily turn the ten horns into early European kingdoms spread across complex historical developments. Revelation 17, however, says the ten kings:

“have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.”
— Revelation 17:12

They are contemporaries of the final beast, not merely a sequence of medieval kingdoms.

3. The stated period is three and one-half years

Daniel 7 gives “a time and times and the dividing of time.” Revelation interprets the equivalent period as forty-two months.

Turning 1,260 days into 1,260 years requires the historicist “day-year” conversion. But Revelation already expresses the same period in three interchangeable literal forms:

forty-two months — Revelation 11:2; 13:5;
1,260 days — Revelation 11:3; 12:6;
time, times, and half a time — Revelation 12:14.

Those expressions mutually explain one another as approximately three and one-half ordinary years.

4. The horn is active immediately before Christ’s kingdom

Daniel does not portray a long gap between the horn’s destruction and the Messianic kingdom:

the horn wages war;
the Ancient of Days judges;
the horn loses dominion;
the kingdom is given to the saints.

The final ruler is therefore an eschatological contemporary of Christ’s return.

5. The beast and the religious harlot are distinct—and eventually enemies

Revelation 17 distinguishes:

the beast, the political ruler and empire;
the woman, the corrupt religious system.

The beast and ten kings ultimately destroy the woman:

“These shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked.”
— Revelation 17:16

In Fruchtenbaum’s system, the first-half religious system—“Ecclesiastical Babylon”—is destroyed by the Antichrist and the ten kings when he assumes total religious control. Therefore, the corrupt ecclesiastical system cannot simply be identical with the beast who destroys it.

The complete identity chain

The argument can be expressed as a cumulative chain:

Daniel 7: the little horn

a king;
among ten kings;
overthrows three;
blasphemes God;
persecutes saints;
rules three and one-half years;
destroyed when the kingdom comes.

Daniel 9: the prince/desolator

a ruler;
confirms a seven-year covenant;
breaks it at the midpoint;
stops sacrifice;
causes the abomination;
receives decreed destruction.

Daniel 11: the willful king

does according to his own will;
magnifies himself above every god;
speaks against God;
enters the glorious land;
comes to his end without help.

2 Thessalonians 2: the man of sin

a revealed man;
exalts himself above God;
occupies the temple;
proclaims himself divine;
operates through Satanic power;
destroyed by Christ’s appearing.

Revelation 13: the beast

emerges with ten horns;
speaks great blasphemies;
receives Satan’s authority;
persecutes saints;
receives worship;
rules forty-two months.

Revelation 19: the final condemned ruler

gathers against Christ;
is personally captured;
is cast into the lake of fire;
his defeat accompanies Christ’s return.

These are not unrelated prophetic villains. They possess the same political setting, the same chronological period, the same blasphemous claims, the same persecution, the same relationship to Satan, the same temple crisis, and the same destruction at Christ’s coming.

Conclusion

The strongest formulation is:

The little horn of Daniel 7 is not an ecclesiastical dynasty. The inspired interpretation calls him an individual king who rises among ten other kings, personally subdues three, speaks blasphemously, persecutes the saints for three and one-half years, and is destroyed when the Son of Man establishes His kingdom. The matching language, chronology, actions, and destruction identify him with Daniel’s coming prince, desolator and willful king; Paul’s man of sin, son of perdition and lawless one; John’s Antichrist; and Revelation’s beast.

Fruchtenbaum reaches precisely this conclusion. His list treats all eleven names as different descriptions of the one future world dictator, and his Daniel outline explicitly identifies Daniel 7:24–26 as the Antichrist stage.

The one necessary refinement is that Daniel 8 initially portrays Antiochus Epiphanes as a personal little horn and prophetic prototype, before its interpretation reaches forward—on Fruchtenbaum’s reading—to the final king of fierce countenance. That qualification actually strengthens the central point: in neither Daniel 7 nor Daniel 8 is the little horn naturally interpreted as a perpetual ecclesiastical office.

2Christ · Jul 15, 2026

The prophecy of Daniel's seventy weeks has an important fulfillment in the first century, but Scripture also shows it points beyond those events to a greater, final fulfillment. This is a common pattern in biblical prophecy, where an event has a near fulfillment that foreshadows a future and complete fulfillment. Jesus Himself used this pattern.

Many correctly recognize that the Messiah came after the sixty-nine weeks, was "cut off" through His crucifixion, and that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in AD 70. Jesus warned His disciples about this judgment:

But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand. (Luke 21:20 ASV)

This was clearly fulfilled when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem.

However, Jesus did not stop there. In Matthew 24 He continued speaking about events that did not happen in AD 70, including unprecedented tribulation, cosmic signs, His visible return in glory, and the gathering of His elect by the angels (Matthew 24:21, 29-31). This shows that while the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled part of Daniel's prophecy, it did not exhaust its meaning.

Daniel 9:24 also presents a serious challenge to the view that everything ended in the first century. The prophecy says the seventy weeks would accomplish six goals:

Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. (Daniel 9:24 ASV)

Christ's death certainly accomplished reconciliation for sin and established the New Covenant. Yet the remaining goals have not been fully realized. Sin has not ended. Transgression continues throughout the world. Everlasting righteousness has not filled the earth. Many prophecies remain unfulfilled, including Christ's visible return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the establishment of His Kingdom over all nations.

The Old Testament prophets also describe a future age when all nations worship the Lord, peace covers the earth, and God's Kingdom is fully established. These promises were not fulfilled in AD 70.

This pattern of near and future fulfillment appears elsewhere in Scripture. Daniel's "abomination of desolation" was foreshadowed by Antiochus Epiphanes before Christ, later applied by Jesus to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and many believe it points to a final end-time fulfillment as well. Likewise, Isaiah 61 was partially fulfilled when Jesus began His ministry, yet He deliberately stopped reading before "the day of vengeance of our God," showing that the remainder awaited a future time (Luke 4:16-21).

For these reasons, Daniel's seventieth week is best understood as having a genuine first-century fulfillment while also pointing to a greater fulfillment still to come. The cross was the center of God's redemptive plan, and the destruction of Jerusalem confirmed God's judgment on the old covenant system. Yet the complete fulfillment of Daniel 9:24 awaits the return of Christ, when sin is finally removed, everlasting righteousness is established, every remaining prophecy is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God fills the earth.

Rather than choosing between AD 70 or the future, Scripture points to both. The first-century events were the beginning of the fulfillment, but the final and complete realization will occur only when Jesus returns in glory and all that God has promised is brought to completion.

cv5 · Jul 15, 2026

Patrick0269 said:
The little horn is the papacy. That’s why the prophecy of 1260 years is correct. The starting point of that is 538AD emperor Constantine. Thus concluding the 1260 years to 1798. When the general for Napoleon conquered Rome and put the pope in prison where he later died. That 1260 years represents the torture of Christians by the Catholic Church.

And another crucial fact that you fail to comprehend:
The TYPE of the anti-christ, the little horn is codified MANY TIMES in the Scripture, intentionally.
And they are ALWAYS individual king/warrior-entities who stand in opposition to Israel and Christ Jesus.

Furthermore, the "man of sin", "the lie" is exemplified most astoundingly in Judas.
Or more appropriately the Satan-man JUDAS.
The antithesis of the God-Man Christ Jesus.

Yet another devastating truth that you fail to comprehend.

Primary types

Nimrod — universal rebellion and Babel
Chedorlaomer — supreme king over a coalition
Pharaoh — persecutor of Israel and defier of God
Balak — political ruler allied with a false prophet
Adoni-zedek — counterfeit lord of righteousness
Abimelech — murderous usurping king
Saul — rejected king persecuting David
Goliath — blaspheming champion destroyed by David
Absalom — counterfeit son of David obtaining power by flatteries
Jeroboam — political ruler establishing counterfeit worship
Ahab — apostate king allied with persecuting false religion
Sennacherib — blaspheming Assyrian invader
Nebuchadnezzar — worldwide compulsory image worship
Haman — adversary seeking Jewish extermination
Antiochus IV Epiphanes — direct prophetic prototype
Herod the Great — counterfeit king seeking Messiah’s death
Judas Iscariot — Satan-possessed son of perdition

Secondary or partial types

Cain — wicked seed murdering the righteous
Korah — rebellion against God’s appointed mediator
Agag/Amalek — enduring royal enemy of Israel
Sisera — military oppressor divinely overthrown
Doeg — murderer of God’s priests
Nabal — fool rejecting David’s claims
Adonijah — self-exalting counterfeit before Solomon’s enthronement
King of Tyre — ruler claiming divine status
King of Babylon — ruler aspiring to be like the Most High

Judas Iscariot — the supreme personal type

Passages: John 6:70–71; 13:2, 21–30; 17:12; Acts 1:16–25

Judas is unquestionably the most important New Testament prototype and arguably the most exact personal type in Scripture.

The same title: “son of perdition”

Jesus calls Judas:

“the son of perdition.”
— John 17:12

Paul calls the Antichrist:

“the man of sin … the son of perdition.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:3

No other two biblical individuals receive this exact title.

Direct Satanic possession

John records:

“And after the sop Satan entered into him.”
— John 13:27

The final Antichrist operates:

“after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:9

Judas becomes Satan’s personal instrument against Christ; the Antichrist becomes Satan’s climactic instrument against Christ and His people.

Counterfeit discipleship

Judas:

appears to belong to Christ’s company;
holds an office among the Twelve;
is trusted with the money;
conceals his true nature;
betrays Christ under the sign of friendship;
uses intimate access to deliver Christ to His enemies.

The Antichrist similarly:

initially appears as a benefactor and peace-maker;
confirms a covenant;
gains acceptance through deception;
betrays the covenant;
turns against Israel and God.

“A devil”

Jesus says:

“Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
— John 6:70

Judas is not merely an ordinary political persecutor. He is an intimate counterfeit, directly associated with Satan and bearing the Antichrist’s unique title.

Apostasy from an assigned position

Acts 1:25 says Judas fell:

“from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”

The Antichrist similarly receives an extraordinary position, turns it into open rebellion and proceeds to his appointed perdition.

Judas is therefore the supreme personal and spiritual type of the Antichrist:

both are called son of perdition;
both are personally dominated by Satan;
both operate through deception;
both betray after apparent association;
both act directly against Christ;
both proceed to a divinely appointed destruction.

JacobGilbert · Jul 15, 2026

cv5 said:
For you to postulate this grave error of eschatology indicates a massive disconnect from sound Biblical exegesis. All to common in these last days. Tragically.

Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, a prominent Messianic Jewish theologian and founder of Ariel Ministries, provides a highly systematic, literal, and grammatically precise interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27.

His teaching, particularly detailed in his landmark eschatological work *The Footsteps of the Messiah*, conclusively proves that the 70th week is a **future seven-year period** (the Tribulation) and demonstrates how this timeline perfectly aligns with the Pre-Tribulation *harpazo* (Rapture).

## 1. How Fruchtenbaum Proves the 70th Week is Yet Future
Fruchtenbaum’s proof rests on a literal reading of the Hebrew text, historical chronology, and the explicit scope of the prophecy.
### The Chronological "Gap" in Daniel 9:26
Daniel’s prophecy divides the 490 years (70 "sevens" of years) into three distinct periods: 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434 years), and 1 final week (7 years). Together, the first two periods equal 69 weeks (483 years).
Fruchtenbaum points out that Daniel 9:26 explicitly states:
> *"And **after** the sixty-two weeks [which followed the first seven, totaling 69 weeks], an anointed one shall be cut off... and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."*
>
* **The Timing:** The Messiah's death ("cut off") and the destruction of Jerusalem and the second Temple do not happen *during* the 69th week, nor do they happen *in* the 70th week. They happen **after** the 69th week has ended, but **before** the 70th week begins.
* **The Historical Proof:** The Messiah was crucified in approximately A.D. 30. The Roman destruction of Jerusalem occurred in A.D. 70. This 40-year historical interval proves that God's prophetic clock for Israel paused.
* **The Intermission:** Because these two major events happened in a historical "intermission" between the end of the 69th week and the start of the 70th, Fruchtenbaum proves that a chronological gap (the Church Age) exists.
### The Six Unfulfilled Purposes of Verse 24
Fruchtenbaum highlights the six divine goals decreed for **"your people [Israel] and your holy city [Jerusalem]"** in Daniel 9:24:
1. To finish the transgression
2. To make an end of sins
3. To atone for iniquity
4. To bring in everlasting righteousness
5. To seal up vision and prophecy
6. To anoint the most holy place
While the atonement was legally secured at the cross, Fruchtenbaum notes that these six conditions have **not yet been physically realized or applied to national Israel or Jerusalem**. Jerusalem is still trodden down by the Gentiles, and national Israel has not yet turned to her Messiah. Thus, the 70th week must be future to allow for these promises to be fully accomplished.
### The Triggering Event Has Not Happened
The 70th week is not triggered by the Rapture, nor does it begin automatically. According to Daniel 9:27, the final seven years officially start **only** when the Antichrist ("the prince who is to come") makes a firm, seven-year treaty/covenant with Israel. Since no such global leader has signed a seven-year security covenant with Israel in history, this week remains entirely future.
## 2. How the Future 70th Week Dovetails with the Harpazo
Fruchtenbaum’s dispensational framework illustrates how the *harpazo* (the catching up, or Rapture of the Church) beautifully harmonizes with this future timeline without causing theological contradictions:
| Concept | The Church (*Harpazo*) | Israel (Daniel's 70th Week) |
|---|---|---|
| **Direct Target** | The Body of Christ (Jew & Gentile believers) | "Thy people" (Israel) and "Thy holy city" (Jerusalem) |
| **Nature of Period** | A "Mystery" age not revealed in the Old Testament | The resumption of God's Old Testament program for Israel |
| **Divine Purpose** | To call out a bride for the Messiah | To bring Israel to national repentance through judgment |
### The Separation of Programs
Fruchtenbaum teaches that God has two distinct programs: one for Israel, and one for the Church. Because **all 70 weeks** of Daniel are strictly decreed for *Israel and Jerusalem* (Daniel 9:24), the Church has no part in them.
The Church Age is a "parenthesis" or mystery period inserted during the gap between the 69th and 70th weeks. Therefore, the Church must be physically removed via the *harpazo* before God's prophetic clock resumes ticking for Israel’s final seven years.
### No "Overlap" of Wraths
Scripture promises that the Church is "not destined for wrath" (1 Thessalonians 5:9). Because the 70th week is a period of global divine wrath (the Day of the Lord / Tribulation), the Church must be evacuated before this period begins.
### The Time Gap Between the Rapture and the Tribulation
A unique nuance of Fruchtenbaum's teaching is that **the Rapture does not start the Tribulation**. The signing of the covenant starts the Tribulation.
This means there could be a gap of days, months, or even years between the *harpazo* and the start of the 70th week. This gap allows ample time for:
* The post-Rapture chaos and global restructuring.
* The rise of the Antichrist to a position of global influence.
* The geopolitical conditions necessary for Israel to willingly sign a security covenant with him.
By keeping the Rapture (which is signless and imminent) separate from the trigger of the 70th week (the covenant), Fruchtenbaum maintains biblical consistency and preserves the "blessed hope" of the imminent return of Christ for His Bride.

Brother, with all due respect, I think you’re the one who’s missing it here.

Calling a different reading of Daniel 9 a “grave error of eschatology” and acting like anyone who disagrees is disconnected from sound exegesis is pretty bold, especially when plenty of solid Bible teachers throughout history have seen it differently.

Dr. Fruchtenbaum is a good man and a fine scholar, but his dispensational system with a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th week is not demanded by the text. The prophecy never mentions a gap. It says “after the sixty-two weeks” the anointed one is cut off and the city and sanctuary are destroyed. That happened in the first century, not 2,000 years later.

You can’t just insert a giant parenthesis for the Church Age and then claim it’s the only “literal” reading. Many faithful students of Scripture see the 70 weeks as a continuous prophecy that found its fulfillment in Christ’s ministry, His death, and the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70.

The six goals in Daniel 9:24 were accomplished at the cross in a definitive way. National Israel will be fully restored when they look on Him whom they pierced at His return, that doesn’t require forcing a future 7-year Tribulation into this text.

At the end of the day, this isn’t about following Fruchtenbaum or any man. It’s about what the text actually says. And the confident, dogmatic “this is the only right way” approach on something like this is, tragically, all too common in these last days.

Patrick0269 · Jul 15, 2026

cv5 said:
1. The little horn is expressly interpreted as a king
Daniel does not leave the horn uninterpreted:

The correspondence is direct:

ten horns = ten kings;

another horn = another king;

three horns uprooted = three kings subdued;

the horn speaks = the king speaks;

the horn persecutes = the king persecutes;

the horn is judged = the king loses his dominion.

The text repeatedly uses personal characteristics:

“eyes like the eyes of a man” — Daniel 7:8;

“a mouth speaking great things” — 7:8;

“whose look was more stout than his fellows” — 7:20;

“he shall speak great words” — 7:25;

“he shall wear out the saints” — 7:25;

“he shall think to change times and laws” — 7:25;

“his dominion” is taken away — 7:26.

This is not merely grammatical personification. Verse 24 authoritatively interprets the symbolic horn as another king.

2. Daniel’s little horn and Revelation’s beast perform the same acts
The strongest identification comes from the near-verbal correspondence between Daniel 7 and Revelation 13.

Daniel’s little horn Revelation’s beast
Arises in connection with ten horns — Daniel 7:7–8, 24 Possesses ten horns — Revelation 13:1; 17:12
Speaks “great things” — Daniel 7:8, 20 Is given a mouth speaking “great things” — Revelation 13:5
Speaks against the Most High — Daniel 7:25 Blasphemes God and heaven — Revelation 13:5–6
Makes war against the saints — Daniel 7:21 Makes war with the saints — Revelation 13:7
Prevails over them temporarily — Daniel 7:21 Overcomes them temporarily — Revelation 13:7
Rules for “a time, times, and half a time” — Daniel 7:25 Exercises authority for forty-two months — Revelation 13:5
Is destroyed when the heavenly kingdom comes — Daniel 7:11, 26–27 Is captured and judged at Christ’s return — Revelation 19:19–20

A time, times, and half a time equals:

one time;

two times;

half a time;

for a total of three and one-half years, exactly corresponding to Revelation’s forty-two months.
Fruchtenbaum specifically notes that Revelation 13 repeats Daniel 7’s marks: speaking great things, blaspheming heaven, warring against the saints, and exercising absolute control for three and one-half years.
That degree of correspondence identifies Daniel’s horn and John’s beast as the same final ruler.

3. The little horn and Paul’s man of sin have the same self-exaltation
Daniel’s king:

Paul’s man of sin:

Both figures:

exalt themselves above God;

speak blasphemously;

operate at the culmination of the age;

invade the sphere of divine worship;

are destroyed directly by the coming Messiah.

Paul’s figure is explicitly “the man” of sin and “the son” of perdition. He is subsequently called:

Daniel’s horn likewise continues until the divine court sits, his dominion is removed, and the Son of Man receives the kingdom. Paul is not describing an institution gradually losing influence. He is describing an identifiable man personally destroyed at Christ’s appearing.

John 13:34-35. A new Commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this old man will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

Patrick0269 · Jul 15, 2026

Patrick0269 said:
John 13:34-35. A new Commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this old man will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

All men

cv5 · Jul 15, 2026

JacobGilbert said:
Brother, with all due respect, I think you’re the one who’s missing it here.

Calling a different reading of Daniel 9 a “grave error of eschatology” and acting like anyone who disagrees is disconnected from sound exegesis is pretty bold, especially when plenty of solid Bible teachers throughout history have seen it differently.

Dr. Fruchtenbaum is a good man and a fine scholar, but his dispensational system with a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th week is not demanded by the text. The prophecy never mentions a gap. It says “after the sixty-two weeks” the anointed one is cut off and the city and sanctuary are destroyed. That happened in the first century, not 2,000 years later.

You can’t just insert a giant parenthesis for the Church Age and then claim it’s the only “literal” reading. Many faithful students of Scripture see the 70 weeks as a continuous prophecy that found its fulfillment in Christ’s ministry, His death, and the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70.

The six goals in Daniel 9:24 were accomplished at the cross in a definitive way. National Israel will be fully restored when they look on Him whom they pierced at His return, that doesn’t require forcing a future 7-year Tribulation into this text.

At the end of the day, this isn’t about following Fruchtenbaum or any man. It’s about what the text actually says. And the confident, dogmatic “this is the only right way” approach on something like this is, tragically, all too common in these last days.

Not only is a gap demanded in Daniel 9, you are literally living in this gap.

Furthermore, the Hebrew wedding protocol (into which the Bride the Church resides) DEMANDS this very gap.

None of this you comprehend. Your woefully faulty Greek thinking patterns and egregious ignorance of all things Jewish leave you stranded in a shabby fantasy of your own design.

Only after you recognize the Biblical PATTERNS and TYPES and fully embrace the Hebrew mindset will you be emancipated from your doctrinal prison.

Oh and BTW, the "Last Supper" (the Passover Seder Jesus shared with His disciples) corresponds to the Shidduchin (specifically the betrothal/engagement phase) in the ancient Hebrew wedding customs.

In this context, we likewise associate the Last Supper with the establishment of the Ketubah (the marriage contract) and the sealing of the covenant through the Cup of the Covenant (the Kos Habrit).

Furthermore, Jesus and Paul (and every other NT writer) cannot POSSIBLY be more precise, specific, intentional, florid, passionate and clear in declaring ENDLESS times that we are literally existing, abiding and being sanctified within this Shidduchin/Ketubah/Kos Habrit "gap".

These last three remaining steps:
The Nissuin/harpazo (The Procession)
The Huppah (Consummation)
The Seudat Mitzvah (marriage supper celebration)
Are inevitable, yet (very near) future, and absolutely necessary to usher in the 70th week redemption of Gomer aka Naomi aka Samson's philistine wife aka the Nation Israel by Messiah Jesus the Kinsman redeemer the Goel (גּוֹאֵל).

Yes, all of this is lost upon you.
And yes, I also understand perfect well of exactly why you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about regarding this topic.

Daniel’s “Final Week” (70th Week) Has ALREADY Been Fulfilled

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Active member

Daniel 7: the little horn is an individual Antichrist​

Daniel 8: the little horn is also an individual ruler​

The decisive grammatical point​

Member

Active member

Active member

Member

Active member

Member

Well-known member

Fruchtenbaum’s eleven names of the Antichrist (no Papacy here! Only a unique individual king/person)​

​

Well-known member

1. The little horn is expressly interpreted as a king​

2. Daniel’s little horn and Revelation’s beast perform the same acts​

3. The little horn and Paul’s man of sin have the same self-exaltation​

Well-known member

4. The little horn and the prince to come occupy the same prophetic period​

5. The little horn and the willful king possess the same character​

6. The horn, man of sin, and beast share the same destruction​

Little horn​

Willful king​

Lawless one​

Beast​

Well-known member

Why the papal interpretation fails textually​

1. Daniel says “king,” not priesthood, church, bishopric, or succession​

2. The ten kings exist before the little horn rises​

3. The stated period is three and one-half years​

4. The horn is active immediately before Christ’s kingdom​

5. The beast and the religious harlot are distinct—and eventually enemies​

The complete identity chain​

Daniel 7: the little horn​

Daniel 9: the prince/desolator​

Daniel 11: the willful king​

2 Thessalonians 2: the man of sin​

Revelation 13: the beast​

Revelation 19: the final condemned ruler​

Conclusion​

Well-known member

Well-known member

Primary types​

Secondary or partial types​

Judas Iscariot — the supreme personal type​

The same title: “son of perdition”​

Direct Satanic possession​

Counterfeit discipleship​

“A devil”​

Apostasy from an assigned position​

Junior Member

Member

1. The little horn is expressly interpreted as a king​

2. Daniel’s little horn and Revelation’s beast perform the same acts​

3. The little horn and Paul’s man of sin have the same self-exaltation​

Member

Well-known member

Daniel 7: the little horn is an individual Antichrist

Daniel 8: the little horn is also an individual ruler

The decisive grammatical point

Fruchtenbaum’s eleven names of the Antichrist (no Papacy here! Only a unique individual king/person)

1. The little horn is expressly interpreted as a king

2. Daniel’s little horn and Revelation’s beast perform the same acts

3. The little horn and Paul’s man of sin have the same self-exaltation

4. The little horn and the prince to come occupy the same prophetic period

5. The little horn and the willful king possess the same character

6. The horn, man of sin, and beast share the same destruction

Little horn

Willful king

Lawless one

Beast

Why the papal interpretation fails textually

1. Daniel says “king,” not priesthood, church, bishopric, or succession

2. The ten kings exist before the little horn rises

3. The stated period is three and one-half years

4. The horn is active immediately before Christ’s kingdom

5. The beast and the religious harlot are distinct—and eventually enemies

The complete identity chain

Daniel 7: the little horn

Daniel 9: the prince/desolator

Daniel 11: the willful king

2 Thessalonians 2: the man of sin

Revelation 13: the beast

Revelation 19: the final condemned ruler

Conclusion

Primary types

Secondary or partial types

Judas Iscariot — the supreme personal type

The same title: “son of perdition”

Direct Satanic possession

Counterfeit discipleship

“A devil”

Apostasy from an assigned position

1. The little horn is expressly interpreted as a king

2. Daniel’s little horn and Revelation’s beast perform the same acts

3. The little horn and Paul’s man of sin have the same self-exaltation