What is the Abomination of Desolation?
- Thread starter Researcher
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It is there. It is real - in the 'grammar of the language'. The 'antecedent' [rule] does not supercede and apply to an 'aside' - because, it is outside of the scope of what is before it and after it - it can only apply to what is within the aside. Again, you are not seeing the whole forest.
The claim “it has no direct connection with ‘Messiah’ before it or ‘he’ after it” is simply not supported by the Hebrew grammar of Daniel 9:26–27. In v.26,
the clause you are referring to — וְהָעָם נָגִיד הַבָּא יַשְׁחִית (“and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy”) —
has הָעָם (“the people”) as its subject,
but the only masculine singular noun in the clause is נָגִיד (“prince”),
which is why the next verse’s masculine singular verb וְהִגְבִּיר (“and he shall confirm”) cannot grammatically refer to מָשִׁיחַ (“Messiah”),
who is not the subject of the destruction clause.
Hebrew does not allow a pronoun to reach backward past a plural subject (“people”) to grab a noun that is not the subject unless that noun is the only grammatically valid antecedent —and here, נָגִיד is exactly that.
Likewise, the Greek LXX mirrors this structure:
v.27 begins with καὶ δυναμώσει (“and he shall strengthen”), a 3rd‑person singular verb that must refer to the nearest singular masculine referent, which again is ἡγούμενος (“prince”), not χριστός (“Messiah”).
So the clause in v.26 is absolutely connected to the “he” of v.27 — not because of theology, but because Hebrew and Greek grammar leave no other possible antecedent.
Don't give too much power to the antecedent rule - there are exceptions - and, an 'aside' is one of them.
And, because of the aside - 'Messiah' is in fact the referent of 'he' (three times) in verse 27.
And, because of the aside - 'Messiah' is in fact the referent of 'he' (three times) in verse 27.
From the web page:
There is no 'prince' in verse 27. The words 'he' in verse 27 (all three of them) refer back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26. And, in verse 26 - 'prince' is not the subject of the clausal statement after the colon - 'people' is the subject - 'prince' is part of a prepositional phrase which helps to define 'people'. So then, because 'prince' is not the subject of the clause - and is only "prepositional" - it is not a valid target for the word 'he' in verse 27.
Also, 'people' is plural - 'he' is singular.
There is nothing in the aside that 'he' can possibly refer to.
There is no 'prince' in verse 27. The words 'he' in verse 27 (all three of them) refer back to the word 'Messiah' in verse 26. And, in verse 26 - 'prince' is not the subject of the clausal statement after the colon - 'people' is the subject - 'prince' is part of a prepositional phrase which helps to define 'people'. So then, because 'prince' is not the subject of the clause - and is only "prepositional" - it is not a valid target for the word 'he' in verse 27.
Also, 'people' is plural - 'he' is singular.
There is nothing in the aside that 'he' can possibly refer to.
The "abomination of desolation" did not exist yet when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD
Can't exist until AFTER Rome became divided into 10 nations.
You do realize of course than the little horn of Daniel 7 is the same power depicted as the AoD right?
The AoD "existed" in 167 B.C. - and, did/does not exist circa 70 A.D. or any future point in time - only in 167 B.C.
Then the prophecy is false.
There has been no "reconciliation for iniquity" (v 24) during a 490 year time period if the last week is separated from the 1st 69 weeks.
Your Messiah has not come yet. Jesus died simply because He was falsely accused of sedition, not for your sins.
Is THAT the ground you wish to stand on?
The clause you are calling an “aside” is:
וְהָעָם נָגִיד הַבָּא יַשְׁחִית ve‑haʿam nagid ha‑ba yashḥit “and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy…”
There is no discourse marker indicating a break, no new subject introduced afterward, and no syntactic reset.
Hebrew narrative does not insert “asides” that dissolve antecedents.
The subject introduced here remains the active referent until a new subject appears.
The only grammatically valid antecedent for וְהִגְבִּיר (“he shall confirm”) is נָגִיד (“prince”)
Daniel 9:27 begins:
וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים ve‑higbîr berît la‑rabbîm “and he shall confirm a covenant with many…”
The verb וְהִגְבִּיר is masculine singular.
The possible antecedents in v.26 are:
מָשִׁיחַ (mashiach, “Messiah”) — not the subject of the clause
הָעָם (haʿam, “the people”) — plural, cannot be the antecedent
נָגִיד (nagid, “prince”) — masculine singular, grammatically valid
Hebrew does not allow a pronoun to skip the nearest valid antecedent and reach back to a noun that is not the subject of the clause.
Your document even states:
He is not the subject of the clause.
He is not the nearest masculine singular noun.
He is not grammatically reachable.
The LXX reads:
καὶ δυναμώσει διαθήκην πολλοῖς “and he shall strengthen a covenant with many…”
The verb δυναμώσει is 3rd‑person singular.
The nearest singular masculine noun in the Greek text is ἡγούμενος (“prince”), not χριστός (“Messiah”).
Greek does not support your “aside” theory either.
Your ‘aside’ theory contradicts Hebrew discourse rules
Hebrew does use digressions, but they are marked by:
new subjects
new verbs
new clauses
waw‑disjunctive constructions
temporal markers
Daniel 9:26–27 contains none of these between the destruction clause and the covenant clause.
There is no syntactic reset.
There is no new subject introduced.
There is no discourse marker indicating a break.
Therefore, the antecedent chain remains intact.
Your conclusion (“Messiah is the referent of ‘he’”) is grammatically impossible
Because:
Messiah is not the subject of v.26
Messiah is not the nearest masculine singular noun
Messiah is not grammatically reachable through the clause structure
Hebrew does not allow an “aside” to break subject‑chain
Greek mirrors the Hebrew structure
No discourse marker resets the subject before v.27
The claim: “because of the aside — ‘Messiah’ is in fact the referent of ‘he’”
is not linguistically defensible.
וְהָעָם נָגִיד הַבָּא יַשְׁחִית ve‑haʿam nagid ha‑ba yashḥit “and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy…”
There is no discourse marker indicating a break, no new subject introduced afterward, and no syntactic reset.
Hebrew narrative does not insert “asides” that dissolve antecedents.
The subject introduced here remains the active referent until a new subject appears.
The only grammatically valid antecedent for וְהִגְבִּיר (“he shall confirm”) is נָגִיד (“prince”)
Daniel 9:27 begins:
וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים ve‑higbîr berît la‑rabbîm “and he shall confirm a covenant with many…”
The verb וְהִגְבִּיר is masculine singular.
The possible antecedents in v.26 are:
מָשִׁיחַ (mashiach, “Messiah”) — not the subject of the clause
הָעָם (haʿam, “the people”) — plural, cannot be the antecedent
נָגִיד (nagid, “prince”) — masculine singular, grammatically valid
Hebrew does not allow a pronoun to skip the nearest valid antecedent and reach back to a noun that is not the subject of the clause.
Your document even states:
Correct — and that is exactly why Messiah cannot be the antecedent
He is not the subject of the clause.
He is not the nearest masculine singular noun.
He is not grammatically reachable.
The LXX reads:
καὶ δυναμώσει διαθήκην πολλοῖς “and he shall strengthen a covenant with many…”
The verb δυναμώσει is 3rd‑person singular.
The nearest singular masculine noun in the Greek text is ἡγούμενος (“prince”), not χριστός (“Messiah”).
Greek does not support your “aside” theory either.
Your ‘aside’ theory contradicts Hebrew discourse rules
Hebrew does use digressions, but they are marked by:
new subjects
new verbs
new clauses
waw‑disjunctive constructions
temporal markers
Daniel 9:26–27 contains none of these between the destruction clause and the covenant clause.
There is no syntactic reset.
There is no new subject introduced.
There is no discourse marker indicating a break.
Therefore, the antecedent chain remains intact.
Your conclusion (“Messiah is the referent of ‘he’”) is grammatically impossible
Because:
Messiah is not the subject of v.26
Messiah is not the nearest masculine singular noun
Messiah is not grammatically reachable through the clause structure
Hebrew does not allow an “aside” to break subject‑chain
Greek mirrors the Hebrew structure
No discourse marker resets the subject before v.27
The claim: “because of the aside — ‘Messiah’ is in fact the referent of ‘he’”
is not linguistically defensible.
Nope
Historically, as Roman military power faded, migrating tribes established independent rules across Western Europe during the 4th and 5th centuries.
Alemanni: Emerged around 351 AD in the region of modern-day Germany and Alsace.
Franks: Emerged around 351 AD in the lower and middle Rhine regions.
Burgundians: Established their kingdom around 406 AD in the Rhine/Sogne region.
Vandals: Crossed into Roman territory and Gaul/Spain around 406 AD before moving to North Africa.
Suevi: Settled in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain/Portugal) around 406 AD.
Visigoths: Established an independent footprint in southwestern Gaul and Spain by 408 AD.
Saxons: Began major permanent settlements in Britain around 449 AD.
Ostrogoths: Rose to independent power in southeastern Europe/Italy by 453 AD.
Lombards: Formed their distinct tribal presence near the Danube by 453 AD before moving into Italy.
Heruli: Conquered the remaining Italian seat of power under Odoacer by 475–476 AD, marking the formal collapse of the Western Roman Emperor.
Dan 7s little horn comes out of those 10 nations.
Messiah is the subject of verse 26 - the entire rest of the verse after the colon is an 'aside'.
Prince cannot be a valid target for anything.
What 'he' refers [back] to must be singular.
It is not simply the closest singular word in the sentence/verse. You are "bending" the rule by leaving out part(s) of the requirement - other rules must also apply.
Prince cannot be a valid target for anything.
What 'he' refers [back] to must be singular.
It is not simply the closest singular word in the sentence/verse. You are "bending" the rule by leaving out part(s) of the requirement - other rules must also apply.
You just jumped from grammar to soteriology like they’re welded together—if the antecedent is the prince, then “the prophecy is false,” “no reconciliation for iniquity,” “your Messiah has not come,” “Jesus died only as a political victim.” That’s not exegesis; that’s a rhetorical hostage situation.
Here’s the problem with your move:
Daniel 9:24 doesn’t say “all eschatological effects of reconciliation must be fully realized within 490 years or the prophecy fails.”
It says the 70 weeks are appointed toward (“נֶחְתַּךְ עַל”) the accomplishing of those things—Christ’s atoning work is historically located within that span, but its effects extend beyond it.
The cross is “reconciliation for iniquity” (\katallageˉ in Paul’s language), whether or not you compress every eschatological outcome into a rigid 490‑year box.
Your insistence that a gap makes the prophecy false is your own condition, not Daniel’s.
Saying, “If the last week isn’t glued directly to the first 69, then Jesus didn’t die for sins” is a category error: you’re tying the truth of the atonement to your specific timeline, not to the text or to the gospel. If your chronology collapses, Christ’s work doesn’t.
So no—I don’t have to choose between “Messiah hasn’t come” and “Jesus died only as a political victim” just because your 490‑year model can’t tolerate a subject‑chain that points to the prince in v.27.
The grammar stands whether your system likes it or not, and the cross stands whether your 490‑year compression likes it or not.
If your view requires, “Either my timeline is right or the atonement is false,” that’s not defending prophecy—that’s making your system the mediator of Christ’s work.
Yep (with specific regard to 167 B.C.)
My post #327 was about the AoD and had/has absolutely nothing to do with the little horn of Daniel 7.
The AoD occurred in 167 B.C.
It can and it did - in 167 B.C.
The AoD is an 'event'/'action' and not a 'power'.
The AoD has to be a power.
Mark 13:14 shows he "stands where he ought not". It is a power (singular) that is CALLED an abomination. And it makes desolate.
In Dan 9:27 it is someone who makes desolate more than one "abominations" (plural).
Not the same thing
BTW Jesus' disciples asked Him what was to happen in the last days. Matt 24:3
Then Jesus starts this prophecy by saying, "Let no man deceive you." verse 4
Jesus was speaking of future events when He mentioned the AoD.
So obviously the AoD cannot be something that happened 200 years in their past.
Still waiting on that "other rules" explanation. You fought so hard to prove your point all you need is the proof my friend.
The original Hebrew and Greek have no punctuation. They were supplied by translators.
Same thing with chapter/verse divisions.
Not reliable to actually be accurate to fit the context.
Can only be relied upon to fit the personal (and/or denominational) beliefs of the translator.
You are relying on human intervention to define the meanings of prophecy.
It don't work that way.
God gives the prophecies. But He did not supply the punctuation.
The colon in v. 6 is not proof of anything whatsoever.
Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
So the AoD is accompanied by
1.) the gospel of the kingdom being preached in the whole world. - This didn't happen in 167 BC or 70 AD. And it was Jesus saying that.
2.) great distress unequaled from the beginning of the world until now, never to equaled again. - There were worse things that happened since 167BC and 70AD. I though WW2 was pretty bad, but Jesus said no, the great tribulation will be worse than that.
So Jesus was talking of a future time when these prophecies will come to pass. This is just from a plain reading of what Jesus said in the above passage. The very last days are really close.
your point is correct as far as it goes: punctuation and chapter/verse divisions are human additions, but your conclusion doesn’t follow, because removing punctuation does not remove grammar, and removing verse numbers does not remove subject continuity, so the interpreter is not “relying on human intervention to define prophecy,” he is relying on Hebrew syntax, verbal sequencing, and subject introduction rules that existed long before any translator touched the text; the colon in v. 6 proves nothing, agreed, but the subject shift it marks is not supplied by translators — it is supplied by Daniel himself when he introduces “the people of the prince who is to come,” which is a new actor whether you punctuate it or not; punctuation is commentary, but syntax is revelation, and the subject‑chain follows the Hebrew subject, not the English colon.