I wish you to consider again your article on: The End Times According to Daniel, Part Two, Chapters 8-9 … with reference to Daniel-9 part of article.
Q. I wish you to consider again your article on: The End Times According to Daniel, Part Two, Chapters 8-9 … with reference to Daniel-9 part of article.
In your writing you quote Daniel-9 reference “in a wing of the temple” yet shortly after shortening this to simply a ‘temple’. From this point on you take from this a (new) temple that will be built before the return of the Messiah Jesus Christ.
Your article says… First came 7 sevens (49 years) and then 62 sevens (434 years) for a total of 69 sevens or 483 years. At the end of this 2nd period their Messiah would be executed (literally destroyed in the making of a covenant) having received none of the honor, glory and blessing the Scriptures promised Him, and the people of a ruler yet to come would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. Daniel-9 as you remember says “After the sixty two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off and have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
This might appear to be a very small point to make of such importance, but both Old and New Covenant must be part of understanding “in a wing of the temple.” It is true that sanctuary might be considered as temple, however as Michael forewarns, the sanctuary destruction mentioned almost as afterthought saying “The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Note also that the only rebuilding described by Michael is to be Jerusalem, and this all during times of trouble.
Again I remind you that ‘temple’ is an insert within this scripture not found in the original, and as read without this addition more correctly describing a construct that Archangel Michael says in this time of desolation (within a time frame God still calls the chosen as a people in rebellion) that will be destroyed. If New Testament is to be taken literally, God no longer resides in a temple made by hand or man, the temple’s of past being only a shadow of the temple in heaven made by God. The everlasting Temple described in Haggai 2:9 “The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, says the Lord of hosts; and in this place I will give peace, says the Lord of hosts.” Scripture says that the second and third (rebuilt) temples were not as eloquent as the first being Saul’s temple.
Taken in complete, this “sanctuary” that will be destroyed by the abomination along with ending sacrifices, points not to a temple in which God resides, but very likely at a “wing of a temple” or outer area in a temple that God once did reside. The only temple this could possibly be is the remnant of Herods temple as yet in Jerusalem. Instead of a (new) temple in which the chosen atone for transgression and sin, Zech-13 describes the “saving grace” poured out by the Lord upon the chosen, so it will not be by “sacrifice” of man that cleanses the chosen people, but by grace of the living God. Yet this new ‘temple’ has become almost as important as the return of Christ.
A. A couple of clarifications first. The angel who spoke to Daniel was Gabriel, not Michael, and the first Temple is named after Solomon, not Saul.
Re: Daniel 9. The Hebrew word translated holy In verse 24 and sanctuary in verse 26 is the same, Qodesh. It’s primary meaning is holy (200X) but sanctuary (68X) is the 2nd most frequent translation. Since the Romans didn’t destroy the “Holy” but the Temple, many scholars have concluded that Daniel was referring to the Temple in both these verses. And through out the Old Testament sanctuary and Temple are equivalent terms.
The King James translates verse 27 as follows. “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.”
It uses overspreading instead of wing, although wing is the primary meaning of the Hebrew word, but you can see the word describes the abomination not the Temple. In fact, as you say, the word for Temple doesn’t appear in the verse at all. The [it] was inserted into the passage by the translators. It would be more correct to translate the verse wing of abomination, rather than wing of the Temple. But since sacrifices and offerings in the Levitical system require a Temple, most feel that one is implied in the verse.
The Lord doesn’t dwell in a Temple during the Church Age, but is clearly described as doing so in Israel in the Kingdom Age, (Ezekiel 43:5-6) and his first complaint to them upon arriving is that they had let foreigners officiate over Temple services during the preceding seven years. (Ezekiel 44:7-8)
Haggai 2:9 describes the fact that although Solomon’s Temple was far grander in its physical presence than the one the Israelites were then building, the glory of the second would surpass the first because the Messiah, who would bring peace between man and God, would visit it. The 3rd Temple is the one described in Ezekiel 40-46, that almost everyone agrees has not been built yet.
Based on these points, I would have a problem accepting your opinion. And while from your eMail I can’t tell if you are, any argument you may be proposing against the rebuilding of the Temple in the latter days will have to address Ezekiel 40-46, 2 Thes. 2:4, and Rev. 11:1, where Ezekiel, Paul and John all mention an end times Temple.