-

-

A-O Prophecy Studies

-

-

-

Daniel 9, verses 24-27 – God’s message to Daniel via the angel Gabriel:

“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.

 “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

 “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

 “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.”

The message itself provides Daniel with a thumbnail sketch of events surrounding the coming of the Messiah and the fact that His Mission initially would be cut off and interrupted. The Messianic element runs from verses 24 through the first sentence in verse 26. At this point the context of the verse shifts from the Messiah to another individual and his “people” that precede him. This is noted by the phrase, “the people of the prince that shall come.” These people will destroy Jerusalem and the Temple and so it shall remain until the end of the age of the gentiles.

Now there are many Biblical commentators who will ignore the shifting context in verse 26 and carry forward the original context of verses 24, 25 and the first sentence of verse 26 and assume that verse 27 resumes with the original context. Such a notion violates the principles of the science of hermeneutics and interpretation. You cannot arbitrarily assume the context of verse 27 shifts back to the original context of verses 24, 25 and the first sentence of verse 26.

Those commentators that do make such an attempt to ignore the contextual shift then assume that verse 27 describes the death of the Messiah and its result, which puts an end to temple sacrifices. The problem with such an interpretation is that verse 27 goes on to describe an “overspreading of abominations.”  Christ never committed abominations and the rest of the verse makes no sense if applied to Christ. Furthermore, Jesus Christ makes a reference to this verse 27 during His response to the Disciples questions about what will happen just before His return. 

Jesus Christ notes this verse in the context of an Antichrist who is to come and this Antichrist committing what is called “The Abomination of Desolation.”
Christ’s reference to this verse in terms of applying it to the Antichrist should make it abundantly evident that verse 27 does not refer to Jesus, Himself but rather to His nemesis that will come in the future at the end of the gentile era.

So, we need to set such mistaken interpretations to the side and disregard the mistaken interpretation by some commentators, as we look at verse 27 and follow the continuation of the context stated in verse 26b.

As we’ve noted, the context continues in verse 27 concerning the “prince that shall come.” Verse 27 makes a statement concerning an action taken by the “prince that shall come” which by the end of the verse we realize as the descriptive act known as “The Abomination of Desolation.

Our purpose in looking at verse 27 for this article is limited to the first statement in verse 27 and to analyze the key words for a much deeper meaning and understanding of this character previously described as “the prince that shall come.”

There are two critical terms that we need to understand are conveyed to us in English by the translated words “confirm” and “covenant.” We’ll look at the original Hebrew words themselves for a deeper understanding of what was originally meant.

We’ll start our examination of verse 27 by noting that the KJV adds a word that is NOT present in the original Hebrew text. The KJV translators added the word “and” to this verse. Why? The word “and” is a conjunction.  It joins ideas or thoughts together. The KJV translators inserted the term “and” so that what follows afterwards would be hooked on to what was just stated. This indicates recognition of context between what was just stated and what follows.

The actual Hebrew sentence structure is very rudimentary and bare bones and lacks much of what you find in today’s modern languages.

-

The very first Hebrew word in verse 27 is the Hebrew word “gabar.” It is pronounced as “gaw-bar.”

-

For those of you who are fairly serious students of the Bible and wish to correlate this with your Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance lexical dictionary, the term number is #1396.  Please note that Strong’s own definitions are what we call “generic.” Strong himself gave generic or general, broad definitions to most of the words found in the Bible. Scholars will utilize the more in-depth Lexicons. For Hebrew terms, there are two primary Hebrew-English lexicons which scholars use today. Those two lexicons are:


“Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament”

This work is a compilation by H.W.F. Gesenius, a German professor of languages who wrote his lexicon in 1812. It is considered “the” classic, Hebrew lexicon. Today, you can find his work published in either hardcover or a very resilient soft-cover edition from Baker Book House Publishers of Grand Rapids, Michigan. It is coded to Strong’s numbering system so that any English reader with little or no Hebrew background can usually find the word or words – although not all words listed are in numerical order. Often times this lexical work is simply referred to as “Gesenius.”


“The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon”

This word is compiled by 3 English-speaking Hebrew editors based upon the original Gesenius Lexicon. This book was first published in 1892, with later, minor revisions. Today, it is published by Hendricksen Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts: 1979, in hardback and also coded to Strong’s numbering system. Often times this lexicon is referred to as “B-D-B” or “Brown-Driver-Briggs.” We’ll refer to it simply as B-D-B.

While both lexicons provide extended definitions of the Hebrew word “gabar” but B-D-B provides additional understanding by citing its Arabic, Aramaic and Ethiopian Coptic equivalents because the word “gabar” was also similarly used in various other Semitic languages including a Babylonian dialect known as “Akkadian,” as well as Arabic, Aramaic, Phoenician, Moabite, Syriac, and Ethiopic.

The primitive root term “gabar” carries a wide range of meaning particularly in the Hebrew Qal stem. We’ll cite the 2 different lexicons noted earlier to give you a better insight into the meaning of gabar.


Gesenius:

“To bind. The primary power is that of binding anything broken. To bind anything. To make firm. This signification is applied to power and strength. i.e. to be or make strong and or to strengthen (what already exists). “

B-D-B

In instances of an agreement or a covenant:

To compel or force, overbearing behavior, to constrain, to confirm a covenant. To compel or force a covenant in an overbearing manner either verbally or in writing.


In Daniel 9:27, we find gabar is advanced from the Qal stem into the Hiphil stem.

The personal pronoun, “he” is included with the word and indicates that “he’ causes something. In verse 27, the “he” is a reference in context to the “prince that shall come.”

So that, “he” is the “prince that shall come.”

-

“He,” then causes something to happen according to the Hebrew. When we understand the broader usage of the term throughout the entire Middle East we find that the term gabar carries with it, the flavor of “force” or an overbearing manner. We might even use an English metaphor of “arm-twisting.” The use of merely the Qal stem itself would convey the idea of “to confirm” or “make firm” or “confirming.” One could also state it as “binding” an agreement as in giving it strength or even the idea of reinforcing it or giving new strength to an already existing agreement.

What we can say about “gabar” in Daniel 9 and verse 27 is that “he” – meaning the Prince that shall come – shall compel or force, in an overbearing manner or through “arm-twisting” cause something to happen. Let’s look further now and determine what that “something” is all about.

The next Hebrew term we want to identify is the KJV word “covenant.” The Hebrew term is the word – bariyth. The Strong’s code number is #1285. It is a rather straight forward term meaning: “covenant,” “alliance,” “pledge,” “treaty,” “league,” “agreement.”

-
In scripture, it is used 23 times in reference to a “treaty.”

-
Many commentators “assume” these Hebrew terms indicate a “peace treaty.” Perhaps this is what Daniel is conveying, but then that may be a false assumption. Why? There is nothing expressly stated in the text involving “peace.” Commentators assume this to be the case. The Hebrew terms here in this verse are quite simple and open-ended just as I’ve noted.

-
Daniel’s wording in this verse strongly suggests that this “Prince that shall come,” this person we call “the Antichrist” will be someone who “arm twists” or compels or forces an agreement. The agreement may be a “treaty,” or an alliance but it may also merely be an “agreement” – perhaps an “agreement in principle” involving Israel.  Yet, the original, Hebrew text never states the agreement is with Israel. Yes, you read correctly.

The Hebrew text uses the word, “rab” – Strong’s Code # 7227

This Hebrew word “rab” means: “much,” “many,” “abounding in,” “more numerous than,” “abundant” “enough,” “great,” “strong.” It can also mean: “captain” or “chief.”

The word itself is not accompanied by any indication of a particular nation or any organized group. It could even refer to a singular individual who is a leader.

Again, most commentators take the word to mean “many” or a large number of people and then assume it is a reference to Israel.  While this may well be the case, the text itself is not specific. This is a fact that is very important for prophecy watchers to keep in mind.

I have come to understand that many of the patented opinions of prophecy authors and commentators seem to have a habit of making specific assumptions about prophetic passages which are non-specific. This verse is but one prime example.

The rest of verse 27 indicates a shift in Daniel’s focus away from the arm twisting agreement and towards another obscure development.

Verse 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.”

Now continuing with our first sentence, we look at the final phrase: “For one week.”

-
Here again we have an English preposition inserted to make the statement grammatically correct in English. There is but one Hebrew word in the text for this phrase and it is the word: “Shabuwa” – Strong’s code #7620.

It means a period of seven of something. Normally, it can be applied to a period of time, such as a 7-day week of time. It may also relate in Hebrew usage to the term “heptad,” which means “seven of years.” With this term is the adjective term “one.” This indicates one time period of sevens. It reinforces the notion of either a one week period of seven days or a single period of seven years.

More than likely, the context of this word, “shabuwa” suggests a period of seven years or approximately seven years. Why? We find elsewhere in prophecy a reference to a period of time being 1,260 days as being half of a week with usage indications suggesting two periods of 1,260 days giving us a total of 2,520 days which is 7 Hebrew prophetic years of 360 days per year. However, in terms of solar years, 2,520 days is just shy of 7 years. By using the word “shabuwa” Daniel may well have been trying to delineate the time period from a solar calendar perspective by using “shabuwa” instead of Heptad.

Daniel then continues with the next word “chetsiy” or pronounced as “khay-tsee.” It generally means “half” of something, although it can be an expression of a measurable dimension of something, such as feet or inches of a unit of dimensional measure, such as half of a meter or half of a foot or some other unit of measure as for instance a “cubit.”

The next word is the same term “shabuwa” – a period of seven weeks or years. So that the text is now telling us that the in the first mention of a 7 year period, in the half or middle of that period, something happens. The next word begins to tell us what happens in the middle of that “shabuwa” period.

The next Hebrew word is “shabath” – Strong’s #7673. It means to cease, to desist, or to rest. It can also mean to destroy or exterminate, to put an end or a halt to something.  In this instance the Hebrew grammar indicates that “he causes to cease or stop or causes destruction or causes extermination of something yet to be defined until linked to the rest of the sentence. The next word “zebach” tells us what is stopped.

The next word, “zebach” – Strong’s code # 2077 is defined as “sacrifice;” such as sacrifices of righteousness or sacrifices of strife. It can be connected to various types of sacrifices but those would be rare exceptions in Hebrew usage. Primarily the word is used for religious, or temple sacrifices on the Temple mount in Jerusalem. The next word, “mincha” (pronounced ‘min-khaw”) clarifies “zebach” further. Mincha is found as Strong’s # 4503.

“Mincha” means an offering or tribute or gift, usually used of a “grain offering” or a “cereal” offering. In this particular Hebrew spelling variant the word is seldom used in connection with a blood meat offering such as we think of for Passover lambs, or of other meat offerings of cattle or poultry. There are other Hebrew variants for meat offerings. Often times this particular term used for giving a gift to God, but not necessarily. It can be used for a gift to anyone. It can be used for giving a payment or a “tribute.”

At this point, the verse shifts to another thought.

The next Hebrew word is “al” – Strong’s code #5921. It is a preposition meaning “upon, or on the ground of, or on the account of, or on the behalf of, and many other potential variations of meaning. It is found 507 times in the Old Testament, used in a variety of meanings and instances. See the following list of primary definition usages:

1) upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of,
concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above,
over, by, on to, towards, to, against

1a) upon, on the ground of, on the basis of, on account of, because
of, therefore, on behalf of, for the sake of, for, with, in
spite of, notwithstanding, concerning, in the matter of, as
regards

1b) above, beyond, over (of excess)

1c) above, over (of elevation or pre-eminence)

1d) upon, to, over to, unto, in addition to, together with, with
(of addition)

1e) over (of suspension or extension)

1f) by, adjoining, next, at, over, around (of contiguity or proximity)

1g) down upon, upon, on, from, up upon, up to,, towards, over
towards, to, against (with verbs of motion)

1h) to (as a dative)

Clearly, we have a word with potentially ambiguous meaning. Often times other associated words will give us the appropriate contextual idea of what the author intended.

The next Hebrew word is “kanaph” (pronounced “khaw-nawf” – Strong’s Code #3671. It also has a rather tricky set of definitions as shown below:

an edge or extremity; specifically (of a bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed-clothing) a flap, (of the earth) a quarter, (of a building) a pinnacle:-+ bird, border, corner, end, feather(-ed), X flying, + (one an-)other, overspreading, X quarters, skirt, X sort, uttermost part, wing((-ed)).

-
We’ll have to look at other words yet to come for a contextual understanding of “kanaph.”

The next word is “shiqquts” (pronounced “shik-koots”) Strong’s # 8251. The term is defined as shown below:

disgusting, i.e.filthy; especially idolatrous or (concretely) an idol:-abominable filth (idol, -ation), detestable (thing)

The next word is “shamem” (pronounced “shaw-mame”) Strong’s Code #8074. Here again is a word with a complex set of definitions. To be stunned, appalled, horrified. To be deserted, deflowered, awestruck. See below for greater understanding of the word’s potential meaning...

a primitive root; to stun (or intransitively, grow numb), i.e. devastate or (figuratively) stupefy (both usually in a passive sense):-make amazed, be astonished, (be an) astonish (-ment), (be, bring into, unto, lay, lie, make) desolate (-ion, places), be destitute, destroy (self), (lay, lie, make) waste, wonder.

The next word is “ad” – pronounced as it looks. Strong’s Code # 5704.

as far (or long, or much) as, whether of space (even unto) or time (during, while, until) or degree (equally with):-against, and, as, at, before, by (that), even (to), for(-as much as), (hither-)to, + how long, into, as long (much) as, (so) that, till, toward, until, when, while, (+ as) yet.

The next word is “kalah” (pronounced as “kaw-law”) Strong’s Code #3617. It means:

“a completion; adverb, completely; also destruction:-altogether, (be, utterly) consume(-d), consummation(-ption), was determined, (full, utter) end, riddance.”

The next Hebrew term is “charats” – (pronounced “khaw-rats”) Strong’s Code #2782 and it means:

to point sharply, i.e.(literally) to wound; figuratively, to be alert, to decide:-bestir self, decide, decree, determine, maim, move.

Our next Hebrew term is “nathak”  - Strong’s Code #5413 and it means:

to flow forth (literally or figuratively);by implication, to liquify:-drop, gather (together), melt, pour (forth, out).

Now our next word is a repeat from earlier in the sentence. It is the word “al” Strong’s Code 5921. You can refer to our earlier comments for the word’s definition.

The final Hebrew word in verse 27 is another repeated word “shamem” #8074.


So now that we’ve covered the Hebrew terms individually, let’s try and put them together into some semblance of understanding, but mind you, this is so complex and so disjointed that we really can’t get much of a handle on it, in terms of understanding what Daniel means.

In doing so, let’s refresh our memory of the verse once again.

“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.”

So we have a Prince who is to come who will arm-twist and compel some sort of an agreement, perhaps a treaty or alliance or just an ‘understanding’, with either “many” as in people or with a particular chief, or leader. This “agreement” is apparently for a time frame of 7 years. Keep in mind, it is entirely feasible that this Prince agrees to be a chief or leader for a time period of 7 years and does not relate to a defense treaty or an alliance.

The second half of this verse however becomes very tricky in trying to understand the Hebrew definitions. Context will be of some help but even so, the rest of the verse is very, very vague and modern interpreters make many assumptions that may or may not be valid.

Apparently, in the middle of this agreement period, something described as detestable occurs and it apparently is something that this Prince does or causes to happen or perhaps we should say, puts a stop to something. That something may be a temple sacrifice or it could be some sort of gift. It could be money or donations. The text is simply not explicitly clear – as you can tell from the raw Hebrew as we’ve earlier provided to you.

The text then tells us that something else occurs and it is something that is detestable apparently the work of this Prince. This thing that is detestable may or may not have anything to do with a building, such as The Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

We really cannot make such an explicit case when the text itself is not explicit. Most modern-day interpreters believe this verse is indicating a Temple or perhaps a Tabernacle tent on the Temple Mount is what is being cited but the textual wording is ambiguous. I believe it is deliberately ambiguous.

Fortunately, we do have some additional light on this verse, provided to us by Jesus, Himself. We find this best described in Matthew 24, verse 15:

“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)”

Now, we get a better sense of the latter part of Daniel 9, verse 27.

Jesus indicates that Daniel is describing the “abomination of desolation.” Now this term in the original Greek gives us a little better understanding of the term.

The word “abomination” is the Greek word “Bdelugma.” See Strong’s #946.

It means – a foul thing, and loathsome because of its stench. It smells bad. In fact its usage is related to the idea of ‘passing gas” or – (don’t laugh) - “farting.” The word was often used and associated with the idea of idolatry and the worship of false gods. The term is found in Revelation 17:5 where it speaks of the great harlot of Babylon, the Mother of the Harlots and of the Bdelugma (abominations) of the earth.

The word “desolation” is the Greek term: “eremohseohs” – Strong’s #2048.

It means solitary, lonely, desolate, deserted place. It can also mean to be deserted by others or to be deprived of the aid and protection of others, especially of friends, acquaintances, or kindred relatives. It could be used of a flock of sheep deserted by the shepherd or of a wife deserted by her husband. It was also often used for a desert or wilderness.

 

Shades of Babylon:

-

The term “abominations” or “Bdelugma” is associated with the Great Harlot of Babylon who just happens to be the Babylonian goddess, Ishtar, also known as Isis, Astarte, Aphrodite, Venus, and called among other things – the goddess of Liberty (Libertas) or the goddess of Freedom.
Ishtar’s religion was a ‘mystery religion’ and among her many abominable, mystery doctrines was the doctrine of salvation by engaging in “holy sex” with a temple priestess or harlot. The term harlot or whore originally meant a woman who performed priestess duties in a pagan temple dedicated to Ishtar. She would engage in religious sexual intercourse with a worshiper with the purpose being to enable the worshiper to be purified from sin. Yes, it was considered a “fun” way to be purified from sin. Afterwards the worshiper would drop a gold or silver coin or coins into the Temple collection box as a way of giving thanks to the goddess.

Now, as I have clearly pointed out in my 2-volume work: “America, The Babylon” this goddess known as Ishtar was in fact, a fallen angel assigned by Satan with the function of not only diverting worship away from God and insinuating a false salvation, but this angelic entity also served to guide and protect the empire who worshipped her. She was a “guardian” angel – or as Ephesians 6:12 states the rank of authority as being a “Kosmokrator” rank within the angelic realm. It is the same rank which Gabriel mentions to Daniel in Daniel, chapter 10 in which he describes being ambushed by the “Kosmokrator” angel overseeing Persia. Gabriel later mentions that he must leave and go do battle against the “Kosmokrator” of Greece who would soon be bringing up a new world empire.

So that, Matthew 24:15 may be a subtle reference to Ishtar worship. Jesus then notes that whatever religious action takes place, Jesus notes that it “stands in the holy place.”

The word for “place” is the Greek word “topoh” Strong’s code #5117. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon notes the following definition:

“any portion of space marked off, as it were, from a surrounding space.”

When it is joined with the Greek word “agios” (holy) it generally referred to the Temple of Jerusalem and the “Holy of Holies” area which is indeed an area marked off within the temple and only the Chief High Priest could enter that area.

Now another word to note here is the word “stand.” The Greek word is “histemee” and is Strong’s Code #2476. It means to stand, to set, to establish, or to confirm.

So what is Jesus telling us?

“When you see the desertion to something idolatrous that is established and confirmed in the holy place (i.e. the Temple Mount area, of the Holy of Holies) – then he who reads it let him understand.”

Now the above rendering is probably about as literal as we can get without tilting into assumptions. I strongly suspect that the English word “stand” is probably not the best term per the overall context of the prior terminology. It may well suggest the idea of an idol image based on the notion of idolatry. If such a theoretical interpretation is indeed the case, then perhaps Jesus is hinting at a Statue of Liberty or another variant artistic version might be placed on the Temple Mount area. However, the Greek term may well be suggest something different.

Yet, idolatry, particular Ishtar’s idolatry had only token involvement with idol statues. Ishtar’s idol statues or carvings were but artistic efforts to remind worshipers of the goddess and not to be the focal point of worship. Ishtar worshipers understood that the statues were not Ishtar but merely artistic representations, just like the Statue of Liberty is a representation of Ishtar for America and the world. Another statue of Ishtar stands atop the US Capitol Dome under the name “goddess of Freedom.” Of course, the US Capitol itself was originally given the name “Temple of the goddess of Liberty” by America’s early founding fathers.

Now, when we consider Daniel 9:27 and the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:15, we find nothing explicitly indicating a structure or building. The original Greek terminology is vague and the meanings of critical words do not make it clear that a Temple or any sort of building structure is indicated. There are only potential implications to suggest such thinking.

Now having made such a statement, I am highly aware of other prophecies, which indicate a temple or a tabernacle will be constructed or under construction. I wonder if it might be possible that while such construction is underway.

 

Perhaps a signboard is erected describing the temple construction project with an painted image of the Statue of Liberty indicating donations for the construction were made possible by the United States with an image of the Statue of Liberty or perhaps the Great Seal of the United States.

Please do not misunderstand my comments here. I’m only throwing out potential and alternate possibilities. Current mainstream prophecy interpretations may indeed be correct but then again, they may be in error as the texts themselves are definitely not explicit in their descriptions.



We’ve thrown out a lot of information in this article and before closing this article, let’s quickly review what we’ve covered and uncovered.

-

 Review:

The “Prince” or Antichrist will engage in some sort of diplomacy in which he will engage in “arm-twisting” in an overbearing manner to reach some sort of understanding or agreement (perhaps a peace treaty or an alliance) with some other leader, probably of another nation – most likely Israel, but this is not an absolute certainty. It might well be that what Daniel is describing is the Antichrist arm-twists his way into power for a 7 year period of time and takes an ”oath” of office. This is certainly a possible interpretation of the text due to the vagueness of the Hebrew terminology, particularly when the literal text states that this “agreement” (oath?) is with “many.” The oddity of that term suggests more than merely an agreement with a nation.
Continuing now with our review, we note that somewhere in about the middle of this period of probably 7 years, something happens on the Temple Mount that is terribly repugnant to God. It involves some form of idolatry or false religion or a symbol of false or pagan religion. Does it cause the cessation of temple sacrifices? Perhaps sacrifices will be ongoing and then stopped. However, from a textual standpoint, the vagueness leaves open an alternate possibility that the text indicates financial aid or gifts, perhaps for a Temple, are halted. Perhaps construction is halted. A statue might be erected on the Temple Mount but then the text is so vague that perhaps it indicates a sign with a painting of Ishtar or some other entity might exist.

Now, we do note that other prophetic passages indicate the Antichrist will proclaim himself to be “God” and that may be what Daniel 9:27 is describing, but then again perhaps not. The Antichrist’s declaration of his deity may occur elsewhere.

Now, I know many astute prophecy students and even commentators may object and point to II Thessalonians 2:4 and remind me that Paul tells us that the Antichrist will sit in the Temple, perhaps the Holy of Holies and declare himself to be God.

My response to that is – “Oh really?”

I used to think such a view was absolutely positive proof that Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15 all related to one and the same thing and that Paul is explicitly indicating that the Antichrist will make an assertion to his deity inside a newly constructed Temple or Tabernacle. However, upon extremely close examination of the original Greek text, I’m not so certain that such an interpretation is correct. Let’s examine the passage closely and include verse 3 along with verse 4 for context.

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

"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.

Verse 3 explains to us that verse 4 is all about the “man of sin” being revealed. He is also called the “son of perdition.” Both are terms that describe the future person we now call the Antichrist.

Before we pursue verse 4, I want to point out a unique element in verse 3 which is virtually always overlooked and misunderstood. I refer to the term “man of sin.”
That term in the original Greek text is “anthropos tes anomias.”

The Greek term – “anthropos” means “man.” We get the English term “anthropology” from this Greek word. Anthropology means: the study of man. The second word “tes” indicates the preposition “of.”

-

The final word – ‘anomias’ is from Strong’s Code #458.

-
Anomia means “the condition of one without law or in the absence of law – i.e. “chaos.”
So then, the Antichrist is, in reality – “the man of chaos.” Does that ring a bell for anyone familiar with the Illuminati and the New World Order crowd?

The motto of the Illuminati is “out of chaos, order.” Or “order out of chaos.” They prefer to use the Latin term: “Ordo Ab Chao” which is translated either as “order out of chaos” or “out of chaos, order.” Either way, it is almost the same vernacular as what Paul states in verse 3 for the man of chaos. I believe this was a deliberate use of the term by the Holy Spirit to indicate that the Antichrist will be an Illuminist following the Illuminati creed of creating chaos in order to bring about ‘order’ as in a New World Oder, which is part of the catch phrase found on the US dollar bill

Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Novus Ordo Seclorum means: 

“A New Order of the Ages” with the United State of America, the Babylon being the foundation stone of the New World Order and the Antichrist.

-

The only problem is that God intervenes with the first of two judgments upon Babylon-America during a one hour time span. During that one hour time span the Antichrist is voted into power by the 10 horns even as Babylon-America is being consumed with fire by a Divine act. See Revelation 17:12-16 and also Revelation 18:1-20.

See also “America, The Babylon” Volumes 1 and 2 to understand that there are two distinctly different judgments occurring at separate time points in the last days. The first is a fire judgment, and the second is a water judgment in which Babylon-America sinks below the ocean waves to become a sea bed, never to rise again. Thus, Satan is deprived of his foundation stone nation of America upon which his Antichrist was expected to reign.

 

Back to Paul's Statement:

-

Now, let’s return back to Paul’s statement concerning the Antichrist and his blasphemous claims of deity. II Thessalonians 2, verse 4 states the following:
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.

Now all that we want and need to look at in regards to our evaluation of Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15 is the following phrase:

“in the temple of God,”

The word “temple” in the original Greek text is the word “naon.” Strong’s Code #3485.

-
The term can be translated as temple.

-

It can also mean simply a building, a dwelling place.

-

When used of a temple, it can refer to a pagan temple or God’s Temple in Jerusalem.

-

Acts 19:24 tells us about a man who made silver shrines for the pagan goddess Diana – (an offshoot branch of Babylon’s Ishtar mystery religion). So that term does not absolutely indicate that Paul’s reference is to the Temple in Jerusalem.

Now some might argue and say otherwise, because of the following term:

“of God.”

 

Well, that term in the Greek is “theo” which can mean God or any ‘god” with a small ‘g’ not a capital letter. Distinguishing between the two possibilities in Greek usage involved the overall context. In this case, the context is ambiguous. The context could go, either way. Most prophecy students don't realize this because they blindly follow "traditional teaching." Yet, the traditional teaching may or may not be correct in this particular understanding of the key text phrase. It is assumed by the traditionalists that "theo" is intended to mean, the Creator-God not a false god. Yet, the Holy Spirit could be trying to convey the idea of a pagan temple, or perhaps, even - a mosque. Humm? 

My point here is not to claim that the traditional interpretations are wrong. On the contrary, I would not rule out the conventional interpretations. At the same time, I warn everyone to be careful because the ‘traditional’ interpretation may be invalid, incorrect, misleading and absolutely wrong. Why?

Well, we’ve already demonstrated throughout this article how the original texts are not as clear-cut in understanding as the modern-day, popular, prophecy commentators would lead us to believe. Quite frankly, most of today’s prophecy commentaries ASSUME way more than what the Hebrew or Greek texts actually state in the literal sense.

Modern-day prophecy authors and commentators, far too often fail to do their proper homework not only textually but also in regard to empirical research. Today’s prophecy commentators, book authors and lecturers have done little or no empirical research of their own on issues such as the Babylon prophecies. IF they did, they’d have discovered the Babylonian goddess Ishtar and the fact that her given title by her worshippers as “MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS” along with the huge volume of facts about her mystery religion and its mystery doctrines would have altered their understanding of Revelation chapter 17 in a very radical manner.

So in conclusion, we find that Daniel is telling us that the Antichrist will be a very pushy, arm-twisting sort of character who makes a seven year agreement or perhaps takes an oath of office for a 7 year period. In the middle of that period, something happens on the Temple Mount that is despicable and repugnant to God. It may involve a cessation of sacrifices (but probably not animal sacrifices) but more likely than not involves the cessation of financial gifts to Israel and or perhaps the cessation of financial aid for the building of a Temple on the Temple Mount.

The Abomination of Desolation might well be some sort of billboard describing the Temple Building Project and that billboard may contain some sort of artwork that is pagan in its nature. Or it could be some sort of statue near the building site. It might even be television monitors set up for live TV broadcast on the Temple Mount area.

It is very hard to know for sure what is being described by Daniel in regards to the Temple Mount incident. For that reason, we urge everyone to be less dogmatic on prior interpretative theories and more open to the possibility that mainstream thinking has been wrong all along about many prophetic elements just like nearly everyone in Christ’s day had the wrong ideas about our Lord’s first advent and mission. I strongly suspect that the way God works out His prophecies to fulfillment will be almost totally different than what evangelical, fundamental Prophecy scholars, authors and theologians have assumed all along.

My recommendation to prophecy watchers: remain alert and do not get hung up with dogmatic views of prophetic timeline developments because such timelines may be wrong and you could be thoroughly misled and become confused at a time when confusion is the last thing you want or need.

-

-

-

-

-

-

--