Olbermann or Osama?

Greg Gutfeld on Osama Video

The funny line is when he says he thinks he is listening to Keith Olbermann.

Just Say No... to Ron Paul

Ron Paul NOT a Conservative!

(An Imported Article)

The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul

by John Hawkins

Friday, June 15, 2007

Even though he's not one of the top tier contenders, I thought it might be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul. Enjoy!

#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.

#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008.

#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done.

#4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote."

Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth? Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul.

#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy).

#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.

#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.

#8)

In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11:

"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.

This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter. If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here."

#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.

Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen.

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News.

(insert "Democrats" in where it says "Obama")

Osama vs Obama

Osama rhetoric matches – almost word for word not to mention thought for thought – the rhetoric I here coming from the Left almost daily in this country. I will bring out a point or two from his speech and comment on it, but if you want… you can read the entire thing at MSNBC who has the entire transcript of Osama’s DNC speech.

I will post just a few political stances that are in tune with the Democratic Party as expressed by Schuemer, Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy, and others. Let’s delve in on that note.

I want to first zero in on two authors Osama mentioned in his crazy rants (click on them to enlarge):

Every one should know by now Chomsky’s position on politics… he is a Marxist and hates capitalism, America, etc, etc. If asked what he loves about America he would probably respond, “The mountains and streams.” But few know about Michael Scheuer, the author of some books slamming President Bush’s policy on terrorism. He published first as “Anonymous,” but then it became apparent who the author was. He was an insider at the CIA, but being an insider at the CIA doesn’t disqualify your biases, as we shall see in some commentary here:

Not long ago, a nameless CIA operative published Imperial Hubris, a scathing analysis of the Bush administration’s war on terror. Eventually, word spread that the author, called “Anonymous” on the book jacket, was one Michael Scheuer.

In the meantime, both the Washington press corps and the CIA had played a sort of coy game of gossiping in private about the real identification of the author while publicly maintaining the mystique of an anonymous authoritative insider whose station was too high up and too covert to be disclosed.

But once Scheuer was publicly identified, the world could examine what he had to say on various topics. People weren’t impressed — especially by Scheuer’s assertions in interviews that Osama bin Laden shouldn’t be identified as a terrorist, and that the Holocaust Museum in Washington was a means to make Americans feel guilty about the Holocaust….

….Scheuer sounds goofier each time he gives an interview — and the credibility of his once anonymously written Imperial Hubris shakier and shakier. Isikoff has never quite recovered his journalistic reputation. We all know what happened to Dan Rather.

Victor Davis Hanson

“No More Anonymous, Please”

He [Michael Scheuer] has also been caught up in controversy, asserting for example that Israel has been conducting clandestine operations to influence American politics. Pressed to provide an example, he has cited, bizarrely, the establishment of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on the National Mall. So high-profile has Scheuer become that even Osama bin Laden has been taking note. In his newly released video, the leader of al Qaeda singles Scheuer out as one of two writers--the other is Noam Chomsky--worth reading about world and Islamic affairs.

Gabriel Schoenfeld

“The CIA Examines Itself”

He doesn’t want Osama Ben Laden titled a terrorist? He also seems to show some conspiratorial views of the Jewish influence in America and abroad, as well as an almost blatant anti-Semitism. So who’s hubris is imperial? It would make complete sense for a person like Osama Ben Laden to quote from or reference these two authors. If these two authors were in charge of the country, Osama would still be living large in Afghanistan, and possibly setting eyes on the Middle-East.

Chomsky and Osama both view President Bush, Cheney, and the like (as well as many Democrats) as the real terrorists.

Not only this, but in my discussions with many Democrats, liberals, and green-party affiliates, they all seem to conclude – like Chomsky and Obama – that corporations are in control of most things in our existence. Corporations were behind the Vietnam War:

Behind the Kennedy assassination:

Behind the Iraq war:

Basically, Osama blames everything on this mix of corporate wizards and the neo-cons who support them. In fact, this next little run of “ills’ in the United States sounds just like a campaign ad for the Democratic Party:

Not only does Osama’s political views fit well within the mainstream Democratic Party line, they also fit in well with their stance on Global Warming and the Bush “reign” not signing the Kyoto treaty.

Osama also calls for the overthrow of the capitalist system when he states the following:

We can see a connection here with this type of revolutionary thinking and the Democratic Party by who they support, view as moral hero’s and all-in-all rub shoulders with:

Glover is a big supporter of Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez, and is currently in the crosshairs of filmmakers in the South American country who oppose the actor’s decision to accept $18 million in government funds to shoot a movie about Haitian revolutionary Toussaint L’Ouverture. He also went on the campaign trail with John Edwards. Cindy Sheehan supports Democrats but think they do not go far enough to stop the currant war. And Sean Penn is also a proud Democrat:

"...And Leo was never a card-carrying communist; he was a Democrat all his life...he went to some meetings (Communist Party USA) and was interested in what they had to say..."

- Eileen Ryan Penn, mother of Sean Penn, on her husband and Sean's father, blacklisted Communist...meeting attender...Leo Penn

This seems to be the new battle cry, “We are not Communists! We are Democrats!” Corporations, neo-cons, global warming, millions without health-care, on and on. It’s the same old propaganda in the same old clothes.

This whole war on terror will never be fought correctly or with as much understanding from people who believe the following, “the death penalty is inhumane... whether that person is in a jail or it's bin Laden.” I have to wrap this blog up and go to work, but more will follow.

Muslim Student Association - Extremism

Islamic Racism & Chauvinism on Display

Muslim Student Association student confronts non-hijab wearing Muslim girl… and then moves on to a Jewish student whom he blames 9/11 on. Sick! The interesting thing to listen to as well is the Politically Correct responses the Muslim girl try’s to give… as if all cultural mores are of equal value and weight (so the student of cultural relativism will also glean something from this).

Little Green Footballs - props

Super Rove

Riding Into the Sunset...
Suckas!

American Workers the Best

Economic Numbers

Just an article posted, keep in mind that if our form of government went to anything else, say, more socialized, we would not produce as much:

GENEVA (AP) — American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."

The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.

The productivity figure is found by dividing the country's gross domestic product by the number of people employed. The U.N. report is based on 2006 figures for many countries, or the most recent available.

Only part of the U.S. productivity growth, which has outpaced that of many other developed economies, can be explained by the longer hours Americans are putting in, the ILO said.

The U.S., according to the report, also beats all 27 nations in the European Union, Japan and Switzerland in the amount of wealth created per hour of work — a second key measure of productivity.

Norway, which is not an EU member, generates the most output per working hour, $37.99, a figure inflated by the country's billions of dollars in oil exports and high prices for goods at home. The U.S. is second at $35.63, about a half dollar ahead of third-place France.

Seven years ago, French workers produced over a dollar more on average than their American counterparts. The country led the U.S. in hourly productivity from 1994 to 2003.

The U.S. employee put in an average 1,804 hours of work in 2006, the report said. That compared with 1,407.1 hours for the Norwegian worker and 1,564.4 for the French.

It pales, however, in comparison with the annual hours worked per person in Asia, where seven economies — South Korea, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia and Thailand — surpassed 2,200 average hours per worker. But those countries had lower productivity rates.

America's increased productivity "has to do with the ICT (information and communication technologies) revolution, with the way the U.S. organizes companies, with the high level of competition in the country, with the extension of trade and investment abroad," said Jose Manuel Salazar, the ILO's head of employment.

The ILO report warned that the widening of the gap between leaders such as the U.S. and poorer nations has been even more dramatic.

Laborers from regions such as southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East have the potential to create more wealth but are being held back by a lack of investment in training, equipment and technology, the agency said.

In sub-Saharan Africa, workers are only about one-twelfth as productive as those in developed countries, the report said.

"The huge gap in productivity and wealth is cause for great concern," ILO Director-General Juan Somavia said, adding that it was important to raise productivity levels of the lowest-paid workers in the world's poorest countries.

China and other East Asian countries are catching up quickest with Western countries. Productivity in the region has doubled in the past decade and is accelerating faster than anywhere else, the report said.

But they still have a long way to go: Workers in East Asia are still only about one-fifth as productive as laborers in industrialized countries.

The vast differences among China's sectors tell part of the story. Whereas a Chinese industrial worker produces $12,642 worth of output — almost eight times more than in 1980 — a laborer in the farm and fisheries sector contributes a paltry $910 to gross domestic product.

The difference is much less pronounced in the United States, where a manufacturing employee produced an unprecedented $104,606 of value in 2005. An American farm laborer, meanwhile, created $52,585 worth of output, down 10 percent from seven years ago, when U.S. agricultural productivity peaked.

No Man Knows!

Conversations from the Break-Room (II)

Guiding Verse

Daniel 9:27 -- “He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’  In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” (NIV).

Clarification

Okay, I want to first make the point that this blog stems from a conversation between a co-worker and I, a fellow believer. Another point I wish to establish up-front is that the discussion here has nothing to do with salvation. In other words, we are not saved on the basis of our beliefs in amillennialism, postmillennialism, or premillinialism; we are saved by the grace of God through the finished work on the Cross alone. Saint Augustine said something that I use as a guide to meeting and fellowshipping with the body of Christ: “In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity [love].”

This is the reasoning behind denominations. Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Four-Square, and the like… we are all on the same page on what Christ’s sacrifice meant for us on that fateful March day. However, some prefer baptism as a child versus as an adult. While we may make a bigger deal out of the non-essentials (as is the tendency of human nature… any married person will tell you that) we are truly only saved by the essentials, that is, a personal relationship with our Maker, this personal relationship is offered by no other religious philosophy.

Okay, that being said let us continue on. I will make a few points and then post a few commentaries on the matter.

Searching for a Common Denominator

I want to find a main common denominator between the views of post, pre, and mid tribulation’ers that we can use as a referent. For those who do not know much about the rapture and the tribulation, you may be a bit lost, sorry. Basically what I am referring to is a seven year period where the anti-Christ will come and reign first peaceably, then with more tyrannical force. It has to do with allusions to the “Four Horsemen” of Revelations, and prophecies stemming from Daniel, Amos, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Malachi, Zachariah, Jeremiah, Joel, Matthew, Mark, Thessalonians, and the like. I am concerned more in this prose with the verse in Daniel (top) and the “surprise” of Jesus Second Coming.

Warning

Remember, I am not predicting when He is coming, again, only that His coming will be a surprise. Some have tried to predict the coming of Christ, some even as of late, the below is just a few examples, the first is from the back cover of Harold Camping’s books, the other two are from Jehovah's Witnesses publications. (Click on them to enlarge.)

The first example though is one that “gets me.” There is a signature on the inside cover dated 1993 (I bought it used, since the book was no longer useful to whomever owned it when the ball fell in New York on January 1^st, 2005… not good marketing either for a product such as a book being purchased for its “relevance factor”) and I often wonder if this book was given by some overzealous Christian to a non-believer as “proof” of his faith… and after 1994 came-and-went if this person the Christian person first meant to proselytize now turned away from what true Christianity has to offer a person.

So the caution here is for the Christian to not call dates in the future based on anything but the signing of the contract between Israel and her enemies brokered by the Man of Perdition, e.g., the Anti-Christ.

Commentary Quotes

Back to Daniel 9:27 and what a few commentaries have to say about it:

Charles F Pfeiffer, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: Old Testament, Dan 9:27

The evil and destructive events described in the remainder of this verse should be interpreted as summary information concerning the final “time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer 30:7 and context) set forth rather more fully in 12:1 ff; II Thess 2:1 ff; Rev 13; 14; and other passages.

Robert B Hughes, Laney, J. Carl, Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary (The Tyndale Reference Library), p. 319

The seventy weeks begin with the “command” to “rebuild Jerusalem” (9:25), which was issued by Artaxerxes for Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 2:1–8). The date was March 5, 444 b.c. The seventy weeks are divided into three periods: During the first (7 weeks, or 49 years), Jerusalem was rebuilt. The second (62 weeks, or 434 years) concludes with the coming of the Messiah at his royal entry, March 30, a.d. 33. The third (one week, or seven years) is still in the future and is possibly to be identified with the tribulation period.

After the sixty-nine weeks (the 62 + 7), the Messiah would be “killed” (Dan. 9:26), an apparent reference to his crucifixion, and “the city and the Temple” of Jerusalem would be destroyed. The “armies” (9:26) were the Roman people, who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in a.d. 70. There is evidence of a gap between the 69th and 70th week, for what is predicted in 9:27 has not yet taken place. The “ruler” (9:26) is the Antichrist, who will rise out of what may possibly be a revived type of the Roman Empire (7:8, 24–26). In the middle of the “one set of seven” (9:27), or “week,” he will take control of the Jewish temple and put a stop to worship, demanding that he be worshiped (cf. Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4). But he will be destroyed at Christ’s second coming (cf. Rev. 19:11, 20–21).

Some commentators make a connection with Daniel 9:27 and the prophesies of the New Testament concerning the “end-times.”

Jesus on History

Jesus spoke on this issue as well. In Mark 13:14 Jesus mentions the verses in Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 when He says:

“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong – let the reader understand….” (NIV).

So Jesus makes mention that this is a future event and not something that happened in the historical past. Take this knowledge then and apply it to what follows.

Further in Mark 13 Jesus says this (vv. 32-37),

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’ ” (NIV)

Common Denominator Found

If the tribulation is seven years, and we (pre, post, mid) can all agree that Jesus Second coming is at the end of the seven year tribulation. And we know from Revelations and Daniel that the anti-Christ come in at first as a peacemaker and then half way through causes the Abomination of Desolation, what are we to conclude?

Time Known?

Daniel does seem to have a “covenant” of some sort in mind; a cease fire/peace treaty would fit well with our current political way of handling such situations. So if we know the tribulation starts at the signing… or even if you reject the signing interpretation, at the time of the “abomination that causes desolation” you would know that there are three-and-a-half years left until the end of the tribulation.

SURPRISE!

Jesus’ admonitions, then, do not fit well in the frame work of a post-tribulationist very well. Below is a swath from Matthew chapter 24, it is verses 38-50 that will make my point even more forcibly:

“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of.

I will now place the scanned notes from this section taken from my study Bible:

Dilemma

So, we have a dilemma here. If we know that Jesus Second Coming is 7-years after the peace treaty between Israel and her enemies by a charismatic guy who seemingly came back from the dead, and we know the Second Coming is 3-1/2 years after the Abomination that Causes Desolation, how do we square that with these verses. Why would the servant be watchful if he knew the exact time of his Master’s arrival? If it were me, I would be drunk until a few days before his arrival and then clean up real quick. There is no “surprise factor” here for the post-tribulationist who believes the rapture happens at the same time of Jesus Second Coming.

Another question I have always asked is why would two people be working in the fields and two in the mill if all the armies of the world were gathered and you already had half of the earth’s population destroyed via what looks like in Scripture to be a nuclear exchange and other calamities? I would think the analogy, then, that Jesus would have used would have been two fighting side-by-side (I do not think the “option” for not-fighting in the biggest battle in earth’s history is, well, and option). Or, two women cowering in their homes.

The Christians during the tribulation would be expecting Jesus’ return just in time to stop mankind from annihilating itself at the end of the seven-year period. So the verses on people being taken during a normal business day just doesn’t fit in more than one way

Dilemma Resolved

The best, most logical way then to look at these passages and the others similar to it is to see the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. This would keep the “surprise factor” there, make the servant watchful because he doesn’t know the return of his Master and would explain why the “Church” is not mentioned in Revelations after chapter four.

This is a layman’s understanding of the evidence for the pre-tribulation. It is simple and straightforward to understand, no deep theological degrees are needed to follow this linear thinking. I will leave the more technical aspects of this to the commentary below.

Much Thought,

Papa Giorgio

The New American Commentary on Daniel by Stephen R Miller

(6) Events of the Seventieth Seven (9:27)

9:27 Daniel here described “the completion of God’s purpose.”774 As previously explained, a “seven” represents seven years, and the seventy sevens are terminated by the second advent of Christ. Therefore the events of the seventieth seven transpire over a seven-year period immediately prior to the Lord’s return.

If the sixty-nine sevens (483 years) conclude with Christ’s first coming and the final seven (seven years) is terminated by Christ’s return, there must be an interval of time between the end of the sixty-ninth and the beginning of the seventieth seven. The text also indicates that the seventieth seven would not follow the sixty-ninth immediately. For example, Christ’s crucifixion (“Anointed One … cut off,” v. 26) and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (v. 26) would occur after the sixty-ninth seven, but not during the seventieth seven (v. 27), revealing a gap between these sevens.775 R. Gundry observes: “The possibility of a gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks is established by the well-accepted OT phenomenon of prophetic perspective, in which gaps such as that between the first and second advents were not perceived.”776

Not only are gaps between first and second coming events common, but the two thousand year span (at least) found here may also be explained by the nature of this revelation. God was answering Daniel’s prayer, which specifically concerned the future of the nation Israel. Shortly after Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah (after the sixty-nine sevens), Jerusalem was destroyed, the Jewish people were dispersed throughout the earth, and for almost two thousand years Israel as a nation did not exist. Therefore this period was omitted from the prophecy. Israel has now been reestablished as a nation (1948), suggesting that the seventieth seven may soon begin.

The events of the last seven will begin with a covenant. Young argues that the one making the covenant will be the “Anointed One” (Jesus Christ) of v. 26 and that the clause should be translated as, He “will cause to prevail” a covenant.777 By this Young means that Christ “fulfilled the terms of this Covenant of Grace, that upon the basis of His finished work, life and salvation might be freely offered to sinners.”778 Young also believes that the “end to sacrifice and offering” spoken of as occurring in the middle of the final seven was brought about by Christ’s death.779 The Old Testament sacrificial system came to an end since the sacrifice they typified, that of Jesus Christ, had been offered. Christ’s death, it is agreed, did end the need for the sacrificial system, but the question is whether that truth is taught in this verse. Most scholars believe it is not.

As for the end of the seventieth seven, Young declares that it will “run out” at least by A.D. 70, but he does not know exactly when. “It would seem, therefore, that the terminus ad quem was not regarded as possessing particular importance or significance.”780 In reality the end of this final seven is one of the most significant events in history, the second coming of Christ.

Young’s identification of Jesus Christ as the perpetrator of this covenant is not supported by the context. The text indicates that this covenant is confirmed (even Young’s translation “prevailed,” which is almost certainly incorrect here, would not relieve this problem) for one seven. Most naturally this is taken to mean that the person in question makes a covenant that “lasts” for seven years. Christ did not institute a covenant that continued merely for seven years, for even Young holds that this final period ended sometime not too many years after the Lord’s death. Christ’s covenant with believers endures forever. Finally, if this seven immediately precedes the end of the age, as most scholars hold, the pronoun “he” cannot refer to Christ’s appearance at his first coming but must speak of someone living in the last days.

The majority of scholars correctly hold that “he” denotes the “ruler” spoken of in the previous verse,781 and Archer points out that “normally the last eligible antecedent is to be taken as the subject of the following verb.”782 Moreover, the context of the passage and the book as a whole supports this identification. His behavior and ultimate doom match that of the “little horn” described in chap. 7—the future ruler of a great empire in the last days and the persecutor of the saints—the Antichrist (so Archer, Wood, Whitcomb, Keil, Leupold). The term “confirm” can mean “make strong” (Ps 12:4, “triumph”) and with bĕrît, “covenant,” here seems to mean “make a firm agreement.”783
Baldwin may be correct in seeing in this use of the unusual verb gābar “the implication of forcing an agreement by means of superior strength.”784 Here “covenant” (bĕrît) indicates “a treaty” or “alliance,” a meaning it often has in the Old Testament (cf. Gen 14:13; 21:27, 32; 31:44; Obad 7).

This agreement will be made with “many” (lit., “the many”). Walvoord believes the phrase “the many” refers to unbelieving Jews,785 whereas Archer786 and Young787 contend that these are “true believers,” the likely meaning of the expression in Isa 53:11–12. In this context, however, “the many” is best taken as a description of the Jewish people as a group, the nation of Israel.788

Antichrist, on behalf of his empire, will make a treaty with the nation of Israel. This agreement probably entails a promise of protection in return for certain favors (likely including those of an economic nature). It is easy to understand why Israel would enter into such an arrangement with the powerful forces of Antichrist. With such protection Israel will feel safe and secure. The term of the treaty will be “for one seven,” that is, seven years.

“In the middle of the seven” the Antichrist “will put an end to [šābat] sacrifice and offering.” This event takes place after three and one-half years. The seventieth seven is commonly referred to as the tribulation period, and the second half of this seven is known as the great tribulation (Rev 7:14; cf. Matt 24:21). It is in this last part of the tribulation that the Antichrist persecutes believers and commits other atrocities. The length of the great tribulation, three and one-half years, is spoken of several times in Scripture and should be taken literally (cf. 7:25; Rev 11:2; 12:14; 13:5). Whitcomb notes: “The clarification provided here is that the three and one-half years of 7:25 follow an initial three-and-one-half-year period at the beginning of which the Antichrist” will make a treaty with Israel.789 He will break this treaty at the midpoint.

That there will be “an end to sacrifice and offering”790 does not necessarily mean that the sacrificial system will be reinstituted in Israel, as Whitcomb thinks,791 although this is possible.792 It may only indicate that worship in general is forbidden. Reasons for this order are not stated, but evidently religious Jews will be persecuted because they will oppose the Antichrist’s evil administration. Antichrist will also come to the point where he demands allegiance from his citizens above that to God (cf. 11:36; 2 Thess 2:4). Naturally believers will refuse.

The NIV’s translation would indicate that Antichrist will place some kind of object (“abomination”) in the temple precincts (“on a wing of the temple”) that will be offensive to the Jews and cause them not to worship there (“causes desolation”). “Of the temple” is placed in brackets by the NIV translators, showing that it is not in the Hebrew text. The NIV’s interpretation (followed by Montgomery)793 is possible but would seem unlikely since “wing” (kānāp) is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament referring to a part of a building or building complex.794 Moreover, “abomination” is plural (“abominations”) in the Hebrew so that if taken with “desolation” it would literally read “abominations of desolation” rather than “abomination of desolation” as in 11:31 and 12:11. The NIV and NRSV have followed the Greek versions in translating “abomination” (singular), probably reflecting an attempt to make the phrase conform to later passages (11:31; 12:11). It is true that some sort of offensive object or objects will be placed in the temple by Antichrist (cf. 12:11; Matt 24:15),795 but it is best not to force that meaning here.

A literal rendering of the Hebrew text is, “And on the wing of796 abominations one who causes desolation [will come].” It seems best to understand “on the wing of abominations” with the KJV as a figure for “overspreading abominations,” that is, great abominations or wickedness. “Wing” is used in a destructive sense in Isa 8:8 as well. Concerning “abominations,” Baldwin comments: “The word is used frequently of idolatry and implies something filthy and loathsome of which people should be ashamed (Ho. 9:10; Na. 3:6).”797 Antichrist’s incredible atrocities against his fellow human beings and his attacks upon God himself (cf. 7:21–25) will include even the idolatrous claim that he is deity with an attempt at forced worship of himself (cf. 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 13:8, 14–17).

“One who causes desolation” (similar to NASB) refers to the Antichrist, who will forbid worship and thereby make the temple area desolate (empty). Rather than being an object that desolates in this context, it appears to be the Antichrist himself who desolates. This person’s terrible atrocities (“abominations”) and the fact he causes the temple to be desolate (because of his religious persecution) results in the judgment announced in the latter part of the verse.

This will be a terrible period in the world’s history, but the Lord has “decreed” that these atrocities will not continue forever. Antichrist’s wickedness will last only “until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” “Poured out” picturesquely describes the flood of judgment that will overtake the Antichrist (cf. 7:9–11, 26; 2 Thess 2:8; Rev 19:19–21). “On him” is literally “on the desolating one” (“desolator,” NRSV; Heb. šōmēm), a reference to Antichrist, which will cause the temple to become desolate.

Daniel’s message of the seventy sevens is one of the greatest prophecies in the Bible. Leupold calls it “the divine program for the ages.”798 Regardless of disagreement over dates and some matters of interpretation, certain facts seem clear. The passage predicts the coming of the Messiah—Jesus of Nazareth. Messiah will die, and subsequently the city of Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed. At the end of the age an evil ruler will arise who will persecute God’s people, but his wicked activities will not continue, for the same Messiah who died will come again. He will judge the Antichrist and all those who follow him. Then the period characterized by the great accomplishments set forth in v. 24 will ensue. Although this message was first given to the Jewish faithful, all believers will participate in the kingdom of God. Leupold comments that the “glorious victory” of Christ described in this chapter “should be in the forefront of the thinking of God’s people.”799

If the root of מֻעָף is עוּף, the translation would be “having been caused to fly.” This makes good sense, but flying “in weariness” would not since an angel would not grow tired. Thus Young’s translation “to fly in weariness” seems impossible (Prophecy of Daniel, 190). Montgomery suggests that יְעָף was derived from a supposed root, יעף, which like עוּף also means “to fly” (Daniel, 372). Although this conjectural root is conceivable, there is little support for it. (Hartman attempts to solve the problem by emending the text to read “flying like a bird” [Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, 243].) According to the established meanings of the terms involved, the text as it now stands simply reads “having been wearied with weariness,” i.e., “in extreme weariness.” Both ideas of flying swiftly or being extremely weary would suit the context well. However, since the former idea depends upon conjectural translation and the latter upon the established meaning of the Hebrew words, the latter interpretation is preferred.

---

774 Baldwin, Daniel, 171.

775 So Hoehner, “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ: Part VI: Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the New Testament Chronology,” 59; R. H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 190.

776 Gundry, The Church, 190.

777 Young, Daniel, 208.

778 Ibid., 213.

779 Ibid., 217.

780 Ibid., 220.

781 Maccabean date scholars generally take it to have been the same person, although they believe it was Antiochus IV (cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 385).

782 Archer, “Daniel,” 116.

783 TDOT 2.368.

784 Baldwin, Daniel, 171.

785 Walvoord, Daniel, 234.

786 Archer, “Daniel,” 117.

787 Young, Daniel, 213.

788 Cf. Wood, Daniel, 259. Antiochus’s policies seem clearly to have been acceptable only to a minority in Israel, a fact that would dispute the Maccabean view since the covenant here is made with “the many.” Montgomery suggests that “the many” may denote only the majority of the aristocracy in Jerusalem (Daniel, 385), but to limit the expression to that meaning seems unjustified.

789 Whitcomb, Daniel, 134.

790 Maccabean date scholars maintain that the passage describes the forced cessation of temple worship by Antiochus IV.

791 Whitcomb, Daniel, 134; also Walvoord, Daniel, 235; Wood, Daniel, 261.

792 See the article by R. N. Ostling in which he reports that many Jews in Israel are indeed hoping to rebuild the temple and reinstitute the sacrificial system (“Time for a New Temple?” Time [October 16, 1989]: 64–65).

793 Montgomery, Daniel, 385, 387. Of course, Montgomery applies this passage to “a heathen image or emblem” placed in the temple complex by Antiochus IV (p. 387).

794 Cf. Leupold, Daniel, 435.

795 Christ’s allusion to “the abomination that causes desolation” in Matt 24:15 is to Dan 12:11.

796 The NRSV follows an emendation of the Hebrew text that reads עַל־כַּנּוֹ(“in their place”) rather than the MT’s עַל־כּנַף (“on the wing of”).

797 Baldwin, Daniel, 172.

798 Leupold, Daniel, 406.

799 Ibid., 375.