The Narrow Path Ministries

Awhile back I began a study into the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God, whether they were the same, different, etc. My pastor feels strongly that the KOH is the earthly millennial kingdom and distinct from the KOG. It seems like KOH and KOG are used interchangably often enough to describe the same thing in the gospels for a strict "KOH means this every time, KOG means this every time" view. However, I'm still left with the question of then why did Matthew use the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven"? About the best answer I can find is that Matthew's Jewish audience would have been offended by the use of God's name in the phrase "Kingdom of God". The only problem with that theory IMO is that although he didn't use it much, he still used the phrase "kingdom of God" a few times. You would think that if it was that offensive and it was that much of a consideration, then he wouldn't have used the phrase "kingdom of God" at all.

The two terms are certainly used interchangeably in the Gospels. I think it likely that Matthew used the terms variously, as Jesus used them, sometime the kingdom of God and sometimes the kingdom of heaven—but the other Gospels used kingdom of God exclusively, so as not to confuse non-Jewish readers (just as Luke 21:20 paraphrased the Hebraic "abomination of desolation" into "Jerusalem surrounded by armies").

Thanks Steve!

I'm with Steve regarding the equation of: kingdom of heaven = kingdom of God.

BOTH require repentance:

Matthew 4:17 - From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 1:15 - And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

If Steve believes the abomination of desolation is when Jerusalem was surrounded (I'm assuming he believes this took place in 70 AD), then what does he do with Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11, both of which are within the context of the "time of the end" (Daniel 11:35, 40 and Daniel 12:4, 9)?

There are two events referred to as the abomination of desolation. One was Antiochus Epiphanes' sacrilegious act in 167 BC, and is referred to in Daniel 11. Another was to occur after the death of the Messiah (Daniel 9) and is clearly what Jesus was predicting in the Olivet Discourse. Luke's Gospel identifies this as the seige of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20ff). Revelation 12 might speak of yet a third abomination of desolation, but I don't think so. The "time of the end" mentioned in Daniel 12 is, I think, the end of Temple Judaism.

steve wrote:There are two events referred to as the abomination of desolation. One was Antiochus Epiphanes' sacrilegious act in 167 BC, and is referred to in Daniel 11. Another was to occur after the death of the Messiah (Daniel 9) and is clearly what Jesus was predicting in the Olivet Discourse. Luke's Gospel identifies this as the seige of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20ff). Revelation 12 might speak of yet a third abomination of desolation, but I don't think so. The "time of the end" mentioned in Daniel 12 is, I think, the end of Temple Judaism.

I agree with Steve. Apparently it was a first-century Jewish interpretation also (i.e., Josephus).

EXCURSUS 6A: THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
Three places in the book of Daniel refer to an abomination of desolation: Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11. These three sections refer to two different abominations of desolation, one in the second century BC by Antiochus IV (Dan. 11:31; cf. 8:9-14), the other in the first century by Titus (Dan. 9:27 and 12:11).

THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION BY ANTIOCHUS IV
The reference to the abomination of desolation of Antiochus is the following:

And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation.
Daniel 11:31

The abomination of desolation of Daniel 11:31 refers to the second-century BC desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV. This abomination of desolation is described in Daniel 8:9-14, where it is referred to as “the transgression of desolation.”

Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot?” And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”
Daniel 8:13-14

At the end of the abomination of Antiochus (after either 1,150 or 2,300 days), the Temple would be cleansed (Dan. 8:14). Notice (below) that this outcome is very different from the abomination of desolation by Titus.

THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION BY TITUS
The references to the abomination of desolation by Titus are as follows:

Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate. Even until the consummation which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.
Daniel 9:27

The abomination of desolation of Daniel 9:27 refers to the coming of Titus, the one who would make the Jewish nation desolate. At the end of Titus’ abomination, instead of being cleansed, the Temple would be destroyed (Dan. 9:26) and the Jewish nation would be shattered (Dan. 12:7-11).
The second reference to the abomination of desolation by Titus is the following:

And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up [to the end of the age, cf. vv. 6-8], there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Daniel 12:11

Even though Daniel 12:11 is closer linguistically to 11:31, the abomination of desolation that it references is the one found in Daniel 9:27, the coming of the one who would make Israel desolate. It would be 1,290 days from the coming of Titus to the shattering of the Jewish nation (Dan. 12:7). It should be remembered that a shift from the second century BC to the end of the old covenant age (the time of the great tribulation and resurrection, Dan. 12:1-2) takes place at Daniel 11:36 (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). With this in mind, the context of the abomination of desolation of Daniel 12:11 is clearly not the second century BC but the AD 70 shattering of the Jewish nation. Indeed, the abomination of desolation of Daniel 12:11 was given as a sign for the countdown to the end of all the prophesied events in Daniel (Dan. 12:6-11). Titus came to the Holy Land around February of AD 67 (cf. Dan. 11:40-45); 1,290 days later (in early September of AD 70) the Jewish nation was left shattered. The Temple was not cleansed at this time, it was destroyed (Dan. 9:26-27).

THE JEWISH EXPECTATION OF TWO ABOMINATIONS OF DESOLATION
That there are two different abominations of desolation in Daniel (one by Antiochus and one by the Romans) was a recognized distinction in first-century Judaism. Josephus writes the following on this:

Daniel wrote that . . . from among them [the four divisions of Alexander the Great’s Empire; cf. Dan. 8:8-14] there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away our political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years’ time. And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had shewed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honour where with God honored Daniel.22

The above quote is both interesting and informative. Josephus is attributing the transgression of desolation of Daniel 8:9-14 (and presumably 11:31) to Antiochus IV. If the 2,300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14 (NASB) are taken as 1,150 days (i.e., 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices at 2 sacrifices a day equals 1,150 days) it equals the 3 years that Josephus references in regards to Antiochus’ abomination (as opposed to the 3½ years of the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:6-11). In contrast, Josephus is attributing the abomination of desolation of Daniel 9:26-27 and 12:11 to the Roman desolation of the Jewish nation in AD 70.

Notice how Josephus subtly minimizes Titus’ responsibility in his discussion. While he attributes the spoiling of the Temple in the second century BC to Antiochus, the desolation of the Jewish nation in AD 70 is attributed in a more general manner to the Romans, not to Titus. Daniel 9:26 does lend itself to this minimization, however, as it says “the people of the prince to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

That Josephus wrote of two different abominations of desolation (without feeling the need to give much elaboration) would seem to indicate that it was not an uncommon distinction in first-century Judaism. This would explain how it was that Jesus was prophesying an abomination of desolation within his generation (Matt. 23:15, 34). Jesus was referring to the abomination of desolation of Daniel 9:27 and 12:11, the one that would result in the destruction of the Temple (Dan. 9:26) and shattering of the Jewish nation at the AD 70 end of the old covenant age (Dan. 12:6-7; cf. Matt. 24:13).
Notice that Josephus did not regard the book of Daniel as a second-century pseudo-prophecy; rather, he saw it as a true and wondrous ancient prophecy written by Daniel many years before the events it describes happened. This supports our proposition that first-century Jews saw Daniel as containing very real prophecy that directly related to events in their time.23

Duncan McKenzie, The Antichrist and the Second Coming, 230-34.

steve wrote:There are two events referred to as the abomination of desolation. One was Antiochus Epiphanes' sacrilegious act in 167 BC, and is referred to in Daniel 11. Another was to occur after the death of the Messiah (Daniel 9) and is clearly what Jesus was predicting in the Olivet Discourse. Luke's Gospel identifies this as the seige of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20ff). Revelation 12 might speak of yet a third abomination of desolation, but I don't think so. The "time of the end" mentioned in Daniel 12 is, I think, the end of Temple Judaism.

I agree, Steve. The "time of the end" is undoubtedly the end of temple Judaism (and the scattering of the people). We are the new temples in Christ. Christ was the final sacrifice.

And now, the difficult part:

Daniel 12:1-4 - And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12:7 - And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

Notice also that Daniel's words were to be sealed until the "time of the end."

Daniel 12:4 - But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12:9 - And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

But in John's revelation, his words were not to be sealed. Why? Because the time was at hand...

Revelation 22:10 - And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Daniel places the resurrection at the "time of the end." John places the second coming in the first century, that is, if "at hand" has any meaning at all. The resurrection occurs at the time of the second coming. Therefore the resurrection occurs in the first century.

It is the NATURE of the resurrection which must be examined - not the timing of the resurrection...

I agree with everything you wrote here—with the exception of placing the resurrection of the body at the time of Jerusalem's destruction. I fully understand how this conclusion is reached, but it is not conclusive. The statement that "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt," can be reconciled with my view in two possible ways:

1. It is not talking about the resurrection of the dead on the last day, as many other passages do. The language and imagery of rising from dead are used in non-literal ways in many contexts (e.g., Ezekiel 37; Luke 2:34; John 2:24; Eph.2:1ff; Col.2:12; etc.). These instances do not eliminate the teaching of the literal resurrection of the bodies on the last day (e.g., John 5:28-29; 1 Cor.15; etc.). It is possible that Daniel 12:2 is using the term non-literally (as, I think, you would say), and may have exactly the same thought in mind as that of Simeon in Luke 2:34 (which uses very similar language—including the limiting word "many" as opposed to the "all" of John 5:28). I would be satisfied if this were the only possible explanation, but there is another...

2. Daniel 12:2-3 could be parenthetical. Verse 1 speaks about the salvation of those "found written in the book." This saving of the enlisted ones is a process that has been going on since the time of Christ and continues today. In other words, the enterprise described in verse 1 is not yet completed. When it is completed, there will be the resurrection of the last day. Verses 2 and 3 could be looking to this result proleptically, even though the attention is drawn back to the main subject in verse 4. Such a suggestion would be satisfactory to me, though I do have difficulty with the word "many" in Daniel 12:2, when the actual resurrection of the last day will include "all", according to Jesus John 5:28) and Paul (Acts 24:15; 1 Cor.15:22).

steve wrote:I agree with everything you wrote here—with the exception of placing the resurrection of the body at the time of Jerusalem's destruction. I fully understand how this conclusion is reached, but it is not conclusive. The statement that "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt," can be reconciled with my view in two possible ways:

1. It is not talking about the resurrection of the dead on the last day, as many other passages do. The language and imagery of rising from dead are used in non-literal ways in many contexts (e.g., Ezekiel 37; Luke 2:34; John 2:24; Eph.2:1ff; Col.2:12; etc.). These instances do not eliminate the teaching of the literal resurrection of the bodies on the last day (e.g., John 5:28-29; 1 Cor.15; etc.). It is possible that Daniel 12:2 is using the term non-literally (as, I think, you would say), and may have exactly the same thought in mind as that of Simeon in Luke 2:34 (which uses very similar language—including the limiting word "many" as opposed to the "all" of John 5:28). I would be satisfied if this were the only possible explanation, but there is another...

2. Daniel 12:2-3 could be parenthetical. Verse 1 speaks about the salvation of those "found written in the book." This saving of the enlisted ones is a process that has been going on since the time of Christ and continues today. In other words, the enterprise described in verse 1 is not yet completed. When it is completed, there will be the resurrection of the last day. Verses 2 and 3 could be looking to this result proleptically, even though the attention is drawn back to the main subject in verse 4. Such a suggestion would be satisfactory to me, though I do have difficulty with the word "many" in Daniel 12:2, when the actual resurrection of the last day will include "all", according to Jesus John 5:28) and Paul (Acts 24:15; 1 Cor.15:22).

Hi Steve,

I guess I could have stated it in much simpler terms. So, how do you justify the "time of the end" as being a different end than the "last days," "latter days," or the "end"? Does the NT speak of two different ends, especially when considering that Daniel is quoted in the New Testament? For instance...

Matthew 24:13-15 - But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
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:)

Notice also that the Gospel IS PREACHED in all the world by this time as this thread indicated: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... =10#p45153

The "world" is not the planet. It is the known world (oikumene) of old covenant temple worshippers - Jews. The Gospel had to be preached to the house of Israel first.

Difficulties arise when one loses sight of what exactly the "time of the end" signifies. As Steve has rightly said, it is the end of old covenant Judaism. The other phrases ("the end," "latter days," "last days") also speak of the same thing. How else could Peter say that the "last days" of Joel's prophecy were coming true in his day?

If the last days are truly representative of the end of Judaism (and I believe they are), then how is it possible that the length of time of the last days are larger in time than the original thing? How can the last days of anything be longer than its original? i.e. - the last days of school, the last days of employment, the last days of a pregnancy, the last days of a vacation, the last days of a company, the last days of political office...the last days of anything!

Where do we get the idea that the last days can be stretched out to a period exponentially longer than the original (not to mention that the whole idea of last days has been skewed into something that does not deal with the time of the end)?

The "last days" scoffers (ἐμπαίκτης -Strong's 1703) of 2 Peter 3:3 are the "mockers" (ἐμπαίκτης -Strong's 1703) of Jude 18 that had arrived!

2 Peter 3:3 - Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Jude 1:18-19 - How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Please try to understand that the resurrection is MAINLY a promise to Israel, first. Was it not the hope of Israel?

Acts 26:6-8 - And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:
7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.
8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

At the last day, those in faith are raised from sheol. Sheol is emptied at the second coming. There is now no more sheol. Today, when people of faith die, they go directly to heaven.

The last days extends from the first advent of Jesus Christ to the last advent of Jesus Christ, and in this we are all agreed. But if you correctly understand what the last days were referring to in the first place (OC Judaism) and connect it with all the time statements in regards to the imminent parousia to that 1st century church, it is EASY to see when these are fulfilled. But because many have an incorrect NATURE of the resurrection and parousia (physicalness), the clear timing of these events are ignored and the last days are twisted to mean something else.

Does the NT speak of two different ends, especially when considering that Daniel is quoted in the New Testament?

Apparently it does! Even in two of the verses you cite "the end" is used differently. "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt.24:13). The end of what? The end of Jerusalem? Why would enduring until that point be the cut-off time for an individual to endure, in order to be saved? Some of them would in fact die before that date, but would be saved nonetheless. Some might live beyond that date, but would still be expected to "endure" as a condition for their salvation. This endurance, in the context, was an endurance of the hatred of all nations (not just their Jewish persecutors), as Jesus says in verse 9. Clearly "the end" to which they were required to endure, was the end of their lives, not the end of Jerusalem.

As for Matthew 24:14 (the very next verse), it may be that the end of the temple is referred to there, as you say. But this would mean that the term "the end" was used in two different ways in the space of two consecutive verses. I have no problem with such a suggestion, as it is consistent with the use of the same term in the Book of Daniel itself—that is, Daniel uses the term a variety of ways, to refer to a variety of times (as does the rest of scripture).

For example, one of the many ways in which Daniel (and other writers) use the phrase "the end" is very generically—meaning the end of some designated period or another, eg., the end of three years (Dan.1:5, 18), or the end of ten days (Dan.1:15), or the end of twelve months (Dan.4:29), or the end of "seven times" (Dan.4:34), or the end of "some years" (Daniel 11:6), etc.

In a few places, Daniel uses the term "the end" to mean the end of Jerusalem, in AD 70 (e.g., Dan.9:26; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 8-9)

However, he similarly uses the term "the end" to speak of the time of Antiochus (167 BC) and the Maccabean war (Dan.8:17, 19); and other prophets (who also have things to say about AD 70), elsewhere use the term "the end" to speak of the end of Israel in 722 BC (Amos 8:2) and of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC (Ezek.7:2, 3, 6).

Therefore, it is folly (in light of biblical data) to assume that "the end" described in Daniel 9-12 must be the same event referred to whenever the term is used elsewhere (e.g., in the New Testament). In both Testaments, the most common usage of the term "the end" is generically to mean the final outcome of a thing or a person. For example:

Eccl.7:8
The end of a thing is better than its beginning; The patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.

Isa.46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done

Jer.3:5
Will He remain angry forever? Will He keep it to the end?'

Jer.5:31
The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule by their own power; And My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?

Matt.10:22
"And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matt.24:13
"But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Matt.26:58
But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest's courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end.

John 13:1
Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.

1 Cor.1:8
who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Cor.1:13
For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand. Now I trust you will understand, even to the end

1 Pet.4:17
For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?


In some cases, "the end" would appear to best be seen as a reference to "the end of the world as we know it", including the resurrection of the dead and the subjugation of all things (every enemy) to Christ. For example:

Dan.6:26
His kingdom is the one which shall not be destroyed, And His dominion shall endure to the end.

1 Cor.15:24
Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

Dan.12:13
"But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days."


I realize that you do not doubt that these things have already occurred thousands of years ago. However, I doubt it, and no full-preterist has ever provided me with a good reason to believe it. But then, I hold these people to a higher standard of exegesis than that to which they hold themselves. As I have said repeatedly, when discussing this, the full preterist is simplistic and, apparently, incapable of nuanced thought. The huge mistake that full-preterists make (and the ones at this forum have no excuse for continuing to do this, since I have pointed it out to them long ago and repeatedly) is that they find a word (like parousia) or, in this case, a phrase two words (the end), and arbitrarily decide to woodenly interpret every occurrence of the word as if it always must refer to the same thing. It takes only a few minutes with a concordance to prove this a faulty procedure.