Hi Chris,

Well that's very interesting. Honestly I hadn't noticed the part about the fortress before, but it makes sense and seems to make the interpretation more concrete. Thank you.

I had in mind that Jesus had described the 'abomination of desolation' spoken of by Daniel as a future event. Of course this doesn't preclude Daniel 11:31 from referring to Antiochus... in that case Jesus could have meant 'what happened back then will happen again'. As I stated before, I do believe that there are four 'abominations of desolation', three past, and one still future. But the events then do have at least SOME reference to a time beyond that of Jesus, and so surely our application of this passage to the Romans is not entirely in error.

My other reasoning is that the 'man of sin', the 'king that does according to his will (Dan 11:36) is something that Paul also put into the future - rising on the ruins of the Roman empire. To my mind this is the Papacy without dispute. It does not seem logical to me that Daniel would jump from Antiochus to the Papacy. It seems more likely to me that the Romans are introduced first at verse 31.

I believe this was also the position of commentators Adam Clarke, Isaac Newton, and many others.

--David