What is the connection between Daniel's prophecies and Jesus' references to the temple in Matthew 24 (Mark 13, Luke 21)?
Executive summary
The clearest connection is that Jesus frames his Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) by echoing and explicitly citing Daniel’s apocalyptic language—most notably the “abomination of desolation” and the Son of Man imagery—so that his warnings about the temple and Jerusalem are read through Danielic categories [1] [2]. How that borrowing should be interpreted splits scholars and traditions: some read Jesus as predicting the near‑term destruction of the temple in AD 70 (a preterist reading), while others fold Daniel’s seventy‑weeks and temple‑restoration motifs into a future tribulation scenario involving an Antichrist and a rebuilt temple (a futurist/dispensational reading) [3] [2] [4].
1. Jesus borrows Danielic images and names them
Jesus does not merely allude to Daniel; Matthew records him naming the prophet and directing listeners to “the abomination of desolation” from Daniel, which signals that Jesus intentionally borrows Danielic themes—Son of Man figure, temple desecration, and apocalyptic signs—to shape his prophecy about Jerusalem and the temple [1] [2].
2. The “abomination of desolation” ties Daniel’s temple warnings to Jesus’ warning about flight and judgment
Daniel mentions a sacrilegious act in the temple (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), and Jesus uses that motif in Matthew 24:15 to warn his followers to flee when they see that sign, linking Daniel’s temple‑focused prophecy directly to the imminent danger surrounding Jerusalem and the priests’ cultic center [5] [6].
3. Two main interpretive trajectories: near‑term destruction vs. future tribulation
Many scholars and preterist readers argue Jesus mixed two themes—an immediate prophecy of the temple’s destruction in the generation of his hearers and a later, distinct account of the Son of Man’s coming—so Matthew 24 can be read as primarily anticipating the Roman destruction of the temple in AD 70 (with a literary break separating themes) [3] [2]. By contrast, futurist and dispensational interpreters treat Daniel’s seventy‑weeks and the temple language as pointing to a still‑future seven‑year tribulation when a restored temple will be desecrated by an Antichrist figure, reading Jesus’ reference as forecasting that end‑time scenario [4] [7].
4. Background debate over Daniel’s original reference and its reception history
Critical scholarship notes Daniel’s earliest and most specific fulfilment in the Antiochene crisis under Antiochus IV (the Maccabean period), where a literal altar‑desecration occurred, and argues that later readers—Jewish and Christian—read Daniel typologically, applying the “abomination” to Rome and to later anticipations of an end‑time figure [8] [9] [10]. This history explains why Jesus’ invocation could be heard as both an immediate warning and a template for later apocalyptic expectations: earlier Jewish exegesis already read Daniel typologically across multiple historical moments [9].
5. How Jesus’ Son of Man language reframes Daniel for his audience
Jesus adopts Daniel’s Son of Man vision to claim both present messianic identity and future vindication; some exegetes see him identifying his suffering and vindication with Danielic eschatology (thus connecting the cross, the temple’s demise, and ultimate Son of Man authority), while others insist he keeps the events distinct—short‑term judgment on Jerusalem and long‑term cosmic return—so Matthew’s discourse intentionally moves between levels of fulfillment [3] [1].
6. Practical takeaways and interpretive cautions
The connection is real and deliberate: Matthew’s Gospel presents Jesus as reading Daniel in ways that validate both near‑term judgment upon the temple and broader eschatological expectations; beyond that common ground, interpretation depends on hermeneutical choices—whether Daniel’s prophecies are read as primarily fulfilled in the Hellenistic and Roman crises, as predictive of Jesus’ death and the AD 70 catastrophe, or as foreshadowing a future rebuilt temple and final tribulation involving an Antichrist [2] [8] [4]. Sources associated with particular theological agendas—evangelical expositions emphasizing Messianic fulfillment or dispensational sites stressing future temple reinstitution—shape how the Daniel–Jesus link is used in contemporary prophecy teaching, so readers should note those confessional lenses when weighing claims [7] [11].