My question arises and is asked from a futurist prophetic perspective - that the ultimate fulfillments will be in future events leading up to Christ's return. It is not about the accepted interpretations of past historical events that may be understood in this context.

In the book of Daniel, the "daily" [sacrifice] is referred to multiple times, and (correct me if I am wrong), it is stopped/becomes removed by "reason of transgression" etc.. Now, from a future fulfillment perspective, I am wondering what this "daily" might actually be referring to since (the added word - sacrifice) is not given in the original language. The word that is used can also be translated as continual or perpetual (i.e. continuity as it relates to time). I have mainly heard/read the following:

  1. It literally refers to future reinstatement then cessation of daily animal sacrifices (a common futurist view but not satisfying for some reason).
  2. It refers (somehow) to daily prayer offerings (from whom and where?) and no (rebuilt) physical temple is necessary.

Both of these seem like a stretch to my understanding. So, my actual question is this:

Can it be hermeneutically supported that the "daily" event might refer to the actual "continuity" of time periods connecting the crucifixion or the destruction of the second temple (where the "daily" stopped - long "discontinual" church age began) and some future date when church age ends and Daniel's final (70th) week potentially begins? (Technically - can the "daily/continuity of time" begin again at the start of the "tribulation" week only to be prophetically fulfilled this time in the final prophetic "week" by the ultimate "latter times" desolation event?)

  • Good question (+1). Is Matthew 24:22 relevant ? ... and except those days should be shortened...
    – Nigel J
    Oct 2, 2018 at 14:51
  • 1
    @Nigel. Yes, it could be. I am not comfortable with the common interpretations of the "daily" in Daniel (not that they couldn't happen in those ways). I would like to consider the whole body of Scripture for a more satisfying idea or the validity of a time "continuation" focus as I am considering - especially since the final week of Daniel is pretty commonly interpreted as occurring in the future after the "mysterious church age" of unknown length.
    – user22542
    Oct 2, 2018 at 15:07
  • When you say "final week" are you referring to Daniel 9?
    – colboynik
    Oct 2, 2018 at 16:11
  • The "final week" refers to the last remaining week (1 week of years) following the "7 weeks and 62 weeks" spoken of in Daniel 9. This final week (7 "prophetic" years) probably constituted by about 2520-2580 days - somewhat more than the 2300 days from the beginning of the "daily" and consummating with cleansing of the most Holy place in Daniel 8 (vision interpretation of Daniel 8).
    – user22542
    Oct 2, 2018 at 16:29
  • 1

2 Answers 2


Daniel 8:13 is the first instance where the daily/perpetual/continual is mentioned in the book of Daniel:



'And I hear a certain holy one speaking, and a certain holy one saith to the wonderful numberer who is speaking: Till when is the vision of the continual sacrifice, and of the transgression, an astonishment, to make both sanctuary and host a treading down?


Part of the reason it is understood to refer to the sacrifices is because in the very next verse it mentions morning and evenings:

Verse 14:


And he saith unto me, Till evening -- morning two thousand and three hundred, then is the holy place declared right.


And even at the end of the chapter it is called the vision of the mornings and evenings:

Verse 26:


And the appearance of the evening and of the morning, that is told, is true; and thou, hide thou the vision, for it is after many days.'


This appears to point back to command to offer lamb sacrifices every morning and evening continually in Exodus 29:28-29:


'And this is that which thou dost prepare on the altar; two lambs, sons of a year, daily continually;

the one lamb thou dost prepare in the morning, and the second lamb thou dost prepare between the evenings;


If you want to make your case hermenuetically you should explain why Daniel 8 refers to "evening-mornings" in verse 14 and why it refers to the "appearance of the evenings and mornings" in verse 26.

Edit per comment

You are right - there is nothing in the text that we could map directly to the English word "sacrifice". The word "sacrifices" is not there, but neither is the word "days". The whole matter is referred to in verse 26 as the appearance of the evenings and mornings. If we want "evenings and mornings" to be "days" in verse 14 - ok, but that is not what it says in a literal way and we might be stretching a little. But maybe not.

However, if we want "evenings and mornings" in verse 26 to be "days", that might not be staying true to the text anymore and might be stretching it too far. This whole vision is about "evenings and mornings". It is the title by with the angel encapsulates the whole thing. If that does not refer to the sacrifices mentioned in Exodus 29, then we should show what "evenings and mornings" refers to.

To state this another way, if the "evenings and mornings" should be "days", why did the author not just use the word for "days"? Why did they record "evenings and mornings"?

You asked:

Could it be hermenuetically supported that the "daily" event might refer to the actual "continuity" of time periods connecting the crucifixion or the destruction of the second temple...

Maybe. But if someone proposes a hermenuetic that ignores the evening-mornings, it will leave me wondering, "What about the evening-mornings?"

I do not think it can be supported (or I would have posted that instead). Someone else here might prove me wrong.

  • Thanks Jack for the answer. The evenings and mornings, as I understand it, are the same as those used in Genesis. They merely emphasize the concept of a single, literal, day cycle. As far as the "daily" being associated with sacrifice goes, that is the whole point. Sacrifice is assumed because of multiple references that connect the words rendered "daily" with OTHER words rendered as sacrifice/oblation/offering. As far as I can tell, the words for "daily" in Daniel are used by themselves. They stand alone.
    – user22542
    Oct 2, 2018 at 17:55
  • In post-Biblical Hebrew, the word תָּמִיד is used by itself to refer to the continual sacrifice (e.g. Mishnah, Pesachim 5:1), unlike in the Pentateuch where the word is always used in conjunction with a word for sacrifice as עֹלַת תָּמִיד. Daniel 8:11 uses the word הַתָּמִיד with the definite article, which is acceptable as a reference to the sacrifice, but not for the adverb "always" which תָּמִיד usually is. This is another reason for the verse in Daniel to be referring to the sacrifice, not something else continual. @user22542
    – b a
    Oct 11, 2018 at 8:47
  • Thank you both for your answers/comments. They do help shed light to some of my questions. I am fairly convinced that the "evenings and mornings" is a clear emphasis on 2300 literal day cycles. To this end, it removes interpretational doubt about years etc.. @ b a - when you say "definite article" do you mean one Hebrew letter that is translated "the"? If that is the case, I would still think it is a stretch to conclude it means sacrifice. Translation is clearly quite difficult. People worry about copy errors. I would think misleading translations would be far more worrisome - any language.
    – user22542
    Oct 11, 2018 at 10:59
  • @Jack - Thanks and hello there. I am not ignoring the "evenings and mornings" here. I am precisely asking about "the daily" being a possible allusion to them ("the prophetic continuation" of "2300 evenings and mornings") within the final week (7 years) of Daniel's prophecy (i.e. after something referred to as "the daily continual" apparently "discontinued" or ceased/stopped during the period known as the Church age - the age of grace).
    – user22542
    Oct 11, 2018 at 11:33

I know that I am parenthetically, going to be whipped for this answer, but the reformers, like Luther, Zwingli, Huss, Melanchthon, Calvin, Tindale, and Wycliff all understood that the Little Horn in Daniel 7, and 8 was a reference to the Papacy and that the Pope was very Anti-Christ. The Papacy, not wanting to be pointed out, countered with a counter-reformation by commissioning two Jesuit priests, Alcazar and Ribera to come up with different interpretations pointing the finger away from the papacy as the anti-Christ. Alcazar promoted his view known as the Preterist view by pointing to Antiochus Epiphanies IV as the Little Horn which came out of the Grecian Seleucid kingdom, not the broken western Roman kingdom, from which the little horn did rise (see Daniel 7:20 reveals that the Little Horn came up after the fourth beast, which was Rome and it's breakup into 10 horns, or 10 European kingdoms; seven of which still exist). Three Arian kingdoms, the Heruli, Vandal, and the Ostrogothic were exterminated by King Theodoric, and Emperor Justinian, thus allowing the papacy to rise to power). Ribera, on the other hand, Promoted his Futurist view, which placed an undefined gap of time between the 69th and 70th year in the 490-year prophecy of Daniel 9;24-27. There is no logical reason for a gap between sequential numbers; you don't do it in math, why in prophetic numbering? He then applies a prophecy about Jesus Christ (verse 27) and turns it into a prophecy about the reign of an antichristian powerful leader at the end of the age. (Jesus' crucifixion (31 A.D) brought an end to the Jewish system of sacrifices and oblations in the midst of the 70 weeks [A.D. 27-34 A.D.], not a powerful man called the antichrist.)

The historist view, common to the Reformers, applied the use of the word "daily" in Daniel 8 to the continual agitation of the three pagan Arian kingdoms that prevented the papal rise to religious power over all churches. By their removal, the papacy could come into supreme power. The crucial military event that lay behind this pathetic scene was the calamitous defeat of Rome in 538 A.D. when, says Thomas Hodgkin in Italy and Her Invaders, Catholic soldiers "dug the grave of the Gothic monarchy. Thomas Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, 2d ed., 8 vols. in 9 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885-1899). 4:250. "This completely opened the way for the bishop of Rome to assert his sole authority over the estates of the Church." Encyclopedia Britannica, art. Popedom, par. 25

This has been the only solution I have found to ring true considering the the Little Horns' rise in Daniel 7 and 8.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.