Was Daniel impossible to understand

Sealed Until the Time, Open Yet Unknowable: Daniel, Revelation, and the Timing of Prophecy

Introduction

Few contrasts between Daniel and Revelation are as striking as the instructions given concerning the two books.

Daniel is told:

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.”

Again:

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

John, however, receives precisely the opposite instruction:

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

Why is Daniel sealed while Revelation is left open?

One common explanation is that Daniel was “sealed” because its meaning could not yet be understood. Daniel himself did not understand everything he had been shown, and therefore the prophecy supposedly remained incomprehensible until later revelation—particularly Revelation—provided the necessary interpretive key. Revelation is consequently “open” because what had previously been hidden can finally be understood.

There is certainly an important theme of understanding in Daniel. Daniel admits that he did not understand everything he heard, and he is told that the wise would eventually understand.

Nevertheless, this explanation risks confusing two separate issues:

understanding the meaning of prophetic events and knowing the appointed time of those events.

Daniel does not present its prophetic future as chronologically unknowable. Quite the opposite. The book repeatedly speaks of an appointed time, identifies successive historical kingdoms, supplies specific prophetic periods, and most importantly gives a chronological sequence leading from the restoration of Jerusalem to “Messiah the Prince.”

Indeed, Daniel 9 itself begins with Daniel doing precisely what some claim could not be done with Daniel’s own prophecy: calculating the approaching fulfilment of an earlier prophecy from information contained within the prophecy itself.

Revelation presents a different situation.

This does not mean that God has not appointed the time of the final consummation. Scripture explicitly teaches that God has appointed a day of judgment. The distinction is that God has not revealed that appointed time to humanity in a form from which it can be calculated. Jesus repeatedly declares that his disciples do not know the day or hour and that the “times or the seasons” remain within the Father’s authority.

The question, therefore, is not whether God has fixed the future. He has.

The question is:

What has God chosen to reveal about its timing?

When Daniel and Revelation are compared carefully, a significant distinction emerges. Daniel contains a divinely determined prophetic chronology that could eventually be recognised from the information given within Daniel itself. Revelation is openly proclaimed because its prophetic message is relevant and near, but its openness does not transform the date of Christ’s final coming into something humanity can calculate.

That distinction deserves careful examination.

---

1. What Does Daniel Actually Say Was Sealed?

Daniel is commanded:

Daniel 12:4 — “shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.”

And again:

Daniel 12:9 — “the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”

It is sometimes assumed that “sealed” means:

Nobody can understand what this prophecy means until later revelation explains it.

But that is not actually what the text says.

The text identifies what is sealed:

“the words”
“the book”

and, critically, it identifies until when:

“till the time of the end.”

Even more important is Daniel 8:26:

Daniel 8:26 — “And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.”

Here the temporal reason is explicit.

The vision is to be shut up because:

“it shall be for many days.”

The prophecy concerns events distant from Daniel.

This provides an important interpretive control for understanding the language of sealing.

---

2. Revelation Gives the Exact Opposite Instruction

Now compare Daniel with Revelation:

Daniel 8:26 — “shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.”

But:

Revelation 22:10 — “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.”

The contrast could hardly be clearer.

Daniel

Shut it up
because
“it shall be for many days.”

Revelation

Do not seal it
because
“the time is at hand.”

The explicit contrast is therefore fundamentally temporal.

Daniel stands at a distance from the events.

John is told that the prophetic time has drawn near.

This does not eliminate the question of understanding, but it does mean that we should be cautious about defining “sealed” simply as “incapable of being understood.”

The texts themselves associate sealing and unsealing with the prophets’ respective positions relative to the time of fulfilment.

---

3. Daniel Certainly Did Not Understand Everything

Daniel’s own words must nevertheless be taken seriously:

Daniel 12:8 — “And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?”

The angel subsequently tells him:

Daniel 12:10 — “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.”

Therefore understanding unquestionably forms part of Daniel 12.

But what exactly did Daniel fail to understand?

Immediately before Daniel’s statement, a heavenly figure asks:

Daniel 12:6 — “How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?”

An answer is given:

Daniel 12:7 — “…it shall be for a time, times, and an half…”

Daniel then says:

“I heard, but I understood not.”

His own question is:

“what shall be the end of these things?”

The distinction is significant.

The first question is:

How long?

Daniel’s question is:

What?

Daniel has heard chronological information. What he lacks is complete comprehension of how the revealed events will ultimately unfold and what their outcome will be.

This distinction becomes even clearer because additional temporal information immediately follows:

Daniel 12:11 — “…there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”

And:

Daniel 12:12 — “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.”

Daniel’s lack of understanding therefore cannot simply mean:

No temporal information has been revealed.

Temporal information plainly has been revealed.

The difficulty lies in fully understanding the events and their relationship to those periods.

---

4. Daniel Repeatedly Says That the End Has an Appointed Time

Daniel’s prophecies are not temporally indefinite.

Again and again the book states that events will occur at an appointed time.

Daniel 8:19 — “Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.”

Likewise:

Daniel 11:27 — “…yet the end shall be at the time appointed.”

And:

Daniel 11:35 — “…even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.”

The language is unmistakable.

There is an appointed end.

There is an appointed time.

History is moving toward events already determined within God’s purpose.

Daniel’s prophecy is therefore not an open-ended forecast whose fulfilment might occur at any unknown point in history.

It contains a structured prophetic programme.

---

5. Daniel Gives Historical Markers by Which the Prophecy Can Be Followed

Daniel also identifies historical kingdoms within that programme.

The interpretation of Daniel 8 explicitly states:

Daniel 8:20 — “The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.”

Then:

Daniel 8:21 — “And the rough goat is the king of Grecia…”

These are not merely abstract theological concepts.

They are historical markers.

A reader living through subsequent history could recognise:

Media-Persia

followed by

Greece

and thereby locate himself within Daniel’s prophetic sequence.

This becomes particularly significant when we reach Daniel 9.

---

6. Daniel Gives a Chronology Leading to the Messiah

Daniel 9 contains one of Scripture’s most remarkable chronological prophecies:

Daniel 9:24 — “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city…”

Then:

Daniel 9:25 — “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks…”

The structure is inherently chronological:

Starting event:
the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem

↓

Specified period:
seven weeks + sixty-two weeks

↓

Destination:
Messiah the Prince

Daniel then continues:

Daniel 9:26 — “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off… and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary…”

Thus Daniel provides a sequence:

Jerusalem restored

↓

specified prophetic period

↓

Messiah

↓

Messiah cut off

↓

city and sanctuary destroyed

There are legitimate debates concerning the precise starting decree, the interpretation of the weeks, and individual details of the chronology.

But those disagreements must not obscure the basic fact:

Daniel itself presents the prophecy chronologically.

It gives a starting point, a measured period, and events which follow.

---

7. “Know Therefore and Understand”

The language introducing this chronology is especially important:

Daniel 9:23 — “…therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.”

Then:

Daniel 9:25 — “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment… unto the Messiah the Prince…”

This is difficult to reconcile with the claim that the chronological information was inherently incapable of being understood until another book appeared centuries later.

Gabriel does not say:

These numbers cannot possibly be understood until additional revelation is provided.

He says:

“Know therefore and understand.”

This does not mean Daniel understood every detail perfectly.

Nor does it mean every later interpreter would calculate the prophecy correctly.

It means something much more modest but extremely important:

The information necessary for understanding the chronology was being revealed.

---

8. Daniel 9 Itself Demonstrates That Prophetic Chronology Can Be Calculated

There is an even stronger internal argument.

Why does the revelation of the seventy weeks occur in Daniel 9 in the first place?

Because Daniel himself had been studying another prophet and calculating an approaching fulfilment.

Daniel writes:

Daniel 9:2 — “In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.”

This is extraordinarily significant.

Daniel possesses an earlier prophecy.

That prophecy contains a chronological period.

Daniel studies the prophecy.

Daniel understands:

“the number of the years.”

He thereby recognises where he stands in relation to its fulfilment.

Daniel is therefore himself an example of someone calculating prophetic chronology before its complete fulfilment.

---

9. Jeremiah’s Seventy Years and Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

The literary relationship is difficult to overlook.

Daniel begins with:

Jeremiah’s seventy years

and receives a revelation concerning:

Daniel’s seventy weeks.

Jeremiah had prophesied:

Jeremiah 25:11 — “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

Daniel subsequently says:

Daniel 9:2 — “I Daniel understood by books the number of the years…”

Daniel did not need Jeremiah to return and explain what “seventy years” meant.

Nor did he need another prophetic book written centuries later to reveal the chronology.

He read Jeremiah.

He understood the number.

He recognised the approaching fulfilment.

Then Gabriel gives Daniel another numerical prophecy:

Daniel 9:24 — “Seventy weeks are determined…”

And tells him:

“Know therefore and understand.”

This creates a powerful internal precedent.

God can reveal prophetic periods beforehand which later readers can use to recognise the approach of their fulfilment.

Daniel himself demonstrates precisely that principle.

---

10. The Hindsight Objection

At this point an important objection is often raised.

It may be argued:

We can calculate Daniel’s messianic chronology today only because we possess hindsight. We already know when Jesus came. We can therefore look backward, fit the prophecy around the historical event, and conclude that Daniel predicted it. People before Jesus did not possess that historical marker.

Initially this sounds persuasive.

Certainly hindsight makes identifying fulfilment easier.

Once Jesus has appeared, been crucified, and the Second Temple has subsequently been destroyed, Christians possess historical events against which Daniel 9 can be compared.

But this objection confuses two things:

recognising the fulfilment

with

possessing the chronology.

The historical appearance of Jesus did not place the chronological information into Daniel.

The chronology was already there.

---

11. Fulfilment Confirms the Prophecy; It Does Not Create It

Consider the logical sequence.

Daniel says:

“from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be…”

That statement existed before Jesus appeared.

Therefore the chronological claim does not originate with Jesus’ historical appearance.

The relationship is:

Daniel gives the chronological information

↓

history progresses

↓

the relevant period arrives

↓

Jesus appears

↓

his appearance confirms the Christian identification of the fulfilment

The fulfilment confirms the chronology.

It does not manufacture it retrospectively.

That distinction is fundamental.

---

12. We Use Daniel to Show That Jesus Came at the Appointed Time

This exposes a problem with the hindsight objection.

How do Christians argue that Jesus appeared at the time predicted by Daniel?

We compare the historical appearance of Jesus with Daniel’s chronology.

Daniel provides the prophetic standard.

Jesus’ appearance is then compared against it.

If Jesus had appeared at some entirely different historical period incompatible with Daniel’s chronology, his appearance could hardly be offered as confirmation of Daniel.

Therefore the argument necessarily assumes that Daniel itself supplies the chronological expectation.

Jesus’ historical appearance functions as the confirmation that the expected period has arrived.

It cannot simultaneously be the source from which the expected period was derived.

---

13. A Simple Illustration

Imagine that a document written in AD 100 predicted:

Exactly five hundred years after event X, event Y will occur.

Then suppose event Y occurred in AD 600.

A historian living in AD 800 could compare the prediction with history and conclude:

The predicted event occurred at the stated time.

His hindsight would certainly enable him to identify the fulfilment confidently.

But the event occurring in AD 600 did not create the five-hundred-year period.

The period was contained within the earlier document.

The later event merely confirmed it.

The same distinction applies to Daniel.

Hindsight may help us say:

This was the fulfilment.

It does not mean that the prophecy itself did not previously say:

This is the period in which fulfilment should occur.

---

14. “They Did Not Know” Is Not the Same as “They Could Not Know”

This distinction is critical.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that nobody before Jesus correctly calculated Daniel’s seventy weeks.

What would that prove?

It might prove that:

• the prophecy was difficult;
• interpretations differed;
• the correct starting point was disputed;
• people misunderstood the numbers;
• or people simply failed to recognise their significance.

But it would not establish that the chronological information was unavailable.

There are three fundamentally different propositions:

1. God did not reveal the information.

2. God revealed the information, but it was difficult to interpret.

3. God revealed the information, but people failed to interpret or calculate it correctly.

Only the first proposition would establish that the time could not have been known from Daniel.

The fact that someone fails to solve a calculation does not demonstrate that the calculation cannot be solved.

---

15. Daniel Himself Refutes the Principle Behind the Objection

Daniel 9:2 becomes particularly powerful here.

Daniel says:

“I Daniel understood by books the number of the years…”

Daniel was living before the complete fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophetic period.

Yet he could read Jeremiah and recognise the chronology.

Therefore Scripture itself demonstrates:

A person can understand a prophetic period from an earlier revelation before its complete fulfilment.

That does not guarantee that everyone will understand every prophecy correctly.

But it destroys the general principle that prophetic chronology can only be recognised retrospectively.

Daniel himself recognised Jeremiah’s chronology prospectively.

Then Gabriel gave Daniel another chronology.

---

16. Therefore Later Revelation Is Not Necessary to Create Daniel’s Chronology

This also challenges the claim that Daniel remained chronologically inaccessible until Revelation unlocked it.

Later revelation can certainly illuminate earlier revelation.

The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Messiah.

Historical fulfilment allows us to recognise relationships which may previously have been disputed.

Revelation itself repeatedly draws upon Daniel.

None of that is controversial.

But illumination is not the same thing as supplying information that was previously absent.

Daniel already contains:

• the kingdoms;
• the sequence;
• the appointed times;
• the prophetic periods;
• the rebuilding of Jerusalem;
• the Messiah;
• the cutting off of the Messiah;
• and the destruction of the city and sanctuary.

We do not need Revelation to insert those elements into Daniel.

They are already there.

---

17. Revelation Is Open—but the Final Time Remains Unrevealed

Now the contrast becomes much sharper.

John is told:

Revelation 22:10 — “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.”

Revelation is open.

Its prophecy is to be read.

Its warnings are to be heard.

Its message belongs to the churches.

Yet that openness does not mean that the date of Christ’s final coming has been disclosed.

Jesus explicitly says:

Matthew 24:36 — “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”

Again:

Matthew 24:42 — “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.”

And:

Matthew 24:44 — “Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.”

The contrast with Daniel is significant.

Daniel provides chronological markers leading toward specified events.

Jesus explicitly tells his followers that the time of his final coming is not known to them.

---

18. The Time Is Fixed—but Retained by the Father

This distinction must be stated carefully.

The argument is not:

God has not decided when Christ will return.

Scripture explicitly teaches that God has appointed judgment:

Acts 17:31 — “Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained…”

There is an appointed day.

The question is whether God has revealed that day to us.

Acts 1 gives a remarkably clear answer.

The disciples ask:

Acts 1:6 — “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”

Jesus replies:

Acts 1:7 — “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”

The time exists.

The Father possesses authority over it.

But knowledge of it has not been given to the disciples.

That is the crucial distinction:

fixed by God does not mean revealed to humanity.

---

19. Daniel and the Final Coming Give Us Two Different Forms of Temporal Revelation

We can therefore compare the two situations.

Daniel

God knows the appointed time.

God reveals chronological information concerning it.

Daniel receives:

a historical starting point

a prophetic period

a specified event

Daniel therefore contains something which can, at least in principle, be calculated.

The Final Coming

God likewise knows and appoints the time.

But Jesus says:

“It is not for you to know the times or the seasons.”

The appointed time has not been disclosed to humanity as a calculable prophetic chronology.

That is not uncertainty on God’s part.

It is withheld revelation on ours.

---

20. Revelation’s “Thief” Imagery Confirms This

Revelation itself maintains this distinction.

Jesus warns:

Revelation 3:3 — “If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.”

Again:

Revelation 16:15 — “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth…”

This echoes Jesus’ teaching:

Matthew 24:42 — “Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.”

Why watch?

Because the hour is unknown.

If Revelation supplied a Daniel-9-style calculation from which the date of the final coming could eventually be established, the repeated thief imagery would become difficult to explain.

The command is not:

Calculate until you discover the date.

It is:

Watch because you do not know it.

---

21. But Revelation Contains Numbers—Does That Not Make It Calculable?

Revelation certainly contains prophetic periods:

• forty-two months;
• 1,260 days;
• “a time, and times, and half a time”;
• ten days;
• a thousand years.

Therefore it would be incorrect to argue that Revelation contains no temporal information.

The distinction is more precise:

Revelation does not provide humanity with a disclosed chronological mechanism by which the date of Christ’s final coming can be calculated.

Prophetic durations within events are not necessarily a countdown to the date of the ultimate consummation.

Daniel 9 gives:

from this identifiable event → count this period → unto Messiah.

There is no equivalent statement concerning the final coming:

From historical event X, count Y years, and Christ will return.

Instead Jesus says:

“ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.”

---

22. Daniel’s Sealing and Revelation’s Unsealing May Be Deliberately Connected

Revelation is deeply dependent upon Daniel.

Daniel’s beasts reappear.

Daniel’s horns reappear.

Daniel’s heavenly court reappears.

Daniel’s Son-of-man imagery reappears.

Daniel’s persecution of the saints reappears.

Daniel’s “time, times, and an half” reappears.

This makes the contrasting instructions especially significant:

Daniel 12:4 — “seal the book, even to the time of the end.”

But:

Revelation 22:10 — “Seal not… for the time is at hand.”

It is therefore reasonable to understand Revelation as deliberately presenting itself from a different temporal standpoint.

Daniel looked toward events still distant from him.

John announces that the prophetic message is no longer to be shut away as something belonging only to a distant age.

What had been far away from Daniel had drawn near to John’s prophetic horizon.

This explains the contrast naturally without requiring “sealed” to mean “nobody can understand what these words mean.”

---

23. Understanding and Chronology Must Remain Distinct

None of this requires us to deny progressive understanding.

Daniel himself says:

Daniel 12:8 — “I heard, but I understood not.”

And:

Daniel 12:10 — “the wise shall understand.”

Later fulfilment can unquestionably illuminate earlier prophecy.

Historical events can clarify ambiguous symbols.

Later revelation can reveal relationships that earlier readers did not perceive.

But these facts do not establish that the chronology itself was absent or inaccessible.

That distinction must remain clear:

Later fulfilment can confirm the correct interpretation of an earlier chronology without creating that chronology.

Daniel’s prophecy existed before its fulfilment.

Its numbers existed before Jesus.

Its starting point existed before Jesus.

Its reference to Messiah existed before Jesus.

Its prediction that Messiah would be cut off existed before Jesus.

Its prediction concerning the subsequent destruction of the city and sanctuary existed before Jesus.

Jesus’ appearance confirms the Christian claim that Daniel’s appointed messianic period had arrived.

It does not retrospectively put that period into Daniel.

---

24. The Central Distinction

We can therefore state the argument very simply.

Daniel

The prophecy was sealed because its fulfilment remained distant:

“for it shall be for many days.”

Nevertheless, God revealed chronological information within that prophecy.

Daniel himself demonstrates that prophetic chronology can be studied and understood before fulfilment.

The seventy weeks give a chronological framework leading toward Messiah.

People may have failed to calculate it correctly.

They may have disputed its interpretation.

They may not have recognised the Messiah when he appeared.

But:

failure to know is not proof of inability to know.

Revelation

The prophecy is commanded to remain open:

“for the time is at hand.”

Its message is therefore openly proclaimed.

Yet the final appointed time has not been revealed to humanity.

The Father knows it.

The Father has appointed it.

But Jesus says:

“It is not for you to know the times or the seasons.”

Thus:

open prophecy does not mean an open calendar.

---

Conclusion

The contrast between Daniel and Revelation should not be reduced to the idea that Daniel was “sealed” because nobody could understand it until Revelation finally supplied its meaning.

Daniel certainly did not understand every detail of what he saw. The book explicitly acknowledges this, and later fulfilment undoubtedly brings greater understanding.

But the book’s chronological framework was not therefore absent.

Quite the opposite.

Daniel repeatedly speaks of an appointed time. It identifies historical kingdoms. It gives prophetic periods. It places events into sequence. Most importantly, Daniel 9 establishes a chronological movement from the restoration of Jerusalem “unto the Messiah the Prince.”

And Daniel 9 itself provides perhaps the strongest evidence that such chronology could be understood prospectively.

Daniel reads Jeremiah.

He studies the prophecy.

He:

“understood by books the number of the years.”

Before Jeremiah’s prophetic programme had completely run its course, Daniel was able to recognise where he stood within it from the chronological information Jeremiah had already provided.

Then Gabriel gives Daniel another numbered prophecy and tells him:

“Know therefore and understand.”

This has major implications for the hindsight objection.

We today certainly possess an advantage because we can look backward upon the historical appearance of Jesus. But hindsight does not create Daniel’s chronology.

We know that Jesus appeared within the expected messianic period precisely because we can compare his historical appearance with the chronology already contained in Daniel.

Daniel is the prophetic standard.

Jesus’ appearance is the historical confirmation.

The fulfilment verifies the prophecy; it does not manufacture it.

Therefore even if it could be demonstrated that people before Jesus generally failed to calculate Daniel correctly, that would establish only that they did not know, not that they could not know.

Those are fundamentally different claims.

Revelation presents another situation.

Its prophecy is not to be sealed:

“for the time is at hand.”

The message is open.

The events are revealed.

The churches are commanded to read, hear, obey and watch.

Yet nowhere does that openness overturn Jesus’ explicit teaching concerning the timing of his final coming:

“of that day and hour knoweth no man.”

Nor does it overturn his statement:

“It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”

The final day is not uncertain to God.

It is appointed.

But its appointed time has not been revealed to us in a form from which it can be calculated.

That is the crucial distinction.

Daniel demonstrates what prophecy looks like when God chooses to disclose a chronological framework.

The teaching of Jesus demonstrates what it looks like when God retains that chronological knowledge within his own authority.

Daniel could give:

starting event → specified period → Messiah.

Jesus gives no equivalent formula for his final coming.

Instead he says:

Watch, because you do not know when.

Thus the sealed book and the open book need not represent incomprehensible prophecy followed by comprehensible prophecy.

They can instead reflect two different prophetic situations.

Daniel was told to seal a prophecy whose appointed fulfilment remained far ahead:

“for it shall be for many days.”

John was told not to seal his prophecy:

“for the time is at hand.”

Yet the final appointed day remains known to the Father and unrevealed to humanity.

The future is therefore closed and certain to God while remaining chronologically open to us.

And that distinction provides a necessary safeguard against attempts to turn Revelation into something Scripture never presents it as being:

a calendar by which we can calculate the day that Jesus explicitly said we do not know.

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere