Commentary thread: Daniel's 70th Week: Past, Future, Or Both

[Kelp]

An Advanced Communications debate thread is going on here between dizzle, Faramir, and xcav8tor. Only they are allowed to post in it. This is for spectator commentary.

[Chaotic Void]

[TyRockwell]

Regarding this portion of a post by Faramir in the debate thread:

Yes. I agree that dual fulfillment are very real. The examples you gave are spot on.

But notice that each example you gave has a primary fulfillment that could have been easily understood by the original audience and a secondary fulfillment that was not nearly as clear, and only understood after the fact.

So while I agree that there may be a secondary fulfillment to the Olivette Discourse, I don't think we can know what that may be. Any futurist interpretation of prophecies that have already been fulfilled in the primary meaning, are speculation at best IMO.

They could be true, but based on other examples of dual fulfillment prophecies, we can't really know until after the fact. So to try to say what the secondary fulfillment of any passage that already has been fulfilled may be entertaining, but not really serious theology IMO.

As one who has studied and written on eschatology, and who is a veteran of a Basketball Court Debate with Dizzle, I have to point out a term being used, so far.

by all parties to the debate, of a concept of "dual fulfillment." Some may think the distinction is unimportant, but I believe there are "parallel fulfillments," but not "dual."

The reasoning is this; that Jesus fulfilled Old Covenant prophecies, but some of the prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled, are things to be done by the Church, which is in a far different covenant setting, the New Covenant.

I would avoid a "dual fulfillment," in favor of seeing a calling of the Church to fulfill a parallel in prophecy, rather than having to look back, in hindsight to see that a fulfillment has taken place that we could not have known ahead of time. I hope this isn't a confusing proposition.

[TyRockwell]

At last, the debate is on.

I've read all the preceding posts by Xcavate8 and Faramir, up to Dizzle's first major post, and I find the attempts to nail down the exact start of the 70 weeks beside the point. Messiah came.
We don't have to prove the prophecy was true, as it pertains to Messiah / Jesus.

Also, the intense focus on how many days were in a year is irrelevant. Jesus arrived. Do we need to prove God was "on time?" No. A skeptic is not going to suddenly believe on the basis of being told the events happened on the exact day foretold. The prophecy was clear enough that the Jews should have known it was time. Some of the people did know, for example Simeon, who was in the Temple when Jesus was brought to be circumcized, and also the prophetess, Anna.

Now on to Dizzle

Actually no. It is right here that you get things terrifically right and wrong at the same time. In order to drive the point home, I will ask you a question:

How long was Jesus in the tomb? Was he in for exactly 259,200 seconds? How about down to the microsecond? Ridiculous? Yes it is. But why? Because the prophecy doesn’t speak about microseconds, it speaks about “days and nights” which is idiomatic Jewish language for one calendar day. In Jewish (and to a certain point modern) ANE reckoning any part of the smallest period mentioned counts as the whole period. It is completely unwarranted to break down the smallest unit further. And that is precisely where you went off the rails.

The 70 weeks prophecy is just that: a prophecy of seventy “weeks” of years. The smallest unit mentioned is the week (a 7 year block). Any portion of a week would count as a whole week on either terminus point. At first, that should cause you to scratch your head as far as the beginning point… how could the prophecy start anywhere but at the beginning of a week? And that is an excellent question. Let’s hold off on that for one second, kay?

I agree with the general point Diz is making, about not knowing the exact time down to the second. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that one slight portion over a week [seven years] would count as a whole extra week. Give some consideration to this: that his first coming was similar to Jesus' Second Coming. They, like we, wouldn't know the day or the hour, but should know the season. That is, should, could, might, and possibly ought to know the season, since we are not in darkness. (1st Thess. 5:4-5)

So, Time frame AND Units of time:: Seventy seven-year blocks of time.
To what end?: to achieve the goals in Daniel 9:24 (and we will surely use multiple translations as there is some translational difficulty in these verses, but I have no problem with starting using your preferred translation of the NIV). What are these goals?

Daniel 9:24

(1) to finish transgression,
(2) to put an end to sin
(3) to atone for wickedness
(4) to bring in everlasting righteousness
(5) to seal up vision and prophecy
(6) and to anoint the most holy.

These goals are to happen within the confines of the 70 weeks. Not outside of them. The destruction of the Temple is not on the list. It is a hideous perversion (not saying you do it, but I am saying that a great many futurists do) that places the cross outside of the 70 weeks, and the destruction of the Temple within it.

Good point!

It is nothing short of sacrilege. Wait, what’s that sound I hear? Ahh, its gharfish going into high-orbit. My work here is done ;) If SeanD is also wailing and gnashing his teeth about what a thoroughly despicable person I am, all the better. If not, all I need to do is dare to be a normal human being and tell a joke, and he will proceed to rip me to shreds… so, how many futurists does it take to screw in a light bulb? (answer: only one, but don’t believe him when he says he is going to do it soon)

Due to the above, this is exceedingly irrelevant. I agree with Faramir and can argue that you are incorrect that a year in ancient times, consistently over a long period of time, is 360 days. It simply isn’t. They made up for the missing days in a variety of creative ways, and you can’t ignore that. The whole 360 day-year theory MIGHT be relevant if we were dealing with a shorter block of time. But we aren’t. There is plenty of time for it to average out to a normal solar year. However, I am in the happy position of not having to care. The prophecy says absolutely nothing about days any more than it does about seconds.

Agreed. Sometimes what is not said is just as important as what is said.

Yep.



Okay. Why aren’t you calculating that down to the day?



Define “comes.”



NO, the passage says nothing about making a covenant in the original languages. That term would be to “cut a covenant.” This passage speaks of making firm a covenant THAT ALREADY EXISTED, and it was to be made firm for a period of seven years at a minimum. The text is silent on whether it would remain firm, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it ceased to exist after seven years.

She is right. Before Bible language experts started trying to decide the mood of the writer, it was widely accepted, and many Bibles said, that THE COVENANT (The Old Covenant) was what would be confirmed.

Nope. First, the passage doesn’t say at the midpoint. It says “in the midst of.” Now I believe it was at a midpoint for other reasons, but technically the passage doesn’t say that. And it doesn’t say anything about Temple sacrifices ceasing, it talks about bringing an end to them. The New Testament says that Jesus brought an end to death on the cross, yet people still die.

I agree.
I emphasized the words in bold. Interpreters need to look for the spiritual, symbolic meaning, and not always for a literal one. Any sacrifice after Jesus' sacrifice (yes, in the midst of Daniel 9:27) was without legitimacy.

Now taking a very important “big picture” step back. The context of Daniel 9 and the whole of Daniel is of course very important because of which I believe you have made some fundamental mistakes. Actually, I think to understand Daniel 9 one must back up even further. First, in general, before getting to the specifics, the entire Old Testament pointed forward to Christ (John 5:39, Hebrews 10:7, see also Acts 3:24). It is precisely at this point that dispensationalism misses the boat, and poses a view of Scripture which is Christ-dishonoring (though I know that is not the intention of dispensationalists, but it is the Biblical reality, and we are all big boys and girls here). All of the festivals and rituals were a shadow of the reality in Christ (Col. 2:17, Heb. 10:1). The Jubilee is no different. One of the most remarkable Messianic passages uses a Jubilee pattern: Daniel 9. We must digress there first in order to answer anything about Daniel 9.

Daniel’s prayer is a covenant prayer to his covenant God. In fact, in this chapter (9) is the only place where the covenant name of God (YHWH) is used. Gabriel’s answer is given in highly covenantal form expressing the highest vision of Messianic hope. The time frame is 70 groups of sevens. That is very, very important because it is an allusion back to the Jubilee cycle. After every seven groups of seven sabbatical years (49 years), there was the fiftieth year, the Jubilee. During the Jubilee, slaves were freed, debts were forgiven, etc., it is a rich portrait of redemption. In Jewish thought, numbers were very, very important. The number 10 signified a multiplier of “quantitative completeness.” The number 3 indicated perfect amplification. That is why we have God saying that He owns the cattle on a thousand hills (10 x 10 x 10) and why God is praised as holy, holy, holy. It is an idiomatic way of expressing a very large and complete number. So in Daniel’s vision, we have not seven sevens, a normal Jubilee, but seventy (7 x 10) sevens, the Ideal Jubilee, the Perfect Jubilee (49 x 10).

That is Christ. The Jubilee was but a shadow of the reality in Christ (Col. 2:17). Christ claimed this for Himself when He read from Isaiah 61:

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.”

The allusion to the Jubilee here is undeniable. This ideal Jubilee is God’s ultimate ministry to ALL people, not just the Jews. The problem is that we so often treat the Scriptures as if they are man-centered, specifically Jew-centered, but they are not, they are Christ-Centered.

The perfect Jubilee, the perfect redemption, of God came in the first century. It is not postponed waiting for the ethnic Jews to repent. God can raise up children of Abraham from stones (Matthew 3:9).

This is available to the remnant, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), made up a believing Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12). THAT was the mystery, that Jews and Gentiles would be equal, all in the Israel of God (Ephesians 3:3-7).

The very idea of messianic redemption is thus built into the numbers. Instead of 49 years and then the 50th year is a Jubilee, it is 49x10 years, and then the messianic Jubilee. Jesus takes Isaiah 61:1-2 (a Jubilee allusion) and applies it to Himself:

Isaiah 61:1-2

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor.

I don't have a problem with any of this. Comments, anyone?

Back to the question I asked you to hold off on for a second, and that is, how could the prophecy start anywhere but at the beginning of a week? Well if one was just dealing with any week with a specific beginning event, than it couldn't. It could end anywhere in the span of the last week, but it would need to start immediately after the kick-off event. But these AREN'T just any weeks. They are Jubilee weeks on the Jubilee schedule. So whatever Jubilee week the start point happens to fall in is the first week, full and clear, regardless of whether the start event happens on the first milisecond or the last of the Jubilee week. So there is a swing of potentially seven years on both the front end AND the back end (i.e. the first and the seventieth weeks). Counting down days from some decree becomes even more absurd once this is realized.

I like the description of the Jubilee week, and schedule. I would add an ongoing Jubilee state of being. Though, not in the sense of static state, but sameness of potential.

I think that this has to do with whether we put the three and a half years of the two witnesses of Rev. 11 into the natural seven years of the 70th week, or whether it might be removed in time, or whether even it belongs within the actual 70th week, at all. It could be an echo, or a parallel.

Now onto the issue of double fulfillment. I don't think such is an appropriate term as it is too potentially confusing. Literally speaking a prophecy, to be a true prophecy (ala the Deut. 18 test) must have one clear fulfillment. Then the prophet and the prophecy are vindicated.

However, that doesn't preclude future ripples or echoes that have their origin in the original prophecy, filling it even fuller. But none of those are necessary to the original prophecy and many are not sensed by the original prophet except in the most shadowy aspect. Because the future events are not necessary, nor do they have to meet the specificity that the fulfillment did, it is nearly impossible to KNOW how a prophecy might be echoed except in broad redemptive outlines (or major redemptive history) unless another prophet clarifies and expands. Due to this elasticity, it is much more accurate to call it typology and typological fulfillment.

True. I agree, except that the One unique fulfillment does not preclude a later parallel fulfillment, as if such a parallel would diminish the Original Fulfiller. This is particularly relevant when the Lord and Fulfiller himself says, "He that believes in me, the things that I do, he will do also. And greater things than these will he do, because I go to the Father." Didn't he go?

Following these examples I do not see an issue with continuing to see in the present and future coming of Jesus a parallel and yet greater redemption and a parallel and yet greater judgment that will finally purged evil, put all his enemies under his feet, and destroyed death. Yes we have passages which explicitly teach this, but I do not think we should shy away completely in an on biblical pattern from seeing this event free figured in past judgment events, specifically "comings" of Christ.
But the objection then resurfaces, "but the text doesn't say that." In fact, in a recent radio program with Gary DeMar, he challenged a futurist caller who claimed that the seven churches in Revelation were both historical churches and typological of all churches throughout the ages. That caller was right. . . but Gary simplistically stated, "Where does the text say that?" I rejoin, "Where do you get the ground rules that the text HAS to literally say it in a wooden sense?" The Apostle Paul didn't treat the Old Testament that way, neither did any of the New Testament writers. One may then state, "Yeah but they were inspired." But that is begging the question. The Bereans searched the Old Testament Scriptures to see if what Paul said was so (Acts 17:11). Good thing they didn't act like DeMar and claim, "Where does the text literally say that the Rock that the Israelites drank from in the Exodus was Christ?" (1 Corin. 10:3–4) If we interpreted the whole Bible like that, and in atomistically literal sense, we would reject the messianic claims of Jesus.

I think Dizzle said those things very well. Maybe that makes the caller a Partial Futurist?
I also like the terms she used, "greater and parallel redemption" and "greater and parallel judgment." To me, it opens up the question of when these things happen in relation to when the conditions occur so that Jesus will no longer remain seated at God's right hand.

The words in bold are my emphasis.

I would like to stop the discussion here at these points before moving on….

I agree.

[TyRockwell]

[TyRockwell]

PART 1 of 2

Hi Dizzle,

[X] Time frame: Seventy sevens (“weeks”) of years = 490 years (of marked time) achieving the 6 goals stated in Dan. 9:24 NIV.

Actually no... How long was Jesus in the tomb?... the prophecy... speaks about “days and nights” which is idiomatic Jewish language... reckoning any part of the smallest period mentioned counts as the whole period.

Quite right. "3 Days and nights" ARE idiomatic, and even "weeks" are here idiomatic of a seven "of years" (Lev. 25:4-8 NIV). This is shown by context. That doesn't, however, mean that these years have no relationship to real time. Daniel seemed to have no problem understanding that when Jeremiah spoke of Jerusalem's captivity being 70 years long that he meant to specify 70 years (which was almost up at the time), and this was the precise context in which he was given his 70 Weeks prophecy. Dan. 9:1 NIV .

The reference, Leviticus 25:4-8, does establish the principle of th 49 years, seven sevens of years. But from what does the idea derive, that three and a half years are "idiomatic?" It seems to me that three and a half, being half of seven, is a new idea introduced in Daniel, since the coming of Messiah would be at "the time of the end." (Dan. 12:4, also implied in the phrase, "70 weeks ARE DETERMINED" for Daniel's people and the Temple in Jerusalem.) IOW, the 70th seven is very different than the other sevens, and signals a change in Covenant, as Hebrews also states.

The point Dizzle was making of the 490 years, made of seven-year weeks, was a lead-up to the Jubilee, meaning Messiah Jesus, the point at which the Covenant was to be "confirmed." (Dan. 9:27) The effect of the comfirmation is the Jubilee. Jesus is our Covenant Jubilee.

The freedom from debt, the recovery of ancestral inheritance, and freedom from working the cursed ground, the sabbath rest of Hebrews, that we are warned to not fail to enter, are all representations of our peace and redemption from the curse that we should have in Jesus. I say, "SHOULD" have, because it is not automatic, as the book of Hebrews states. We must enter it by faith. Not all the blessings of salvation are automatic, nor are they intended to apply only to an afterlife in heaven.

It is completely unwarranted to break down the smallest unit further. And that is precisely where you went off the rails.

I at no point denied that the time units specified in the prophecy is years. That is the only level of accuracy needed for the fulfillment of the prophecy (the basic "cake"). It has, however, been pointed out by Dr. Hoehner that using a 360-day calendar, the degree of accuracy even extends to the very day (the proverbial "icing" on the cake). I personally find this quite compelling, especially since I have no reservations about God's ability to be this precise.

Again, this is missing the point. Belief in accuracy is admirable, but what is accurate, to the exact date, about "the time of the end?" It is a "time" of unspecified duration, for a reason.

The 70 weeks prophecy is just that: a prophecy of seventy “weeks” of years. The smallest unit mentioned is the week (a 7 year block). Any portion of a week would count as a whole week on either terminus point.

This is where I must differ from Diz. She is missing the three and a half years, not only of Daniel 12:4, but also of Daniel 7:25. But then, xcavator is missing this point also. The smallest "block of time" in the 70 weeks is the three and a half year block.

From what I have read that rule is not nearly as hard and fast as you suggest (being a minority opinion), but I'm willing to see where you are going with this.

So, Time frame AND Units of time:: Seventy seven-year blocks of time.
To what end?: to achieve the goals in Daniel 9:24... These goals are to happen within the confines of the 70 weeks. Not outside of them.

Hmm, Interesting...

I'd clarify that they are to be achieved between the start of the first week and the end of the 70th. I think we are agreed on this much.

The same, "Hmm, lnteresting..." applies here.

Note to Dizzle and xcavator: WHAT IF... Jesus decreed something (Dan. 9:26, "desolations are decreed") that, though his decree was made within the 70th week, the thing he decreed happened OUTSIDE the 70th week? Of course, that prophetic decree would be, "Not one stone here will be left on another, that shall not be thrown down!" (Matt. 24:2)

BTW, that was the Second Decree. The First Decree was, "Behold, your house [temple] is left to you desolate!" This happened at the death of Jesus on the cross, and the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom. That made the temple desolate.

The destruction of the Temple is not on the list. It is a hideous perversion (not saying you do it, but I am saying that a great many futurists do) that places the cross outside of the 70 weeks, and the destruction of the Temple within it. It is nothing short of sacrilege.

Amen!
(Which, being interpreted, is, "Right on, Sister!")

Of course the destruction of the city and temple are not "on the list of objectives" in verse 24, but that does not mean we are free to arbitrarily exclude such a key detail from the events which have been "decreed for your people and your holy city," events which are described as taking place within the predetermined 490 year time frame. As I said to Faramir, it makes no sense to say "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city,” yet their destruction take place… AFTER the expiration date?

Rest assured that in my understanding, both the cross and the destruction of the temple fall between the 69th and 70th week, which places BOTH events WITHIN the scope of the prophecy. Actually, AFAICT, it is the Preterist POV that seems to be placing events OUTSIDE of the 70 weeks. You certainly can't fit in the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem and the temple prior to the Acts 7 stoning of Stephen (which as I understand it is when both you and Faramir terminate the final week).

My former position, was that the 70th week ended at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. But now I have amended my position.

Now, I believe that the first half of the the 70th week ended at Jesus' ascension, and that the second half, is the three and a half years of the prophesying of the two witnesses in Rev. 11.

[X] Unit of measure: Lunar calendar of 12 months, 30 days each, for an annual total of 360 days

Due to the above, this is exceedingly irrelevant. I... can argue that you are incorrect that a year in ancient times, consistently over a long period of time, is 360 days. It simply isn’t. They made up for the missing days in a variety of creative ways, and you can’t ignore that.

Not ignoring it. I've been digging a bit deeper into this myself and discovered the following: The ancient 360 day calendar (often called "Biblical" or "prophetic" by Futurist's and in Egypt called the "civic" calendar) falls between the "solar" calendar of 365.25 days and the "lunar" calendar of 364.75 days, being an average of the two (with both the 360 and the lunar calendars being adjusted to the solar using a variety of intercalations). Also both the Egyptians (during Moses life) and the Babylonians (during Daniel's) used all 3 ancient calendars.

There is no doubt whatsoever that both Moses and Daniel - who were thoroughly educated by these nations (Acts 7:22, Dan. 1) - would be familiar with all three. In addition, Plutarch wrote in 75 A.D. (John's day) that, "During the reign of Romulus... they only kept to the one rule that the whole course of the year contained three hundred and sixty days." When we note that Moses, Daniel and John, all used days, months and "times" in a way that is in perfect harmony with the ancient 360 day calendar, I hardly feel this is "irrelevant."

Diz is right.

The whole 360 day-year theory MIGHT be relevant if we were dealing with a shorter block of time. But we aren’t. There is plenty of time for it to average out to a normal solar year.

During 490 years, there are 178,972.5 solar days. When you subtract 176,400 days (in 490 years of the unadjusted 360 day calendar), the difference is = 2,572.5 days. So IF Daniel WAS using this other calendar, and we calculate using a solar measure, our end date is going to overshoot the target by roughly 7 years. That can easily miss an important historical event meant to fulfill the prophecy and using the wrong "clock" would lead to an erroneous conclusion.

I am assuming you have done enough research to know that the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Mayans, Chinese, and Romans all used a 360 day calendar (even though using different methods to reconcile them with the solar year). If you are willing to acknowledge this much, then the main unresolved issue is whether or not the Jewish prophets applied a Biblical version of the 360 day calendar in their prophetic writings. While this is not explicitly spelled out in scripture (perhaps because it was common enough to be taken for granted in those days), the examples we DO HAVE fit hand in glove.

[X] Blocks of “weeks” (70 in total):

Yep.

[X] 7 weeks (49 years) to rebuild city walls and moat during a time of trouble;

Okay. Why aren’t you calculating that down to the day?

17 Tammuz, 396 B.C. (June 22). Apparently the city was completely restored by this time, including the temple that was finished earlier. This was also the time the OT canon was completed, as well as the beginning of the "400 years of silence" between the Old and New Testament revelations. Is this particular day documented in scripture? Not that I'm aware of, but the same holds true for the Preterist having no documented end for their first 7 weeks - or am I wrong about this?

I, Ty, believe that the first 7 weeks was fulfilled in the "restore [the Temple] and rebuild Jerusalem" prophecy of Daniel 9:25.

[X] 62 weeks (434 years) more until the Messiah comes;
Define “comes.”

The text merely says "until the Anointed One, the Ruler, comes" or as the KJV puts it, "unto Messiah the Prince." This might suggest a "coming" involving a proclamation of royalty, but it's not absolutely required. There seem to be only 3 events in Christ's life where He may be said to have "come" to the Jews: 1) His BIRTH in Bethlehem, 2) the start of His ministry at His BAPTISM, and 3) His TRIUMPHAL ENTRY as He rode on a donkey into Jerusalem as their King (as per Zechariah's 9:9 NIV). As I explained earlier, only this latter date is documented in scripture (Nisan 10) and is indisputably appropriate (whether or not it is accepted). Only on this occasion did Christ officially present Himself to the nation as their Messiah King, even calling it the "day of your visitation" Luke 19:44 - a day in which if the crowds were silenced the very rocks would cry out! (vs 40). It is also the very day the Passover lamb was chosen for slaughter. In light of all this, the other two options seem comparatively lame.

Come on - you have to at least grudgingly award me a point for the date of Christ's TE being a spectacularly fitting climax to the phrase "unto Messiah the Prince."

x wants points, but there are demerits, too.

[X] 1 week (7 years) which begins with a covenant limited to 7 years in duration

NO, the passage says nothing about making a covenant in the original languages. That term would be to “cut a covenant.” This passage speaks of making firm a covenant THAT ALREADY EXISTED, and it was to be made firm for a period of seven years at a minimum. The text is silent on whether it would remain firm, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it ceased to exist after seven years.

I partly agree, partly do not. The Old Covenant already existed, and Jesus confirmed it. But I don't think that the confirming necessarily had to fill up the full seven years. Messiah is the point of the years. The confirming of covenant took place within those 7 years.

Where did I say "making"? I merely said that the last week began with a covenant. "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.'" Dan. 9:27 NIV And what is to prevent him from "confirming an agreement" that has just been worked out? Where does the text say this "covenant" has to be an "ancient" one?

x wants NOT to be precise about a time? Oh, I forgot, he MAKES the 'anti-christ the 'He' of verse 27. Trouble is "He" cannot be "the people" of verse 26.

"He" was the one who decreed desolations in Dan. 9:26, Jesus.

In addition to that, the 'prince' of which he speaks, was the principality slain and thrown into the blazing fire after the cross (Dan. 7:11) and before Jesus' ascension in Daniel 7:13.

I agree that the text does not say whether this agreement will remain firm. In fact, the common Futurist position is that the terms of this "covenant" will be broken by the Antichrist after 3 1/2 years. The point is not how long the two parties will honour the agreement, but the FACT that the agreement itself is identified as being originally SET FOR 7 years - "FOR ONE SEVEN." No "for a minimum of" is stated or implied in the text. This is one of the primary weaknesses in the Preterist view because they want to peg Christ as the "he" who confirms the covenant yet they KNOW there is NO scriptural evidence whatsoever that Christ made ANY 7 YEAR COVENANT with ANYONE. Besides, Jesus offered a NEW covenant, not one that had existed before, and His covenant is Eternal.

Since the 7 year 70th week has to do with Messiah, it has nothing to do with an Antichrist. xcava8tor is saying that God made the 7 year, 70th week covenant through Antichrist?

God gave the 70 weeks, and made them about Christ. God didn't give one week to the 'Anti-christ!

[X] ½ week - Midpoint (of the 70th week) during which temple sacrifices will cease and an abomination desecrates the Holy Place causing it to be abandoned.

Nope. First, the passage doesn’t say at the midpoint. It says “in the midst of.” Now I believe it was at a midpoint for other reasons, but technically the passage doesn’t say that.

Well, the NIV, NASB, NKJV and NET Bible all translate the Hebrew as "middle," and the middle certainly qualifies as "in the midst of." Chetsiy denotes "half" and "middle" according to the Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon, but hey, I'll agree that "middle" may not be "technically" accurate. The important thing is that we all agree that "middle" is what Daniel was trying to convey.

And God, through Gabriel and Daniel was making the 70th week to be about the Anointed, Jesus.

At least Mr. x seems to be seeing two three and a half year blocks of time.

And it doesn’t say anything about Temple sacrifices ceasing, it takes about bringing an end to them.

Dizzle is right. "END" is the right word. The Daniel 9 message from Gabriel leads to the END of the Old Covenant, with Daniel's people and their "holy" city, in Dan. 9:24. 70 weeks are DETERMINED for the people and the city, about which Daniel was praying.

Both you and Faramir admit that the temple sacrifices continued to be offered to the Jews until the temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., so the only hope you have of salvaging a "fulfillment" in Christ is to extract the meaning of "bringing an end to them" from the text in the sense of rendering them "obsolete" or "ineffective" by Christ's ultimate sacrifice. I don't buy it.

The blood of animal sacrifices no longer covered the people's sins, after the Cross. So how legitimate and effective were those sacrifices? None, nada, zilch, zero.

The book of Hebrews, written BEFORE 70 AD, uses almost exactly that terminology to argue that Jesus' sacrifice ended the usefulness sacrifices. Hebrews said the sacrifices were obsolete. They were always the shadow, the metaphor, for the True Sacrifice, Jesus.

Hebrews 9:26 says this of Jesus: "But now he has appeared, once for all, at the end of the ages, to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." Since sin was done away with
by Jesus sacrifice, symbolically, then he put an end to sacrifice and offering SYMBOLICALLY, long before the temple practices stopped.

Hebrew "shabath": to cease, desist, rest, to cause to cease, to put an end to, to exterminate, destroy, to cause to desist from, to remove, to cause to fail (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon).

Just as symbolic as the end of sin, was Jesus' sacrifice. Also "to put an end to sin," is in Dan. 9:24.

This is similar in meaning to "cuwr": to cause to turn aside, cause to depart, remove, take away, put away, depose, to put aside, leave undone, retract, reject, abolish - used in Dan. 11:31 describing when Antiochus Epiphanes forced the Jews to stop temple sacrifices in the days of the Maccabees.

If Daniel wished to convey that the sacrifices would be made obsolete, ineffectual, null or void, perhaps the word "parar" would have been a better choice.

It cannot be denied that when the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. the temple sacrifices both "ceased" and were "brought to an end." As I said to Faramir,

Yes, but Daniel did not say the sacrifice would be rendered obsolete, but that the sacrifice and offerings would be STOPPED. And they WERE STOPPED in 70 A.D. Here is the problem as I see it:

You claim the 70th week took place in the first century;
You agree that the prophecy predicts the temple sacrifices would cease in the middle of the 70th week;
You admit history shows that the temple sacrifices ceased in 70 A.D.;
YET you resist the logical conclusion that the middle of the 70th week therefore took place in 70 A.D. In the absence of a literal stoppage of the sacrifice I could understand you opting for a figurative fulfillment, but not when it actually happened as a matter of historic record.

Sacrifice was stopped the same way that sin was stopped.

The context of Daniel 9 and the whole of Daniel is of course very important... in general, before getting to the specifics, the entire Old Testament pointed to Christ... It is precisely at this point that dispensationalism misses the boat...

I agree - context is important. The immediate context is that Daniel was contemplating the end of the 70 weeks of captivity (Dan. 1:1-3 NIV).

The 70 groups of 7 is not an allusion to the Jubilee, but to the 490 years in which Israel failed to obey the Sabbath rest for the land (2 Chron. 36:20-21 NIV). Because they disobeyed 70 times (a total of 70 years), they were taken into captivity for 70 years so that the land would enjoy the rest that was its due (Lev. 26:33-35 NIV, Jer. 25:11-12 NIV).

So we have 490 YEARS PAST in which Israel failed to obey the Sabbath rest - 70 YEARS OF DESOLATIONS (which Daniel noted were coming to a close) - 490 YEARS FUTURE during which God will complete His program for Israel and set up His Kingdom on earth.

Sorry, had to split this into 2 more manageable posts.

xcav8tor

Uh, the "immediate context" of Daniel 9 was not the end of the 70 years. It was not what Gabriel was talking about.

[TyRockwell]

All of the festivals and rituals were a shadow of the reality in Christ (Col. 2:17, Heb. 10:1).

We agree again. I would submit that Israel's feast foreshadowed Christ's two comings. The Spring feasts were fulfilled in Christ's First Coming (Passover; Unleavened Bread; First Fruits; Pentecost) while the Fall feasts will be fulfilled by Christ's Second Coming (Trumpets; Day of Atonement; Tabernacles).

"The reality [is] in Christ.'' Dispensationalist's trouble is reality. Jesus' voice = Trumpet, in Rev.1:10. But x is thinking ''Trumpets" = ''Last Trumpets'' Rev. 1:10 precedes Rev. 4:1's assumed 'rapture.' The trumpet is God's Word, Jesus. The NT trumpets the Word of God.
1. Jesus and the NT fulfilled Trumpets. 2. Jesus fulfilled the Day of Atonement with his death. 3. Tabernacles is fulfilled with the Holy Spirit in believers.

The Jubilee is no different. One of the most remarkable Messianic passages uses a Jubilee pattern: Daniel 9. We must digress. Daniel’s prayer is a covenant prayer to his covenant God... The time frame is 70 groups of sevens. That is very, very important because it is an allusion back to the Jubilee cycle. After every seven groups of seven sabbatical years (49 years), there was the fiftieth year, the Jubilee. During the Jubilee, slaves were freed, debts were forgiven, etc., it is a rich portrait of redemption. In Jewish thought... the number 10 signified a multiplier of “quantitative completeness”... So in Daniel’s vision, we have not seven sevens, a normal Jubilee, but seventy (7 x 10) sevens, the Ideal Jubilee, the Perfect Jubilee (49 x 10).

As you admit above, it is the 50TH YEAR which is the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:10 NIV). The 49 years only lead up to it. Ergo the "(49 x 10)" above CANNOT represent a Jubilee - perfect or otherwise.

If you follow Gentry's argument to its logical conclusion it would make this alleged "Perfect Jubilee" year following the 490 years to be 10 (1 x 10) years long.

No 10 years of Jubilee. The jubilee is a permanent, perfect jubilee, Jesus.

... The Jubilee was but a shadow of the reality in Christ (Col. 2:17). Christ claimed this for Himself when He read from Isaiah 61:1-2... The allusion to the Jubilee here is undeniable... The perfect Jubilee, the perfect redemption, of God came in the first century. It is not postponed waiting for the ethnic Jews to repent).

I agree that Jesus applied this passage to Himself, AND that it alludes to the Jubilee aspects of the Millennium of Christ's reign, but if you look at the whole passage you will see there is a definite future context of fulfillment.

No, it is not future.
The vengeance of 70 AD was future to Jesus, a result of the rejection of Jesus. That is why Jesus didn't read that part in Luke 4.

This is available to the remnant, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), made up a believing Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12). THAT was the mystery, that Jews and Gentiles would be equal, all in the Israel of God (Ephesians 3:3-7).

The very idea of messianic redemption is thus built into the numbers. Instead of 49 years and then the 50th year Jubilee, it is 49x10 years, and then the messianic Jubilee. Jesus takes Isaiah 61:1-2 (a Jubilee allusion) and applies it to Himself:

1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor.

Yes, but the quote continues:

"and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, 3 and provide FOR THOSE WHO GRIEV'E IN ZION - to bestow ON THEM a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the OIL OF GLADNESS instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor. 4 They will rebuild the ancient ruins and restore the places long devastated; they will renew the ruined cities that have been devastated for generations. 5 ALIENS will shepherd your flocks; FOREIGNERS will work your fields and vineyards. 6 And YOU [the Jewish people] will be called priests of the Lord, you will be named ministers of our God. You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast. 7 Instead of their shame MY PEOPLE [irn context, the Jews] WILL RECEIVE A DOUBLE PORTION, and instead of disgrace they will rejoice in their inheritance; and so they will inherit a double portion IN THEIR LAND, and everlasting joy will be theirs." Isa. 61:2-7 NIV

Surely Isaiah did not have the Gentile Church in mind as he penned this.

There is no such thing as a 'Gentile Church.' Those in Christ are the circumcized of heart, Hebrew or Other. They are one in Christ, a new creation.
Paul said, ''A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." Romans 2:28-29
What counts as being a Jew, is having a circumcized heart, and is only in Christ.
Isaiah 61:3-7, Verse 3, THOSE WHO GRIEVE IN ZION. A common mistake is to fail to realize that the Church is Zion. Read Hebrews 12:22-24. The blessings ALL apply to the Church today, and are not applicable to those outside of Christ, i.e. Hebrews.

While Jews and Gentiles ARE equal WITHIN THE BODY OF CHRIST, the Jewish people and the gentiles outside the church are distinct groups with different destinies. It is the failure of non-dispensationalists to recognize God's separate plan for Israel and the church which has led to so much confusion in the area of prophecy.

x is SO messed up with dispy view. The Bible says through the Cross, both unbelieving Jews and Gentiles are made one. His "different destinies" statement is not in the Bible. God's plan for Hebrews is not separate. "The same Lord over all is rich unto all who call upon the name of Jesus."

And if you want to talk about dishonouring God, portraying Him as one who would break His covenant promises to Abraham and Israel is about as bad as it gets.

One honors God by believing His Word. The promises were conditional upon keeping the law. That is why Israel needed a New Covenant. They proved no one can keep the old covenant.
Who broke the covenant is ISRAEL 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: Jer 31:30-32
God made a NEW COVENANT with the House of Israel. Notice, it didn't say a New Covenant with Gentiles! Jesus came to the Jew first. Gentiles came in second, Originally, all the Church was Jewish. God brought in the Gentiles to make Israel envious, Both OTand the NT say this.

It is obvious that to date neither Abraham or his descendants ever inherited all the land God promised them.

They did! All the prophets who foretold the 70 year exile and Babylonian captivity also told them, after the 70 years God would bring them back into their land and help them rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. That happened.
Between the Greeks under Antiochus Epiphanes IV (Dan. 11:31-33) in 164 BC, and the invasion by Rome in 63 BC, Israel was a FREE nation, the size of the Davidic Kingdom. It followed the Maccabean Revolt, and was called the Hasmonean Dynasty, during the 400 silent years.

Israel does have a future (Rom. 11 NIV). Did God cast away His people? - God forbid! (as the KJV puts it).

Of course God did not cast off His people! Did they all enter the New Covenant? NO. Who cast off who? Think Jeremiah 31:32 They HAVE the right to enter the New Covenant. Most of Israel cast off Messiah. The issue in Romans 11, is whether they can be grafted back in. Paul said, Yes, if they do not persist in unbelief. They can accept Jesus today, if they do not harden their hearts.

They are our enemies for the Gospel's sake UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles comes in [which I understand to be the completion of the church as the body of Christ, ending with the rapture] Rom. 11:25-29 NIV. If the church was "God's people" in this passage, that would make us the "enemies of the Gospel."

Mr. xcav8tor has turned around the texts of Romans 11:25 and verse 28. Verse 25 states that Israel has experienced a hardening of heart IN PART, meaning they can still come in. How? Look up Isaiah 59:20, the verse Paul quoted from in Romans 11: 26-27. It says, the Redeemer will come "to those in Jacob, who repent of their sins." They were enemies of the Gospel.

Obviously Paul is speaking of the future salvation and restoration of the Jewish people, and reiterating that God HAS NOT cast them aside forever (as Preterists teach).

I am defending NEITHER Preterists, NOR Dispey Rapture. I have never heard the Preterists say that God cast aside Hebrews. I tend to think they can read.

It is God's very faithfulness to His promises to the Jews that form the basis for the Christian's confidence in God not to one day abandon us. As Paul says, God's gifts and his call are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29 NIV).

The "basis for the Christian's confidence in God" is believing the Word of God for its own sake.

As I said, the Millennial Jubilee blessings Christ alluded to by quoting Isaiah began with His presence and ministry among the Jewish people, but they will not come to full fruition until He returns to set up His kingdom on earth.

Oh, yea? Aren't you adding to the Bible? That's not what the Bible says. mr. xcavator should stop adding to the Bible. It does not allow the Hebrews to get saved a different way than other Christians. Did the 1st century Jews get saved a different way than Gentiles did?? No. They get to hold out for a better deal? How 'bout all those Hebrews down through the centuries who didn't get saved? a free pass from Hell?

At that time, the Jews WILL receive all the land and blessings God promised them in the Old Testament (Isa. 11 NIV, Ezek. 48 NIV, Zech. 8 NIV, etc). God never promised the LAND of Israel to anyone but the Jewish people. What God promised the church were all spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ (Eph. 1:3 NIV), not real estate.

"The meek will inherit the earth?" Is their land on earth?
Didn't God promise Abraham that all nations will be blessed through his Seed? Then, why does xcav8te say, 'all the seeds will be blessed through Abraham?' Gal. 3 says, "not seed, as of many, but Seed, as of one, Christ.

Back to the question I asked you to hold off on for a second, and that is, how could the prophecy start anywhere but at the beginning of a week? Well if one was just dealing with any week with a specific beginning event, than it couldn't... But these AREN'T just any weeks. They are Jubilee weeks on the Jubilee schedule.

As explained above, I don't buy your premise. Just because 49 x 10 equals 490 does not prove that Jubilee years are involved, especially in light of the immediate context of Daniel's 70 years of captivity (a direct result] of 70 instances of the Jews ignoring God's command to allow the land to rest every 7th year for a period of 490 years). This is a far more relevant explanation of the 490 future years mirroring the 490 past years of disobedience. Gentry's argument is even less credible when one looks to the first century only to find Jerusalem and the temple being destroyed instead of enjoying the peace predicted under Messiah's rule (Isa. 11 NIV, Isa. 65:17-25 NIV). If THAT was Israel's "Perfect Jubilee," I'll eat my .

Jubilee is for believers. Jesus read to the Jews, Isaiah 61:1-2, and said, "Today, these words are fulfilled in your hearing." Jesus is our ongoing Jubilee. He bodily went to heaven, but he never leaves us or forsakes us. He lives in us, along with his Holy Spirit, and he, the Jubilee is still here with us. We don't believe in only what we can see.

So whatever Jubilee week the start point happens to fall in is the first week, full and clear, regardless of whether the start event happens on the first milisecond or the last of the Jubilee week. So there is a swing of potentially seven years on both the front end AND the back end (i.e. the first and the seventieth weeks). Counting down days from some decree becomes even more absurd once this is realized.

With all due respect, what I find "absurd" is resorting to a "swing of 7 years on both ends" to provide the Preterist POV with sufficient wiggle room to make their interpretation fit. Fulfilled prophecy shouldn't be that hard to verify.

I'm no preterist, but I know when we have blessings we can't see. They are not waiting somewhere for us until Jesus returns.

Now onto the issue of double fulfillment. I don't think such is an appropriate term as it is too potentially confusing. Literally speaking a prophecy, to be a true prophecy (ala the Deut. 18 test) must have one clear fulfillment. Then the prophet and the prophecy are vindicated. However, that doesn't preclude future ripples or echoes that have their origin in the original prophecy, filling it even fuller. But none of those are necessary to the original prophecy and many are not sensed by the original prophet except in the most shadowy aspect. Because the future events are not necessary... it is nearly impossible to KNOW how a prophecy might be echoed except in broad redemptive outlines... unless another prophet clarifies and expands. Due to this elasticity, it is much more accurate to call it typology and typological fulfillment... Following these examples I do not see an issue with continuing to see in the present and future coming of Jesus a parallel and yet greater redemption and a parallel and yet greater judgment...

You seem to be making the assumption that the PRIMARY fulfillment of the 70th week is PAST, and that therefore any future application is restricted to typology. Look at it from the other perspective. What if the PRIMARY fulfillment of the 70th week is FUTURE? If this is the case, then whatever may have taken place in the first century in terms of Daniel's 70th week was merely a foreshadowing of what is to come (as Antiochus Epiphanes in 165 B.C. foreshadowed the career of the final and future Antichrist).

Believe the Word that says Jesus will return at the END, of the tribulation. That is clear, in Matthew 24:29-31
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes [people, nations, clans, kindred, families] of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Matt 24:27-31 (KJV)
Regardless of what they told ya about verses 30-31, this is believers from all over the planet, not certain survivors who supposedly were 'left behind' several years earlier.

In the same way, Christ's warning to flee Jerusalem when it was surrounded by the Roman armies foreshadows the ultimate warning in the great tribulation for the Jews to flee the Antichrist (as illustrated in the Apocalypse as the woman fleeing to the wilderness to be taken care of for 42 months/3 1/2 years). Since there is good reason to date John's Revelation to 96 A.D. - well after the fall of Jerusalem - the PRIMARY fulfillment of this event must take place in the future.

[/color]
That's just dumb. The woman in Rev. 12 was Old Covenant Israel, like in Joseph's dream, who gave birth to Messiah, who ascended to his throne in heaven with all authority, and through which Michael and his angels threw down Satan and his angels, because believers can no longer be accused by the accuser of the brethren, Satan. Jesus told his followers to flee to the mountains of Judea, not the desert, and that is what they did in 70 AD when Romes armies surrounded Jerusalem. The unbelieving Hebrews fled to the desert, and were nearly wiped out. Heard of Masada?

[color=blue]Of course, a lot of this has to do with how one interprets the "objectives" of Daniel 9:24 NIV. In the futurist view, there is no way that these goals have been met, which in turn requires a future PRIMARY fulfillment (recognizing the implied gap between the last 2 weeks). You will no doubt argue that these have all been met in the first century, but I suspect that in order to find a past fulfillment you will have to severely understate the original intent of the text.

No, you have to interpret the fulfillment in light of the spiritual nature of the blessings and that those goals were achieved by Jesus, and that we Christians will grow into maturity in him, and will bring those things to a visible demonstration of the Holy Spirit's power through us. "This good news of the kingdom will be preached for a witness (something witnessed) to all nations, and THEN the end will come." Matthew 24:14

It is undeniable that Jesus did predict the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in no uncertain terms. This was in perfect agreement with the same destruction described by Daniel between the 69th and 70th week. That much is definitely fulfilled in the razing of Herod's second temple (which interestingly was destroyed on the exact same day as Solomon's first temple - the 9th of Av). At least we are agreed on that much.

Excuse me, but the destruction of the desolate temple was at the end decreed or determined in Dan.9:27, which was after the desolations were decreed, or determined in Dan. 9:26. and after Jesus was crucified in the middle of the 70th week, afterward all blood sacrifice is abomination.

[quote=xcav8tor]

As for the use of the term, "double fulfillment," I understand your concerns, but I don't think typology satisfactorily covers the situation either (which to accept would be an unwarranted concession on my part that any foreshadowing of the 70th week in the past would rule out any primary future fulfillment). I guess my use of future Primary fulfillment and past Foreshadowing is the best compromise I can think of to avoid the problematic terminology and still maintain the prophecy's integrity (as per Deut. 18:21-22 NIV). Do you find this acceptable?



No, Jesus original fulfillments happened in fact and in time in the first century. But he also said, "He that believes in me, the things that I do, he will do also, and greater things than these will he do, because I go to the Father." John 14:12
Implied in, "because I go to the Father," is the parallel that the same and greater works will be done by "he that believes in me," the fully matured and grown up body of Christ, the Church, BEFORE HE RETURNS. Take also the most repeated verse in the Bible: "The Lord [God] said to my Lord [Jesus], Sit here at my right hand until I make all your enemies a footstool for your feet." Psalm 110:1

[TyRockwell]

In his most recent post, Xcavator lists intepretations by Iraneaus,and Hippolytus, and other Second Century guessers, about who the Antichrist was or will be, and the time and nature of the tribulation and the Second Coming.

However, those commentators were speculating WHILE DANIEL was still SEALED. In Daniel 12:4 the time of its unsealing was told and it involved a time far future to the Second Century AD.

The fact that Daniel was SEALED, is an ABSOLUTE statement. It means that no one would be able to decypher, calculate, or by guess-work know and reveal its meanings. No matter the intelligence or the piety of those who interpreted Daniel, due to the Absolute nature of Daniel's SEALED status, ONLY Misinterpretations could result.

There is a lesson from God in this. IT is His point to show that ALL of His Word must be believed, without question. The fact that so many contradictory end time scenarios have been constructed is testimony to the fact that too many forgot, or didn't believe that Daniel was sealed.

Daniel's sealing also had the same ramifications to The Revelation of Jesus Christ. The words that state that Revelation was NOT to be sealed, is a way for God to refer back to the truth that Daniel WAS sealed, and the ability to understand the Revelation was itself awaiting Daniel's unsealing, because the Truths learned from Daniel are essential to understanding the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

[eschaton]

Do you mean God's word should be believed, or Ty's word should be believed?

[TyRockwell]

Do you mean God's word should be believed, or Ty's word should be believed?

God's Word. Are you thinking "sealed" means nothing?

[MegaHertz]

In his most recent post, Xcavator lists intepretations by Iraneaus,and Hippolytus, and other Second Century guessers, about who the Antichrist was or will be, and the time and nature of the tribulation and the Second Coming.

The anti-christ in Revelation would include the 10 men who are given Kingdoms after just one hour with the Beast from the Pit. Along with them would be the ones that follow them, the ones who are passing gifts back and forth while the two witnesses lay dead in the street. The other top spots for Satan's side are already taken, the Beast from the Pit and the False Prophet have more important roles. Consult enough verses and the anti-christ is the men that die at Christ's return, 2/3 of all mankind living at the time of the 7th trump.

These verses from Daniel:8:9-14 can be applied to events in the NT that are also are mentioned in Daniel:9:24-27. With Rome belonging to the brass any doctrine that says any part of the iron has been played out already is in error on multiple levels.

From the time of the early parts of the 70 weeks there were no holy men in Jerusalem, John the Baptist would qualify as being the first in a long dry-spell of Prophets sent by God and so would many other names mentioned in the whole of NT as having to deal with a foreign power having control of Jerusalem. Even then the Temple only had 7 years of 'visits' from messengers from God. Jesus on His first Passover visit in John and Stephen at some point after the cross. Messages in the Temple are never mentioned again even though the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem after the stoning.

Does the above hold true to Scripture as written or have I missed something?

[MegaHertz]

If people are trying to figure out some dates why not include some other information that is given in the NT. The time when John was called to begin preaching. Pilate was said to be Governor of Judea and that can be dated to 26AD. About 6 months after that Jesus was baptized and 40 days in the wilderness and about another month 'doing things' (Gospel of John) He ends up in Jerusalem for His 1st of 3 Passovers. The Passover at His death should have been a Friday, a nautical almanac would tell you what year after a Friday that was a full moon and it was at least 2 weeks after the equinox and the Barley could be made into fine flour.

If I remember correctly 30AD has such a Friday.

[MegaHertz]

"I agree with the general point Diz is making, about not knowing the exact time down to the second. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that one slight portion over a week [seven years] would count as a whole extra week. Give some consideration to this: that his first coming was similar to Jesus' Second Coming. They, like we, wouldn't know the day or the hour, but should know the season. That is, should, could, might, and possibly ought to know the season, since we are not in darkness. (1st Thess. 5:4-5)"

The 69th week was when John was called to begin preaching (start of the 70th week) and 3 1/2 later Jesus is the sacrifice that ends the time of blood being a part of any sacrifice that would be pleasing to God. That takes care of the whole 1st half of the 70 week and there is no place for abominations to exist except in the 2nd half of the week. The money changers would have been there, blood sacrifices would have continued and Stephen was killed for a speech he made in the Temple, all of those are abominations and all of those happened before Peter was given the vision that resulted in the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles as well as the 12 Tribes. The whole of the 70 weeks is over, some things that were established in that last week are still in effect.

Da:9:26:
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
but not for himself:
and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;
and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Jesus died 3 1/2 years after that 2nd block of time ended and it moves past the block of 1 week and then describes who is going to destroy the city and the Temple, that turns out to be Rome that has had an Apostle preaching about Jesus in that city before 70AD. All Gentiles belonged (but not gathered) to Jesus after that vision was given to Peter.
The destruction stays that way until Christ returns at the 7th trump at which time He builds the Temple that will be called a House of Prayer for the 1,000 years. The war being mentioned is the wrath that comes in the form of the vials.

Da:9:27:
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,
and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,
even until the consummation,
and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Might as well cover this also. At the beginning of this chapetr God is who is in control of covenants so this is God and the covenant about a Messiah is confirmed with Israel for 7 years. Mid-week is the cross and for a multitude of abominations over the next 3 1/2 years it was determined that it would be 'torn down, even though the actual destruction was 40 years away no Apostle or Disciple (like Stephen) is ever mentioned as preaching inside the Temple, in Jerusalem yes but not to the Temple leaders. That stays that way even during the 3 1/2 years the two Witnesses of Re:11 are preaching in Jerusalem. Their resurrection is pretty much when the consumation starts and it comes in the form of the vials of Re:16 that are poured out in one day.

Re:18:8:
Therefore shall her plagues come in one day,
death,
and mourning,
and famine;
and she shall be utterly burned with fire:
for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

The bad news is all of this happens in the brass kingdom so all things associated with the iron/clay have still not even started to unfold.

[TyRockwell]

The anti-christ in Revelation would include the 10 men who are given Kingdoms after just one hour with the Beast from the Pit.

First, I need to say that antichrists are not men, they are spirits, as John said in his epistles. He said the Antichrist was already present, but also, "many antichrists have come." Now, antichrists usually do act through men who are leaders in governments. Almost always, Christians' foes have been governments, kingdoms, or empires. In the verses you are referencing, Rev. 17:12-13, it says,

The 10 horns you saw are 10 kings, [not 'men'] who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour (a short time, or a season) will receive authority as kings along with [coinciding with] the beast.
They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.

It is an important point that the ten kings are not mere, or average men. In verse 14 you'll notice, these kings have a King. Jesus has all authority, and delegates it to Christians, who are kings in Christ. This is a present reality. And we are now taking our authority back from the beast we loosed. (The Government)

Along with them would be the ones that follow them, the ones who are passing gifts back and forth while the two witnesses lay dead in the street.

No, that's not right. Rev. 11:9-10 tells us MEN [ It doesn't say, 'kings' ] from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. They that dwell upon the land (or earth) [around Jerusalem] will gloat over them and celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live in the land (or, on the earth).

The other top spots for Satan's side are already taken, the Beast from the Pit and the False Prophet have more important roles. Consult enough verses and the anti-christ is the men that die at Christ's return, 2/3 of all mankind living at the time of the 7th trump.

Maybe you should consult more verses. Rev. doesn't say '2/3 of all mankind die at Christ's return.' Where did you get that?

During the 6th Trumpet, Rev. 9:15 and Rev. 9:18, a time that spans about 2000 years, 1/3 of the human race's time on earth, a time came when 200 million mounted troops were killed. There were approximately that number of people killed in the wars of the Twentieth Century.

These verses from Daniel:8:9-14 can be applied to events in the NT that are also are mentioned in Daniel:9:24-27. With Rome belonging to the brass any doctrine that says any part of the iron has been played out already is in error on multiple levels.

Nonsense. Daniel 8:9-14 has no reference within the NT. That chapter in Daniel covers the wars between Persia and Greece, and concludes with the Greeks, under Antiochus IV Epiphanes invading Israel and desecrating the temple and creating an abomination of desolation. The temple was rededicated in 165 BC after 2300 sacrifices had been missed.

From the time of the early parts of the 70 weeks there were no holy men in Jerusalem, John the Baptist would qualify as being the first in a long dry-spell of Prophets sent by God and so would many other names mentioned in the whole of NT as having to deal with a foreign power having control of Jerusalem. Even then the Temple only had 7 years of 'visits' from messengers from God. Jesus on His first Passover visit in John and Stephen at some point after the cross. Messages in the Temple are never mentioned again even though the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem after the stoning.

Does the above hold true to Scripture as written or have I missed something?

I can see a possibility of starting the 70th week with the prophesying of John the Baptist. But that would make John's declaration of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" as the mid-point of the 70th week. Interesting. However, the stuff about the stoning of Steven, and Paul preaching in Rome doesn't fit into the 70th week, at all.

[TyRockwell]

I'll get to your other two posts tomorrow.