What week?

[HisdaughterJen]

Well, guys, I'm a bit confused. I don't understand how Christ could have completed the 70 week decree in His coming and sacrifice prior to the events of the 70th week which appear to be about a bad guy taking away the daily sacrifice and causing an abomination of desolation.

The 70 weeks are for Israel to:

to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sin,
to make atonement for iniquity
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy
and to anoint the most holy place

while the events of the 70th week are for a bad guy to:

confirm a covenant for that final week with the many
cause sacrifice and oblation to cease
abomination of desolation
...all until his end.

Now, how does that line up with what Israel is supposed to do in that 70 week decree?

I see that Jesus is the one who enables Israel and Jerusalem to fulfill that decree but it doesn't happen BEFORE the events of the 70th week. It appears to happen AFTER.

In other words, how does Israel anoint the most holy place prior to the abomination that causes desolation?

How does Israel make an end to sin prior to the bad guy causing sacrifice to cease (because Israel was taught to make animal sacrifices for sin)?

How is Israel supposed to have brought in everlasting righteousness prior to the bad guy's stunts that are in the 70th week?

Furthermore, it is the full 70 weeks that are decreed for Israel to do all of that implying that it's not done until the 70 weeks are complete. That final week is a doozey!

If Christ is the "anointed one" that comes and is cut off after the 69 weeks, then the scenario that the 70 weeks are complete is invalid.

If Christ is not the "anointed one" that comes and is cut off after the 69 weeks, then who is the anointed one and why is he even mentioned?

It's clear that the final week is the 70th week, which naturally follows 69, and that shows a bad guy doing the same thing that is mentioned in chapter 8.

 

[gwynedd1]

Yes, if you use such a corrupt rendering of Daniel 9 you can come to all kinds of conclusions of course.

Holdon,

The Septuagint was created by 72 Jewish scholars and is still in use by the Eastern Orthodox church and seeing as it is a direct translation of ancient Hebrew to ancient Greek it is most useful whereas Greek was a much more wide spread language and thus is arguably more reliable than ancient Hebrew to modern Hebrew. Even disregarding that it is most useful as a cross reference to address any ambiguities.

 

[Natman]

Well, guys, I'm a bit confused. I don't understand how Christ could have completed the 70 week decree in His coming and sacrifice prior to the events of the 70th week which appear to be about a bad guy taking away the daily sacrifice and causing an abomination of desolation.

The 70 weeks are for Israel to:

to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sin,
to make atonement for iniquity
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy
and to anoint the most holy place

while the events of the 70th week are for a bad guy to:

confirm a covenant for that final week with the many
cause sacrifice and oblation to cease
abomination of desolation
...all until his end.

All of these events occurred AFTER the 69th week, which is therefore within the 70th week. Some things happened after the 70th week, but still fall into the realm of the prophesy because they were still AFTER the 69th week. Do you see the logic here?

Jesus is the one that confirms the covenant for the final week. Jesus allowed for the 3 1/2 years of His ministry, from baptism until His death (being cut off, with nothing), then another 3 1/2 years between His death and the martyring of Stephen for the message of the Kingdom of God and the Gospel to spread withing Israel. At that time, the message of the Kingdom and the Gospel went away from Israel and out to the Gentiles.

Also, Jesus' death and resurrection forever put an end to the need for Temple sacrifice. Jesus WAS the final sacrifice, one for many.

Finally, Jesus is the Prince (ruler) Who's people will come to destroy the city and the Temple.

As in all of the previous judgements that God poured out on nations in the OT, God (Jesus) uses a foriegn nation, in this case Rome, to pour out His judgement on Jerusalem, The Temple and the religious leaders who refused to acknowledge that Jesus was indeed their expected Messiah. And, as in prior judgements, this foriegn nation performs horrific things and goes so far as to dismantle and desicrate the Temple such that the Jews have not been able to offer sacrifices for almost 2000 years.

All of this is repeated by Jesus in the Olivette discourse and is fulfilled in 70AD.

In other words, how does Israel anoint the most holy place prior to the abomination that causes desolation?

If you had read my list of prophesies fulfilled earlier in this thread, (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41896484) you would see that it is not Israel that is annointing, nor is it a holy place, but God Who is annointing the Most Holy, who is Jesus Christ. (See Lk 4:13 and Acts 10:38)

How does Israel make an end to sin prior to the bad guy causing sacrifice to cease (because Israel was taught to make animal sacrifices for sin)?

It is not Israel who makes an end to sin, but Jesus Who's death put away sin. (See Heb 9:26 and Jn 1:29)

How is Israel supposed to have brought in everlasting righteousness prior to the bad guy's stunts that are in the 70th week?

It is not Israel, but Jesus who brings everlasting righteouness. (See Rom 5:17 and Isa 53:11).

Further, there is not a need for the "bad guys stunts" to occur before the 70th week is over, just that it must occur AFTER the 69th week, in this case 30 years AFTER the end of the 70th week.

Furthermore, it is the full 70 weeks that are decreed for Israel to do all of that implying that it's not done until the 70 weeks are complete. That final week is a doozey!

If Christ is the "anointed one" that comes and is cut off after the 69 weeks, then the scenario that the 70 weeks are complete is invalid.

Dan 9:24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy"

All of these things were completed within and before the end of the 70th week.

 

[Notrash]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]A good article on Layahe, Lindsey, and dispensational perspectives.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_62.html[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Mistaken Interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]To support the notion of two people with two destinies, dispendationalists appeal to several prophetic passages. The first and foremost of these is the seventy-week prophecy found in Daniel 9:24-27. Dispensationalists dissect the one prophecy contained in this passage into two distinct prophecies. The first, consists of 69 weeks of years which reach to the death of the Messiah and marks the termination of the Jewish dispensation on the day of Pentecost. The second consists of the seventieth week, which is separated by an intercalation of almost twenty centuries from the 69 weeks. This is supposed to be the dispensation of the Church which began at Pentecost and terminates at the Rapture. The Rapture ushers in the seventieth week, that is, the last seven years of the great Tribulation, during which major events are to take place: conversion of many Jews and unbelievers, the rise of the Antichrist, the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple, and the battle of Armageddon.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]This antichrist is supposed to be a Roman dictator who will rise out of the European Common Market. He will make a covenant with the Jews "for one week," that is, for the seven years of the seventieth week. This covenant is supposed to enable the Jews to rebuild their temple and to reinstitute their ancient sacrificial services. In the midst of this seven-year period ("half of the week"), however, the Roman antichrist will allegedly break the covenant; he "shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease," and will take "his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thess 2:4). By these acts he will bring about "the abominations" mentioned by Daniel (9:27) and referred to by Christ ("desolating sacrilege"—Matt 24:15-16).[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Unwarranted Time-Gap. This fanciful interpretation suffers from three major flaws. First, it breaks the unity of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy by introducing a time gap of almost twenty centuries between the sixty-nine weeks and seventieth week. Nowhere does Gabriel imply a gap among the three periods constituting the seventy weeks: seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week. These three time units are presented as a continuous, consecutive and unbreakable unity as indicated by the fact that they are first given in verse 24 as one basic period of "seventy weeks."[/SIZE][/FONT]

HEBREW PARALLELISM
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Repetition with Elaboration. The second weakness is the failure to recognize the Hebrew stylistic pattern of "repetition with elaboration" in Daniel 9:24-27.13 Recent studies have shown that the verbal correspondence existing between verses 26 and 27 makes the latter verse an elaboration of the former. The pattern of Messiah versus Destroyer found in verse 26 is repeated as Messiah versus Desolator in verse 27. The latter verse, however, adds significant information. The Messiah who in verse 26 is simply "cut off," in verse 27 "shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease."14 Both of these acts were fulfilled by Christ when He confirmed God’s covenant by instituting the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26:28) and when He brought to an end the validity of the sacrificial system through the rending asunder of the curtain of the temple at the time of His death (Matt 27:51; cf. Heb 10:9).[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]The desolator, who in verse 26 destroys the city and the temple, comes in verse 27 "upon the wing of abominations" to make "desolate." By this language is described the complete destruction of the temple by the Roman General Titus in A. D. 70. Thus the Hebrew parallelism between verses 26 and 27 suggests that the Desolator of verse 27 is not an Endtime Roman dictator who will arise out of the European Common Market and destroy the tribulation temple, but rather, he is the same Roman General Titus alluded to in verse 26 who did destroy Jerusalem and its temple in A. D. 70. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Unfortunately, dispensationalists have divided one prophecy into two, thereby transforming a past Roman Prince who destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple into a future antichrist who is supposed to desecrate and destroy a literal temple that at present does not even exist. More important still, by this division dispensationalists make Christ into an antichrist, by attributing the work of Christ in terminating the sacrificial system at His death, to an endtime Antichrist who is to stop the sacrificial system at the Jerusalem Temple—a Temple that the Jews are supposed to build during the tribulation.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Christ’s Interpretation of Daniel 9:27. The third weakness of the dispensationalist interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is its disregard for Jesus’ application of Daniel’s desolating abomination to His own immediate future. Christ’s prediction regarding "the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel" (Matt 24:15) is clearly paraphrased by Luke as "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20). This paraphrase was made by Luke, as most scholars recognize, because he was writing for Greek readers who would not understand the meaning of the Jewish expression "the desolating sacrilege" used by Christ.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Although Christ’s prediction could have a secondary application to the appearance of an Endtime antichrist, its primary reference is clearly to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army. Furthermore, while Christ predicted the destruction of the temple at great length, He never hinted at its rebuilding before or after His Second Advent.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]The above considerations suffice to show that the prophecies of Daniel 9:24-27 and Matthew 24:15-16 offer no support to the notion of two people with two destinies. The attempt to differentiate between the Jewish dispensation and the Christian dispensation, by detaching the seventieth week of Daniel 9:27 from the previous sixty nine, results in the perversion of Christ’s atoning sacrifice "which caused sacrifice and offering to cease" (Dan 9:27) when he died on the Cross (Matt 27:51), into the destructive activity of an alleged endtime Antichrist who is supposed to terminate the Jewish sacrificial system at a future Jerusalem Temple, which at present does not exist.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Notrash]

hmmm.
It was a decree for Daniels people ,that finally ,atonement and redemption would be realised.
Jeremiah was given a time frame of 70 years, and daniel knew it was time for it to end.
He is given 70 week timeframe in which Messiah would bring in this salvation.
If the gospel was to offered to Gentiles, then Jesus would have to complete this redemption ,and he did.

They rejected this atonement and allows us to be grafted in.
70 weeks were determined for all those points in the decree and were fulfilled by his ressurection.

What if the Jews accepted christ at this time?
we would say that the 70 weeks are finished, as Jesus won redemption for them.

Its all their waiting for them, as Jesus fulfilled the decree.

I apreciate your perspectives. Just wanted to call your attention to the idea that 'gentiles' or the nations are not grafted into judaism, but into the new creation along with believing jews. They have not ALL disbelieved. Many thousands of jews did believe. And it's going out to the 'nations' was the plan from the very beginning. Gal 3:8. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

 

[jeffweeder]

I apreciate your perspectives. Just wanted to call your attention to the idea that 'gentiles' or the nations are not grafted into judaism, but into the new creation along with believing jews

I absolutely agree, and i really enjoy your posts on this matter.
i wasnt implying that Judaism was the way, but the life ,death,ressurection of Christ was the way. This was the work that the father gave him to do.....to bring in atonement and everlasting righteousness----the gospel message,.
In John 17, Jesus is confident that he has accomplished these things.

I support the idea that within the time decreed ( 70 weeks ), Jesus made all of what Gabriel said into reality.

And this message of the decreed Messiah Jesus will go into all the world by his own word, every living culture will know about it, and at Gods discretion, the end will come.

 

[holdon]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]A good article on Layahe, Lindsey, and dispensational perspectives.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_62.html[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Mistaken Interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]To support the notion of two people with two destinies, dispendationalists appeal to several prophetic passages. The first and foremost of these is the seventy-week prophecy found in Daniel 9:24-27. Dispensationalists dissect the one prophecy contained in this passage into two distinct prophecies. The first, consists of 69 weeks of years which reach to the death of the Messiah and marks the termination of the Jewish dispensation on the day of Pentecost. The second consists of the seventieth week, which is separated by an intercalation of almost twenty centuries from the 69 weeks. This is supposed to be the dispensation of the Church which began at Pentecost and terminates at the Rapture. The Rapture ushers in the seventieth week, that is, the last seven years of the great Tribulation, during which major events are to take place: conversion of many Jews and unbelievers, the rise of the Antichrist, the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple, and the battle of Armageddon.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]This antichrist is supposed to be a Roman dictator who will rise out of the European Common Market. He will make a covenant with the Jews "for one week," that is, for the seven years of the seventieth week. This covenant is supposed to enable the Jews to rebuild their temple and to reinstitute their ancient sacrificial services. In the midst of this seven-year period ("half of the week"), however, the Roman antichrist will allegedly break the covenant; he "shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease," and will take "his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thess 2:4). By these acts he will bring about "the abominations" mentioned by Daniel (9:27) and referred to by Christ ("desolating sacrilege"—Matt 24:15-16).[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Unwarranted Time-Gap. This fanciful interpretation suffers from three major flaws. First, it breaks the unity of Daniel’s seventy-week prophecy by introducing a time gap of almost twenty centuries between the sixty-nine weeks and seventieth week. Nowhere does Gabriel imply a gap among the three periods constituting the seventy weeks: seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week. These three time units are presented as a continuous, consecutive and unbreakable unity as indicated by the fact that they are first given in verse 24 as one basic period of "seventy weeks."[/SIZE][/FONT]

HEBREW PARALLELISM
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Repetition with Elaboration. The second weakness is the failure to recognize the Hebrew stylistic pattern of "repetition with elaboration" in Daniel 9:24-27.13 Recent studies have shown that the verbal correspondence existing between verses 26 and 27 makes the latter verse an elaboration of the former. The pattern of Messiah versus Destroyer found in verse 26 is repeated as Messiah versus Desolator in verse 27. The latter verse, however, adds significant information. The Messiah who in verse 26 is simply "cut off," in verse 27 "shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease."14 Both of these acts were fulfilled by Christ when He confirmed God’s covenant by instituting the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26:28) and when He brought to an end the validity of the sacrificial system through the rending asunder of the curtain of the temple at the time of His death (Matt 27:51; cf. Heb 10:9).[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]The desolator, who in verse 26 destroys the city and the temple, comes in verse 27 "upon the wing of abominations" to make "desolate." By this language is described the complete destruction of the temple by the Roman General Titus in A. D. 70. Thus the Hebrew parallelism between verses 26 and 27 suggests that the Desolator of verse 27 is not an Endtime Roman dictator who will arise out of the European Common Market and destroy the tribulation temple, but rather, he is the same Roman General Titus alluded to in verse 26 who did destroy Jerusalem and its temple in A. D. 70. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Unfortunately, dispensationalists have divided one prophecy into two, thereby transforming a past Roman Prince who destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple into a future antichrist who is supposed to desecrate and destroy a literal temple that at present does not even exist. More important still, by this division dispensationalists make Christ into an antichrist, by attributing the work of Christ in terminating the sacrificial system at His death, to an endtime Antichrist who is to stop the sacrificial system at the Jerusalem Temple—a Temple that the Jews are supposed to build during the tribulation.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Christ’s Interpretation of Daniel 9:27. The third weakness of the dispensationalist interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is its disregard for Jesus’ application of Daniel’s desolating abomination to His own immediate future. Christ’s prediction regarding "the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel" (Matt 24:15) is clearly paraphrased by Luke as "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20). This paraphrase was made by Luke, as most scholars recognize, because he was writing for Greek readers who would not understand the meaning of the Jewish expression "the desolating sacrilege" used by Christ.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]Although Christ’s prediction could have a secondary application to the appearance of an Endtime antichrist, its primary reference is clearly to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army. Furthermore, while Christ predicted the destruction of the temple at great length, He never hinted at its rebuilding before or after His Second Advent.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, Arial][SIZE=-1]The above considerations suffice to show that the prophecies of Daniel 9:24-27 and Matthew 24:15-16 offer no support to the notion of two people with two destinies. The attempt to differentiate between the Jewish dispensation and the Christian dispensation, by detaching the seventieth week of Daniel 9:27 from the previous sixty nine, results in the perversion of Christ’s atoning sacrifice "which caused sacrifice and offering to cease" (Dan 9:27) when he died on the Cross (Matt 27:51), into the destructive activity of an alleged endtime Antichrist who is supposed to terminate the Jewish sacrificial system at a future Jerusalem Temple, which at present does not exist.[/SIZE][/FONT]

This is just a bunch of rubbish. It is all mixed up. "abomination of desolation" is "Jerusalem surrounded by armies"???? My goodness the latitude these opponents of Scripture take to justify their opinions. Doesn't it say "abomination standing in the holy place" and now it must mean: "abomination surrounding the holy place"????

And the prince who shall come of Daniel 9:27 is not the Messiah. The Messiah was just cut off in the previous verse. But it is the prince of the people who destroy the city and sanctuary in vs. 26: the Romans.

 

[Markea]

And the prince who shall come of Daniel 9:27 is not the Messiah. The Messiah was just cut off in the previous verse. But it is the prince of the people who destroy the city and sanctuary in vs. 26: the Romans.

I can't even begin to imagine why some folks would suggest that the prince is the Messiah, within this context.. although it's at the point now where nothing suprises me anymore..

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Yeah, and nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that the scenario of 9:27 is seen in the previous chapter:

Dan 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.


the above scenario is also mentioned here:

Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Dan 8:12 And an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
Dan 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [saint] which spake, How long [shall be] the vision [concerning] the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


and this:

Dan 12:11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
Dan 12:12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.


It is not Jesus that is taking away the sacrifice or causing the abomination of desolation. It is "the prince that shall come".

 

[gwynedd1]

This is just a bunch of rubbish. It is all mixed up. "abomination of desolation" is "Jerusalem surrounded by armies"???? My goodness the latitude these opponents of Scripture take to justify their opinions. Doesn't it say "abomination standing in the holy place" and now it must mean: "abomination surrounding the holy place"????

And the prince who shall come of Daniel 9:27 is not the Messiah. The Messiah was just cut off in the previous verse. But it is the prince of the people who destroy the city and sanctuary in vs. 26: the Romans.

Hello Holdon,

I agree with you here on every point The Romans do not appear to be the abomination and when the Romans were at the temple the country was already laid waste and not fair warning. The Roman's did desolate. This is the identical pattern of the Babylonian captivity where the abomination occurred and the Babylonians destroyed the defiled sanctuary.

 

[gwynedd1]

I can't even begin to imagine why some folks would suggest that the prince is the Messiah, within this context.. although it's at the point now where nothing suprises me anymore..

Hello Markea,

I agree. Most translations do a good job of removing the ambiguity. This is a New Revised Standard.

26After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

It is true that God did allow this or will allow it if you are a futurist. God is cleansing the sanctuary but though Rome.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Yeah, and nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that the scenario of 9:27 is seen in the previous chapter:

Dan 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.


the above scenario is also mentioned here:

Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Dan 8:12 And an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
Dan 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [saint] which spake, How long [shall be] the vision [concerning] the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


and this:

Dan 12:11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
Dan 12:12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.


It is not Jesus that is taking away the sacrifice or causing the abomination of desolation. It is "the prince that shall come".

People are still ignoring the above scriptures....

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Ok.

So, why did the angel mention this "anointed one" and divided time (the weeks) by not only the rebuilding of the temple but by his coming and being cut off? It would seem that would mean he's pretty important.

Hi again Jen: Ofcourse an anointed has to be an important person in history, yet that does not mean it has to be Yeshua! As i explained on my previous post, the Hebrew word Chathak means determined not divided. I would love to know your reasoning though; how exactly do you calculate this event? I've never seen nothing in Daniel that would even imply that we should add subtract multiply and divide time. Yet i've seen lots of people conjecturing in that manner! When we conjecture in such manner everyones view points regardless of how extreme it may be becomes valid. Wouldn't you agree?

And, I agree that Daniel 8 and 9:27 are speaking of the same event...an evil guy causing sacrifices to cease and desolation.

How do we know that this is either in the past or yet future? I think it's yet future.

Dan 8:10 And it waxed great, [even] to the host of heaven; and it cast down [some] of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Dan 8:12 And an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
Dan 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [saint] which spake, How long [shall be] the vision [concerning] the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
Dan 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


A seven year week and 2300 days are pretty close to being the same, in my opinion.

It also lines up with what we know of the "anti-christ" from 2 Thess 2 and Revelation and even Daniel 11.

We pretty much agree on most things i would say. The Hebrew word Yom for day does not appear in Daniel 8:14. It is not days that are being referenced but the Tamid; the continual daily sacrifices in the Temple, that is the evenings and the morning sacrifices.

 

[YeshuamySalvation]

Hello YeshuamySalvation,

This is a case of being technically correct but contextually off the mark. It is true that what is stated is anointed one. Now to give some idea as to the importance of context of a word like "king" one might conjure up all sorts of images of majesty unless I say burger as in Burger King. Quite a step down due to context.

This was the context.

Daniel 9
An anointed one in Greek is Christ. In Greek it was Jesus the anointed. Jesus was anointed to fulfill all righteousness.

The Greek is not relevant considering the fact that the Torah and Tanak were not originally written in Greek! No, Christos in the Greek means anointed one!

Also I believe God put an end to the sacrifice. The abomination could only come from Jews. God did not pay any heed nor would allow the nations to defile his sanctuary when Israel was faithful. The abomination could only happen from Israel and the nations were sent to destroy the abomination.

Yes we suffered the consequences for our sins thus it was Judgement what we recieved.

 

[Notrash]

This is just a bunch of rubbish. It is all mixed up. "abomination of desolation" is "Jerusalem surrounded by armies"???? My goodness the latitude these opponents of Scripture take to justify their opinions. Doesn't it say "abomination standing in the holy place" and now it must mean: "abomination surrounding the holy place"????

And the prince who shall come of Daniel 9:27 is not the Messiah. The Messiah was just cut off in the previous verse. But it is the prince of the people who destroy the city and sanctuary in vs. 26: the Romans.

I agree there is room for disagreement with the writers assumption that luke "ad-libbed" the abomination of desolation standing in or around the holy place, but either occurance can be traced to have happened when the armies first came to Jerusalem and then turned back or when various happenings in the "holy place" occured.
You were asked previously, what the abomination of desolation would be like, to which you replied that you didnt' know. But Matt 24:15 indicates that the original readers would see and understand this occurance. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand


You say that the prince of vs 27 is not the Messiah. A prince is not mentioned in vs 27. But I can see that if you read chronologically, you can interpret that application. However 100 or more scholars would disagree with you, just as well as 100 or more scholars would agree. I would invite you to learn some of the rythms of Hebrew Parallelism (as was mentioned before) This verse is so very obviously to me to be a second stanza of vs 26 with information added to vs 26 in a layered manner.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letter=P

http://www.crivoice.org/parallel.html

http://www.bibles.com/absport/news/item.php?id=104
Poetry & Songs:
This is a large category that includes different forms. Poetry is used especially in Psalms, Job, and the Song of Songs. But poetry can be found in many books of the Bible. Some of the poems in the Bible are examples of old hymns or songs. Many of the Psalms were meant for use in worship and prayer. The speeches of the prophets include poetic forms of language. Translating Hebrew poetry into English is not simple, and sometimes special techniques that are effective in the original language cannot be meaningfully carried over into English. One important feature of Hebrew poetry is the repeating of a single idea in two similar but different ways. This is called "parallelism" and an example is Ps 22.9,10. Some other examples of poetry in the Old Testament are Exod 15.1-18; Job 22.1-17; Ps 23; Isa 5.1-7; and John 2.2-9. Poetry is also used in the New Testament. Some examples are Luke 1.46-55; Phil 2.6-11; Rev 15.3,4.


The writer of the 'biblical perspectives' articl also had some good insights about the church being the 'new' or continuation of "Israel" in the later paragraphs fo the article.

Dan 9 is very key to futurist exchatology.

NR.

 

[jeffweeder]

This is just a bunch of rubbish. It is all mixed up. "abomination of desolation" is "Jerusalem surrounded by armies"???? My goodness the latitude these opponents of Scripture take to justify their opinions. Doesn't it say "abomination standing in the holy place" and now it must mean: "abomination surrounding the holy place"????

OPPONENTS OF SCRIPTURE.......
Come on Holdon its not neccessary you do that.

It can be shown from scripture that the "Abomination" is the equivalent of armies surrounding Jerusalem

MATT 24
"Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
17 "Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house.
18 "Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.
19 "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
20 "But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.
21 "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.
22 "Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

LUKE 21

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognise that her desolation is near.
21 "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
23 "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;
24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

I can't even begin to imagine why some folks would suggest that the prince is the Messiah, within this context..

I see the text speaking of 2 figures, either messiah or the desolater, so ive coloured it in to highlight what i mean.

"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.


27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

 

[gwynedd1]

The Greek is not relevant considering the fact that the Torah and Tanak were not originally written in Greek! No, Christos in the Greek means anointed one!

Hello YeshuamySalvation,

Thanks, but that is what I just said. Christ means annointed in Greek thus all Christ really meant was annointed one.

Yes we suffered the consequences for our sins thus it was Judgement what we recieved.

Actually we did not suffer for our sins. Some did but were given the opportunity of forgiveness.

Roman's 4

7‘Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.’

 

[holdon]

I agree there is room for disagreement with the writers assumption that luke "ad-libbed" the abomination of desolation standing in or around the holy place, but either occurance can be traced to have happened when the armies first came to Jerusalem and then turned back or when various happenings in the "holy place" occured.

First you acknowledge the writer's "ad-lib" twist on Luke and yet you say: "either occurence can be traced to have happened". I don't understand.

You were asked previously, what the abomination of desolation would be like, to which you replied that you didnt' know. But Matt 24:15 indicates that the original readers would see and understand this occurance. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Well, we have certainly some good hints as to what the abomination of desolation is, (an image or statue of the beast comes to mind Rev 13:14,15)), but I don't know exactly what that looks like. And like you say: the readers of Matthew's gospel should pay attention: not so much the disciples around Jesus, but the readers of Matthew's gospel. It was meant for a later time and date.

You say that the prince of vs 27 is not the Messiah. A prince is not mentioned in vs 27. But I can see that if you read chronologically, you can interpret that application. However 100 or more scholars would disagree with you, just as well as 100 or more scholars would agree. I would invite you to learn some of the rythms of Hebrew Parallelism (as was mentioned before) This verse is so very obviously to me to be a second stanza of vs 26 with information added to vs 26 in a layered manner.

If you take the whole prophecy of Daniel 9 you see that it is build up (chrono)logically. There is no trace of poetry or parallelism in the preceding verses. I therefore take the text exactly as it reads: the "he" of verse 27 refers to the last mentioned person preceding: the prince of the people who would destroy the city and sanctuary, which people I take to be the Romans in 70AD. And it is clear that that prince of that people would come after those destructions: it is not Titus, but a later figure. In addition, Titus never made or confirmed an agreement with the Jews, but this coming prince will.

We see several events being related in the chronological order after the 69th week: Messiah cut off; city and sanctuary destroyed; and wars until the end.
So, even if Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week (at the earliest) the 69th week would be ending somewhere around 30AD. Now, the other event that can be dated: the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which happened in 70AD would ALSO happen after the 69th week. This event alone is some 40 years from the end of the 69th week and would put us in the 67th week if the chronology were continuous. We know that that cannot be. Therefore we know without speculation that there is a gap in the chronological order between the 69th and the 70th week.
The last week then is not only of a later date for sure than 70AD, but after a period of wars (Jerusalem is trampled by the nations during that time) till the end: the end of the 70 weeks.
The Roman prince has an agreement with the unbelieving Jews, the abomination of desolation will be set up by his counterpart (Antichrist = the king of the Jews) at that time and tribulation and desolation follow. Till the end: Christ returns, does battle against His enemies and the false prophet (Antichrist) and the beast (head of the Roman Empire) are thrown into the lake of fire. This was what Daniel hoped for: the end of the beastly empires; the elect being brought back into their land; Messiah on the throne of David.

 

[holdon]

OPPONENTS OF SCRIPTURE.......
Come on Holdon its not neccessary you do that.

It can be shown from scripture that the "Abomination" is the equivalent of armies surrounding Jerusalem

You haven't shown that at all. The verses you cite refer to two different events.

 

[gwynedd1]

OPPONENTS OF SCRIPTURE.......
Come on Holdon its not neccessary you do that.

It can be shown from scripture that the "Abomination" is the equivalent of armies surrounding Jerusalem

Hello jeffweeder,

I think Holdon is right on this one. How do surrounding armies constituent a temple breach? Also to be consistent it was typically Israel that caused abominations and God sent in the Gentiles to cleanse it by destroying it.