What week?

[Natman]

Yeah, I think Natman mistyped 62nd week for 70th week or something. His other comments align with the 70 continuous week fulfillment followed by the cause/effect of the rejection of the covenant in 66-73 AD.

Natman will probably clarify after the holidays.

I was quoting Daniel.

Dan 9:26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off..."

In actuality, these events occurred after the 69th week (7 weeks + 62 weeks), meaning, starting at the 70th week.

I am saying that there is absolutely no gap between the 69th and 70th week.

 

[holdon]

I was quoting Daniel.

Dan 9:26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off..."

In actuality, these events occurred after the 69th week (7 weeks + 62 weeks), meaning, starting at the 70th week.

I am saying that there is absolutely no gap between the 69th and 70th week.

Well if Messiah is cut off let's say 30AD. Then per your no-gap theory the end of the 70 weeks is in 37AD. There are no events in that period 30 - 37AD that can attributed to Daniel 9:27. No confirmation of any covenant by the Romans. No cessation of sacrifices or oblations. No desolator. No abomination of desolation.

On the other hand, the events that Daniel said would happen AFTER 62 + 7 =69 weeks are:

1. Messiah cut off.
2. City and sanctuary destroyed.
3. Wars until the end.

Since Daniel did not say that these would happen after the 70 weeks, but rather after 69 weeks, we have to assume that they happen before or at best in the 70th week.

However, the coming prince of the people that would destroy the city and sanctuary (that is the head of the Romans AFTER the destruction) enters the scene only in the 70th week: see verse 27. He is the one confirming a covenant with the many in the last week.
This 70th week is therefore later than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

 

[Notrash]

I was quoting Daniel.

Dan 9:26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off..."

In actuality, these events occurred after the 69th week (7 weeks + 62 weeks), meaning, starting at the 70th week.

I am saying that there is absolutely no gap between the 69th and 70th week.

Were' agreed,
This is where the confusion took place with Holdon.

The key phrase appears to be "after the sixty-two sevens". Many assume that ALL of the events MUST occur WITHIN the seventieth seven. However, it is also true to say that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred AFTER the sixty-two sevens, even though it was some forty years AFTER the sixty-two sevens.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here is word for word translation of it from a Hebrew interlinear.
There are 2 Jerusalems, the one above and the one below. Which one are you of?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Daniel 9:25 And-you-shall-know, and-you-shall-be-prudent from to-go-forth-of a-word to-turn-back and-to-build Y@ruwshalaim, til-an-annointed-one/04899 mashiyach, a-prince/05057 nagiyd, weeks/07620 shabuwa` seven/07651 sheba`,
And-weeks/07620 shabuwa` sixty and-two, she-shall-return and-she-is-built a-street and-sharp/gold/diligent/02742 charuwts and-in-anquish-of the-times.

Daniel 9:26 And-after the-weeks/07620 shabuwa`, sixty and-two, he-shall-be-cut-off/03772 karath,an-annointed-one/04899 mashiyach, and-is-nothing to-him.
And-the-city, and-the-holy he-shall-ruin, a-people-of a prince, the-one-coming.
And-end-of-him in-overflow and-till end-of war being-decided desolations.

Daniel 9:27 And-he-shall-be-strong-of/01396 gabar a-Covenant/01285 b@riyth to-many, a-week/07620 shabuwa`, one/0259 'echad.
And-half-of/02677 chetsiy the-week/07620 shabuwa` he-shall-cause-to-cease/07673 shabath a-sacrifice/02077 zebach and-an-offering/04503 minchah.
And-on a-wing/03671 kanaph, abominations/08251 shiqquwts, one-making-desolate/08074 shamem.
And-unto a-finish/03617 kalah and-being-decided/02782 charats she-shall-be-poured-forth/05413 nathak on desolation/08074 shamem.


Revelation 11:1 And was given to me a reed like a rod/staff saying, "Be ye arousing! and Measure ye! the sanctuary of the God, and the altar, and those worshipping in it;
2 And the court, the without of the sanctuary, be ye casting out! out-side, and thou mayest not be measuring her, that she was given to the nations, and the city, the holy, they shall be trampling forty two months;

 

[Natman]

Well if Messiah is cut off let's say 30AD. Then per your no-gap theory the end of the 70 weeks is in 37AD. There are no events in that period 30 - 37AD that can attributed to Daniel 9:27. No confirmation of any covenant by the Romans. No cessation of sacrifices or oblations.

That is because the covenant was not between confirmed by the Romans. The covenant was between Jesus and the Jews. Jesus ministry was exclusively to the Jews. He was crucified (cut off) after about 3.5 years. Then the Gospel continued to go exclusively to the Jews for another 3.5 years before it was to go out to the Gentiles.

No desolator. No abomination of desolation.

On the other hand, the events that Daniel said would happen AFTER 62 + 7 =69 weeks are:

1. Messiah cut off.
2. City and sanctuary destroyed.
3. Wars until the end.

Since Daniel did not say that these would happen after the 70 weeks, but rather after 69 weeks, we have to assume that they happen before or at best in the 70th week.

Daniel did not have to state that anything would take place after the 70th week. All he said was that these things would happen after the 69th week, which it all did. Even though some things such as the destruction of Jerusalem occured some 40 years after the 69th week, it is still correct to state that they would occur "after the 69th week".

 

[gwynedd1]

That is because the covenant was not between confirmed by the Romans. The covenant was between Jesus and the Jews. Jesus ministry was exclusively to the Jews. He was crucified (cut off) after about 3.5 years. Then the Gospel continued to go exclusively to the Jews for another 3.5 years before it was to go out to the Gentiles.



Daniel did not have to state that anything would take place after the 70th week. All he said was that these things would happen after the 69th week, which it all did. Even though some things such as the destruction of Jerusalem occured some 40 years after the 69th week, it is still correct to state that they would occur "after the 69th week".

Hello Natman,


Absolutely correct.

A man will come on Sunday and I will eat with him once. If he stayed for a week, when did I eat with him?

I do not even think it was a reference to desolations. The 70 weeks was outlined here.

Daniel 9

24 ‘Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.*

There is no mention of judgment.

What follows is details.

Daniel 9:26

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.Its* end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed

It is ambiguous especially in translation to assume that 69 weeks even refers to the army that will come.


Anything else is a false prophesy.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

That is because the covenant was not between confirmed by the Romans. The covenant was between Jesus and the Jews. Jesus ministry was exclusively to the Jews. He was crucified (cut off) after about 3.5 years. Then the Gospel continued to go exclusively to the Jews for another 3.5 years before it was to go out to the Gentiles.



Daniel did not have to state that anything would take place after the 70th week. All he said was that these things would happen after the 69th week, which it all did. Even though some things such as the destruction of Jerusalem occured some 40 years after the 69th week, it is still correct to state that they would occur "after the 69th week".

Well said!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[holdon]

That is because the covenant was not between confirmed by the Romans. The covenant was between Jesus and the Jews. Jesus ministry was exclusively to the Jews. He was crucified (cut off) after about 3.5 years. Then the Gospel continued to go exclusively to the Jews for another 3.5 years before it was to go out to the Gentiles.

Please tell us what covenant Jesus confirmed with the Jews? And now you have Messiah cut off in the 70th week? And maybe you have the abomination of desolation at that time too? And you have absolutely no proof whatsoever for the supposed 3.5 years before the Gospel was going to the Gentiles.... If you do, please demonstrate. Strange stuff you dream up here.

Daniel did not have to state that anything would take place after the 70th week. All he said was that these things would happen after the 69th week, which it all did. Even though some things such as the destruction of Jerusalem occured some 40 years after the 69th week, it is still correct to state that they would occur "after the 69th week".

Like if that makes a lot of sense: "hey it happens after the 69 weeks, but actually it's after the 70th week". And why was that part of the 70 week prophecy in the first place then? Who is the people that destroyed the temple and Jerusalem?

 

[gwynedd1]

Please tell us what covenant Jesus confirmed with the Jews? And now you have Messiah cut off in the 70th week? And maybe you have the abomination of desolation at that time too? And you have absolutely no proof whatsoever for the supposed 3.5 years before the Gospel was going to the Gentiles.... If you do, please demonstrate. Strange stuff you dream up here.

Like if that makes a lot of sense: "hey it happens after the 69 weeks, but actually it's after the 70th week". And why was that part of the 70 week prophecy in the first place then? Who is the people that destroyed the temple and Jerusalem?

Holdon,

Your time line for Acts 1-9 please.

 

[holdon]

Holdon,

Your time line for Acts 1-9 please.

Acts 1 40 days after Jesus' death
Acts 2 50 days after Jesus' death
Acts 3 within 1 year after J's death
Acts 4 same
Acts 5 same
Acts 6 first part same
Acts 7 within 2 years after J's death
Acts 8 same
Acts 9 same

 

[HisdaughterJen]

There was no covenant confirmed between Jesus and the Jews ever. They, as a people, rejected Him and handed him over to be crucified.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

There was no covenant confirmed between Jesus and the Jews ever. They, as a people, rejected Him and handed him over to be crucified.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The difference is WAS and WILL.

They were saying that the "covenant with the many for one week" was the New Testament Covenant with the Jews for 7 years. There WAS never a covenant between Jesus and the Jews, as a people, for seven years. I never said that there never WILL be and it'll be for A LOT longer than seven years.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

The difference is WAS and WILL.

They were saying that the "covenant with the many for one week" was the New Testament Covenant with the Jews for 7 years. There WAS never a covenant between Jesus and the Jews, as a people, for seven years. I never said that there never WILL be and it'll be for A LOT longer than seven years.

The 7 year period is to length of time the covenant is confirmed for. That is the length of time the Jews are given to accept that covenant. After that time period the covenant promise was then open to all men by adoption hence the preaching of the gospels to the gentiles. That is why Jesus told his disciples to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

The 7 year period is to length of time the covenant is confirmed for. That is the length of time the Jews are given to accept that covenant. After that time period the covenant promise was then open to all men by adoption hence the preaching of the gospels to the gentiles. That is why Jesus told his disciples to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

There was no covenant confirmed by anyone at that time. Did all parties agree to it? NO

In order to have a part of the New Covenant, you have to accept it, believe in it.

 

[gwynedd1]

There was no covenant confirmed by anyone at that time. Did all parties agree to it? NO

In order to have a part of the New Covenant, you have to accept it, believe in it.

Hello HisdaughterJen,


And that would mean the covenant of Abraham is not confirmed. As we can see there is a provision to cut off from the people. The same with the Mosaic Covenant as described in Leviticus.


Genesis 17

Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. 13Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.’

Establishing a covenant has nothing to do with 100% acceptance of everyone.

Acts shows plenty of Israelites accepting the Covenant.

Luke 22

This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.*

When is does not mean is anymore then we need not bother with the rest.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

People, you have to accept it in order to be under it.

Did Abraham accept God's covenant with him? YES
Did Moses accept God's covenant? YES
Did Israel accept the New Covenant? NO

To say that they did is like saying...you accept a Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs just because they rang your doorbell. It's rediculous!

 

[gwynedd1]

People, you have to accept it in order to be under it.

Did Abraham accept God's covenant with him? YES
Did Moses accept God's covenant? YES
Did Israel accept the New Covenant? NO

To say that they did is like saying...you accept a Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs just because they rang your doorbell. It's rediculous!

HisdaughterJen,


Yes on point 3.


Acts 2

36Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah,* this Jesus whom you crucified.’ The First Converts

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, ‘Brothers,* what should we do?’ 38Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ 40And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’ 41So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. 42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Acts 4

32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

Acts 6

The word of God continued to spread; the number of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

HisdaughterJen,


Yes on point 3.


Acts 2



Acts 4



Acts 6

Your point?

Israel, as a nation, did not accept the New Covenant and still don't. They will, though.

 

[Natman]

Your point?

Israel, as a nation, did not accept the New Covenant and still don't. They will, though.

None of the covenants were ever to Israel "the nation". They were always to Israel, God's Chosen People, otherwise referred to as the "remnant". This is confirmed in Romans 9:1-8

"I speak the truth in Christ-I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit- I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring."
​

Restated in Galatians 3:16-18

“The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.”
​

Recapitulated in Galations 3:28-29

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
​

Also, covenants from God do not require the affirmation of both parties. They are simply handed down from God. This is particularl evident in the new covenant in Christ's blood in that there is nothing more we can add. Jesus did it all.