3,5 years?

[DavidPT]

The Hebrew word achar (after) always means after. As in Monday comes after Sunday, June after May, etc etc etc. Daniel 9:26 makes it clear the Messiah was cut off after the 69th week, and we know that it was probably in the middle of the week that Messiah was crucified.

In another post I just made to you, I indicated that the gap might be in the middle of the 70th week rather than where I have been typically taking it to mean, that being between the 69th and 70th week. Which could mean that Christ can be meant per the first half of the 70th week. I'm still not entirely certain where to insert the gap, but what I am certain of, there is a gap in the 70 weeks somewhere, and that is because everything recorded in verse 27 involves the 70th week. Therefore, regardless how one interprets it, it is impossible to interpret it without it involving a gap, once again, being because verse 27, all of it, is involving the 70th week.

 

[GodLovesCats]

What does 70 weeks have to do with 3.5 years?

 

[DavidPT]

What does 70 weeks have to do with 3.5 years?

The 70th week involves 7 years and in the middle of it something significant happens, thus 3.5 years being involved. Then there is another 3.5 years involved after that, except some interpreters insist nothing in verse 27 is involving the remaining 3.5 years. I disagree with those interpreters and so does the text recorded in verse 27.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The 70th week involves 7 years and in the middle of it something significant happens, thus 3.5 years being involved. Then there is another 3.5 years involved after that, except some interpreters insist nothing in verse 27 is involving the remaining 3.5 years. I disagree with those interpreters and so does the text recorded in verse 27.

We all know 70 weeks =/= 7 years, so Daniel 9:27 obviously can't be linked to that time period. Where is a prediction Jesus was going to be crucified halfway through seven years, the only accurate length of time possible?

Fundamental Baptists believe the entire Bible is meant to be interpreted 100% literally. So no matter what amount of time we are talking about, it must be consecutive unless every fundamentalist is wrong.

 

[DavidPT]

Where is a prediction Jesus was going to be crucified halfway through seven years, the only accurate length of time possible?

Apparently, according to a lot of interpreters, not necessarily me as well though there is a possibilty that they might be correct, that prediction is in that verse, verse 27, meaning the midst of the week. That is when the text indicates he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. Why then do some interpreters have the remainder of verse 27 involving 70 AD? 70 AD is not when the text states that he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. The text says he does that in the midst of the 70th week. The midst of the 70th week couldn't possibly be meaning 70 AD no matter how you look at it, but not that anyone is claiming it is, yet, it still makes zero sense for the remainder of verse 27 to be pertaining to anything involving 70 AD to begin with.

IMO, 2 comings are implied in the text. The first coming already took place, the 2nd coming hasn't, and that the 2nd coming is what closes out the final half of the 70th week, in my opinion anyway. Opinions can be wrong of course, but opinions can also be right.

 

[Zao is life]

One more remark on this, you say the crucifixion was halfway the 70th week, and you say that Jesus made a new covenant for the complete 70th week. But the new covenant was made through His crucifixion, so you have a covenant starting that is made possible only 3,5 years later...

So you will have the covenant being confirmed by Christ only once, the moment He died, not afterwards when the apostles announced the New Covenant had come, or since then. One New Covenant only valid for one moment in time, and not since? The apostles preached the gospel to the Jews right up until the time Stephen was stoned, and beyond. The gospel includes the New Covenant. No?

 

[Zao is life]

You're giving statements...
1. The grammar does not allow for the entire seven years to be cut out and pasted anywhere
2. but the grammar does allow for half of the 70th week to be fulfilled later than in the 70th week
3. assuming that Messiah was cut off in the middle of the 70th week.

Can you give actual arguments for these?

I don't have to. The text does. The onus is on you to explain the meaning of the word after in Daniel 9:26, because it's you who does not believe it means what it says in relation to the weeks and the Messiah being cut off.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Apparently, according to a lot of interpreters, not necessarily me as well though there is a possibility that they might be correct, that prediction is in that verse, verse 27, meaning the midst of the week. That is when the text indicates he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. Why then do some interpreters have the remainder of verse 27 involving 70 AD? 70 AD is not when the text states that he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. The text says he does that in the midst of the 70th week. The midst of the 70th week couldn't possibly be meaning 70 AD no matter how you look at it, but not that anyone is claiming it is, yet, it still makes zero sense for the remainder of verse 27 to be pertaining to anything involving 70 AD to begin with.

IMO, 2 comings are implied in the text. The first coming already took place, the 2nd coming hasn't, and that the 2nd coming is what closes out the final half of the 70th week, in my opinion anyway. Opinions can be wrong of course, but opinions can also be right.

I have no idea how you completely missed my point. Three and a half years is half of seven years, not 70 weeks. There is absolutely no way to connect the two time periods at all because either way, they must be consecutive.

Whoever got the year 70 AD from Daniel 9:27 has a lot of explaining to do because Jesus was only 33.

 

[Zao is life]

I think you have the right idea myself, wrong city and sanctuary. Try applying it to Revelation 11:2 instead, assuming you don't take any of that to be involving 70 AD nor do you take any of that to be meaning in the literal sense. That aside, what you are thinking about implies a gap. A gap is a gap. Whether it's 40 years or whether it's 2000 years, it's still a gap. Literally destroying something, such as literal buildings, is not the only way the destroying of something can be understood. For example, consider the following below.

Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.


As to this alleged gap, my thinking has been that it's between the 69th and 70th week, but the more I think about it, it could be in the middle of the 70th week instead, which would mean the first 69 and 1/2 weeks involve the literal, the final 3.5 years have switched to another sense, no longer involving the literal. Which means that even if some of the 70th week is still future, no one needs to be interpreting it like Douggg might, where that involves a literal rebuilt temple then someone literally taking residence in it(2 Thessalonians 2:4).

Yeah I accept that it's the way you see it. My human intellect does not allow me the liberty to divorce Daniel 9:26-27 from association with the Messiah who was cut off in the middle of the 70th week, nor with Jesus' own words in Matthew 23:37-39

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate. For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

My human intellect tells me that because Jesus associated the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple both with His being cut off (but not for Himself), and with Daniel 9:26-27; and Daniel 9:26-27 associates the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with the coming of the Messiah and His being cut off, it takes a giant leap using the pole-vault of assumption to drag it into another millennium.

 

[Zao is life]

70 AD is not when the text states that he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. .

Of course not. Jesus caused sacrifice and offerings for sin to cease when He shed His blood in the middle of the 70th week (Daniel 9:26 states very clearly He was cut off, but not for Himself, after the first 7 weeks + the 62 weeks = 69 weeks).

That leaves only the city and the sanctuary to be destroyed, and IMO the text in Daniel 9:26-27 does not imply that it needs to be within the same week that Messiah was cut off, any more than Jesus words to the Pharisees and leaders of Israel about their house being left to them desolate implied something that would take place within three and a half years following His crucifixion.

 

[Zao is life]

I have no idea how you completely missed my point. Three and a half years is half of seven years, not 70 weeks. There is absolutely no way to connect the two time periods at all because either way, they must be consecutive.

Whoever got the year 70 AD from Daniel 9:27 has a lot of explaining to do because Jesus was only 33.

Jesus was cut off in the middle of the week, in the 70th week. Whoever has the city and the sanctuary spoken of in Daniel 9:26-27 being destroyed within the same final week of the 70 weeks has a lot of explaining to do, because we know from history that the city and the sanctuary were only destroyed in A.D 70.

They also have a lot of explaining to do about why Jesus' prophecy that their house was going to be left to them desolate was not fulfilled in the same week that He was crucified.

 

[DavidPT]

I have no idea how you completely missed my point. Three and a half years is half of seven years, not 70 weeks. There is absolutely no way to connect the two time periods at all because either way, they must be consecutive.

Whoever got the year 70 AD from Daniel 9:27 has a lot of explaining to do because Jesus was only 33.

Your post was not entirely clear to me for one thing, which might explain how I completely missed your point. I was contemplating asking you to maybe rephrase it differently, but I never got around to doing that, unfortunately. But as of this post, now your point is clear to me. I get what you were meaning now.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Ordinary Galileans bought sacrifices to Jerusalem on one or two of the major feast days. So, if we are guessing, Passover or Tabernacles would be a fair guess. Ill try to give you a clear timeline after Ive got back.

Here is a timeline of Jesus' 3-year ministry. The years AD26 to AD30 are shown in blue, together with Nisan and Tishri each year. Events point to time with arrows. Where Jesus is living/preaching is on the bottom line.

View attachment jesus-ministry.svg

 

[Christian Gedge]

You'd first have to make a solid case that the subject in Luke 13:1 was brought up because Jesus didn't travel to Jerusalem because it "wasn't His time yet".

St. John begins by pinpointing the first Passover to April AD 27, then his narrative continues in the order things happened. In chapter five, Jesus went again to Jerusalem to the next public festival. It would have been the ‘feast of Tabernacles’ since that was in October AD 27, following in natural sequence from the Passover in April. Then, in chapter six the second Passover, April AD 28, is referenced. Its context with the ‘feeding of the 5000’ anchors the middle of Jesus’ ministry to a solid date since this miracle was recorded by all four gospels.

The feast of Tabernacles comes around again in October AD 28. As we might expect, it is the subject of chapter seven. And it seems as if Jesus remained in Judea from October until December AD 28 because the narrative continues through to the winter festival of Hanukkah. After that, Jesus went across the Jordan River into Perea, and “here he stayed.” Notice, he did not pass through this place but lodged and taught there, making the time early AD 29.

During this period, Jesus heard of the death of a dear friend and said, “Let us go back to Judea.” So, when did Lazarus die? Was it before the AD 29 year Passover or afterwards? We can't say exactly, but what we do know is that after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he and his disciples left Judea again, changed house again, and resided in yet another village. By this time, Passover would have been and gone, and it would have been about mid AD 29.

At this point, Luke provides a most interesting detail. He relates how, “there were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” Galileans who could afford to do so, tried to attend the temple in Jerusalem for annual festivals. Therefore, this incident would have been either Passover or Tabernacles AD 29, because, if it had happened in the previous year, it would have no longer been such ‘news of the day.’

So, apparently Jesus did not go to the third Passover. He didn’t go to AD 29 Tabernacles either and the reason was this: the Jews were trying to kill him, and he didn’t want to be killed ... yet. The reason he didn't want to be killed ‘yet,’ was because it was not the right ‘time.’ On one occasion Jesus had said:

“I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” However, when his last year arrived, his words changed to: “My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.” The fourth Passover was April AD 30

 

[AdB]

One New Covenant only valid for one moment in time and not since

How do you come to that assumption? No of course not! I think "confirmed" should be read as "established"
One New Covenant founded in the crucifixion and valid for all time before and after and to come...

But of course above is when you take "he" in verse 27 as Christ, which I only did for the sake of argument because I'm not convinced about that to be the case... but that's a whole different story.

Would be nice if this thread could more or less try to stick to the original question.
It's all very interesting and I don't mind these discussions, but there is a reason I started of with a certain topic...

 

[Douggg]

Yeah I accept that it's the way you see it. My human intellect does not allow me the liberty to divorce Daniel 9:26-27 from association with the Messiah who was cut off in the middle of the 70th week, nor with Jesus' own words in Matthew 23:37-39

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate. For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

My human intellect tells me that because Jesus associated the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple both with His being cut off (but not for Himself), and with Daniel 9:26-27; and Daniel 9:26-27 associates the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with the coming of the Messiah and His being cut off, it takes a giant leap using the pole-vault of assumption to drag it into another millennium.

The 7 weeks, the 62 weeks, then the undefined gap, then the one week, are on the chart below.

23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. [both on the chart above]

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, [on the chart above, 4 days after arriving in Jerusalem as the Messiah] 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.

[the undefined gap in time to account for the destruction of the city and sanctuary, and the time of the gentiles]

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: [the Antichrist confirming the Mt. Sinai covenant per the requirement of Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13, the 7 years are in that text] 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.

 

[Zao is life]

Would be nice if this thread could more or less try to stick to the original question.
It's all very interesting and I don't mind these discussions, but there is a reason I started of with a certain topic...

There is not one thread in this forum that does not veer off-topic because it's 100% natural for related subjects to be included in the subject of the OP, and then subjects related to the related subjects which are not related to the subject of the OP.

Related subjects are bound to come up in the discussion. So if you want to be control-freaky and setting rules about your topic, methinks you will lose a lot of your audience.

But the choice is yours, since it's your thread.

 

[Douggg]

Here is a timeline of Jesus' 3-year ministry. The years AD26 to AD30 are shown in blue, together with Nisan and Tishri each year. Events point to time with arrows. Where Jesus is living/preaching is on the bottom line.

View attachment 311909

The length of Jesus's ministry is not prophesied in Daniel 9. His arrival and his being cutoff are.

In John 12:12-15, Jesus arrived in Jerusalem hailed as the messiah. Four days later, Jesus was crucified.

 

[Zao is life]

I don't believe anything in verse 27 involves 70 AD myself, but for the sake of argument though, let's assume it does and let's also assume it involves His crucifixion, and that verse 27 is pertaining to the 70th week, meaning all of it. That would obviously place a gap in the middle of the 70th week, yet, some are arguing there is no gap whatsoever in the 70 weeks, even though even this scenario proves that there would be.

The point I'm trying to make, there is a gap somewhere in the 70 weeks, and that a gap is a gap. So, what difference does it make if the gap is 40 years or 2000 years? It's still a gap either way. Yet, some are arguing there is no gap whatsoever. Totally impossible since all of verse 27 pertains to the 70th week, which means depending how you interpret the first half of the 70th week, the gap is either going to be between the 69th and 70th week, or it's going to be in the middle of the 70th week. Still, some try and get around this fact by denying that all of verse 27 pertains to the 70th week.

I think that most people who post at CF seem to view prophecy as 1 prophecy = "has 1 fulfillment".

I view the prophetic principle rather than the individual prophecy.

For example,

* Babylon's destruction of city and sanctuary became a biblical type of any future destruction of city and sanctuary.
* Anotiochus called Epiphanes' idol placed in the temple, though it did not result in the desolation or destruction of the temple, became a biblical type of any future abomination in the temple.

I view A.D 70 as the fulfillment of both the Lord's prophecy regarding destruction of sanctuary in Matthew 23:37-39 and Matthew 24:1-2 (and its parallels in Luke 21:5-6 and Mark 13:1-2), and Daniel's prophecy of the destruction of city and sanctuary in Daniel 9:26-27.

But I don't believe the destruction of the temple in A.D 70 was a fulfillment of the abomination mentioned in Daniel 9:27. Why? Because I don't believe that temple, even if an idol had been placed in it, was the holy sanctuary of God after Christ died on the cross.

But I also believe that Babylon's destruction of city and sanctuary and Antiochus' abomination in the sanctuary is definitely a type of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1-2.

So I'm looking at prophetic principle, without allowing myself to falsely assume that the word after in Daniel 9:26 means that the Messiah was cut off before the 70th week.

 

[Douggg]

How do you come to that assumption? No of course not! I think "confirmed" should be read as "established"
One New Covenant founded in the crucifixion and valid for all time before and after and to come...

The "for 7 years" by the prince who shall come (the coming Antichrist) is the "for 7 years" cycle found in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 that Moses required of all future leaders of Israel. Moses was the first. Thereafter, on a seven year cycle.

Basically it is that the law be read from the place of God's choosing (the Jews currently take to be the temple mount - from discussions I have had with them) to the nation of Israel.

9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,

11 When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

13 And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.