280 Weeks are Determined

[Zao is life]

Wow, Fullness of the Gentiles.....I didn't expect it to be all on your shoulders to explain the covenants.....but well done.

Thank you

I was laying what I see as the full deck cards concerning the covenants on the table. So luckily I've typed all that out before somewhere, and could type from memory, without first looking for where I typed it out before, and without copying and pasting.

 

[keras]

Chris has done excellent research into the sabbath cycles which (IMO) is unsurpassed by any other study, and he has proved from the scriptures (for those who are prepared to hear what he says) that the 70th week of Daniel was the final week of four consecutive 70-week cycles, which concluded 3.5 years after the crucifixion.

No study is as detailed, and no research has been as painstaking and comprehensive as this one. I would encourage anyone who reads this thread not to throw what Chris Gedge has to say out the window without at least first hearing what he says about this topic.

Too bad then, that CG and many others make the fundamental error of placing the middle of the 70th 'week', at the Crucifixion.
Daniel 9:26 is quite clear: the Crucifixion is at the end of the 69th 'week'.
Any fanciful calculations that say otherwise go into the wastepaper basket. Not out the window, as that messes the garden!

 

[Christian Gedge]

Too bad then, that CG and many others make the fundamental error of placing the middle of the 70th 'week', at the Crucifixion.

Daniel 9:26 is quite clear: the Crucifixion is at the end of the 69th 'week'.

Any fanciful calculations that say otherwise go into the wastepaper basket. Not out the window, as that messes the garden!

Besides this, the Hebrew word “achar” means "after":

"And the days of Adam after (Hebrew: achar) he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4)

"And Seth lived after (Hebrew: achar) he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:7)

"And after (Hebrew achar) sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off"

So, 'after' the 69th week means 'after' - not 'the day after.'

Ok, now let’s get back to the 280 weeks. In my next few posts I hope to share what I believe are ramifications for,

• Historicists
• Preterists
• Futurists
• Shemitah theories
• Amillennialists

 

[Christian Gedge]

RAMIFICATIONS FOR HISTORICISTS

Historicism was a very popular eschatological system from the protestant reformation up until the Millerites made their unfortunate end-of-world prediction in 1844. Today it has a following among Adventists and a number of Reformed teachers.

They have done some good work in fixing the start of Daniels ‘weeks’ in BC 457, and they champion the continuation of the 70th week – kudos for that. But their terminus ad quem is usually stated as being the stoning of Stephen. This may seem a small point, but it obscures the awesome conclusion. It had nothing to do with Stephen! It had everything to do with the confirmation of the covenant being the outpouring of the Spirit on the Gentiles after the times allocated to Jacob had come to their end.

My request to Historicists is that they sharpen their pencils on this matter. Until they do, their futurist friends will not find the last half of the 70th week of enough significance to consider it; they will continue to send it off to the future.

 

[jgr]

But their terminus ad quem is usually stated as being the stoning of Stephen.

Chris, can you cite any evidence of this from the actual Protestant Reformers?

I consider Millerism's date setting et al to be a perversion of Protestant Reformationism. I'm open to any credible evidence otherwise. But if the terminus ad quem of the stoning of Stephen did not appear until Miller, then it clearly is a perversion of what the Protestant Reformers believed.

The root word "reform" is entirely absent from this description of Millerism, suggesting no connection between Millerism and Protestant Reformationism. Miller was a Baptist, and his beliefs appear far more Darby dispensational futurist than Protestant Reformationist.

 

[keras]

So, 'after' the 69th week means 'after' - not 'the day after.'

The truth of this issue, is that the 69th 'week' continued right up the Crucifixion.
There is no indication that the 483rd year was at the commencement of Jesus Ministry. 3 1/2 years before He was cut off, or removed. From the earth, as described in Acts 1:9-11

This must be resolved ..... [further comments deleted - as I am not the Judge]

 

[keras]

They have done some good work in fixing the start of Daniels ‘weeks’ in BC 457,

Doing the math on this; 457 + 26 = 483
You contend Jesus' Ministry started in 26 AD? It is certainly not the Crucifixion!

But not only does this date conflict with Luke 3:1-2, which fixes the date at 29 AD, but also ignores the fact that the years are counted at their commencement, therefore we must add 1 to each date to get the right number of elapsed years.
So; the date of 457 is wrong, the decree must have been 8.5 years later, in; 448.5 BC + 29 AD + 2 + 3.5 = 483 years

I note that Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem in 444 BC. That would be 4 1/2 years after the Kings Decree.
I also note that the date of 457 BC is made to coincide with 1844 AD.
A 'Millerite', SDA, construct.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Chris, can you cite any evidence of this from the actual Protestant Reformers?

I consider Millerism's date setting et al to be a perversion of Protestant Reformationism. I'm open to any credible evidence otherwise. But if the terminus ad quem of the stoning of Stephen did not appear until Miller, then it clearly is a perversion of what the Protestant Reformers believed.

The root word "reform" is entirely absent from this description of Millerism, suggesting no connection between Millerism and Protestant Reformationism. Miller was a Baptist, and his beliefs appear far more Darby dispensational futurist than Protestant Reformationist.

I may need to backtrack concerning the early Protestant reformers. Their views on the 70th week were somewhat varied. Luther thought the crucifixion occurred at the start of the 70th week. Funck, Bullinger and Newton had the cross at the end of the weeks.

The ‘stoning of Stephen’ terminus ad quem theory became quite widely accepted among later historicists with the chronology of William Hales in the late 18th century. My introduction to this view was my Bible college lecturer who was a keen historicist.

In any case my point is that we need to more decisively identify the end of the weeks, and that event must surely be the gospel going to the Gentiles.

 

[Christian Gedge]

RAMIFICATIONS FOR FUTURISTS (1)

Futurism has held sway since Historicism lost ground, and continues to be popular in fundamentalist churches. Some denominations only ordain pastors with a dispensational futurist view.

However, the continuous count of Sabbatical years as outlined here has serious implications for futurists. The first I would like to mention concerns their mythical year of 360 days that they use to count Daniels weeks. They ignore the calendar given to Moses and follow one of there own making.

In effect, we end up with two separate counts of two seperate kinds of ‘weeks’ both progressing through the inter-testament period, but having no connection to each other. Does that sound right to you?

 

[Timtofly]

RAMIFICATIONS FOR FUTURISTS (1)

Futurism has held sway since Historicism lost ground, and continues to be popular in fundamentalist churches. Some denominations only ordain pastors with a dispensational futurist view.

However, the continuous count of Sabbatical years as outlined here has serious implications for futurists. The first I would like to mention concerns their mythical year of 360 days that they use to count Daniels weeks. They ignore the calendar given to Moses and follow one of there own making.

In effect, we end up with two separate counts of two seperate kinds of ‘weeks’ both progressing through the inter-testament period, but having no connection to each other. Does that sound right to you?

Those who focus only on the past, miss both the present and the future?

 

[jgr]

Those who focus only on the past, miss both the present and the future?

Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat its lessons in the future.

Those who refuse to understand the past are incapable of understanding the future.

 

[Christian Gedge]

RAMIFICATIONS FOR FUTURISTS (2)

A second ramification that this thread has for futurists concerns a favourite objection they throw at us who place the Cross in the middle of the the 70th week. They ask, “what happens at the end of the 70 weeks if all the important stuff is finished in the first half?” The answer is here. It took 7 years to confirm the New Covenant and the last thing to be fulfilled was God’s promise to include the Gentiles.

BaBerean mentions this in post #9 and my chronology places the event late 33 - early 34 AD. Here is the timeline:

View attachment 270802

 

[Zao is life]

RAMIFICATIONS FOR FUTURISTS (2)

A second ramification that this thread has for futurists concerns a favourite objection they throw at us who place the Cross in the middle of the the 70th week. They ask, “what happens at the end of the 70 weeks if all the important stuff is finished in the first half?” The answer is here. It took 7 years to confirm the New Covenant and the last thing to be fulfilled was God’s promise to include the Gentiles.

BaBerean mentions this in post #9 and my chronology places the event late 33 - early 34 AD. Here is the timeline:

View attachment 270802

I'm waiting for that ramification for Amillenialism, LoL. So far I agree with everything you've said, but I have a strange sense that you're going to come up with a favorable ramification for Amillennialism. I'm not a prophet, just have a sense which has nothing to do with the fact that you're an Amillennialist , lol.

Anyway, don't respond to this post. I'll wait, patiently.

 

[BABerean2]

I'm waiting for that ramification for Amillenialism, LoL. So far I agree with everything you've said, but I have a strange sense that you're going to come up with a favorable ramification for Amillennialism. I'm not a prophet, just have a sense which has nothing to do with the fact that you're an Amillennialist , lol.

Anyway, don't respond to this post. I'll wait, patiently.

Apparently, the Apostle Paul was also an Amillennialist.

Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and the fire comes at the end of Revelation 20.

Paul said Christ judges both the living and the dead at His appearing, and the judgment of the dead occurs at the end of Revelation 20.

.

 

[Christian Gedge]

I'm waiting for that ramification for Amillenialism, LoL.

Hang on, hang on a minute.

RAMIFICATIONS FOR FUTURISTS (3)

I have to mention this first even if it’s becoming obvious by now. Since the count of weeks end with God’s inclusion of the Gentiles (Romans 15:8-9) it leaves the 70th week where it belongs – straight after the 69th one.

My request to Futurists is that they accept the natural count of ‘sevens’ and get rid of their future 70th week theory. It’s done credibility of prophecy a lot of damage and is time to get the toss.

Now let’s see if I can get my picture up properly.

 

[jgr]

Hang on, hang on a minute.

RAMIFICATIONS FOR FUTURISTS (3)

I have to mention this first even if it’s becoming obvious by now. Since the count of weeks end with God’s inclusion of the Gentiles (Romans 15:8-9) it leaves the 70th week where it belongs – straight after the 69th one.

My request to Futurists is that they accept the natural count of ‘sevens’ and get rid of their future 70th week theory. It’s done credibility of prophecy a lot of damage and is time to get the toss.

Now let’s see if I can get my picture up properly.

View attachment 287949

Great stuff Chris, thanks.

One small correction; there is no "the (other) prince". That is a favored futurist contrivance.

Rather, there is "the prince" (Daniel 9:26).

He is "Messiah the Prince", consistent with Daniel 9:25.

 

[Zao is life]

Great stuff Chris, thanks.

One small correction; there is no "the (other) prince". That is a favored futurist contrivance.

Rather, there is "the prince" (Daniel 9:26).

He is "Messiah the Prince", consistent with Daniel 9:25.

Thanks for pointing that out, jgr - I've also normally referred to that ruler as "the prince who shall come and destroy the sanctuary", but some English Bibles translate it as "the ruler who shall come" and the YLT as "the leader who shall come". We know that it was the Roman General, Titus, who later became Emperor/Caesar, and the original Hebrew word is very accurate:

[*StrongsHebrew* 5057]
נגד נגיד
nâgîyd nâgid {naw-gheed'} naw-gheed'
From H5046; a commander (as occupying the {front}) {civil} military or religious; generally (abstract {plural}) honorable themes: - {captain} {chief} excellent {thing} (chief) {governor} {leader} {noble} {prince} (chief) ruler.

 

[Zao is life]

Apparently, the Apostle Paul was also an Amillennialist.

Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and the fire comes at the end of Revelation 20.

Paul said Christ judges both the living and the dead at His appearing, and the judgment of the dead occurs at the end of Revelation 20.

.

This .. isn't a thread about the Amil/Premil debate (I never began attempting to support Premil in my post). This is Chris' thread about something else which is extremely important, I believe, and so we should not derail it.

So, no comment on the contents of your post BaBerean2

 

[Douggg]

My request to Futurists is that they accept the natural count of ‘sevens’ and get rid of their future 70th week theory. It’s done credibility of prophecy a lot of damage and is time to get the toss.

Who is speaking in Ezekiel 39:21-22 and the remainder of Ezekiel 39 ?

It is Jesus. 100% proof, cannot be wrong, that the 70th week is the 7 years following Gog/Magog.

Ezekiel 39:21 And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

22 So the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward.

 

[BABerean2]

This .. isn't a thread about the Amil/Premil debate (I never began attempting to support Premil in my post). This is Chris' thread about something else which is extremely important, I believe, and so we should not derail it.

So, no comment on the contents of your post BaBerean2

You are the one who brought up the Amill doctrine on this thread, instead of me.

.