AD 30 to AD 70 – end of Old Covenant?

[Douggg]

I believe your starting point is off making the clear passages of scripture bow to the symbols of Revelation.

I am starting off with the rider on the white horse given a crown, made the King of Israel coming in his own name, the Antichrist.

 

[Dave L]

I am starting off with the rider on the white horse given a crown, made the King of Israel coming in his own name, the Antichrist.

There are too many interpretations of Revelation that make more sense. The oldest commentary found to date was of the recapitulation view endorsed by Beale and others. This in an Amillennial setting hits home for me.

 

[Erik Nelson]

From Bart Ehrman's Early Christian Controversies lecture series by the Great Courses:

Another interesting scroll is the War Scroll, which gives a description and a prescription of the 40-year war that will occur at the end of the age, when the Sons of Light will do battle with the Sons of Darkness and overcome them through the power of God​

The high-octane evangelization (a military term) of the Roman empire from 30-70 AD may have been a Christian non-violent version of the Essene 40-year war for Light against Dark?

Moreover, the 40-year war motif may have motivated the Jews to rebel again, 40 years after the fall of Jerusalem & Masada, in the Kitos uprisings ?

 

[Douggg]

There are too many interpretations of Revelation that make more sense. The oldest commentary found to date was of the recapitulation view endorsed by Beale and others. This in an Amillennial setting hits home for me.

There are no interpretations of the rider on the white horse that make no more sense than the person being the Antichrist.

 

[Dave L]

There are no interpretations of the rider on the white horse that make no more sense than the person being the Antichrist.

Antichrist is there for certain, but not in wholly futuristic sense. He already appeared and will appear again, probably in Islam.

 

[mkgal1]

My commitment is to the ageless truth of the Bible.

Our early church didn't even have Bibles until centuries later (please don't misunderstand that - I'm not dismissing the importance of the Bible, I'm merely pointing out that we can't divorce the interpretation of the biblical text from the understanding and teaching of the early church).

 

[pasifika]

My commitment is to the ageless truth of the Bible.
All the ECF's, the commentators and todays scholars have the same drawback; It has been impossible for them to properly understand Bible prophecy. Jesus said: It is your will, Father to hide these things from the wise and learned..... Matthew 11:25 and Daniel 12:4 & 10 says; the Book [of prophecy] is to be kept sealed until the time of the end and only then, just a few will understand.

So, no matter how qualified, in worldly terms, the support is that you have for a fulfilled Seventh 'week', I reject them and I do it because Revelation is so clear about the last half of that 'week', the final 3 1/2 years, or 42 months, or 1260 days, that culminate in the Return of Jesus for His Millennium reign.

Thank you Keras, great post....Paul in 1Thessalonians 5:2-4, wrote that the "day of the Lord" will come like a thief in the night Only for those who are in darkness BUT NOT to those who are in the in the light, we anticipate and know that "day" is near....

Also, Paul gives us "the church" a Warning, regarding those who teach in the church asserting that the "Day of the Lord" has already come. That we should not let anyone deceive us in any way, because that "day" (Day of the Lord) will NOT come UNTIL the " rebellion occurs " and the "man of sin" is revealed, the one he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God...2Thessalonians 2:2-4

So, the day of the Lord begins from these two events...

• 1. Rebellion of the people as a result of their sacrifices and offering being ceased.
• 2. Man of Sin sitting in the temple proclaiming himself to be God..."Abomination"

These all leads back to Daniel 9:27 regarding the events the middle of the 70th week.

 

[jgr]

My commitment is to the ageless truth of the Bible.
All the ECF's, the commentators and todays scholars have the same drawback; It has been impossible for them to properly understand Bible prophecy. Jesus said: It is your will, Father to hide these things from the wise and learned..... Matthew 11:25 and Daniel 12:4 & 10 says; the Book [of prophecy] is to be kept sealed until the time of the end and only then, just a few will understand.

So, no matter how qualified, in worldly terms, the support is that you have for a fulfilled Seventh 'week', I reject them and I do it because Revelation is so clear about the last half of that 'week', the final 3 1/2 years, or 42 months, or 1260 days, that culminate in the Return of Jesus for His Millennium reign.

I have found your own prophetic understanding regarding the identity of the true Chosen People of God, i.e. those who are in Christ; to be scholarly and consistent with that of the ECFs, and all of the historical commentators and defenders of the true faith.

Yet you deny that today's scholars, of which you are one, can understand Bible prophecy.

How do you reconcile your own scholarly prophetic understanding, with your denial of your own scholarly prophetic understanding?

 

[mkgal1]

All the ECF's, the commentators and todays scholars have the same drawback; It has been impossible for them to properly understand Bible prophecy. Jesus said: It is your will, Father to hide these things from the wise and learned..... Matthew 11:25 and Daniel 12:4 & 10 says; the Book [of prophecy] is to be kept sealed until the time of the end and only then, just a few will understand.

Luke 24:45 - Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.

Revelation 22:10 - Then he instructed me, “Do not seal up the prophetic words in this book, for the time is near.

 

[keras]

I have found your own prophetic understanding regarding the identity of the true Chosen People of God, i.e. those who are in Christ; to be scholarly and consistent with that of the ECFs, and all of the historical commentators and defenders of the true faith.

Yet you deny that today's scholars, of which you are one, can understand Bible prophecy.

How do you reconcile your own scholarly prophetic understanding, with your denial of your own scholarly prophetic understanding?

Nice try, jgr!
Make me out to be a scholar so Matthew 11:25 applies to me. But as I left school at age 15, after failing the school certificate exam and having never attended Bible College or any other higher education, I am one of the simple and unlearned.
My knowledge comes from extensive reading, incl the ECF's, but mainly intensive study of all the Bible over all my life, esp the last 15 years from the time I lived in the holy Land.
I write about what the Prophets said. How can anyone deny their plainly stated Words?

Luke 24:45 - Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.

Revelation 22:10 - Then he instructed me, “Do not seal up the prophetic words in this book, for the time is near.

Quite sure He has opened your mind, are you? Many scriptures say that God does darken the minds of those who choose to believe false teachings.

The Words of Revelation are not sealed, it is just those who want a different outcome who like to allegorize and spiritualize it.

 

[keras]

The prophet Daniel tell us with absolute precision when the Old Covenant would end! “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city …” (Daniel 9:24) He didn’t say 69 weeks; he didn’t say 69½ weeks; he said 70 weeks. That’s 490 years. So, the Old Covenant fully ended in AD 34, including the last half of the 70th week. (See diagram post #1)

So we are now under no Covenant?
Which I believe is correct; we await the new Covenant and the blessing promised, when all the faithful Christians will be living in all of the holy Land.

And the 70th 'week' of seven years is yet to come, the final period before Jesus Returns. As Daniel 8:27 and Revelation plainly describe.

 

[dqhall]

The opening post is my response to a common assumption that the Old Covenant ended when the Jewish temple was destroyed in AD 70.

There have been several misconceptions concerning the forty-year period between the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans in AD 70. Both arise from competing interpretations of Daniel’s prophecy of the 70 weeks. (Daniel 9:24-27)

• The first misconception comes from those who believe that Daniel’s 70th week was unhooked from the other weeks and sent to the future. In their argument with those who say that the weeks were contiguous they ask, “but how can the 70th week stretch over forty years to include the events of Christ’s ministry as well as the destruction of Jerusalem?” (verse 27)

The answer is quite simple. The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple did not take place within the actual seventy weeks; the prophet was simply providing information of the aftermath to the weeks in order to explain what the eventual outcome would be.

View attachment 270805

• The second misconception comes from those who wish to magnify the importance of the AD 70 event. Their reasoning is that sacrifice of animals completely stopped then. Therefore, that must have been when the Old Covenant completely ceased! Tied into this reasoning is their interpretation of the ‘last days.’ They are the days (in their view) that lead up to the termination of the Mosaic order in AD 70.

I would like us to discuss this second point with any who are interested. In the meanwhile, please do the poll: (up to 3 answers allowed)

The early church was Jewish. Part of the church wanted Gentile coverts circumcised and taught to observe the laws of Moses. Paul circumcised Timothy as Paul was teaching the Gospel in synagogues and wanted to be included by the Jews. At some point Paul decided Gentiles should not be made to obey the entire Jewish law. He took his ideas to the apostles. Peter and the apostles decided the Gentiles should not be made to obey the entire law, however they should abstain from fornication, should remember to help the poor, and something like not eat blood or sacrifice to idols (Acts 15). Roman law was against theft and murder. That was already in the Gentile's system.

These prohibitions against immoral sexual relations (fornication, incest inappropriate behavior with animals, adultery, homosexuality, etc.) may be found in Leviticus 18 (WEB):

18 Yahweh said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘I am Yahweh your God. 3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived. You shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. 4 You shall do my ordinances. You shall keep my statutes and walk in them. I am Yahweh your God. 5 You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, which if a man does, he shall live in them. I am Yahweh.

6 “‘None of you shall approach any close relatives, to uncover their nakedness: I am Yahweh.
7 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, nor the nakedness of your mother: she is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness.
8 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife. It is your father’s nakedness.
9 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born abroad.
10 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness; for theirs is your own nakedness.
11 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, conceived by your father, since she is your sister.
12 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister. She is your father’s near kinswoman.
13 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s near kinswoman.
14 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother. You shall not approach his wife. She is your aunt.
15 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife. You shall not uncover her nakedness.
16 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife. It is your brother’s nakedness.
17 “‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter. You shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near kinswomen. It is wickedness.
18 “‘You shall not take a wife in addition to her sister, to be a rival, to uncover her nakedness, while her sister is still alive.
19 “‘You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.
20 “‘You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, and defile yourself with her.
21 “‘You shall not give any of your children as a sacrifice to Molech. You shall not profane the name of your God. I am Yahweh.
22 “‘You shall not lie with a man as with a woman. That is detestable.
23 “‘You shall not lie with any animal to defile yourself with it. No woman may give herself to an animal, to lie down with it: it is a perversion.
24 “‘Don’t defile yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations which I am casting out before you were defiled. 25 The land was defiled. Therefore I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out her inhabitants. 26 You therefore shall keep my statutes and my ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the native-born, nor the stranger who lives as a foreigner among you 27 (for the men of the land that were before you had done all these abominations, and the land became defiled), 28 that the land not vomit you out also, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.

29 “‘For whoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore you shall keep my requirements, that you do not practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and that you do not defile yourselves with them. I am Yahweh your God.’”

Some have observed premarital sex and inappropriate contentography are also forms of sexual immorality/fornication.

 

[jgr]

Nice try, jgr!
Make me out to be a scholar so Matthew 11:25 applies to me. But as I left school at age 15, after failing the school certificate exam and having never attended Bible College or any other higher education, I am one of the simple and unlearned.
My knowledge comes from extensive reading, incl the ECF's, but mainly intensive study of all the Bible over all my life, esp the last 15 years from the time I lived in the holy Land.
I write about what the Prophets said. How can anyone deny their plainly stated Words?

Sorry to give you any credit. I won't make that mistake again.

Don't do too much of this. You risk becoming scholarly.

2 Timothy 2
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God...

 

[sovereigngrace]

Thanks for the good poll response, and the many posts. I would now like to explain why I had 2 votes to the poll question, when did the Old Covenant COMPLETELY end?

• When Jesus said, “It is finished” and the temple curtain torn down (and)
• Over the full 7 years of the seventieth week, including the last half.

My reason for these 2 responses is to rebut a wrong idea that the AD 70 event ended the Old Covenant. Hard core Preterists say the Old Covenant ended in AD 70, and moderate Partial Preterists suggest a gradual closing of the O.C. over 40 years following the Cross. Both groups speak of this period as the ‘last days’ and, in so doing, muddle the biblical understanding of ‘last days’ references to the events preceding Jesus’ (yet future) return.

The prophet Daniel tell us with absolute precision when the Old Covenant would end! “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city …” (Daniel 9:24) He didn’t say 69 weeks; he didn’t say 69½ weeks; he said 70 weeks. That’s 490 years. So, the Old Covenant fully ended in AD 34, including the last half of the 70th week. (See diagram post #1)

The reason why most of us said it finished at the ‘temple curtain’ is because 4 of the 6 promises of Daniel were fulfilled at that grand climax – transgression finished; our sins taken away; reconciliation to God; Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. However, the last 2 clauses were fulfilled gradually over the seventieth week including the last 3½ years.

And the fact that animal sacrifice persisted until the temple’s destruction does not infer a transition between the Old and New Covenants! All it shows was the defiance of those who rejected Messiah. Daniel 9:27 describes it as an “overspreading abomination,” so we should not use the Jews disobedience as an argument to support our wish to magnify the significance of AD 70. (Im speaking to part prets)

More tomorrow after a sleep.

There is no indication in Daniel 9 that the end of the 70 weeks was the end of the old covenant.

I believe when He cried it is finished, the old covenant sacrifice system was finished. This was reinforced by the ripping of the temple curtain in two. Christ was the final sacrifice for sin. Hebrews 7:27 says of Christ and His final atonement, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

Hebrews 9:28 explains that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

Hebrews 10:10 says, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 10:12 says, “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”

Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

Romans 6:10 says, “he died unto sin once.”

1 Peter 3:18 says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”

Hebrews 9:12 explains, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

 

[mkgal1]

The early church was Jewish. Part of the church wanted Gentile coverts circumcised and taught to observe the laws of Moses. Paul circumcised Timothy as Paul was teaching the Gospel in synagogues and wanted to be included by the Jews. At some point Paul decided Gentiles should not be made to obey the entire Jewish law. He took his ideas to the apostles. Peter and the apostles decided the Gentiles should not be made to obey the entire law, however they should abstain from fornication, should remember to help the poor, and something like not eat blood or sacrifice to idols (Acts 15). Roman law was against theft and murder. That was already in the Gentile's system

Right. That was the Council at Jerusalem. From church history, that was held around 50 AD (20ish years after the Cross). I love what Andy Stanley says about the decision - that these mandates are all about unity between the Jewish and Gentile converts - so they could "break bread together". I don't know if you've had any personal aversions to food - but maybe you're a cat or dog lover - just imagine how you'd feel being invited to a friend's home and find out the main course is an animal you'd have as a pet. I imagine it was similar for the Jews to get past their mind obstacles of what was clean vs unclean food. These decided mandates were all related to idolatry - something difficult for both Jews and Gentiles to remain distanced from in the early church era.

 

[mkgal1]

Quite sure He has opened your mind, are you?

I'm quite sure God opened the minds of the disciples and the minds of the early church. That's why I value the interpretations from them over those who make claims contrary to early church teaching.... saying things like "the Bible simply says......".

 

[ewq1938]

When did the Old Covenant COMPLETELY end?

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

The covenant broken by God's people.

Zechariah 11:4 Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter;
Zechariah 11:5 Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not.
Zechariah 11:6 For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.
Zechariah 11:7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
Zechariah 11:8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
Zechariah 11:9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
Zechariah 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
Zechariah 11:11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.

The covenant being broken by God, but only after the people broke it first.

 

[dqhall]

Right. That was the Council at Jerusalem. From church history, that was held around 50 AD (20ish years after the Cross). I love what Andy Stanley says about the decision - that these mandates are all about unity between the Jewish and Gentile converts - so they could "break bread together". I don't know if you've had any personal aversions to food - but maybe you're a cat or dog lover - just imagine how you'd feel being invited to a friend's home and find out the main course is an animal you'd have as a pet. I imagine it was similar for the Jews to get past their mind obstacles of what was clean vs unclean food. These decided mandates were all related to idolatry - something difficult for both Jews and Gentiles to remain distanced from in the early church era.

In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul seems to advise against eating the meat of animals sacrificed in the temple of an idol. They may have been trying to boycott these temples of false religion.

Peter was shown a vision in Joppa that he should not think of any food as unclean. Jews ate Kosher and did not enter Gentile homes for fear of being made ritually unclean. God was sending Peter to teach a Gentile household.

I recognize foods high in saturated fats and cholesterol are not good for my heart. I tried to avoid certain foods with scientific knowledge. I made exceptions at social occasions, but made efforts to keep these portions small. I also ate fish occasionally for my health even though it contains saturated fat and cholesterol.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Thanks for the good poll response, and the many posts. I would now like to explain why I had 2 votes to the poll question, when did the Old Covenant COMPLETELY end?

• When Jesus said, “It is finished” and the temple curtain torn down (and)
• Over the full 7 years of the seventieth week, including the last half.

My reason for these 2 responses is to rebut a wrong idea that the AD 70 event ended the Old Covenant. Hard core Preterists say the Old Covenant ended in AD 70, and moderate Partial Preterists suggest a gradual closing of the O.C. over 40 years following the Cross. Both groups speak of this period as the ‘last days’ and, in so doing, muddle the biblical understanding of ‘last days’ references to the events preceding Jesus’ (yet future) return.

The prophet Daniel tell us with absolute precision when the Old Covenant would end! “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city …” (Daniel 9:24) He didn’t say 69 weeks; he didn’t say 69½ weeks; he said 70 weeks. That’s 490 years. So, the Old Covenant fully ended in AD 34, including the last half of the 70th week. (See diagram post #1)

The reason why most of us said it finished at the ‘temple curtain’ is because 4 of the 6 promises of Daniel were fulfilled at that grand climax – transgression finished; our sins taken away; reconciliation to God; Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. However, the last 2 clauses were fulfilled gradually over the seventieth week including the last 3½ years.

And the fact that animal sacrifice persisted until the temple’s destruction does not infer a transition between the Old and New Covenants! All it shows was the defiance of those who rejected Messiah. Daniel 9:27 describes it as an “overspreading abomination,” so we should not use the Jews disobedience as an argument to support our wish to magnify the significance of AD 70. (Im speaking to part prets)

More tomorrow after a sleep.

The reason why most of us said the Old Covenant finished at the ‘temple curtain’ is because 4 of the 6 promises of Daniel were fulfilled at that grand climax – transgression finished; our sins taken away; reconciliation to God; Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. However, the last 2 clauses were fulfilled gradually over the seventieth week including the last 3½ years.

Here are the 6 clauses as Daniel said it:

“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city,

1. to finish the transgression,
2. make an end of sins,
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity,
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5. to seal up vision and prophecy,
6. and to anoint the Most Holy.”

Let’s look at #5 today, and #6 tomorrow.

To ‘seal up vision and prophecy’ is speaking of the authentication and completion of Messiah’s ministry. This is not meant to infer that prophecy (per se) has ended, or that nothing of future events can be anticipated in the sense that a Preterist might understand it. But ‘vision and prophecy’, in the context given, relates to the messianic purpose which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and sealed when the times in question – the 70 weeks - were completed.

A notable case is found in Joel 2:28:29.

“And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.”​

This prophecy came to pass at the Jewish Pentecost, 50 days after the Cross and again 3½ years later at the Gentile Pentecost. (See diagram post #32)

Now, the point that I am trying to make, is that the New Covenant was confirmed over a period of 7 years! That is how long it took to complete! Sure, we must highlight the ‘torn curtain’, and we do. But without a precision counting of Daniel’s prophecy and its full significance, curly objections get put forward. Futurists ask, “What about the last 3½ years? why didn’t something of interest happen at the end of it? Preterists argue, “The temple was in operation until AD 70, so that must be when the O.C. ended”

That is why I ticked 3 answers in the poll.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The reason why most of us said the Old Covenant finished at the ‘temple curtain’ is because 4 of the 6 promises of Daniel were fulfilled at that grand climax – transgression finished; our sins taken away; reconciliation to God; Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. However, the last 2 clauses were fulfilled gradually over the seventieth week including the last 3½ years.

Here are the 6 clauses as Daniel said it:

“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city,

1. to finish the transgression,
2. make an end of sins,
3. to make reconciliation for iniquity,
4. to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5. to seal up vision and prophecy,
6. and to anoint the Most Holy.”

Let’s look at #5 today, and #6 tomorrow.

To ‘seal up vision and prophecy’ is speaking of the authentication and completion of Messiah’s ministry. This is not meant to infer that prophecy (per se) has ended, or that nothing of future events can be anticipated in the sense that a Preterist might understand it. But ‘vision and prophecy’, in the context given, relates to the messianic purpose which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and sealed when the times in question – the 70 weeks - were completed.

A notable case is found in Joel 2:28:29.

“And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.”​

This prophecy came to pass at the Jewish Pentecost, 50 days after the Cross and again 3½ years later at the Gentile Pentecost. (See diagram post #32)

Now, the point that I am trying to make, is that the New Covenant was confirmed over a period of 7 years! That is how long it took to complete! Sure, we must highlight the ‘torn curtain’, and we do. But without a precision counting of Daniel’s prophecy and its full significance, curly objections get put forward. Futurists ask, “What about the last 3½ years? why didn’t something of interest happen at the end of it? Preterists argue, “The temple was in operation until AD 70, so that must be when the O.C. ended”

That is why I ticked 3 answers in the poll.

I think you are forcing something into Daniel 9:24 that does not actually exist. It does not say “Seventy weeks are determined to initiate / secure / complete the new covenant.” No, rather: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to (1) finish the transgression, and to (2) make an end of sins, and to (3) make reconciliation for iniquity, and to (4) bring in everlasting righteousness, and to (5) seal up the vision and prophecy, and to (6) anoint the most Holy.”

We know for sure that half way through that last week that He was cut off for our sin - by the shedding of His blood, thus introducing the new covenant (testament).

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper in Matthew 26:28, which represented His shed blood for the remission of our sins, He declared: "For this is my blood of the new testament [diathēkē], which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

The Greek word here "testament" is diathēkē meaning covenant or testament.

Hebrews 9:14-15 confirms this: "the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament [diathēkē], that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

The whole idea of God-ordained covenant is all about the substitutionary blood sacrifice. Heb 13:20 describes the new covenant as "the blood of the everlasting covenant [diathēkē]."

God decreed that “the blood … maketh atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). The atonement was the only possible means of salvation for sinful man. In fact, Hebrews 9:22 declares, “without shedding of blood is no remission” for sin. It is all about "the blood of the covenant [diathēkē]" secured by our Lord and Savior (Heb 10:29).

Jesus is the "mediator of the new covenant [diathēkē]" (Heb. 8:6), Jesus confirmed the covenant through His redemptive sacrifice at the cross. In Hebrews 9:12 we learn “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” We therefore see that Christ secured a full pardon for his elect putting away sin in the elect sinner (Heb 9:26) procuring their complete salvation.

The vicarious death of Christ, and the shedding of His blood, saw the complete fulfilment of the old covenant arrangement and the instigation of new covenant. Nothing else! Calvary secured it all! Jesus cried out “It is finished” in John 19:30. This is taken from the lone Greek word tetélestai. This means completed, executed, concluded, discharged (as in a debt). It also means paid in full or accomplished.

What was paid in full or accomplished? The penalty and punishment for your sin. It has been wonderfully and eternally paid for!

Once Christ gave up the ghost, the curtain in the temple was ripped in two, denoting that the old covenant was rendered useless. It was finished!!! Whilst the cross ushered in the new covenant, and the removal of the old covenant, many of the outward manifestations of the old covenant still remained, because of the ignorance and rebellion of man. God dismantled the outward facade of the disannulled covenant, removing every last vestige of it.

1 Peter 2:24 says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”

From Gods side the word atonement means to satisfy or compensate, therefore Christ’s vicarious atonement satisfied all the just demands of a thrice-holy God.

From mans point of view the word atonement means to reconcile, or to cause to be at one, therefore Christ’s vicarious atonement reconciled the elect to God.

Heb 12:22 & 24 sums it all up: "ye are come unto ... Jesus the mediator of the new covenant [diathēkē], and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

Christ came to save sinners and He completed that perfectly, in that He secured eternal redemption for his elect through His death (Hebrews 5:8-9).