Daniel's 70th week

[jgr]

My first post—thank you for having me participate. I just listened to a well known reformed evangelical teacher in South Carolina preach on Daniel 9.24-27 regarding the 70 weeks. He dogmatically says that the numerics (7, 62, 69, 70) are representational and not specific to real years or time periods—I disagree with that severe interpretation.

He also stated emphatically that the entire set of verses relate to Jesus and that all mentions of the word "he" should be interpreted as Jesus. He doesnt give reasons for that but so be it. For the most part I think this is correct. He also mentions that that the "desolations" verses in Daniel refer only to AD 70 and uses Matt 24 to support this. However i dont believe he is a preterist. Unfortunately in his sermon he dogmatically forgot to mention the second half of verse 27 which says: "and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."

Now i dont see how you can make the "he" in verse 27 become Jesus. Can anyone piece together a rational argument that justifies his position? thanks

Welcome, Arnold.

There is only one individual identified as a prince in Daniel 9.

He is Messiah. (Daniel 9:25)

Scripturally, grammatically, and historically, all of the "he's" in Daniel 9:27 resolve and refer back to Him.

The people of the prince (Daniel 9:26) refers to the Roman armies which were Messiah's agents and instruments to accomplish the judgment and destruction which He had prophesied. God's use of such instruments, and His characterization of them as "mine" even though pagan, can be found in several OT instances e.g.:

Jeremiah 25
9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

Jeremiah 43
10 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.

God characterizes the pagan Nebuchadnezzar as "my servant" in using him and his armies against Judah and Egypt.

In the same way as Nebuchadnezzar, though a pagan, was God's servant in executing His judgment; so too were the pagan Roman armies (whose battle ensigns were abominations to the Jews) Messiah's people in accomplishing His purposes (the desolation of Jerusalem and Judea). (Daniel 9:26,27)

In addition, the Jews themselves, as the historical people of Prince Messiah, were equally responsible for the suffering and destruction. Their own actions in defiling and destroying the buildings and temple prior to the Roman invasion are described by Josephus:

The Lamentation of Josephus
War 5.1.4 19-20

The darts that were thrown by the engines [of the seditious factions] came with that force, that they went over all the buildings and the Temple itself, and fell upon the priests and those that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and barbarians, with their own blood. The dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves.
Oh most wretched city, what misery so great as this didst thou suffer from the Romans, when they came to purify thee from thy internal pollutions! For thou couldst be no longer a place fit for God, nor couldst thou longer survive, after thou hadst been a sepulchre for the bodies of thine own people, and hast made the Holy House itself a burying-place in this civil war of thine. Yet mayst thou again grow better, if perchance thou wilt hereafter appease the anger of that God who is the author of thy destruction.

As seen, Josephus recognizes the Jews as complicit agents of their own destruction, and that destruction as Divinely orchestrated.

Contemporary Jewish historians concur:
"The scene was now set for the revolt's final catastrophe. Outside Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."


The people, both Roman and Jewish, of the prince Messiah who was to come, were Messiah's agents and instruments in accomplishing His purposes of judgment and destruction upon those who had rejected Him.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

"and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."

WELCOME!
If you read this verse without the Dispensational lens, this is depicting Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

He did cause sacrifice and offering to cease.
He did make the Temple desolate due to the abominations by the unbelieving Jews.
He did lay waste to Jerusalem through the work of the Roman Empire.

Blessings

 

[Al Touthentop]

Obviously this can't be meaning Jesus. We can know that from this part---and for the overspreading of abominations the prince that shall come shall make it desolate

It would be ludicrous to associate abominations with that of Jesus, yet some still do, regardless. I will never understand why though.

Was Jesus anywhere in the prophecy? Because some say that this prophecy hasn't come to pass. If it hasn't, then the Messiah didn't come.

 

[Dave L]

My first post—thank you for having me participate. I just listened to a well known reformed evangelical teacher in South Carolina preach on Daniel 9.24-27 regarding the 70 weeks. He dogmatically says that the numerics (7, 62, 69, 70) are representational and not specific to real years or time periods—I disagree with that severe interpretation.

He also stated emphatically that the entire set of verses relate to Jesus and that all mentions of the word "he" should be interpreted as Jesus. He doesnt give reasons for that but so be it. For the most part I think this is correct. He also mentions that that the "desolations" verses in Daniel refer only to AD 70 and uses Matt 24 to support this. However i dont believe he is a preterist. Unfortunately in his sermon he dogmatically forgot to mention the second half of verse 27 which says: "and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."

Now i dont see how you can make the "he" in verse 27 become Jesus. Can anyone piece together a rational argument that justifies his position? thanks

If you read it from the Septuagint, The bible translation Jesus and the disciples used it will become obvious what is taking place.

“And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations. And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.” Daniel 9:25–27 (Brenton LXX En)




This is the Bible Jesus Used


What Bible Did Jesus Use? - Bible Study Tips

 

[Christian Gedge]

"... and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.”

The Septuagint brings out another aspect that we don't often see in modern versions.
Concurrent with Christs sacrifice was an abomination! IOW, the animal sacrifices up until Christ were accepted by God. After Christ however, they were not accepted.

Sometime between Passover and Day of Atonement AD 30, the priests mended the curtain and resumed sacrifice. It was prophesied in Isaiah 66:2-4.

“He who slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man;
he who sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck;
he who presents a grain offering, like one who offers pig's blood;
he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like one who blesses an idol.
These have chosen their own ways,
and their soul delights in their abominations;
I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and bring their fears upon them,
because when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, they did not listen;
but they did what was evil in my eyes
and chose that in which I did not delight.”

 

[DavidPT]

Was Jesus anywhere in the prophecy? Because some say that this prophecy hasn't come to pass. If it hasn't, then the Messiah didn't come.

That is a bizarre argument then, the fact Jesus is in the passages having to do with the 70 weeks, those being verses 25-27. Clearly He is in verse 25 and 26. I underlined below as to where.

Daniel 9:25 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.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, 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.
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.


Not to mention, everything in verse 24 has to do with Christ. But let's not forget though, there are two advents of Christ and not just one instead.

 

[Al Touthentop]

That is a bizarre argument then, the fact Jesus is in the passages having to do with the 70 weeks, those being verses 25-27. Clearly He is in verse 25 and 26. I underlined below as to where.

Daniel 9:25 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.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, 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.
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.


Not to mention, everything in verse 24 has to do with Christ. But let's not forget though, there are two advents of Christ and not just one instead.

There is the Last Day, and that day is the end of the earth and the day of judgement. Jesus isn't coming back to reign on earth. We reign with him now.

 

[DavidPT]

There is the Last Day, and that day is the end of the earth and the day of judgement. Jesus isn't coming back to reign on earth. We reign with him now.

The day of judgment doesn't last forever though, whenever that day might be meaning. What about after that then? He still won't be reigning on the earth after that either?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Your interpretation contradicts reality. The text says this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. If that is meaning Jesus, then why didn't those things cease in the midst of the week exactly like the text indicates? Clearly sacrificing in the temple continued for at least another 40 years after Christ had died.

In God's economy they did, and that is all that matters. When Christ said "it is finished" that was the end of the old covenant arrangement. Once the curtain was cut in two that was it. It usefulness had found its termination point in God's economy. Christ was now the final sacrifice for sin. He had now introduced a new covenant to replace the old! It is already made at the cross! He has already removed our sin! Calvary wrought it all. It finished forever the earthly need for a physical Jewish temple that embodied imperfect shadow sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:14-20 then affirms, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”

The Premillennial belief that the old covenant system will be re-introduced in a future millennium contravenes the plain unambiguous teaching of Christ and the New Testament writers. It ignores the plain instruction of the New Testament scriptures that the old animal sacrifices have been eternally abolished / superseded by Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for sin. Such an arrangement would be totally pointless in the light of the cross and would be a retrograde step in the plan of God. It must undermine the finality, eternal sufficiency, and wonder of the cross. Calvary is obviously undermined in this dangerous doctrine. Is the Cross not the only means of salvation. Is Christ's hands not a sufficient reminder to all that the work for sin is eternally finished.

The main purpose of the temple was to give a typical picture of how God deals with the matter of sin. With the first Advent of Christ and His death on the cross the physical earthly temple lost its significance and usefulness. God doesn’t accept animal sacrifices anymore; He was fully and eternally satisfied with His Son’s sacrifice on the tree.

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

Why? Because Christ finished the need of sin-offerings at the Cross.

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

Why? Because Christ is man's only substitute for sin. Why would we need other substitutes for sin? Surely this is a serious assault upon the merits and value of the Cross. Christ is the last sin offering. Christ has made that one final satisfactory sacrifice for sin. The old ordinances were superseded on the tree with Christ’s atonement. The old covenant was removed with the introduction of the new.

We should let Scripture speak for itself. Colossians 2:14 plainly declares, speaking of these Old Testament ordinances, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

Q. When did/will the "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances" occur?

A. Christ "took it out of the way" by "nailing it to his cross.”

These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

When Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final propitiation and substitution for the sinner. Ephesians 2:15 also says, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

Jesus did away with any need or reliance upon the outward keeping of the old covenant religious system. The cross fulfilled forever God’s demand for a perfect once-for-all sacrifice.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I fully agree that Christ's death and resurrection put an end to sacrificing in the temple, regardless that some continued sacrificing anyway. I just don't see Daniel 9:27 referring to that. Why don't I? Simple. That verse mentions abominations and desolation, none of which had a thing to do with Christ's death and resurrection at the time. It is ludicrous, that if verse 27 is about Christ, that in that same context abominations and desolation are mentioned.

What future event do you believe will:

(1) "finish the transgression"?
(2) "make an end of sins"?
(3) "make reconciliation for iniquity"?
(4) "bring in everlasting righteousness"?
(5) "seal up the vision and prophecy"?
(6) "anoint the most Holy”?

And exactly in what way will this be accomplished? Please answer this last question individually for points 1-6.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Welcome to forum, Arnold.

The teacher is stating a common but erroneous view of Daniel 9 regarding the "he".

The confirmation of the Mt. Sinai covenant for 7 years will be confirmed by the Antichrist person, as leader of Israel. It will not be a peace treaty, which is also a popular misconception.

Moses in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 made it a requirement for all future leaders of Israel to (in essence) confirm the Mt. Sinai covenant on a 7 year cycle.

It will be a big speech from the temple mount following Gog/Magog.

Here is a chart I made that you might find helpful.


View attachment 270527

Your chart is so messed up it is hard to no where to start. I would simply start with a new biblical chart.

 

[DavidPT]

What future event do you believe will:

(1) "finish the transgression"?
(2) "make an end of sins"?
(3) "make reconciliation for iniquity"?
(4) "bring in everlasting righteousness"?
(5) "seal up the vision and prophecy"?
(6) "anoint the most Holy”?

And exactly in what way will this be accomplished? Please answer this last question individually for points 1-6.

Let me try and address maybe two of these anyway. Keeping in mind, my position is that there are two advents of Christ, not just one. So no matter how you look at it, all of Daniel 9:24 involves Christ, period.

Daniel 9:24 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.

The text says this---Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression

Let's examine this one first. Not only does it say Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, it also says 70 weeks are determined upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression.

I would think the holy city is meaning Jerusalem here. I would also think once the transgression is finished concerning Jerusalem, that would indicate the following in Zechariah 14 has then been fulfilled.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

In the first century around the time Christ died, men indeed dwelled In Jerusalem, and that it was safely inhabited at the time. But was that the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:11 though? Of course it wasn't. The events of 70 AD undeniably prove that fact. Which then brings us back to Daniel 9 and verse 24. It seems ludicrous to me that if the transgression was finished concerning Jerusalem, this same Jerusalem is then destroyed a number of years later. That chronology couldn't possibly be correct. Just like no reasonable person would place the fulfilling of Zechariah 14:11 prior to 70 AD, no reasonable person should place the finishing of the transgression concerning Jerusalem, before that of 70 AD either.

Let's look at one more thing for now----and to bring in everlasting righteousness

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

If everlasting righteousness was already brought in before Peter wrote this verse, why was he still looking for a place in the future, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Was the righteousness he was still looking for better than the everlasting righteousness some of you allege has already been brought in? If it wasn't better, why wasn't he simply content with the everlasting righteousness some of you allege has already been brought in? Obviously everlasting righteousness can only fit in an age that is everlasting. Is the present age everlasting? No. Is the new heaven and new earth an everlasting age? Yes. The latter is where it fits then.

So it seems to me, regardless that some of verse 24 in Daniel 9 could already be fulfilled in some sense or another, unless all of it is fulfilled this indicates the entire 70 weeks are not finished yet, thus a gap somewhere in the weeks, the most likely place being between the 69th and 70th week.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Let me try and address maybe two of these anyway. Keeping in mind, my position is that there are two advents of Christ, not just one. So no matter how you look at it, all of Daniel 9:24 involves Christ, period.

Daniel 9:24 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.

The text says this---Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression

Let's examine this one first. Not only does it say Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, it also says 70 weeks are determined upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression.

I would think the holy city is meaning Jerusalem here. I would also think once the transgression is finished concerning Jerusalem, that would indicate the following in Zechariah 14 has then been fulfilled.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

In the first century around the time Christ died, men indeed dwelled In Jerusalem, and that it was safely inhabited at the time. But was that the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:11 though? Of course it wasn't. The events of 70 AD undeniably prove that fact. Which then brings us back to Daniel 9 and verse 24. It seems ludicrous to me that if the transgression was finished concerning Jerusalem, this same Jerusalem is then destroyed a number of years later. That chronology couldn't possibly be correct. Just like no reasonable person would place the fulfilling of Zechariah 14:11 prior to 70 AD, no reasonable person should place the finishing of the transgression concerning Jerusalem, before that of 70 AD either.

Your post is very confusing. It seems like you're telling me what the "finish the transgression" is not. So: when is "the finishing of the transgression concerning Jerusalem"?

Let's look at one more thing for now----and to bring in everlasting righteousness

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

If everlasting righteousness was already brought in before Peter wrote this verse, why was he still looking for a place in the future, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Was the righteousness he was still looking for better than the everlasting righteousness some of you allege has already been brought in? If it wasn't better, why wasn't he simply content with the everlasting righteousness some of you allege has already been brought in? Obviously everlasting righteousness can only fit in an age that is everlasting. Is the present age everlasting? No. Is the new heaven and new earth an everlasting age? Yes. The latter is where it fits then.

So it seems to me, regardless that some of verse 24 in Daniel 9 could already be fulfilled in some sense or another, unless all of it is fulfilled this indicates the entire 70 weeks are not finished yet, thus a gap somewhere in the weeks, the most likely place being between the 69th and 70th week.

But this is talking about "the new heavens and a new earth" not your some supposed future Premil sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted millennial age.

According to 2 Peter 3:3-13, creation will be finally purged of wickedness, all the wicked, rebellion and all degeneration forever when Jesus comes. If the remedy for the corruption of the old heavens and earth is the introduction of a brand-new perfect heavens and earth then we are looking at an all-consummating reference to the destruction of the current globe and the existing heavens. The old arrangement that is marked by sin and insurrection is indeed destroyed by fire (as Peter said) and changed to a new glorified perfect arrangement “wherein dwelleth righteousness.” This allows no room for the continuation of unrighteousness or corruption, as Premils insists. Such is totally eliminated through the conflagration.

The new heavens and new earth are such a stark contrast to this current present evil age that is blighted by all the result of the fall, including the existence of Satan. The new arrangement is especially noted for “righteousness.”

Scripture tells us that we are coming back to earth, but it will be a regenerated earth (Malachi 4:1-3, I Corinthians 15:50, 2 Peter 3). It will be an earth totally purged of all deterioration. The new heavens and a new earth (in whatever form God chooses) will appear at the Coming of Christ. It will involve (at very least) the burning up of the crust of our current earth. This current earth will be totally changed/regenerated – making it a new curse-free environment. The earth will be restored to its previous pristine condition. These passages would sway me towards the position that this earth will remain forever – only in a new condition.

So, your definition and location of "everlasting righteousness" do not add up!

 

[Al Touthentop]

The day of judgment doesn't last forever though, whenever that day might be meaning. What about after that then? He still won't be reigning on the earth after that either?

Well, Peter says that on that day the earth is going to burn up. Wherever we end up, this "new heaven and earth," we'll have physical bodies and the new place will be full of those who were judged righteous. Paul says we're getting new bodies. Jesus says that there will be no more taking in marriage so I figure our new bodies will not have any reproductive organs.

As to Jesus reigning after the last day, Paul says that Jesus will turn over the kingdom to his father. So he won't be king anymore.

 

[Al Touthentop]

replied to myself....doh!

 

[Christian Gedge]

What future event do you believe will:

(1) "finish the transgression"?
(2) "make an end of sins"?
(3) "make reconciliation for iniquity"?
(4) "bring in everlasting righteousness"?
(5) "seal up the vision and prophecy"?
(6) "anoint the most Holy”?

And exactly in what way will this be accomplished? Please answer this last question individually for points 1-6.

Clue for our futurist friends:

"The New is in the Old concealed;
The Old is in the New revealed"​

 

[Al Touthentop]

What future event do you believe will:

(1) "finish the transgression"?

God said that 70 weeks were determined for this to occur. It wasn't conditional. This wasn't something the Jews were required to do in order that the prophecy would take place. It was flatly stated that it was going to happen in the time appointed or determined.

(2) "make an end of sins"?

His crucifixion. He isn't saying here that no more sin would occur. Can't be.

(3) "make reconciliation for iniquity"?

He made the ultimate sacrifice for sin.

(4) "bring in everlasting righteousness"?

That's what he brought in through his sacrifice.

(5) "seal up the vision and prophecy"?

This wasn't part of the prophecy. It was sealed by Daniel as he was commanded at the time he wrote it. Compare to Revelation where John is told not to seal up the prophecy because it would happen in a short time. Gabriel told Daniel to seal it up because it was a long time in the future (490) years.

(6) "anoint the most Holy”?

Jesus was anointed at his baptism.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Let me try and address maybe two of these anyway. Keeping in mind, my position is that there are two advents of Christ, not just one. So no matter how you look at it, all of Daniel 9:24 involves Christ, period.

Daniel 9:24 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.

The text says this---Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression

Let's examine this one first. Not only does it say Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, it also says 70 weeks are determined upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression.

I would think the holy city is meaning Jerusalem here.



I would also think once the transgression is finished concerning Jerusalem, that would indicate the following in Zechariah 14 has then been fulfilled.

Zechariah 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Unless this prophecy isn't talking about the city itself but the church.

Just like no reasonable person would place the fulfilling of Zechariah 14:11 prior to 70 AD, no reasonable person should place the finishing of the transgression concerning Jerusalem, before that of 70 AD either.

The "finishing of the transgression" is included in the 70 weeks. It's not conditional. God said it would be finished. Now given that we have to accept that God doesn't lie, then we have to reconcile this with the knowledge that it had to have happened. One can't break the law of Moses anymore because it is no longer in effect. So there are no more transgressions against that law and the moment Christ declared "it is finished," that was the end of transgressions under that la.

Let's look at one more thing for now----and to bring in everlasting righteousness

If everlasting righteousness was already brought in before Peter wrote this verse, why was he still looking for a place in the future, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Was the righteousness he was still looking for better than the everlasting righteousness some of you allege has already been brought in? If it wasn't better, why wasn't he simply content with the everlasting righteousness some of you allege has already been brought in? Obviously everlasting righteousness can only fit in an age that is everlasting. Is the present age everlasting? No. Is the new heaven and new earth an everlasting age? Yes. The latter is where it fits then.

It's been brought in. And we know it's been brought in because God said it would all happen in the determined time. He didn't say, "70 weeks are determined unless you think that some of this hasn't occurred."

So it seems to me, regardless that some of verse 24 in Daniel 9 could already be fulfilled in some sense or another, unless all of it is fulfilled this indicates the entire 70 weeks are not finished yet, thus a gap somewhere in the weeks, the most likely place being between the 69th and 70th week.

If God says something is going to happen in a certain time period, that's when it's going to happen. There is no gap. When he told Abraham that his descendants were going to be enslaved for 400 years before he brought them out of Egypt, that's exactly how much time it took.

When he said that he was going to give 120 years before he flooded the earth, that's how long it took. He doesn't change his mind about prophecy. When he told the Israelites that because of their grumbling and distrust he would postpone their entry into Caanan for 40 years, that's how long it took.

The gap is inserted by people who don't accept what God says. Instead of reconciling their confusion with the word, they insert a gap and apply these and other prophecies which were all talking about Jesus, not a physical earthly realm, to a physical earthly realm that hasn't occurred yet. It never will. Jesus said, "my kingdom is not of this world."

What did he point out to his apostles and disciples about these sorts of things?

Luke 24
25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

John 2
18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?”

19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

There will be no "third temple." Jesus is the new temple prophesied in Ezekiel 48. The reason for all those measurements? A symbol of its surety. God has measured it and has determined that it is so. And it was so. Everything you read about this has to be considered with this in mind. Paul explains this sort of literal reading of scripture and how those stuck in fleshly readings are missing the point.

2 Corinthians 3
5 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.


Take off the veil

 

[jgr]

If everlasting righteousness was already brought in before Peter wrote this verse, why was he still looking for a place in the future, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Was the righteousness he was still looking for better than the everlasting righteousness some of you allege has already been brought in? If it wasn't better, why wasn't he simply content with the everlasting righteousness some of you allege has already been brought in? Obviously everlasting righteousness can only fit in an age that is everlasting. Is the present age everlasting? No. Is the new heaven and new earth an everlasting age? Yes. The latter is where it fits then.

Romans 5
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Was that righteousness everlasting, or was it temporary?

If it was temporary, when did it end?

It did not end.

It was established by Christ's Sacrifice, and became everlasting at that moment.

As Daniel prophesied.

 

[Douggg]

In God's economy they did, and that is all that matters. When Christ said "it is finished" that was the end of the old covenant arrangement. Once the curtain was cut in two that was it. It usefulness had found its termination point in God's economy. Christ was now the final sacrifice for sin. He had now introduced a new covenant to replace the old! It is already made at the cross! He has already removed our sin! Calvary wrought it all. It finished forever the earthly need for a physical Jewish temple that embodied imperfect shadow sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:14-20 then affirms, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”

The Premillennial belief that the old covenant system will be re-introduced in a future millennium contravenes the plain unambiguous teaching of Christ and the New Testament writers. It ignores the plain instruction of the New Testament scriptures that the old animal sacrifices have been eternally abolished / superseded by Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for sin. Such an arrangement would be totally pointless in the light of the cross and would be a retrograde step in the plan of God. It must undermine the finality, eternal sufficiency, and wonder of the cross. Calvary is obviously undermined in this dangerous doctrine. Is the Cross not the only means of salvation. Is Christ's hands not a sufficient reminder to all that the work for sin is eternally finished.

The main purpose of the temple was to give a typical picture of how God deals with the matter of sin. With the first Advent of Christ and His death on the cross the physical earthly temple lost its significance and usefulness. God doesn’t accept animal sacrifices anymore; He was fully and eternally satisfied with His Son’s sacrifice on the tree.

Hebrews 10:18 says, “there is no more offering for sin.”

Why? Because Christ finished the need of sin-offerings at the Cross.

Hebrews 10:26 says, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

Why? Because Christ is man's only substitute for sin. Why would we need other substitutes for sin? Surely this is a serious assault upon the merits and value of the Cross. Christ is the last sin offering. Christ has made that one final satisfactory sacrifice for sin. The old ordinances were superseded on the tree with Christ’s atonement. The old covenant was removed with the introduction of the new.

We should let Scripture speak for itself. Colossians 2:14 plainly declares, speaking of these Old Testament ordinances, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

Q. When did/will the "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances" occur?

A. Christ "took it out of the way" by "nailing it to his cross.”

These ordinances embraced the old covenant civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical law. They were finished at the cross.

When Christ made that final sacrifice for sin He satisfied all God’s holy demands for sin and uncleanness and thus Christ became the final propitiation and substitution for the sinner. Ephesians 2:15 also says, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

Jesus did away with any need or reliance upon the outward keeping of the old covenant religious system. The cross fulfilled forever God’s demand for a perfect once-for-all sacrifice.

You post is about Soteriology. This forum is about eschatology.