Is the year when the tribulation ends written in scripture?

[Al Touthentop]

You don't understand Israel have not yet ATONED ? Prophecy is not everyone's forte. God made no mistake, you just don't understand this prophecy here brother.

“Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

Nowhere in there does it say that this is Israel's requirement or that there is a condition placed upon its fulfillment other than it will ALL happen in the 70 weeks determined. It doesn't say, "70 weeks unless you decide you don't want to do some of what's on the list."

It says that everything on that list will take place within the determined time and that the events are "for your holy city." As in for the benefit of. He doesn't say they are going to do any of it. He is.

We can't move from this spot into other areas of scripture until this passage is accepted for what it says. If I am misreading this, how am I supposed to read it? It's pretty non-controversial if you ask me.

 

[Al Touthentop]

It just simply means the Jews and their Holy City will be accursed for nigh 2000 years. Jerusalem basically became a non entity in world events until 1948. It was not a thriving city until the Jews returned. Likewise God judged the Babylonians and THE CITY was cursed also. But Jerusalem will be the dwelling place of Jesus Christ, its not going to be destroyed.

Pretty much everyone accepts that 70 weeks = 490 years, even the dispensationalists.. What dispensationalists teach however is that there is a gap which has caused the prophecy to be postponed and we're still waiting for its end. The gap can't be found in the text and everything that was prophesied seems to have clearly come to pass. If it hasn't, then we're still waiting on the promised Messiah.

 

[Revealing Times]

Pretty much everyone accepts that 70 weeks = 490 years, even the dispensationalists.. What dispensationalists teach however is that there is a gap which has caused the prophecy to be postponed and we're still waiting for its end. The gap can't be found in the text and everything that was prophesied seems to have clearly come to pass. If it hasn't, then we're still waiting on the promised Messiah.

Brother, quit worrying about how God sees time. God can't lie, so you are saying God's Word is not any good because He spoke something that didn't happen in your imagined timeline. Israel has not repented. Thus the 70th week has not started.

God's First Day of creation lasted 9.2 billion years. You can't understand God's Ways or His timing.

The Prophecy is given in THREE DIFFERENT PORTIONS. The last week has yet to come, trying to force it ain't going to make it true brother. You listened to men tell you that, because it doesn't come from the Father.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Brother, quit worrying about how God sees time. God can't lie, so you are saying God's Word is not any good because He spoke something that didn't happen in your imagined timeline. Israel has not repented. Thus the 70th week has not started.

No, That's what you're saying. You're saying he didn't complete what he said he'd complete in 70 weeks - 490 years.

God's First Day of creation lasted 9.2 billion years. You can't understand God's Ways or His timing.

What is it? A thousand years for a day, or 9.2 billion years? The bible says it was a 24 hour day as inspired by the Holy Spirit. You're the one arguing with God, not me.

Peter didn't even say that anyway. He said that a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day to God, not to man. It's not a cipher to decode prophesy. It was supposed to be a comfort and a way to think for people who were impatient about answered prayer. Peter's declaration had nothing at all to do with how we are to interpret prophecy.

The Prophecy is given in THREE DIFFERENT PORTIONS. The last week has yet to come, trying to force it ain't going to make it true brother. You listened to men tell you that, because it doesn't come from the Father.

The prophecy, right at the beginning says what is going to happen and the time frame in which it will happen. It makes no conditions. You still haven't been able to explain the conditions you say exist because they aren't there. No such conditions were written or conveyed.

 

[DavidPT]

It just simply means the Jews and their Holy City will be accursed for nigh 2000 years. Jerusalem basically became a non entity in world events until 1948. It was not a thriving city until the Jews returned. It was cursed with Arab rule nor trodden under foot by the Gentiles. Likewise God judged the Babylonians and THE CITY was cursed also. But Jerusalem will be the dwelling place of Jesus Christ, its not going to be destroyed.

It was destroyed in 70 AD though, which means if some of these are correct about no gaps in the 70 weeks, the events of 70 AD contradict the fact Daniel 9:24 indicates 70 weeks are determined, concerning the holy city for one, to finish the transgression. Clearly if the transgression concerning the holy city is finished, this same city is not then destroyed a number of years later. Obviously then, the correct chronology is that the events of 70 AD happen first then sometime after that the 70 weeks finish up, and not the other way around instead. I would think you and I are at least on the same page in regards to this.


Where we might not be on the same page is when you said--- "But Jerusalem will be the dwelling place of Jesus Christ, its not going to be destroyed".


Of course Jerusalem is going to be the dwelling place of Christ. But which Jerusalem though? After all, there will be a new Jerusalem at some point, so what happens to the old Jerusalem then?

 

[Al Touthentop]

It was destroyed in 70 AD though, which means if some of these are correct about no gaps in the 70 weeks, the events of 70 AD contradict the fact Daniel 9:24 indicates 70 weeks are determined, concerning the holy city for one, to finish the transgression.
Clearly if the transgression concerning the holy city is finished, this same city is not then destroyed a number of years later.

About 37 years later. But why does the phrase "end the transgression" have to mean the city's destruction?

Obviously then, the correct chronology is that the events of 70 AD happen first then sometime after that the 70 weeks finish up, and not the other way around instead. I would think you and I are at least on the same page in regards to this.

But that wouldn't then fit into the timeline God laid out. The 70 weeks would have been completed about 3 1/2 years after the crucifixion which I think corresponds to when Cornelius was preached to by Peter, bringing the gentiles into the kingdom. It says the Messiah would confirm a covenant in the middle of the 70th week.

Where we might not be on the same page is when you said--- "But Jerusalem will be the dwelling place of Jesus Christ, its not going to be destroyed".


Of course Jerusalem is going to be the dwelling place of Christ. But which Jerusalem though? After all, there will be a new Jerusalem at some point, so what happens to the old Jerusalem then?

Jesus referred to himself as the temple, so it seems pretty fair to assume this is talking about the heavenly Jerusalem.

 

[DavidPT]

About 37 years later. But why does the phrase "end the transgression" have to mean the city's destruction?

I think you are missing the point. How can the city be destroyed to begin with unless the city involves transgressions? How would that be fair for God to have the city destroyed if the city is not even involved in transgressions? I would think transgression means in rebellion to God, for one. Clearly leading up to 70 AD many of the people of the city were still in rebellion to God, the fact animal sacrificing continued, and that these same people continued to reject Jesus. So how can the transgression upon the people and the holy city possibly be finished prior to 70 AD? How can anyone possibly find that reasonable?

Jesus referred to himself as the temple, so it seems pretty fair to assume this is talking about the heavenly Jerusalem.

That might apply to the here and now spiritually, but at some point in the future Revelation 21-22 will be fulfilled literally. So I was meaning after Christ has physically returned. What happens to the Jerusalem in the middle East at that point? Is it eventually destroyed in order to make way for the new Jerusalem, or do both Jerusalems literally exist at the same time for forever?

 

[Al Touthentop]

I think you are missing the point. How can the city be destroyed to begin with unless the city involves transgressions? How would that be fair for God to have the city destroyed if the city is not even involved in transgressions? I would think transgression means in rebellion to God, for one.

OK. That's a possibility. But it could also mean finish the transgression under the old about-to-be defunct covenant. It doesn't say anything about the destruction of the city there.

That might apply to the here and now spiritually, but at some point in the future Revelation 21-22 will be fulfilled literally. So I was meaning after Christ has physically returned. What happens to the Jerusalem in the middle East at that point? Is it eventually destroyed in order to make way for the new Jerusalem, or do both Jerusalems literally exist at the same time for forever?

But, in the beginning and end of Revelation it says that the prophecy therein will "shortly come to pass."

Obviously we are still waiting for "the Last Day" that Jesus talked about, but that prophecy was directed specifically to the 7 churches in Asia. There's no indication that it was to take 2000 years for it to be accomplished. In fact, the angel tells John not to seal up the prophecy because it would happen quickly. Compare that with what the angel told Daniel, that he should seal it up because it wouldn't happen for a long time.

If 490 years requires sealing, and Revelation did not, we have to assume then that a much shorter time period was indicated.

 

[DavidPT]

OK. That's a possibility. But it could also mean finish the transgression under the old about-to-be defunct covenant. It doesn't say anything about the destruction of the city there.

If you are meaning Daniel 9:24, yes I realize it says nothing about the destruction of the city in that verse. Yet the city was destroyed in 70 AD. It therefore makes no sense, that if the transgression concerning the city is supposed to already be finished, why then is the city being destroyed, not before the transgression is finished, but after it is finished?

Let's consider the following for a moment.

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

Let's try and be logical here at least. This verse says and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Does that sound like something that would be true before the transgression mentioned in Daniel 9:24, which also concerns Jerusalem, is finished? Or does it sound like something that would be true after the transgression is finished?

Let's also consider Zechariah 14:11 in light of what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD. Does Zechariah 14:11 sound like something that would already be true before 70 AD? Or something that would not be true until after 70 AD?


The way I would answer my own questions I presented, would be like such.

This verse says and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Does that sound like something that would be true before the transgression mentioned in Daniel 9:24, which also concerns Jerusalem, is finished? Or does it sound like something that would be true after the transgression is finished?

I would answer, the latter.

Let's also consider Zechariah 14:11 in light of what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD. Does Zechariah 14:11 sound like something that would already be true before 70 AD? Or something that would not be true until after 70 AD?

I would again answer, the latter.

If logically Zechariah 14:11 cannot be true until after the transgression is finished, which also concerns Jerusalem, and that Zechariah 14:11 can't already be true before 70 AD, how then can one conclude the 70 weeks are finished prior to 70 AD, when the events of 70 AD, along with Zechariah 14:11, prove otherwise?

 

[Al Touthentop]

If you are meaning Daniel 9:24, yes I realize it says nothing about the destruction of the city in that verse. Yet the city was destroyed in 70 AD. It therefore makes no sense, that if the transgression concerning the city is supposed to already be finished, why then is the city being destroyed, not before the transgression is finished, but after it is finished?

To give the church time to be established in Jerusalem and give the Jews there an opportunity to accept the gospel is my understanding. Just before Jesus ascends he tells his apostles that the prophecies foretold that the gospel would be preached to all the nations beginning in Jerusalem.

Let's consider the following for a moment.

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


Let's try and be logical here at least. This verse says and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Does that sound like something that would be true before the transgression mentioned in Daniel 9:24, which also concerns Jerusalem, is finished? Or does it sound like something that would be true after the transgression is finished?

What it sounds like to me is something we have to reconcile with what happened and with what this word says. We can't even be sure that this prophecy was about this time period.

Let's also consider Zechariah 14:11 in light of what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD. Does Zechariah 14:11 sound like something that would already be true before 70 AD? Or something that would not be true until after 70 AD?

If it is figurative and Jerusalem is not the physical city but the spiritual one, It could be either. Either way, it isn't appropriate to pit Zechariah against Daniel is it?

The way I would answer my own questions I presented, would be like such.

This verse says and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Does that sound like something that would be true before the transgression mentioned in Daniel 9:24, which also concerns Jerusalem, is finished? Or does it sound like something that would be true after the transgression is finished?

I would answer, the latter.

Let's also consider Zechariah 14:11 in light of what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD. Does Zechariah 14:11 sound like something that would already be true before 70 AD? Or something that would not be true until after 70 AD?

I would again answer, the latter.

I think it depends on what was meant by the city of Jerusalem.

If logically Zechariah 14:11 cannot be true until after the transgression is finished, which also concerns Jerusalem, and that Zechariah 14:11 can't already be true before 70 AD, how then can one conclude the 70 weeks are finished prior to 70 AD, when the events of 70 AD, along with Zechariah 14:11, prove otherwise?

The way we can conclude that Daniel 9 is true is because God said that everything was "determined" to happen in 70 weeks. Our own understanding has to conform to God's proclamation, not his proclamation to our understanding. If the finishing of the transgression was the ending of the old law rather than something else we might imagine, it could mean that "breaking" the law could no longer occur since it was no longer in effect. A new transgression would be in play - breaking of the new Covenant which it says would be confirmed in the middle (midst) of the 70th week.

Now that is just one possibility of what that phrase "finish the transgression" means. I don't claim to have special revelation. Peter says that no prophecy is of private interpretation, meaning that the utterance and meaning of prophecy was revealed to us by Holy Spirit guidance of his prophets. What we see in the New Testament is Jesus and the apostles telling us what those prophecies meant and they didn't explain all of them. However, we can safely assume, given the way they explained those which they did, that they were worded figuratively and the events they described were playing out as they preached. For instance, look at Peter's sermon in Acts 2 where he tells the crowd that Joel who speaks of the "last days" was being fulfilled right then. That ought to modify our conclusions about what was meant by the "last days" in many prophecies among other misconceptions we might hold.

"But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:"

What is the "this" he's talking about by using the near demonstrative pronoun? The "this" they were witnessing. And the language used in the prophecy was grandiose and included signs and wonders in the heavens. That is a clue for us that prophecy is often hyperbolic and figurative and we err by trying to explain it in ways the apostles didn't bother to use. If they didn't demand that it be interpreted literally, then why would we do that? We have to use the same measuring stick they did, not create our own. Are our minds closed or open?

"But their minds were closed. For to this day the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant. It has not been lifted, because only in Christ can it be removed. 15And even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.…"

I think that we have to look at these prophecies with the thought in mind that those which even hint at the events of Christ's time on earth were fulfilled in that time period. If we don't, I think we're suffering from just what Paul said here. We're looking through a veil which is removed when we apply Christ as the answer.