The GOALS of the SEVENTIETH WEEK are KEY TOPICS of the NEW TESTAMENT.

[Zao is life]

What I can't figure out, if the text is saying 70 weeks are determined, why then do a lot of interpreters have everything, or almost everything recorded in verse 24, being fulfilled in 69 and 1/2 weeks? The text never says 69 and 1/2 weeks are determined to finish whatever. It says 70 weeks are determined.

If someone breaks the law, goes before a judge, a judge then sentences them to 10 years in order to finish the transgression, is the transgression finished earlier instead, say 9 and 1/2 years rather than 10 years, even if they don't get out of prison until 10 years are up?

The New Covenant was preached to the Jews for the full 70th week though, before the gospel was taken to the Gentiles. Note the word many in both verses:

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28

And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator. Daniel 9:27

For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39

 

[honey badger]

Hi Brian, do you think that the Daniel 9:24 list was fulfilled in a spiritual manner with the physical fulfillment still future? Or do you think it is both spiritually and physically unfulfilled? Or maybe you see it only partially fulfilled?

its fulfilled ... CG is ignoring the evidence because of his own investment in his own theology ...

 

[DavidPT]

The New Covenant was preached to the Jews for the full seven weeks though, before the gospel was taken to the Gentiles. Note the word many in both verses:

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28

And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator. Daniel 9:27

For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39

My argument is still this. Verse 27, the entire verse, it is pertaining to the 70th week. It is impossible to interpret this without it involving a gap somewhere, in light of, that verse 27, the entire verse, pertains to the 70th week.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Hi prophecy is specific and in Gen to Abraham were promised that God would bless all the world through his seed which is Jesus. Jesus is God and God never has an off day so His righteousness is the same at all times. We see Jesus brining in the new covenant promised and fulfilling the prophecies regarding the forgiveness of sins. Now the list in Dan 24 and in Luke 1 is specifically addressed to Daniels people and the holy city Jerusalem. If Jesus brought in reconciliation for Daniels people and Jerusalem we would see a much different result than what happened in 70 AD. Hosea talks about a time when not my people are now called sons of the living God. In Zech 14 we see the LORD is not king until a day when he slay the armies that are overrunning Jerusalem and in that day the LORD is king over all the earth. This when looking at Luke one shows deliverance for the house of Jacob and a new found holiness and righteousness that will endure all their days. I suggest that this time is brought about when Jesus comes and as the prophecy states in Isaiah 9
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

The time the LORD takes the throne is a day when judgement and justice are established the kingdom coming in Dan 2 shows the stone cut without hands descending and leaving no trace of mans government from that time forward. This is the day Zech 14 is talking about and Rev as well when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of the LORD and His Christ and He shall rule forever and ever. The spiritual kingdom is real and that does not nullify the clear propehetic destiny for Daniels people and the HOLY city. The Lord when he comes will bring reconciliation and an end of sin. That is not all the sin but the specific sin of Israel not recognizing Jesus as LORD GOD INCARNATE savior. In Zech 14 after the LORD has come they shall say the LORD is one. This is Israel confessing Jesus as Savior and God. This is Isaiah 61 the day of vengeance and the distinctions between Jew and gentile are throughout the chapter. The mourning of Israel is found here just like Josephs brothers wept when he was revealed ; it will be just like that. This is what brings reconciliation and everlasting righteousness and world peace. The millennium is real and not removed to the new Jerusalem the 1000 years in between is where Armageddon leads to.


1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
3 To console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified.”
4 And they shall rebuild the old ruins,
They shall raise up the former desolations,
And they shall repair the ruined cities,
The desolations of many generations.
5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
And the sons of the foreigner
Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
6 But you shall be named the priests of the LORD,
They shall call you the servants of our God.
You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,
And in their glory you shall boast.
7 Instead of your shame you shall have double honor,
And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.
Therefore in their land they shall possess double;
Everlasting joy shall be theirs.
8 “For I, the LORD, love justice;
I hate robbery for burnt offering;
I will direct their work in truth,
And will make with them an everlasting covenant.
9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,
And their offspring among the people.
All who see them shall acknowledge them,
That they are the posterity whom the LORD has blessed.”
10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD,
My soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the earth brings forth its bud,
As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,
So the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.

 

[Zao is life]

My argument is still this. Verse 27, the entire verse, it is pertaining to the 70th week. It is impossible to interpret this without it involving a gap somewhere, in light of, that verse 27, the entire verse, pertains to the 70th week.

Yeah I see what you mean about the final 3.5 years. But the prophecy is about the Messiah and that after the 69th week He would strengthen the covenant, but be cut off. The rest is about city and sanctuary being destroyed, and Jesus repeated that part of the prophecy. He fulfilled the one part, and before He was crucified He repeated the part about city and sanctuary that would be destroyed.

So I believe that the 70th week was fulfilled in that the covenant was confirmed for 1 week, first by Christ, then by the apostles, but the gap in the second part of the prophecy was only fulfilled 40 years later.

To me the fact is, city and sanctuary were indeed destroyed, so that part of the prophecy was indeed fulfilled, even though there was a 40 year gap. I don't believe that the sanctuary referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1-2 is that same sanctuary that was destroyed in 70 A.D (I believe Revelation's sanctuary is the church), and I don't believe the holy city mentioned in Revelation 11:2 is that city that was destroyed in 70 A.D, but the part of New Jerusalem that exists on earth in the saints.

So I can't see the fulfillment of that part of the prophecy being held out for another 2,000 years.

In any case, I don't see why, when city and sanctuary were destroyed in 70 A.D, it should happen a second time 1,920+ years later.

 

[Christian Gedge]

its fulfilled ... CG is ignoring the evidence because of his own investment in his own theology ...

I believe that the list was fulfilled, so I'm not sure what you mean here. Which part of my theology would you like to discuss with me?

 

[Timtofly]

The New Covenant was preached to the Jews for the full 70th week though, before the gospel was taken to the Gentiles. Note the word many in both verses:

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28

And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator. Daniel 9:27

For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts 2:39

There has been no desolation with Satan in control of the throne of the Prince Messiah.

You are claiming an ongoing desolation, as well as a future 42 months of desolation. There will only be desolation as described in Daniel 9:27 after Jesus takes a throne in Jerusalem after a Second Coming.

 

[Christian Gedge]

My argument is still this. Verse 27, the entire verse, it is pertaining to the 70th week. It is impossible to interpret this without it involving a gap somewhere, in light of, that verse 27, the entire verse, pertains to the 70th week.

We have discussed this before but you never read - you never listen. 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.

So, the end of the 70th week is not explicitly mentioned in verse 27, but it is mentioned in verse 24. It is 'the anointing of the most holy.' This was completed over 7 years between AD 27 and AD 34. My notes on verse 27 below:

He (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after his revealing) shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (temple curtain torn) And on the wing of abominations (ongoing sacrifice an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus destroys temple) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. (judgement on Jerusalem)​

 

[Zao is life]

There has been no desolation with Satan in control of the throne of the Prince Messiah.

You are claiming an ongoing desolation, as well as a future 42 months of desolation. There will only be desolation as described in Daniel 9:27 after Jesus takes a throne in Jerusalem after a Second Coming.

Who said anything about Satan being in control of the throne of Messiah? Daniel 9:24-27 certainly says nothing like that, and that's the text we are talking about.

The throne of the Messiah is in heaven where Jesus is seated at the right hand of God. But Daniel 9:26-27 does speak about the desolation to city and sanctuary that would come as a result of (many) abominations (plural - not only one abomination, as in Matthew 24:15, which is speaking about something else).

Those many abominations, as CG said, were in the form of continued sacrifices for sin after Messiah had brought an end to sacrifice for sin by the once-for-all offering of Himself.

You're the one who's decided that Daniel 9:27 is referring to Satan in control of the throne of Messiah, no one else.

But the man of sin mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is the anti-type of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the temple he will seat himself up in is the only Tabernacle of God, i.e the New Testament Temple:

And the king shall do according to his will. And he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper until the fury is fulfilled. For that which is decreed shall be done.
He will not regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god. For he shall magnify himself above all. Daniel 11:36-37

Let not anyone deceive you by any means. For that Day shall not come unless there first comes a falling away, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition,
who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth, that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

The first two verses above are talking about Antiochus Epiphanes, the last two are talking about the man of sin, the anti-type of Antiochus.

Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31, Daniel 11:36-37 and Daniel chapter 12 are referring to Antiochus Epiphanes and the abomination he set up, but Daniel chapter 12 overlaps with the time of the end of this Age and not only refers back to the abomination of desolation set up by Antiochus, but it also projects all of this forward to the end of this Age and the man of sin, showing that Antiochus Epiphanes and his desecration of the holy place is THE type of the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2. This is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place which Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24:15.

The abominations (plural) mentioned in Daniel 9:27 have nothing to do with the abomination (singular) mentioned in Matthew 24:15, which is referring to the abomination of Desolation mentioned in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31, Daniel 11:36-37 and Daniel chapter 12, which are referring to Antiochus Epiphanes and the abomination he set up, and overlaps with the time of the end of this Age and corresponds with the man of sin.

You seem to have fallen in with the same misconception of others who have joined things together that do not belong together, and gotten their eschatology all wobbly as a result.

God only has one Temple today. No building made with human hands will He ever regard as His Temple again, so even if another building gets erected where that temple stood, it matters not who does what in such a man-made temple.

So either you must become a Preterist and place Matthew 24:15 and all the Olivet Discourse and 2 Thessalonians 2 all in 70 A.D and the temple that was destroyed because of the abominations (plural) that were being done in it,

or you must acknowledge, finally (like all Christians should) that the temple made with human hands that was destroyed in 70 A.D ceased being the holy place of the presence of God when the veil that was in it was torn in two from top to bottom, and from then on and forever it would never be God's temple again.

 

[DavidPT]

He (Messiah) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week (3½ yrs after his revealing) shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (temple curtain torn) And on the wing of abominations (ongoing sacrifice an abomination) shall be one who makes desolate, (Titus destroys temple) even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. (judgement on Jerusalem)​

Why doesn't what I have underlined per your interpretation agree with what is written in the text involving the following?


Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

You would have us believe, either ppl were blind as bats back then, or ppl were doing what verse 16 says to do, that they were doing this for years straight? After all, if the abomination was ongoing sacrifices, we're talking something that is ongoing for 40 years straight. Yet, the text above says this--- When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation----Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains

Do you have proof they were doing that on an ongoing basis, that for 40 years straight, every time they saw that animal sacrificing continued, thus the abomination in your view, they fled into the mountains? If they didn't do that throughout the 40 years leading up to 70 AD, what is recorded in verse 16, but that animal sacrificing was the abomination Matthew 24:15 is referring to, I guess that makes them blind as bats or maybe not very bright if they were to flee when they see the abomination, but don't flee.

What I have underlined in your quote obviously contradicts Matthew 24:16. If you think obvious contradictions prove an interpretation correct rather than false, well I don't know what to tell you in that case.

 

[Zao is life]

Why doesn't what I have underlined per your interpretation agree with what is written in the text involving the following?


Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

You would have us believe, either ppl were blind as bats back then, or ppl were doing what verse 16 says to do, that they were doing this for years straight? After all, if the abomination was ongoing sacrifices, we're talking something that is ongoing for 40 years straight. Yet, the text above says this--- When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation----Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains

Do you have proof they were doing that on an ongoing basis, that for 40 years straight, every time they saw that animal sacrificing continued, thus the abomination in your view, they fled into the mountains? If they didn't do that throughout the 40 years leading up to 70 AD, what is recorded in verse 16, but that animal sacrificing was the abomination Matthew 24:15 is referring to, I guess that makes them blind as bats or maybe not very bright if they were to flee when they see the abomination, but don't flee.

What I have underlined in your quote obviously contradicts Matthew 24:16.

David the Roman armies weren't surrounding Jerusalem every day between 30 A.D and 70 A.D. The abomination of desolation (singular) mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 has nothing to do with the abominations (plural) that were being done in the temple between 30 A.D and 70 A.D. See my post #29.

 

[DavidPT]

David the Roman armies weren't surrounding Jerusalem every day between 30 A.D and 70 A.D. The abomination of desolation (singular) mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 has nothing to do with the abominations (plural) that were being done in the temple between 30 A.D and 70 A.D. See my post #29.

There is nothing recorded in Daniel 9:27 that could possibly involve 70 AD. That's what I'm arguing against. 70 AD is not in view in that verse, the 70th week is in view.

 

[Zao is life]

There is nothing recorded in Daniel 9:27 that could possibly involve 70 AD. That's what I'm arguing against. 70 AD is not in view in that verse, the 70th week is in view.

70 A.D is indeed in view in Daniel 9:26-27. It mentions the destruction of the city and the temple, which never happened in the 70th week but 40 years later.

@DavidPT Daniel 9:26-27 mentions the destruction of the city and the temple. When did it happen? If it only happened 40 years later, was God wrong not to have inspired Daniel to write that the second part of the prophecy would only be fulfilled 40 years later?

@DavidPT @Timtofly

It is accurate and goes according to the Biblical pattern of type and anti-type to understand that Antiochus IV Epiphanes who desecrated the Old Testament temple with his abomination of desolation is the Biblical type of the man of sin who will desecrate the New Testament temple when he seats himself up in it claiming to be God.

In the case of Antiochus the temple was not destroyed but desecrated, and then cleansed and reconsecrated to God after Antiochus was booted out by the Maccabees. The same type will apply with the New Testament temple when the man of sin seats himself up in it. God's house will not be destroyed but it will be desecrated, defiled and then cleansed and rededicated after Christ consumes the man of sin with the breath of His mouth and the brightness of His coming.

In each case it's one abomination being referred to.

In the case of the Old Testament temple it had ceased being the house of God when the veil was torn but abominations (plural) in the form of sacrifices for sin continued to be made for 40 years and the place those abominations were occurring was in that building which once had housed the holy presence of God, so God allowed the Romans to destroy it

It's not unbliblical and is in accordance with the Biblical pattern of types and anti-types that the abominations in the Old Testament temple in 70 A.D would be a type of the abomination in the New Testament temple, and 70 A.D would be a type of the end of the Age, but in the case of the New Testament temple and like the temple desecrated and defiled by Antiochus but not destroyed, and then cleansed and reconsecrated to God afterward, the New Testament temple will be desecrated and defiled but not destroyed, and then cleansed and reconsecrated to God afterward.

 

[DavidPT]

70 A.D is indeed in view in Daniel 9:26-27. It mentions the destruction of the city and the temple, which never happened in the 70th week but 40 years later.

Only in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 does it record anything about an abomination. Luke 21 doesn't even mention the subject. God was the one who came up with the idea of animal sacrificing to begin with. Why would He demand animal sacrificing at any time if it is ultimately an abomination? I don't recall reading anywhere in the Bible that animal sacrificing is an abomination. Nor I do recall seeing any NT authors calling it an abomination.

 

[DavidPT]

70 A.D is indeed in view in Daniel 9:26-27. It mentions the destruction of the city and the temple, which never happened in the 70th week but 40 years later.

Verse 26 could possibly have 70 AD in view though I am not fully convinced of it. Verse 27 I am fully convinced 70 AD is not in view.

 

[Zao is life]

Only in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 does it record anything about an abomination. Luke 21 doesn't even mention the subject. God was the one who came up with the idea of animal sacrificing to begin with. Why would He demand animal sacrificing at any time if it is ultimately an abomination? I don't recall reading anywhere in the Bible that animal sacrificing is an abomination. Nor I do recall seeing any NT authors calling it an abomination.

It's called an abomination right here:

Isaiah 1:11-17
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me? says the LORD; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.

When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?

Bring no more vain sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure evil and the assembly! Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me; I am weary to bear them.

And when you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.

Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do good; seek judgment, reprove the oppressor. Judge the orphan, plead for the widow.

Hebrews 10:8-10
"Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.

He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Hebrews 10
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Therefore when He comes into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but You have prepared a body for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, Lo, I come ( in the volume of the Book it is written of Me) to do Your will, O God."

But they rejected Christ and continued to sacrifice anyway. Their sacrifices were a continual indication to God that they were rejecting God's sacrifice, the Lamb of God.

Luke 16
15 And He said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Those sacrifices for sin continued to be highly esteemed by those who rejected the Lamb of God's sacrifice of Himself. But they became an abomination to God.

@DavidPT

Explain why the one abomination of Antiochus is the type of the abomination of the man of sin who is still to come, and Matthew 24:15 speaks about one abomination, but Daniel 9:27 speaks of abominations (plural)?

 

[Zao is life]

Verse 26 could possibly have 70 AD in view though I am not fully convinced of it. Verse 27 I am fully convinced 70 AD is not in view.

Verse 26 says the city and sanctuary will be destroyed. Verse 27 says why. Both verses are talking about both the Messiah AND the city and sanctuary. The last part of verse 26 and the last part of verse 27 are about city and sanctuary. The first part of each verse is about the Messiah.

The Messiah:
26 And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself.
27 And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease.

City & Sanctuary:
26 And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war.
27 and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

@DavidPT Compare:

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets, and stone them which are sent unto you, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and all of you would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

It's typical of apocalyptic literature to do this.

 

[DavidPT]

70 A.D is indeed in view in Daniel 9:26-27. It mentions the destruction of the city and the temple, which never happened in the 70th week but 40 years later.

@DavidPT Daniel 9:26-27 mentions the destruction of the city and the temple. When did it happen? If it only happened 40 years later, was God wrong not to have inspired Daniel to write that the second part of the prophecy would only be fulfilled 40 years later?

@DavidPT @Timtofly

It is accurate and goes according to the Biblical pattern of type and anti-type to understand that Antiochus IV Epiphanes who desecrated the Old Testament temple with his abomination of desolation is the Biblical type of the man of sin who will desecrate the New Testament temple when he seats himself up in it claiming to be God.

In the case of Antiochus the temple was not destroyed but desecrated, and then cleansed and reconsecrated to God after Antiochus was booted out by the Maccabees. The same type will apply with the New Testament temple when the man of sin seats himself up in it. God's house will not be destroyed but it will be desecrated, defiled and then cleansed and rededicated after Christ consumes the man of sin with the breath of His mouth and the brightness of His coming.

In each case it's one abomination being referred to.

In the case of the Old Testament temple it had ceased being the house of God when the veil was torn but abominations (plural) in the form of sacrifices for sin continued to be made for 40 years and the place those abominations were occurring was in that building which once had housed the holy presence of God, so God allowed the Romans to destroy it

It's not unbliblical and is in accordance with the Biblical pattern of types and anti-types that the abominations in the Old Testament temple in 70 A.D would be a type of the abomination in the New Testament temple, and 70 A.D would be a type of the end of the Age, but in the case of the New Testament temple and like the temple desecrated and defiled by Antiochus but not destroyed, and then cleansed and reconsecrated to God afterward, the New Testament temple will be desecrated and defiled but not destroyed, and then cleansed and reconsecrated to God afterward.

You would think, at least to the Jews, the 70 weeks being fulfilled should be a time for celebration. Assuming the 70 weeks ended 3.5 years after Christ died, was anybody celebrating at the time? What was happening 3.5 years later? Jews that converted to Christianity were being persecuted, some even killed. What a way to have the 70 weeks come to a close. If some of you want to believe the 70 weeks have already been fulfilled, you have a right to believe that. That doesn't necessarily make you correct, though. I don't need the 70th week, or at least the latter half, to be future still, in order for there to be a rebuilt temple or any such nonsense as that. The way I tend to view it, the first 69 weeks, or perhaps 69 and 1/2 weeks, this involved the literal, the remaining portion has shifted from the literal to spiritual, as in it involves the 42 month reign of the beast and everything connected with that which includes 2 Thessalonian 2:4, etc.

 

[honey badger]

I believe that the list was fulfilled, so I'm not sure what you mean here. Which part of my theology would you like to discuss with me?

oh ok ... my bad ... its just i supplied the fulfilment verse to the prophecy in post 18 and you did not respond ... anyway your still seeing in part understanding 99.9% plus of mankind throughout the ages including those who call themselves christians do not believe in the one true God Jesus spoke to, and follow after a god of their own reasoning known as the prince of the world or the ruler of the power/authority of the air, and therefor belief in the Truth in this realm is not a prerequisite to being saved .....

 

[DavidPT]

70 A.D is indeed in view in Daniel 9:26-27. It mentions the destruction of the city and the temple, which never happened in the 70th week but 40 years later.

@DavidPT Daniel 9:26-27 mentions the destruction of the city and the temple. When did it happen? If it only happened 40 years later, was God wrong not to have inspired Daniel to write that the second part of the prophecy would only be fulfilled 40 years later?

@DavidPT @Timtofly

It is accurate and goes according to the Biblical pattern of type and anti-type to understand that Antiochus IV Epiphanes who desecrated the Old Testament temple with his abomination of desolation is the Biblical type of the man of sin who will desecrate the New Testament temple when he seats himself up in it claiming to be God.

In the case of Antiochus the temple was not destroyed but desecrated, and then cleansed and reconsecrated to God after Antiochus was booted out by the Maccabees. The same type will apply with the New Testament temple when the man of sin seats himself up in it. God's house will not be destroyed but it will be desecrated, defiled and then cleansed and rededicated after Christ consumes the man of sin with the breath of His mouth and the brightness of His coming.

In each case it's one abomination being referred to.

In the case of the Old Testament temple it had ceased being the house of God when the veil was torn but abominations (plural) in the form of sacrifices for sin continued to be made for 40 years and the place those abominations were occurring was in that building which once had housed the holy presence of God, so God allowed the Romans to destroy it

It's not unbliblical and is in accordance with the Biblical pattern of types and anti-types that the abominations in the Old Testament temple in 70 A.D would be a type of the abomination in the New Testament temple, and 70 A.D would be a type of the end of the Age, but in the case of the New Testament temple and like the temple desecrated and defiled by Antiochus but not destroyed, and then cleansed and reconsecrated to God afterward, the New Testament temple will be desecrated and defiled but not destroyed, and then cleansed and reconsecrated to God afterward.

If Daniel 9:27 allegedly involves 70 AD, but that Matthew 24:15 doesn't involve 70 AD, and that Luke 21 doesn't even involve an abomination, where then in the NT is there the connection between what is recorded in Daniel 9:27 and an abomination in 70 AD?