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

[DavidPT]

Agreed, I think that’s why some preterist have the 1,000 years ending at the cross.

But how does that solve what is recorded in Daniel 9:26 involving destroying the city and sanctuary? How can that not involve transgressions?

Let’s look at the options we have …

1 the transgression is finished at the cross

2 the transgression is finished when NHNE are realized

3 the transgression is finished when Jerusalem is destroyed in AD 70


Do you see any other options that should be added?

Just so we are on the same page here, I'm not arguing that none of what is recorded in Daniel 9:24 has been fulfilled yet. I'm arguing that not all of it has, therefore, some of it has been fulfilled, some of it hasn't.

As to those options you listed, I think those should cover it, meaning in regards to the transgression upon the holy city being finished, one of the things that have to be fulfilled before the 70 weeks can be finished. I choose option 2 since that agrees with the following in Zechariah 14 which doesn't make sense unless the new Jerusalem is being meant, keeping in mind that one can't have the new Jerusalem without a new heavens and new earth.

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

Zechariah 14:11 then equals this---the transgression upon the holy city is finished. No matter how you look at it, Zechariah 14:11 is meaning post when the following is meaning---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary(Daniel 9:26). And obviously, though some might disagree, the transgression upon the holy city is not finished before this is even fulfilled---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (Daniel 9:26).

 

[grafted branch]

Zechariah 14:11 then equals this---the transgression upon the holy city is finished. No matter how you look at it, Zechariah 14:11 is meaning post when the following is meaning---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary(Daniel 9:26)

We have come to New Jerusalem, at least in a spiritual way; so I would say the city was destroyed, spiritually speaking, before it was destroyed physically.

We know Jerusalem was left desolate in Matthew 23:38.

 

[DavidPT]

We have come to New Jerusalem, at least in a spiritual way; so I would say the city was destroyed, spiritually speaking, before it was destroyed physically.

We know Jerusalem was left desolate in Matthew 23:38.

Zechariah 14:10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.


If we take verse 11 to be referring to what you are, how does one then explain the compass direction in verse 10? How can there be a south of something spiritual? Verse 10 proves verse 11 is to be taken literally. There is only one Jerusalem that fits verse 11, it's the new Jerusalem. Per verse 11 the following would have been true concerning Jerusalem when Christ walked the earth---And men shall dwell in it---Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited. But when 70 AD happened the following is no longer true---And men shall dwell in it---Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited. Which then contradicts this if verse 11 is meaning before 70 AD---and there shall be no more utter destruction.

All of this has to do with this in Daniel 9:24---to finish the transgression upon the holy city, one of the things that have to be fulfilled before the 70 weeks can be finished. In 70 AD the transgression upon the holy city was not already finished, otherwise 70 AD would have never happened. And this same holy city is on the map again and still doesn't resemble a city where the transgression upon it has been finished.

 

[grafted branch]

Zechariah 14:10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.


If we take verse 11 to be referring to what you are, how does one then explain the compass direction in verse 10? How can there be a south of something spiritual? Verse 10 proves verse 11 is to be taken literally. There is only one Jerusalem that fits verse 11, it's the new Jerusalem. Per verse 11 the following would have been true concerning Jerusalem when Christ walked the earth---And men shall dwell in it---Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited. But when 70 AD happened the following is no longer true---And men shall dwell in it---Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited. Which then contradicts this if verse 11 is meaning before 70 AD---and there shall be no more utter destruction.

All of this has to do with this in Daniel 9:24---to finish the transgression upon the holy city, one of the things that have to be fulfilled before the 70 weeks can be finished. In 70 AD the transgression upon the holy city was not already finished, otherwise 70 AD would have never happened. And this same holy city is on the map again and still doesn't resemble a city where the transgression upon it has been finished.

Ok, so let’s go back to the 3 possible options. If the transgression isn’t finished at the cross or AD 70 then it has to be finished after Satans little season.

Question, does the AOD take place before or after the millennium? If after the millennium, the instructions to flee are telling people to flee from Jesus and his throne.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Moving on to the third goal of the seventieth week; how it was understood by New Testament writers to have been fulfilled.

• Third, they reconciled us to God whose justice was satisfied by the propitiatory sacrifice of his Son.

With the problem of transgression and sin dealt with, (posts #6 and #7) we are able to be reconciled to God. Reconciliation is what Jacob saw when he had the vision of heaven open and a stairway between heaven and earth with angels of God ascending and descending. Man is reconciled to God – at one again – after being cast out of Eden; a path between man and his maker is provided.

The prophets saw it too, and St. Paul knew exactly what the Daniel was talking about! He says so in Colossians 1:21-22.

“Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.”​

@Spiritual Jew gives us more examples in post #10.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Intercession for the transgressors was completed at the cross (Isaiah 53:12).

If all literal transgressions or rebellions have to come to an end within the 70 weeks, then the final rebellion after the 1,000 years has to take place in the 70 weeks also.

Logical

 

[DavidPT]

Ok, so let’s go back to the 3 possible options. If the transgression isn’t finished at the cross or AD 70 then it has to be finished after Satans little season.

Question, does the AOD take place before or after the millennium? If after the millennium, the instructions to flee are telling people to flee from Jesus and his throne.

This position is assuming the thousand years are pertaining to this age, though I disagree with that position. But let's assume the thousand years are pertaining to this present age and are meaning the past 2000 years. Per this scenario that would place the AOD involving satan's little season if one takes the AOD to be future still. Thus it would be after the millennium. If one takes it to already be fulfilled, such as, it was fulfilled in 70 AD, it would not be before the millennium nor after it, it would be during it. Assuming that the thousand years pertain to this age, IMO, it is far more reasonable that an AOD is connected with satan's little season, and not the millennium instead.


Your argument is somewhat contradictory, though. You argue that, if after the millennium, the instructions to flee are telling people to flee from Jesus and his throne, when it would be equally true if they flee during the millennium. As to before the millennium, I'm not seeing how that can even be a valid option? Meaning per this scenario, that the millennium is meaning now. Per Premil, it would be a valid option since the AOD would obviously precede the millennium per that view.

 

[grafted branch]

Your argument is somewhat contradictory, though. You argue that, if after the millennium, the instructions to flee are telling people to flee from Jesus and his throne, when it would be equally true if they flee during the millennium. As to before the millennium, I'm not seeing how that can even be a valid option?

I think the AOD was the sacrifices that resumed after the veil was torn. I think the AOD standing in the holy place was the altar being put back after the rocks were rent.

They didn’t flee when they saw this because they knew the days were shortened. AOD + days shortened = Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

In Luke 1:4 Theophilus is told that he might know the certainty of those things. Luke mentions neither AOD nor days being shortened, only Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

 

[Christian Gedge]

I think the AOD was the sacrifices that resumed after the veil was torn. I think the AOD standing in the holy place was the altar being put back after the rocks were rent.

That's what the early Church fathers believed too. Here is Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book 8 Chapter 2

"At his Passion the Veil of the Temple was wholly rent in twain, and from that moment the sacrifice and libation well pleasing to God according to the ordinance of the Law was in effect taken away, and when it was removed, the abomination of desolation, as the prophecy before us says, appeared in its place."​

 

[grafted branch]

That's what the early Church fathers believed too. Here is Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book 8 Chapter 2

"At his Passion the Veil of the Temple was wholly rent in twain, and from that moment the sacrifice and libation well pleasing to God according to the ordinance of the Law was in effect taken away, and when it was removed, the abomination of desolation, as the prophecy before us says, appeared in its place."​

Thanks for showing that, I haven’t studied the church fathers much but I do respect all the efforts that has gone before us, their work has great value.

 

[DavidPT]

They didn’t flee when they saw this because they knew the days were shortened. AOD + days shortened = Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

In Luke 1:4 Theophilus is told that he might know the certainty of those things. Luke mentions neither AOD nor days being shortened, only Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

I have no clue what you are getting at here, in light of what I didn't quote in your post. Can you perhaps explain this in another way? I have to be able to grasp what you are meaning before I can judge whether you are correct or not.

 

[grafted branch]

I have no clue what you are getting at here, in light of what I didn't quote in your post. Can you perhaps explain this in another way? I have to be able to grasp what you are meaning before I can judge whether you are correct or not.

The AOD was the sign the flee but the days were shortened, which changed the sign. Luke clarifies this by simply saying flee when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies.

 

[DavidPT]

The AOD was the sign the flee but the days were shortened, which changed the sign. Luke clarifies this by simply saying flee when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies.

But what about what is recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13? Don't those accounts say one is to flee when they see the AOD?

Why would Jesus be playing games in the OD by having signs changed? This is the first I have heard of anyone interpreting it in that manner. As to the days being shortened, that is after the AOD has been seen, and is after some have already fled. Matthew 24 calls it great tribulation. There was no great tribulation occurring when Christ was still alive and physically present on the earth. And if great tribulation recorded in Matthew 24 is meaning Luke 21:20-23, as some interpreters have proposed, where then is there any mention of an AOD in Luke 21:20-23? Clearly, great tribulation involves the AOD.

 

[grafted branch]

But what about what is recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13? Don't those accounts say one is to flee when they see the AOD?

Why would Jesus be playing games in the OD by having signs changed? This is the first I have heard of anyone interpreting it in that manner. As to the days being shortened, that is after the AOD has been seen, and is after some have already fled. Matthew 24 calls it great tribulation. There was no great tribulation occurring when Christ was still alive and physically present on the earth. And if great tribulation recorded in Matthew 24 is meaning Luke 21:20-23, as some interpreters have proposed, where then is there any mention of an AOD in Luke 21:20-23? Clearly, great tribulation involves the AOD.

In Matthew 24:3 they asked what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age. The AOD is a sign that both Matthew and Mark have the parenthetical phrase (let him that readeth understand) attached to. After the parenthetical phrase in Matthew 24:15, it says in verse 16 then let those which be in Judaea flee.

So when a person sees the AOD then they are to read the book of Daniel and understand. Once they understand then they are to flee. Luke, which has perfect understanding according to Luke 1:3, has already done the reading of Daniel and understood it to mean that they should flee when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

 

[Timtofly]

Intercession for the transgressors was completed at the cross (Isaiah 53:12).

If all literal transgressions or rebellions have to come to an end within the 70 weeks, then the final rebellion after the 1,000 years has to take place in the 70 weeks also.

Why? That is not even an argument Amil make. This time that everything will be the standard living condition will be the 1,000 years Satan is bound, not the end of Satan's binding. Even those living under those perfect conditions will have a chance to turn their backs on God. Is God just withholding such a choice? At the end, no one will be able to say they never had a chance to rebel against God, and follow Satan. Rebellion is not even in that list. Disobedience is not in that list.

Rebellion and disobedience is covered under the iron rod rule. The lack of sin and and a sin nature does not necessarily cover rebellion and disobedience. Even before Adam disobeyed God, there was still one law, and Adam could still rebel and disobey God by breaking that law. Even when sin and a sin nature were not present breaking a law still produced death for the one disobeying that law. One can still rebel against laws in the Millennium. It will not be from one's natural tendency though.

 

[grafted branch]

Why? That is not even an argument Amil make. This time that everything will be the standard living condition will be the 1,000 years Satan is bound, not the end of Satan's binding. Even those living under those perfect conditions will have a chance to turn their backs on God. Is God just withholding such a choice? At the end, no one will be able to say they never had a chance to rebel against God, and follow Satan. Rebellion is not even in that list. Disobedience is not in that list.

Rebellion and disobedience is covered under the iron rod rule. The lack of sin and and a sin nature does not necessarily cover rebellion and disobedience. Even before Adam disobeyed God, there was still one law, and Adam could still rebel and disobey God by breaking that law. Even when sin and a sin nature were not present breaking a law still produced death for the one disobeying that law. One can still rebel against laws in the Millennium. It will not be from one's natural tendency though.

I’m not trying to prove any end time view, but if you think the transgression in Daniel 9:24 isn’t finished until the last literal/physical transgression has been committed, then the 70 weeks also can’t be finished until Satans little season is finished.

I think the most logical view is that the transgression was finished at the cross.

Anyway, we are moving on now and looking at CG’s third point reconciliation with God.

 

[Timtofly]

I’m not trying to prove any end time view, but if you think the transgression in Daniel 9:24 isn’t finished until the last literal/physical transgression has been committed, then the 70 weeks also can’t be finished until Satans little season is finished.

I think the most logical view is that the transgression was finished at the cross.

Anyway, we are moving on now and looking at CG’s third point reconciliation with God.

No one has even defined the transgression in this thread. This is Adam's punishment of bringing sin into the world. The Atonement covered Adam's sin. But to totally remove sin, is still a future point in time. When the 7th Trumpet stops that is the end of the 70 weeks. That is the end of Adam's flesh and blood on earth. That is the end of sin. Revelation 10:6-7 is about the end of those 70 weeks. That is the time that is up. It is also the end of Adam's 6,000 year punishment of dead corruptible flesh. No more corruptible flesh at that point. That is what the end of the transgression actually is. Adam's flesh and sin did not end in 34AD.

 

[grafted branch]

No one has even defined the transgression in this thread. This is Adam's punishment of bringing sin into the world. The Atonement covered Adam's sin. But to totally remove sin, is still a future point in time. When the 7th Trumpet stops that is the end of the 70 weeks. That is the end of Adam's flesh and blood on earth. That is the end of sin. Revelation 10:6-7 is about the end of those 70 weeks. That is the time that is up. It is also the end of Adam's 6,000 year punishment of dead corruptible flesh. No more corruptible flesh at that point. That is what the end of the transgression actually is. Adam's flesh and sin did not end in 34AD.

What about Satans little season? Are you saying no transgression takes place during this time? Or are you saying a new type of sin happens(not Adams flesh and sin)?

 

[DavidPT]

Anyway, we are moving on now and looking at CG’s third point reconciliation with God.

What needs to be kept in mind, some of are not arguing that nothing in Daniel 9:24 has been fulfilled. Some of us are arguing that not all 7 things have been fulfilled, which logically means the 70 weeks can't be finished yet. IMO, unless one can convincingly prove otherwise, the transgression upon the holy city is not finished if 70 AD happened after it was allegedly finished. And that's not even taking into account that this same holy city is back on the map again, and that it doesn't remotely resemble a city that the transgression involving it is finished. That won't be true until there is the new Jerusalem first. Meaning the one Revelation 21-22 records.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

hi and thanks for asking the question as it is a thoughtful question. Lets make a few points clear one is Jesus brought in the new covenant for the removal of sins. So many leap to the conclusion that this is what Dan 9 is talking about.

It's not a leap at all. Daniel 9:24-27 is all about Jesus, so that should be the first thing that enters someone's mind when thinking of making an end of sins in relation to Jesus.

Reconciliation too can be argued to be at the cross and for us who believe it is the place where that is achieved. In Daniel 9 these things are specifically applied to Daniels people and the Holy city of Jerusalem. Now there is a ton of passages I can show that show a distinct before and after picture for Daniels people and the Holy city that intersect at the 2nd coming.

The holy city is no longer earthly Jerusalem but now is the new heavenly Jerusalem. So, if you are thinking that modern day earthly Jerusalem is the holy city then you are sadly mistaken.

It is much like Joseph being revealed to his brothers and they wept and repented and were accepted. This is what happens at the 2nd coming and why I. bring up Luke one which says Jesus will fulfill the promises, covenants, oaths and prophecies that the house of Jacob, (Daniel People ) will be delivered from their enemies by Jesus to enter a time of worshipping and serving the LORD without fear and now in holiness and righteousness all the days of their lives. Now Luke 1 does not give the list of promises prophecies, covenants and oaths that declare this. I can share with you many of these passages cut and pasted that tell you this exact result that is achieved at the 2nd coming. If you like I would take the time to present it but it will be a long list. Think of Jesus on the road with the two disciples on the road and going through the law and prophets expounding the scriptures that showed how the christ needed to die and be raised on the 3rd day, there are a lot more passages about this transition that tell the same story Daniel 9 and Luke one are related.

Honestly, I find you to be hard to follow. Can you plainly tell me how exactly you think the making an end of sins will be fulfilled according to the prophecy in Daniel 9:24?