7 Year Tribulation Challenged

[divaD]

Well, let's try this . . .

divaD,

The following text below is written, yes?



And so, what caused the



and so on that you are asking about--and based on what is written per Luke 21:22?

Well, it was the people . . . of the prince . . . yes?

Therefore, the people would be "the abomination of desolation"--and based on what is written. Why?

Well, because we know that the temple sanctuary (Herod's Temple) and city was destroyed long ago; they were destroyed together. And this is a non-repeatable event of history.

Yes?

Hi BB2. One of these days..SIGH...but one of these days you're going to realize I'm not as wrong as you want to think. Just kidding. I already know you will never realize that.,,meaning that you think I am wrong, no ifs ands or buts about it.. Seriously tho, I don't really know if I am correct, or at least close, but I am guessing I might at least be in the ballpark...maybe.


Daniel 9:26 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.

Let's look at this part...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.

Now let's see if we can find a more detailed account in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.
Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.


Let's look at a cpl of things. In Daniel 9:26 we see there are 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.

If we look in Daniel 11 we see this....for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.. My guess would be that the 'he' is the prince that will come in Daniel 9:26, and that these that are a small people, these could be the people of the prince that shall come in Daniel 9:26.


Notice this in Daniel 9:26...and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Now notice this in Daniel 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.


Now notice this in Daniel 11:23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully. Why might that be significant?

Daniel 9:27 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.


I would think he shall work deceitfully when 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.

That's just my guess. How you all interpret Dan 9 so vastly different than I, with you all not considering what Dan 11 might have to say..it puzzles me. Of course there's always that chance that Dan 9 is not connected to Dan 11 whatsoever, but the way it's presently reading to me, I find this difficult to believe.

[John146]

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

What do you make of this verse then, timing-wise?

Any reason to think that doesn't include any of the following?

Luke 21:22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Yes, there is a reason to think that. In Matthew 24 it's clear that Jesus was asked two very different questions. The first question related to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings and the second one related to His coming at the end of the age. Luke 21:20-24 deals specifically with things that were going to happen in and around Jerusalem. so, Jesus was speaking of the days of vengeance against Jerusalem. He wasn't referring to His coming at the end of the age there. He was speaking of Jerusalem and the temple buildings being destroyed there and that happened in 70 AD. But in Luke 21:32, when He said "till all be fulfilled" He was including His coming. So, the context of Luke 21:22 and Luke 21:32 is not the same.

What is the days of vengeance? Isn't it the tribulation or great tribulation?

It is the days of vengeance against Jerusalem for its wickedness and rejection of Christ. Jesus described those days here as well:

Luke 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, 42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. 43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, 44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

What Jesus described here is the same thing He was referring to in Luke 21:20-24 and is exactly what happened around 70 AD. The Roman armies came and surrounded the city and then proceeded to destroy the city and the temple buildings. Jesus was referring to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem which existed back then, not a future version of the city.

What does Matt 24 indicate that immediately follows this trib or great trib?

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

This is not speaking of the tribulation that would occur in Jerusalem, this is speaking of the tribulation period (time of testing) that would occur because of the rise of "false Christs, and false prophets" who "shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect".

Matt 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

I believe Christ's second coming will occur after the says described in the passage above rather than the days described in Matt 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24.

Even if I were no longer premil, I would still have a difficult time seeing this any differently than I presently do.

Only if you insist that just one tribulation period is mentioned in the Olivet Discourse. But it mentions tribulation in two different contexts. The first is specifically regarding tribulation that would occur in and around Jerusalem. The second relates to global tribulation before the second coming of Christ.

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

This shows that Christ's second coming will occur at a time when global tribulation is occurring, not just tribulation in Jerusalem.

By the way, what are your thoughts on what I said in post #266?

[divaD]

This is to add to my last post to BB2..some afterthoughts on my part.

Daniel 9:27 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.

The way it looks to me, the one that shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, this is the same one responsible for the overspreading of abominations. How can that fit Jesus? I just don't get it? I'm not saying none of Daniel 9 is not about Jesus, but I wouldn't think the 'he' in verse 27 is meaning Jesus.


and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

Isn't that exactly what happens here?

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.


How can this just be a coincendence, but not actually related to Daniel 9:27? Compare side by side.

Daniel 9:27....and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

Daniel 11:31....and shall take away the daily sacrifice



Daniel 9:27...and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate

Daniel 11:31....and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

[divaD]

Yes, there is a reason to think that. In Matthew 24 it's clear that Jesus was asked two very different questions. The first question related to the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings and the second one related to His coming at the end of the age. Luke 21:20-24 deals specifically with things that were going to happen in and around Jerusalem. so, Jesus was speaking of the days of vengeance against Jerusalem. He wasn't referring to His coming at the end of the age there. He was speaking of Jerusalem and the temple buildings being destroyed there and that happened in 70 AD. But in Luke 21:32, when He said "till all be fulfilled" He was including His coming. So, the context of Luke 21:22 and Luke 21:32 is not the same.

If it weren't for Daniel 12 being undeniably parallel(at least it seems that way to me) to these days of vengeance you're referring to, I would probably look at it like you are. But in my mind, I can't imagine "and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time" occuring twice in history. The clue here is this...such as never was since there was a nation. Don't nations go all the way back to Genesis 10? BTW, I meant to quote you in that post, so that you knew I was responding to something you said, but I forgot to. But it all worked out, since you responded to what I said.

It is the days of vengeance against Jerusalem for its wickedness and rejection of Christ. Jesus described those days here as well:

Luke 19:41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, 42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. 43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, 44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

What Jesus described here is the same thing He was referring to in Luke 21:20-24 and is exactly what happened around 70 AD. The Roman armies came and surrounded the city and then proceeded to destroy the city and the temple buildings. Jesus was referring to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem which existed back then, not a future version of the city.

These points you make here, it seems it would certainly be more difficult to argue against. I'm well aware of the Luke 19 passage, so I guess I'm going to have to look at it again before I attempt to debate the points with you.

I believe Christ's second coming will occur after the says described in the passage above rather than the days described in Matt 24:15-22 and Luke 21:20-24.

I agree with this part...I believe Christ's second coming will occur after the says described in the passage above...but the rest of it, I don't know yet.

Only if you insist that just one tribulation period is mentioned in the Olivet Discourse. But it mentions tribulation in two different contexts. The first is specifically regarding tribulation that would occur in and around Jerusalem. The second relates to global tribulation before the second coming of Christ.

If there actually are 2 different tribulations in the Olivet Discourse, then of course, your point would be valid. Personally I don't see two different ones. But that doesn't make me right and you wrong tho. It just means I don't see it..at least not yet.

By the way, what are your thoughts on what I said in post #266?

I'm pretty certain I read that post, but I'll have to go back to it, in order to recall what you said in that particular post.

[John146]

If it weren't for Daniel 12 being undeniably parallel(at least it seems that way to me)

Undeniably to you, but I'm denying it.

But in my mind, I can't imagine "and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time" occuring twice in history.

It depends on the context any time a phrase like that is used. How exactly do you interpret that? In what sense do you believe is is referring to "a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time"? Once you answer that then we can discuss whether Matt 24:21 is meant to be understood as speaking of the same thing as Daniel 12:1 or not.

These points you make here, it seems it would certainly be more difficult to argue against.

Why is it your default position to want to argue against anything I say? If you go into reading my posts with that perspective then I don't see how you will ever agree with me. It seems like you are set on disagreeing with me and you just want more time to figure out how to disagree with me.

If there actually are 2 different tribulations in the Olivet Discourse, then of course, your point would be valid. Personally I don't see two different ones. But that doesn't make me right and you wrong tho. It just means I don't see it..at least not yet.

Do you see any difference between the scope of Luke 21:20-24 and the scope of Luke 21:25-26? I do. In Luke 21:20-24 I see a description of tribulation in Jerusalem and Judea. In Luke 21:25-26 I see a description of the tribulation/distress of nations. So, one tribulation has a regional scope (Jerusalem and Judea) and one has a global scope. One answers the question regarding when the temple buildings would be destroyed and the other answers the question regarding the sign of His coming at the end of the age.

I'm pretty certain I read that post, but I'll have to go back to it, in order to recall what you said in that particular post.

But you didn't respond to it, so I'd like to know your thoughts on it if that's okay (don't feel obligated).

[billy-brown 2]

Hi BB2. One of these days..SIGH...but one of these days you're going to realize I'm not as wrong as you want to think. Just kidding. I already know you will never realize that.,,meaning that you think I am wrong, no ifs ands or buts about it.. Seriously tho, I don't really know if I am correct, or at least close, but I am guessing I might at least be in the ballpark...maybe.


Daniel 9:26 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.

Let's look at this part...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.

Now let's see if we can find a more detailed account in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.
Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.


Let's look at a cpl of things. In Daniel 9:26 we see there are 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.

If we look in Daniel 11 we see this....for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.. My guess would be that the 'he' is the prince that will come in Daniel 9:26, and that these that are a small people, these could be the people of the prince that shall come in Daniel 9:26.


Notice this in Daniel 9:26...and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Now notice this in Daniel 11:22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.


Now notice this in Daniel 11:23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully. Why might that be significant?

Daniel 9:27 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.


I would think he shall work deceitfully when 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.

That's just my guess. How you all interpret Dan 9 so vastly different than I, with you all not considering what Dan 11 might have to say..it puzzles me. Of course there's always that chance that Dan 9 is not connected to Dan 11 whatsoever, but the way it's presently reading to me, I find this difficult to believe.

LOL

divaD,

Dan. 9 and Dan. 11 are concerned with different things altogether.

Remember, Gabriel is talking in this passage:

Dan. 9
20Now while I was speaking and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God in behalf of the holy mountain of my God,

21while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering.

22He gave me instruction and talked with me and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding.

23“At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision.

24“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

25“So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

26“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

27“And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

But Daniel is talking in this passage:

Dan. 11
1“In the first year of Darius the Mede, I (Daniel!) arose to be an encouragement and a protection for him.

2“And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to arise in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them; as soon as he becomes strong through his riches, he will arouse the whole empire against the realm of Greece.

3“And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases.

4“But as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass, though not to his own descendants, nor according to his authority which he wielded, for his sovereignty will be uprooted and given to others besides them.

etc.

Then, as we read down through Dan. 11 and so on, we come to these verses also from Daniel:

Dan. 11
29“At the appointed time he will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before.

30“For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.

31“Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.

32“By smooth words he will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will display strength and take action.

etc.

Yep.

And so, we have Gabriel and Daniel talking about "abominations of desolation" and so on.

But which passage above is Jesus referring to when He says this below?

Matt. 24
15“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
16then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
17“Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house.
18“Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.
19“But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
20“But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.
21“For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

Yep. I like to say it like this:

" . . . when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION, get out of there, for then there shall be a great tribulation . . . "

And remember, this passage from Jesus is part of His response about a "determination of destruction" of a temple, yes? Here we are:

Matt. 24
1Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.
2And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

Now, where in Daniel 11 is there any mention at all of a destruction of a temple and a city and so on? Do you know?

(hint . . . hint . . .)

[billy-brown 2]

This is to add to my last post to BB2..some afterthoughts on my part.

Daniel 9:27 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.

The way it looks to me, the one that shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, this is the same one responsible for the overspreading of abominations. How can that fit Jesus? I just don't get it? I'm not saying none of Daniel 9 is not about Jesus, but I wouldn't think the 'he' in verse 27 is meaning Jesus.

Let's see . . .

Dan. 9:27a . . . 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, . . .

OK. This part was accomplished during the 70th week of years by Jesus Christ Himself through His death at Calvary for your sins and mine. And there is no reason to separate this 70th week from the other weeks (as in a "gap" of centuries and so on), because Dan. 9:26 indicates that "after" 62 weeks Messiah is cut off.

Yep. (Did you get that?)

And "after" 62 weeks (of years) means "during" week 70 of the prophesy. Remember, there is already 7 weeks accomplished in the prophesy to add to the 62 weeks already; this produces 69 actual weeks (of years). But all of this from Gabriel has to be accomplished within 70 weeks (of years) of earth-clock time:

Dan. 9
24“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to

1) finish the transgression, to
2) make an end of sin, to
3) make atonement for iniquity, to
4) bring in everlasting righteousness, to
5) seal up vision and prophecy and to
6) anoint the most holy place.

And so, No. 4 in this list (in bold above) has been accomplished already--as mentioned here. That would mean that No. 4 in this list above occurred during week 70 (of years) of the prophesy, and required the death of the Messiah Jesus per the Gospel.

So far, so good. Let's go to the next part:

Dan. 9:27b . . . and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Now, this portion concerns what would happen to the city and sanctuary (temple) per the "determination of desolation" of the previous verse in the chapter. Therefore, the "he" in this passage suffers from translation issues. Here is the version of the verse excerpt that I use on this:

Dan. 9:27b " . . . and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

Interesting . . . do you see this? This translation of the second portion of Dan. 9:27b is from the New American Standard Bible; it connects to Dan. 9:26 in that "a destruction is decreed" or " desolation are determined" and so on. And so, when did that happen?

Well, this happened at the end of Jesus' 3 1/2-year anointed ministry; it was during "Passion Week" and so on:

Matt. 23
37“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
38“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!
39“For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!’”
Matt. 24
1Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.
2And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”

And of course, Jesus died on the cross not many days later after He said these things.

And so, Jesus the Messiah died (i. e., was cut off) during week 70 of the prophesy--indeed, after 62 (actually 69) weeks. And this bring us to the following from you:

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

Isn't that exactly what happens here?

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

How can this just be a coincendence, but not actually related to Daniel 9:27? Compare side by side.

Daniel 9:27....and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

Daniel 11:31....and shall take away the daily sacrifice

Daniel 9:27...and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate

Daniel 11:31....and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Well, I must indicate here that these verses from Dan. 9 and Dan. 11 are not parallel per se. Why?

Well, because there is an "elephant in the room" on this--the non-repeatable destruction of the temple of Herod along with a city per the Dan. 9 text. In other words, there is a context on the Dan. 9 text that does not occur with the Dan. 11 text. Indeed, just because we see the text "abomination of desolation" (and/or similar) does not mean it refers to the same thing every time. I feel that my friend PC seeks to do this a lot also below:

Biblcal Summery so far. I am using the open books of (Rev 20:15) and (Matt 24:15) to open our understanding of the closed book of (Dan 12:1-3) and (Mark 13: 20.)
The question in (Matt 24:2) sets the TIME OF events from (Matt24:15) through to the last end (Dan 8:17,19) of the the time of the end for the indignation’s last end on the last day, concerning the abomination (Dan 24:15)1290th day or maybe less to the signs of His second coming at the Last End.
(Dan 11:31) concerning the set up of the abomination of desolation through no more than 1290 days until (Dan 12: 1 – 3) being 1290 days. (Matt 24.15) concerns the same abomination of desolation through no more than those 1290 days or less (Mark 13:20) to reach (Matt 24:29,30, 31) concerning the second coming of our dear LORD, to raise the dead written in the book of life (Dan12:1–3) verified by Rev 20:15. “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

I am not force reading any of this, it is the scriptures talking to us. Does anyone find this interesting? I have been studying this for 38 years, first as a partial preterist then realised from the scriptures that these things were not of the past. I still feel excited and enthusiastic about Eschatology. Our future in HIS hands, amen.

It is this vile person mentioned earlier and his army that will be responsible for the abomination of desolation being placed on the Temple.
By the way chittim is now called Cyprus where I believe is berthed an American war fleet it maybe the 3rd fleet, but I’m not too sure which fleet. Chittim was named after Javan’s son Kittim. See (Gen10: 4-5.)

Daniel 11: 21. And in his estate shall stand up a VILE PERSON, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

They shall take away the place of the daily.

Daniel 11: 30. For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore HE SHALL BE GRIEVED, and return, and HAVE INDIGNATION AGAINST THE HOLY COVENANT: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. 31. And ARMS SHALL STAND ON HIS PART, AND THEY SHALL POLLUTE THE SANCTUARY of strength, and shall take away the daily AND THEY SHALL PLACE THE ABOMINATION THAT MAKETH DESOLATE.

[divaD]

BB2, ok I read what you said in the last two posts to me, but I'm still not convinced you are entirely correct.

Daniel 9:27 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.


Who would be the 'he' in this verse, that is the 100,000 dollar question?

Is this how you are understanding Daniel 9:27?


And JESUS shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week JESUS shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations JESUS shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Here's what I find difficult about this..this covenant. When would you say Jesus fulfilled any covenant? Wouldn't it have to be at least after He dies and is resurrected? If verse 27 is meaning Jesus, then that means when the sacrifice and the oblation ceased, it would be 3 and 1/2 years into the final 7 years. So technically then, that should be when the covenant is sealed, as in a done deal. But you have Jesus confirming this covenant made in blood before He even dies, since your interpretation puts the beginning of this covenant at the beginning of this last 7 years. Actually that's where the beginning of this covenant is supposed to begin, except I can't see how Jesus confirmed a covenant even before He shed His blood then rose again. So if you don't mind, explain to me how this covenant was already a covenant before Jesus even died? If you say it's meaning the last 3 and 1/2 years of His ministry before He dies, then what about before that time? What about a year before this time..2 years, etc? Why wouldn't He be confirming this covenant then as well, of it can be confirmed before He even dies? Speaking of confirmed, I need to look that up in Strong's.

confirm...gabar....a primitive root; to be strong; by implication, to prevail, act insolently:--exceed, confirm, be great, be mighty, prevail, put to more (strength), strengthen, be stronger, be valiant.http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednameb...EB13.htm#S1396

Somehow I just can't see this fitting with Jesus before His death, tho I can see it fitting after His death. So IOW, your interpretation already has Jesus as having prevailed before He even sheds His blood, since your interpretation requires that Jesus prevails at the beginning of the final 70th week.

And finally, this part...and for the overspreading of abominations JESUS shall make it desolate. Even if there is no pronoun he in this part, the overspreading of abominations seems tied to the middle of the 70th week, with it ending at the end of the 70th week. 70AD just can't fit the time line, if these are to be understood as consecutive years.

[Diggindeeper]

BB2, ok I read what you said in the last two posts to me, but I'm still not convinced you are entirely correct.

Daniel 9:27 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.


Who would be the 'he' in this verse, that is the 100,000 dollar question?

Is this how you are understanding Daniel 9:27?


And JESUS shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week JESUS shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations JESUS shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Here's what I find difficult about this..this covenant. When would you say Jesus fulfilled any covenant? Wouldn't it have to be at least after He dies and is resurrected? If verse 27 is meaning Jesus, then that means when the sacrifice and the oblation ceased, it would be 3 and 1/2 years into the final 7 years. So technically then, that should be when the covenant is sealed, as in a done deal. But you have Jesus confirming this covenant made in blood before He even dies, since your interpretation puts the beginning of this covenant at the beginning of this last 7 years. Actually that's where the beginning of this covenant is supposed to begin, except I can't see how Jesus confirmed a covenant even before He shed His blood then rose again. So if you don't mind, explain to me how this covenant was already a covenant before Jesus even died? If you say it's meaning the last 3 and 1/2 years of His ministry before He dies, then what about before that time? What about a year before this time..2 years, etc? Why wouldn't He be confirming this covenant then as well, of it can be confirmed before He even dies? Speaking of confirmed, I need to look that up in Strong's.

confirm...gabar....a primitive root; to be strong; by implication, to prevail, act insolently:--exceed, confirm, be great, be mighty, prevail, put to more (strength), strengthen, be stronger, be valiant.http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednameb...EB13.htm#S1396

Somehow I just can't see this fitting with Jesus before His death, tho I can see it fitting after His death. So IOW, your interpretation already has Jesus as having prevailed before He even sheds His blood, since your interpretation requires that Jesus prevails at the beginning of the final 70th week.

And finally, this part...and for the overspreading of abominations JESUS shall make it desolate. Even if there is no pronoun he in this part, the overspreading of abominations seems tied to the middle of the 70th week, with it ending at the end of the 70th week. 70AD just can't fit the time line, if these are to be understood as consecutive years.

DivaD, according to Galatians chapter 3, it was definitely Christ Jesus who did indeed CONFIRM the covenant! Here's the scriptures:

Galatians3:7-17

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Furthermore, Christ Jesus indeed caused the 'oblation' (daily sacrifice!) to cease! This is what was clearly seen by the events of AD66-70! Since that time, there have not been nor will there ever be any more daily sacrifices offered in the temple, as the LAW required! They indeed ceased. Done away with forevermore. No more, never, will they ever be acceptable unto God again! The temple was destroyed, once and for all. No longer do the Jewish people go or send their priests to make offerings for the people.

Christ Jesus fulfilled all of that!

So yes, when you said this:

Who would be the 'he' in this verse, that is the 100,000 dollar question?

Is this how you are understanding Daniel 9:27?


And JESUS shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week JESUS shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations JESUS shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Here's what I find difficult about this..this covenant. When would you say Jesus fulfilled any covenant? Wouldn't it have to be at least after He dies and is resurrected? If verse 27 is meaning Jesus, then that means when the sacrifice and the oblation ceased, it would be 3 and 1/2 years into the final 7 years...

Why can't you see that indeed, Jesus did confirm the NEW covenant, and then 3 1/2 years later the temple with all its sacrifices was destroyed once and for all time! You really can't see that?

[BroRog]

Jesus said the tribulation would take place when the armies surrounded Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. This took place in 70AD. Jesus also said that the Tribulation would be over when he returned. Jesus did not return in 77AD. Therefore, the Tribulation was not 7 years.

[divaD]

DivaD, according to Galatians chapter 3, it was definitely Christ Jesus who did indeed CONFIRM the covenant! Here's the scriptures:

Galatians3:7-17

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Furthermore, Christ Jesus indeed caused the 'oblation' (daily sacrifice!) to cease! This is what was clearly seen by the events of AD66-70! Since that time, there have not been nor will there ever be any more daily sacrifices offered in the temple, as the LAW required! They indeed ceased. Done away with forevermore. No more, never, will they ever be acceptable unto God again! The temple was destroyed, once and for all. No longer do the Jewish people go or send their priests to make offerings for the people.

Christ Jesus fulfilled all of that!

So yes, when you said this:


Why can't you see that indeed, Jesus did confirm the NEW covenant, and then 3 1/2 years later the temple with all its sacrifices was destroyed once and for all time! You really can't see that?

DD, I read with great interest what you wrote. So let me chew on that for awhile. In the meantime, let me at least try to explain why I'm leaning the way I currently am. But first let me try to address a few things I've noticed in Galatians 3.

Firstly this.


Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

This clearly makes this valid once He was hung upon the cross, and that He rose from the dead. That would be when we redeemed us from the curse of the law I would think.


Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Unless I am just misunderstanding all together, I would think He confirmed this covenant once He hung upon the cross, and then later rose from the dead. It just seems illogical to me that He confirmed this covenant before that time. But if one understands Dan 9:27 to be meaning Jesus, and the fact that the covenant gets confirmed, strengthened with many at the beginning of the 70th week, then I fail to see how Galatians 3:17 is connected to Dan 9:27, since Galatians 3 seems to infer that it was Christ's death and resurrection that confirmed the covenant. Had Dan 9:27 stated that in the midst of the week he shall confirm the covenant with many, then I think your point would be more valid. But Still, I'm at least going to consider what you wrote. In the meantime, the following is how I'm currently reasoning things.

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.
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.
Daniel 9:26 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.


In my mind, clearly the Messiah the prince in this passage is meaning Jesus. With that in mind, notice what it states about Jesus...And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself. Right after that we read the following...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. Now the focus is on a prince that shall come. This happens after the Messiah has been cut off. So, since the focus has now changed from the Messiah to the prince that shall come, then in my mind, tho English class was my worst subject in high school, I'm still thinking verse 27 is continuing the thought about the prince to come, and is not once again focusing on the Messiah. Keep in mind, according to the passage, the Messiah is cut off after 62 weeks have been fulfilled. So I'm thinking, now that the Messiah is cutoff, it's now the time for the prince that shall come. The verse tells us that the people of this prince that shall come, they shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Logically this has to happen within the 70th week. If these weeks are to be understood consecutively, then like I already pointed out, 70AD just won't work.

So when we get to verse 27 then....And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week..this has to be referring to the prince that shall come, since clearly, that is what verse 26 just changed focus to. To me, even tho I failed English class miserably in high school, it makes no sense to shift focus at the end of a verse, and when the next verse comes up, to then shift focus back to who was first in focus in the previous verse, unless the first focus is clearly obvious, such as using the name of the one first in focus. In case you haven't noticed, but every time the focus is on the Messiah, it is made plainly clear in the text..such as...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. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. No doubt, the focus is on the Messiah, because the text clearly tells us so. Since we know this is meaning Jesus, according to the NT, we can also know that Jesus is the reason the following occurs..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 anoint the most Holy. But we have to keep in mind tho, according to verse 26, shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. If the Messiah is cut off, how then can He make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness? I would think that happens when He returns, because that's when there would be an end to sins, and that everlasting righteousness would now be brought in..IOW, the new heavens and new earth.

So what I'm thinking then, if the Messiah was the focus of verse 27, the text would clearly say so. I would think the text would have at least said something like the following...And THE MESSIAH 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. Let's be honest here, the main reason many of you are concluding the Messiah is the focus if verse 27 is mainly because of the following...and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. But what about the rest of the verse? You have to make all of that fit the Messiah as well.

But guess what? The text does not say that. So it's only logical that the pronoun in verse 27 is meaning the prince that shall come in verse 26.

[DurbanDude]

If there actually are 2 different tribulations in the Olivet Discourse, then of course, your point would be valid. Personally I don't see two different ones. But that doesn't make me right and you wrong tho. It just means I don't see it..at least not yet.
.

I'm generally in agreement with John146 about this. A well ordered set of events can be found in Luke 21 that I feel brings absolute clarity, you may disagree but read this:

21:11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

You see that? The order of events is great signs from heaven, and then another EARLIER period described as "before all these"

Luke 21 then goes on to describe betrayal, the siege of Jerusalem, days of vengeance, wrath, distress, This period of distress ENDS with firstly the dispersion of the Jews, and after the dispersion (remember the dispersion of the Jews was 1900 years long) there are great signs in the sky:

21:23-25 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Do you see the two periods of distress? The one period of distress is "before all this", before the dispersion of Israel and before the signs in the sky and only involves Israel, "wrath upon this people". The other period of distress is after the dispersion, starts with the signs in the sky, and involves the "distress of nations". It is this second period of distress that is the great tribulation.

[DurbanDude]

In my mind, clearly the Messiah the prince in this passage is meaning Jesus. With that in mind, notice what it states about Jesus...And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself. Right after that we read the following...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. Now the focus is on a prince that shall come. This happens after the Messiah has been cut off. So, since the focus has now changed from the Messiah to the prince that shall come, then in my mind, tho English class was my worst subject in high school, I'm still thinking verse 27 is continuing the thought about the prince to come, and is not once again focusing on the Messiah. Keep in mind, according to the passage, the Messiah is cut off after 62 weeks have been fulfilled. So I'm thinking, now that the Messiah is cutoff, it's now the time for the prince that shall come. The verse tells us that the people of this prince that shall come, they shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Logically this has to happen within the 70th week. If these weeks are to be understood consecutively, then like I already pointed out, 70AD just won't work.

.

I know we have had a discussion before regarding the 70 sevens, I think in this thread, but I just want to point out some logic. If we assume the simple most logical explanation is the best in every case, and then put together a viewpoint based on using only the best logic in each sentence, this would be statistically by far the strongest approach. Now I know interpreting the bible is not through maximising statistical probabilities, but rather through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but Jesus obviously gave logical answers and logic is obviously important.

1) Let's start with the prince, the same word "prince" is used twice, if we forget context, we would assume they are both the same prince.
2) The word for "destroy" the sanctuary actually means to "corrupt and rot until destruction" , this fits in better with what the Jews did to the temple than what the Romans did to the temple. So now taking context into account, it still looks like Jesus is both princes, because its Jesus' people and not the Romans that rotted and corrupted the sanctuary until its destruction.
3) The coming of the anointed one is associated by a lot of futurists with the triumphal entry. However he began his public ministry with his anointing in the Jordan, surely the coming of the anointed one should be associated with his anointing? Not his entry into a city a few days before the crucifixion, yeah that was dramatic, but it wasn't his anointing or his coming, he had been preaching publicly under the anointing and as the Jewish Messiah for 3.5 years at that stage. So I believe the coming of the anointed one fits in better with his anointing/baptism at the beginning of his ministry, his public acknowledgment by John the Baptist as Messiah.
4) The "he" of Daniel 9:27 who confirms the covenant then logically refers back to this anointed prince, the last mentioned male.
5) Timing itself says that at the moment of the anointing (69 sevens) is the same moment as the confirming of the covenant (beginning of the last seven) indicating that would be a logical moment for the seven year confirmation to start. End of 69 is the same moment mathematically as the beginning of 70, and so a good place to look for a man confirming a covenant would be around the time of the coming of the anointed one.
6) The greatest ever covenant was a covenant God made with Israel, that he would send a Messiah to free them forever. Jesus confirmed this covenant , freeing and healing and forgiving the Jews. Even if there was an antichrist confirming a covenant for 3.5 years and putting an end to sacrifice, surely EVEN THEN Jesus' 3.5 years of confirming a covenant and being the final sacrificial lamb by ending sacrifices would have more significance in a 490 year special Jewish period. The fact that the only evidence for some antichrist covenant is Daniel 9:27 itself, sort of favors the inclusion of Jesus' 3.5 ministry and crucifixion as having some type of significance worthy of mention in the 490 year destiny of Israel. (see my point? - lol)

So in every single section of those verses, I feel the Jesus' explanation is a stronger fit to any Roman antichrist. If the Jesus/Jews/promised Messiah/crucifixion argument beats the antichrist/Romans/peace treaty/sacrifices argument four times out of four, time to re-think.
Another argument is that the only decree that even closely fits the 483 year period is the decree of Artaxerxes in 458BC. This decree occurred exactly 483 years before the start of Jesus' ministry in the autumn of 26AD and exactly 486.5 years before his crucifixion in spring of 30AD.

[divaD]

I'm generally in agreement with John146 about this. A well ordered set of events can be found in Luke 21 that I feel brings absolute clarity, you may disagree but read this:

21:11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
21:12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

You see that? The order of events is great signs from heaven, and then another EARLIER period described as "before all these"

So how you understanding verse 12 then, is as in establishing an order of events, such as this happens before verse 11 happens? Couldn't there possibly be another way to understand it?


But first let's look at another perspective, keeping in mind that verse 12 seems to be establishing the fact that this occurs before verse 11 happens.


Matthew 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

According to this record, it says 'Then' not 'before'. Side by side it would look like this.

But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Either there is a contradiction here, or there is a misundertanding. Like I indicated, perhaps there is another way to undertand this.

First let's look at Strongs.

before...pro...a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (figuratively, superior) to:--above, ago, before, or ever. In the comparative, it retains the same significations.http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednameb...RK42.htm#S4253

Then...tote...from (the neuter of) o - ho 3588 and ote - hote 3753; the when, i.e. at the time that (of the past or future, also in consecution):--that time, then.http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednameb...RK51.htm#S5119

Since before can mean in front of, let's then see if that might work.

But IN FRONT OF all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

IOW...IN FRONT OF the councils in the synagogues, and in front of kings and rulers, etc.

Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Wouldn't this verse agree with with how 'before' might be understood?

Let's also look at this from the perspective of Mark 13:9.

Mark 13:9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.


Notice that starts with a 'But' too. But there is no sense here that this precedes Mark 13:6-8 tho.


But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

In my mind then, Mark 13:9 further shows that the sense in Luke 21:12 is not meaning this occurs before the prev verses, but the sense is meaning something else. And besides, all of the things listed before Luke 21:12 would be things. So why didn't Luke 21:12 say this then? But before all these THINGS, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

To try and further illustrate this point, notice the following.


Luke 21:9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.


Notice here He said 'these things' and not just 'these'. So one would think, or at least I would, that in Luke 21:12, if the sense is meaning order of events, then why didn't Jesus say 'before these things'?

Food for thought. It's still early in the morning around here. So maybe I'm just not thinking clearly yet. Or then again, maybe I am.

[divaD]

I know we have had a discussion before regarding the 70 sevens, I think in this thread, but I just want to point out some logic. If we assume the simple most logical explanation is the best in every case, and then put together a viewpoint based on using only the best logic in each sentence, this would be statistically by far the strongest approach. Now I know interpreting the bible is not through maximising statistical probabilities, but rather through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but Jesus obviously gave logical answers and logic is obviously important.

1) Let's start with the prince, the same word "prince" is used twice, if we forget context, we would assume they are both the same prince.
2) The word for "destroy" the sanctuary actually means to "corrupt and rot until destruction" , this fits in better with what the Jews did to the temple than what the Romans did to the temple. So now taking context into account, it still looks like Jesus is both princes, because its Jesus' people and not the Romans that rotted and corrupted the sanctuary until its destruction.
3) The coming of the anointed one is associated by a lot of futurists with the triumphal entry. However he began his public ministry with his anointing in the Jordan, surely the coming of the anointed one should be associated with his anointing? Not his entry into a city a few days before the crucifixion, yeah that was dramatic, but it wasn't his anointing or his coming, he had been preaching publicly under the anointing and as the Jewish Messiah for 3.5 years at that stage. So I believe the coming of the anointed one fits in better with his anointing/baptism at the beginning of his ministry, his public acknowledgment by John the Baptist as Messiah.
4) The "he" of Daniel 9:27 who confirms the covenant then logically refers back to this anointed prince, the last mentioned male.
5) Timing itself says that at the moment of the anointing (69 sevens) is the same moment as the confirming of the covenant (beginning of the last seven) indicating that would be a logical moment for the seven year confirmation to start. End of 69 is the same moment mathematically as the beginning of 70, and so a good place to look for a man confirming a covenant would be around the time of the coming of the anointed one.
6) The greatest ever covenant was a covenant God made with Israel, that he would send a Messiah to free them forever. Jesus confirmed this covenant , freeing and healing and forgiving the Jews. Even if there was an antichrist confirming a covenant for 3.5 years and putting an end to sacrifice, surely EVEN THEN Jesus' 3.5 years of confirming a covenant and being the final sacrificial lamb by ending sacrifices would have more significance in a 490 year special Jewish period. The fact that the only evidence for some antichrist covenant is Daniel 9:27 itself, sort of favors the inclusion of Jesus' 3.5 ministry and crucifixion as having some type of significance worthy of mention in the 490 year destiny of Israel. (see my point? - lol)

So in every single section of those verses, I feel the Jesus' explanation is a stronger fit to any Roman antichrist. If the Jesus/Jews/promised Messiah/crucifixion argument beats the antichrist/Romans/peace treaty/sacrifices argument four times out of four, time to re-think.
Another argument is that the only decree that even closely fits the 483 year period is the decree of Artaxerxes in 458BC. This decree occurred exactly 483 years before the start of Jesus' ministry in the autumn of 26AD and exactly 486.5 years before his crucifixion in spring of 30AD.

DD, I read what you wrote. So let me ask this.

Daniel 9:26 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.


Are you saying that the people of the prince that shall come, that these are the Jews, and that this prince is still meaning the Messiah? If so, why do these people need to come somewhere, if indirectly or directly, they are responsible for why the temple and city really gets destroyed by the Romans? Doesn't..and the people of the prince that shall come..give the sense that one is arriving from another location, and according to the verse, once they arrive they destroy the city and the sanctuary?