PDA

View Full Version : Gaps in Prophesy: are they Scriptural?



Mark F
Jan 5th 2008, 03:19 PM
The intent of this post is to hopefully instill in us a desire to think these issues through in a manner that would be pleasing to our Father in heaven and to praise and honor our wonderful Savior, Jesus Christ.

As we all know the range of understanding and agreement in the Christian Church is far and wide. In the time I have spent here I can see that there are people who spend a great deal of time in the word and in meditation of it. I do not entertain thoughts that this side of heaven we will all agree, I must trust that all the confusion we see is part of God’s plan and though I do not understand, I will accept that, though if I can have a positive impact in the life of another believer, I will make every attempt to do so.

Firstly, I do not want to come across as a know it all, I am not young in my faith, I am 45 and have grown up in an evangelical church, being saved in my early teens. I ask for your consideration only and will welcome discussion as I have opportunity.

Interpretation of Scripture is our primary obstacle to having unity in our faith. It is obvious that “birds of a feather stick together”. Myself included I might add. Hopefully I can change that. If we are sure in our convictions, how can we know if what we believe is right? After all, with the scope of doctrines out there we cannot all be right, do we reason together to win others to believe as we do, we must, and our common prayer should be that truth will prevail!!

Here is where I stand on doctrines to help aid in understanding why I come to my beliefs. I will list Scripture (as I go along), but not quote it for space I think I will be limited. I believe that doctrines are the “bones of revelation” as I read some where; they are the supporting framework which gives shape to the body, without sound doctrine the whole will be without recognizable form. I believe in sovereign election, but I am not a Calvinist, I believe in the responsibility of men believing the gospel, but I am not an Armenian. I believe that the Church is to be separated from the Jews, and I believe there is a firm distinction between law and grace, not a convenient mix of both. The reason I believe as I do is that the Bible clearly and abundantly teaches all these things simultaneously. I don’t believe that we are required to have complete understanding as to how something that seems (in our minds) to be a contradiction, can exist simultaneously together. But as I said, these things are all presented in Scripture unapologetically so I trust in that. Listing supporting Scripture on these issues would take pages and I am sure, when reading a debate on say, election and free will, there is much Scripture presented from both sides so I hope you see my point.

The subject for this post centers on prophesy and interpretation. The End Times Chat has those who as the Scriptures tell us, looking for the return of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ to return as He promised He would. He told us to be ready always, and Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 4:8 there is a crown of righteousness waiting for us if we loved His appearing, I want that crown my friend, I do love His appearing. That is why I am concerned with how we understand these things as not to take away the possibility of others also receiving one!

The gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse have caused much confusion, I can say for those that believe in a literal, grammatical interpretation of prophesy, and for those who believe in a symbolic interpretation as well. Understanding how to apply “last days” I believe is really a critical issue that should not be taken lightly. I believe there is a way that we can understand with much clarity some of these hard to understand passages.

It has been said of pre-tribulation believers that they have to insert time in between passages, or a parenthesis right? I think that is exactly the case, and there is other Scripture to show that this is done elsewhere. I would also like to know if anyone can think of others to help support this . (or bolster it)

History supports Daniel’s prophesy with pinpoint accuracy up to 9:27. Jesus believed Daniel (Mt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14). Verse 28 is where all kinds of mystery and confusion begins. If we go to Isaiah 9:6, we read “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given” we know that this has been literally fulfilled in the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, but to continue “And the government will be upon His shoulder….” We cannot say that has been literally fulfilled, we are sure it will be, but He was refused to be crowned King in Jerusalem by His own (John 1:11). Most would agree that there is a gap here, a parenthesis. If we now turn to Isaiah 59:16, we read down to verse 17 we can see another apparent gap or parenthesis in time, “and a helmet of salvation on His head” has been accomplished at Calvary, but Christ has not yet “put on the garments of vengeance” or verses 18-21. So we see a gap, or parenthesis here also.

If we go to Genesis 3:15 we all know and are familiar with this prophesy, yet again, without explanation there is a gap of time that we can be sure of. Jesus Christ literally was bruised on His heel, so we should without hesitation expect that Satan’s head will literally be bruised as well. But one thing that jumped out at me in this passage, not only has 2,000 years passed since Christ’s heel was bruised, but if they are translated properly, they are backward. The Scripture tells us of the bruising of Satan’s head first, then of the bruising of Jesus’ heel, but we take other Scripture to support our understanding to realize the correct order in time, for God is not bound in time remember that. I said in another thread that God sees all of time at the same time, we, on the other hand have to look back to the past, around to the present, and forward to the future. We must depend others to see the past (evidence) unless we lived that past ourselves, and how can we know the future? Only by what our great God and Savior have been gracious to reveal to us. But we think in terms of succession, God looks on all things at the same time.

Now, the subject of interpretation, we should all agree that we believe in a literal, historical crucifixion, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Not only because historically it is documented, the Scriptures foretold of it, and we do have the many eye-witness accounts, but also the Holy Spirit testifies to us that it is truth. This is a manifold witness to the reliability that what the Scriptures say is trustworthy. This is also required of us by God (1 John 5:9-13). The reductions of a literal fulfillment of prophesy, I believe, to make these simply an allegory, or to interpret such to only a spiritual truth is an affront to the character of God. In many Scriptures God has told us certain things regarding the people of Israel and their land. This in itself is a very large body of Scripture and way beyond the scope of what I can do here, so I will be limited in how much I can include. We on this side of the cross understand that we are under a new covenant, right? We believe God when He tells us that salvation is given to us when we believe in the name and work of His Son Jesus Christ, and that He died to satisfy the need for the punishment for our sins. Why would we then, disregard the clear language that the Scriptures have in telling us that God made an everlasting covenant with others, such as Abraham and David? Should we then expect that a new mystery will be revealed when we continually fail and God will set us aside and move on to yet another people?

The following passages are worded in such a way that we cannot without severe consequence dismiss as something that is unimportant to God. The covenant to Abraham; Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-17; 15:4-21; 17:1-8; 22:17-18. Restated to Isaac in Gen. 26:3-5, and to Jacob in Gen. 35:10-12, and is said to be fulfilled for Abraham’s sake. “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”-Gen. 17:7-8. This covenant extends to us as told in Galatians 3:13-14. Clearly Paul in Romans 11 tells us that God has not forgotten the Jews!! The covenant with Moses was conditional upon the people’s obedience, which we all will agree that they failed to keep the Law. This covenant is to be superseded by a new covenant found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. God will make this covenant with them, not He might. God also made a covenant with David, (2 Sam. 7:11-16) this is an everlasting covenant.

Israel has been ‘plucked” from the land three times and this was prophesied in the following passages; Gen. 15:13-14, 16; Jer. 25:11-12; Deut. 28:63-68 with 30:1-3. The Scriptures equally tell us that there will be three restorations of the people to their land; Gen. 15:14 with Josh. 1:2-7; Dan. 9:2 with Jer. 25:11-12; Deut. 30:3; Jer. 23:5-8; Ezek. 37:21-25; Acts 15:14-17. The three dispossessions were literally fulfilled; the three restorations have also been fulfilled, the final one in 1948! We say the Bible is the word of God, and that when we argue points we need to show evidence with Scripture, I say that we should look at this evidence and take that into consideration when we interpret Scripture. The occupation of the Jews, and finally in sovereign ownership of the land is monumental!!

I have two quotes from Lewis Sperry Chafer’s systematic theology concerning eschatology. I read these last year and they did not affect me in any significant manner at that time, I had underlined the first one, which I tend to do, but the second I read this past week, and while looking at these trying to get a firm grasp of how to rightly understand passages like the Olivet discourse and such. I even considered contacting a Jewish Rabbi to talk with someone who sees the plan of God minus the church, you know, how do they interpret Daniel, Ezekiel, and other prophets, but I was hesitant because they were wrong before weren’t they?

Quote:
“Appeal is addressed to the student to observe the literal and physical character of these predictions, and how impossible it is within reason to give these prophesies a spiritual interpretation. The first wrong turn in the road which traces Israel’s coming glories is the willingness to misinterpret the meaning of the words employed, and beyond that error is the more pernicious method of ignoring these Scriptures altogether. The whole field of complexity has by many been found to disappear when terms are taken in their normal, grammatical, and natural meaning-Israel is not the Church now, nor is the kingdom the Church; Zion is Jerusalem and not heaven; and the throne of David is precisely what David believed it to be, an earthly institution which has never been, nor will it ever be, in heaven.” “As their covenants respecting the land are everlasting, it follows, also, that this people as a nation must inherit and inhabit the new earth that is to be (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Heb. 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:4-14; Rev. 20:11; 21:1).”

As I stated above my thoughts had drifted to getting a Jewish perspective of this, would I better understand this if I studied the Scriptures and simply “left out the Church”? As I read further, past the above quote I came upon another statement and it seemed to clear up this question for me.

“An even more important distinction must be observed, namely, that the present age is a grand exception to all other ages both for the Jews and the Gentiles. To them alike the gospel is to be preached and, without reference to any former estate or promises, these people are confronted with the glory of heavenly realities. All of Jewish advantage and Gentile disadvantage is set aside to the end that the heavenly purpose may be accomplished. The world situation that will obtain in the coming tribulation is not a concatenation, or sequence, or development growing out of the present age; it rather is joined directly to the Mosaic age which closed with the death of Christ. This apparently, is why the Roman Empire-the iron kingdom-must be revived and complete that predicted of it (cf. Dan. 2:40-45; 7:7-14). Whatever history of the Christian era may record for the benefit of a future age, from a religious, political, or racial viewpoint, it will be as if the present age had never existed. When this age is completely written out of earthly history, it is seen that the tribulation follows directly upon the death of Christ. Israel will receive at once their request, “His blood be upon us, and on our children,” the King returns, Gentiles are judged, and the wrath of God falls upon a Christ-rejecting world. Certainly, under this consideration of world history in its continuity there is no Church to enter the tribulation. She is as foreign to that which follows her history on the earth as she was to that which preceded.”
(Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. IV, pgs 315 & 321, 1948 ed.)

So as some argue that the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church is a hard sell, to seriously study and consider the above statements, seems to lighten the burden considerably. It also is not without what I believe to be considerable Scriptural support; there is Enoch in Gen. 5:18-24 who was taken by God with no explanation given. Enoch preached the second coming told to us in Jude 14-15, Hebrews 11:5-6 tells us they looked for Enoch by the statement “he was not found” so this must have been a secret.

Elijah was translated from earth alive, in 2 Kings 2:11 and I cannot find if there was a reason given, he knew though, that he would be taken.

Paul in 2 Cor. 12:2 describes what was a secret until he revealed it, that he was “caught up to the third heaven”. A third account of a translation.

In Rev 3:10, Jesus is speaking to the faithful Church in Philadelphia, tells them; “Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” Some believe this is speaking to true believers being saved out of tribulation by the rapture.

Then in Rev. 4:1 we read; “After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.” This is the last mention of the Church until the marriage supper of the Lamb, it also is consistent with what pre-tribulation eschatology teaches, that here John, a type of the Church, is translated to heaven before the great tribulation and observes the scene from heaven.

I hope and pray that those willing to be corrected and understand, as I was, will evaluate and consider the things above. May God richly bless you.

Mark

vinsight4u8
Jan 7th 2008, 02:08 PM
What vision do you think the Daniel 11:14-19 verses are referring to?

At Daniel 11:14 - a vision account is being told.
So....just where in the bible did Daniel see the actual vision?

Daniel 10:1-2
a vision seen by Daniel
but Daniel had yet to tell us the detaiis
only said that he mourned for three full weeks

jeffweeder
Jan 8th 2008, 08:01 AM
Gaps in Prophesy: are they Scriptural?

Not when an Angel who stands in Gods presence says that their will be 70 years or 70 weeks until something comes to pass.

quiet dove
Jan 8th 2008, 04:57 PM
We have a problem with that 70 years right off the bat since we know that the temple was not destroyed within the time frame of seventy years?

yoSAMite
Jan 8th 2008, 07:21 PM
Speaking of the gap between Daniel 9:25 and 9:27, while doing some study I’ve come across a possible OT illusion to it. Now understand that this is coming from someone who has a standard pre-trib theology so it might include some pre-conceived views concerning end times. With that in mind, I’ve tried to explain this without any theology involved. That is part of the reason I’m even sharing this – I, like many of you, want to be sure of my Bible interpretation. And the best way I know of is to share views and allow others to sharpen my sword with the Word.

The view started with a study of Daniel 2:31-45 & Daniel 7 and incorporates Daniel 9:24-27.

In Daniel 2 we have a prophecy of world history from the time of Nebuchadnezzar to the Glorious Appearing of Christ. Next we jump to a second witness if you will, Daniel 7, which is a prophecy that parallels Daniel 2 but comes from God’s perspective. As a side note, Daniel 2 happened in 606bc and Daniel 7 in 556bc.

Daniel 7:25 mentions “time and times and the dividing of time.” This is also known as the 3 1/2 years, 42 months and 1260 days in other prophecies. What I’ve noticed is God is very specific concerning time and prophecies when it comes to Israel. For instance the Sabbath, Jubilee Years, Jeremiah 25:10-12 (which is what Daniel was reading before the Daniel 9 prophecy), and I’m sure that there are more.

The above verse seems to place the final 3 1/2 years of Daniel’s 70th week as well as whole of the 70th week chronologically right in front of Christ’s return and the setting up of His kingdom.

Though there is some discussion as to when Daniel’s 70 week prophecy starts, no matter which starting point one picks the sixty-ninth week ends at the latest in 32 AD.

So, if I’ve done this correctly we know that the 69th week ended as stated and the 70th can’t start until 7 years before Christ’s return. With these suppositions in place there seems to be the Biblical evidence of the gap.

David Taylor
Jan 8th 2008, 07:37 PM
Though there is some discussion as to when Daniel’s 70 week prophecy starts, no matter which starting point one picks the sixty-ninth week ends at the latest in 32 AD.

So, if I’ve done this correctly we know that the 69th week ended as stated and the 70th can’t start until 7 years before Christ’s return. With these suppositions in place there seems to be the Biblical evidence of the gap.


Except that Daniel tells us that Messiah the prince is cut-off or killed sometime after the 69th week (within the 70th). Notice that Daniel doesn't tell us the Messiah is cut-off after the 68th week (within the 69th), but that He is cut-off after the 69th week....which places his death somewhere within the 70th and final week of the prophecy.

9:24-26 "Seventy weeks [1-70] 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. 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 [1-7th], and threescore and two weeks: [1-7 + 8-62=69th] the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks [7 + 62 = 69th] shall Messiah be cut off"

quiet dove
Jan 8th 2008, 08:42 PM
Except that Daniel tells us that Messiah the prince is cut-off or killed sometime after the 69th week (within the 70th). Notice that Daniel doesn't tell us the Messiah is cut-off after the 68th week (within the 69th), but that He is cut-off after the 69th week....which places his death somewhere within the 70th and final week of the prophecy.


Not if the clock stops with His crucifixion, and His having been rejected by Israeli leaders representing the nation, considering the prophecy is given to Israel? It just says after the first 7 weeks and the 62 weeks, we can't really pinpoint it any closer than to know in general when it started and when it stopped with both the rebuilding and His death. We can only know it was 69 weeks, thereabouts?

David Taylor
Jan 8th 2008, 09:05 PM
Not if the clock stops with His crucifixion, and His having been rejected by Israeli leaders representing the nation, considering the prophecy is given to Israel? It just says after the first 7 weeks and the 62 weeks, we can't really pinpoint it any closer than to know in general when it started and when it stopped with both the rebuilding and His death. We can only know it was 69 weeks, thereabouts?




After 69 weeks thereabouts....The text explicitly says it happens after the 7 & the 62 weeks....which makes it sometime after the 69th, within the 70th.

Nothing mentioned about a clock.
Nothing mentioned about a stop or start.
Nothing mentioned about a parenthesis.
Nothing mentioned about an unnatural gap of 1970+ years.

The text only tells us specifically, Messiah the Prince was cut off after the 7 and 62 weeks...and that the prophecy being described is about a 70 week prophecy. (Not a 70 week plus 365 more weeks prophecy).

Thereabouts, the exact time of his death, isn't explicitly given; other than the most natural reading of that text is that it would be within the 70 weeks, and it is after the 69th week.

Naphal
Jan 8th 2008, 10:52 PM
Gaps in Prophesy: are they Scriptural? (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1490649#post1490649)

Yes.


The idea of a gap in scripture is proven in the example of the reading of scriptures by Christ concerning his first and second comings. A gap is found in the middle of a verse but is not apparent in the reading of that verse yet a gap is there.

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

He stopped reading the entire verse because there would be a gap between the first part and the last part so a gap between the first 69 years and the 70th is not a new concept.

Isaiah 61:2. To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, (((GAP IS HERE))) and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn

Mark F
Jan 9th 2008, 12:32 AM
If there is not a gap, then who is the Roman prince in verse 27, and where can we find the evidence and substance of the seven year covenant he made with Israel?

Did they stay in Israel seven years after the Temple was destroyed? I thought that was the reason that they were scattered all over the earth because they had no land any more.

Verse 26 tells us the Temple is destroyed, why did sacrifice and offering come to and end three and one half years later in verse 27? (or 1/2 way through the week)

Naphal, I agree. Thank you for pointing out another good verse.


Some questions we should answer are; why is there a tribulation prophesied about, and for what purpose, or what will it accomplish, and who is is to endure it.


Daniel 9:24 says "Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city." There is no question who this is referring to, the Hebrew people.

And also in verse 24 he wrote:

"To finish the transgression,"

'To make an end of sins'"

"to make reconcilliation for iniquity,"

"to bring in everlasting righteousness,"

"To seal up vision and prophesy,"

"And to annoint the Most Holy."

Are all six of these things accomplished? It would seem to me that the first three are fulfilled in Christ, the last three yet future.


The biggest reason I believe that the Church will not endure the seven years is because of our righteousness and completeness in Christ.

We are reconciled to God: "Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ.." 2 Cor. 5:18

We are redeemed by God, "He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." Col 1:13-14

Therefore: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:1

If we are acceptable to God by Jesus Christ: "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe." Romans 3:21-22

How can we be fearful of enduring what the Scriptures say in Joel 2:11:
"For the day of the LORD is great and very terrible;
Who can endure it?"

David Taylor
Jan 9th 2008, 12:54 AM
If there is not a gap, then who is the Roman prince in verse 27, and where can we find the evidence and substance of the seven year covenant he made with Israel?

There is no Roman prince in Verse 27.

Verse 27 is talking about Messiah the Prince, and His covenant that he shed in His blood, during the 70th week in which He was crucified, and because the eternal sacrifice to replace the desolate abomination of animal sacrifices and offerings.

Here is the N.T. fulfillment of what Jesus Messiah the Prince accomplished with His death during the final 70th week.

************************************************** **************** "And he shall confirm the covenant with many [for] one week:"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)
Hebrews 9:20 "Then he said, 'This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.'"

Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ"

Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many"

Matthew 26:28 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke 22:20 "After supper he took another cup of wine and said, "This wine is the token of God's new covenant to save you--an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you."

Romans 11:27 "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Hebrews 12:24 "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel."

Hebrews 13:20 "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant"

It began during the 70th week when Jesus Messiah the Prince was cut off....and it will never end.





************************************************** **************** "in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the
oblation to cease"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Jesus Ministry lasted half of 7 years or 3.5 years; because John's Gospel records Him participating in 3 passovers as an adult. (John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55); showing that in the midst of the final 70th week; (verse 9:26 says He will be cut-off "AFTER" the 69th week; which necessitates Him being cut-off sometime within the 70th week. Likewise, we see that when Jesus was cut-off; the sacrifice and oblation was ceased; sin's debt was paid forevermore at that moment; in His blood!

Mark 15:37 "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom."

Hebrews 10:2 "For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever..For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

Hebrews 10:18 "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh"

Hebrews 9:26 "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."





************************************************** **************** "and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Acts 17:26 "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation"




Did they stay in Israel seven years after the Temple was destroyed? I thought that was the reason that they were scattered all over the earth because they had no land any more.

What they did was irrelevant to fulfilling the prophecy.
What Jesus did, is the fulfillment of the prophecy of the 70 weeks.





Verse 26 tells us the Temple is destroyed, why did sacrifice and offering come to and end three and one half years later in verse 27? (or 1/2 way through the week)

The second part of 26 shows the fulfillment of the destruction of the temple. It was destroyed, because they did not accept the true sacrifice, and Killed Messiah the Prince during the final 70th week Period.

When Jerusalem and the stone temple were destroyed, it was many years after the 70 weeks were concluded. It was only included, as an aside, so that it would be understood later as fulfillment of prophecy when Jesus warned that not one stone would be left on another of the old stone temple.

'Jesus was cut off' in the midst of the final week 70. Daniel 9:27 doesn't say he was cut-off and he made the covenant with many 3.5 years within it, just some time 'in the midst' of the final 70th week.






Some questions we should answer are; why is there a tribulation prophesied about, and for what purpose, or what will it accomplish, and who is is to endure it.


Those who follow Jesus endure tribulation. In any era and age.
The final great tribulation will be worse than any other; but it isn't limited to a specific time duration. Nowhere does the N.T. mention a 7 year future period.




Daniel 9:24 says "Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city." There is no question who this is referring to, the Hebrew people.

And also in verse 24 he wrote:

"To finish the transgression,"

'To make an end of sins'"

"to make reconcilliation for iniquity,"

"to bring in everlasting righteousness,"

"To seal up vision and prophesy,"

"And to annoint the Most Holy."

Are all six of these things accomplished? It would seem to me that the first three are fulfilled in Christ, the last three yet future.

Actually all six of them, according to the NT, were accomplished with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Messiah the Prince, during His earthly sojourn.

Here are the Scriptures Mark:
************************************************** ****************
1. "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city"
************************************************** ****************
You got 70 weeks of years; or 490 literal and consecutive years left for Messiah to Come and accomplish His goals which are explained hereafter; no mention of a clock or any gaps.



************************************************** ****************
2. "to finish the transgression"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Hebrews 9:15 "That is why he is the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, so that all who are invited can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant."

John 4:34 "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

Romans 04:15 "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace"




************************************************** ****************
3. "to make an end of sins"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

I John 3:5 "And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not"

2 Cor 5:21 "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."




************************************************** ****************
4. "to make reconciliation for iniquity"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Hebrews 2:17 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."

2 Corin 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them"



************************************************** ****************
5. "to bring in everlasting righteousness"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Matthew 3:15 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."

Romans 5:21 "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Hebrews 1:08 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."



************************************************** ****************
6. "to seal up the vision and prophecy"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Luke 18:31 "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished."

Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

Matt 26:56 "But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."




************************************************** ****************
7. "to anoint the Most Holy"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)

Acts 10:38 "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."

Acts 04:27 "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed"

Luke 04:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel"






The biggest reason I believe that the Church will not endure the seven years is because of our righteousness and completeness in Christ.

We are reconciled to God: "Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ.." 2 Cor. 5:18

We are redeemed by God, "He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." Col 1:13-14

Therefore: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:1

If we are acceptable to God by Jesus Christ: "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe." Romans 3:21-22

How can we be fearful of enduring what the Scriptures say in Joel 2:11:
"For the day of the LORD is great and very terrible;
Who can endure it?"

We can endure all things through Christ.

"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. "

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you

"whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer"

"Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. "

"watch thou in all things, endure afflictions"

"for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure"

""

Because other Christians just as acceptable, just as reconciled, and just as redeemed as us have given their lives, heads, skin, blood, and families for the Kingdom of Christ.

Jesus said:

"15:18 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. " John 15:18, 16:33


Paul said:

Acts 14:22 "Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God."

I Cor 15:50 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. "

2 Thess 1:4 "So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure"


Peter said:

I Peter 4:12 "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."



We're in pretty good company when we suffer tribulation, any amount of severity of it, for our Lord and King Jesus Christ!

jeffweeder
Jan 9th 2008, 01:07 AM
Are all six of these things accomplished? It would seem to me that the first three are fulfilled in Christ, the last three yet future.

Gabriel stated that it would be 70 weeks for all of them.
All of them were accomplished by the ressurection of Jesus-It was his life and ministry that could only bring this decree of salvation to them.


Isaiah 61:2. To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, (((GAP IS HERE))) and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn


Thats right, Jesus said these days of vengeance began in lk 21.
Jesus work of salvation was a reality and he fulfilled the decree .



"To finish the transgression,"

'To make an end of sins'"

"to make reconcilliation for iniquity,"

"to bring in everlasting righteousness,"

"To seal up vision and prophesy,"

"And to annoint the Most Holy."

Nothing in the 70 weeks about Jesus having to come a second time, but to only bring salvation

TEITZY
Jan 9th 2008, 01:19 AM
Isa 9:6-7
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
[insert 2000+ years & still counting]
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will beno 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.

Cheers
Leigh

Mark F
Jan 9th 2008, 03:14 AM
Davi Taylor,

You wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark F
If there is not a gap, then who is the Roman prince in verse 27, and where can we find the evidence and substance of the seven year covenant he made with Israel?

There is no Roman prince in Verse 27.

Verse 27 is talking about Messiah the Prince, and His covenant that he shed in His blood, during the 70th week in which He was crucified, and because the eternal sacrifice to replace the desolate abomination of animal sacrifices and offerings



Daniel 9:26 & 27:

“ And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

So where is the prince who is to come continued? We're told that it was his people who destroyed the city and sanctuary, are you telling me Messiah's people did this????

A simple "no" from you concerning the OP would have been sufficient.

David Taylor
Jan 9th 2008, 03:28 AM
Maybe using a color-code will make it more clear.


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.

Gabriel told Daniel it would take 70 weeks for all of those 6 things to be accomplished.

Next, Daniel gives markers, to know when that 70 week period of 6 things will occur.


9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks:

Next Daniel is told that it will be 69 weeks until Messiah the Prince comes....after Jerusalem is rebuilt (following the return from Babylonian Captivity).


the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

Next Daniel is told that after the 69 weeks (within the final 70th week, because that is all that the prophecy entails to fulfilled the 6 points of verse 24), Messiah is cut off.

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.

Next Daniel is told that the people of the Prince, Messiah the Prince as introduced in verse 25, the only prince introduced so far. The people, Daniel's people, the Jews.....were the ones responsible for the city being destroyed, because they rejected Jesus....Messiah the Prince.

Jesus Himself told us several times Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed because his own people rejected Him.


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."


And in the concluding 70 week of the prophecy, Jesus, Messiah the prince, established the covenant of God with the many, in His blood. He stopped the sacrifice and offering which was an abomination to God, and that practice was made desolate forevermore.

Jesus is the complete subject of Daniel's 70 weeks, and He fulfilled all 6 points just as Gabriel said He would, within the exact time period Gabriel said it would take.

70 weeks until Messiah the Prince comes and accomplishes all these things.

Jesus did every single one of them....flawlessly, according to the Scriptures.

To the Messiah, Prince of Peace be glory and honor and praise forevermore, Amen and Amen and Amen!! Hallelujah!!!

David Taylor
Jan 9th 2008, 03:32 AM
A simple "no" from you concerning the OP would have been sufficient.


But that would have been untrue, for me to say.

There is no gap in Daniel's 70 weeks....but there are other gaps in scriptures found elsewhere.

It depends upon the context.

The context of Daniel 9:24-27 is upon what Jesus has already accomplished during His earthly sojourn 2000 years ago.

So in answering the OP, it depends on the passage and the context of the verse.

Many Messianic passages have gaps in them, because they span many events and times. Some don't. Some just show the author changing topics. It really depends on the context of the verse being examined.

ross3421
Jan 9th 2008, 03:58 AM
Except that Daniel tells us that Messiah the prince is cut-off or killed sometime after the 69th week (within the 70th). Notice that Daniel doesn't tell us the Messiah is cut-off after the 68th week (within the 69th), but that He is cut-off after the 69th week....which places his death somewhere within the 70th and final week of the prophecy.

9:24-26 "Seventy weeks [1-70] 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. 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 [1-7th], and threescore and two weeks: [1-7 + 8-62=69th] the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks [7 + 62 = 69th] shall Messiah be cut off"



Dave and to all the board,

"Cut off" does not represent his Crucifixion and only complicate matters of interpretation. It is this very interpretation which then promotes others to insert a gap due to the fact that they correctly interpret this prophecy does have future implications i.e the 70th week.

Both views are incorrect as all the 70 weeks are yet to occur. There is no gap and they are consecutive literal weeks. The term cut off refers to a time just prior to the second coming when the Messiah will be unattainable to the inhabitants on the earth and knowing there pending doom seek to and fro but are unable to find the word. The door is shut.

As in the days of Noah the door to the ark was shut and the inhabitants of the earth were cut off from God and wrath followed, likewise so shall it be when the son of man returns.


Mark

quiet dove
Jan 9th 2008, 04:11 AM
After 69 weeks thereabouts....The text explicitly says it happens after the 7 & the 62 weeks....which makes it sometime after the 69th, within the 70th.

Nothing mentioned about a clock.
Nothing mentioned about a stop or start.
Nothing mentioned about a parenthesis.
Nothing mentioned about an unnatural gap of 1970+ years.

The text only tells us specifically, Messiah the Prince was cut off after the 7 and 62 weeks...and that the prophecy being described is about a 70 week prophecy. (Not a 70 week plus 365 more weeks prophecy).

Thereabouts, the exact time of his death, isn't explicitly given; other than the most natural reading of that text is that it would be within the 70 weeks, and it is after the 69th week.

When I said thereabouts I just meant as good as historical events can be dated, not that the prophecy was not clear it the time frames it states.

It states events that will happen concerning Israel in a seventy week time frame. If the clock stops after Christ rejection and death, then He was cut off after the 69th week as the prophecy states. Stopping the clock at the 69th week, we are no longer talking about Israel as the witness of God, but the Church. The temple destruction is also mentioned and that didnt happen within the 70 weeks even if they were consecutively fulfilled. The 70 weeks did not stretch till 70AD no matter how you add it up. If those 70 weeks were consecutive they still ended before 70AD.

David Taylor
Jan 9th 2008, 05:03 AM
When I said thereabouts I just meant as good as historical events can be dated, not that the prophecy was not clear it the time frames it states.

It states events that will happen concerning Israel in a seventy week time frame. If the clock stops after Christ rejection and death, then He was cut off after the 69th week as the prophecy states. Stopping the clock at the 69th week, we are no longer talking about Israel as the witness of God, but the Church. The temple destruction is also mentioned and that didnt happen within the 70 weeks even if they were consecutively fulfilled. The 70 weeks did not stretch till 70AD no matter how you add it up. If those 70 weeks were consecutive they still ended before 70AD.

70 AD doesn't fall within the 70 weeks.

But the results of what happened within the 70weeks would later be why the Temple was razed to the ground.

Re-read Dan 9:24.

How many weeks does Daniel say it will take for the 6 points in 9:24 to be accomplished?

70.
Not 69 plus 350 more weeks, plus 1 more.

Scripture nowhere mentions a stopwatch for this prophecy.

jeffweeder
Jan 9th 2008, 06:11 AM
Both views are incorrect as all the 70 weeks are yet to occur.

ah, but that cannot be as we have a decree from the going forth of the command to rebuild Jerusalem.
70 years of punishment in babylonian captivity was over, and Daniel is praying for God to save and uphold his own name. he was told it would be 483 years until Messiah would come the first time, 490 years and he would conquer and win salvation for all.
He came and established salvation, but most of Daniels people rejected him.
His work is before him as the door was swung open at the cross for the gentiles to be grafted in through grace and sanctification....and then the end will come.
The decree is not about his second coming, but his first.
The decree was fulfilled otherwise how can the gentiles find salvation and be grafted in?

quiet dove
Jan 9th 2008, 06:43 AM
70 AD doesn't fall within the 70 weeks.
Exactly, and I just dont see why any of that prophecy should be taken out of order, it was given with much detail, as Daniels prophecies were, so much so they are denied by some as being prophecy. So if the 70AD destruction of the temple fell beyond a consecutive 70 weeks, there is the gap.


But the results of what happened within the 70weeks would later be why the Temple was razed to the ground.

Re-read Dan 9:24.

How many weeks does Daniel say it will take for the 6 points in 9:24 to be accomplished?

70.
Not 69 plus 350 more weeks, plus 1 more.

Scripture nowhere mentions a stopwatch for this prophecy.

Maybe all 6 points are not finished
--To bring in everlasting righteousness,
--To seal up vision and prophecy,
--And to anoint the Most Holy

Depends on the interpretation of the final 3 items on the list.
--Everlasting righteousness has not happened yet. We are righteous in Christ and in the eyes of God but everlasting righteousness has not come to us or the earth and all in it yet.
--Prophecy still exist simply because not all prophecy has been fulfilled yet, it is not sealed up, finished.
--And what is meant by "Most Holy" we at first, or I did, assume this to be Christ, but is that the case? From what I can find the expression used here is used about 40 other times but never of a person. So if that is correct then what does "anoint the Most Holy" mean?

ross3421
Jan 9th 2008, 10:21 AM
Maybe all 6 points are not finished




:thumbsup:.......................................

Naphal
Jan 9th 2008, 12:05 PM
************************************************** **************** "And he shall confirm the covenant with many [for] one week:"
************************************************** ****************
(Jesus fulfilled this at Calvary circa 33 AD)
Hebrews 9:20 "Then he said, 'This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.'"

Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ"

Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many"

Matthew 26:28 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke 22:20 "After supper he took another cup of wine and said, "This wine is the token of God's new covenant to save you--an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you."

Romans 11:27 "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Hebrews 12:24 "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel."

Hebrews 13:20 "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant"

It began during the 70th week when Jesus Messiah the Prince was cut off....and it will never end.



Jesus did not confirm any covenant for one week. It is another who shall do this. It hasn't happened yet.

David Taylor
Jan 9th 2008, 02:30 PM
Jesus did not confirm any covenant for one week. It is another who shall do this. It hasn't happened yet.


No Jesus confirmed the covenant of Daniel 9 within the final 70th week.

It was confirmed within that week, after He was cut-off, after the 69th week. It was not limited to that week in duration.

[for] in verse 27 is a translator's edition; it isn't found in the Hebrew text, and it mis-implies that the covenant is only one week in duration.






And earlier it was proposed that Messiah the Prince being cut-off, doesn't mean killed.

When you interpret scripture with scripture, to test that premise, there are many OT scriptures that teach us that the term 'cut-off' means to be killed.

Genesis tells us cut-off means killed.
Genesis 9:11 "And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

Exodus tells us cut-off means killed.
Exodus 9:15 "For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth."

Psalms tells us cut-off means killed.
Psalms 101:8 "I will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the LORD. "

Proverbs tells us cut-off means killed.
Proverbs 2:22 "But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it."


And the most fitting example of cut-off meaning killed.

Isaiah tells us cut-off means Jesus Messiah will be killed.
Isaiah 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."

third hero
Jan 9th 2008, 03:32 PM
Mark F.
HI. I am Doug, the Third Hero. I am not an evangelical, nor am I a catholic/orthodox/protestant believer. I am a Christian, and that is enough for me. Therefore, I can claim that I have no ties to any of the churches or their doctrines. My only doctrine that defines my views are what is written in the Gospels and backed up in the epistles.

I believe that the church is NOT a separate entity, but rather God's grafted branch into His kingdom. The church is the doorway for the Genitles to gain access to the Kingdom. The Israelites do not have a separate doorway, nor do they have the "law" to fall back on. I believe that the mistake that many believers make is the idea that the LAW is not of God. If anyone actually read all of Paul's discourse to the Romans, he makes a complete comparison between the Judaizers and the believers. The Church is a conglomerate of Jew and Gentile, with absolutely no separation. The "law" which Paul talks about is not the Torah, for Paul mentions that in Romans 3:31 that we do not void the law, which is the Torah, but rather establish it!

The Judaizers wanted back then, and still do to this day, to incorporate the Talmud and the Rabbinic laws into the Torah, and then calling the Torah, talmud and the Rabbinic interpretations as the LAW. Paul was not arguing against the Torah, but rather the talmud, stating that the Gospels, which is the laws and interpretations of the Torah through Lord Jesus, is the correct method in interpreting the Torah, or any other scripture. The Law that he mentioned is the law ofthe pharisees. Grace is the laws of Lord Jesus.

Need evidence?

1. It is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you. Jesus countered the tradition that all men are to wash their hands before eating.
2. It is acceptible to do good on Sabbath. This countered yet another rabbinic tradition that states that one must not do work on the sabbath. Jesus holds the better interpretation of the "no work on Sabbath".
3. "I am Lord of the Sabbath". By Jesus making this claim, he turns the sabbath day into a personal day, one which a person can have or not have, depending on their relationship with Lord Jesus, and no one else. This contradicted the rabbinic interpretation of the Torah. The Torah only stated that six days will a man work, and that on the seventh, a man is to rest. Jesus claiming to be the Lord of the Sabbath personalizes the Sabbath to the point that if a man starts working on a Wednesday, he can take a sabbath day on Tuesday, and still honor the fourth commandment.

These are just a few of the many things that Christ taught that contradicted the Talmud, and trumped it. According to Paul, Christ did away not with the Torah, but the talmud, the Rabbinic laws and traditions of the Judaizers.

Now, onward to the End Times chat.

As you are well aware of, there are more ways to interpret scripture. What I hold to be the truth, I believe it with all of my heart. I believe that Christ will not return until after the beast reveals himself, and the 3.5 years of tribulation that he will inflict is completed. I have scriptures that proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt, IMHO.

However, there are plenty of people who have decided to use a different method of interpreting scriptures for their own reasons. Some figurate everything into oblivion, mainly because they can not stand the thought that God's time is not the same as our time. There are those who spiritualize things because it makes sense to them. Some even have scripture to prove their POV to the point that others with dissenting POV's have no choice but to give merit to their views.

My point? We are not going to agree. Even when the pre-tribbers who did not put their salvation stock in their end times POV are running from the armies of the beast along side the amils that think that the period of suffering is the moments before the Lord's return and destruction of this earth and the post-tribbers that are screaming to both factions, "we were right", not everyone is going to believe as I or you do. I agree that we should look at the scriptures through a more literal perspective in order to see what is presented in scripture. Others do not. I can not just write them off as being wrong, even though I believe that I am right. This is part of the whole "Judge not" principle.

Now, if someone is coming out of the woodwork with crazy doctrines with no evidence from the Bible at all, then yes, we can judge them and say, "you're wrong!". Other than that, the only thing that we as believers can do with our end times perspective is to compare our beliefs with those of others, and note the similarities and differences. Our salvation is not linked to our end times POV. Our salvation hinges on our belief in Lord Jesus, and our ability to obey Him. He commands us to love one another, as HE LOVES US. This is what we need to show, even while in the midst of disagreeing with one another. Just like I have done in this thread. Notice that you have the option to disagree with what I have said, but the one thing that you can not say is that I am attacking you, because the wording is done in love, albeit in "matteroffact" fashion.

I hope this helps you a little. I will label you as a pre-tribber, because you believe that the rapture happens before the Great tribulation....and you mention the pre-tribulation POV as the position that you believe is the most correct. God bless you. You can label me a post-tribber, because I am a post-tribber. God bless me! Let's shake hands and debate away, always remembering that we are believers here, and we, both you and I, are to act accordingly.

Mark F
Jan 9th 2008, 05:34 PM
Third Hero,

I agree. I am a "pre-tribber" and as you say we can politely disagree. I too interpret Scripture in a literal sense, understanding the Scriptures ability to simultaniously convey much spiritual truth, but first the "literal" interpretation must be reached. I do believe that as there is much "spiritual truthS" in Scripture that there is only one literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation to be made first.

Where we differ also, is I see a dichotomy between the Church (the Bride of Christ) and Israel (unfaithful wife of JEHOVAH). I do believe that believers are believers no matter what age they lived or died in, yet I understand the Scriptures as saying that He has not cast aside the Children of Israel. We shall see right?

Thanks for your comments and may God bless you.

John146
Jan 9th 2008, 05:57 PM
But that would have been untrue, for me to say.

There is no gap in Daniel's 70 weeks....but there are other gaps in scriptures found elsewhere.

It depends upon the context.

The context of Daniel 9:24-27 is upon what Jesus has already accomplished during His earthly sojourn 2000 years ago.

So in answering the OP, it depends on the passage and the context of the verse.

Many Messianic passages have gaps in them, because they span many events and times. Some don't. Some just show the author changing topics. It really depends on the context of the verse being examined.

I agree. The 70-week prophecy of Daniel 9 gives absolutely no indication whatsoever that there would be a gap in the prophecy. The first 69 weeks were consecutive. No one can deny that. So, why would the 70th week come 2,000+ years later? Wouldn't there be some kind of indication within the text that would tell us the 70th week would not immediately follow the first 69 weeks? But we see no such thing. The Messiah is cut off (killed) after the 69 weeks. It seems very logical to me that this means the Messiah would be cut off within the 70th week when He would make sacrifices and offerings obsolete by His once and for all sacrifice and offering of His shed blood on the cross for the sins of mankind.

John146
Jan 9th 2008, 06:02 PM
Dave and to all the board,

"Cut off" does not represent his Crucifixion and only complicate matters of interpretation. It is this very interpretation which then promotes others to insert a gap due to the fact that they correctly interpret this prophecy does have future implications i.e the 70th week.

Both views are incorrect as all the 70 weeks are yet to occur. There is no gap and they are consecutive literal weeks. The term cut off refers to a time just prior to the second coming when the Messiah will be unattainable to the inhabitants on the earth and knowing there pending doom seek to and fro but are unable to find the word. The door is shut.

As in the days of Noah the door to the ark was shut and the inhabitants of the earth were cut off from God and wrath followed, likewise so shall it be when the son of man returns.


Mark

I disagree.

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. - Isaiah 53:8

The Messiah being cut off is a clear reference to the Messiah being "cut off out of the land of the living". I think all will agree that the verse I quoted above is a reference to Jesus the Messiah being crucified.

Naphal
Jan 9th 2008, 08:23 PM
No Jesus confirmed the covenant of Daniel 9 within the final 70th week.

It was confirmed within that week, after He was cut-off, after the 69th week. It was not limited to that week in duration.

But that doesn't fulfill the prophecy. Any covenant that is confirmed is confirmed within a week but that's to broad.

In order for the Hebrew to be translated properly the FOR has to be there in English. It is believed that the week is a week of years, originally a 7 year period. Being that this was the tribulation and that it was shortened by God in the NT and in Rev. we see a 3.5 year period during the same timeframe means the original 7 years is now cut in half adding more evidence that there was a 7 year "week" which lines up perfectly to the Daniel verses.

Naphal
Jan 9th 2008, 08:30 PM
And earlier it was proposed that Messiah the Prince being cut-off, doesn't mean killed.

It means killed but we have to follow the subject properly to know who is who in the verses.


Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

Here the subject is Jesus and he is going to die.

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.

And here is someone else. A prince who's people shall destroy the city etc. The subject is now him and his people.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

Following the subject we know that this is not about Jesus but about this prince. It is he that confirms the covenant not Jesus. It is impossible for Jesus to be spoken of here.


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.


None of that is done by Jesus...all by this evil prince and his people.

John146
Jan 9th 2008, 08:32 PM
But that doesn't fulfill the prophecy. Any covenant that is confirmed is confirmed within a week but that's to broad.

In order for the Hebrew to be translated properly the FOR has to be there in English. It is believed that the week is a week of years, originally a 7 year period. Being that this was the tribulation and that it was shortened by God in the NT and in Rev. we see a 3.5 year period during the same timeframe means the original 7 years is now cut in half adding more evidence that there was a 7 year "week" which lines up perfectly to the Daniel verses.

Whether the "for" is there or not, it still doesn't say the covenant lasts for a duration of one week. The implication is that it takes one week to confirm the covenant. It does not say "And he shall confirm the covenant with many which will last for one week.". It is the confirmation of the covenant that is 7 years in duration. It does not specifically mention the duration of the covenant itself.

It took 7 years to confirm the everlasting new covenant. The first half of that was the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ and the second half was the ministry of the Holy Spirit bringing the gospel to the Jews first after Pentecost.

John146
Jan 9th 2008, 08:37 PM
It means killed but we have to follow the subject properly to know who is who in the verses.


Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

Here the subject is Jesus and he is going to die.

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.

And here is someone else. A prince who's people shall destroy the city etc. The subject is now him and his people.

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:

Following the subject we know that this is not about Jesus but about this prince. It is he that confirms the covenant not Jesus. It is impossible for Jesus to be spoken of here.


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.


None of that is done by Jesus...all by this evil prince and his people.

The problem with what you're saying is that the prince in Daniel 9:26b is not the focus of that part of the verse. Instead, it is the people of the prince that are specifically being spoken about. The people of the prince are the ones who actually destroy the city and the sanctuary. The people of the prince are the subject there and not the prince himself. So, the "he" in verse 27 is referring back to the last individual who was specifically mentioned and focused on and that is the Messiah in Daniel 9:26a.

quiet dove
Jan 9th 2008, 08:59 PM
It took 7 years to confirm the everlasting new covenant. The first half of that was the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ and the second half was the ministry of the Holy Spirit bringing the gospel to the Jews first after Pentecost.

I have to disagree, regardless of who 9:27 is speaking of. It did not take 7 years to confirm the covenant, the covenant was confirmed with Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. Actually, it seems with His death and His resurrection is our visible proof.

The life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ was 33 years total.

Joh 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

He paid the debt owed, that did not take 7 years.

The Holy Spirit it still bringing the Gospel, the ministry of the Holy Spirit is still at work to convict of sin and His ministry is still active for any Jew, so the seven years is irrelevant for the ministry of the Holy Spirit whether to Jew or to Gentile.

Of course the Covenant and salvation went to the Jews first, they are the ones the New Covenant was promised to in the first place. It was never promised to Gentiles but promised to Abraham and told to Abraham the Gentiles would be invited and if they believe, grafted in. It was never promised to the Gentiles, only told that they would be included.

Naphal
Jan 9th 2008, 09:07 PM
Whether the "for" is there or not, it still doesn't say the covenant lasts for a duration of one week.

Actually it does. And it goes on to say in the middle of that same week that he causes other things to happen. If that week has a middle then it has an end and that means the covenant confirmed for one week is that one week.




The implication is that it takes one week to confirm the covenant.

No, it is confirmed right away but the covenant is to only be for a week. It's an agreement for a 7 year period. That's what a covenant is. In this case it was a time limited thing. It was only to last that one week and it is broken by the prince early.



It does not say "And he shall confirm the covenant with many which will last for one week.".

Yes it does. If I confirm a peace treaty for a period of 7 years then it is only agreed to last for 7 years. If all parties honor the treaty then it lasts that long at least, if someone breaks their word then the treaty fails.





It is the confirmation of the covenant that is 7 years in duration.

It doesn't take 7 years to confirm a covenant. The confirming happens in a very short time BEFORE the time period starts.




It does not specifically mention the duration of the covenant itself.

It does. It says a week.



It took 7 years to confirm the everlasting new covenant.


No, it did not. It didn't even take 7 days. It was instant upon Christ's shed blood.




The first half of that was the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ and the second half was the ministry of the Holy Spirit bringing the gospel to the Jews first after Pentecost.

This is an invented time period that doesn't exist in the scriptures. there is no such 3.5 year up to the death nor a 3.5 year period of the Holy Spirit afterwards.

Naphal
Jan 9th 2008, 09:09 PM
The problem with what you're saying is that the prince in Daniel 9:26b is not the focus of that part of the verse. Instead, it is the people of the prince that are specifically being spoken about.

Both are mentioned and when the verse speaks in the singular about "he" it turns to the prince himself.




The people of the prince are the ones who actually destroy the city and the sanctuary. The people of the prince are the subject there and not the prince himself.



Only for that small part then it turns to him specifically and individually. Even before that he is the one leading his own people. They do not destroy these things out of their own wills but for him and because of him.



So, the "he" in verse 27 is referring back to the last individual who was specifically mentioned and focused on and that is the Messiah in Daniel 9:26a.

Sorry, that is badly incorrect. It goes Christ, then the people of this prince and then to the prince himself.

Naphal
Jan 9th 2008, 09:10 PM
I have to disagree, regardless of who 9:27 is speaking of. It did not take 7 years to confirm the covenant, the covenant was confirmed with Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. Actually, it seems with His death and His resurrection is our visible proof.

The life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ was 33 years total.

Joh 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

He paid the debt owed, that did not take 7 years.

The Holy Spirit it still bringing the Gospel, the ministry of the Holy Spirit is still at work to convict of sin and His ministry is still active for any Jew, so the seven years is irrelevant for the ministry of the Holy Spirit whether to Jew or to Gentile.

Of course the Covenant and salvation went to the Jews first, they are the ones the New Covenant was promised to in the first place. It was never promised to Gentiles but promised to Abraham and told to Abraham the Gentiles would be invited and if they believe, grafted in. It was never promised to the Gentiles, only told that they would be included.




All well said.....Amen

John146
Jan 9th 2008, 10:36 PM
I have to disagree

That goes without saying, doesn't it? I don't think we agree on very much as far as end times prophecy goes. :)



, regardless of who 9:27 is speaking of. It did not take 7 years to confirm the covenant, the covenant was confirmed with Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. Actually, it seems with His death and His resurrection is our visible proof.

The life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ was 33 years total.

Yeah, I didn't mean His whole life, I meant starting with His ministry.



Joh 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

He paid the debt owed, that did not take 7 years.

The Holy Spirit it still bringing the Gospel, the ministry of the Holy Spirit is still at work to convict of sin and His ministry is still active for any Jew, so the seven years is irrelevant for the ministry of the Holy Spirit whether to Jew or to Gentile.

If you read Acts, you can clearly see that the gospel originally went out to the Jews before going to the Gentiles. That's what I'm alluding to. What you're saying is obvious, but that doesn't negate the fact that the gospel went out to the Jews first.



Of course the Covenant and salvation went to the Jews first, they are the ones the New Covenant was promised to in the first place. It was never promised to Gentiles but promised to Abraham and told to Abraham the Gentiles would be invited and if they believe, grafted in. It was never promised to the Gentiles, only told that they would be included.


The point of bringing that up is because the prophecy dealt specifically with Israel. If the gospel immediately went out to both Jews and Gentiles, then my point would be invalid and I wouldn't have anything to go on as far as explaining the second half of the 70th week. But we can clearly see in Acts that it went to the Jews first and I believe the reason for that was to fulfill the 70 week prophecy.

John146
Jan 9th 2008, 10:45 PM
Actually it does. And it goes on to say in the middle of that same week that he causes other things to happen. If that week has a middle then it has an end and that means the covenant confirmed for one week is that one week.

You're not offering any evidence that the covenant was to only last for one week.



No, it is confirmed right away but the covenant is to only be for a week. It's an agreement for a 7 year period. That's what a covenant is. In this case it was a time limited thing. It was only to last that one week and it is broken by the prince early.

Where does it say anything about the covenant being broken?



Yes it does. If I confirm a peace treaty for a period of 7 years then it is only agreed to last for 7 years. If all parties honor the treaty then it lasts that long at least, if someone breaks their word then the treaty fails.

In order to confirm a covenant, the covenant must have already been made previously. So, where does Scripture previously mention this supposed 7 year covenant?



It doesn't take 7 years to confirm a covenant. The confirming happens in a very short time BEFORE the time period starts.

Where is your evidence for this?



This is an invented time period that doesn't exist in the scriptures. there is no such 3.5 year up to the death nor a 3.5 year period of the Holy Spirit afterwards.

Jesus' ministry lasted 3.5 years, so that is certainly not invented. It's much more plausible than inserting a 2,000+ year gap into the prophecy when the prophecy itself doesn't even hint at such a thing.

John146
Jan 9th 2008, 10:56 PM
Sorry, that is badly incorrect. It goes Christ, then the people of this prince and then to the prince himself.

You tell me what I said is "badly incorrect" and then you merely give an opinion with no support for that opinion? Okay. ;)

jeffweeder
Jan 10th 2008, 12:15 AM
"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."




.................................................. ...

quiet dove
Jan 10th 2008, 01:36 AM
That goes without saying, doesn't it? I don't think we agree on very much as far as end times prophecy goes. :)
:lol: But I still love ya!! :kiss:


Yeah, I didn't mean His whole life, I meant starting with His ministry.
But His ministry is not the New Covenant nor did His ministry confirm or fulfill the New Covenant. His ministry fulfilled some prophecies given which is why Israel should have recognized their Messiah. His ministry gave Israel opportunity to recognize their Messiah and repent, but it did not fulfill the Law. Only His death, the sacrifice of Himself in death paid the debt and fulfilled and made Him the New Covenant. And His death and resurrection did not take 3.5 or 7 years either one.

If you read Acts, you can clearly see that the gospel originally went out to the Jews before going to the Gentiles. That's what I'm alluding to. What you're saying is obvious, but that doesn't negate the fact that the gospel went out to the Jews first.
I did not disagree that the gospel went out to the Jews first, Jesus ministry was to the Jews, or intended for the Jews though some Gentiles are mentioned


The point of bringing that up is because the prophecy dealt specifically with Israel. If the gospel immediately went out to both Jews and Gentiles, then my point would be invalid and I wouldn't have anything to go on as far as explaining the second half of the 70th week. But we can clearly see in Acts that it went to the Jews first and I believe the reason for that was to fulfill the 70 week prophecy.It would not have mattered even if the gospel had gone out to the Jews and Gentiles at the same time, it isnt the going out of the gospel that confirmed any part of the New Covenant. Fulfilled prophecies yes, fulfilled the requirements and confirmed the New Covenant...no.

yoSAMite
Jan 10th 2008, 05:09 AM
Except that Daniel tells us that Messiah the prince is cut-off or killed sometime after the 69th week (within the 70th). Notice that Daniel doesn't tell us the Messiah is cut-off after the 68th week (within the 69th), but that He is cut-off after the 69th week....which places his death somewhere within the 70th and final week of the prophecy.

Hi David,

I agree with you that the Messiah is killed after the 69th week. And I agree with you that one would think that means that He was killed in the 70th week, but I guess the starting point of the 70th week is what the whole gap theory discussion is really about.

I believe the 70 weeks started with the decree by Artaxerxes (Neh 2:5-8, 17, 18) on March 5, 444 BC and the 69th week ended with the Triumphal Entry of Jesus in 33 AD (Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:29-44, John 12:12-23).

What I also tried to show in my original post is that Daniel 7:25 seems to place the 70th week, in particular the final 3 1/2 weeks of the 70th week, just prior to the Second Coming.

Neither of us believe that Jesus Glorious Appearing has happened, so if I'm correct in my observations the 70th week hasn't started.

If there is no gap, then what covenant was confirmed to signify the beginning of the 70th week?

yoSAMite
Jan 10th 2008, 05:19 AM
I may have posted this before, but it is still valid, it's something I have in my study notes. This is from my own personal study. Though this reinforces what I believe, it is also plain old grammar, outside any theological premise.


It’s my understanding of the English langauage that the “he” in vs 27 would refer to the “prince” in vs 26, not “Messiah”. Here’s why I believe that.

The pronoun “he” in vs 27 is called a REFERENT because it “refers back”. Also important for the interpretation of this prophecy is that a pronoun renames (takes the place of) a noun that comes before it. The question is what does it (the “he” in vs 27) refer back to? It refers back to what’s called an ANTECEDENT. An antecedent is the word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers, understood by the context. The antecedent is the noun that comes before the pronoun, providing that it meets certain rules, like plurality and gender. After a compound antecedent connected by or or nor, a pronoun agrees with the element of the antecedent nearer to it.

My conclusion is that the “he” in vs 27 would refer back to _the prince_ of the people that shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. It would not skip _the prince_ and go to _the Messiah_. That is proper English grammar.

I had this discussion with someone who’s wife is an English teacher and she confirmed my conclusion based only on the sentence structure.

third hero
Jan 10th 2008, 08:01 PM
I knew that I should have paid attention in English comp courses!:rolleyes::lol:

Naphal
Jan 10th 2008, 09:13 PM
You're not offering any evidence that the covenant was to only last for one week.

The text is clear that the covenant is confirmed for a week so it's your burden to prove otherwise.



Where does it say anything about the covenant being broken?


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.

Here we see a major event happen midway through the 7 years.

Then In Daniel 11 we read of more details:

Daniel 11:23 And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

Daniel 11:28 Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land.

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.

Daniel 11:32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.



In order to confirm a covenant, the covenant must have already been made previously. So, where does Scripture previously mention this supposed 7 year covenant?


No, a covenant can be proposed and confirmed all in one sitting. There does not need to be a previous and ongoing covenant. He confirms or agrees to a covenant of 7 years.




Where is your evidence for this?



It's common sense. Study about covenants and treaties and you will learn more about them.



Jesus' ministry lasted 3.5 years, so that is certainly not invented. It's much more plausible than inserting a 2,000+ year gap into the prophecy when the prophecy itself doesn't even hint at such a thing.

The ministry did not last 3.5 years.

Naphal
Jan 10th 2008, 09:15 PM
Quote:
"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."



Quote:
"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."

jeffweeder
Jan 10th 2008, 11:39 PM
Lets say the decree was issued in 457 bc.
It was to be 483 years (7+62 weeks) until messiah.
That brings us to 26 AD. He was confirmed as Messiah at his baptism.

Messiah is cut off after the 69 weeks also, and we know his ministry lasted 3 1/2 years.
So he died 3 1/2 years after the 69th week. How can this then not be the 70th week, as in that short ministry he bought salvation to all?
The decree was to bring in atonement for sin etc in 70 weeks


So either he came and did nothing or he came to bring atonement and fulfill the decree
within the 70 weeks.

Why would Gabriel say 70 weeks to bring in atonement, if messiah didnt do it back then.
We then have to conclude that it has been 350 weeks + if part of it is not finished.

Jesus didnt do it in part, as all authority has been given to him and salvation is preached to all in his name now.

70 weeks were decreed for all 6 points.
It doesnt say that some of them would find fulfillment in 350+ weeks from the going forth of the decree.

Jesus said something was finished when he hung on the cross.
Why was he hanging on the cross?
Because he died for the sins of the whole world and put an end to sin and bought in atonement.
He went to the cross to fulfill the decree given by God to Gabriel..and he finished his work.

ShirleyFord
Jan 11th 2008, 11:23 AM
Hi David,

I agree with you that the Messiah is killed after the 69th week. And I agree with you that one would think that means that He was killed in the 70th week, but I guess the starting point of the 70th week is what the whole gap theory discussion is really about.

I believe the 70 weeks started with the decree by Artaxerxes (Neh 2:5-8, 17, 18) on March 5, 444 BC and the 69th week ended with the Triumphal Entry of Jesus in 33 AD (Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:29-44, John 12:12-23).

Hi Khool,

Daniel 9 doesn't mention "the Triumphal Entry of Jesus". So what causes you to believe that "the Triumphal Entry of Jesus" ended the 69 weeks?


Shirley

markedward
Jan 11th 2008, 07:59 PM
Lets say the decree was issued in 457 bc.
It was to be 483 years (7+62 weeks) until messiah.
That brings us to 26 AD. He was confirmed as Messiah at his baptism.

Messiah is cut off after the 69 weeks also, and we know his ministry lasted 3 1/2 years.
So he died 3 1/2 years after the 69th week. How can this then not be the 70th week, as in that short ministry he bought salvation to all?
The decree was to bring in atonement for sin etc in 70 weeks.For Israel, correct? Timewise, it was about three and a half years after Christ's sacrifice that Saul became Paul. Christ occasionally spoke that He had come to preach to Israel, not the Gentiles. If it was really three and a half years after His resurrection that Paul became the Apostle to the Gentiles, it would seem like it was a straight seven-year covenant with Israel until the Gospel was opened up to the Gentiles (see Peter's dream of the unclean animals and Saul's conversion).

Let's also take a look at Young's Literal Translation:



25And thou dost know, and dost consider wisely, from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader [is] seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the broad place hath been built again, and the rampart, even in the distress of the times.
26And after the sixty and two weeks, cut off is Messiah, and the city and the holy place are not his, the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; and its end [is] with a flood, and till the end [is] war, determined [are] desolations. 27And he hath strengthened a covenant with many -- one week, and [in] the midst of the week he causeth sacrifice and present to cease, and by the wing of abominations he is making desolate, even till the consummation, and that which is determined is poured on the desolate one.'Only one individual is mentioned here, being "Messiah the Leader" (or "Messiah the Prince" or "Messiah the Ruler"). Most modern translations use King James at least somewhat for a guideline on how to translate their passages, but Young's Literal uses the original texts only and what it gives us is pretty different than the KJV and other translations. What Young's Literal presents us is: Messiah "the Leader" would come after the sixty-two weeks (logically, at the beginning of the last week), and then He would be cut off (and since we know Jesus was killed three and a half years after He "came," i.e. began His ministry, it would logically make sense He was 'cut off' in the middle of the last week). As a result of the 'cutting off' Jerusalem and the Holy Place are not His (probably referring that He was rejected from them?).

This is where the translations differ. Young's shows us that the Leader who had come ("Messiah the Leader") would destroy the people (where as, KJV says people would come from the Leader in order to do the destroying). Then it says "desolations" are determined. Strictly speaking "desolation" does not have to do with a profaning of an altar or anything like that. It means emptiness. In this case, if a city and its people are being "desolated" they are being "emptied" (killed, destroyed, etc.). The Leader (Messiah) would make a covenant for one week; Jesus began an Israel-only covenant when He began His ministry. He kept telling His disciples to preach only to the Jews, not the Gentiles. He kept make it a point that He was there for the "lost sheep of Israel." This Israel exclusiveness ended with the appointment of Saul as "Apostle to the Gentiles" about three and a half years after Jesus was resurrected. That would make the Israel-only covenant seven years (i.e., the covenant the Leader (Messiah) would make for one week).

Finally, it says in the midst of the week the Leader (Messiah) would end the sacrifices, which happened when Jesus was sacrificed. Although temple sacrifices continued, true Israel did not continue making sacrifices. Jesus was the end of sacrifices for the true followers of God. And "by the wings of abomination He is making desolate." This is an "abomination of desolation." Read Matthew 24 and Mark 13; Jesus is recorded as saying the "abomination that causes desolation" would come to destroy Jerusalem. In Luke 21; Jesus doesn't refer to this "abomination of desolation," but instead refers to Gentile armies surrounding Jerusalem. Luke's Gospel equates Gentile armies as being the "abomination of desolation" mentioned in Matthew and Mark's Gospels. So when Daniel says the Leader would come on the "wings of abomination," adding the input of the Gospels' words, we see that Daniel is saying the Messiah would be bringing an army against the city and its people (similar to how God brought the Babylonian armies against Jerusalem and its people previously). This would "consummate," where "consummate" infers a building-up over time, in the "desolation." The "abomination of desolation" here in Daniel would not happen during the last week, but rather it would come about eventually as a result of the last week. So, that which was previously "determined" (verse 26) would finally come to be "poured out" (verse 27) on the "desolate one." This "desolate one" is not a person, but more than likely Jerusalem ("one" city) as a whole.

quiet dove
Jan 11th 2008, 09:28 PM
markedward,

I dont mean to argue this, I use the YLT (so I'd kinda like to think it reliable). But the problem I have with v27 is that it did not take Christ seven years to confirm the New Covenant, it was confirmed with His death and sacrifice for us. Nor did he confirm any covenants for only seven years.

In order for the ceasing of sacrifice to apply to Christ He would have first had to confirm the Covenant of the Law, then His death, sacrifices ceased and the New Covenant begun, however He did not break or cause to cease the Covenant of the Law, He fulfilled it. The Covenant of the Law still exist and all who are not in Christ Jesus will be judged according to the Law, which of course means they will die.

Anytime the people were in disobedience their sacrifices were useless, God had no pleasure in them. So that was already a problem even before Christ crucifixion. Had they been standing in obedience to God they would have known their Messiah.

And the "desolate one", how does that apply to Jerusalem now, Jerusalem is not desolate, but is a nation, inhabited by Jews. The Jews were once again scattered for their disobedience in 70AD, but as history has proven, they are also being regathered right before our eyes. The desolation of v27 was unto the end, the end of what then? The Covenant of the Law, no, it still exist for all those who are not in Christ Jesus? To say that "vanish away"(Heb 8:13) means no longer valid would mean there was no standard to judge those outside of Christ, what law would they have broken if there is no Law? The only ones the Law has vanished away for would be those covered by the atoning blood of Christ. Right?

And this sentence
"the Leader who hath come doth destroy the people; "
What people, if Christ is the "Leader", did Christ come to destroy? What scripture ever says Christ came to destroy the Jews, or any other people for that matter? Or destroy Jerusalem? God may run the Jews out of Jerusalem but Jerusalem is still God's property. And though there is a New Jerusalem to come, there is also a new quiet dove to come, but the old mortal corruptible quiet dove is God's property also until He makes me new, just as He will make Jerusalem new, the old one is still His.

Plus following on through Matthew
Mat 24:19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

markedward
Jan 11th 2008, 11:19 PM
Do you believe there is one person or two being referred to at the end of the chapter? The wording infers only one person (Messiah, the Leader) is being referred to. The passage mentions "Messiah the Leader," who in relation to Daniel, was still to come. So when, immediately after that, it says "the Leader who will come," it only makes sense that it is still referring to "Messiah the Leader."

quiet dove
Jan 11th 2008, 11:26 PM
Do you believe there is one person or two being referred to at the end of the chapter? The wording infers only one person (Messiah, the Leader) is being referred to. The passage mentions "Messiah the Leader," who in relation to Daniel, was still to come. So when, immediately after that, it says "the Leader who will come," it only makes sense that it is still referring to "Messiah the Leader."


Thats why I posed the questions I did, trying to understand, that if that is an accurate translation of those verses, how it all sorts out, because it does appear to be different than most translations, but that doesnt necessarily mean it is correct and the others are wrong. It must harmonize or something is wrong. I dont even know who this Young person is really. So why should I all the sudden put all my trust in him as opposed to weighing out different translations, which is what I usually do when confused.:)

markedward
Jan 12th 2008, 03:29 AM
Thats why I posed the questions I did, trying to understand, that if that is an accurate translation of those verses, how it all sorts out, because it does appear to be different than most translations, but that doesnt necessarily mean it is correct and the others are wrong. It must harmonize or something is wrong. I dont even know who this Young person is really. So why should I all the sudden put all my trust in him as opposed to weighing out different translations, which is what I usually do when confused.:)Well, that's true of course. Although, I've noticed some of the non-biased translations still only infer that one person is being spoken of. Let's look at some of the other translations.

Young's Literal
Verse 25: "till Messiah the Leader"
Verse 26: "cut off is Messiah" ... "the Leader who has come"
One individual is being inferred here, the Messiah, called the Leader.

NIV
25: "until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes"
26: "the Anointed One will be cut off" ... "the people of the ruler who will come"
This could be inferred as two people, but the key point is that the first individual is called both "Anointed One" and "ruler" so it only seems to make sense that the later reference to "the ruler" is the same "the ruler" who was named as the Anointed One.

NASB
25: "until Messiah the Prince"
26: "the Messiah will be cut off" ... "the people of the prince who is to come"
Keep in mind that captizalization is added into the English translation on a subjective basis, as in, it's personal opinion on what should be capitalized. So an argument that "Messiah the Prince" is capitalized whiled "the prince who is to come" is not capitalized is not a valid argument. Again, as with the NIV, the keypoint is that the Messiah is here called the "prince" and that He is prophesied as "to come." So when it speaks of "the prince who is to come" it only makes sense that it refers to the already mentioned "prince," being the Messiah.

Amplified
25: "until [the coming of] the Anointed One, a Prince"
26: "the Anointed One be cut off" ... "And the people of the [other] prince who will come"
This translation, in my opinion, cannot be trusted. The translation adds in the word "other" in relation to the second use of the word "prince," despite there being no previous mention of a second prince. The translators have added in their personal interpretation into the text rather than leaving the original wording. They could add a footnote if they like with the distinctive note that they are interjecting their personal opinion of who the prince is, but the distinct wording of the previous passages (or in this passage, ignoring the bracketed additions) presents only one individual who is called both "Anointed One" ("Messiah") and "Prince" ("leader," "ruler," etc.)

NLT
25: "until a ruler - the Anointed One - comes"
26: "the Anointed One will be killed" ... "and a ruler will arise"
This translation, though I admit I use it on a reading basis (rather than a studying basis) changes the commonly accepted inferrence of a specific "ruler" (the above translations all speak of the second 'ruler' as being "the ruler", while this translations turns it into a generic "a ruler," as if he is one of many of the time). This translation cannot be trusted in this verse either because it definitely seems to be interjecting personal opinion into the text rather than presenting the plain wording.

KJV
25: "unto the Messiah the Prince"
26: "Messiah be cut off" ... "the people of the prince that shall come"
Same as before: each time the mentioning of a prince to come is made it is spoken of in reference to a specific individual ("the prince" as opposed to "a prince"). And in the whole passage, only one individual is identified as being "the prince" being "Messiah."

KJ21
Same as above.

ASV
25: "unto the anointed one, the prince"
26: "the anointed one be cut off" ... "the people of the prince that shall come"
Same as before: one "the prince" is mentioned, being identified initially as "the messiah." The reduction of the capitalizations helps to take away preformed notions of who is who (since us Westerners sometimes get stuck in that).

Holman Christian Standard
25: "until Messiah the Prince"
26: "the Messiah will be cut off" ... "the people of the coming prince"
The insertion of "coming" offsets the reading a bit, but the same as usual.

The overall translation consensus removes any preformed notions we have of what is being said in the statement, and a strictly literal reading, without interjecting our previous ideas, shows that one individual is being referred to throughout, as both "messiah" (or "anointed one") and "ruler" (or "prince" or "leader"), and Young's is included in this position. The difference between Young's and the general English translation is the mentioning of "people" and who destroys the city.

quiet dove
Jan 12th 2008, 04:10 AM
markedward,

All of those version with the exception of the Youngs say basically the same thing
NKJV
26 Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
…people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

No disrespect to Young, like I said, I use that. But some of these other versions were put together by over one hundred people and scholars, what makes Young's the authority if it is different with the others?



And I am off OP so maybe we should start a thread somewhere else. Sorry, I am just frustrated.

Lou M.
Jan 12th 2008, 06:50 AM
Well, well, well,..............
I see everybody is still at it.
Hi everybody.:wave:

quiet dove
Jan 12th 2008, 06:06 PM
Well, well, well,..............
I see everybody is still at it.
Hi everybody.:wave:

Hi back, jump in somewhere. :)

Lou M.
Jan 13th 2008, 11:39 AM
Gaps in Prophesy: are they Scriptural?
I think they are:

(Gray's Commentary)
Cycles of Years:
To take another illustration, God's dealings with Israel are in cycles of 490 years. (1) The period from Abram to Exodus was 490 years, plus the fifteen years during which the bondwoman and her child (Hagar and Ismael) dominated in Abram's tent, and which are not counted.
(2) The period from Exodus to the dedication of Solomon's temple was 490 years, plus the 131 years of captivity in the time of the Judges, which are not counted. (3) From the dedication to the return from Babylon was 490 years, plus the seventy years of that captivity not counted. (4) From the return from Babylon to the beginning of the millennial age is 490 years, plus the dispensation in which Israel is dispersed, and which is not counted. When God Does Not Count Time Prophetically speaking, God does not count time with reference to Israel while she is in captivity, or dispersion, or dominated by any other nation. In evidence of this, note that in 1 Kings 6:1 mention is made of the fourth year of Solomon as being 480 years after the Exodus. But we know from Numbers 14:33 that they were forty years in the wilderness; then, according to the Book of Joshua, they were thirty-seven years in conquering Canaan and up until the period of the Judges; Acts 13:20 shows that they were 450 years under the Judges; then they were forty years under Saul (Acts 13:21), and forty years under David (2 Sam. 5:4, 5).
These periods foot up 607 years, to which should be added the four years of Solomon referred to, making a total of 611 years. How shall we explain this discrepancy, of which infidels and others have made so much? The answer has been stated above, that God does not count time prophetically while Israel is in captivity. For example, seven captivities are mentioned in the Book of Judges, one of eight years (3:8); eighteen years (3:14); twenty years (4:3); seven years (6:1); eighteen years (10:8); forty years (13:1), and twenty years (1 Sam. 7:2), making a total of precisely 131 years. The above is a sufficient illustration of the principle. We close this lesson with a rough diagram of the 490 years covered by Daniel 9:24-27, which may aid in fastening that important prediction in the memory: Seventy-sevens, 490 years From the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the end of this age. Seven weeks, or forty-nine years. The street and wall of Jerusalem built. Sixty-two weeks, or 434 years. At the close of this period the Messiah is cut off and has nothing. A. D. 32. The Uncounted Period. 1. Jerusalem destroyed, A. D. 70. 2. Jews dispersed. 3. Jerusalem trodden down. 4. The church called out. 5. Apostasy of Christendom. 6. Jews in part return to Jerusalem in unbelief. 7. Coming of Christ for the Church. One week, seven years."

yoSAMite
Jan 13th 2008, 07:26 PM
Hi Khool,
Daniel 9 doesn't mention "the Triumphal Entry of Jesus". So what causes you to believe that "the Triumphal Entry of Jesus" ended the 69 weeks?
Shirley
Hi Shirley,

From what I understand there were 4 decrees concerning Jerusalem spoken of in the Bible. The starting point (sometimes known by the Latin phrase “terminus a quo”) of the seventy weeks is the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.

#1 - Ezra 1:2-4 – Cyrus (537 bc); “he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which [is] in Judah.”
#2 - Ezra 6:1-5, 8, 12 – Darius (520 bc); “I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God”
#3 - Ezra 7:11-26 - Artaxerces (458 bc); “Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven”

#4 - Neh 2:5-8, 17, 18 – Artaxerces (445 bc); “And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it”

The first three decrees are concerning the Temple and therefore should not be applied to the Daniel 9:25. Some use the Ezra 7verses as the decree spoken of and then say that the culmination of the 69 weeks is Jesus baptism.

Nehemiah 2:5-18 parallels Daniel 9:25 fairly closely.
Dan - from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem
Neh - that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.

Dan - the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Neh – And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which [appertained] to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into…..Ye see the distress that we [are] in, how Jerusalem [lieth] waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem,
Also described in (Ezra 9 and 10; Neh. 4, 6, 9, and 13).

If the calculations by either Sir Robert Anderson or Dr. Harold Hoehner are correct the Nehemiah 2 decree is the starting point of the 69 weeks and the Triumphal Entry is the ending of the 69 weeks to the day.

At the Triumphal Entry Jesus initiated the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

We see the disciples and the crowd singing And from Psalm 118:24-26 “This [is] the day [which] the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity. Blessed [be] he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD.”

Then being rebuked by the Pharisees for doing so.

In Luke 19:42 we have Jesus declaring Himself the “mashiyach nagid” or the Messiah the king “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.” He expected them to know and understand the prophecies concerning the Messiah. I believe they did know, because of the rebuke for the singing of the Messianic praise song, but they just refused to accept the truth. As a result of their actions we see the ramifications, the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 19:43-44).

It is also at this point, Luke 19:42, that the blindness of corporate Israel that Paul speaks of in Romans 11:25 begins. And though it just speculation on my part, I believe this is a confirmation of the ending of the 69 weeks.

I hope I explained this well enough without being too long winded.

ShirleyFord
Jan 13th 2008, 11:21 PM
Hi Shirley,

From what I understand there were 4 decrees concerning Jerusalem spoken of in the Bible. The starting point (sometimes known by the Latin phrase “terminus a quo”) of the seventy weeks is the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.

#1 - Ezra 1:2-4 – Cyrus (537 bc); “he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which [is] in Judah.”
#2 - Ezra 6:1-5, 8, 12 – Darius (520 bc); “I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of God”
#3 - Ezra 7:11-26 - Artaxerces (458 bc); “Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven”

#4 - Neh 2:5-8, 17, 18 – Artaxerces (445 bc); “And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it”

The first three decrees are concerning the Temple and therefore should not be applied to the Daniel 9:25. Some use the Ezra 7verses as the decree spoken of and then say that the culmination of the 69 weeks is Jesus baptism.

Nehemiah 2:5-18 parallels Daniel 9:25 fairly closely.
Dan - from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem
Neh - that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.

Dan - the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Neh – And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which [appertained] to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into…..Ye see the distress that we [are] in, how Jerusalem [lieth] waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem,
Also described in (Ezra 9 and 10; Neh. 4, 6, 9, and 13).

If the calculations by either Sir Robert Anderson or Dr. Harold Hoehner are correct the Nehemiah 2 decree is the starting point of the 69 weeks and the Triumphal Entry is the ending of the 69 weeks to the day.

At the Triumphal Entry Jesus initiated the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”

We see the disciples and the crowd singing And from Psalm 118:24-26 “This [is] the day [which] the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity. Blessed he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD.”

Then being rebuked by the Pharisees for doing so.

In Luke 19:42 we have Jesus declaring Himself the “mashiyach nagid” or the Messiah the king “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.” He expected them to know and understand the prophecies concerning the Messiah. I believe they did know, because of the rebuke for the singing of the Messianic praise song, but they just refused to accept the truth. As a result of their actions we see the ramifications, the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 19:43-44).

It is also at this point, Luke 19:42, that the blindness of corporate Israel that Paul speaks of in Romans 11:25 begins. And though it just speculation on my part, I believe this is a confirmation of the ending of the 69 weeks.

I hope I explained this well enough without being too long winded.

Yes, you explained it very well, Sam. Thanks. :)

I don't believe that there is any sure way of knowing the exact calender date when the 70 weeks began. The Bible doesn't give us any calender dates.

Athough there are many different opinions as to which of the the creeds of the three different kings was the starting point of the first seven weeks of 49 years, I don't think we have but one option if we go by what the Bible says.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

God named King Cyrus as the one 200 years before he was born:

2 Chronicles 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

2 Chronicles 36:23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.

And as we go to Ezra, we see that Cyrus did fulfill that prophecy in 2 Chronicles 36:23:


Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

Ezra 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Ezra 1:7 Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels of the house of the LORD, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods;

Ezra 1:8 Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah.

Ezra 3:7 They gave money also unto the masons, and to the carpenters; and meat, and drink, and oil, unto them of Zidon, and to them of Tyre, to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea of Joppa, according to the grant that they had of Cyrus king of Persia.

Ezra 4:3 But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.

Look what Isaiah prophecies long before Cyrus is even born:

Isaiah 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to [B]Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Is 45:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=45&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;


2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:

3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.

4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me


I don't see anything in Daniel 9:24-27 that the the triumpant entry of Christ into Jerusalem at the end of His ministry, a few days before His crucifixion ended the 69th week or says that the 70th week has been delayed for any reason.


It seems that the 70th week began at the beginning of the earthly ministry of Christ when God anointed Him, at least 3 years earlier.


Daniel 9:24 "....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.




Shirley

John146
Jan 14th 2008, 05:54 PM
Excellent post, Shirley. I agree that the anointing of Jesus, which marked the beginning of His ministry, makes more sense as the starting point of the 70th week than the idea of His riding on the donkey into Jerusalem marking the end of the 69th week. If that was the end of the 69th week then that would mean His ministry occurred during the 69th week. I don't see anything in Daniel 9 that would even hint at the idea of His ministry falling within the 69th week.

yoSAMite
Jan 17th 2008, 08:20 PM
Yes, you explained it very well, Sam. Thanks. :)

I don't believe that there is any sure way of knowing the exact calender date when the 70 weeks began. The Bible doesn't give us any calender dates.
I would agree with you to a point that it is virtually impossible to be precise in predicting what happened on specific days when it comes to ancient history. But saying that, we do have dates in the Bible and we know from history when events happened so I do believe scholars can make well educated determinations of dates.

For instance, here’s the dates of the 4 decrees that pertain and I’ve added the 69 weeks, 483 years, 173,880 days.

Ezra 1 – 537 B.C. plus 483 years = 53 B.C.
Ezra 6 – 520 B.C. plus 483 years = 37 B.C.
Ezra 7 – 458 B.C. plus 483 years = 26 AD
Neh 2 - 444 B.C. plus 483 years = 33 AD



Athough there are many different opinions as to which of the the creeds of the three different kings was the starting point of the first seven weeks of 49 years, I don't think we have but one option if we go by what the Bible says.

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

God named King Cyrus as the one 200 years before he was born:

2 Chronicles 36:22 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

2 Chronicles 36:23 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.

And as we go to Ezra, we see that Cyrus did fulfill that prophecy in 2 Chronicles 36:23:

Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

Ezra 1:2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Ezra 1:7 Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels of the house of the LORD, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods;

Ezra 1:8 Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah.

Ezra 3:7 They gave money also unto the masons, and to the carpenters; and meat, and drink, and oil, unto them of Zidon, and to them of Tyre, to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea of Joppa, according to the grant that they had of Cyrus king of Persia.

Ezra 4:3 But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.

Look what Isaiah prophecies long before Cyrus is even born:

Isaiah 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Is 45:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=45&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;


2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:

3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.

4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me This has me a bit perplexed. The decree in Ezra 1 concerns the building of the Temple, not rebuilding of Jerusalem, the streets or walls. The decree was issued in 537 B.C. and if you add the 69 weeks or 438 years it means that the mashiyach nagid of Daniel 9:25 would have had to appear in 53 B.C. or about 50 years before the birth of Jesus.

With all due respect that seems to be a disqualifier as a decree that pertains to the Daniel 9 prophecies.



I don't see anything in Daniel 9:24-27 that the the triumpant entry of Christ into Jerusalem at the end of His ministry, a few days before His crucifixion ended the 69th week or says that the 70th week has been delayed for any reason.

It seems that the 70th week began at the beginning of the earthly ministry of Christ when God anointed Him, at least 3 years earlier.

Daniel 9:24 "....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.
What I’m assuming from this is that you’re saying that Jesus was anointed at his baptism. For this to qualify for the Daniel 9 prophecy you must also claim that Ezra 7 and the decree from Artaxerces in 458 B.C. would be the beginning of the 70 weeks. And if that is the case the Ezra 7 decree concerns the Temple and I see nothing in Matthew 3:16-17 that indicates a specific messianic anointing that would correlate to Daniel 9.


I'd also like to point out that a more literal translation of Daniel 9:24 "...and to anoint the most Holy" doesn't point to a person or Jesus in specific, but to the Holy of Holies.

yoSAMite
Jan 17th 2008, 08:27 PM
Excellent post, Shirley. I agree that the anointing of Jesus, which marked the beginning of His ministry, makes more sense as the starting point of the 70th week than the idea of His riding on the donkey into Jerusalem marking the end of the 69th week. If that was the end of the 69th week then that would mean His ministry occurred during the 69th week. I don't see anything in Daniel 9 that would even hint at the idea of His ministry falling within the 69th week.


If you don’t see anything that would hint that His ministry falls within the 69th week, what do you see that would prohibit this? And again with all due respect if you come up with nothing then either point of view is valid.

And if I’m correct is using the Nehemiah 2 prophecy then there is something in Daniel 9 that would indicate that Jesus ministry would fall into the 69th week.

Neh 2 - 444 B.C. plus 483 years = 33 AD

ShirleyFord
Jan 20th 2008, 06:33 AM
I would agree with you to a point that it is virtually impossible to be precise in predicting what happened on specific days when it comes to ancient history. But saying that, we do have dates in the Bible and we know from history when events happened so I do believe scholars can make well educated determinations of dates.

For instance, here’s the dates of the 4 decrees that pertain and I’ve added the 69 weeks, 483 years, 173,880 days.

Ezra 1 – 537 B.C. plus 483 years = 53 B.C.
Ezra 6 – 520 B.C. plus 483 years = 37 B.C.
Ezra 7 – 458 B.C. plus 483 years = 26 AD
Neh 2 - 444 B.C. plus 483 years = 33 AD


This has me a bit perplexed. The decree in Ezra 1 concerns the building of the Temple, not rebuilding of Jerusalem, the streets or walls. The decree was issued in 537 B.C. and if you add the 69 weeks or 438 years it means that the mashiyach nagid of Daniel 9:25 would have had to appear in 53 B.C. or about 50 years before the birth of Jesus.

With all due respect that seems to be a disqualifier as a decree that pertains to the Daniel 9 prophecies.


What I’m assuming from this is that you’re saying that Jesus was anointed at his baptism. For this to qualify for the Daniel 9 prophecy you must also claim that Ezra 7 and the decree from Artaxerces in 458 B.C. would be the beginning of the 70 weeks. And if that is the case the Ezra 7 decree concerns the Temple and I see nothing in Matthew 3:16-17 that indicates a specific messianic anointing that would correlate to Daniel 9.

Sam,

Since the info you posted you got from a scholar, I'm offering this link to an article of a scholar who disagrees with the dates of your scholar. ;)

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sabbatical-years.htm



I'd also like to point out that a more literal translation of Daniel 9:24 "...and to anoint the most Holy" doesn't point to a person or Jesus in specific, but to the Holy of Holies.

Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 mentions only one stone temple that would be built, the second stone temple, as we see the building of it from start to finish in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

But we don't find "the Holy of Holies" of the tabernacle mentioned in Ezra or Nehemiah. Nor do we find the tabernacle in the second temple as we saw Solomon ordering the high priest and his priests to place the tabernacle containing the holy place and the most holy place inside the first temple after he had finished building it.

Nor do we find any building being anointed in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In fact we do not find the word "anoint" anywhere in those two books that gives us valuable historical data on the rebuilding of the second temple. Nor do we find the word "holy".

On the other hand, we do find Jesus, the Messiah, in Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. Messiah means the anointed one. And we find Him being called in the NT "Holy". We also find that He was anointed:

Acts 2:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Acts 3:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

Acts 4:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Acts 4:30 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=30) By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

1 Jn 2:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.




Lk 4:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Acts 4:30 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=30) ...whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together

Acts 10:38 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=38) How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Heb 1:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.



Shirley

yoSAMite
Jan 25th 2008, 03:37 AM
Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 mentions only one stone temple that would be built, the second stone temple, as we see the building of it from start to finish in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

But we don't find "the Holy of Holies" of the tabernacle mentioned in Ezra or Nehemiah. Nor do we find the tabernacle in the second temple as we saw Solomon ordering the high priest and his priests to place the tabernacle containing the holy place and the most holy place inside the first temple after he had finished building it.

Nor do we find any building being anointed in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. In fact we do not find the word "anoint" anywhere in those two books that gives us valuable historical data on the rebuilding of the second temple. Nor do we find the word "holy".

On the other hand, we do find Jesus, the Messiah, in Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. Messiah means the anointed one. And we find Him being called in the NT "Holy". We also find that He was anointed:

Acts 2:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Acts 3:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

Acts 4:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Acts 4:30 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=30) By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

1 Jn 2:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=62&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

Lk 4:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Acts 4:30 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=30) ...whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together

Acts 10:38 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=38) How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Heb 1:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Shirley

Hi Shirley,
Sorry for the late reply, I've been a bit under the weather. I can't argue with in general. I believed as you do that this meant Jesus.

Then because of some posts here I did some additional study and found out that the phrase translated "most holy" in Daniel 9:24 is qodesh qadashim.

The next part I snatched from somewhere, possibly from a couple of sites which said the same thing.

This much debated phrase usually translated in English as "most holy" is a dual use of the same Hebrew word. This is a common occurrence in Hebrew when the superlative of a noun is intended and such is the case here. The first use of the word is singular, while the second one is plural and can literally be rendered "most holy" or "a most holy place."

It is used 39 times in the OT and each time it is used concerning the Temple. Never once is it used in reference to a person.

Now I do believe that the anointing spoken of is Jesus at His second coming, but he is not the "most holy" in this verse.

yoSAMite
Jan 25th 2008, 03:39 AM
Shirley,

I'm looking at this sit and will reply probably over the weekend as it has a lot to digest and I'm a bit of a slow learner.


Sam,

Since the info you posted you got from a scholar, I'm offering this link to an article of a scholar who disagrees with the dates of your scholar. ;)

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/pap...ical-years.htm (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sabbatical-years.htm)

ShirleyFord
Jan 26th 2008, 11:01 PM
Hi Shirley,
Sorry for the late reply, I've been a bit under the weather.

I hope you are feeling better by now, Sam. I'm tied up in taxes at the moment. So I have little time for doing much besides preparing tax returns 12-14 hours a day non-stop.


I can't argue with in general. I believed as you do that this meant Jesus.

Then because of some posts here I did some additional study and found out that the phrase translated "most holy" in Daniel 9:24 is qodesh qadashim.

The next part I snatched from somewhere, possibly from a couple of sites which said the same thing.

This much debated phrase usually translated in English as "most holy" is a dual use of the same Hebrew word. This is a common occurrence in Hebrew when the superlative of a noun is intended and such is the case here. The first use of the word is singular, while the second one is plural and can literally be rendered "most holy" or "a most holy place."

It is used 39 times in the OT and each time it is used concerning the Temple. Never once is it used in reference to a person.

Now I do believe that the anointing spoken of is Jesus at His second coming, but he is not the "most holy" in this verse.

Are you saying that "to anoint" in Daniel 9:24 is referring to Jesus being anointed at His Second Coming? And that "the most holy" is referring to a temple?

Jesus has already been anointed at His First Coming, as I have listed the verses that said that He was. What Scriptures have you found that says that Jesus will be anointed at His Second Coming and by whom?

I can't find where the first temple or the second temple were ever anointed. Nor can I find stated where a third or fourth temple will ever be built Only the tabernacle that held the holy place and the most holy place were after it was built in the wilderness.


Shirley

ShirleyFord
Jan 27th 2008, 12:55 AM
It is used 39 times in the OT and each time it is used concerning the Temple. Never once is it used in reference to a person.

Perhaps you could point out those 39 Scriptures which says that either or both of the stone temples were called "the most holy".

The only building I've ever been able to find that was called "the most holy" was one of the two rooms of the tabernacle. One room was called "the holy place". And the other one was called "the most holy place".

Ex 26:33 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=33) And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.


The following from Exodus 26 and 30 is God's command to Moses for the building of the tabernacle:

Exodus 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

9 According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.


The Most Holy Place


1. the ark of the covenant

10 And they shall make an ark of ****tim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

11 And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.

12 And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it.

13 And thou shalt make staves of ****tim wood, and overlay them with gold.

14 And thou shalt put the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them.

15 The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it.


2. contents within the ark of the covenant


16 And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.



3. the mercy seat - the lid or covering of the ark of the covenant


17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.



4. just above the mercy seat



18 And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubim on the two ends thereof.

20 And the cherubim shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.

21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.



5. the place where God communed with Moses (and then the high priest once a year) from




22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.




The Holy Place


1. the golden table of showbread

23 Thou shalt also make a table of ****tim wood: two cubits shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

24 And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, and make thereto a crown of gold round about.

25 And thou shalt make unto it a border of an hand breadth round about, and thou shalt make a golden crown to the border thereof round about.

26 And thou shalt make for it four rings of gold, and put the rings in the four corners that are on the four feet thereof.

27 Over against the border shall the rings be for places of the staves to bear the table.

28 And thou shalt make the staves of ****tim wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be borne with them.

29 And thou shalt make the dishes thereof, and spoons thereof, and covers thereof, and bowls thereof, to cover withal: of pure gold shalt thou make them.

30 And thou shalt set upon the table showbread before me always.



2. the golden candlestick


31 And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made: his shaft, and his branches, his bowls, his knops, and his flowers, shall be of the same.

32 And six branches shall come out of the sides of it; three branches of the candlestick out of the one side, and three branches of the candlestick out of the other side:

33 Three bowls made like unto almonds, with a knop and a flower in one branch; and three bowls made like almonds in the other branch, with a knop and a flower: so in the six branches that come out of the candlestick.

34 And in the candlesticks shall be four bowls made like unto almonds, with their knops and their flowers.

35 And there shall be a knop under two branches of the same, and a knop under two branches of the same, and a knop under two branches of the same, according to the six branches that proceed out of the candlestick.

36 Their knops and their branches shall be of the same: all it shall be one beaten work of pure gold.

37 And thou shalt make the seven lamps thereof: and they shall light the lamps thereof, that they may give light over against it.

38 And the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, shall be of pure gold.

39 Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it, with all these vessels.

40 And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount.



3. the golden altar of incense


1 And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon: of ****tim wood shalt thou make it.

2 A cubit shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof; foursquare shall it be: and two cubits shall be the height thereof: the horns thereof shall be of the same.

3 And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, the top thereof, and the sides thereof round about, and the horns thereof; and thou shalt make unto it a crown of gold round about.

4 And two golden rings shalt thou make to it under the crown of it, by the two corners thereof, upon the two sides of it shalt thou make it; and they shall be for places for the staves to bear it withal.

5 And thou shalt make the staves of ****tim wood, and overlay them with gold.

6 And thou shalt put it before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.

7 And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense upon it.

8 And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations.

9 Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon.

10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.


The Tabernacle Placed in the First Stone Temple


1 Kings 6:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=11&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) And he built twenty cubits on the sides of the house, both the floor and the walls with boards of cedar: he even built them for it within, even for the oracle, even for the most holy place.

1 Kings 7:50 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=11&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=50) And the bowls, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the spoons, and the censers of pure gold; and the hinges of gold, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, to wit, of the temple.

1 Kings 8:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=11&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim.

1 Chron 6:49 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=13&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=49) But Aaron and his sons offered upon the altar of the burnt offering, and on the altar of incense, and were appointed for all the work of the place most holy, and to make an atonement for Israel, according to all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.


The Tabernacle Pointed to Christ and His High Priestly Work At Calvary



Hebrews 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

yoSAMite
Jan 27th 2008, 08:02 PM
Sam said - Now I do believe that the anointing spoken of is Jesus at His second coming, but he is not the "most holy" in this verse.

Shirley asked - Are you saying that "to anoint" in Daniel 9:24 is referring to Jesus being anointed at His Second Coming? And that "the most holy" is referring to a temple?

If only my fingers would type what is in my mind and make it more precise.

What I believe is that Jesus is the anointing and He will, at His second coming, anoint the Holy of Holies. This will not be done by any ceremony, but by His presence and probable occupancy of the Holy of Holies. I haven't sketched the whole scenario out, but it is my best understanding of this verse and future events.

ShirleyFord
Jan 27th 2008, 08:32 PM
If only my fingers would type what is in my mind and make it more precise.

What I believe is that Jesus is the anointing and He will, at His second coming, anoint the Holy of Holies. This will not be done by any ceremony, but by His presence and probable occupancy of the Holy of Holies. I haven't sketched the whole scenario out, but it is my best understanding of this verse and future events.

But Jesus is the greater and more perfect tabernacle that the tabernacle made with hands in the wilderness pointed to:

Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Jesus came the First time and manifested Himself to Israel as their Promised Messiah, High Priest and King, the Son of the Living God:


John the Baptist gave this testimony of Jesus:

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.



http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/progress.gif
Shirley

John146
Jan 28th 2008, 05:48 PM
If only my fingers would type what is in my mind and make it more precise.

What I believe is that Jesus is the anointing and He will, at His second coming, anoint the Holy of Holies. This will not be done by any ceremony, but by His presence and probable occupancy of the Holy of Holies. I haven't sketched the whole scenario out, but it is my best understanding of this verse and future events.

Which "Holy of Holies" are you speaking about? Where is your Scriptural support for this idea?

IPet2_9
Jan 28th 2008, 06:17 PM
I think there's plenty of Scriptural support for the Holy of Holies as it is today. I led a series of lessons once on Zechariah and Haggai, and I found in my own studies that the second, rebuilt Temple only served to point to a greater Temple still, not built out of bricks and mortar.

Anyway, a few references off the top of my head:
1) the temple veil to the HoH was torn, as you know
2) John 4:
21 Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

3) Rev. 11. The Two Witnesses measure an inner court and an outer court. Remember who the Two Witnesses are? They are the olive branches and lampstands mentioned in Zechariah 4:
2 He asked me, "What do you see?"
I answered, "I see a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top and seven lights on it, with seven channels to the lights. 3 Also there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left." 4 I asked the angel who talked with me, "What are these, my lord?"
5 He answered, "Do you not know what these are?"
"No, my lord," I replied.
6 So he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty.

4) Matthew 12:6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.

5) I Corinthians 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
...and I Corinthians 3:17: If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.


You are God's temple, the Holy of Holies has already been annointed, and it is inside of you. If you are a new creation in Christ, then Jesus has already come and lives inside of you, in the Holy of Holies.

yoSAMite
Jan 30th 2008, 08:17 AM
The phrase we are looking at is - qodesh qadashîm.
The expression is a superlative genitive construction denoting par excellence, like Lord of Lords, Song of Songs, etc. Here it translates most holy place or "holy of holies".

From Williams' Hebrew Syntax "a superlative genitive conbines with its construct term to mean the greatest of something. A superlative genitive is always plural. The construct term is usually singular and often of the same root as the genitive.

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Holy of Holies:
ho’-liz (qodhesh ha-qodhashim, Ex 26:33, debhir, 1Ki 6:16, etc.; in the New Testament, hagia hagion, Heb 9:3): The name given to the innermost shrine, or adytum of the sanctuary of Yahweh.
Caldecott, W. Shaw "Holy of Holies," International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. Blue Letter Bible. 1913. 1 Apr 2007. 29 Jan 2008.

Leon Wood in his book "A Commentary on Daniel" is the one who said the following on p250.
The phrase “holy of holies” (qodesh qadashîm) occurs, either with or without the article, thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, always in reference to the Tabernacle or Temple or to the holy articles used in them. When referring to the most holy place, where the Ark was kept, the article is regularly used (e.g., Ex. 26:33), but it is not when referring to the holy articles (e.g., Ex. 29:37) or to the whole Temple complex (e.g., Ezek. 43:12). In view of these matters, it is highly likely that the phrase refers to the Temple also here, which, in view of the context, must be a future Temple; and, since the phrase is used without the article, reference must be to a complex of that Temple, rather than its most holy place

Here are some verses -
Ex 29:37, Ex 30:10, Ex 30:29, Ex 30:36, Ex 40:10, Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10, Lev 6:17, Lev 6:25, Lev 6:29, Lev 7:1, Lev 7:6, Lev 10:12, Lev 10:17, Lev 14:13, Lev 24:9

Here's a link to the Blue Letter Bible and Torrey's New Topical Textbook containing references to the Holy of Holies (http://cf.blb.org/Search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=GetTopic&Topic=Holy+of+Holies#Torreys).

The Hebrew Bible in English - according to the JPS 1917 Edition
Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place."

I would hope that this would suffice as an answer to both Shirley & John146.

John146
Jan 30th 2008, 08:44 PM
The phrase we are looking at is - qodesh qadashîm.
The expression is a superlative genitive construction denoting par excellence, like Lord of Lords, Song of Songs, etc. Here it translates most holy place or "holy of holies".

From Williams' Hebrew Syntax "a superlative genitive conbines with its construct term to mean the greatest of something. A superlative genitive is always plural. The construct term is usually singular and often of the same root as the genitive.

From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Holy of Holies:
ho’-liz (qodhesh ha-qodhashim, Ex 26:33, debhir, 1Ki 6:16, etc.; in the New Testament, hagia hagion, Heb 9:3): The name given to the innermost shrine, or adytum of the sanctuary of Yahweh.
Caldecott, W. Shaw "Holy of Holies," International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. Blue Letter Bible. 1913. 1 Apr 2007. 29 Jan 2008.

Leon Wood in his book "A Commentary on Daniel" is the one who said the following on p250.
The phrase “holy of holies” (qodesh qadashîm) occurs, either with or without the article, thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, always in reference to the Tabernacle or Temple or to the holy articles used in them. When referring to the most holy place, where the Ark was kept, the article is regularly used (e.g., Ex. 26:33), but it is not when referring to the holy articles (e.g., Ex. 29:37) or to the whole Temple complex (e.g., Ezek. 43:12). In view of these matters, it is highly likely that the phrase refers to the Temple also here, which, in view of the context, must be a future Temple; and, since the phrase is used without the article, reference must be to a complex of that Temple, rather than its most holy place

Here are some verses -
Ex 29:37, Ex 30:10, Ex 30:29, Ex 30:36, Ex 40:10, Lev 2:3, Lev 2:10, Lev 6:17, Lev 6:25, Lev 6:29, Lev 7:1, Lev 7:6, Lev 10:12, Lev 10:17, Lev 14:13, Lev 24:9

Here's a link to the Blue Letter Bible and Torrey's New Topical Textbook containing references to the Holy of Holies (http://cf.blb.org/Search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=GetTopic&Topic=Holy+of+Holies#Torreys).

The Hebrew Bible in English - according to the JPS 1917 Edition
Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place."

I would hope that this would suffice as an answer to both Shirley & John146.

No, it does not suffice. Jesus described Himself as the temple. He is the Most Holy and He was anointed by the Father. God no longer dwells in temples made with hands(Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24), so there will be no future physical temple that will be anointed.

18Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21But he spake of the temple of his body. - John 2:18-21

The Greek word for temple as used in the above passage is naos (pronounced nah-os'). That word is also used elsewhere to refer to the physical temple standing at that time (see Matt 27:51, for example), so your argument that the most holy must refer to a physical temple building is not valid.

9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: - Mark 1:9-10

38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. - Acts 10:38

IPet2_9
Jan 30th 2008, 08:54 PM
God no longer dwells in temples made with hands(Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24), so there will be no future physical temple that will be anointed.

I agree. So what do we make of this third temple, on the Temple Mount, that many people are so intent on having built? That it will be anointed, just not BY GOD? Or could we say it's prophesied not to be built at all until Jesus returns (presuming Premill to be true [which I'm not claiming to be Premill])?

John146
Jan 30th 2008, 09:02 PM
I agree. So what do we make of this third temple, on the Temple Mount, that many people are so intent on having built? That it will be anointed, just not BY GOD? Or could we say it's prophesied not to be built at all until Jesus returns (presuming Premill to be true [which I'm not claiming to be Premill])?

I don't make anything of that temple if it's built. It would mean nothing to me and it would have nothing to do with fulfilling Bible prophecy.

IPet2_9
Jan 30th 2008, 09:21 PM
I don't make anything of that temple if it's built. It would mean nothing to me and it would have nothing to do with fulfilling Bible prophecy.

That's where we diverge. I take it to be the AoD. Regardless, if it's something that deceives--especially if it's mortally so--I care, even if it's not prophetic.

John146
Jan 30th 2008, 09:49 PM
That's where we diverge. I take it to be the AoD. Regardless, if it's something that deceives--especially if it's mortally so--I care, even if it's not prophetic.

Of course I would care if it was deceiving people. Don't get me wrong. But I just don't see it as having anything to do with fulfilling any specific prophecy.

So, you're saying that the temple that they might build is the abomination of desolation? It would certainly be an abomination, but I don't believe it would be the abomination of desolation. I see the abomination of desolation as being related to how Luke described it in Luke 21. While Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 record Jesus as saying "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation...", Luke, who is speaking to Gentiles who would have been unfamiliar with Daniel's teaching regarding the AoD, recorded Jesus' words a little differently in Luke 21:20 as saying "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies...". So, I believe the abomination of desolation had to do with the Roman armies that came and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

IPet2_9
Jan 30th 2008, 10:43 PM
I definitely agree, the AoD precedes the desolation of Jerusalem. I just think it occurs at a future point in time. Two reasons:

1) Matthew 24 et al. strongly suggest that these tribulation events go together with the Second Coming.

2) The 70AD destruction *almost* fulfilled this prophecy. Close. One small problem:

Luke 20:5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

The simple fact is, stones WERE left atop one another. The Wailing Wall stands to this day. This is more a fulfillment of Amos 3:12, where it alludes to Israel to being saved like part of an ear of a sheep being rescued from the lion's mouth. I refuse to accept 99.9% fulfillment. It has to be 100%.

For that reason, if the Dome of the Rock falls, and the Wailing Wall falls--and there is this big "triumphant" opening of the brand new temple--let's just say I'm going to be doing plenty of last-minute missionary work. And it ain't going to be in Jerusalem.

yoSAMite
Jan 31st 2008, 04:35 AM
Sam said - I would hope that this would suffice as an answer to both Shirley & John146.
John146 replied -
No, it does not suffice. Jesus described Himself as the temple. He is the Most Holy and He was anointed by the Father. God no longer dwells in temples made with hands(Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24), so there will be no future physical temple that will be anointed.


It seems we disagree as to whether the literal or figurative interpretation of Daniel 9:24 is more correct. I understand the difference between literal, figurative, allegory, symbolism, etc. As I've said before in this forum, if I'm going to error concerning interpretation or exegesis of the Bible, I'm going to error on the literal side.

I did a search on the words "most holy" and according to the Blue Letter Bible word search the term is used 46 times in KJ. Not once is it associated with Jesus. In fact it isn't used once in the NT.

There is no argument that Jesus described Himself as a temple, we are also described as such - look at IPet2_9's post.

I don't think we are discussing the temple, as the term we are looking at is qodesh qadashîm, the holy of holies. The question back to you is where is Jesus described as the Holy of Holies or Most Holy place, which is the literal translation of the phrase we're looking at? I looked and couldn't find any.

ShirleyFord
Jan 31st 2008, 11:09 AM
Sam, you said:



In view of these matters, it is highly likely that the phrase refers to the Temple also here, which, in view of the context, must be a future Temple; and, since the phrase is used without the article, reference must be to a complex of that Temple, rather than its most holy place



Notice the part of your quote that I bolded. Are you referring to the future 2nd temple that would begin to be built after Daniel's prophecy?


Shirley

Firstfruits
Jan 31st 2008, 02:02 PM
According to the following the abomination is not the buliding, but the man of sin.

King James Version Daniel 8

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Mt 24:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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:)

yoSAMite
Jan 31st 2008, 06:25 PM
Sam, you said:

Notice the part of your quote that I bolded. Are you referring to the future 2nd temple that would begin to be built after Daniel's prophecy?

Shirley

I do believe that there will be a future temple. As I also believe in the gap between the end of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week I do think the temple will be started before the end of Daniel's prophecy. When it will be completed, I'm not sure. If my interpretation of Daniel's 70th week is correct it does seem that the temple will be completed by the mid point of the week.

John146
Feb 1st 2008, 06:08 PM
I definitely agree, the AoD precedes the desolation of Jerusalem. I just think it occurs at a future point in time. Two reasons:

1) Matthew 24 et al. strongly suggest that these tribulation events go together with the Second Coming.

2) The 70AD destruction *almost* fulfilled this prophecy. Close. One small problem:

Luke 20:5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

The simple fact is, stones WERE left atop one another. The Wailing Wall stands to this day.

The Wailing Wall is not part of the temple. Do some research on that and you will see. This is the kind of thing people resort to (not speaking of you, but whoever first came up with that idea) when they don't want to acknowledge that a certain prophecy has been fulfilled. What happened in 70 AD is exactly what is described in Luke 21:20-24. That isn't just a coincidence.

This link contains info related to how the idea that the Wailing Wall is part of the temple originated: http://mikeblume.com/wailing.htm

John146
Feb 1st 2008, 06:58 PM
It seems we disagree as to whether the literal or figurative interpretation of Daniel 9:24 is more correct. I understand the difference between literal, figurative, allegory, symbolism, etc. As I've said before in this forum, if I'm going to error concerning interpretation or exegesis of the Bible, I'm going to error on the literal side.

Well, I think that's a mistake on your part. Not much more I can say about that. That method makes spiritual discernment unimportant when it comes to interpreting Scripture.



I did a search on the words "most holy" and according to the Blue Letter Bible word search the term is used 46 times in KJ. Not once is it associated with Jesus. In fact it isn't used once in the NT.

There is no argument that Jesus described Himself as a temple, we are also described as such - look at IPet2_9's post.

I don't think we are discussing the temple, as the term we are looking at is qodesh qadashîm, the holy of holies. The question back to you is where is Jesus described as the Holy of Holies or Most Holy place, which is the literal translation of the phrase we're looking at? I looked and couldn't find any.

He is referred to as "thine Holy One" (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:27, Acts 13:35) and "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34, Acts 3:14).

But are you not claiming that qodesh qadashim, as used in Daniel 9:24, is referring to a future physical temple (future as of Daniel 9:24)? I showed you where Jesus called Himself the temple and how He was anointed by the Father. I don't feel any need to do any more than that.

Do you have any Scripture besides Daniel 9:24 to support the idea of a future temple that would be anointed? What would the purpose be for a future physical temple to be anointed? Also, can you explain to me how a future physical temple could be referred to as the most holy place? The following passage indicates that the holy place now is not made with hands.

11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: - Hebrews 9:11-12, 24

ShirleyFord
Feb 2nd 2008, 04:56 AM
Originally Posted by ShirleyFord http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1520967#post1520967) Sam, you said:


In view of these matters, it is highly likely that the phrase refers to the Temple also here, which, in view of the context, must be a future Temple; and, since the phrase is used without the article, reference must be to a complex of that Temple, rather than its most holy place


Notice the part of your quote that I bolded. Are you referring to the future 2nd temple that would begin to be built after Daniel's prophecy?

Shirley

I do believe that there will be a future temple. As I also believe in the gap between the end of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week I do think the temple will be started before the end of Daniel's prophecy. When it will be completed, I'm not sure. If my interpretation of Daniel's 70th week is correct it does seem that the temple will be completed by the mid point of the week.

Sam, seems like you misunderstood what I asked you or either you believe that the second temple has not been built yet.

Daniel's prophecy recorded in Daniel 9:24-27 was given to him by Gabriel during the Babylonian Captivity, near the end of the 70 years. I was asking you if you meant "the second temple" which would have been in Daniel's future at the time Gabriel gave him the prophecy.

Sam you wrote earlier:


It seems we disagree as to whether the literal or figurative interpretation of Daniel 9:24 is more correct. I understand the difference between literal, figurative, allegory, symbolism, etc. As I've said before in this forum, if I'm going to error concerning interpretation or exegesis of the Bible, I'm going to error on the literal side.


But the word "temple" is not literally found in this prophecy. We do find the word "sanctuary" in v. 26b:

"and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."


Jesus prophecied that the temple that was still standing at the time of His prophecy which was the second rebuilt temple would be destroyed:

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.


According to historical records, the second temple has been destroyed just as Jesus prophecied. And also just as Gabriel prophecied in Daniel 9:26b apparently since according Heb 9:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

The sanctuary would have been the holy place of the tabernacle inside the second temple. But we don't find the most holy place in the second temple since the ark of the covenant was not placed in the second temple.

Haggai prophecied to Israel during the time of the building of the second temple:

Hag 2:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=37&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

The glory of the latter or second stone temple would be greater than it was in Solomon's former or first stone temple. The true literal temple, tabernacle and sanctuary of God, Jesus Christ, would go in the second stone temple.


Shirley

honcho
Feb 2nd 2008, 06:25 AM
Shirley

Haggai prophecied to Israel during the time of the building of the second temple:


Hag 2:9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

The glory of the latter or second stone temple would be greater than it was in Solomon's former or first stone temple.

The "latter house" is the Millennial Temple (Eze. 40-48) that shall be greater than Solomon's temple. The latter house shall be built when God shakes the heavens and the earth and all nations at the second coming of Christ. Read Haggai 2: 6-7 and compare them to Mat. 24:29; Rev. 16:20. The Millennial temple will be a house of prayer for all nations, the second temple was not.

The "second stone temple" built after the 70 year Babylonian exile was inferior to Solomon's temple, "Many of the older priests and Levites and family heads, who had seen the former temple (Solomon's), wept aloud when they saw the foundation of this temple being laid,....." (Ezra 3:12). They wept because they were contrasting the roughness of the second temple with the grandeur of the Solomonic temple.

markedward
Feb 2nd 2008, 08:32 AM
I do believe that there will be a future temple. As I also believe in the gap between the end of the 69th week and the start of the 70th week I do think the temple will be started before the end of Daniel's prophecy. When it will be completed, I'm not sure. If my interpretation of Daniel's 70th week is correct it does seem that the temple will be completed by the mid point of the week.Any Scriptural support for this "gap"? I'm not asking for an "I believe" statement, I simply would like for a clear-cut Scriptural statement that can support a "gap" between the 69th and 70th week... or any sort of "gap" in prophecies that have specific time-frames set on them.

Daniel 9's prophecy about the 70 weeks only references one city: Jerusalem.

Daniel 9
1 - Jerusalem will be rebuilt.
2 - With defenses.
3 - After so many years, the Messiah will come.
4 - Following this, the Messiah will be "cut off."
5 - This would "consummate" in Jerusalem and the sanctuary being destroyed.

History
1 - Jerusalem was rebuilt.
2 - With defenses.
3 - After so many years, Jesus came.
4 - Following this, Jesus was killed.
5 - This "consummated" in the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary.

Other Support
1 - Jesus made the claim that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed within the lifetime of His and His disciples' generation. It happened 40 years later, within their generation exactly as He said.
2 - Daniel states that Jerusalem would be destroyed by an abomination that causes desolation. Part of Jesus "this generation" statement was that the abomination that causes desolation would happen; i.e., the abomination that causes desolation would appear in His and His disciples' generation. The gospel of Luke explicitly equates the abomination of desolation to Gentile armies surrounding the city. Gentile armies surrounded Jerusalem 40 years later and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, within the generation, exactly as Jesus said.

All in all, there's simply no room to insert an arbitrary "gap" into Daniel 9. Obviously you disagree, but just think about it for a second: read Daniel 9 together with the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), and read them without inserting a "gap" into the mix. With no gap, everything falls into place, and when compared to history, it all happened exactly as prophesied. A "gap" just doesn't fit. There's no implication of a gap, there's no Scriptural support of a gap. The only way a "gap" appears is if the reader specifically inserts it on their own. Besides, it seems a little incredulous to suggest that in all of prophecy that it only mentions a third temple rather than a second one, especially when the second one either hadn't been built yet (in the case of Daniel 9) and hadn't been destroyed yet (Olivet Discourse).

ShirleyFord
Feb 3rd 2008, 01:22 PM
The "latter house" is the Millennial Temple (Eze. 40-48) that shall be greater than Solomon's temple. The latter house shall be built when God shakes the heavens and the earth and all nations at the second coming of Christ.


There will be no stone temple built at the Second Coming of Christ:

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

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

Revelations 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.


Revelation 16:20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.




Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

yoSAMite
Feb 3rd 2008, 08:59 PM
Markedward asked:

Any Scriptural support for this "gap"? I'm not asking for an "I believe" statement, I simply would like for a clear-cut Scriptural statement that can support a "gap" between the 69th and 70th week... or any sort of "gap" in prophecies that have specific time-frames set on them. Here is what I think may be "Scriptual support" for a gap between the end of Daniel’s 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week.

Daniel 2 gives us a history of the “times of the gentiles” from Nebuchadnezzar to the 2nd Coming of Jesus. With that being the case, we have a time line that all pre Glorious Appearing events must take place.

Next we go to Daniel 7 which is a parallel prophecy to Daniel 2, except this time from God’s perspective. We are told in 7:21-22 that the little horn will reign “until the Ancient of days” comes. In Daniel 7:25 we are told that the little horn will have supreme authority and power for “a time and times and the dividing of times.” This is also known as the 3 1/2 years, 42 months and 1260 days in other prophecies.

It is my contention that the this 3 ½ year period is the same as Daniel 9:27 and therefore puts the 70th week chronologically right in front of Christ’s return and the setting up of His kingdom.

If this is correct then we have Daniel's final week still to come and no matter when one believes the beginning of the 70 weeks starts there is a gap between the 69th week and the start of the 70th.

markedward
Feb 3rd 2008, 09:59 PM
If this is correct then we have Daniel's final week still to come and no matter when one believes the beginning of the 70 weeks starts there is a gap between the 69th week and the start of the 70th.This is based upon an interpretational difference of a passage. For instance, I am a "Preterist;" I believe that the 70 weeks happened consecutively, and I could bring up various verses to support a view, but it's only an "I believe" statement.

I'm asking only for concrete, clear-cut verses. I'll give examples on the differences:

I-Believe
"I believe that 666 refers to Nero." There's no clear-cut verses for this belief, other than comparing and contrasting various verses of the Bible, along with comparing it to historical and cultural facts about the first-century.

Clear-Cut
"Jesus has already defeated death." There are multiple concrete verses that support this belief, especially 2 Timothy 1:9-10 which directly says as much.

Comparing and contrasting Daniel 2 to Daniel 7 to Daniel 9 and simply saying "It is my contention that ... no matter when one believes the beginning of the 70 weeks starts there is a gap between the 69th week and the start of the 70th" is not 'clear-cut' support when no verses directly say as much.

ShirleyFord
Feb 3rd 2008, 10:47 PM
Markedward asked:
Here is what I think may be "Scriptual support" for a gap between the end of Daniel’s 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week.

Daniel 2 gives us a history of the “times of the gentiles” from Nebuchadnezzar to the 2nd Coming of Jesus. With that being the case, we have a time line that all pre Glorious Appearing events must take place.

Sam, I don't find the "times of the gentiles" written in Daniel 2 or anything about the 2nd Coming of Christ.

Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar the dream he had and then gives him the interpretation of his dream. There are 4 kingdoms represented by metals. The kingdom of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom is represented by the metal gold.

Then Daniel reveals the fifth kingdom that will be in the time of the 4th kingdom:

Daniel 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

This is the kingdom of Christ that He will receive during the time of the kings of the 4th kingdom, Rome.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.



Next we go to Daniel 7 which is a parallel prophecy to Daniel 2, except this time from God’s perspective.

It is a parallel prophecy to Daniel 2 but I don't understand what you mean by "from God's perspective.

Daniel has a vision at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's son's reign of the same 4 kingdoms represented by animal beasts that Nebuchadnezzar had seen in his dream which were represented by metals.

We gain more info as to when Jesus receives His kingdom, the 5th kingdom represented by a stone that grows into a mountain:

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Notice that Jesus came to the Ancient of days in heaven; not from the Ancient of days in heaven to the earth. Jesus received His kingdom at His resurrection and ascended to the throne of David in heaven at His ascension, according to Peter in Acts 2.


We are told in 7:21-22 that the little horn will reign “until the Ancient of days” comes. In Daniel 7:25 we are told that the little horn will have supreme authority and power for “a time and times and the dividing of times.” This is also known as the 3 1/2 years, 42 months and 1260 days in other prophecies.

It is my contention that the this 3 ½ year period is the same as Daniel 9:27 and therefore puts the 70th week chronologically right in front of Christ’s return and the setting up of His kingdom.

If this is correct then we have Daniel's final week still to come and no matter when one believes the beginning of the 70 weeks starts there is a gap between the 69th week and the start of the 70th.

The little horn is one of the kings during the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is no longer in power. How can one of kings of the Roman Empire many centuries ago still be alive today and still be alive at the 2nd Coming of Christ?

I was taught the same thing that you apparently have been taught. But over the last 10 years or so, I have studied Daniel from cover to cover over and over. And I just can not find the gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9 that my teachers guaranteed me was surely there.

Jesus is the only One who confirmed the covenant with many of Daniel's people during the 70th week.


Shirley

yoSAMite
Feb 4th 2008, 05:07 AM
This is based upon an interpretational difference of a passage. For instance, I am a "Preterist;" I believe that the 70 weeks happened consecutively, and I could bring up various verses to support a view, but it's only an "I believe" statement.

I'm asking only for concrete, clear-cut verses.

Comparing and contrasting Daniel 2 to Daniel 7 to Daniel 9 and simply saying "It is my contention that ... no matter when one believes the beginning of the 70 weeks starts there is a gap between the 69th week and the start of the 70th" is not 'clear-cut' support when no verses directly say as much.

I don't think my answer is based on an interpretational difference at all. It is simply taking the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7 and 9 and trying to understand them in a chronological order.

It would have been a much more impressive response from you if you'd tell me where and why my view were wrong using the verses I did and explaining to me where you believe I'm in error. When confronted with possible error in my interpretation of the Bible I take it seriously and examine it. Now this doesn't mean that I will change my view, but I will take someone else's view seriously. A flippant response merits minimal thought.

I'm here to learn and to sharpen my sword. I by no means have all the answers to the questions asked here, but I do my best to answer all asked of me using what I understand. I'm not arrogant enough to do a "thus saith the Lord" when I believe that honest and committed Christians can differ on this non essential to the faith issue.

markedward
Feb 4th 2008, 05:12 AM
I don't think my answer is based on an interpretational difference at all. It is simply taking the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7 and 9 and trying to understand them in a chronological order.And I understand them differently. For instance, I believe the fourth beast was Rome, and that the ten horns were the first ten Caesars, and that the "coming of the Son of Man" took place in the first-century. You believe something different. Neither of us can prove it with Scripture, we can only states our beliefs and give Biblical (and possibly historical and cultural) reasons for why we believe as such. That is interpretational difference.


It would have been a much more impressive response from youWho said I was trying to write "impressive" responses?


if you'd tell me where and why my view were wrong using the verses I did and explaining to me where you believe I'm in error.I didn't say you were in error. I said that what you presented as support for "gaps" is based upon interpretation, rather than a clear-cut Biblical verse that outright says something along the lines of "there will be a gap in time between the 69th and 70th weeks that Daniel prophesied."


I'm not arrogant enough to do a "thus saith the Lord" when I believe that honest and committed Christians can differ on this non essential to the faith issue.I don't understand what this had to do with what we were discussing. I wasn't calling you arrogant or anything. (On a sidenote, I don't appreciate you calling my response "flippant," as if I'm here just to argue.)

yoSAMite
Feb 4th 2008, 06:51 AM
Hi Shirley,

I'm not sure how to answer your post, but please allow me to ask some questions so I can better understand what you are saying. I've not heard nor read your interpretation before and I'm wanting to be sure I get it, along with a small comment or two.

As to the "time of the Gentiles", it is a term used Luke 21:24 which I believe Daniel 2 describes.

Concerning Daniel 7 you asked - It is a parallel prophecy to Daniel 2 but I don't understand what you mean by "from God's perspective. I heard a teacher use this and it made sense to me. Daniel 2 is a dream of Nebuchadnezzar and described from what was given him from man's or a worldly viewpoint. Daniel 7 is given to Daniel directly from God and the descriptions of the beasts and Daniel's demeanor in describing the dream are less than complimentary. It's just a viewpoint.

Are you saying that the rock which breaks up the statue in Daniel 2 is not the 2nd coming and the setting up of the millenial kingdom, but another kingdom which is currently going on?

If so, when does this kingdom grow into a mountain, or has it?

I understand that Jesus came to the Ancient of Days, but verse 7:22 says the little horn rules until the Ancient of days comes. I'm thinking this is the millenial kingdom, what is your take.

I'm interested in the view of David having a throne in heaven. Haven't heard this before.

You said that Jesus is the one who confirmed the covenant with the many, this as I've explained before is a gramatically incorrect interpretation.

markedward
Feb 4th 2008, 07:15 AM
As to the "time of the Gentiles", it is a term used Luke 21:24 which I believe Daniel 2 describes.And in Luke 21:32, Jesus said that those things He had just described would happen within His generation's lifetime.


Are you saying that the rock which breaks up the statue in Daniel 2 is not the 2nd coming and the setting up of the millenial kingdom, but another kingdom which is currently going on?Jesus reigns as king. He constantly preached that "the Kingdom of Heaven is near" during His ministry, and on occasion would specifically say that the Kingdom of Heaven was not a physical, visible kingdom, but that it was within people.


If so, when does this kingdom grow into a mountain, or has it?Christianity went from a little Jewish-sect and grew into the world's dominant religion in a matter of centuries. No Christian nowadays would say Jesus isn't king, so if He is king already, that would mean His kingdom has already come.


I understand that Jesus came to the Ancient of Days, but verse 7:22 says the little horn rules until the Ancient of days comes.There are multiple "comings" throughout the Bible, many of which are not physically seen. For instance: 2 Samuel 22, David claims God "came down" from heaven to help David defeat his enemies... but we never physically see God "come" to destroy David's enemies. But, in point, many times that we see God "come" in the OT, it is reference to a judgment, either carried out through the hands of worldly nations, or of a spiritual sort. Earlier in the chapter we see the Son of Man come to God in heaven, not from God to the earth, and that He is given His dominion and power. The NT tells us that when Jesus ascended to heaven is when He was given this dominion and power, so what we are seeing in Daniel 7 is Jesus taking His seat at the right hand of God in heaven, not on earth. In that sense, the "coming of the Son of Man" was not a physical, visible event, in which case, it's possible that the coming of the Ancient of Days seen later in the chapter isn't a physical, visible event either, but one spiritual in nature.


You said that Jesus is the one who confirmed the covenant with the many, this as I've explained before is a gramatically incorrect interpretation.Are you fluent in ancient Hebrew and ancient Aramaic? I'm not trying to put you down, but I'm trying to make a point; if we aren't fluent in ancient Hebrew or ancient Aramaic or ancient Greek, we can't rightly say something is grammatically incorrect, especially since those languages have different syntaxes and no punctuation systems (and not even spaces). If we aren't fluent in it, we can only rely on the translations, concordances, and lexicons that we are provided with.

yoSAMite
Feb 4th 2008, 06:49 PM
Markedward said:

I don't understand what this had to do with what we were discussing. I wasn't calling you arrogant or anything. (On a sidenote, I don't appreciate you calling my response "flippant," as if I'm here just to argue.)
I'm sorry if my use of words offended you, that was not my intention.

yoSAMite
Feb 4th 2008, 07:19 PM
There are multiple "comings" throughout the Bible, many of which are not physically seen......In that sense, the "coming of the Son of Man" was not a physical, visible event, in which case, it's possible that the coming of the Ancient of Days seen later in the chapter isn't a physical, visible event either, but one spiritual in nature.Thanks for answers, but I'd like to ask another question, as I'm trying to understand your viewpoint better. Is it your view then, that the little horn will physically rule until a spiritual coming of the Ancient of days?


Are you fluent in ancient Hebrew and ancient Aramaic? I'm not trying to put you down, but I'm trying to make a point; if we aren't fluent in ancient Hebrew or ancient Aramaic or ancient Greek, we can't rightly say something is grammatically incorrect, especially since those languages have different syntaxes and no punctuation systems (and not even spaces). If we aren't fluent in it, we can only rely on the translations, concordances, and lexicons that we are provided with.
I don't speak any foreign language at all, have enough trouble with English. I'm aware of verses that pose translational problems so one can't be dogmatic about certain views or must acknowledge various possibilities of translations.

But I do disagree with your view that we can't rightly say something is grammatically correct or not. Every translation I've look at has the same structure so with all the best possible evidence that is available, it is safe to say that to apply the "he" in Daniel 9:27 to Jesus is grammatically wrong.

ShirleyFord
Feb 5th 2008, 02:37 AM
Hi Shirley,

I'm not sure how to answer your post, but please allow me to ask some questions so I can better understand what you are saying. I've not heard nor read your interpretation before and I'm wanting to be sure I get it, along with a small comment or two.

As to the "time of the Gentiles", it is a term used Luke 21:24 which I believe Daniel 2 describes.

Concerning Daniel 7 you asked - It is a parallel prophecy to Daniel 2 but I don't understand what you mean by "from God's perspective. I heard a teacher use this and it made sense to me. Daniel 2 is a dream of Nebuchadnezzar and described from what was given him from man's or a worldly viewpoint. Daniel 7 is given to Daniel directly from God and the descriptions of the beasts and Daniel's demeanor in describing the dream are less than complimentary. It's just a viewpoint.

Sam,

God gave Daniel the dream that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed and the interpretation. As we read what the Scripture literally says then we find that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed a dream but he couldn't remember it. And none of his wise men could tell him his dream, much less the interpretation.

Daniel was also a wise man and we find as we get into the account, Daniel proved to Nebuchadnezzar without a shadow of a doubt that his God was the only true God above all of the gods of Babylon that Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom worshipped:

Daniel 2:14 Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king's guard, which was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon:

15 He answered and said to Arioch the king's captain, Why is the decree so hasty from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel.

16 Then Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would shew the king the interpretation.

Notice Who Daniel when to:

17 Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions:

18 That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

Look Who revealed the dream to Daniel

19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.

23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter.

24 Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation.

25 Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation.

26 The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof?

27 Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king;

28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

Daniel convinced Nebuchadnezzar:

47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.


There is no difference in how God revealed Nebuchadnezzar's dream to Daniel in Chapter 2 and how God revealed the night vision to Daniel in Chapter 7:


Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters.

That's all I have time for right now. I will get back to you and finish replying to your post when I get a chance.


Shirley

ShirleyFord
Feb 5th 2008, 11:48 AM
Hi Shirley,


As to the "time of the Gentiles", it is a term used Luke 21:24 which I believe Daniel 2 describes.

Sam, "time of the Gentiles" is not found in Daniel 2. Nor do we find any of Daniel 2 in Luke 21. To insert "time of the Gentiles" in Daniel 2 forces Daniel 2 to say what it doesn't literally say.

Let me ask you, Do you believe the 4th kingdom in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire that follows immediately after kingdom 3, kingdom 2 and kingdom 1?




Are you saying that the rock which breaks up the statue in Daniel 2 is not the 2nd coming and the setting up of the millenial kingdom, but another kingdom which is currently going on?

Yes. Nowhere do I find written in Scripture where Jesus receives His kingdom at His Second Coming and sets it up on this old earth. If you have found such a Scripture, I would be very interested in seeing it.


If so, when does this kingdom grow into a mountain, or has it?


Jesus kingdom has grown and grown as His gospel has gone forth to every nation of the world and people are continually added to it as they believe the gospel and are saved.



I understand that Jesus came to the Ancient of Days, but verse 7:22 says the little horn rules until the Ancient of days comes. I'm thinking this is the millenial kingdom, what is your take.


Do you know of another Scripture where Jesus goes to the Ancient of Days in heaven to receive His kingdom? If this is referring to His Second Coming, it doesn't make any sense to me. Jesus is now in heaven where He has been since His ascension. Wouldn't you agree? So why would He have to go to heaven to receive His kingdom at His Second Coming when He is already in heaven?

Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

It appears to me that v. 22 is a separate thought from v. 21.



I'm interested in the view of David having a throne in heaven. Haven't heard this before.


Where on the earth is David's throne? Solomon built his own throne and reigned over his kingdom from it.


You said that Jesus is the one who confirmed the covenant with the many, this as I've explained before is a gramatically incorrect interpretation.

Sam, all I have to go by is what the Bible literally says. :)


Shirley