Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DANIEL'S SEVENTY WEEKS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DANIEL'S SEVENTY WEEKS

    This is how I view and understand Daniel's Seventy Weeks. The author has made a distinction between events and time frame determined. The first is the time of the seven sevens (49) until an anointed one and another determined time of threescore and two sevens (434) until the walls and city rebuilt. Then the final seven of the abomination that cause desolation. We find throughout Daniel especially chapters 7,8, 11 and 12 all make references to this troubled time under Antiochus IV and him causing the abomination that cause desolation the stoppage of the daily offerings.

  • #2
    This is a rare interpretation of Daniels 70 weeks but one that I agree with nice post Beckrl thanks

    Comment


    • #3
      The 490 years are about the coming of Orias III being cutoff, and Antiochus ?

      To bring in everlasting righteousness?


      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Beckrl View Post
        This is how I view and understand Daniel's Seventy Weeks. The author has made a distinction between events and time frame determined. The first is the time of the seven sevens (49) until an anointed one and another determined time of threescore and two sevens (434) until the walls and city rebuilt. Then the final seven of the abomination that cause desolation. We find throughout Daniel especially chapters 7,8, 11 and 12 all make references to this troubled time under Antiochus IV and him causing the abomination that cause desolation the stoppage of the daily offerings.
        The view of many of the Church Fathers was that Daniel's 70 Weeks were fulfilled in Christ's earthly ministry, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, the whole context was concerning the people of Israel not obeying the commandments which especially concerning them not keeping the Sabbath (Jeremiah 17)which was among the reason for Babylon coming and taking them captive. Daniel 9:24 expresses this and the time determined for the fullness of these sins to come to it's end upon the holy city and people.

          DANIEL 9:24
          1. To finish the transgression.[ The transgression of breaking the covenant , the Sabbath . Jeremiah 11 & 17] for which the exile was given..
          2. Make an end of sins. [To again finish the transgression. An emphatic repetition of the preceding statement, and both together indicate that completion of transgressions which is contemplated in the parallel statement of chap,8 23,] "when the transgressors are come to the full"
          3. Make reconciliation for iniquity. To bring judgment upon those transgressors that have come to the full. To make a end of iniquity and introduce righteousness].
          4. Bring in "everlasting righteousness" [With the following judgment of those transgressors shall bring in righteousness]
          5. Seal up vision and prophecy. [To keep this revelation hidden from those transgessors until that time of judgment comes]
          6. Anoint the Most Holy. [To anoint the most holy place. The redication of the Temple which had been defiled by Antiochus IV].
          We might also see how Daniel was written in Hebrew Parallelism in these verses.

          "To close up the transgression and to consummate sins, (AND) to expiate iniquity and to introduce righteousness eternal, (AND) to seal up vision and prophet, (AND) to anoint a holy of holies." - Milton S Terry.

          All of which compliments the events around 168-164BC of Antiochus IV coming and taking away the daily for a period of 3 1/2 years (Daniel 7:25) time, times and half, 2300 evenings and mornings, and 1290 days (Daniel 8:14 & Dan.12:11).

          The ending of the transgresson and sins and to establish the kingdom and people of God.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by randyk View Post

            The view of many of the Church Fathers was that Daniel's 70 Weeks were fulfilled in Christ's earthly ministry, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.
            They did, however as we can see there are some issues with that conclusion. First they have to conjoin the seven weeks (and) threescore and two weeks to have the time of Christ Jesus. That in itself is an issue because as noted there was a purpose of the division. The first division of the seven weeks was a distinction for the coming of a anointed one. Daniel 9 is the only place in the whole Old Testament that the word "mashiyach" was translated as Messiah every where else it was translated Anointed one.

            ANOINTED ONE
            There are several times that the word “anointed or anointed one “is used the first time can be found in Daniel 9:24 the second time in 9:25 and the third time in 9:26 all should not be translated as Messiah as in most translations. The first time is in reference to the holy place as the holy temple, the second is in reference to an anointed one that was to come after seven weeks which couldn’t be a reference to Jesus Christ or Cyrus the Persian. The third time again isn’t in reference to Jesus as the Messiah, but an anointed one.

            The first where H4886 – mashach is used it’s clearly not in reference to Jesus Christ and that then leads to the understanding that it simply is in reference like all the other times in scripture that an anointed one as a king, high priest or prophet which were anointed. (Priests: Leviticus 4:3, Kings: 1 Kings 1:39, Prophets: Isaiah 61:1)

            The second and third time is (H4899 – mashiyach)should again be translated as anointed or anointed one which if understood that the anointed one should come after 49 years (seven sevens, weeks)couldn’t therefore be a reference to Jesus Christ. The word H4899 – mashiyach comes directly from H4886 – mashach and was to reference a king, prophet and high priest.
            As such as can be found 38 times in the Old Testament references toward the high priest or king that had been anointed.

            Leviticus 4:3 “If the priest that is anointed H4899 do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.”

            Daniel 9:24
            “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint (H4886 – mashach) a most holy place.” (ESV)
            Daniel 9:25

            “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, (H4899 – mashiyach) a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”(ESV)
            Daniel 9:26

            And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one (H4899 – mashiyach) shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.(ESV)



            Daniel 9:25
            “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.” (ESV)

            That in itself makes it impossible for Christ Jesus to come after the seven weeks and then again after the sixty two weeks! It must be recognized that the translation of Messiah shouldn't have been. It rather should have been ANOINTED ONE shall come after seven weeks and after sixty two weeks ANOINTED ONE shall be cut off. Both should not be understood as Christ Jesus, but an anointed one of God...

            As for the Early Church Fathers assuming it was a reference to Jesus there still was the issue of the last week. They assume his birth/death was the middle of the week having a ministry of 3 half years , but that should have been the end of the week.....The destruction wasn't until 70AD some 40 years more than 490. That would be making the prophecy of 530 years. Then who do they claim was the desolator that shall come to his end?

            Daniel 9:27
            And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Beckrl View Post

              They did, however as we can see there are some issues with that conclusion. First they have to conjoin the seven weeks (and) threescore and two weeks to have the time of Christ Jesus. That in itself is an issue because as noted there was a purpose of the division. The first division of the seven weeks was a distinction for the coming of a anointed one. Daniel 9 is the only place in the whole Old Testament that the word "mashiyach" was translated as Messiah every where else it was translated Anointed one.
              The translation is somewhat arbitrary, and obviously determined by context. The assumption is made, perhaps rightfully, that the purpose of the 70 Weeks, overall, is to lead to Messiah, who would accomplish the 6 things listed. This is how the Church Fathers saw it. The initial 7 weeks is divided from the remaining weeks because it was the time in which the city was to be rebuilt--the time of Nehemiah and following. It was an essential part that was necessary in order to lead to Messiah. In other words, the city of Jerusalem had to be restored to prepare for the coming of Messiah, which would be much later. It is not saying the Messiah would come after 7 weeks, but that the 7 weeks had to take place in order to prepare for the coming of Messiah in the 70th Week.

              Originally posted by Beck
              ANOINTED ONE
              There are several times that the word “anointed or anointed one “is used the first time can be found in Daniel 9:24 the second time in 9:25 and the third time in 9:26 all should not be translated as Messiah as in most translations. The first time is in reference to the holy place as the holy temple, the second is in reference to an anointed one that was to come after seven weeks which couldn’t be a reference to Jesus Christ or Cyrus the Persian. The third time again isn’t in reference to Jesus as the Messiah, but an anointed one.
              All 3 references referred to Jesus the Messiah, in the view of the Church Fathers, including the 1st reference to the Holy of Holies. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Most Holy Place. I concur.

              Originally posted by Beck
              The first where H4886 – mashach is used it’s clearly not in reference to Jesus Christ and that then leads to the understanding that it simply is in reference like all the other times in scripture that an anointed one as a king, high priest or prophet which were anointed. (Priests: Leviticus 4:3, Kings: 1 Kings 1:39, Prophets: Isaiah 61:1)

              The second and third time is (H4899 – mashiyach)should again be translated as anointed or anointed one which if understood that the anointed one should come after 49 years (seven sevens, weeks)couldn’t therefore be a reference to Jesus Christ. The word H4899 – mashiyach comes directly from H4886 – mashach and was to reference a king, prophet and high priest.
              As such as can be found 38 times in the Old Testament references toward the high priest or king that had been anointed.

              Leviticus 4:3 “If the priest that is anointed H4899 do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.”

              Daniel 9:24
              “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint (H4886 – mashach) a most holy place.” (ESV)
              Daniel 9:25

              “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, (H4899 – mashiyach) a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”(ESV)
              Daniel 9:26

              And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one (H4899 – mashiyach) shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.(ESV)


              Daniel 9:25
              “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.” (ESV)

              That in itself makes it impossible for Christ Jesus to come after the seven weeks and then again after the sixty two weeks! It must be recognized that the translation of Messiah shouldn't have been. It rather should have been ANOINTED ONE shall come after seven weeks and after sixty two weeks ANOINTED ONE shall be cut off. Both should not be understood as Christ Jesus, but an anointed one of God...

              As for the Early Church Fathers assuming it was a reference to Jesus there still was the issue of the last week. They assume his birth/death was the middle of the week having a ministry of 3 half years , but that should have been the end of the week.....The destruction wasn't until 70AD some 40 years more than 490. That would be making the prophecy of 530 years. Then who do they claim was the desolator that shall come to his end?

              Daniel 9:27
              And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
              The Church Fathers did not generally focus on these details, but saw Christ dying in the midst of the 70th Week. What happened to the last half of the Week is left to the imagination. After all, the claim is only that this important, final event, would happen in the 70th Week--not focusing on any need for a full Week. It's just that this final major event will happen in the last Week.

              The Church Fathers generally did not connect the 70 Weeks to the events that followed, namely the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. That desolation was the *consequence* of the Jews rejecting their Messiah--it was not part of the 70 Weeks, but only part of the prophecy of the 70 Weeks inasmuch as it reflected God's judgment upon the Jews for having crucified their Savior. I hope this helps you understand another perspective? Inasmuch as the Church Fathers saw it this way, I have deferred to them, rather than concoct my own interpretation.

              Comment


              • #8
                I would like to add to this post that even though the gospels are full of showing Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah not once do any of the gospels claim that Jesus fulfilled any part of Daniels 70 weeks

                Comment


                • #9
                  A few CLEAR issues with your claims.
                  1) Cyrus is indeed the anointed one AFTER the 49 years. Isaiah 45:1 - Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed:
                  The Anointed One is clearly named by Isaiah as Cyrus. Further Ezra CONFIRMS this in Ezra 1:1 "in order to fulfill the Word spoken to Jeremiah". It is the Word spoken to Jeremiah which is the KEY to understanding Daniel 9.
                  2) It is possible that Joshua was High Priest at the Feast of Tabernacles in the 7th month AFTER the return which happened around 536 BC - 70 years from the time that Judah was taken by Nebuchadnezzar. However that is a couple of years too late for your timeline.
                  Haggai 1:15 notes when the work on the Temple was started - which was around 522 BC. At this time Joshua seems NOT to be called the High Priest, but he is called the son of Jehozadak, the High Priest (who had been High Priest at the time when the Temple fell in 587 BC - no-one had been anointed High Priest since that time.) It is possible that the wording simply connects the line of the High Priest and in fact Joshua was the High priest. The language is a little unclear.
                  Further Haggai notes that Zerubbabel was governor and not King, so not the Lord's anointed.
                  3) You have the 49 years TOTALLY encapsulated WITHIN the 434 years, which therefore does NOT speak of 483 years, but simply 434 years. This is a problem for ANYONE who holds to a view similar to this. You see the TOTAL length of time was 70 weeks (of years) and NOT 63 weeks (of years.)
                  4) The 434 years STARTS from when the walls etc are BUILT not from the time that Babylon conquered it. This is clear from what is said in conjunction with the 62 weeks.
                  5) There is a second anointed one who comes AFTER the 62 weeks, and your timeline seems to have the erroneous notion of Onias, who was anointed prior to 178 BC, and almost certainly 198 BC. This would put the time of anointing from 198 + 434 to 532 BC, which doesn;t fit your timeline either.

                  What you do get right is that the 1290 days (but miss the 1335 days) is speaking about the time of A4E, as is almost all of Dan 11 & 12 speaking of the time of the rule by the Bronze Thighs of Dan 2.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by randyk View Post


                    The translation is somewhat arbitrary, and obviously determined by context. The assumption is made, perhaps rightfully, that the purpose of the 70 Weeks, overall, is to lead to Messiah, who would accomplish the 6 things listed. This is how the Church Fathers saw it. The initial 7 weeks is divided from the remaining weeks because it was the time in which the city was to be rebuilt--the time of Nehemiah and following. It was an essential part that was necessary in order to lead to Messiah. In other words, the city of Jerusalem had to be restored to prepare for the coming of Messiah, which would be much later. It is not saying the Messiah would come after 7 weeks, but that the 7 weeks had to take place in order to prepare for the coming of Messiah in the 70th Week.


                    I'm not sure how that would mathematically work out.

                    All 3 references referred to Jesus the Messiah, in the view of the Church Fathers, including the 1st reference to the Holy of Holies. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Most Holy Place. I concur.
                    Not all Church Fathers agreed, Irenaeus and Hippolytus taught that the final week of Daniel was still future. They possibly saw the error in claiming the "he" in verse 27 as being Jesus. Since how could have Jesus being cut off after the sixty two weeks and the be the "he" that makes a covenant "agreement" in the middle of the seventh week? That;s not possible!

                    "And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.”

                    This obvious can't be reference to Jesus. Again if we stay in context of Daniel, Daniel laid out the troubled times under Antiochus IV were "he" stop the daily sacrifices and offerings which caused the abomination of desolation.


                    The Church Fathers did not generally focus on these details, but saw Christ dying in the midst of the 70th Week. What happened to the last half of the Week is left to the imagination. After all, the claim is only that this important, final event, would happen in the 70th Week--not focusing on any need for a full Week. It's just that this final major event will happen in the last Week.

                    The Church Fathers generally did not connect the 70 Weeks to the events that followed, namely the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. That desolation was the *consequence* of the Jews rejecting their Messiah--it was not part of the 70 Weeks, but only part of the prophecy of the 70 Weeks inasmuch as it reflected God's judgment upon the Jews for having crucified their Savior. I hope this helps you understand another perspective? Inasmuch as the Church Fathers saw it this way, I have deferred to them, rather than concoct my own interpretation.
                    As stated not all of the Church Father agreed on this subject. They give us very little use of harmonizing the scripture of Daniel.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                      A few CLEAR issues with your claims.
                      1) Cyrus is indeed the anointed one AFTER the 49 years. Isaiah 45:1 - Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed:
                      The Anointed One is clearly named by Isaiah as Cyrus. Further Ezra CONFIRMS this in Ezra 1:1 "in order to fulfill the Word spoken to Jeremiah". It is the Word spoken to Jeremiah which is the KEY to understanding Daniel 9.
                      Thanks for the critical analysis ,
                      I have gone back and forth on this, but I still think that Daniel was shown one of his people to rise up and to lead the people home. The number of times that an high priest or leader "king" as the anointed is quite more than the one time for Cyrus.

                      2) It is possible that Joshua was High Priest at the Feast of Tabernacles in the 7th month AFTER the return which happened around 536 BC - 70 years from the time that Judah was taken by Nebuchadnezzar. However that is a couple of years too late for your timeline.
                      Haggai 1:15 notes when the work on the Temple was started - which was around 522 BC. At this time Joshua seems NOT to be called the High Priest, but he is called the son of Jehozadak, the High Priest (who had been High Priest at the time when the Temple fell in 587 BC - no-one had been anointed High Priest since that time.) It is possible that the wording simply connects the line of the High Priest and in fact Joshua was the High priest. The language is a little unclear. Further Haggai notes that Zerubbabel was governor and not King, so not the Lord's anointed.
                      I see and understand your concerns. I made this on the thesis that after 538 upon the return that anointed leader would come or rise up which either Zerubbabel or Joshua could be in reference here.

                      3) You have the 49 years TOTALLY encapsulated WITHIN the 434 years, which therefore does NOT speak of 483 years, but simply 434 years. This is a problem for ANYONE who holds to a view similar to this. You see the TOTAL length of time was 70 weeks (of years) and NOT 63 weeks (of years.)
                      As noted I'm of the opinion that the first seven weeks were for the coming of the anointed one that is why there were a distinction between that and the sixty two weeks. There isn't any reason to read these as conjoined into one consecutive elapse of time. It only gives the determined amount of time for each of these events to happen.

                      4) The 434 years STARTS from when the walls etc are BUILT not from the time that Babylon conquered it. This is clear from what is said in conjunction with the 62 weeks.
                      I believe it stated from the going for the the word to rebuild (Jeremiah oracle) to that of 434.

                      5) There is a second anointed one who comes AFTER the 62 weeks, and your timeline seems to have the erroneous notion of Onias, who was anointed prior to 178 BC, and almost certainly 198 BC. This would put the time of anointing from 198 + 434 to 532 BC, which doesn;t fit your timeline either.
                      It more points to the cutting off of the anointed one. When Antiochus IV took over, he sold the priesthood to Onias' brother, Jason.


                      When Seleucus died and Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, succeeded to the kingdom, Jason the brother of Onias obtained the high priesthood by corruption, promising the king at an interview three hundred sixty talents of silver, and from another source of revenue eighty talents. In addition to this he promised to pay one hundred fifty more if permission were given to establish by his authority a gymnasium and a body of youth for it, and to enroll the people of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch. When the king assented and Jason came to office, he at once shifted his compatriots over to the Greek way of life. (2 Macc 4:7‐10, NRSV)

                      In 172 BCE, Jason was removed from the priesthood as a member of the tribe of Benjamin named Menelaus outbid Jason for the honor of being high priest. It was under Menelaus that the temple was looted and desecrated. Since Menelaus was not from the tribe of Levi (as the Torah required), for the first time since Aaron the priestly lineage had been broken. Menelaus promised money to Antiochus IV and never paid it (2 Macc 4:27)


                      What you do get right is that the 1290 days (but miss the 1335 days) is speaking about the time of A4E, as is almost all of Dan 11 & 12 speaking of the time of the rule by the Bronze Thighs of Dan 2.
                      The 1335 days is just the addition of Adar II and 15 days before the cleaning of the temple could be done.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Beckrl View Post

                        4. Bring in "everlasting righteousness" [With the following judgment of those transgressors shall bring in righteousness]
                        Would you descrbed the world today as being a place which exhibits everlasting righteousness? Or a world like in the days of Noah, full of violence ?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Beckrl View Post


                          All of which compliments the events around 168-164BC of Antiochus IV coming and taking away the daily for a period of 3 1/2 years (Daniel 7:25) time, times and half, 2300 evenings and mornings, and 1290 days (Daniel 8:14 & Dan.12:11).

                          The ending of the transgresson and sins and to establish the kingdom and people of God.

                          Where would that place things 490 years earlier? Before or after Jerusalem was destroyed? 490 years earlier, assuming my math is correct, would be around 654 BC when the commandment went forth to restore and to build Jerusalem. Though it's debatable, the general consensus seems to be that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC give or take a few years. Based on that, that places the beginning of your 490 years during a time when Jerusalem hasn't even been destroyed yet.

                          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.

                          It makes zero sense for the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, being made before Jerusalem is even destroyed. If 490 years earlier leads to a time before Jerusalem is even destroyed, that alone already destroys your arguments since a Jerusalem in a destroyed state would need to be restored and built, rather than a Jerusalem that hasn't even been destroyed yet.

                          It is ludicrous that the command to restore and build Jerusalem goes out before it is even destroyed, then some 70 years later Jerusalem is actually destroyed. It only stands to reason, that when the commandment goes forth to restore and build Jerusalem, it has to go out post 587 BC, give or take a few years(meaning in regards to when Jerusalem is initially destroyed, the commandment to restore would be sometime post that), and not some 70 years before Jerusalem is even destroyed.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                            I would like to add to this post that even though the gospels are full of showing Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah not once do any of the gospels claim that Jesus fulfilled any part of Daniels 70 weeks
                            That is completely wrong, in my view, Marty! Not only did Jesus reference Daniel 9 in his Olivet Discourse, insinuating himself as the Anointed One, but the reference to him in this chapter as "the Anointed One" is huge in the NT, making reference to Dan 9 virtually redundant. As well, seeing Christ as the new temple is a huge contribution to the Hebrew letter, indicating that Christ is the heavenly fulfillment of the old temple--a major theme in Dan 9.

                            But I don't think it can be said any more explicitly that Jesus fulfilled the 70 Weeks than in Jesus" Olivet Discourse, where he ascribed the message and the Abomination of Desolation to Daniel 9, the 70 Weeks prophecy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              V27

                              Jesus confirmed the covenant with the many Israelites when he appeared publicly to Israel when baptized in the Jordan. For 3.5 years he confirmed the promise of v25 to Israel, the promise of an anointed one.

                              Then in the midst of that last 7, Jesus was the final lamb sacrifice, putting an end to sacrifice and offering.

                              Yet in the midst of that last 7, at the same time as the crucifixion, we were supposed to see the abomination which has not occurred yet. So we are still in the midst of the 7 years of confirmation to the many Israelites awaiting the abomination. We are currently in the Gentile church age, an indefinite age in the midst of the last 7.

                              ​​​​​

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X