Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why the confusion over the 70th week? | Dan 9:26 | Lemont | 176833 | ||
Mark: A parenthetical passage does not need to follow the chronological pattern of that which precedes and follows; thus the reason it's placed in parenthesis. It is supplemental information - in this case, that this temple that is to be restored will also later be destroyed. Do you agree that Jesus became the "Anointed One" not when he rode into Jerusalem on an ass (as some would say), but when Holy Spirit came upon him in the Jordan river at his baptism? If so, you are well on your way to understanding that the 70th week follows with Jesus being cutoff (cruxified) in the half of that week (3.5 years later). Jesus put the covenant in place for the Jews - that's who he was sent to and that's who the apostles continued to extend the kingdom wedding invitation to until Peter was shown (at the end of the 70th week, 3.5 years after Jesus' death) that now Gentiles like Cornelius were being invited. All three time markers have come and gone, fulfilled right on time! Now the tribulation - no one will know exactly when it will begin or end, as Jesus clearly stated. But his disciples will know the "season" and they will be the ones prepared to be taken along into what God has in store for those who love him and obey the good news about the Christ, Jesus. Regards, Lemont |
||||||
2 | Why the confusion over the 70th week? | Dan 9:26 | mark d seyler | 176843 | ||
Hi Lemont, I realize that you are comfortable with your conclusions, so I primarily post this for the benefit of others who might read this. I wish to be more clear on the nature of the passage in Daniel 9. Daniel 9:24-27 (24) Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people, and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. (25) Know, then, and understand that from the going out of a word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty two weeks. The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in times of affliction. (26) And after sixty two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of a coming ruler shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, and war shall be until the end. (27) And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week. And in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. And on a corner of the altar will be abominations that desolate, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall pour out on the desolator. 70 "Weeks" are decreed as to Daniel's people, Israel, and his holy city, Jerusalem. From the word to rebuild Jerusalem to Messiah the Prince will be 7 week, then 62 weeks, for a total of 69 weeks. AFTER the 62 weeks Messiah will be cut off (killed). Also after these 62 weeks, the sanctuary will be destroyed by the people of a ruler who is to come, one who will have not yet come at that time. This ruler, when he does come, will confirm a covenant for 1 week, the 70th week. Now, the point here is that it is after the 69 weeks that Jesus is killed, and the sanctuary destroyed. Those two events happened approx. 40 years apart from each other. The coming ruler who will confirm a 7 year covenant, the 70th Week, was still future from the time of the destruction of the sanctuary, which was 40 years after the death of Messiah. Therefore, there MUST be a minimum of about 40 years between the 69th week and the 70th week. Both Jesus' death and the destruction of the temple happened after the 69th week and before the 70th week, therefore, the 70th week could not have immediately followed the 69th week. The Preterist view which you espouse has a serious flaw to it. This prophecy declares that the prince who will come, and who will confirm the 7 year covenant, is descended from those people that destroyed the santuary. The antecedant to "he" in verse 27 is "a coming ruler" in verse 26. Hebrew grammer, just the same as English grammer, demands this. The one who confirms the covenant is Not God, or the Messiah, but it is the "coming prince", who is of the people who destroyed the sanctuary - the Romans. This is the beast, of whom John also prophesied. Now, regarding when Jesus "became" the Annointed One, hear what the angels declared to certain shepherds: Luke 2:10-11 (10) And the angel said to them, Do not fear. For, behold, I proclaim good news to you, a great joy, which will be to all people, (11) because today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, was born to you in the city of David. "who is Christ the Lord" - "the Annointed, the Lord" Jesus was born "the Annointed". I hope this helps to clarify the matter. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
3 | Why the confusion over the 70th week? | Dan 9:26 | Lemont | 176864 | ||
Mark: Let's pretend we're two wide-eyed humble children seeking the truth without any preconceived or previously learned ideas. (I know I have them too.) Since neither of us are Greek scholars, will use the rules of English grammar. 26) And after sixty two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of a coming ruler shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, and war shall be until the end. (27) And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week. And in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. V. 26 refers to "Messiah" - a "he". It next refers, parenthetically, to "a people of a coming ruler" - a "they" that will destroy the city. Given the facts that there is only one "he" referred to previously - Messiah and the intermediate passage is parenthetical, it is more than reasonable to read v.27 as stating that Messiah shall confirm a covenant. Any attempt to apply the covenant to the Romans or to say that they caused the sacrifices to cease when they would have been repugnant to God for many years by then is contrived. Jesus was no "prince" or "ruler" at his birth, but as a mature man at his baptism, he presented himself to do his Father's will and commenced to leading those that would inherit the Kingdom. Thus, again, when his 3.5 year ministry ended, he presented his spotless and unblemished sacrificial body to God as a sacrifice that would cause all animal sacrifices to cease - at least to cease having value in the eyes of God. I hope I don't sound argumentative. Like Paul, my words can seem bold but my mannerisms/appearance in person are not very impressive. Of course, I do not claim to measure in any way to the quality of teacher that Paul was. I hope you are enjoying our spirited discussion as much as I am. Lemont |
||||||
4 | Why the confusion over the 70th week? | Dan 9:26 | mark d seyler | 176885 | ||
Hi Lemont, "Wided-eyed children"? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (16) All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. Let us rather be well-studied men of God, knowing the truth of God's Word, faithful to teach His Word, with nothing added, and nothing taken away. Concerning the antecedent of "he" in Daniel 9:27, the closest occuring singular masculine noun preceding this "he" is "ruler" in verse 26. You claim that to relate a pronoun to its nearest preceding noun of the same gender and number is contrived, well, I hardly know what to say to that! But I would ask you, the one who claims that this seven year covenant has been fulfilled, where do we find this recorded, in either the Bible or in secular history? Simply characterizing my arguments as "contrived" does not serve any useful purpose. Let us stick with verifiable facts. Where do we find recorded the exact duration of Jesus' public ministry? And regarding the animal sacrifices, Daniel's prophecy does not say "cease having value", it says "cease". The animal sacrifices did not cease until the temple was destroyed. Every prophecy fulfillment that has happened has been exact, literal, and complete. This prophecy has not been fulfilled. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||