Daniel 9:24-27

[keithareilly]

Hi Ready1 and Mark F,

I enjoyed what you each wrote. They are full of the hope God provides.
I agree about what is yet to come and what is yet to happen.

I just do not call it the 70th week.
Neither do I see these future things as what is specifically listed to be accomplished during the 70 weeks.

Fundamentally, our disagreement lies not in what in God will accomplish in the future, but, labeling what shall be accomplished as occurring during the 70 weeks.

Daniel 9:24-27 explicitly states the 69 weeks are historical prior to Christ's crucifixion. Here I suspect we agree.

What is not explicitly stated is when the 70th week occurs. One could see the one week of Daniel 27 as the 70th week. I do not see that week as the 70th week. Yet, I do understand that week to be historical, The First Jewish Roman War in which the events listed were accomplished during the 7 year war and in the middle of which sacrifices ceased when the temple was destroyed. While I see that verse as historical, I do not label that verse the 70th week.
Neither does anyone who views the 70th week as future label the First Jewish Roman was as the 70th week.

There are historical/present ages:
1) The time before Adam sinned, and brought death into this world,
2) The time after sin entered and before the Law was given,
3) The time of LAW, (still in place), whose purpose is to reveal sin for what it is,
4) The time of the Grace, Christ, the Jews, and Jerusalem brought everlasting righteousness, an end to sin, etc into the world, and the cultivated branches were cut off and the wild branches grafted in,

Future ages are still to come
5) The Time Jesus returns and rules from Jerusalem, the cultivated branches return, during this period I see Christ waging war on nations and subjecting them over time, just as David, through war, subjected all Israel, Jesus subjects the whole planet, through war.
6) The Time a New Jerusalem arrives from Heaven Rev 21. and everything is made anew.

Perhaps 5 and 6 are the same, I do not know, and am not interested in discussing if they are the same or not.

The end of the age of Law, came, when Christ brought us grace. I perceive the 70 weeks as describing the end of the age of the Law, and the beginning of the age of Grace. Just as the Law is still in place, every dot and mark, I think grace will also still be in place when Jesus returns, but, that period I think will include the un-blinding of the Jewish people.

So, while we disagree about what is labelled the 70th week, which is not explicitly stated in scripture, thus, we each must draw a conclusion about what week the 70th week is, I do not disagree with you about God has planned the un-blinding and return of cultivated branches to the tree and His rule from Jerusalem. Personally, I think we are living at the end of the gentile age and the beginning of the Christ return age, but, still may not happen in my life time.

With regards to the post about the wording of Daniel 9:24 through 27. I understand why people see a gap do to the wording. It definitely implies a gap. Yet, the wording is not about a gap in the 70 weeks, it is about the gap in time between when the Jews and Jerusalem cut-off the Messiah, and when the one week of Daniel 9:27 begins, the week where Prince Titus and his people, the Romans, waged a one week, 7 year, war and stopped sacrifices in the middle of those 7 years. Interestingly, we agree about that gap being a time frame between the the cutting off of Christ and the start of the one week of Daniel 9:27. Nevertheless, it is our definition of the 70th week and the one week of Daniel 9:27 that leads to different perceptions about the what the gap represents.



Love in Christ,

Keith A Reilly

[keithareilly]

So, as I see it...

Christ was crucified during the 70th week. Then there is gap of time included in the vision, the gap ends when the vision picks back up with the prince and his people coming and stopping the sacrifices in the middle of a one week period. From a historical perspective, we know there is a gap of time between the 70th week when Christ was cut-off and First Jewish Roman War.

I also see this view as aligning with the Parable of the Landowner.
Matthew 21:33-44
33“Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. 34“When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. 35“The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. 36“Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. 37“But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38“But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39“They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40“Therefore when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?” 41They said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.”

42Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,
‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD,
AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?

43“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. 44“And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”

The vision includes the 70 weeks, a gap, and a one week period in the middle of which destruction of the city and the sanctuary, sacrifices cease, and also war continuing with multiple desolations.
This aligns with the Parable of the Land Owner sending his son, his son being killed, and the Landowner bringing them to a wretched end.
History shows us this has indeed happened as described.
Christ was killed after the 69th week, during the 70th week, a period of time (gap) elapses, then the First Jewish Roman war results in the one week prophesy of Dan 9:27, the destroying the city and sanctuary. Then we have the second Roman Jewish war with more desolations occurring, and the Jewish people finally being removed from the Israel resulting in the diaspora.

The Daniel 9:24-27 vision aligns with both, the parable of landowner, and historical records.

This is why I see this prophesy as historical, not future.

One of the things in this prophecy that is very clear, is that after Christ is cut-off, war comes to the holy people and the holy city, resulting in the sanctuary and city are destroyed.

I do not see how the destruction of the holy people and the holy city aligns with the interpretation that the holy people and the holy city quit sinning and become a righteous people and city during the 70 weeks prophecy. To me, it is very clear the prophecy says they do not quit sinning and therefore are destroyed. And God let them know he did the destruction by having Titus destroy the temple on the 9th of Av, the same day God had Nebuchadnezzar destroy the first temple. So, I think this is pretty good evidence the destruction of the holy people and the Holy City was God's plan and was prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27.

Keith

[Mark F]

Keith,

Question for you, when do you put the start of the sixty-two weeks?

[keithareilly]

Keith,

Question for you, when do you put the start of the sixty-two weeks?

I don't have one. While I have looked at others calculations, they left questions.
Three different claims are made about when the decree to restore and rebuild the temple happened.


Keith

[Ready1]

So, as I see it...

Christ was crucified during the 70th week. Then there is gap of time included in the vision, the gap ends when the vision picks back up with the prince and his people coming and stopping the sacrifices in the middle of a one week period. From a historical perspective, we know there is a gap of time between the 70th week when Christ was cut-off and First Jewish Roman War.

I also see this view as aligning with the Parable of the Landowner.
Matthew 21:33-44


The vision includes the 70 weeks, a gap, and a one week period in the middle of which destruction of the city and the sanctuary, sacrifices cease, and also war continuing with multiple desolations.
This aligns with the Parable of the Land Owner sending his son, his son being killed, and the Landowner bringing them to a wretched end.
History shows us this has indeed happened as described.
Christ was killed after the 69th week, during the 70th week, a period of time (gap) elapses, then the First Jewish Roman war results in the one week prophesy of Dan 9:27, the destroying the city and sanctuary. Then we have the second Roman Jewish war with more desolations occurring, and the Jewish people finally being removed from the Israel resulting in the diaspora.

The Daniel 9:24-27 vision aligns with both, the parable of landowner, and historical records.

This is why I see this prophesy as historical, not future.

One of the things in this prophecy that is very clear, is that after Christ is cut-off, war comes to the holy people and the holy city, resulting in the sanctuary and city are destroyed.

I do not see how the destruction of the holy people and the holy city aligns with the interpretation that the holy people and the holy city quit sinning and become a righteous people and city during the 70 weeks prophecy. To me, it is very clear the prophecy says they do not quit sinning and therefore are destroyed. And God let them know he did the destruction by having Titus destroy the temple on the 9th of Av, the same day God had Nebuchadnezzar destroy the first temple. So, I think this is pretty good evidence the destruction of the holy people and the Holy City was God's plan and was prophesied in Daniel 9:24-27.

Keith

If I understand you correctly, I would be prepared to give strong consideration to your argument if the scripture read as follows.

Dan 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
Dan 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy-one years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Dan 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
Dan 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
Dan 9:24 Seventy-one 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.

Maybe I read it wrong, but it sounds like your understanding takes more than 70 weeks of years to accomplish.

The vision includes the 70 weeks, a gap, and a one week period in the middle of which destruction of the city and the sanctuary, sacrifices cease, and also war continuing with multiple desolations.

I find it interesting that you will allow for a gap after the Messiah, but you disallow the "people of the prince that shall come" who “shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” to fall in that gap, but rather force them into a 70th week (or another week) that, while it may be a precursor that looks like the "real deal", I can find no support for. If you believe that it can be supported then please answer the question that I posed to Mr Baldy that he was unable to answer. I'll post it in a separate post.

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Interestingly, we agree about that gap being a time frame between the the cutting off of Christ and the start of the one week of Daniel 9:27. Nevertheless, it is our definition of the 70th week and the one week of Daniel 9:27 that leads to different perceptions about the what the gap represents.

I am baffled by anyone who says that the week mentioned in Dan 9:27, after the mention of seven weeks, then sixty-two weeks, is anything other than the 70th week, yet there are any number of you who do that. Then I went back and re-read some of the thread again. Your other positions dictate that you must make provisions other than what the words of Gabriel say. Your position (& Mr Baldy's) that Jesus had to be cut off in the 70th week makes it impossible look at other time frames.

The argument is:
1) The accomplishment of the goals of Daniel verse 9:24 are a part of a 70 week prophecy; therefore, accomplishing them must occur during the 70 weeks.
2) Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection are what accomplished some of the goals in Daniel verse 9:24; therefore, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection must have occurred during a portion of the 70 weeks.
3) We know from scripture he was cut off after the first 69 weeks; therefore, the crucifixion and resurrection did not take place during the first 69 weeks. The only week left is the 70th week.
4) If Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection occurred outside the prophesy, that is outside the 70 weeks, that would make the prophesy false, inaccurate, wrong.

With regards to Titus, the one week mentioned on Daniel 9:27 is not part of the 70 weeks prophesy; it is a one week prophecy that describes the consequences of Christ's crucifixion by the Jews.
They are two different prophecies.
1) 70 weeks about what is accomplished by the Jews and Jerusalem when they kill Christ, verse 24,
2) 1 week about about the consequences of killing Christ, verse 27.

I would call the above "shoehorning".

Seventy weeks is the matter and the vision which Gabriel shares. He expands Daniels knowledge of that by telling him that it is composed of seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week, all a part of the matter and vision, and all found in Dan 9:24-27. It is NOT seventy weeks plus some other week. It is seventy weeks as shown by Gabriel in a single vision or revelation, and recorded in four little verses. No separation, not two prophecies, not 71 weeks, not 70 weeks and one week.

I think our differences cannot be overcome. From your words Jesus had to be crucified in the 70th week. Scripture says that Messiah was cut off after the 69th week. You think one thing, I believe scripture says another. You can't get to where I am, and I see your understanding as erroneous.

[Ready1]

The events in Daniel 9:24 - ALL point to Christ. So when He said "It is FINSHED" I believe that is exactly what He meant. Finished means Finished.

I have seen this statement multiple times, in fact over and over in one form or another; but I would like for someone to share what they mean by this statement on a point-by-point basis. (i.e. There are six or seven things (depending on how you divide them) which will be completed by the ending of the 70 weeks.) If this statement is indeed true, and I am not questioning whether you believe it to be true, each point ought to be supportable by other scriptures which point back to this passage. They ought to be contextually accurate and be able to advance the argument that "the entire 70 weeks were completed - by the ministry: Death/Burial & Resurrection of Jesus."

This question was posed as a challenge to the unsupported belief that Jesus statement on the cross has to do with Dan 9:24-27. If you believe that Jesus fulfilled all of requirements on Daniels people and on the Holy City Jerusalem, which are mentioned in Dan 9:24, namely

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

Please explain how. I will repeat that "Each point ought to be supportable by other scriptures which point back to this passage.

Each point and each scripture ought to be contextually accurate and be able to advance the argument that "the entire 70 weeks were completed - by the ministry: Death/Burial & Resurrection of Jesus.

[Ready1]

When I see the statement "It is finished" used as a proof text for Dan 9:24 I end up thinking things like:

1) But Jesus came to provide redemption for the whole world.
2) And His blood was efficient to save everyone.
3) His sacrifice was available for the justification of all.
4) The propitiation that scripture speaks of was ordained by God to appease his wrath upon all sin.
5) Any man can receive these fabulous blessings through faith.

And then I also think things like:

1) His incarnation, life, death, burial, and resurrection were about so much more than the Jews.
2) They were about the whole world.
3) God's plan, while offered first to the Jew, is so much bigger than the Jew.
4) If Jesus coming to the earth was about fulfilling Dan 9:24 then why would he need to come back another time to accomplish Jewish things that he did not finish?
5) It wasn't about the Jews and Jerusalem.


So my conclusion is that when Jesus said "It is finished" he was speaking of the work of redemption upon the cross in which he was offered as a sacrifice for the sin of the whole world, past, present, future. That work was complete, not all prophecy from all time periods.

Just so you know, keith, I do have an opinion about this.

[keithareilly]

Hi Ready1,

The more we converse, the more I realize how much we see things so differently.

When I was younger, I saw the one week of Daniel 9:27 as the 70th week.
Later I had an alternative view that made more sense to me.

The key was how I saw this passage.
Daniel 9:25-26a
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

1) Initially, I saw this passage as discussing the first 69 weeks because it mentions the 69 weeks explicitly.
2) Later, I saw this passage discussing all 70 weeks.
...a) This passage mentions explicitly the first 69 weeks. I think we agree here.
...b) The passage mentions implicitly the 70th week, the week Christ is cut-off;
...c) Then I saw this passage as actually talking about all 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24.

After I saw this, then I had to ask myself: Which is the 70th week, the implicitly mentioned week, in which Christ was crucified, or the explicitly mentioned week of Daniel 9:27?

When trying to answer that question, I asked myself another question: Is something mentioned implicitly is of equal value to something mentioned explicitly? I concluded: "Yes". Because, saying something implicitly is still saying something. It is just harder to hear. Therefore, just because Daniel 9:27 explicitly mentions one week, that explicit one week statement does not take precedent over an implicit one week statement. Consequently, I stopped assuming the one week of Daniel 9:27 was the 70th week. I also noticed there exists nothing in the passages that say the Daniel 9:27 week is the 70th week. It was then I realized I just assumed it was; because, it was mentioned explicitly and there was no reason to see another week, even though it was mentioned implicitly.

Keith

[Ready1]

Hi Ready1,

The more we converse, the more I realize how much we see things so differently.

When I was younger, I saw the one week of Daniel 9:27 as the 70th week.
Later I had an alternative view that made more sense to me.

The key was how I saw this passage.
Daniel 9:25-26a
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:

1) Initially, I saw this passage as discussing the first 69 weeks because it mentions the 69 weeks explicitly.
2) Later, I saw this passage discussing all 70 weeks.
...a) This passage mentions explicitly the first 69 weeks. I think we agree here.
...b) The passage mentions implicitly the 70th week, the week Christ is cut-off;
...c) Then I saw this passage as actually talking about all 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24.

After I saw this, then I had to ask myself: Which is the 70th week, the implicitly mentioned week, in which Christ was crucified, or the explicitly mentioned week of Daniel 9:27? Before I asked myself that question, I asked myself if something mentioned implicitly is of equal value to something mentioned explicitly. I thought "Yes" saying something implicitly is still saying something. It is just harder to hear. Therefore, just because Daniel 9:27 explicitly mentions one week, that explicit one week statement does not take precedent over an implicit one week statement. Consequently, I stopped assuming the one week of Daniel 9:27 was the 70th week. I also noticed there exists nothing in the passages that say the Daniel 9:27 week is the 70th week. It was then I realized I just assumed it was; because, it was mentioned explicitly.



Keith

...b) The passage mentions implicitly the 70th week, the week Christ is cut-off;

This is an assumption based upon viewpoint. Even your premise is skewed (see underline) because it is based upon your belief that Jesus had to be killed in the 70th week. There is NO implicit or explicit mention of the 70th week in verse 25 or 26. That is a construct of your mind rather than the passage. Furthermore because of this viewpoint, explicit mention of the 70th week in verse 27 is relegated to a lesser importance and ultimately it is discarded as a part of the 70 weeks at all.

After I saw this, then I had to ask myself: Which is the 70th week, the implicitly mentioned week, in which Christ was crucified, or the explicitly mentioned week of Daniel 9:27? Before I asked myself that question, I asked myself if something mentioned implicitly is of equal value to something mentioned explicitly. I thought "Yes" saying something implicitly is still saying something. It is just harder to hear. Therefore, just because Daniel 9:27 explicitly mentions one week, that explicit one week statement does not take precedent over an implicit one week statement. Consequently, I stopped assuming the one week of Daniel 9:27 was the 70th week. I also noticed there exists nothing in the passages that say the Daniel 9:27 week is the 70th week. It was then I realized I just assumed it was; because, it was mentioned explicitly.

For me, the above is a great example of the mental gymnastics required to discard the obvious final week mentioned in 9:27 as a part of the 70 weeks. This then allows you to adamantly hold to the "Jesus had to be crucified in the 70 weeks" theory and reject all others.

No, Keithareilly, this doesn't do it either...

Why not tackle my challenge…

[keithareilly]

HI Ready 1,

I am not here to argue with you. Neither am I here to convince you I am correct.

You wrote this

This is an assumption based upon viewpoint. Even your premise is skewed (see underline) because it is based upon your belief that Jesus had to be killed in the 70th week. There is NO implicit or explicit mention of the 70th week in verse 25 or 26. That is a construct of your mind rather than the passage. Furthermore because of this viewpoint, explicit mention of the 70th week in verse 27 is relegated to a lesser importance and ultimately it is discarded as a part of the 70 weeks at all.

I shall write this to you about the one week of Daniel 9:27 being the 70th week.
This is an assumption based upon viewpoint. Even your premise is skewed because it is based upon your belief that Jesus did not have to be killed in the 70 weeks period, even though the prophesy says what Jesus accomplished through his death and resurrection is to be accomplished during 70 weeks. There is NO implicit or explicit mention of the 70th week in verse 27. That is a construct of your mind rather than the passage. Furthermore, because of this viewpoint, the explicit mention of the one week in verse 27 is elevated to a higher importance and ultimately is injected as part of the 70 weeks.

Until you realize we are discussing different paradigms, you will not recognize your own viewpoint as a paradigm.
Paradigm shifts are difficult because nearly everything is viewed differently. This includes the challenge you have put forth. If you are not willing to view a different paradigm, that is your choice; but, unless you are willing to view a different paradigm instead of defending one, I cannot communicate what I see.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I am willing.
If you wish to argue, I am not willing.

Much Love,

Keith

[Ready1]

If you wish to continue this discussion, I am willing.
If you wish to argue, I am not willing.

I don't think that there is any profit in it.

[keithareilly]

If you wish to continue this discussion, I am willing.
If you wish to argue, I am not willing.

I don't think that there is any profit in it.

Very well.

[Ready1]

Paradigm shifts are difficult because nearly everything is viewed differently. This includes the challenge you have put forth.

I am curious how you can say this. The challenge that I set forth is the way that I approach questions in scripture.

1. What does the scripture itself say?
2. Is there an obvious meaning?
3. Are there other scriptures which say the same thing?
4. Are there supporting scriptures which support the premise in different words?
5. Does the time frame support the premise?
6. Are there other possible meanings?

Edited to add:

7) Does my understanding contradict the words of passage or supporting passages?

If you see this as improper or not within your paradigm, how do you approach questions in scripture? What you have appeared to say is that since I view scripture differently (not within your paradigm) that my question is invalid.

[keithareilly]

Paradigm shifts are difficult because nearly everything is viewed differently. This includes the challenge you have put forth.

I am curious how you can say this. The challenge that I set forth is the way that I approach questions in scripture.

1. What does the scripture itself say?
2. Is there an obvious meaning?
3. Are there other scriptures which say the same thing?
4. Are there supporting scriptures which support the premise in different words?
5. Does the time frame support the premise?
6. Are there other possible meanings?

If you see this as improper or not within your paradigm, how do you approach questions in scripture? What you have appeared to say is that since I view scripture differently (not within your paradigm) that my question is invalid.

I do not see this as improper. Your question is valid.

Think of a paradigm as context. Consider creation as a paradigm, how God has made things.
Does any human being grasp God's entire paradigm? I think not.
When Gabriel provided a vision to Daniel, did Daniel understand that vision? No.
While Gabriel communicated, Daniel did not understand because he lived in a different paradigm than Gabriel.

The same is true for each of us, we each see things differently, we cannot shift the world. We cannot shift each other.
The only person we can shift is ourselves.
And when we shift ourselves, we see things from a different standing point, resulting in a different perspective.

Unless we are willing shift our position, step outside our box, we will always only see things from where we stand.

If you want me to explain to you what I see, then I have to say to you, "come over here, and look from here".

I have attempted to do that but I have not been successful.

Much Love,

Keith

[Ready1]

I do not see this as improper. Your question is valid.

Think of a paradigm as context. Consider creation as a paradigm, how God has made things.
Does any human being grasp God's entire paradigm? I think not.

Can any man understand the mind of God? No, none whatsoever. But I will say that God has given all men together an equal opportunity to understand Him, by his Word, through His work, which, in this case is creation. His creative power and majesty are extolled throughout the scripture, but there are many differing levels of understanding and knowledge of what the scriptures say about Him and His work. These may be different “paradigms”?

When Gabriel provided a vision to Daniel, did Daniel understand that vision? No.
While Gabriel communicated, Daniel did not understand because he lived in a different paradigm than Gabriel.

This is interesting that you would use this as an example of a different paradigm. I would not call it a paradigm, I would say that Gabriel had more information than Daniel and that his purpose was to share what he knew with Daniel so that Daniel would know too. If we go back to what the scripture says,

Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
Dan 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

Rather than viewing different positions as different paradigms, I think I would view different positions as different levels of understanding regarding what the scriptures actually say about any given topic. As such I would add one more “test” to my list of six ways that I use to approach questions in scripture. (I think I will go back and add it to the original six) and that is

7) Does the understanding that I arrive at contradict the words of passage?

When Jesus joined the two disciples on the road to Emmaus he upbraided them for their lack of understanding when He said,

Luk 24:25  Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 
Luk 24:26  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 
Luk 24:27  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 

I am certain that Jesus would be just as straightforward with me and that I would come under the same condemnation as these two did. Not because I wanted to, but rather because I do not know all the scriptures and references to the things we talk about. I know that I would love to have the Lord Jesus share exactly what these passages mean.

So Keith, you may be right, I may be wrong, but I do not see things your way and you don't see things the way I do. Maybe part of it is semantics. Maybe it is something else. But I trust that we are both seeking after the truth.

The same is true for each of us, we each see things differently, we cannot shift the world. We cannot shift each other.
The only person we can shift is ourselves.
And when we shift ourselves, we see things from a different standing point, resulting in a different perspective.

Unless we are willing shift our position, step outside our box, we will always only see things from where we stand.

If you want me to explain to you what I see, then I have to say to you, "come over here, and look from here".

I have attempted to do that but I have not been successful.

Much Love,

Keith

[Exit40]

I am certain that Jesus would be just as straightforward with me and that I would come under the same condemnation as these two did. Not because I wanted to, but rather because I do not know all the scriptures and references to the things we talk about. I know that I would love to have the Lord Jesus share exactly what these passages mean.

Amen Brother. And a great discussion here.

God Bless You

David

[keithareilly]

Hi Ready1.

As I acknowledge I have concluded the week Christ was crucified is the the 70th week.

I ask you these questions.

1) Does Daniel 9:24-27 explicitly state the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week.
. a) If so, show me the verse that explicitly states it is the 70th week.
. b) If not, Why do you see scriptures implicitly stating the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week?

[Ready1]

Hi Ready1.

As I acknowledge I have concluded the week Christ was crucified is the the 70th week.

I ask you these questions.

1) Does Daniel 9:24-27 explicitly state the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week.
. a) If so, show me the verse that explicitly states it is the 70th week.
. b) If not, Why do you see scriptures implicitly stating the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week?

Those are "gotcha" questions, keith, so I will answer you in kind.

1) Does Daniel 9:24-27 explicitly state the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week.

The answer to your question is NO. There is not one place in Daniel 9:24-27 which explicitly states that the one week of Daniel 9:27 is a part of the 70th week. BUT, KEITH, there is not one place in Daniel 9:24-27 which "explicitly" states that the seven weeks mentioned in Dan 9:25 are a part of the 70 weeks either. AND FURTHERMORE, there is not one place in Daniel 9:24-27 which "explicitly" states that the sixty-two weeks mentioned in Dan 9:25-26 are a part of the 70 weeks either.

So do you have a problem including them in the seventy weeks since there is not a place that explicitly says they are? Does the wording and construction of every verse have to satisfy you to convey its logical meaning?

2. If not, Why do you see scriptures implicitly stating the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the 70th week?

I can’t do any better than this: Because that is what Gabriel is talking about. Gabriel is sharing a message from God with Daniel. Not two messages from God, not three messages from God; a message from God concerning Daniels people and the Holy City Jerusalem for a given time period (i.e. seventy weeks of years.)

Why do I see the seven weeks as a part of the seventy weeks when it is not explicitly stated? Because the seventy weeks are what Gabriel is taking about with Daniel and the seven weeks are a component of the seventy.

Why do I see the sixty-two weeks as part of the seventy weeks when it is not explicitly stated? Because the seventy weeks are what Gabriel is talking about with Daniel and the sixty-two weeks are a component of the seventy.

Why do I see the one week as a part of the seventy weeks when it is not explicitly stated? [Sarcasm on] Because Gabriel changed the topic and introduced another week based upon who knows what, to confuse the issue, to confuse Daniel. and to confuse all future readers. [Sarcasm off] NO! Because the seventy weeks are what Gabriel is talking about to Daniel and the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the final one week component of the seventy that he is finally getting around to describing.

I will once again give my reasons for understanding as I do in the next post without the scriptural references.

[Ready1]

How I understand Dan 9:24-27 Scriptures are given in the first post on this thread

I find it interesting that after each period that Gabriel revealed to Daniel, Gabriel told Daniel that certain things would happen. Daniel 9:24-27 is the passage that we all look at. I have chosen to begin at Daniel 9:25 and end with Dan 9:24.

1. Gabriel says that this time period begins with the commandment to restore and build (many versions use "rebuild") Jerusalem. This had to occur when Israel was captive in Babylon and since it had not happened at the time that Gabriel shared it with Daniel, this is a prophetic passage to Daniel.
Prophecy #1

2. Gabriel also divides the period into two periods at this point, a period of "seven weeks" (of years), and a period of "sixty-two weeks" (of years).

3. Then he goes back and shares that the rebuild included the street and the wall surrounding Jerusalem. He also shares that they encountered heavy opposition. It is my understanding that this happened in the "seven weeks" or forty-nine years after the commandment to restore and rebuild. This is also prophecy from Gabriel given to Daniel.
Prophecy #2

4. Gabriel shares more, however. He shares a second time marker in this passage. He says that from the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem until the coming Messiah would be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. So as the passage reads, it would indicate that there is a period from the rebuild command to the Messiah of sixty-nine weeks which are inclusive of the initial seven weeks. This is a third prophecy given through Gabriel to Daniel.
Prophecy #3

5. Gabriel gives the next time marker in Dan 9:26. He says that after the completion of the sixty-two weeks, which we know come after the seven weeks, Messiah will be “cut off” or killed.
Prophecy #4

6. Gabriel then shares that after the Messiah is killed, after week sixty-nine, the people of a ruler who will sometime come, will destroy both the city and the Temple. He further indicates that until “the end” there will be war and desolation for this City and people. He calls it “desolation” and likens it to a “flood”. I might add here that if Gabriel had been instructed by God to reveal that this all occurs in the seventieth week it would have been very easy to do so. But that is not what occurs. He proclaims that the death of Messiah is “after threescore and two weeks” but stops well short of proclaiming it to be included in week seventy.
Prophecy #5

7. Gabriel continues on with the culmination of his prophetic revelation started in the three preceding verses. It is all a part of Gods revelation through Gabriel to Daniel. He says that “he” or “the prince that shall come” will confirm a covenant with many for one week. Contextually, this is the mention of the last week or week seventy, proclaimed by Gabriel. The referral to the prince that shall come is probably the most disputed point of the passage. But “he” refers to the last mentioned person which is the prince that shall come.
Prophecy #6

8. Gabriel tells Daniel that in this “one week” or seven years, at the middle of the week or 3.5 years, the prince that will come will put an end to all sacrifices and offerings.
Prophecy #7

9. Gabriel also shares with Daniel that the culmination of the evil deeds of the prince that will come will be to set up some sacrilegious object that “causes desecration” until the fate that God has decreed will be poured out on him.
Prophecy #8

10. Gabriel’s opening statement, (which we could have placed at the top of this, but which fits well here) indicated to Daniel that all of this prophetic revelation has to do with “thy people” and “thy holy city”. Who are Daniel’s people? The Jewish nation who has been delivered into captivity by God. What is the holy city? Jerusalem.
Prophecy #9

11. Gabriel then goes on to reveal to Daniel the fact that by the time that the seventy weeks are complete seven things will be accomplished. They are as follows:
a. to finish the transgression or rebellion or disobedience
b. to make an end of sins
c. to make reconciliation for iniquity
d. to bring in everlasting righteousness
e. to seal up the vision
f. to seal up the prophecy
g. to anoint a most holy place
Prophecy #10

After 7 weeks: Street and wall built in Jerusalem
After 7 + 62 weeks: Messiah is cut off
After 70 weeks: Completion of sin, rebellion, etc.

[keithareilly]

Good evening Ready1,

I appreciate many people ask these questions as a trap.
That is not my objective.
I have already read what you see.
What you see is not my question.
My question is Why do you see What you see.

You wrote ...

Why do I see the one week as a part of the seventy weeks when it is not explicitly stated? [Sarcasm on] Because Gabriel changed the topic and introduced another week based upon who knows what, to confuse the issue, to confuse Daniel. and to confuse all future readers. [Sarcasm off] NO! Because the seventy weeks are what Gabriel is talking about to Daniel and the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the final one week component of the seventy that he is finally getting around to describing.

Ignoring the sarcasm ... your response to the question, which I colored in blue, is still about what you see.
I am asking you Why that is what you see.


Let me try the question differently...
You have stated correctly there is no explicit statement about the one week of Daniel 9:27 being the 70th week.
I have said the 70th week is the week Christ was crucified.
You have said the 70th week is the week in Daniel 9:27.
We each have an opinion, a view, a conclusion, about something that is not stated explicitly in scripture.
Because I view the week Christ was crucified as part of the 70 weeks, I do not see the one week of Daniel 9:27 as part of the 70 weeks.
Because you see the one week of Daniel 9:27 as part of the 70 weeks, you do not see the week in which Christ was crucified as part of the 70 weeks.
This means we both agree that not each and every event mentioned in the verses 9:24-27 happens during the 70 weeks.
This prompts 2 questions: Which events happen during the seventy weeks and which events happen outside seventy weeks?

My question to you is ...
For each and every event/component listed in Daniel 9:24-27, how do you reason/evaluate if the event/component should be included in the 70 weeks or exclude from the 70 weeks? A subset of that question is: Specifically, how do you reason/evaluate the event/component: the one week of Daniel 9:27, as to be included as part of the 70 weeks?

Another way of asking the question is: What criteria must each event/component meet for you to included the event in the 70 weeks?

[Ready1]

Good evening Ready1,

I appreciate many people ask these questions as a trap.
That is not my objective.
I have already read what you see.
What you see is not my question.
My question is Why do you see What you see.

You wrote ...

Why do I see the one week as a part of the seventy weeks when it is not explicitly stated? [Sarcasm on] Because Gabriel changed the topic and introduced another week based upon who knows what, to confuse the issue, to confuse Daniel. and to confuse all future readers. [Sarcasm off] NO! Because the seventy weeks are what Gabriel is talking about to Daniel and the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the final one week component of the seventy that he is finally getting around to describing.

Ignoring the sarcasm ... your response to the question, which I colored in blue, is still about what you see.
I am asking you Why that is what you see.

I think that I would prefer to answer your question in a way that might satisfy you. Probably not.

While I am not what I would call a grammarian, I do try to follow the rules of grammar. And I try to understand scripture by following the rules of grammar; but when I do so, I cannot come remotely close to your position. You must have some other way to get to it than following specified grammatical understanding. I will try to show what I mean.

Here are two things which should be understood when we attempt to decipher meaning:

1) In grammar, an antecedent is an expression (word, phrase, clause, sentence, etc.) that gives its meaning to a proform (pronoun, pro-verb, pro-adverb, etc.). A proform takes its meaning from its antecedent; e.g., "John arrived late because traffic held him up." The pronoun him refers to and takes its meaning from John, so John is the antecedent of him. Proforms usually follow their antecedents, but sometimes they precede them, in which case one is, technically, dealing with postcedents instead of antecedents. The prefix ante- means "before" or "in front of", and post- means "after" or "behind". The term antecedent stems from traditional grammar.

So let’s look at an example in Daniel 9:22-23

2) For this passage we also need to understand that "Thee is a pronoun word meaning ‘you’, used when talking to only one person who is the object of the verb.

Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
Dan 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

Daniel is the antecedent, thee is the pronoun which refers back to the antecedent which gives it meaning. Therefore Gabriel says, Daniel, (antecedent) I have come to give thee (pronoun which refers back to antecedent Daniel) skill, …and I am come to shew thee (pronoun which refers back to same antecedent, Daniel) the matter and the vision. In both cases, "thee" refers to Daniel.

So let’s look at Daniel 9:26-27.

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Dan 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.

Messiah is cut off. Then there is a coming prince. (The coming prince is the antecedent) The coming prince has people. Those people shall destroy a city and a sanctuary mentioned earlier. And he (pronoun which refers back to the antecedent (prince) from which it takes its meaning) will confirm some kind of covenant for one week. In the middle of the week, he (pronoun which refers back to the antecedent (prince) from which it takes its meaning) will cause sacrifice and oblation to end. And he (pronoun which refers back to the antecedent (prince) from which it takes its meaning) will make it desolate. In three cases, the pronoun "he" refers back to the antecedent "prince that shall come".

So keithareilly, that is how I get there. The reason why I see things the way I do is that I try to follow rules of grammar which should help lead us all to a proper and common understanding of the passage in question.

And they do if we respect and follow them.

So how do you get there? What grammatical rules do you use? Why do you see what you see?

[keithareilly]

Hi Ready1,

Now that is fascinating and informative.

Am working overtime this week, so I do not have a lot of time, perhaps Friday evening I'll have a chance to respond.

Thank you very much for explaining. Very helpful.

Keith

[Ready1]

Have a good week.

[Exit40]

Gentlemen, I hope you don't mind my commenting at this point, as I believe we are on the cusp of understanding here. Let me say that in a more acceptable manner. As you may know I am convinced the Daniel 9:24-27 Prophecy is entirely Messianic. In that consideration let me explain why I believe the 'Prince who is to come' is actually Christ. Please go to this link to see the definitions of said Prince, the word used is Nagiyd.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 057&t=NKJV

There are a number of ways to use this word, these few passages that captured my attention referred in particular to my belief of Christ centered orientation. In 2 Chronicles 31:13 that same word Nagiyd is used to refer to Azariah as the 'Nagiyd'/Ruler, in this case of the House of God. In 1 Samuel 10:1 Samuel 'annoints' Saul with oil because the LORD has 'annointed' him to be Nagiyd/Captain over His inheritance, in this case 'comprehending even the royal dignity' of him becoming King of Israel. Further, in these explanations of the definition, expounding on the nobility and royalty, Nagiyd is referenced as 'the Annointed one, the Prince, Daniel 9:25'.

It may seem like I am cherry picking these few passages to fit my belief, but considering all the uses of the word Nagiyd they all can fit with the concept of being Christ centered throughout the Prophecy. Prefect, Leader, Captain, Royalty, King, is there any way these words would not describe our Christ ?

Consider, if the 70th week follows immediately after the 69th week uninterrupted, in my belief it begins with the Baptism of Jesus, His Annointing from God Himself, for the purpose of 'confirming the Covenant', according to the Law and Prophets. Christ's ministry is three and a half years long, ending at His crucifixion. Christ's sacrifice as the perfect Lamb of God is the what/'He' caused the ending of the Temple sacrifice and offering, there is no longer a need for them. This happens in the middle of the week, and begins the time period that separates the two halves of the 70th week. According to this belief, we are still in the midst of that week, with the remaining half of the week beginning at the AOD.

This belief isn't formed to fit any Rapture belief, there is no mention of it here in the Prophecy.

So the 'what' I believe is the Prophecy is entirely Messianc. The 'why' I believe this is it was 'revealed' to me as I debated Shorttrib from a belief the antichrist was the Prince who is to come, and the 'he' that would confirm the Covenant for the future 70th week. Upon this revelation I did a serious word for word study that confirmed to me the revelation. So much, and many, of our beliefs are centered around this very important Prophecy, it's no small wonder discussion has gone on for so long. I am really enjoying the manner of this discussion, and going so deep into our individual thought processes. I hope I can shed some light here or there, to help out.

God Bless

David

[shorttribber]

David

[Mark F]

Good evening Ready1,

I appreciate many people ask these questions as a trap.
That is not my objective.
I have already read what you see.
What you see is not my question.
My question is Why do you see What you see.

You wrote ...

Why do I see the one week as a part of the seventy weeks when it is not explicitly stated? [Sarcasm on] Because Gabriel changed the topic and introduced another week based upon who knows what, to confuse the issue, to confuse Daniel. and to confuse all future readers. [Sarcasm off] NO! Because the seventy weeks are what Gabriel is talking about to Daniel and the one week of Daniel 9:27 is the final one week component of the seventy that he is finally getting around to describing.

Ignoring the sarcasm ... your response to the question, which I colored in blue, is still about what you see.
I am asking you Why that is what you see.

I think that I would prefer to answer your question in a way that might satisfy you. Probably not.

While I am not what I would call a grammarian, I do try to follow the rules of grammar. And I try to understand scripture by following the rules of grammar; but when I do so, I cannot come remotely close to your position. You must have some other way to get to it than following specified grammatical understanding. I will try to show what I mean.

Here are two things which should be understood when we attempt to decipher meaning:

1) In grammar, an antecedent is an expression (word, phrase, clause, sentence, etc.) that gives its meaning to a proform (pronoun, pro-verb, pro-adverb, etc.). A proform takes its meaning from its antecedent; e.g., "John arrived late because traffic held him up." The pronoun him refers to and takes its meaning from John, so John is the antecedent of him. Proforms usually follow their antecedents, but sometimes they precede them, in which case one is, technically, dealing with postcedents instead of antecedents. The prefix ante- means "before" or "in front of", and post- means "after" or "behind". The term antecedent stems from traditional grammar.

So let’s look at an example in Daniel 9:22-23

2) For this passage we also need to understand that "Thee is a pronoun word meaning ‘you’, used when talking to only one person who is the object of the verb.

Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
Dan 9:23 At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

Daniel is the antecedent, thee is the pronoun which refers back to the antecedent which gives it meaning. Therefore Gabriel says, Daniel, (antecedent) I have come to give thee (pronoun which refers back to antecedent Daniel) skill, …and I am come to shew thee (pronoun which refers back to same antecedent, Daniel) the matter and the vision. In both cases, "thee" refers to Daniel.

So let’s look at Daniel 9:26-27.

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Dan 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.

Messiah is cut off. Then there is a coming prince. (The coming prince is the antecedent) The coming prince has people. Those people shall destroy a city and a sanctuary mentioned earlier. And he (pronoun which refers back to the antecedent (prince) from which it takes its meaning) will confirm some kind of covenant for one week. In the middle of the week, he (pronoun which refers back to the antecedent (prince) from which it takes its meaning) will cause sacrifice and oblation to end. And he (pronoun which refers back to the antecedent (prince) from which it takes its meaning) will make it desolate. In three cases, the pronoun "he" refers back to the antecedent "prince that shall come".

So keithareilly, that is how I get there. The reason why I see things the way I do is that I try to follow rules of grammar which should help lead us all to a proper and common understanding of the passage in question.

And they do if we respect and follow them.

So how do you get there? What grammatical rules do you use? Why do you see what you see?

Exactly, I couldn't have said it as well.

[keithareilly]

Good Evening Ready1,

We certainly perceive things differently, it never occurred to me someone would approach scripture in such a different fashion. It sheds a great deal of light on why it has been difficult for us to communicate not just about what we perceive, but what we mean when we say something. I went back and reread your initial post on this topic numerous times. I now wonder if what I am perceiving is what you are trying to communicate.

So, to answer your question about how I see things …

Daniel 9:24-27 NASB
24 “Seventy [a]weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to [b]finish the transgression, to [c]make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and [d]prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a [e]decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until [f]Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with [g]plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the [h]Messiah will be cut off and have [i]nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And [j]its end will come with a flood; even to the end [k]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 [l]abominations will come one who [m]makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who [n]makes desolate.”


I perceive Daniel 9:24-27 as a project with a schedule. It contains specific goals, resources, and deadlines for sub projects, as well as the entire project. One of the subprojects is what is done with resources essential to the project, after the project has been completed.

The minimum unit of measurement for time is “weekly”. If something takes more than a week to complete, it takes multiple weeks to complete, not a week and a day. If something takes less than a week to accomplish it is measured in one week. For the minimum unit of time is a week. Thus, the schedule is measure in weeks.

The purpose of the project is to accomplish the goals listed in Daniel 9:24. The limit of time imposed in to complete the objectives is 70 weeks. The schedule is imposed upon the holy people and holy city because the messiah is scheduled to arrive, and certain things must happen for the goals to be accomplished and the goals must be accomplished while the messiah is present. Daniel 9:24 is the overall project thesis. It specifies the objectives and the units of time allotted to complete the objectives.

One Subproject is rebuilding Jerusalem. At the time of the vision, Jerusalem had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Consequently, Jerusalem must be rebuilt because the holy city is a required resource to complete the objectives per verse 24. Verse 25 describes the subproject of rebuilding the city. The sub projects allotted time is measured in weeks, 7 weeks and 62 weeks.

The goals are accomplished by: the holy people and the holy city, and the messiah, when the messiah is cut-off.

Once the projects goals are accomplished, the resource, the Holy people and the Holy City, is no longer essential. The resource is destroyed through war. Because Jerusalem is destroyed, there is no longer the available resource of: the holy people united with the holy city. This is the one week of Daniel 9:27, a post project subproject. One of the indicators of the objectives listed in Daniel 9:24 being competed, is the destruction of a critical resources needed for the project, the holy city. Rebuild Jerusalem, use it to accomplish the objectives, then destroy Jerusalem.

So, that is how I see what I read. Pretty much the bible is phases of a long term project.
There are also fractal like breakdowns within the scripture. Some people call them shadows.


Thanks for your time. and may the lord bless you and your family.

Keith

[keithareilly]

Here is another example of project perspective.

Ephesians 1:4
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

Because Ephesian 1:4 describes these things as having been planned before the world was founded, the planning phase was completed prior to the world being created. The creation of the world is a phase of the overall project.


Genesis 2:15-17
15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

This project is not given a time schedule; it is event driven; like planting a garden and waiting for the fruit to ripen.
It describes the project phase before sin enters the word, how sin enters the world, the end of that phase, and the beginning of the phase of knowledge of good and evil.

The passage "in the day you eat from it" is an event in the overall plan marking the end of one phase and the beginning of another phase of the overall project the bible describes. Until this event, no sin, no death, no need for redemption. Since, redemption was planned, prior to the world being created, Adams sin is predestined, part of the plan. Notice it does not say "If you eat of it, then, you will surely die", there is no "if ... then", there is no option, it was going to happen.

There is no time schedule revealed for this event, which transitions from one phase to another phase of the overall plan, it is event driven, not time allotted.

Just because there is no time scheduled reveled does not mean there is no time schedule. Sometimes the schedule is not revealed and we have to go by observable events.

Mat 24:36-37
36“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37“For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.

[Mr Baldy]

The purpose of the project is to accomplish the goals listed in Daniel 9:24. The limit of time imposed in to complete the objectives is 70 weeks. The schedule is imposed upon the holy people and holy city because the messiah is scheduled to arrive, and certain things must happen for the goals to be accomplished and the goals must be accomplished while the messiah is present. Daniel 9:24 is the overall project thesis. It specifies the objectives and the units of time allotted to complete the objectives.

Hi Keith -

I hope you don't mind if I chime in here. I've read the comments in the post thus far - and I must say that I believe you really hit a home run with the aforementioned paragraph.

I'm not sure that we agree completely on Daniel 9:24-27 - but I most certainly believe that the time lime imposed to complete the objectives in Daniel 9:24 were accomplished in the 70th week - and FINISHED with the Ministry; Death; Burial; and Resurrection of Jesus. I have often referred to John 19:30 - when He said: "IT IS FINISHED."
ALL things had been accomplished at that point. Nothing remains left to be done.....NOTHING.

I know that you don't have any End Time Prophecy views - but I have never completely understood why most want to associate the 70th week to the Last Days. In Matthew 24:15 Jesus mentions the AOD and refers to what the prophet Daniel mentioned - perhaps this is the reason? But also in Matthew 24:15 - there is verbiage stating:
(let the reader understand)

Could this mean there are "multiple fulfilments" in what Daniel spoke about in mentioning the AOD? Could the possibility of "multiple fulfilments" be what Jesus meant when He referred the reader to the AOD the prophet Daniel spoke about?

Some see a split in Daniel 9:27 - two 3.5 year segments to total the final week. The first half being completed at the Crucifixion and the 2nd half to be completed sometime in the future. Some take Daniel 9:27 to mean that there is a remaining week (7 years) yet to be fulfilled. I disagree with both of these interpretations.

I further see absolutely no reason given or provided by Scripture that there is a so-called "gap" in time - and we have been in the "mist" of the 70th week since the Crucifixion - and I further see absolutely no Scriptural evidence to support that there remains a future 7 year period of time that is unfinished as it relates to the 70th week.

Both of these ideas take away from the straight forward reading of Scripture; require a great deal of "spiritualizing" Scripture; and have very frankly never made sense.

[Ready1]

Gentlemen, I hope you don't mind my commenting at this point, as I believe we are on the cusp of understanding here. Let me say that in a more acceptable manner. As you may know I am convinced the Daniel 9:24-27 Prophecy is entirely Messianic. In that consideration let me explain why I believe the 'Prince who is to come' is actually Christ. Please go to this link to see the definitions of said Prince, the word used is Nagiyd.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 057&t=NKJV

There are a number of ways to use this word, these few passages that captured my attention referred in particular to my belief of Christ centered orientation. In 2 Chronicles 31:13 that same word Nagiyd is used to refer to Azariah as the 'Nagiyd'/Ruler, in this case of the House of God. In 1 Samuel 10:1 Samuel 'annoints' Saul with oil because the LORD has 'annointed' him to be Nagiyd/Captain over His inheritance, in this case 'comprehending even the royal dignity' of him becoming King of Israel. Further, in these explanations of the definition, expounding on the nobility and royalty, Nagiyd is referenced as 'the Annointed one, the Prince, Daniel 9:25'.

It may seem like I am cherry picking these few passages to fit my belief, but considering all the uses of the word Nagiyd they all can fit with the concept of being Christ centered throughout the Prophecy. Prefect, Leader, Captain, Royalty, King, is there any way these words would not describe our Christ ?

Consider, if the 70th week follows immediately after the 69th week uninterrupted, in my belief it begins with the Baptism of Jesus, His Annointing from God Himself, for the purpose of 'confirming the Covenant', according to the Law and Prophets. Christ's ministry is three and a half years long, ending at His crucifixion. Christ's sacrifice as the perfect Lamb of God is the what/'He' caused the ending of the Temple sacrifice and offering, there is no longer a need for them. This happens in the middle of the week, and begins the time period that separates the two halves of the 70th week. According to this belief, we are still in the midst of that week, with the remaining half of the week beginning at the AOD.

This belief isn't formed to fit any Rapture belief, there is no mention of it here in the Prophecy.

So the 'what' I believe is the Prophecy is entirely Messianc. The 'why' I believe this is it was 'revealed' to me as I debated Shorttrib from a belief the antichrist was the Prince who is to come, and the 'he' that would confirm the Covenant for the future 70th week. Upon this revelation I did a serious word for word study that confirmed to me the revelation. So much, and many, of our beliefs are centered around this very important Prophecy, it's no small wonder discussion has gone on for so long. I am really enjoying the manner of this discussion, and going so deep into our individual thought processes. I hope I can shed some light here or there, to help out.

God Bless

David

Just a couple of comments:

1) For all your conclusions based upon the word Nagiyd, please do not forget that the Satanic precursor is referred to in the same "glowing terms" by this word in the following passage:

Eze 28:2  Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: 

2) Since it is very difficult to argue against a claim of divine revelation, please give chapter and verse (other than those in question) to support your claim that "the Prophecy is entirely Messianic."

[keithareilly]

Hi Ready 1,

In you initial post, you posted these.

7. Gabriel continues on with the culmination of his prophetic revelation started in the three preceding verses. It is all a part of Gods revelation through Gabriel to Daniel. He says that “he” or “the prince that shall come” will confirm a covenant with many for one week. Contextually, this is the mention of the last week or week seventy, proclaimed by Gabriel. The referral to the prince that shall come is probably the most disputed point of the passage. But “he” refers to the last mentioned person which is the prince that shall come.
Prophecy #6

8. Gabriel tells Daniel that in this “one week” or seven years, at the middle of the week or 3.5 years, the prince that will come will put an end to all sacrifices and offerings.
Prophecy #7

9. Gabriel also shares with Daniel that the culmination of the evil deeds of the prince that will come will be to set up some sacrilegious object that “causes desecration” until the fate that God has decreed will be poured out on him.
Prophecy #8

Historical, the sacrifices were stopped in 70AD, It occurred in the middle of the one week of the first Jewish Roman War which lasted 7 years. Titus destroyed the temple, certainly a desecration; he also had a love affair with Julia Berenice, daughter of King Herod Agrippa I. Titus died in 80Ad of fever, after having to deal with the eruption of Mt Vesuvius, and Rome burning.

It seems to me that these historical events fulfill these three things you mentioned.

Do you see that as fulfillment, if not, Why does it not qualify?

[Ready1]

Hi Ready 1,

In you initial post, you posted these.

7. Gabriel continues on with the culmination of his prophetic revelation started in the three preceding verses. It is all a part of Gods revelation through Gabriel to Daniel. He says that “he” or “the prince that shall come” will confirm a covenant with many for one week. Contextually, this is the mention of the last week or week seventy, proclaimed by Gabriel. The referral to the prince that shall come is probably the most disputed point of the passage. But “he” refers to the last mentioned person which is the prince that shall come.
Prophecy #6

8. Gabriel tells Daniel that in this “one week” or seven years, at the middle of the week or 3.5 years, the prince that will come will put an end to all sacrifices and offerings.
Prophecy #7

9. Gabriel also shares with Daniel that the culmination of the evil deeds of the prince that will come will be to set up some sacrilegious object that “causes desecration” until the fate that God has decreed will be poured out on him.
Prophecy #8

Historical, the sacrifices were stopped in 70AD, It occurred in the middle of the one week of the first Jewish Roman War which lasted 7 years. Titus destroyed the temple, certainly a desecration; he also had a love affair with Julia Berenice, daughter of King Herod Agrippa I. Titus died in 80Ad of fever, after having to deal with the eruption of Mt Vesuvius, and Rome burning.

It seems to me that these historical events fulfill these three things you mentioned.

Do you see that as fulfillment, if not, Why does it not qualify?

Hi keith,

I'm sorry your understanding is too different from the stated scripture for me to get to you.

Does similarity constitute fulfillment?

In your historical analysis, what was the covenant? When was it broken? When was the middle of the week? What was the abomination? The pig? Why in the 71st week (or the 75th week)? In your gap, who determines the gap? And if you believe like the others that this "Prophecy is entirely Messianic" why worry about any of these things? Just because these things happened and are similar to the prophecy, does that cause them to fulfill this prophecy?

Dan 9:24-27 is a comparison/contrast passage. It is not an “addendum to” passage. It compares the good vs the evil in just four verses.

Good:
1. Completion of seven wondrous things
2. The coming of Messiah the Prince
3. Street and wall rebuild in spite of oppression
4. While Messiah is cut off, it is not for his own evil
5, Overcome troublous times

Evil:
1. Confirmation of illicit covenant
2. The prince that shall come
3. Covenant broken
4. The people of the prince that shall come are destroyers.
5. Fate decreed poured out with war/desolation and an abomination

The God which I understand you to describe is imprecise and His timetable haphazard. The God of Daniel is precise to the day. You have said

The minimum unit of measurement for time is “weekly”. If something takes more than a week to complete, it takes multiple weeks to complete, not a week and a day. If something takes less than a week to accomplish it is measured in one week. For the minimum unit of time is a week. Thus, the schedule is measure in weeks.

While what you say is similar, it is very different.

Furthermore, the fulfillment that you see of Dan 9:24 is of men, while the fulfillment that I see of Daniel 9:24 is solely of God. You have given a job to men that no man other than the God/man could fulfill.

The limit of time imposed in to complete the objectives is 70 weeks. The schedule is imposed upon the holy people and holy city because the messiah is scheduled to arrive, and certain things must happen for the goals to be accomplished and the goals must be accomplished while the messiah is present. Daniel 9:24 is the overall project thesis. It specifies the objectives and the units of time allotted to complete the objectives.

What you have said is similar but it is very different.

You see more than 70 weeks in this passage, while Gabriel says there are 70 weeks determined on Daniels people and the holy city.

What you have said is similar but it is very different.

You say that Jesus died in the 70th week, then go on to describe things in a seven year period that you see as fulfillment of this passage that falls outside of the 70th week.

What you have said is similar but it is very different.

You say that Jesus died in the 70th week and Gabriel says he died after the 69th week.

What you have said is similar but it is very different.

It’s kind of like the God of creation vs the god of theistic evolution: The God of creation tells exactly what he did and the time frame in which he did it. It is spelled out precisely on a day-by-day basis. The god of theistic evolution started the ball rolling but he lied in the Bible about what he did and how he did it. It took however long it took, and death came before sin. We have a choice as to what we believe. I chose to believe the God of precision and might, of knowledge and power, of orderliness and accuracy; which is exactly what Gabriel describes.

You told me that you understood “what” I believed but you couldn’t discern “why” I believed it, and I gave you my grammatical reasons on the “why”. So why have you rejected and ignored the questions that you have asked me without giving some reasoning of “why” for yourself? Can you properly break down Dan 9:24-27 grammatically to get to what you are saying? I don’t think so. Until you can show some of these things, there is no reason to go further.

I think I understand what you are saying but I don't understand the "why"

[keithareilly]

OK.

It is clear we do not perceive things sufficiently similarly such that a fruitful discussion can progress.

I respect you and your faith.
May the Lord bless you and your family.

Keith

[Exit40]

Just a couple of comments:

1) For all your conclusions based upon the word Nagiyd, please do not forget that the Satanic precursor is referred to in the same "glowing terms" by this word in the following passage:

Eze 28:2  Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: 

Well, that's just one word, many conclusions can be drawn from it, as you point out. However, the 'prince of Tyrus was not anointed by God, as was Jesus, to fulfill this Prophecy. Law and Prophets all speak of/to Him, the Messiah.

Luke 4:18-21 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,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

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.

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

2) Since it is very difficult to argue against a claim of divine revelation, please give chapter and verse (other than those in question) to support your claim that "the Prophecy is entirely Messianic."

Boy, don't I know it. I spent a lot of time having to prove this to myself with Scripture, even though knowing it is there. Shorttrib has done an excellent job with this. I believe we can agree this Prophecy in Daniel 9 is directed at the Hebrew people and the Holy City Jerusalem. And yet somehow the gentiles, us, are included. How so ? Under the New Covenant we are part of the 'many' of 9:27 who believe and receive the Promise made to Abraham. But still the Jews are central, here on Earth. Dispersed in 70 AD, now returning, this is the explanation for the near 2000 year gap...

Exo 34:7 “keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation.”

Num 14:18 ‘The LORD is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.

These generations are within the seven days of creation, being the actual fifth and sixth days, with one day remaining, that of the return of Christ and the Last Day. Metaphorical of course, but even though, all at the exact moment of time planned by God, which is not known nor explained in Scriptures.

There are plenty more Scriptures, and I know you have plenty more too. Point being, this Prophecy is difficult to nail down as it seems there is a double meaning in here. I can see shadows, or types of this already fulfilled, such as the destruction of Jerusalem.

I'm pressed for time right now, hope to get back soon.

God Bless You

David

[Exit40]

Here is a parable that applies to this Prophecy.

Luke 13:6-9 ¶ He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:

And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Any speculation as to how it applies ?

God bless

David

[Ready1]

Just a couple of comments:

1) For all your conclusions based upon the word Nagiyd, please do not forget that the Satanic precursor is referred to in the same "glowing terms" by this word in the following passage:

Eze 28:2  Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: 

Well, that's just one word, many conclusions can be drawn from it, as you point out. However, the 'prince of Tyrus was not anointed by God, as was Jesus, to fulfill this Prophecy. Law and Prophets all speak of/to Him, the Messiah.

Luke 4:18-21 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,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

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.

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

2) Since it is very difficult to argue against a claim of divine revelation, please give chapter and verse (other than those in question) to support your claim that "the Prophecy is entirely Messianic."

Boy, don't I know it. I spent a lot of time having to prove this to myself with Scripture, even though knowing it is there. Shorttrib has done an excellent job with this. I believe we can agree this Prophecy in Daniel 9 is directed at the Hebrew people and the Holy City Jerusalem. And yet somehow the gentiles, us, are included. How so ? Under the New Covenant we are part of the 'many' of 9:27 who believe and receive the Promise made to Abraham. But still the Jews are central, here on Earth. Dispersed in 70 AD, now returning, this is the explanation for the near 2000 year gap...

Exo 34:7 “keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation.”

Num 14:18 ‘The LORD is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.

These generations are within the seven days of creation, being the actual fifth and sixth days, with one day remaining, that of the return of Christ and the Last Day. Metaphorical of course, but even though, all at the exact moment of time planned by God, which is not known nor explained in Scriptures.

There are plenty more Scriptures, and I know you have plenty more too. Point being, this Prophecy is difficult to nail down as it seems there is a double meaning in here. I can see shadows, or types of this already fulfilled, such as the destruction of Jerusalem.

I'm pressed for time right now, hope to get back soon.

God Bless You

David

I wasn't going to respond anymore but I can't let this go.

Well, that's just one word, many conclusions can be drawn from it, as you point out. However, the 'prince of Tyrus was not anointed by God, as was Jesus, to fulfill this Prophecy. Law and Prophets all speak of/to Him, the Messiah.

While that may be "just one word", it was the crux of your argument for what this passage meant. The other portion of your argument was that you had a revelation during a previous discussion. I asked for a chapter and verse which showed that revelation to be correct. I guess I am still asking for that.

I believe we can agree this Prophecy in Daniel 9 is directed at the Hebrew people and the Holy City Jerusalem. And yet somehow the gentiles, us, are included.

While I am certain that you believe what you have written, I see nothing in the text of Dan 9 which indicates that "gentiles, us, are included." I believe, again, that that is a conclusion based upon your viewpoint that the New Covenant fulfills Dan 9:24. That is not what Gabriel is talking about or revealing to Daniel.

But it is pointless to go over this.

[Loop]

While I am certain that you believe what you have written, I see nothing in the text of Dan 9 which indicates that "gentiles, us, are included." I believe, again, that that is a conclusion based upon your viewpoint that the New Covenant fulfills Dan 9:24. That is not what Gabriel is talking about or revealing to Daniel.

While this is not in the Book of Daniel...

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Would this not still be ...

[Ready1]

While I am certain that you believe what you have written, I see nothing in the text of Dan 9 which indicates that "gentiles, us, are included." I believe, again, that that is a conclusion based upon your viewpoint that the New Covenant fulfills Dan 9:24. That is not what Gabriel is talking about or revealing to Daniel.

While this is not in the Book of Daniel...

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Would this not still be ...

Hi Loop,

What I was trying to communicate, was the fact that when Daniel offered up his prayer to God, he asked for God to enlighten him regarding the seventy years that God had revealed to Jeremiah which dealt with the "desolations of Jerusalem." That's all.

(NLT)  Dan 9:2 During the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, learned from reading the word of the LORD, as revealed to Jeremiah the prophet, that Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years.

What Daniel got was a lot more information than he asked for, BUT God sent a messenger to tell Daniel about His dealing with two things.

1) Who did God send: Gabriel
2) Why did God send him? To give Daniel skill and understanding, and to shew him how to understand the matter, and consider the vision.
3) Why did God answer Daniel? He was greatly beloved.
4) Who did the matter and vision concern? (Daniel's) Thy people and thy holy city.

Dan 9:21  Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. 
Dan 9:22  And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. 
Dan 9:23  At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. 

This information is given prior to the vision itself. So if you can get gentiles out of this passage (which I understand, you did not) or see any way that it pertains to them, you see more than I do.

[Loop]

4) Who did the matter and vision concern? (Daniel's) Thy people and thy holy city.

I can understand what you are saying but …

When the multitude came out of Egypt it was a "mixed" multitude, God himself gave the command in Leviticus that the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you which would make them Daniel's people, where does it say that only the Jews were taken from Jerusalem , don't you think Jews and Gentiles were still co habituating in the Holy city.. and that both went into captivity, why would God who gave the commandment for the Gentiles to be included when they came out of Egypt at this time separate them..

Didn't the whole multitude cross the red sea? They also were at the foot of the Mountain and were still among them when they went into the wilderness.. anyway that was the way I always looked at it...God always included the Gentiles and meant for them to be as one of the people... He mentioned it in the both the Old and New ...

I mean, I look at all the people in the town where I live and I class them as my people even though we are not all kin and don't all believe the same way/things... ? Hope I explained that right..

[Exit40]

I wasn't going to respond anymore but I can't let this go....

While that may be "just one word", it was the crux of your argument for what this passage meant. The other portion of your argument was that you had a revelation during a previous discussion. I asked for a chapter and verse which showed that revelation to be correct. I guess I am still asking for that....

While I am certain that you believe what you have written, I see nothing in the text of Dan 9 which indicates that "gentiles, us, are included." I believe, again, that that is a conclusion based upon your viewpoint that the New Covenant fulfills Dan 9:24. That is not what Gabriel is talking about or revealing to Daniel....

But it is pointless to go over this.

Hi Ready1. Well, I was just getting started. Covenant is just one word too, yet that word becomes the basis of a full 70th week interpretation ? Would you agree that the Grace of God is found in 9:24 ? And therefore it is Christ centered ? And that this was completed Spiritually when crucified Christ entered the Heavenly Holy Temple ? And as the Covenant required Jesus to be sacrificed as the Lamb of God, His only begotten Son, can you see this as the confirmation of that Covenant ? Can you see the mystery of the Church, Jew and Gentile, the many, as revealed to Paul who expressed this in Ephesians ?

If you can 'see' any one of those questions above as a Truth, then it is not pointless to continue.

As with a full 70th week interpretation the Confirmation of the Covenant, age of Grace, or half week left to fulfill, there are many, many chapters and verses that need to be presented in order for the Revelation of the Truth to be known. But it seems the various interpretations get in the way of Truth, not saying 'my interpretation' is the correct one, it is just the one I believe through the many Scriptures available pointing to that.

Regardless Brother, I don't want to argue about this as I once did, that is pointless. I think maybe before too long, we will know the answer.

God Bless You

David

[Sonbeam]

...God always included the Gentiles and meant for them to be as one of the people... He mentioned it in the both the Old and New ...

Yes Loop,

And it started with Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., etc. All of them "gentiles," a translation of the Hebrew word gowy which means "nation or people," but used by bible translators to mean "non-Jew."

Rev 7:9
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

sonbeam

[Ready1]

4) Who did the matter and vision concern? (Daniel's) Thy people and thy holy city.

I can understand what you are saying but …

When the multitude came out of Egypt it was a "mixed" multitude, God himself gave the command in Leviticus that the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you which would make them Daniel's people, where does it say that only the Jews were taken from Jerusalem , don't you think Jews and Gentiles were still co habituating in the Holy city.. and that both went into captivity, why would God who gave the commandment for the Gentiles to be included when they came out of Egypt at this time separate them..

Didn't the whole multitude cross the red sea? They also were at the foot of the Mountain and were still among them when they went into the wilderness.. anyway that was the way I always looked at it...God always included the Gentiles and meant for them to be as one of the people... He mentioned it in the both the Old and New ...

I mean, I look at all the people in the town where I live and I class them as my people even though we are not all kin and don't all believe the same way/things... ? Hope I explained that right..

Hi Loop,

I agree with you that a “mixed multitude” came out of Egypt. We don’t know how many, but we know that they were there. Even from that time, “Salvation was of the Jew”. For a foreigner to be saved from the time that God called Abraham, by and large he had to join himself to the Jewish multitude and become a Jew. If he wanted to have the blessings of God, he needed to be a Jew because that is who God called to be His people. Heb 11:25

Please do not forget, though, that we are many years down the road from coming out of Egypt. And God has judged sin all along the way. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram with their wives and children were swallowed up by the earth for their sin, 250 of their followers were consumed by fire, and 14,700 of their sympathizers were killed by a plague on the same day. If Moses had not stood in the gap, the Lord would have destroyed them all.

Furthermore, please remember, for the sin of unbelief when they trusted the 10 spies rather than Joshua and Caleb at Kadesh-barnea, that God made them to wander in the wilderness for forty years so that ALL of the people over twenty years of age died in the wilderness. If the time frame in my Bible is even remotely correct, Joshua led the people of Israel across the Jordan River into the promised land in about 1451 BC. At this point, I don’t see a lot of “mixed multitude” because either they trusted God and became Jews younger than 20, or they had died as sinners in the wilderness along with everyone else.

Daniel, again if my Bible time frame is close, was taken into captivity in Babylon in 607 BC nearly 850 years after the children of Israel entered the promised land. Once again, Israel has been in the land for 850 year with a mandate from God to drive out the people who are living in the land. Why? Because God knew that we all have wayward hearts and that Israel would accept the God’s of the nations around them instead of trusting in Him alone. And that is exactly what happened. The nations around them took them into sin. And Daniel and his friends paid the price. According to Daniel, it was only the “cream of the crop” who even were taken to Babylon.

Dan 1:3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;
Dan 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

That’s who lived and was taken to Babylon. The rest were killed. God used Babylon to judge Israel.
So, again when Daniel asked God for insight about Jerusalem some fifty years after his capture, I see Jews who were fortunate enough to be alive in Babylon by virtue of the fact that someone had judged them to be “without blemish” (and their families). And I see their captors, the Babylonians.

I don’t see a “mixed multitude” to whom you can apply this passage.

But for argument sake, let’s say that there was a “mixed multitude”. Please remember that the only other place a “mixed multitude” is only mentioned is in Neh 13:3. So let’s look at the “mixed multitude” of Nehemiah. This time frame is post-Daniel and Nehemiah has a heart to return to Jerusalem, mobilize the remnant of Jews who were left there, and rebuild Jerusalem. He’s allowed to do so, they rebuild the wall, the City, and they have a public reading of the law. Then, their response to the non-Jewish comes.

Neh 9:2 And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.

Neh 10:28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;

Neh 13:1 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever;
Neh 13:2 Because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them: howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing.
Neh 13:3 Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.

According to Nehemiah the Jews separated themselves from the mixed multitude and had nothing to do with it. They recognized it as a bad thing, not a good thing. They recognized that the mixed multitude had taken them into sin and they wanted to separate themselves back to God.

Long story, short…I disagree with your analysis. God declared that to find favor with him, in that time frame, a man needed to be a Jew and worship him as such. And the Law made provision to bring non-Jewish outsiders into the nation and a way that they might become Jews and participate in God’s blessing. (e.g. Ruth)

When Gabriel said to Daniel "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city" he chose his words carefully because they were given to him by God, and he meant exactly what he said. Daniel's people were the Jews. Daniel's holy city was Jerusalem. No more, no less.

[Mr Baldy]

4) Who did the matter and vision concern? (Daniel's) Thy people and thy holy city.

Even from that time, “Salvation was of the Jew”. For a foreigner to be saved from the time that God called Abraham, by and large he had to join himself to the Jewish multitude and become a Jew. If he wanted to have the blessings of God, he needed to be a Jew because that is who God called to be His people.

When the multitude came out of Egypt it was a "mixed" multitude, God himself gave the command in Leviticus that the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you which would make them Daniel's people, where does it say that only the Jews were taken from Jerusalem , don't you think Jews and Gentiles were still co habituating in the Holy city.. and that both went into captivity, why would God who gave the commandment for the Gentiles to be included when they came out of Egypt at this time separate them..

Romans 2:28-29 - English Standard Version (ESV)

28) For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29) But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Galatians 3:7-9 - English Standard Version (ESV)

7) Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8) And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9) So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Galatians 3:14 - English Standard Version (ESV)

14) so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Galatians 3:27-29 - English Standard Version (ESV)

27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29) And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Romans 8:28-30 - English Standard Version (ESV)

28) And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

[Mr Baldy]

For those who have been following this thread - I'd like to make a recommendation. I ran across this book:

https://www.amazon.com/AD70-End-World-P ... 660&sr=1-1

Not sure I agree with everything Dr. Paul Ellis writes - but he sure does make a compelling arguments.

Would love to learn what those who are interested think; or arguments for or against what he documents about AD 70; and what appears to line up with the fulfilment of Bible Prophecy.

[shorttribber]

Simple yes or no question that only requires a yes or no answer Ready.

Was Jesus himself one of "Daniel's People"?

I'm feeling that you of course know the answer.

Just a simple yes in agreement is what I expect.

Also, it would seem odd to me that any of the Seed of Abraham should be excluded from the 70 week prophecy, especially since the prayer Daniel prayed was clearly asking God and reminding God himself of His Covenant to Abraham by Promise.

[keithareilly]

Daniel 9:24 describes what Jesus accomplished during his visitation.
None of these accomplishments would be possible without his death and resurrection.
Because Christ's death and resurrection was required to accomplish these objectives, the Crucifixion and resurrection had to take place during the prophesied time period, the 70 weeks per verse 9:24.
Since Daniel describes him being cut off after the first 69 weeks, he was not crucified during the first 69 weeks; he was crucified and resurrected in the only remaining week, the 70 week.
And since the crucifixion and resurrection are required to accomplish the objectives listed in verse 24, the time period in which Christ was Crucified must be a part of the 70 weeks but not during the first 69 weeks, the only period left is the 70th week.
This is why the 70th week is historical, not future.

Here is what Christ accomplished and why he came.

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

Many argue that "an end to sin" cannot have been accomplished because sin is still in this world.
Yet, there is evidence in the scripture "an end to sin" was accomplished.
To argue it was not accomplished is to say knowing the truth cannot set us free from sin during our life here on earth.
Yet, it is what Jesus said what knowing the truth would do for us.

John 8:31-32
31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”

34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave[b] to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

In the following verses we have historical evidence that people were slaves to sin; but, they had been set from from that enslavement to sin. Therefore, their lives actually experienced "an end to sin". They were no longer the sinners they once were. Consequently, their lives on this earth which experienced "an end to sin" is evidence Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled and is, even today, available to all who want it.

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
The "some of you" above experienced "an end to sin" in their lives. This is evidenced by the verse that says "And such were some of you". Because they "were" in the past, they were no longer at the time of the letter; therefore, they must have experienced "an end to sin" during their life time.

For those who do not want to "an end to sin"; we have this judgement which has and continues to occur.

John 3:18-21
18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

All the things Christ came to accomplish have been accomplished; including "an end to sin".
We have the records of the accomplishments, we have records of people who have experienced the benefits of what Christ accomplished. They experienced in this world, "an end to sin" during their lifetime.

The evidence it has been accomplished historically is available.
It is not some partially completed thing. I has been completed.
It is finished. And we can experience it here and now in this world.

So, Yes, I recognize the natural literal component.

Keith

Above is evidence from scripture "an end to sin" has bee available to believers.


2 Tim 3:1-5
3 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

During the end times, men behave as described above. Why? Because they deny the power made available to each of us through the completion of the goals of Daniel 9:24. They deny the power by failing to recognize the goals have been accomplished. Because they believe "an end to sin" has not been accomplished, they cannot experience or pursue "an end to sin", which, Christ said was available, and also was actually experienced by early believers.

Do not deny that the objectives of Daniel 9:24 have been accomplished. Recognize and Acknowledge that the power Christ made available to we believers, sets us free, granting us the power to overcome sin in our flesh through self control, and, thus, we no longer must be the men described in the verse above.

Keith

[Loop]

That’s who lived and was taken to Babylon. The rest were killed.

Ahhhh, so you believe everyone else other then the Kings children were killed... what about the ones that were left in the land... so no other were taken to other land but the kings children... I get where you are coming from..
But from history books I've read it was common for a conquering people to take the people from that land and move them somewhere else and put most of their people in the conquered land to take control... Thank you for explaining..

I thought I read somewhere the Kings son's were made eunuchs ...

[Ready1]

That’s who lived and was taken to Babylon. The rest were killed.

Ahhhh, so you believe everyone else other then the Kings children were killed... what about the ones that were left in the land... so no other were taken to other land but the kings children... I get where you are coming from..
But from history books I've read it was common for a conquering people to take the people from that land and move them somewhere else and put most of their people in the conquered land to take control... Thank you for explaining..

I thought I read somewhere the Kings son's were made eunuchs ...

I thought I recognized and covered that....

But for argument sake, let’s say that there was a “mixed multitude”. Please remember that the only other place a “mixed multitude” is only mentioned is in Neh 13:3. So let’s look at the “mixed multitude” of Nehemiah. This time frame is post-Daniel and Nehemiah has a heart to return to Jerusalem, mobilize the remnant of Jews who were left there, and rebuild Jerusalem. He’s allowed to do so, they rebuild the wall, the City, and they have a public reading of the law. Then, their response to the non-Jewish comes.

I probably should have phrased it "A majority of the rest were killed."...There does that feel better?

I have long suspected that Daniel was made a eunuch since he was in the care of Ashpenaz, the "master of eunuchs." It can't be proved but it makes for a good circumstantial case...

Dan 1:3  And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;

Dan 1:7  Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego. 
Dan 1:8  But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. 
Dan 1:9  Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. 
Dan 1:10  And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. 
Dan 1:11  Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 

Dan 1:18  Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. 

[Loop]

I probably should have phrased it "A majority of the rest were killed."...There does that feel better?

I have long suspected that Daniel was made a eunuch since he was in the care of Ashpenaz, the "master of eunuchs." It can't be proved but it makes for a good circumstantial case...

I'm not arguing truly... I'm finding this very interesting...

And I cannot remember where exactly I read about them all being made eunuchs "the kings children that is"...

[Ready1]

I probably should have phrased it "A majority of the rest were killed."...There does that feel better?

I have long suspected that Daniel was made a eunuch since he was in the care of Ashpenaz, the "master of eunuchs." It can't be proved but it makes for a good circumstantial case...

I'm not arguing truly... I'm finding this very interesting...

And I cannot remember where exactly I read about them all being made eunuchs "the kings children that is"...

They used to do other stuff as well....

Jdg 1:6  But Adonibezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. 
Jdg 1:7  And Adonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.