Daniel's 70th week

[Esaias]

Reposting this here, hoping to get some comments?

Originally Posted by Esaias

Note4: It is likely that when Jesus was baptised by John, he fulfilled much of the typology of the Day of Atonement. This by the way leads into the question of whether Jesus died in the middle of the seventieth week of Daniel, or at the end of the seventieth week. I am starting to see that Jesus did not die in the midst of the seventieth week, but that he was baptised in the midst of the seventieth week, thus (from God's perspective) ending all sacrifice and offering for sin, then completing the seventieth week with his death. I admit this is something I am not certain about, and may be a dead end rabbit trail, but I am currently looking into this to see where it goes.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by shag

Michael, do u have Luke 21:20 in the first century siege of Jerusalem, or still in our future?

I believe it is a repeating or dual prophecy. So it was but it will be.

If it was ONLY for the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century then I'm wondering what happened to the resurrection that was supposed to follow the tribulation?

[Michael The Disciple]

It would be very helpful if there was an accurate date for the STARTING POINT of the 70 weeks. I have not checked lately but as I recall there are varying opinions.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

This does not agree with Pauls doctrine of Christs coming.

Jesus in Matthew 24.29-31

29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Note Jesus said he will COME and GATHER TOGETHER his elect.

Now note what Paul taught about this same thing.

2 Thess. 2

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Note it is the EXACT WORDING that Jesus used in Matt. 24.

Why?

Paul is simply teaching the 2nd coming as revealed in the Matt 24 discourse.

Is Paul writing about the saints entering eternity here?

ABSOLUTELY!

Simply go back a few verses to chapter 1:7 where he is introducing the topic.

7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


So the context shows this IS written concerning concerning the gathering together of the saints INTO ETERNITY.

So Matt 24 is Pauls source for what he wrote to the Thessalonians.

Gathering together the elect is the antithesis of not gathering Jerusalem FROM destruction as a hen GATHERS her chicks. Compare with Matt 23 and its "gathering together" reference.

[mfblume]

Esaias, MARK AND LUKE compared with Matthew showing what I stated:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Everyone is familiar with the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS... Matthew, Mark and Luke. They carry for the the same stories, for the most part, during Jesus' time on earth, and simply rephrase the stories from how they personally knew about it and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 all relate the same conversation Jesus had with the disciples about the coming of the Lord.

Notice Matthew 24 says the "SIGN" the disciples asked about is the "coming" of the Lord and the end of the "age", whereas both Mark and Luke say the "SIGN" in the same conversation was of the destruction of the temple.

Mat 24:2-3 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Luke 21:6-7 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (7) And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Mark 13:2-4 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (3) And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, (4) Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

It’s the same conversation! Matthew records the same thought as Mark and Luke did, using different words. The manner in which we understand what the sign of the coming of the Lord in Matthew 24:3 is, is by realizing that same sign is noted in Luke as the sign when "these things" shall come to pass. What things? The stones of the temple being overthrown!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I believe it is a repeating or dual prophecy. So it was but it will be.

If it was ONLY for the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century then I'm wondering what happened to the resurrection that was supposed to follow the tribulation?

I do not believe in dual prophecies where both are fulfilled in the new covenant. I see no foundation for such a thought by way of plain example.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This does not follow. They weren't asking about when He would return after resurrecting, because they didn't have the concept in mind of His death and resurrection to begin with. But it does not follow from that fact that they couldn't be asking about what WE commonly think of as the second advent, or about some other type of coming.

Matthew's context in ch 24 regarding coming is solely judgment and that's the coming referred to in every case in Matt before chapter 24.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Matthew's context in ch 24 regarding coming is solely judgment and that's the coming referred to in every case in Matt before chapter 24.

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by Esaias

(cont.)

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
(Matthew 26:63-64)

The word "hereafter" is apo arti, and literally means "from now":

Jesus said to him, You said it. I tell you more. From this time you shall see the Son of Man sitting off the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven. Psa. 110:1; Dan. 7:13
(Literal Version, Matthew 26:64)

What's fascinating is the Literal Version actually references Daniel 7:13 here!

Anyway, Jesus told the priests gathered against Him that from that point on they would see Jesus at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
(Matthew 26:64 ESV)

So, from the time of His suffering and crucifixion they would see Him seated on the right hand of power and coming in/on (or with) the clouds of heaven. This does not seem to be talking about either a "second advent" or a "coming in judgment against Jerusalem" some 40 years later. This is talking about Messiah coming into His kingdom, just like Daniel 7:13 speaks about.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
(Matthew 16:28 KJV)

John Gill makes some interesting remarks on this verse:

till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom; which is not to be understood of his personal coming in his kingdom in the last day, when he will judge quick and dead; for it cannot be thought, that any then present should live to that time, but all tasted of death long before, as they have done; for the story of John's being alive, and to live till then, is fabulous, and grounded on a mistake which John himself has rectified at the close of his Gospel: nor of the glorious transfiguration of Christ, the account of which immediately follows; when he was seen by Peter, James, and John, persons now present; for that, at most, was but an emblem and a pledge of his future glory: rather, of the appearance of his kingdom, in greater glory and power, upon his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to heaven; when the Spirit was poured down in an extraordinary manner, and the Gospel was preached all over the world; was confirmed by signs and wonders, and made effectual to the conversion and salvation of many souls; which many then present lived to see, and were concerned in: though it seems chiefly to have regard to his coming, to show his regal power and authority in the destruction of the Jews; when those his enemies that would not he should reign over them, were ordered to be brought and slain before him; and this the Apostle John, for one, lived to be a witness of.

Gill of course does tie in the destruction of Jerusalem to it, but it is interesting that he also saw this as largely having to do with Christ coming into His kingdom. The entire period from His death and resurrection, through His ascension, through the outpouring of the Spirit, through the propagation of the gospel, through the conversion of the gentiles, all the way to the destruction of Jerusalem, all of it appears to be the evidences of Jesus Christ "coming" into His Kingdom, having been brought before the Ancient of Days and receiving the dominion and being seated at the right hand of power.

This may shed light on the "sign of the Son of man" appearing. The sign given to that generation was His death, burial, and resurrection. Every thing that happened after His resurrection was a vindication of His Messiahship. The destruction of Jerusalem for the sin of rejecting and killing the Messiah would be final proof or evidence of that "sign of Jonah", sealing the deal so to say. After the tribulation of those days everyone would see "the sign" - that is to say, everyone would then have ample proof that the resurrection of Christ was no fable cooked up by fanatical disciples but was in fact the Truth, as the words of the Prophet of all prophets came to pass.

So then, it seems that the coming in Matthew 24 (and the other passages we just looked at) seem to have reference not to a "coming back" or a "return" but to a coming into His kingdom and power and dominion as Messiah in fulfillment of the Son of Man prophecy in Daniel.

There are different types of "comings" used throughout Scripture, including within the Gospels. It is erroneous to lump all of them into one single event, as both preterism and futurism do (one puts them all into AD 70, the other puts them all into "the Second Advent".)

There is besides the coming in judgment against Jerusalem, the coming of Messiah into His Reign, which did not happen in AD 70, but began with His trial and execution, burial, resurrection, and established at His Ascension.

The Coming, and the SIGN of the Coming, are not the same exact thing. One testifies to the other. The former brings about the latter. The Coming of the Son of Man takes place, and then is demonstrated the Sign of His Coming. Remember, no sign would be given but that of Jonah. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the sign of His Messiahship, and the later destruction of Jerusalem is simply the CONFIRMATION OF THAT SIGN. Upon the destruction of Jerusalem, the world would see the SIGN OF THE ASCENSION OF JESUS CHRIST TO REIGN as being confirmed.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Incorrect.



There are different types of "comings" used throughout Scripture, including within the Gospels. It is erroneous to lump all of them into one single event, as both preterism and futurism do (one puts them all into AD 70, the other puts them all into "the Second Advent".)

There is besides the coming in judgment against Jerusalem, the coming of Messiah into His Reign, which did not happen in AD 70, but began with His trial and execution, burial, resurrection, and established at His Ascension.

The Coming, and the SIGN of the Coming, are not the same exact thing. One testifies to the other. The former brings about the latter. The Coming of the Son of Man takes place, and then is demonstrated the Sign of His Coming. Remember, no sign would be given but that of Jonah. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the sign of His Messiahship, and the later destruction of Jerusalem is simply the CONFIRMATION OF THAT SIGN. Upon the destruction of Jerusalem, the world would see the SIGN OF THE ASCENSION OF JESUS CHRIST TO REIGN as being confirmed.

The words spoke n to Caiaphas are speaking of judgment, as per Daniel 7.\.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The words spoke n to Caiaphas are speaking of judgment, as per Daniel 7.\.

Those words were in Matthew 26, which comes after 24. So aren't relevant to the issue of "all comings mentioned prior to ch 24." I did, however, include ch 16, which DOES indeed come before 24, and which is not about AD 70. Especially visible when it is then afterwards compared to ch 26 and taking notice of the temporal reference "from now on", which again is not AD 70. Also, Dan 7 is about Christ coming into His Kingdom, not AD 70. And finally, Matt 26 is no more about judgment in AD 70 than the fact Jesus came into this world "for judgment" has to do with AD 70.

The error here is like when a person sees that Jesus died on "a tree", then finds some reference to trees and assumes they speak of the same event.