Daniel's 70th week

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So is this the same abomination of desolation as in Daniel 11:30-31?

30For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. 31And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Or does this abomination of desolation fit better with Daniel 12:10:11

10Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. 11And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Or in your opinion are all three references to the abomination of desolation speaking of the same thing?

There would be many abominations Daniel 9 says. But we have to go to Jesus' word. He says Jerusalem surrounded by armies is related to the abomination of desolation Daniel referred to. And he tells believers.-- only in Jerusalem and Judea - - to flee when they see that sight. This they did in 66ad. They are to flee because then would be great tribulation. Not believers across the world to flee. Only those in Jerusalem and Judea were told to flee for impending great tribulation. This is Roman invasion in 66ad.

Daniel 11 contains notes of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Daniel 12 continues... And it's not clear as much as Christ's words are clear about Daniel's abomination of desolation in chapter 9.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Anyone?

Originally Posted by Esaias View Post

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.

It's common for people to say the Gentile Pentecost in Acts 10 took place "3.5 years after the Resurrection of Christ" but really there's no solid Biblical data on that. Also, nothing in the Seventy Weeks prophecy requires a Gentile conversion to take place within its time frame.

If Jesus was baptized in the midst of the last week, then His death and resurrection round out the last of the Sevens, and honestly that fits (theologically) much better than any other scenario I've heard.

The question then falls down to math, but that is complicated by some fuzziness on the start time, as well as some fuzziness concerning the calendar dates for Christ's life and ministry.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It's common for people to say the Gentile Pentecost in Acts 10 took place "3.5 years after the Resurrection of Christ" but really there's no solid Biblical data on that. Also, nothing in the Seventy Weeks prophecy requires a Gentile conversion to take place within its time frame.

If Jesus was baptized in the midst of the last week, then His death and resurrection round out the last of the Sevens, and honestly that fits (theologically) much better than any other scenario I've heard.

The question then falls down to math, but that is complicated by some fuzziness on the start time, as well as some fuzziness concerning the calendar dates for Christ's life and ministry.

It's not that the seventy weeks included Gentiles being saved. On the contrary, they can't during the seventy weeks.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's not that the seventy weeks included Gentiles being saved. On the contrary, they can't during the severity weeks.

I find nothing in Scripture that would suggest a Gentile "couldn't get saved during the Seventy Weeks". Sounds like dispensationalist error concerning the nature and purpose of the stated time frame.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I find nothing in Scripture that would suggest a Gentile "couldn't get saved during the Seventy Weeks". Sounds like dispensationalist error concerning the nature and purpose of the stated time frame.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The Seventy Weeks concern Judah and Jerusalem. This time frame is determined:

To finish the transgression and make an end of sins. To end Judah's transgression, by bringing it to its climax or "filling up the measure" (Matthew 23:32) and then solving or ending it (see Hebrews 9:26).

To make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness. To atone for lawlessness and bring the people back into a right relationship with God (Rom and 5:11, Hebrews 2:17), and to provide for genuine age-abiding righteousness and justification (Hebrews 5:9, Isaiah 45:17).

To seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. The prophecy would be largely not decipherable until after the Seventy Weeks have expired. Also, to "seal up" means to end or finish up a roll, to "stop", indicating the vision and prophecy concerning these things would take Seventy Weeks to come to an end, or that they would be accomplished by the end of the Seventy Weeks time period. The "most holy" is literally the Holy of Holies and refers to the inner sanctuary of the Temple. It being anointed refers to its purification and consecration for Divine use. This was done by Christ, the most holy was Heaven itself (see all of Hebrews ch 9, especially verse 24).

So the 6 things that the Seventy Weeks were appointed for are things that Christ accomplished in His life, death, and resurrection. If the Seventy Weeks extended an additional 3.5 years past His Ascension, it would imply the work of reconciliation, atonement, and redemption were not completed until some 3.5 years after the Ascension, which I don't think would make any sense at all.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by mfblume

There would be many abominations Daniel 9 says. But we have to go to Jesus' word. He says Jerusalem surrounded by armies is related to the abomination of desolation Daniel referred to. And he tells believers.-- only in Jerusalem and Judea - - to flee when they see that sight. This they did in 66ad. They are to flee because then would be great tribulation. Not believers across the world to flee. Only those in Jerusalem and Judea were told to flee for impending great tribulation. This is Roman invasion in 66ad.

Daniel 11 contains notes of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Daniel 12 continues... And it's not clear as much as Christ's words are clear about Daniel's abomination of desolation in chapter 9.

Does Jerusalem being surrounded by the Gentiles sound like this?

Daniel 11:44-45

44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. 45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

If chapter 11 which this is a part of was Antiochus how does that fit in starting with the very next verses?

Daniel 12:1-2

1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Was the time of Antiochus the greatest trouble/tribulation ever known to man? Was there a resurrection of the dead in his time?

And very importantly (to me) is there a GAP between the last verse of Daniel 11 between the first 2 verses of Daniel 12?

And.....I can agree with you that prophetic things are at times "not so clear".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Does Jerusalem being surrounded by the Gentiles sound like this?

Daniel 11:44-45

44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. 45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

If chapter 11 which this is a part of was Antiochus how does that fit in starting with the very next verses?

Daniel 12:1-2

1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Was the time of Antiochus the greatest trouble/tribulation ever known to man? Was there a resurrection of the dead in his time?

And very importantly (to me) is there a GAP between the last verse of Daniel 11 between the first 2 verses of Daniel 12?

And.....I can agree with you that prophetic things are at times "not so clear".

Chapter 11 details a king planting his tabernacle or pavilion between the seas in the glorious holy mountain. But he will come to his end, and not be helped. Chapter 12 says "at that time, Michael shall stand up" (which I think you and I would agree is Christ). I don't see this as having to be done "immediately" as in within the same year or so. A king is often used in prophecy (including Daniel) to mean not just a specific person who rules but a kingdom, government, or dynasty. So, if ch 11 is about Antiochus, it could be saying the Antiochene dynasty or rule is established in Judea, but would come to and end. And, in the time period that it comes to an end, Michael shows up (Christ "stands up" or comes on the scene to lead His people). This culminates in a great tribulation of horrific proportions, however all Judeans ordained to everlasting life will be delivered out of it. There is finally a promise given of the resurrection and judgment.

So the Antiochene rule of Judea continues until the Roman/Herodian rule, at which time Messiah shows up and does His thing. Then there is a great tribulation (as Rome destroys Jerusalem) but no Christians perish (because they are in the Book). The promise of resurrection and judgment is given as a hope of ultimate salvation and vindication of righteousness ("It will turn out fine in the End of all things, so no need to panic about what you witness happening").

This fits the pattern of prophecy in general throughout Scripture. There is no need to compress any of it into what we often think of as short, immediate time frames, in my opinion.Especially as there aren't really given any clear, unambiguous, specific time frames to begin with, here.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Chapter 11 details a king planting his tabernacle or pavilion between the seas in the glorious holy mountain. But he will come to his end, and not be helped. Chapter 12 says "at that time, Michael shall stand up" (which I think you and I would agree is Christ). I don't see this as having to be done "immediately" as in within the same year or so. A king is often used in prophecy (including Daniel) to mean not just a specific person who rules but a kingdom, government, or dynasty. So, if ch 11 is about Antiochus, it could be saying the Antiochene dynasty or rule is established in Judea, but would come to and end. And, in the time period that it comes to an end, Michael shows up (Christ "stands up" or comes on the scene to lead His people). This culminates in a great tribulation of horrific proportions, however all Judeans ordained to everlasting life will be delivered out of it. There is finally a promise given of the resurrection and judgment.

So the Antiochene rule of Judea continues until the Roman/Herodian rule, at which time Messiah shows up and does His thing. Then there is a great tribulation (as Rome destroys Jerusalem) but no Christians perish (because they are in the Book). The promise of resurrection and judgment is given as a hope of ultimate salvation and vindication of righteousness ("It will turn out fine in the End of all things, so no need to panic about what you witness happening").

This fits the pattern of prophecy in general throughout Scripture. There is no need to compress any of it into what we often think of as short, immediate time frames, in my opinion.Especially as there aren't really given any clear, unambiguous, specific time frames to begin with, here.

Michael is Jesus?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Michael is Jesus?

Most likely. Michael is He Who Is Like God. In Revelation He is the Head of the heavenly army of the saints. That would make Him equivalent to the Angel in Joshua 5:13-15 who brings the Sanctifying Presence of Jehovah. In other words, the Angel of the Presence, the Angel of Jehovah, which is the Old Testament designation for the LOGOS.

I assumed you understood this, since you are familiar with the truth that the Angel of the LORD is the Logos (Christ).

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Most likely. Michael is He Who Is Like God. In Revelation He is the Head of the heavenly army of the saints. That would make Him equivalent to the Angel in Joshua 5:13-15 who brings the Sanctifying Presence of Jehovah. In other words, the Angel of the Presence, the Angel of Jehovah, which is the Old Testament designation for the LOGOS.

I assumed you understood this, since you are familiar with the truth that the Angel of the LORD is the Logos (Christ).

supporting scripture please. Angel of Jehovah (Christ).

Michael=Jesus?