Contact The 70th Week Of Daniel Study Author

by David on June 7, 2016

If you have questions about a particular 70th Week Of Daniel 9 study, please read the related studies, as they might answer your question.

If you disagree with an explanation, please provide scriptural evidence for your position.

Just saying that you disagree, or that your Pastor or a top radio/TV preacher teaches differently, is not enough.

For we must rely on scripture and the historical fulfillment of prophecy, not on speculations that have no proof.

Enter your comments in the box below.

Thank you!

Mercy, peace, and love to you! 🙂

David Nikao

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }

Bruce Woodford February 13, 2018 at 4:26 pm

Hi David, I just have 3 questions:
(1) Why do you think the week (SHEBUAH) is 7 years in Daniel 9 when in every other place it is used in scripture it is a week of 7 days? When every other fulfilled prophecy of scripture which mentions a specific time period of known length (7 years, 40 years, 40 days etc) was fulfilled in exactly the same time period as it was prophesied, why should we believe that Dan9 is an exception to this rule (a week fulfilled in 7 years!)
(2) Why do you assume that the 70 weeks run concurrently (right after the other) when scripture divides them into 3 distinct periods? (7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week) Notice scripture never speaks of a period of 69 weeks!
(3) Why do you think the “many” are Jews when scripture does not say so?

A brother in Christ,
Bruce Woodford (Norwich, Ontario)

Reply

David February 13, 2018 at 6:29 pm

Hi Bruce. Great questions!

(1) The 70 week prophecy has a clear beginning, when the Jews were empowered to rebuild the temple and city, so it can’t point to 70 weeks, as it took 46 years to rebuild the temple, which shows that the 7 weeks that started the prophecy was pointing to 49 years. “Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?” John 2:20

(2) If a 70 week prophecy is not pointing to 70 consecutive weeks, then it makes no sense. Why would they be given a 70 week period that is not fulfilled in 70 weeks? How would they know when the promised Messiah would appear, if the 70 weeks aren’t consecutive?

The disciples knew the prophecy of the 70th week, as they were looking for the promised Messiah. “He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.” John 1:41

Messiah condemned the Jews because they did not know the time of His visitation, meaning they did not understand that He was the Messiah who appeared on time, in the 70th week of Daniel.

The prophecy points to a 7 week period, then a 62 week period; so by it saying that the Messiah would appear after the 62 week period, we can understand that it is saying after the 7 week and 62 week period, after 69 weeks, Messiah would appear.

It’s a 70 week prophecy that is broken down into time segments of 7, 62 and 1; to help Daniel and the Jews understand how it would be fulfilled.

(3) The prophecy was given to Daniel and His people. Who are Daniel’s people who are about to be released from captivity? The Jews. Who rejected Messiah and deliverer Him up to be killed? The Jews.

Who did the disciples preach to for the next 3 1/2 years after Messiah was killed? The Jews.

When you read the book of Acts, you see that 3,000 Jews believed in Messiah on the Feast of Pentecost. And you see that Jewish believers were added to the fellowship every day. So many Jews accepted Messiah, and were saved.

Who was desolated by the Romans (the ‘people of the prince’ of Daniel 9:26) in 70 A.D. The unbelieving Jews.

I hope that helps.

What are your answers to those three questions?

Your brother in the Messiah,
David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 14, 2018 at 7:20 pm

Hi David,
(1)Scripture never uses a word consistently in one way and then in a single instance change the meaning of the word to something vastly different to its consistent usage elsewhere! “Week” (SHEBUAH) is never defined in scripture as “7 years” nor is it ever defined or used as “7 of anything” but days! There are other words in scripture translated “seven” and used of a variety of different items, but SHEBUA is never used in that way. You claim the 7 weeks cannot be literal weeks of days because the temple took 46 years to build. So what? The prophecy of the 7 weeks says nothing at all about the building of the temple!!

(2)Your assumption that 7 weeks and 62 weeks equals a total elapsed time of 69 weeks is just that, an assumption not stated in scripture. We do know when the 7 weeks began and we know that at the end of the 62 weeks is the Messiah and at some time after the 62 weeks Messiah is cut off. Your theory that the 70 weeks are 490 years which were completed 3 1/2 years after the death of Christ does NOT explain how “the transgression is finished”, “the end of sin is made” and how everlasting righteousness is brought in.” Furthermore no one (not Robert Anderson nor anyone since) has been able to show conclusively that it was exactly 483 years from the commandment to restore Jerusalem to the death of Christ! R.A’s calculation in ‘The Coming Prince” are proven to be way off the mark and no one (at least as far as I know) has done any better! Can you? Your position would demand that there be exactly 483 years from the commandment to the BIRTH OF CHRIST. Can you verify this historically?

I don’t claim to understand all the expressions in Dan.9:24 but those events are prophesied to take place within 70 weeks (NOT 490 years!) ( those 70 weeks are divided into 3 separate periods, 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week (NOT 49 years, 434 years and 1 year!)

(3) I think you have assumed that the covenant of Dan.9:27 is the New Covenant. BUT that covenant did not begin until the death of Christ, NOT 3 1/2 years earlier! If I have read you wrong here, what covenant do you believe is confirmed in 9:27?You also claim that the “people of the prince that shall come” was the Romans but then contradict yourself by saying that the pronoun “he” of Dan.9:27 does not refer to the Prince of the people that shall come (which is the immediate antecedent noun of verse 26 to which the pronoun “he” must refer to. Rather you claim, contrary to all the laws of grammar that “he” of 9:27 refers all the way back to “Messiah the Prince” of verse 25! Your logic, your grammar and you assumptions just do not fit what scripture clearly affirms. Nor does anything in the context of Dan.9 demand that the “many” with whom the covenant is made must be Jews! The term “thy people” is used in Daniel to clearly designate Daniel’s people the Jews. But that expression is not used with reference to the covenant! It is simply “many”. If it was the Jews, why would it be just with “many” of them and not all?

I was raised with the 70 weeks are “weeks” of years theory, but it just does not fit scripture at all! There is no way that 483 years fit between the commandment and the birth of Christ OR the death of Christ! Or do you have info on this matter of which I am unaware?

Look forward to your reply.

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 14, 2018 at 8:03 pm

Hi Bruce, if you’re going to proclaim the 70 week prophecy is not pointing to 490 years, then please show me proof of how it was fulfilled in 70 weeks. When did the 70 week timeline begin and why did it start at that time?

How does that match up to Messiah appearing in the 70th week?

I’ll answer your questions when I get some more time, but I’m pretty busy right now.

Your brother in Messiah,
David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 14, 2018 at 8:22 pm

Hi David,
The 70 weeks began with the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. The Lord Jesus was cut off after the end of the 62 weeks and I don’t know of any historical event which fits the 70th week, so I believe it is yet future and will be a week of 7 days just as the scripture clearly teaches with the consistent usage of the word SHEBUAH.

Both the Books of Daniel and Revelation speak of 1260 days (not 3 1/2 years!) And there are two periods of 1260 days that are offset by exactly 3 1/2 days.

The two witnesses prophecy for 1260 days then are killed and their bodies lie in the street for 3 1/2 days and then in the same hour as a great earthquake, they are caught up to heaven.

Another period, the Great tribulation also runs for 1260 days but ends with the great earthquake so this period starts 3 1/2 days after the prophecy of the two witnesses begins!

I believe the great tribulation begins in the middle of the 70th week (seven days) and the prophecy of the two witnesses commences at the same time as the covenant that is confirmed for one week (7 days).

More food for thought?

Bruce

Reply

David February 15, 2018 at 4:08 pm

Hi Bruce. How would the Jews rebuild the temple and city in 69 weeks, which is 1 year and 4 months?

If Messiah died around 27 A.D., then projecting back 69 weeks, the 70 week prophecy started in 25 A.D.

The text says that the 70 week timeline starts when the command was given to rebuild the temple and city. So when was the command given in 25 A.D. and by who?

David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 15, 2018 at 6:25 pm

Hi David,
Contrary to your continued assumption, Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks has nothing to do with a rebuilding of the temple! Where do you get that in Daniel 9?

Your assumption that the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks run continuously and thus make a total time of 69 weeks is also an unsupported assumption which continues to hamper your thinking! The 70 weeks are divided into 3 separate periods and no theory put forth to date (to my knowledge at least) has been able to explain accurately the timeline of 70 continuous weeks or 70 continuous “periods of seven years”! It just does not fit with history! For your consideration….what was the date of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem? To that date add 483 years and what do you get? Add 7 more years and what do you get? It just does not fit with history!

It’s time we stopped saying “Seventy weeks are really 490 years.” and let scripture say exactly what it says….”Seventy weeks, 7 weeks, sixty two weeks and one week.” If there were really 70 weeks continuously without any interruption, there would not be any need to divide them into 7, 62 and 1! But failure to simply let scripture say what it says has resulted in all sorts of weird and wonderful “explanations” none of which can put scripture and history together accurately.

If I am wrong here, all you have to do is show the timeline from actual historical data. Robert Anderson tried to foist this view on the world and his explanation and calculations are so dishonest it is pathetic! Have you found some explanation better than his?

I am willing to be proven wrong and willing to fully accept an interpretation which honestly and accurately handles the relevant scriptures and historical data (without weird claims of 360 day “prophetic years”!)

Look forward to hearing how you have done this to your own satisfaction.

Your brother in Christ, Bruce

David February 15, 2018 at 8:23 pm

Bruce, here’s my explanation for the statements you made about the 1260 days in Revelation and Daniel, the great tribulation, and the Two Witnesses.

The 1,290 and 1335 days in Daniel 12 pointed to the desolation of the Jews from 66-70 A.D.; which fulfilled that the ‘people of the prince’, the Roman army who was sent by Messiah, to desolate the temple and city. Here’s that study. http://theolivetdiscourse.com/daniel-12-is-not-about-an-end-times-antichrist/

Messiah mentioned a time of great tribulation in His Olivet Discourse. That against points to the desolation of the Jews in that generation, just like He said. http://theolivetdiscourse.com/the-great-tribulation-of-matthew-24/

Here’s a study that addresses the other times of great tribulation to the martyrs of the Roman Emperors, and to the saints who were persecuted by the antichrist Popes of Rome. http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/times-of-great-tribulation-in-bible-prophecy/

The Two Witnesses are the Scriptures and the Saints, both of which testified against the antichrist Popes of Rome during their 1,260 year reign of power, from 538-1798 A.D. The Popes banned and burned the Scriptures and caused over 50 million saints to be killed. Here’s the Two Witnesses study http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/the-two-witnesses-of-revelation-11/

So the prophecies that pointed to ‘great tribulation’ and to ‘1,260 days’, have already been fulfilled. They are not yet future, so they don’t substantiate a future 70th week of Daniel.

I’m sure that you will object to all of that, but the studies prove it out.

Blessings to you,
David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 16, 2018 at 7:45 pm

Hi David,
(First of all please excuse my comments on another thread which I mistakenly thought was this one and thought these comments had been deleted!)

Secondly, I’m glad you are at least willing to revisit the matter of dates and decrees etc.
But I am really baffled why you believe the Lord Jesus ministry commenced after the 69 weeks when scripture simply says he is cut off after the end of the 62 weeks. Can you explain why you say this?

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 16, 2018 at 7:58 pm

Hi Bruce, I believe that the 70 weeks are broken down into three consecutive sections of 7 weeks (sevens); 62 weeks (sevens); and 1 week (seven).

The text declares that Messiah would appear AFTER the 62 week time period, which follows the 7 week time period; so that is 69 weeks.

There’s only one week left in the prophecy, so it’s obvious that 69 weeks have passed.

Messiah did not just show up and die in one day. The Gospels declare that several different Passover days occurred during His ministry.

The text declares that He would be ‘cut off’ in the midst of the week, so halfway through.

The website explains all of this, along with how the last half of the 70th week was fulfilled.

Your brother in Messiah,
David

Reply

Rick Neubrander February 20, 2018 at 4:22 pm

Daniel 9:25-26
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah THE PRINCE shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

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.

Who is this “prince who is to come” and who are his people? There seem to be three main views: 1) The people are the Romans and the prince is Titus; 2) The prince is the future Antichrist and the people will be his wicked followers; 3) The people are the Jews and the prince is Jesus Christ. Which of these views is correct?

Historicists in general have traditionally taught that the prince was Titus and the people of the prince were the Romans who attacked and destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70 A. D. Though this view is tempting, it does not really fit the literary structure of Daniel 9:24-27. Notice the following structural consideration:

Messiah (verse 25) Prince
+ +
Messiah (verse 26) Prince

There is no reason to believe that the Messiah the Prince of verse 25 is not the same Messiah and Prince of verse 26. In fact, the reference to Messiah and Prince in verse 26 provides a literary balance with the reference to Messiah the Prince in verse 25.

Another problem with the view that the prince is Titus and the people are the Romans is the fact that it is incongruous with the three personal pronouns in verse 27. In verse 27 we are told: “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. . . .” The context clearly indicates that the three “hes” of verse 27 are the same as the “he” of verse 26. In other words the prince of the people of verse 26 is the same person who confirms the covenant for one week, causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease and makes the city and sanctuary desolate.

It is true that Titus literally caused the sacrificial system to come to an end when he and his armies destroyed the Jerusalem temple. But it is not true that Titus made a strong covenant with Israel for one week. Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally believed that it was Jesus who brought the sacrificial system to an end when he died on the cross (as we shall see later, this view is corroborated by Matthew 27:51 as well as the book of Hebrews).

It is clear that the antecedent to all three “hes” in verse 27 is the prince of verse 26. Let us put it this way: “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. . . . and he [the prince] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he [the prince] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and for the overspreading of abominations he [the prince] shall make desolate. . . .”

Of course, if the prince of verse 26 is Jesus, then the people of the prince must be the Jews (remember that the word “people” throughout Daniel 9 always denotes Israel–see verses 15, 16, 19, 20, 24). The million dollar question then becomes: Did the Jews destroy their own city and sanctuary? At first sight this possibility would seem absurd. The Jews did not destroy their own city and sanctuary (Titus and the Romans did!!), or did they? In order to answer this question we must take a look at the reason for the first destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

Who destroyed Jerusalem the first time? Was it God or Nebuchadnezzar or Israel? Daniel 9:14 explicitly states that God destroyed Jerusalem. II Chronicles 36:17-20 states that Nebuchadnezzar (whom God calls “my servant”–Jeremiah 27:6) destroyed the city and the temple. But Daniel 9:11, 14, 15 explains that Israel’s sins brought about the destruction of the city and the temple. In fact, the prophet Jeremiah told Israel: If you do not submit to the king of Babylon “thou shalt cause this city to be burned with fire.” (Jeremiah 38:23; notice also verses 17-18). We can put it this way: Because of Israel’s sins, God employed His servant Nebuchadnezzar to destroy the city and the temple. But God would not have used Nebuchanezzar to destroy had it not been for the sins of the people. In other words, Israel, because of her own sinful choices, brought destruction upon herself. Now let’s take a look at the second destruction of Jerusalem.

One thing becomes absolutely clear in Daniel 9 and it is this: The destiny of Jerusalem is inseparably linked with what happened to Messiah the Prince. Twice in the literary structure what happened to the Messiah is followed by the destruction of Jerusalem. In verse 26, after Messiah was cut off, Jerusalem was destroyed. And in verse 27, Jerusalem was destroyed after the Prince caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease! The critical question at this juncture is, does the New Testament shed any light on how the destiny of the Messiah is linked to the fate of the second city and temple? The answer is a resounding yes!

On the Sunday before the crucifixion, Jesus entered Jerusalem triumphantly on a donkey. At the conclusion of this majestic event, Jesus entered the temple and cast out the money changers. At this point the temple was referred to by Matthew as the “temple of God” and Jesus called it “My house” (Matthew 21:12-13). Jesus then told a series of parables in which He underlined that the Jewish nation was about to make the terrible mistake of rejecting him (see, for example, Matthew 21:33-45; 22:1-14; 23:29-39).

Of particular significance is the parable of Matthew 21:33-44 where Jesus reviewed the history of Israel in five stages:

Stage # 1: God sent servants to Israel to gather fruit in harvest season but Israel rejected God’s messengers (verses 34-35).
Stage # 2: God then sent more servants and Israel did the same with them (verse 36).
Stage # 3: God then sent them His own Son and they killed Him (verses 37-39).
Stage # 4: The wicked men who killed the Son were destroyed (verse 41)
Stage # 5: The kingdom was taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles (verse 43; Acts 13:46-47).

These five stages of Israel’s history as described in Matthew 21:33-44 parallel very closely the same stages of Israel’s history as described in Daniel 9:24

Stage # 1: After God released Israel from Egypt, he sent them messengers but they mocked and rejected them (Daniel 9:6; II Chronicles 36:15, 16)
Stage # 2: After the Babylonian captivity God gave Israel another chance. The city and temple were rebuilt and God gave Israel another opportunity to bear fruit (Daniel 9:24). In order to help, God sent Israel many messengers: Haggai, Zechariah, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. But they rejected these messengers as well.
Stage # 3: At the very end of the seventy weeks, God even sent Messiah the Prince; but instead of receiving Him, they cut Him off (Daniel 9:26).
Stage # 4: As a result Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman armies (Daniel 9:26-27).
Stage # 5: The Gentiles now became God’s new nation (this is implicit in the fact that probation was to last only 70 weeks for the Jewish nation. We shall also find that when Stephen was stoned, the theocracy came to an end and the gospel went to the Gentiles).

The striking parallel between Daniel 9:26-27 and Matthew 21:33-44 clearly reveals that the rejection of the Son by Israel resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the in grafting of the Gentiles as God’s chosen nation. When Jesus left the temple He pronounced the ominous words: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matthew 23:38). Two words immediately arrest our attention. First of all, the temple was no longer the “temple of God.” Jesus now referred to it as “your house.” Secondly, notice the key word, “desolate.” This is the very word which is used in Daniel 9 to describe the fate of Jerusalem. Three times we are told there that Jerusalem would be left desolate (verses 26, 27). Significantly, as soon as Jesus pronounced these chilling words, He left the temple and spoke about the destruction of the city and the temple (Matthew 24:1-3). Certainly no one can miss the connection between the rejection of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem! Only a willful and unexplainable blindness could fail to see how the rejection of Messiah the Prince led to the destruction of the city and temple!!

This link can also be discerned in Luke 19:41-44: “And when he was come near, he beheld the city and wept over it, saying: ‘If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knowest not the time of thy visitation.” Can there be any doubt in this passage that the fate of Jerusalem is linked with the rejection of the Messiah? (For further information on the role the Jews played in the death of the Messiah, see, Acts 3:14, 15; 7:52; Acts 2:22, 23).

To end this section, I would like to make a few remarks about the parable of Matthew 22 because it explains why Jerusalem was destroyed the second time. Like in the parable of Matthew 21:33-46 God sent servants to Israel in order to prepare them for the marriage of his son (verses 2-3). This stage represents the Old Testament period when God sent prophets to prepare Israel for the coming of the Messiah. These messages were rejected. Then, after Christ was sacrificed (verse 4), further servants (Peter, Stephen, Paul, etc.) were sent to the same people (Israel) but these messages were also rejected (verses 5-6). In verse 7 we are told the king’s reaction: “But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth; and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” Notice how three ideas coalesce in this verse. God used the Roman armies (spoken of as his armies) to destroy those murderers and to burn their city. Once again we clearly see that the people, by rejecting the Messiah, brought destruction upon their own city (see also, Hosea 13:9). Though the destruction was carried out by God through the instrumentality of Titus and the Roman armies, it was the choice of the Jewish nation which really determined its fate.

Reply

anna schreiter December 19, 2018 at 2:21 am

Hi David, I have a question. What is up with Ezekiels vision in Ezekiel 40-47 of this future temple. If Jews are not supposed to be in Israel and it is run by zionist. I am confused on this. Can you shed some light.
Thanks!
Peace and blessings,
Anna

Reply

David December 19, 2018 at 2:52 am

Hi Anna, that’s a great question. Some say that when the Jews were released from Babylon, they should have followed the designs for the temple that Ezekiel laid out. Others say that it’s a symbolic vision of the temple, which points to the temple made without hands; of which Messiah is the cornerstone, the disciples are the foundation and the saints are the little stones which make up the walls.

Either way, I don’t see that it’s pointing to the modern day Jews in Israel building the temple that’s described in Ezekiel.

Peace and blessings to you,
David

Reply

RALPH WOODROW March 7, 2018 at 7:15 pm

Hi David,

Brandon Hawes in Fresno, California, phoned to tell me about your website. Lots of material on the 70 weeks! Thank you for mentioning favorably my book GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE. God bless.

Ralph

Reply

David March 7, 2018 at 8:17 pm

Hi Ralph! Thank you for your comment! I was truly blessed by your book, as it confirmed the truths about prophecy fulfillment that I had been shown.

We are like-minded, as we understand that the 70th week of Daniel is the foundation of the enemy’s false, futuristic prophecy fulfillment explanations.

We understand that most of Revelation has already been fulfilled during the last 1,900 years; as Satan has used the Roman beast to fight against Messiah and His saints. Here’s my Revelation Timeline Decoded website, which shows what has been fulfilled, where we are at now on the timeline, and what will happen next as we await Messiah’s glorious return. http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com

And we both provide concise, logical explanations. 🙂

May God bless you richly is these exciting end times!
David

Reply

Anne June 23, 2018 at 5:51 pm

When I was doing deep Bible study/research, I found your site by accident about 1-2 years ago. It has really assisted me. I came across another site by chance, and saw a video on Daniels prophecy. You are such a researcher that you may have already seen it. But its located at sitedmoon.com. In the video section – Daniels prophecy. You can’t miss it. Just sharing. I enjoy your research. Thank you

Reply

David June 23, 2018 at 7:35 pm

I dare say Anne, that since you are looking for truth, that you were led by the Spirit to the websites 🙂 I’ll look for the SightedMoon video, thanks!

Reply

David February 15, 2018 at 6:48 pm

Bruce, for arguments sake, let’s remove the need to rebuild the temple. You still have not explained how the 69 weeks lines up with Messiah appearing. When did the 70 week prophecy start? And what signaled the start?

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 15, 2018 at 6:59 pm

Hi David,
I don’t think there is any question about that, brother. Cyrus’ decree to rebuild the city starts the first seven weeks. Notice, scripture does not tell us when the 62 weeks start. It just tells us what happens after they are finished, Messiah is cut off. Nor does scripture tell us when the last week starts.

I would still like to hear how 70 continuous “weeks” of seven years fits between Cyrus’ decree and 3 1/2 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Can you explain that?

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 15, 2018 at 7:11 pm

Hi Bruce,
So you’re saying that the 7 weeks was started by Cyrus decree. And then the 62 weeks was fulfilled before Messiah appeared around 27 A.D.? And that the 70th week has not been fulfilled yet?

So that means that there are time gaps in between the 7 weeks and 62 weeks; and in between the 62 weeks and 1 week? Is that accurate?

David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 15, 2018 at 7:34 pm

Hi David, Yes, you have understood me correctly. Just let me clarify that scripture says that Messiah was cut off (not “appeared”) after the 62 weeks.

I am still waiting for your timeline from Cyrus’ decree to the end of your 70 “weeks” of seven years.

Your brother in Christ, Bruce

Reply

David February 15, 2018 at 8:11 pm

Hi Bruce. Thanks, I now understand how you see the prophecy being fulfilled.

That said, why would the Father give a 70 week prophecy, if it’s not fulfilled in 70 consecutive weeks? That makes no sense!

Why define a 62 week period, when there is no clear time that the 62 weeks starts, in order to know when the promised Messiah would appear?

When the 7 and 62 weeks are consecutive, and we know the starting point, then we know when Messiah was supposed to appear.

Dan 9:25 tells us that Messiah would appear after the 7 weeks and 62 weeks, meaning after the 69 week. “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 Hebrew word for week is ‘shabuwa’; which means seven or week; so 70 sevens is 490.

“Seventy sevens are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city.”

I believe that it was the third command, the one by Artaxerxes, that started the 70 week prophecy; as do the great theologians, such as Adam Clarke and John Gill. http://70thweekofdaniel.com/?s=Artaxerxes

That happened in 457 B.C., so subtract 483 years (7 + 62 sevens) and the 69 weeks are complete in 27 A.D.. After the 69th week, meaning in the 70th week, Messiah started His ministry when He was baptized and when He read the passage in Isaiah and proclaimed that it was being fulfilled.

Messiah and His disciples ‘confirmed’ with the Jews that He is the promised Messiah who came to ratify the ‘everlasting covenant’ with His blood as the Passover Lamb. They confirmed this for seven years, from 27-34 A.D., as they only preached the Gospel to the Jews.

Then after the 70th week was over, Acts shows a clear change, as the early church was scattered after Stephen was stoned to death, and they preached the Gospel to the gentile nations too.

So it’s not a new covenant, it’s the renewed covenant, the one that was made with Abraham. When Abraham was tested with sacrificing His Son, he said that Elohim would provide a lamb; and indeed He did, in Messiah, in the 70th week of Daniel.

Messiah was indeed ‘cut off’ after the 62nd week. And what is after the 69 (7+62) weeks? The 70th week. Daniel 9:27 declares that in the middle of the seven, He, Messiah, would end the need for temple sacrifices.

And is that not exactly what Messiah’s death did? Is that not why the Father tore the temple curtain in two? To proclaim that temple sacrifices were no longer necessary?

I’ll have to update the cite, as I think that the Geneva Bible study notes point to Cyrus instead.

I hope that provides clarity.
David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 16, 2018 at 5:50 pm

Hi David,
Yes, this provides a lot of clarity! It also shows the false assumptions upon which your position is based:
(1) You assume that the 70 weeks prophecy was given to prophecy when the promised Messiah would appear but this is not the case at all! Dan 9 says not a word about the appearance of the Messiah. What it references is his cutting off!
(2) Re the word SHABUAH…. it is always “week” except one instance where it is “seven” which designates “seven days”. It is NEVER used as the numeral “seven” for anything but days! Other similar Hebrew words are used as the numeral “seven” for a wide variety of different units. But SHEBUAH IS NEVER USED IN SUCH A WAY!
(3)Re the decree of Artaxerxes, is this found in scripture? What exactly did he decree? How is the date determined? Or was this event chosen simply because it was a closer date than Robert Anderson suggested and “more in the ball park” to maintain a traditional view of the prophecy?
(4) If the decree took place at the beginning of BC 457 then 483 years brings us to the beginning of AD26! If it took place at the end of BC457 then 483 years brings us to the end of AD 26 NOT AD 27. So 7 years later would be no later than the end of AD 33. Thus the crucifixion of Christ (if it happened in the midst of the week or seven years could not have taken place after the middle of AD30! Further, how do the 4 years difference between the supposed dates of the Lord Jesus actual birth fit into this calculation? (Was he born in 0 AD or 4AD?)
(5) Who confirmed the covenant? Grammatically in Dan 9 you have not answered the point that the immediately preceding noun to which “he” (verse 27) must refer back to is “the prince” of the people that shall come to destroy the city of verse 26. But to make it fit your theory, you must override the laws of grammar and make it refer back to “Messiah the Prince” of verse 25!!!
(6) Re your theory that the “covenant” which is confirmed is the Abrahamic covenant… this is foolish as that covenant had been confirmed centuries before! Why does a divinely made covenant which has been in force for centuries EVER NEED TO BE “RECONFIRMED”???
(7) You claim that the covenant made “with many” was made “with the Jews”! But if the covenant in question is the Abrahamic covenant, this is NOT TRUE! It was made with the seed of Abraham which includes all that are in Christ! See Galatians 3:27-29.
(8) You claim that the Messiah, in the midst of the seven, would end the need for the temple sacrifices. Rather it speaks of the prince of the people that shall come to destroy the city and the sanctuary shall confirm the covenant and cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

It is true, Jesus death at Calvary ended the NEED for sacrifices. But Dan 9 does not talk about the NEED, but rather the actual cessation of the sacrifice and oblation! The veil was patched back up and the sacrifices continued in the temple for decades after Calvary!

Brother, these are just a few of the many seemingly impossible problems that I have with accepting your traditional view of Daniel’s 70 weeks. So far you have not answered any of them but the difficulties with your position only seem to increase.
Am I missing something crucial here? OR is your view simply not a scriptural doctrine at all?

I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong with clear scriptural evidence. If evidence can be given and my objections answered with scripture, I will change my mind and do it publicly. Hope you can help me further if the traditional view actually is the sound and Biblical one.

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 16, 2018 at 6:09 pm

Hi Bruce,

You have rejected everything that I’ve said, and have not conceded one point; so it’s obvious that you have nothing to learn from me, and there really is no point in me continuing this discussion.

You have the studies on this website, which give my best explanation. Do I know everything? No! Is there enough evidence to prove out that the 70 weeks were fulfilled in the 490 years, and culminated in the appearance of the promised Messiah, who ratified the everlasting covenant with His blood as the Passover Lamb? Yes!

I pray that you will continue to pursue the truth about the 70 weeks of Daniel.

Your brother in Messiah,
David

BTW, there is no year 0, so 457 B.C. – 483 years = 27 A.D.

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 16, 2018 at 6:58 pm

Hi David,
I have not rejected what you have said just to be troublesome or rebellious! I have just compared what you have said with what scripture says and it doesn’t add up. That is why I have not conceded one point.

Rather than call an end to this discussion, why not clearly answer each one of my objections OR concede that they may be problems with your theory. If , in fact, they are…. maybe you should take a second look at the whole superstructure of false assumptions which have been used to build this “house of cards”.

Re the calendar issue…. BC and AD were not used till sometime after Christ. So don’t we need to base our dating of events by the calendars that were in use “BC”?

Further your claim that Artaxerxes decree in Ezra 7 is the one mentioned in Daniel 9 just is not true! That decree had everything to do with the temple, but nothing to do with the walls of the city! So what happens to your timeline now?

David, would you be willing to step back, set aside all the commentaries and commentators and start a fresh a study of this whole topic from a purely Biblical view. By that I mean (1) doing word studies of how Biblical words are used by the Holy Spirit in scripture rather than letting commentators tell you what words “mean”, (2) observe how all Biblical prophecies which have been fulfilled are worded, and how they are fulfilled…in the very same units of time as they were originally prophesied, and (3) carefully avoid inserting time periods such as “seven years”, “three and a half years”, “sixty nine weeks” etc into scripture when such are absent from scripture. Just use the precise terms that the Holy Spirit has used when you seek to explain scripture. Twelve hundred and sixty days is close to three and a half years but not quite! So if scripture says 1260 days, just agree with scripture. When scripture speaks of weeks just let scripture say what it says!

You will be amazed at what you will learn if you allow the scriptures to actually be your only and final authority! I highly commend them to you for your own consideration.

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 17, 2018 at 4:26 pm

Hi David,
Yes I see what you mean on 27 AD. (If one subtracts 1 year from 457 it is 456. If one subtracts 457 from 457BC it is 1AD. Thus 483 from 457BC is 27AD. You are right and I concede this readily.
Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 16, 2018 at 7:35 pm

Hi Bruce, I am researching the commands to rebuild the city, to look at the dates that those were given, and will update the website with my findings.

That said, it doesn’t change the fulfillment. It doesn’t change that 70 sevens pointed to 490 years. It doesn’t change that Messiah started His ministry AFTER the 69th week, meaning in the 70th week. It doesn’t change that Messiah’s sacrifice ended the need for temple sacrifices.

I disagree with your explanations of the 1,260 days, and the Two Witnesses; so those are not proofs that the 70 weeks have not been fulfilled.

So we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Your brother in Messiah,
David

Case in point, one of your objections was the 483 years from 457 B.C. is 26 A.D. I pointed out that there is no year 0, so it would be 27 A.D. And you did not even concede that point.

Reply

Rick Neubrander February 16, 2018 at 8:02 pm

Bruce,

As far as the starting dates, maybe this can help.

Ezra 6:14 provides a key perspective in support of Gabriel’s words with Artexerxes’ decree:

And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

Notice that the Jews “builded and finished it…according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.”

In the words of historicist Marcos Thaler, “the decree was a process that Cyrus began, Darius affirmed, and Artaxerxes completed.” Upon completion of this decree process with the going forth of Artexerxes’ decree, the 70 Week Prophecy commenced fulfillment, for as already mentioned, only Artaxerxes’ decree restored Jerusalem’s independent self-governance.

When did the decree go into effect?

“From the going forth” of Artaxerxes’ decree… According to Ezra 7:7-9 this decree went into effect in “the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.” But of course, we want the B.C. year for this. Determining this year with conviction through historical scholarship is difficult but not impossible.

The date is given [in Ezra 7] in terms of a reigning year of a Persian ruler as reckoned by a Jew from Babylon who was writing for Palestinian Jews about events connected with Palestine. In order to assign these events with certainty to a BC date, we must answer a number of questions: What did Ezra mean by the 1st and the 5th month, and what kind of calendar did he use? What did he mean by dating his return to Jerusalem in the 7th year of the reign of King Artaxerxes? Did he reckon it from the date of accession or by calendar years? If the latter, did he use Persian or Jewish years, and if Jewish, which of the systems known to have been used by the Jews? Such varied elements enter into the problem of locating ancient events in the BC – AD scale.

The above quote is from the introduction to what is perhaps the most detailed investigation ever made into the subject, a 1953 paper titled “The Chronology of Ezra 7” by archeology professors Dr. Siegfried Horn and Dr. Lynn Wood. These researchers concluded that all historical evidence “taken together with the Biblical statements of Nehemiah and Ezra, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the decree of Artaxerxes 1 went into effect after Ezra’s return from Babylon, in the late summer or early fall of 457 B.C.”

Reply

David February 16, 2018 at 8:06 pm

Thank you for sharing your insight Rick, I will read that article! 🙂

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 17, 2018 at 4:32 pm

Hi Rick,
In order to properly respond to your message yesterday, I have copied it in its entirety below and inserted my comments within it. I take a high view of scripture and so work on the premise of the accuracy of the inspired record and that God means what He says. This means that the Holy Spirit understands human language better than we do and chose the very best Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek words to communicate His message to us in scripture. But whenever we say, “Scripture SAYS this, but let me tell you what it really MEANS”, we are claiming that we know better than the Holy Spirit how to communicate his mind in human language!!!

For example: when he says “days” he means days not years or ages; when he says weeks he means weeks and not “seven years”; when he says months, he means months; when he says years he means years not “times”; and when he uses indefinite units of time such as times or seasons he means times or seasons and not “years”. If we can manipulate scripturally recorded units of time in any manner that suits our fancy, we make the scriptures into an unintelligible hodge-podge of wild imagination with no objective standard by which to test our “interpretations”! But if we truly recognize the inspired record as the only and final authority for our doctrines and practices we must let scripture say precisely what it says. This is not to say that scripture does not use allegories, parables, similes etc. It certainly does. BUT the context always makes it clear when such are to be understood. It is NOT up to us to decide when we want to interpret plain statements as allegorical or parabolic etc!

What you wrote is indicated by “R:” and my comments by “B:”
R: Bruce,
As far as the starting dates, maybe this can help.
Ezra 6:14 provides a key perspective in support of Gabriel’s words with Artexerxes’ decree:
And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

B: What did they build according to the word of Haggai and Zechariah? Nothing but the temple, the house of God! Neither prophet spoke a word about building the city of Jerusalem!

R: Notice that the Jews “builded and finished it…according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.”

B: And what was “it” which all three kings commanded to be built? The house of God! See Cyrus’ command concerning the house of God in II Chron.36:23; Ezra 1:2-5. See Darius’ command concerning the house of God in Ezra 6:6-12 and Artaxerxes’ command concerning the house of God in Ezra 7:11-26.
R: In the words of historicist Marcos Thaler, “the decree was a process that Cyrus began, Darius affirmed, and Artaxerxes completed.” Upon completion of this decree process with the going forth of Artexerxes’ decree, the 70 Week Prophecy commenced fulfillment, for as already mentioned, only Artaxerxes’ decree restored Jerusalem’s independent self-governance.

B:This decree in the fifth month of the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king had nothing to do with building the city! It only had to do with the house of God! “Restoring self-governance” is NOT restoring and building the city!

R: When did the decree go into effect?
“From the going forth” of Artaxerxes’ decree… According to Ezra 7:7-9 this decree went into effect in “the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.” But of course, we want the B.C. year for this. Determining this year with conviction through historical scholarship is difficult but not impossible.

B: Be careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly that this is the decree of Daniel 9:25. Remember that all three kings (Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes had issued proclamations or decrees relative to the building of the house of God. But the decree of Daniel 9:25 has to do specifically with the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem!) No such commandment is found in the texts referenced above! The only commandment on scriptural record which had to do with the building of the city of Jerusalem is found in Nehemiah 2:3-8 where we read of Nehemiah’s sorrow over the condition of the city, his appeal to Artaxerxes and the king’s affirmative response to Nehemiah’s request. Notice that this event is dated in the month Nisan (the seventh month) in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes’ reign. THIS IS 13 YEARS AND TWO MONTHS AFTER THE DECREE OF EZRA CHAPTER 7!

R: The date is given [in Ezra 7] in terms of a reigning year of a Persian ruler as reckoned by a Jew from Babylon who was writing for Palestinian Jews about events connected with Palestine. In order to assign these events with certainty to a BC date, we must answer a number of questions: What did Ezra mean by the 1st and the 5th month, and what kind of calendar did he use? What did he mean by dating his return to Jerusalem in the 7th year of the reign of King Artaxerxes? Did he reckon it from the date of accession or by calendar years? If the latter, did he use Persian or Jewish years, and if Jewish, which of the systems known to have been used by the Jews? Such varied elements enter into the problem of locating ancient events in the BC – AD scale.

B: Then too, one must take into account that the BC-AD scale was not created until over 500 years after Christ and has been shown to be 4 to 6 years off!

R: The above quote is from the introduction to what is perhaps the most detailed investigation ever made into the subject, a 1953 paper titled “The Chronology of Ezra 7” by archeology professors Dr. Siegfried Horn and Dr. Lynn Wood. These researchers concluded that all historical evidence “taken together with the Biblical statements of Nehemiah and Ezra, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the decree of Artaxerxes 1 went into effect after Ezra’s return from Babylon, in the late summer or early fall of 457 B.C.”

B: If this was an “inescapable conclusion” for professors Horn and Wood, they must be able to show their own calculations. Do they show such in this paper?? If they do not, we are asked to simply take a blind leap in the dark to “trust the professionals”! But if we take their word as being accurate, this clearly sounds the death knell to the theory that the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks of Daniel are “weeks of sevens of years” and are fulfilled between the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem and the cutting off of Messiah. If the calculations above are correct, the theory only “comes close” IF THE DECREE OF EZRA 7 IS THE COMMAND TO RESTORE AND TO BUILD JERUSALEM! But since that command did not go forth for another 13 years and 2 months, as Nehemiah 2 makes perfectly clear, the entire theory falls apart at the seams for it is actually some 9 years off the mark!
There is another line of scriptural proof which bears out this same conclusion. This proof is based on the Holy Spirit’s use of words in the inspired record. The prophecy of Daniel 9:25 sets the commencement of the 70 weeks with “the going forth of the COMMANDMENT to restore and to build Jerusalem…” That word “commandment” is the Hebrew DABAR (Strong’s # 1697). Now if we look for that word (DABAR, Strong’s #1697 in the context of restoring and building Jerusalem in Cyrus’ decree of II Chron36 and Ezra 1 it is not there. Rather the Hebrew for his “proclamation’ is two Hebrew words ABAR and KOLE (Strong’s #’s 5674 and 6963). If we look for it in the context of restoring and building Jerusalem in Darius’ decree of Ezra 6 or in the context of restoring and building Jerusalem in Artaxerxes’ decree of Ezra 7 it is not there! Rather the Hebrew word for “decree” in both instances is TEHAME (Strong’s # 2942). It is only found in the context of restoring and building Jerusalem in Nehemiah 2:18 where Nehemiah is recounting the kings (Artaxerxes’) “words” translated from the Hebrew DABAR (Strong’s 1697).
So while Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes all gave proclamation (ABAR KOLE) and decree (TEHAME) regarding rebuilding the temple, only Artaxerxes gave “DABAR” (The word used in Dan.9:25) to restore and build the city of Jerusalem itself. That DABAR/command was not given until the 20th year of Artaxerxes reign which was the year 444BC. This crystal clear scriptural evidence shows that the commencement of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 occurs about 9 years too late for the “weeks are sevens of years theory” to have any credibility at all!
Since the 70 weeks commenced in the 7th month of the 20th year of Artaxerxes reign (444BC)… “69 sevens of years” or 483 more years brings us to the seventh month of the year 40AD after which the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, would have to be “cut off”. Then, if (as David claims) he was not crucified until half way through the 70th “week”, (or 3 ½ years later) this would place the crucifixion in the first month of 44AD! This is over 9 years off the mark for we know that he was crucified in 34 or 35AD. (If the year Jesus was born was 1AD (whether he was born in January or December), then his first birthday would have been in 2AD, he would have been baptized at age 30 (Luke 3:22,23) in 31AD. If the traditional idea of 3 1/2 years of his public ministry is true, that would take him well into 34AD or even 35AD to his crucifixion.)
Now, just for the sake of argument, let us ask, “What happens if the decree of Artaxerxes in the 5th month of the seventh year of his reign actually was the one which commenced the 70 weeks of years? That year was 457 BC. If we add 483 years to this we come to the 5th month of the year 27AD. Now if, as David claims, the Lord Jesus was crucified in the middle of the 70th week or 3 ½ years later, this takes us to the 11th month of the year 30AD. But we know that the Lord Jesus was crucified in 34 or 35 AD. So David’s scenario has the Lord Jesus’ crucifixion 4 years too early!!!
No matter how the dates are manipulated, the “70 weeks are 490 years theory” just cannot be reconciled with the scriptural record!

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 16, 2018 at 8:16 pm

I’m a little puzzled how this page is set up. I’m responding to a response of David’s which does not seem to appear above so I have cut and pasted here in order to respond to it… David wrote….
Hi Bruce, I believe that the 70 weeks are broken down into three consecutive sections of 7 weeks (sevens); 62 weeks (sevens); and 1 week (seven).

The text declares that Messiah would appear AFTER the 62 week time period, which follows the 7 week time period; so that is 69 weeks.

There’s only one week left in the prophecy, so it’s obvious that 69 weeks have passed.

Messiah did not just show up and die in one day. The Gospels declare that several different Passover days occurred during His ministry.

The text declares that He would be ‘cut off’ in the midst of the week, so halfway through.

The website explains all of this, along with how the last half of the 70th week was fulfilled.

Your brother in Messiah,
David

Hi David, from the above I’m left with just this question, “What translation of Daniel 9 are you reading and using as your authority?” I’m wondering about the “appearing” of the Messiah and his cutting off “in the midst of the 70th week”.

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 17, 2018 at 3:07 am

Bruce, the comments are tiered, so that the conversion appears as a thread, so that people can follow the conversation.

I reference the King James, The Scriptures (ISR98), the Strong’s Hebrew.

Daniel 9:26 says that after the 62 weeks (which is after the 7 weeks, thus it is telling us that after the 69th week) Messiah will be ‘cut off’, meaning that He would be killed.

Daniel 9:27 says that in the midst of the 70th week, ‘He shall cause the oblation and sacrifice to cease.’

Put the two together and we see that when Messiah was killed, cut off, He ended the need for the temple sacrifices.

Isaiah 53 pointed to Messiah being ‘cut off’ for the transgressions of His people, which we know ended the need for temple sacrifices; and that He justified many.

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was CUT OFF out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant JUSTIFY MANY; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and HE BARE THE SIN OF MANY, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 17, 2018 at 4:46 pm

Hi David,

The comment of yours to which I was responding was this….
“That said, it doesn’t change the fulfillment. It doesn’t change that 70 sevens pointed to 490 years. It doesn’t change that Messiah started His ministry AFTER the 69th week, meaning in the 70th week. It doesn’t change that Messiah’s sacrifice ended the need for temple sacrifices. ”

The KJV does NOT say that Messiah started his ministry after the 69th week, but rather that he was “cut off”!

Nor does the KJV say that Messiah’s sacrifice ended the need for temple sacrifices”! It says, “He (referring back to the prince of the people that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease…”

When you wrongly assume that weeks are “seven years”, that the prince of the people that shall come is “messiah the Prince” there is no end to all the resulting wrong deductions and conclusions to which false logic will lead you!

You have still not given one grammatical reason for interpreting the “he” of Dan.9:27 as referring back TWO VERSES to “Messiah the prince” instead of the immediately preceding noun “the prince of the people that shall come” in just the preceding verse 26. Can you explain once and for all what rule(s) of grammar have lead you to such a conclusion?

I am thoroughly puzzled by your lack of objective standards when it comes to understanding scripture. Can you help me here?

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 17, 2018 at 6:04 pm

Bruce, the KJ says “and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”, not “the prince of the people that shall come”. I’m not sure what Bible version you’re using, but it is wrongly making the prince the noun. So my explanation is consistent, that the ‘he’ is pointing to the prince, Messiah. David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 20, 2018 at 3:53 pm

David, the grammatical rule is that the antecedent of a pronoun is the nearest preceding noun which agrees in number and gender. “people” does not agree but “prince” does. The prince of verse 26 b is the nearest antecedent noun NOT “Messiah”. What grammatical rule would lead you to a noun BEFORE the nearest one that agrees?

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 20, 2018 at 4:12 pm

Bruce, the prince of Daniel 9:26 points back to Messiah the prince, the noun in Daniel 9:25. ‘The people’ is not the noun, as Daniel 9:27 continues the narrative and is pointing to a ‘he’, one person; not to the people.

I look forward to your verse by verse explanation of Daniel 9:24-27, to show how each point is fulfilled. Thank you, David

Reply

Rick Neubrander February 20, 2018 at 4:26 pm

Daniel 9:25-26
25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah THE PRINCE shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

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.

Who is this “prince who is to come” and who are his people? There seem to be three main views: 1) The people are the Romans and the prince is Titus; 2) The prince is the future Antichrist and the people will be his wicked followers; 3) The people are the Jews and the prince is Jesus Christ. Which of these views is correct?

Historicists in general have traditionally taught that the prince was Titus and the people of the prince were the Romans who attacked and destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70 A. D. Though this view is tempting, it does not really fit the literary structure of Daniel 9:24-27. Notice the following structural consideration:

Messiah (verse 25) Prince
+ +
Messiah (verse 26) Prince

There is no reason to believe that the Messiah the Prince of verse 25 is not the same Messiah and Prince of verse 26. In fact, the reference to Messiah and Prince in verse 26 provides a literary balance with the reference to Messiah the Prince in verse 25.

Another problem with the view that the prince is Titus and the people are the Romans is the fact that it is incongruous with the three personal pronouns in verse 27. In verse 27 we are told: “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. . . .” The context clearly indicates that the three “hes” of verse 27 are the same as the “he” of verse 26. In other words the prince of the people of verse 26 is the same person who confirms the covenant for one week, causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease and makes the city and sanctuary desolate.

It is true that Titus literally caused the sacrificial system to come to an end when he and his armies destroyed the Jerusalem temple. But it is not true that Titus made a strong covenant with Israel for one week. Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally believed that it was Jesus who brought the sacrificial system to an end when he died on the cross (as we shall see later, this view is corroborated by Matthew 27:51 as well as the book of Hebrews).

It is clear that the antecedent to all three “hes” in verse 27 is the prince of verse 26. Let us put it this way: “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. . . . and he [the prince] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he [the prince] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and for the overspreading of abominations he [the prince] shall make desolate. . . .”

Of course, if the prince of verse 26 is Jesus, then the people of the prince must be the Jews (remember that the word “people” throughout Daniel 9 always denotes Israel–see verses 15, 16, 19, 20, 24). The million dollar question then becomes: Did the Jews destroy their own city and sanctuary? At first sight this possibility would seem absurd. The Jews did not destroy their own city and sanctuary (Titus and the Romans did!!), or did they? In order to answer this question we must take a look at the reason for the first destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.

Who destroyed Jerusalem the first time? Was it God or Nebuchadnezzar or Israel? Daniel 9:14 explicitly states that God destroyed Jerusalem. II Chronicles 36:17-20 states that Nebuchadnezzar (whom God calls “my servant”–Jeremiah 27:6) destroyed the city and the temple. But Daniel 9:11, 14, 15 explains that Israel’s sins brought about the destruction of the city and the temple. In fact, the prophet Jeremiah told Israel: If you do not submit to the king of Babylon “thou shalt cause this city to be burned with fire.” (Jeremiah 38:23; notice also verses 17-18). We can put it this way: Because of Israel’s sins, God employed His servant Nebuchadnezzar to destroy the city and the temple. But God would not have used Nebuchanezzar to destroy had it not been for the sins of the people. In other words, Israel, because of her own sinful choices, brought destruction upon herself. Now let’s take a look at the second destruction of Jerusalem.

One thing becomes absolutely clear in Daniel 9 and it is this: The destiny of Jerusalem is inseparably linked with what happened to Messiah the Prince. Twice in the literary structure what happened to the Messiah is followed by the destruction of Jerusalem. In verse 26, after Messiah was cut off, Jerusalem was destroyed. And in verse 27, Jerusalem was destroyed after the Prince caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease! The critical question at this juncture is, does the New Testament shed any light on how the destiny of the Messiah is linked to the fate of the second city and temple? The answer is a resounding yes!

On the Sunday before the crucifixion, Jesus entered Jerusalem triumphantly on a donkey. At the conclusion of this majestic event, Jesus entered the temple and cast out the money changers. At this point the temple was referred to by Matthew as the “temple of God” and Jesus called it “My house” (Matthew 21:12-13). Jesus then told a series of parables in which He underlined that the Jewish nation was about to make the terrible mistake of rejecting him (see, for example, Matthew 21:33-45; 22:1-14; 23:29-39).

Of particular significance is the parable of Matthew 21:33-44 where Jesus reviewed the history of Israel in five stages:

Stage # 1: God sent servants to Israel to gather fruit in harvest season but Israel rejected God’s messengers (verses 34-35).
Stage # 2: God then sent more servants and Israel did the same with them (verse 36).
Stage # 3: God then sent them His own Son and they killed Him (verses 37-39).
Stage # 4: The wicked men who killed the Son were destroyed (verse 41)
Stage # 5: The kingdom was taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles (verse 43; Acts 13:46-47).

These five stages of Israel’s history as described in Matthew 21:33-44 parallel very closely the same stages of Israel’s history as described in Daniel 9:24

Stage # 1: After God released Israel from Egypt, he sent them messengers but they mocked and rejected them (Daniel 9:6; II Chronicles 36:15, 16)
Stage # 2: After the Babylonian captivity God gave Israel another chance. The city and temple were rebuilt and God gave Israel another opportunity to bear fruit (Daniel 9:24). In order to help, God sent Israel many messengers: Haggai, Zechariah, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Ezra, Nehemiah, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. But they rejected these messengers as well.
Stage # 3: At the very end of the seventy weeks, God even sent Messiah the Prince; but instead of receiving Him, they cut Him off (Daniel 9:26).
Stage # 4: As a result Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman armies (Daniel 9:26-27).
Stage # 5: The Gentiles now became God’s new nation (this is implicit in the fact that probation was to last only 70 weeks for the Jewish nation. We shall also find that when Stephen was stoned, the theocracy came to an end and the gospel went to the Gentiles).

The striking parallel between Daniel 9:26-27 and Matthew 21:33-44 clearly reveals that the rejection of the Son by Israel resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the in grafting of the Gentiles as God’s chosen nation. When Jesus left the temple He pronounced the ominous words: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matthew 23:38). Two words immediately arrest our attention. First of all, the temple was no longer the “temple of God.” Jesus now referred to it as “your house.” Secondly, notice the key word, “desolate.” This is the very word which is used in Daniel 9 to describe the fate of Jerusalem. Three times we are told there that Jerusalem would be left desolate (verses 26, 27). Significantly, as soon as Jesus pronounced these chilling words, He left the temple and spoke about the destruction of the city and the temple (Matthew 24:1-3). Certainly no one can miss the connection between the rejection of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem! Only a willful and unexplainable blindness could fail to see how the rejection of Messiah the Prince led to the destruction of the city and temple!!

This link can also be discerned in Luke 19:41-44: “And when he was come near, he beheld the city and wept over it, saying: ‘If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knowest not the time of thy visitation.” Can there be any doubt in this passage that the fate of Jerusalem is linked with the rejection of the Messiah? (For further information on the role the Jews played in the death of the Messiah, see, Acts 3:14, 15; 7:52; Acts 2:22, 23).

To end this section, I would like to make a few remarks about the parable of Matthew 22 because it explains why Jerusalem was destroyed the second time. Like in the parable of Matthew 21:33-46 God sent servants to Israel in order to prepare them for the marriage of his son (verses 2-3). This stage represents the Old Testament period when God sent prophets to prepare Israel for the coming of the Messiah. These messages were rejected. Then, after Christ was sacrificed (verse 4), further servants (Peter, Stephen, Paul, etc.) were sent to the same people (Israel) but these messages were also rejected (verses 5-6). In verse 7 we are told the king’s reaction: “But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth; and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” Notice how three ideas coalesce in this verse. God used the Roman armies (spoken of as his armies) to destroy those murderers and to burn their city. Once again we clearly see that the people, by rejecting the Messiah, brought destruction upon their own city (see also, Hosea 13:9). Though the destruction was carried out by God through the instrumentality of Titus and the Roman armies, it was the choice of the Jewish nation which really determined its fate.

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 20, 2018 at 4:28 pm

Hi David,
Now you have me really confused so I need clarification! Are you saying that the “prince” in verse 26 as in “the people of the prince that should come” is “Messiah the Prince” of verse 25?

I thought we were talking about identifying the person referred to by the pronoun “he” in verse 27. I believe the nearest noun that is masculine and singular is “prince” as in “people of the prince that should come” and NOT “Messiah” which is further away.

Your brother,
Bruce

Reply

David February 20, 2018 at 4:40 pm

Bruce, in Daniel 9:25 we see that Messiah the Prince will appear after 7 weeks and 62 weeks.

Daniel 9:26 tells us that He, Messiah, was cut off, killed. The punishment for the Jews delivering Him up to be killed is that He, Messiah, sent the Roman army, the people of the prince, to desolate the temple and city.

Daniel 9:27 tells us that Messiah would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, which it did when He died as the Passover Lamb, and the temple curtain was torn in two.

Those verses are pointing to Messiah the prince appearing in the 70th week, being killed in the middle of it, causing the need for temple sacrifices to stop, and sending the Roman army to desolate the wicked Jews, their city and temple.

I’m done answering your questions, as you can’t give me a verse by verse explanation of the fulfillment of the 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week.
David

Reply

David February 20, 2018 at 4:31 pm

Thank you Rick! I’ll print your explanation out and read it. David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 20, 2018 at 4:54 pm

Hi Rick,
Very interesting reading and bringing into focus relationships. I will have to ponder this further.

Let me just quote a couple of your paragraphs above and comments on them…
You wrote, “It is true that Titus literally caused the sacrificial system to come to an end when he and his armies destroyed the Jerusalem temple. But it is not true that Titus made a strong covenant with Israel for one week. Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally believed that it was Jesus who brought the sacrificial system to an end when he died on the cross (as we shall see later, this view is corroborated by Matthew 27:51 as well as the book of Hebrews).

It is clear that the antecedent to all three “hes” in verse 27 is the prince of verse 26. Let us put it this way: “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. . . . and he [the prince] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he [the prince] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and for the overspreading of abominations he [the prince] shall make desolate. . . .”

You observe that Titus did not make a strong covenant with Israel for one week. But I observe that neither did the Lord Jesus make a strong covenant with Israel for one week! (Be it a “week” of seven years or a week of seven days!) Nor does a divine covenant such as the Abrahamic covenant ever need to be “reconfirmed” at some later date for a short period of time!!!!

You explain ably how it could be said that Israel because of their disobedience and rebellion against God and His Christ caused the sacrificial system to cease and the city to be destroyed in 70AD (i.e by the judgment of God through Titus and the Romans). But it cannot be explained how this happened in the “midst of the week” if the midst of this week was the crucifixion of Christ! There are just far too many discrepancies in the “70 weeks are 70 sevens of years” theory which simply do not fit with history.

A brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

Rick Neubrander February 20, 2018 at 4:47 pm

We must now make a few remarks about the phrase, “the prince that shall come.” The question suggests itself: When, in the chronology of the 70 weeks, was this prince to come? The context clearly indicates that he was to come at the conclusion of the first 69 weeks. Both futurists and historicists agree on this point. But while historicists believe, as we have seen, that the prince that shall come was fulfilled in Jesus or Titus, futurists teach that the prince will be a future world dictator. Which view is correct?

Once again, as in the case of the vicarious death of the Messiah, the key which unlocks the true meaning of this phrase is found in a messianic prophecy, Psalm 118. Psalm 118:26 reads: “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: we have blessed you out of the house of the Lord.”

In Luke 13:35 Jesus applied to Himself (at His second coming) the phrase, “blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” But this messianic prophecy was also fulfilled at triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Notice how Luke 19:37-44 presents three events in chronological sequence:

1) Jesus entered Jerusalem on a colt, and the multitudes sang: “ Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord. . . .” (Verses 37-38).
2) Jesus then spoke about his rejection by the Jewish nation (verses 39-42; see also Matthew 23:29-39).
3) Finally Jesus spoke about the destruction of Jerusalem (verses 43-44; see also Matthew 24:1-3)

One cannot help but notice how this same threefold sequence is found in Daniel 9:26:

1) The prince comes.
2) He is cut off.
3) The city and temple are destroyed.

Psalm 118:22 makes it abundantly clear that the one who comes in the name of the Lord is also “the stone which the builders refused [and] is become the head of the corner.” Jesus identified Himself as this Stone (see Matthew 21:42 and the context in which it appears). Thus, after announcing that not one stone would be left upon another in the literal Jerusalem temple, Jesus affirmed that He was about to become the head cornerstone of a new spiritual temple, the church (see also, Ephesians 2:19-22). It is worthy of note that the word “head” in the Old Testament is used interchangeably with the word “prince”. (Isaiah 19:13; Judges 20:2; I Samuel 14:38 where the word pinnah (head) is used in the sense of “chief, ruler or leader.”)

“Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”

The temple, which had been rebuilt as a result of the decrees of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Persian, and the city, which had been restored and rebuilt as a result of the decrees or Artaxerxes, were to be destroyed once again due to the unfaithfulness of the people in rejecting the Messiah.

“The end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined”

The word “thereof” has the city and the sanctuary as antecedents. That is, the end of the city and the sanctuary would be with a flood. In the Bible, a military invasion is occasionally compared to an overwhelming flood (see Isaiah 8:7-8; Jeremiah 46:6-7; Revelation 12:15-16; Daniel 11:22, 40; Revelation 16:12 compared with Revelation 17:1-5, 15). We have here a vivid description of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by Titus and the Roman armies. Anyone who has read Josephus’ description of the destruction of Jerusalem in Wars of the Jews (notice that this event is called “the war” in Daniel 9:26) will concur that the invasion of Jerusalem by the Roman armies was as an overwhelming and devastating flood.

Significant is the word “desolations”. One is reminded of the words of Jesus to the Jewish leaders: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matthew 23:38) immediately after which Jesus spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Matthew 24:1-3). We shall have occasion to say more about this word when we study the last half of Daniel 9:27.

It is of the utmost importance to realize that even though the destruction of Jerusalem falls outside the chronological time period of the seventy weeks (because the seventy weeks ended in the year 34 A. D. but Jerusalem was not destroyed until the year 70 A. D.) yet it is inseparably linked with events which occurred within that time period. This is reflected in the last phrase of Daniel 9:26 (as well as in the last phrase of Daniel 9:27): “desolations are determined.” As we have previously noted, the word “determined” refers to an event which has been decreed or decided before it actually occurs (see pp. 17-18 above). That is to say, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple had already been determined by events which took place during the time frame of the seventy weeks—particularly the last week!

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 20, 2018 at 5:39 pm

Interesting observations, Rick. But it (the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation )doesn’t fit the time line “in the midst of the week”!

Reply

David February 18, 2018 at 12:46 am

Hi Bruce, given that we disagree on the context of the 70 weeks of Daniel prophecy, please provide a verse by verse explanation of Daniel 9:24-27, to show how each point is fulfilled. Thank you, David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 20, 2018 at 4:08 pm

Hi David,
I never claimed that all the details of Daniel9:24-27 would b e fulfilled in the 70th week. They are rather fulfilled within the seventy weeks. Neither do I claim to be able to explain the fulfilment of each of those details as scripture does not explain them. If scripture does not, I would be going beyond scripture into the very subjective and treacherous waters of imaginative presupposition. I assume tho that since you asked me the question, that you have an explanation of each of those details that fits with your own view.

I’d be most interested to read your explanation of all those details especially as to (1) who (a righteous prince or an unrighteous one) confirms the covenant, (Dan.11:21 and following)
(2) Is it one person alone who causes the sacrifice and oblation to cease and sets up the abomination of desolation, or is one person accompanied by others? (Dan.11:31)
(3) What is “that determined which is poured upon the desolate”? Do Daniel 11, 12 ; Matthew 24 and Mark 13 not give us a lot more information on these events and who it is who is involved? When is this determined to happen?

Or do you think Daniel 11 has nothing to do with ch.9?

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 20, 2018 at 4:28 pm

Seriously Bruce? You oppose practically everything that I teach about the fulfillment of the 70 weeks of Daniel, but you can’t give me a verse by verse explanation of the fulfillment? You can’t explain to me when and how the 7 weeks took place? You can’t explain to me when and how the 62 weeks took place, to point to Messiah? You can’t explain to me when and how the final 7 weeks is fulfilled? David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 20, 2018 at 5:14 pm

Hi David,
I can tell you how I understand when the seven weeks of days started….. It was with the going forth of Artaxerxes commandment to rebuild the city of Jerusalem (Neh.2). If others’ calculations are correct, that would have been 13 years and two months after the same king’s decree to rebuild the temple in 457BC, i.e. 444BC.

The 62 weeks of days ended just prior to the cutting off of Messiah 34 or 35 AD.

The 70th week of days has yet to be fulfilled. I do not claim to know who makes the covenant or with whom “the many”, but I believe the testimony of the two witnesses commences at the beginning of that week, Satan is cast out, a temple is defiled, sacrifices cease and an abomination of desolation is set up in the midst of that week and at the same time the 1260 days of great tribulation commences.
1260 days after the beginning of the 70th week the two witnesses are slain, their dead bodies lie in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 1/2 literal days and in the same hour as a great earthquake, they are raised and caught up to heaven. That same great earthquake is the termination of the 1260 days of the great tribulation which commences exactly 3 1/2 days after the two witnesses begin their prophesying.

In short, I believe that all time periods of Biblical prophecy are literal and that they are always fulfilled in exactly the same time period as was prophesied. (Weeks are never fulfilled in “years”, days are not fulfilled in “years” and times are not fulfilled in “years”. They are fulfilled in the very same units as the prophets first prophesied them!

But I have been wrong many times before and have had to change my thinking on many doctrines when given better scriptural reasons to change my thinking that I had to hold my previous views. So I am always willing to be corrected by scripture.

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

David February 20, 2018 at 5:41 pm

Well Bruce, our understanding of prophecy fulfillment is diametrically opposed. Daniel 9:24-27 clearly says that Messiah would appear AFTER the 7 weeks and 62 weeks, meaning AFTER the 69th week. And what is AFTER the 69th week? The 70th week. Yet you proclaim that the 70th week has not started.

It’s amazing that the Scripture points to the promised Messiah, and then mentions a covenant, and you don’t know what covenant it’s talking about.

As for your other prophecy fulfillment explanations:

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 have already testified, past tense, it is not future. The antichrist Popes banned and burned the Scriptures, and persecuted the Saints; both of which described the Popes as the Little Horn of Daniel 7, the Son of Perdition of 2 Thessalonians 2 and the antichrist of Revelation. http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/the-two-witnesses-of-revelation-11/

The Abomination of Desolation of Messiah’s Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by the “people of the prince”, when Messiah sent the Roman army to desolate the temple, city and Jews. Luke 21:20-21 tells you the definition of an army surrounding the city. http://theolivetdiscourse.com/the-abomination-of-desolation-deception/

The first division of the Roman army surrounded Jerusalem in 66 A.D., and built ramps up the walls, and were ready to take it captive; when for no apparent reason, they left. The Early Church obviously saw the sign, and they took the opportunity to flee to the mountains of Pella. The Jews stayed.

Then Titus brought three division of the Roman army, which led to 1.1 million Jews dying in and around Jerusalem from famine, pestilence, infighting, suicide, crucifixion and by the Roman sword. This was the time of great tribulation that Messiah foretold. http://theolivetdiscourse.com/the-great-tribulation-of-matthew-24/

Daniel was told about the time of Jacob’s Trouble, which is the same time of great tribulation that Messiah foretold in His Olivet Discourse. The first division of the Roman army appeared in 66 A.D. 1,290 days later the Roman army flooded the city, killing hundreds of thousands of Jews by the sword. The siege lasted for 45 days, when suddenly the last stronghold of Jews surrendered, which matches the 1,335 days. http://theolivetdiscourse.com/daniel-12-is-not-about-an-end-times-antichrist/

So the narrative of Daniel 9:24-27 matches Messiah being delivered up to be killed by the Jews, and then Messiah causing the Roman army to desolate the temple, city and Jews.

All of the prophetic times of tribulation during 1,260 days have already been fulfilled. http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/times-of-great-tribulation-in-bible-prophecy/

Most of Revelation has already been fulfilled during the last 1,900 years. Here’s a Bible Prophecy Made Simple study that shows what’s already been fulfilled; where we are at now on the fulfillment timeline; and what will happen next as we await Messiah’s return. http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/bible-prophecy-made-easy/

As I said, our beliefs about prophecy fulfillment are diametrically opposed. You have the links to my studies. They provide the best explanations that I’ve found so far.

I’m done debating with you. I pray that you will continue searching for the truth.

Blessings to you,
David

Reply

Bruce Woodford February 20, 2018 at 5:55 pm

David,
I haven’t considered this a “debate” but rather searching the scriptures whether these things are so (Acts 17:11)

We certainly have different views of the scriptures! You feel free to transform weeks into “years” and days into “years” in some prophetic events and then in others take literal days for what they actually say! Then you explain “two witnesses” as the “scriptures and the saints” but don’t pay attention to the other details of the prophecies! It’s really hard to discuss prophetic events when there is no objective standard by which to determine what must be understood as literal and what may be allegorized! What basis do you use for distinguishing which time periods and events are to be understood literally and which may be explained away in totally different terms?

If you can explain this for me, further discussion might be profitable, but when it is subjective (i.e. this means this to me) and I have no idea how you distinguish the two, it probably is not profitable to continue a discussion when our pre-suppositions are at odds.

BTW, if the great tribulation occurred over 2000 years ago, and Messiah has not yet come (His revelation) how do you explain the events which take place immediately after the tribulation up to the coming of the Lord???? (Matthew 24)

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

Reply

Leave a Comment

Next post: