7 year tribulation

[Charlie744]

Disaste, thank you very much for your response!

I have noticed the time I have been spending within this site has substantially increased, and unfortunately has affecting my progress on 11....

Consequently I will be taking a break from interacting with all the talented folks within these forums.

Thank you for all of your responses and best wishes, Charlie 

[JoeCanada]

Charlie....

"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week"

Daniel's anonymous 'he'.

Paul tells us in 2 Cor 13:1....."Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses"

The search for the elusive confirming scripture has been in vain......Scripture interprets Scripture......only the confirmation of another scripture will ensure that we understand the true meaning.

I've already shown that there are likely 2 different persons in Daniel 9:27. The anonymous 'he' ......and the "will come one who makes desolate" in the second half of the verse. The 'one who makes desolate' makes his debut after the midpoint of the 70th week, not at the beginning.

So...let's look at the 'he'....

The 'he' will strengthen or confirm a covenant for the entire 70th week. 'HE' is a pronoun and all pronouns must have an antecedent.........it must refer back to someone earlier in the text....

That someone is the 'prince who is to come'. 

The Roman Legions certainly did destroy both Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. But does that make the Roman Legion the people of the prince who is to come?

Others say that though the troops carried the Roman standard, they were not primarily of Roman ethnicity. They were conscripts from the Middle East under the direction of a Roman General....they were primarily Syrians.

There is another, a third option in Scripture. Jesus tells us that the Jews themselves were responsible for Jerusalem's downfall......

Luke 19: 41-44..... When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.  For the days will come upon you ^[a]when your enemies will throw up a ^[b]barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,  and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

And in the prophecy of Hosea..... "O Israel, thou hast destroyed  thyself; but in Me is thine help"......Hos 13:9

But.....WHO actually commanded Jerusalem's destruction????

Jesus prophesied who would be the ones to destroy the city...." The king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire"....Matt 22:7

Jesus, when speaking to the Pharisees in Math 22, told the parable of the wedding feast, about how the invited guests (the Jews) refused to come to the wedding. The invited guests killed and mistreated the king's messengers (the prophets) who had been sent with the wedding invitations. The king became enraged and sent his armies to set their city on fire.

So.....according to Jesus, it is the King, Yehovah Himself who sent armies to set the city on fire.......(using the Roman armies as His proxies)

This is confirmed by the equally valid Septuagint Greek text:

Dan 9:26.......: After sixty-two weeks, the anointing (the Messiah) will be destroyed and there will be no Judgment in Him and He shall destroy the city with the leader who is coming"

---------------------------------------------------

Now then....if Jesus is the 'he' of Daniel 9:27, the question is this: .........What is the covenant that is strengthened or confirmed, and why does He do so for 7 years?

Can it be the Abrahamic Covenant?....... the land grant aspect of it only becomes effective after the 70th week

Can it be the Mosaic Covenant?.......No, because Jesus's blood has replaced once for all the need for the blood of sheep and goats.

Can it be the Davidic Covenant?.....Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week.

Which, by process of elimination, the Covenant that is strengthened must then be the New Covenant....the one which resulted from the sacrifice of His own blood. 

How could this Covenant  or what aspect of this  Covenant could be strengthened?

Does the New Covenant not involve an infilling of the Holy Spirit?..............Yes....and this aspect can definitely be strengthened....in an ACTS 2 manner.

Demonic activity will be the order of the day during the 70th week, so, doesn't it seem just as likely that God will ramp up supernatural gifts to help believers in their mission to overcome the Evil One? Will believers raise the dead and cast out demons and heal the sick and feed the hungry with only a few morsels....all in Jesus name? Why not! It will sure be a witness and a testimony to those who are watching. 

Believing that Daniel 9:27 is all about the anti-christ  puts our focus in the wrong place.......on the  tormentor, not on the Savior. It causes us to consider that the 70th week is all about punishment, rather that a time of great heroism and testimony by the Church!

 

 

[Spock]

Nicely written Joe,

Please explain this one week part. Thanks.

“And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week"

[Retrobyter]

9 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

Charlie....

"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week"

Daniel's anonymous 'he'.

Paul tells us in 2 Cor 13:1....."Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses"

The search for the elusive confirming scripture has been in vain......Scripture interprets Scripture......only the confirmation of another scripture will ensure that we understand the true meaning.

I've already shown that there are likely 2 different persons in Daniel 9:27. The anonymous 'he' ......and the "will come one who makes desolate" in the second half of the verse. The 'one who makes desolate' makes his debut after the midpoint of the 70th week, not at the beginning.

So...let's look at the 'he'....

The 'he' will strengthen or confirm a covenant for the entire 70th week. 'HE' is a pronoun and all pronouns must have an antecedent.........it must refer back to someone earlier in the text....

That someone is the 'prince who is to come'. 

The Roman Legions certainly did destroy both Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. But does that make the Roman Legion the people of the prince who is to come?

Others say that though the troops carried the Roman standard, they were not primarily of Roman ethnicity. They were conscripts from the Middle East under the direction of a Roman General....they were primarily Syrians.

There is another, a third option in Scripture. Jesus tells us that the Jews themselves were responsible for Jerusalem's downfall......

Luke 19: 41-44..... When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.  For the days will come upon you ^[a]when your enemies will throw up a ^[b]barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,  and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

And in the prophecy of Hosea..... "O Israel, thou hast destroyed  thyself; but in Me is thine help"......Hos 13:9

But.....WHO actually commanded Jerusalem's destruction????

Jesus prophesied who would be the ones to destroy the city...." The king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire"....Matt 22:7

Jesus, when speaking to the Pharisees in Math 22, told the parable of the wedding feast, about how the invited guests (the Jews) refused to come to the wedding. The invited guests killed and mistreated the king's messengers (the prophets) who had been sent with the wedding invitations. The king became enraged and sent his armies to set their city on fire.

So.....according to Jesus, it is the King, Yehovah Himself who sent armies to set the city on fire.......(using the Roman armies as His proxies)

This is confirmed by the equally valid Septuagint Greek text:

Dan 9:26.......: After sixty-two weeks, the anointing (the Messiah) will be destroyed and there will be no Judgment in Him and He shall destroy the city with the leader who is coming"

---------------------------------------------------

Now then....if Jesus is the 'he' of Daniel 9:27, the question is this: .........What is the covenant that is strengthened or confirmed, and why does He do so for 7 years?

Can it be the Abrahamic Covenant?....... the land grant aspect of it only becomes effective after the 70th week

Can it be the Mosaic Covenant?.......No, because Jesus's blood has replaced once for all the need for the blood of sheep and goats.

Can it be the Davidic Covenant?.....Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week.

Which, by process of elimination, the Covenant that is strengthened must then be the New Covenant....the one which resulted from the sacrifice of His own blood. 

How could this Covenant  or what aspect of this  Covenant could be strengthened?

Does the New Covenant not involve an infilling of the Holy Spirit?..............Yes....and this aspect can definitely be strengthened....in an ACTS 2 manner.

Demonic activity will be the order of the day during the 70th week, so, doesn't it seem just as likely that God will ramp up supernatural gifts to help believers in their mission to overcome the Evil One? Will believers raise the dead and cast out demons and heal the sick and feed the hungry with only a few morsels....all in Jesus name? Why not! It will sure be a witness and a testimony to those who are watching. 

Believing that Daniel 9:27 is all about the anti-christ  puts our focus in the wrong place.......on the  tormentor, not on the Savior. It causes us to consider that the 70th week is all about punishment, rather that a time of great heroism and testimony by the Church!

Shalom, JoeCanada.

Oops. You passed it without thinking it through. You said, "Can it be the Davidic Covenant?.....Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week." Who says? Sounds like this is a conclusion based upon someone's eschatological viewpoint rather than Scripture!

Can you give me book, chapter, and verse as to why you would think that "Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week"?

Also, you mention a very common error! You said, "The 'he' will strengthen or confirm a covenant for the entire 70th week. 'HE' is a pronoun and all  pronouns must have an antecedent........it must refer back to someone earlier in the text....

That someone is the 'prince who is to come'."

Sorry, but that is an error, both in the Hebrew text and in the English translation.

In English, the antecendent CANNOT BE the noun within a prepositional phrase! That prepositional phrase, "people OF a prince" ("OF" being the preposition), is used as a modifier, and the nouns or noun phrases within the modifier cannot be used as the subject of the sentence containing that modifier! The nouns or noun phrases within the prepositional phrase are OBJECTS of the preposition!

In Hebrew, the second noun in a noun construct state, such as "`am nagiyd," cannot be the subject of a sentence. There are NO "he's" in the Hebrew of verse 27; they are strictly verbs with the third-person, singular forms, and these verbs DO need a third-person, singular, subject noun. The ONLY noun that can be a subject noun in verse 26 is "Mashiyach" or "Messiah."

Edited August 19, 2020 by Retrobyter

[Retrobyter]

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

What are you saying? That in Dan 9:26 the word for Messiah or anointed is mistranslated?

"מָשִׁיחַ noun masculine anointed; 

1 king of Israel anointed by divine command,

2 high priest of Israel, 

Maybe it's prince you think is wrong?

"נָגִיד noun masculine leader (literally probably one in front), ruler, prince;

1 of king of Israel: of Saul 

2 of a foreign ruler or prince 

3 the title of some high official connected with the temple

Huh? The 70 weeks were laid upon the people to accomplish certain things. "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,"

All Daniel 9 says about Messiah is: "Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 

So Messiah is cut off and no more and then Messiah makes a 7 year covenant? 

I get that you don't like the idea but that doesn't change the facts. The text in both Hebrew and English literally says 'one week'.

echad: one

shabua: a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week.

I think you should be more careful about the attempt to equate the Jeremiah Covenant with Dan 9:27 since they are nothing alike, except in some wild fantasy world of personal desire.

Shalom, Diaste.

You asked (rhetorically), "So Messiah is cut off and no more and then Messiah makes a 7 year covenant?"

When dealing with Hebrew literature, one should be aware that the Oriental Hebrew order of events is different than Western chronological order.

You should just simply drop the word "then" in your question. If in Western chronological order, the points in the chronology are in the subpoints of the outline, we might see something like...

I. Main period
I. A. First event
I. B. Second event
II. Secondary period
II. A. Third event
II. B. Fourth event

But, in Hebrew literature, the main points are listed FIRST, THEN the subpoints are listed!

I. Main period
II. Secondary period
I. A. First event
I. B. Second event
II. A. Third event
II. B. Fourth event

If we hang parts of this prophecy upon this outline, we get ...

I. Main period
II. Secondary period - the Messiah shall be cut off
I. A. First event
I. B. Second event - the Messiah makes a 7-year covenant
II. A. Third event
II. B. Fourth event

Putting these point back in Western chronological thought, we get ...

I. Main period
I. A. First event
I. B. Second event - the Messiah makes a 7-year covenant
II. Secondary period - the Messiah shall be cut off
II. A. Third event
II. B. Fourth event

See how the difference in Oriental Hebrew thought will "switch the order" in our way of thinking?

[Diaste]

18 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

See how the difference in Oriental Hebrew thought will "switch the order" in our way of thinking?

 Yeah well, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts....

[iamlamad]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Diaste.

You asked (rhetorically), "So Messiah is cut off and no more and then Messiah makes a 7 year covenant?"

When dealing with Hebrew literature, one should be aware that the Oriental Hebrew order of events is different than Western chronological order.

You should just simply drop the word "then" in your question. If in Western chronological order, the points in the chronology are in the subpoints of the outline, we might see something like...

I. Main period
I. A. First event
I. B. Second event
II. Secondary period
II. A. Third event
II. B. Fourth event

But, in Hebrew literature, the main points are listed FIRST, THEN the subpoints are listed!

I. Main period
II. Secondary period
I. A. First event
I. B. Second event
II. A. Third event
II. B. Fourth event

If we hang parts of this prophecy upon this outline, we get ...

I. Main period
II. Secondary period - the Messiah shall be cut off
I. A. First event
I. B. Second event - the Messiah makes a 7-year covenant
II. A. Third event
II. B. Fourth event

Putting these point back in Western chronological thought, we get ...

I. Main period
I. A. First event
I. B. Second event - the Messiah makes a 7-year covenant
II. Secondary period - the Messiah shall be cut off
II. A. Third event
II. B. Fourth event

See how the difference in Oriental Hebrew thought will "switch the order" in our way of thinking?

Hmmm. How did they count in Hebrew...3  1  4  2  5  3..... How strange. They did not use such words as "next?" I see "next" used 34 times in the Old Testament: certainly some of those uses would be for order or sequence. 

[iamlamad]

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, JoeCanada.

Oops. You passed it without thinking it through. You said, "Can it be the Davidic Covenant?.....Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week." Who says? Sounds like this is a conclusion based upon someone's eschatological viewpoint rather than Scripture!

Can you give me book, chapter, and verse as to why you would think that "Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week"?

Also, you mention a very common error! You said, "The 'he' will strengthen or confirm a covenant for the entire 70th week. 'HE' is a pronoun and all  pronouns must have an antecedent........it must refer back to someone earlier in the text....

That someone is the 'prince who is to come'."

Sorry, but that is an error, both in the Hebrew text and in the English translation.

In English, the antecendent CANNOT BE the noun within a prepositional phrase! That prepositional phrase, "people OF a prince" ("OF" being the preposition), is used as a modifier, and the nouns or noun phrases within the modifier cannot be used as the subject of the sentence containing that modifier! The nouns or noun phrases within the prepositional phrase are OBJECTS of the preposition!

In Hebrew, the second noun in a noun construct state, such as "`am nagiyd," cannot be the subject of a sentence. There are NO "he's" in the Hebrew of verse 27; they are strictly verbs with the third-person, singular forms, and these verbs DO need a third-person, singular, subject noun. The ONLY noun that can be a subject noun in verse 26 is "Mashiyach" or "Messiah."

.Jesus will not sit on His throne on earth until after the 70th week." Who says? Sounds like this is a conclusion based upon someone's eschatological viewpoint rather than Scripture!

Scripture correctly understood shows Jesus returning to earth in Rev. 19.  Since the week ENDS in chapter 16, it would be impossible for Jesus to sit on an earthly throne before He descended to earth. 

[wingnut-]

6 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

Scripture correctly understood shows Jesus returning to earth in Rev. 19.  Since the week ENDS in chapter 16, it would be impossible for Jesus to sit on an earthly throne before He descended to earth. 

 

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
    and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace
    there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
    to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
    from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

[iamlamad]

5 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
    and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and of peace
    there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
    to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
    from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

Does this speak of an earthly throne? That was specified. OF COURSE He sets on this throne in heaven!