In Daniel 8, 11, and 12, is A4E meant? Or is a future anti-christ meant?

[Exegesis]

So, three and a half years after the cross, what event ended the 70 weeks ?

Just the natural passage of time. There doesn't need to be any 'event' involved. Some try and connect Stephen being stoned or other things, but I do not see why there needs to be some grand climax to the prophecy to upstage the Crucifixion.

 

[Exegesis]

Show your chart of Ezekiel 39.

Ha, you got me there as I don't have one yet. Looks like I have to make one when I get a chance.

 

[covenantee]

Lol....I'm espousing Scofield dispensational futurism??
On the contrary, I am continually revealing and countering that corrupt false doctrine, proving that it is a lie from the bottomless pit.
I am not going on the defensive here. I am simply proving that fundamentalist church-ianity has made Rev. Scofield's false teaching very popular, so much so, even the "unsaved" are expecting "a no show", fictional character, that church-ianity calls "THE Antichrist".

Scofield dispensational futurism futurizes Daniel 9:27, including its consummation.

So your futurization of Daniel 9:27's consummation is the same as Scofield dispensational futurism's futurization of Daniel 9:27's consummation..

However, I think that most or all of your understanding of the rest of Daniel 9:27 is historical and correct i.e. the complete fulfillment of the 70th week by Christ, and the events of 70 AD's destruction of Jerusalem. Correct me if that's inaccurate.

 

[covenantee]

You need to type out a timeline of the 70th week so others can see your interpretation of the 70th week.

Here is mine, as an example....

Antichrist confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant...................middle of the week, stops the daily sacrifice/abominations take place...........end of the week, Jesus returns.

Jesus is baptized at the beginning of the 70th week...Jesus ministers to Israel for 3.5 years, taking Him halfway into the 70th week...Jesus is cut off i.e. crucified at this halfway point, confirming His New Covenant...Jesus is resurrected and returns to His Father...Jesus' disciples continue His ministry to Israel for another 3.5 years, which concludes the 70th week...the ministry to Israel is then expanded to begin including ministry to the Gentiles via proclamation of the Gospel to them...proclamation of the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles continues to this day.

The foregoing are completely Scripturally, historically, and grammatically confirmed.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The foregoing are completely Scripturally, historically, and grammatically confirmed.

No, it does not.

Jesus is baptized at the beginning of the 70th week

False.

The baptism was not the confirmation of a covenant. Water does not confirm a covenant — it is the blood of Christ that does.

Heb 9:14-17
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

It is the death of Messiah the Prince — and His blood — that confirmed the covenant (testament). This was the moment the Old Testament congregation fell, and three days later, He rebuilt the temple. The covenant of Daniel 9:27 pertains to the New Testament congregation alone.

From Pentecost onward, Christ has empowered His witnesses — the Christian Church — with the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel to the world for the symbolic 1,260 days, representing the entire New Testament era until the last elect is brought in.

Rev 11:3
(3) And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Rev 12:5-6
(5) And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
(6) And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

The Woman represents the congregation of Israel, once represented the Old Testament congregation before the Cross. But now representing in the New Testament congregation since Pentecost, when Christians began preaching the Gospel of salvation to the world — continuing until all the elect are secured by Christ (Revelation 7:1-4). This was also the time when Satan was bound and cast into the bottomless pit — symbolizing the restraint of his power to deceive, so that Christ could build His Church.

...Jesus ministers to Israel for 3.5 years, taking Him halfway into the 70th week

No — it refers to the Christian Church (Two Witnesses) bearing witness to the world during the symbolic 1,260 days, representing the entire New Testament era from Pentecost until the final elect is gathered.

...Jesus is cut off i.e. crucified at this halfway point

No — it refers to the Two Witnesses being killed by the Beast that rises from the bottomless pit, marking the end of their faithful witness. In other words, the appointed time for proclaiming the way of salvation has ended.

The bodies of the Two Witnesses lying in the street of the great city — representing the faithful witnesses of the Church — signify that their testimony is finished. The professing Christians at that time will not grieve that the truth has been silenced; instead, they will rejoice in exchanging false doctrines among themselves within the very House of God. This is the moment when the army of Gog and Magog enters the New Testament congregation — an army of false prophets and false christs. This is not Titus and the Roman soldiers, as Preterists claim, nor Russians, as some premillennialists suggest.

Jesus is resurrected and returns to His Father

Incorrect again. After the three and a half days, the “spirit of life” comes on the Two Witnesses so they rise, see the abomination of desolation, and come out of her.
Remember: just as Christ did not go to the Father immediately after the resurrection but remained for forty-five days, so Christians will also not meet with the Lord in the air until after judgment on Babylon the Great is finished first.

which concludes the 70th week...

No — once the hour of Babylon’s judgment is complete, the 70th week concludes with the last trumpet and the Second Coming of Christ. This is the true consummation — not 70 AD, nor your imaginary physical temple falling or the Roman army!

the ministry to Israel is then expanded to begin including ministry to the Gentiles via proclamation of the Gospel to them...proclamation of the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles continues to this day.

The Great Commission and the establishment of Gentile churches began right at Pentecost, clearly seen in Acts 10–11 - - long before 70 AD ever happened.

 

[Exegesis]

If one were to be non-biased as I have with Daniel 11, one would find that the timeline has been tinkered with in the mainstream commentaries and cannot be trusted and that the verses do not actually match the events the mainstream scholars and non Messianic Jews promote.

When one often reads commentaries by the scholars, a certain pattern can be seen. Whenever they have trouble interpreting a verse, their comments turn into what some would call 'mental gymnastics'. They go off on weird tangents, sounding like politicians attempting to sell baloney to the public.

When it comes to Daniel 11, most commentators agree up to around verse 14:

Daniel 11:14 - "And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall."

This is where a drastic split occurs. Seventh Day Adventists for example often interpret verse 14 as Rome, while the mainstream commentators continue with Antiochus III the Great. I personally interpret the verse as the beginning of Antiochus IV Epiphane's reign.

The phrase 'in those times' could indicate a long passage of time has occurred and that Antiochus III the Great is now dead.

Anyhow, I wanted to show an example of the shenanigans around these verses, particularly verse 16:

Daniel 11:16 - "But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed."

Now look at this commentary...

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers: "This has been applied to the conduct of Antiochus the Great, but history does not speak of any acts of destruction committed by him in Palestine. On the contrary, it is recorded of him that he treated the Jews with kindness."

Daniel 11:16 Commentaries: "But he who comes against him will do as he pleases, and no one will be able to withstand him; he will also stay for a time in the Beautiful Land, with destruction in his hand.

biblehub.com

The scholar is basically admitting that the interpreting this as Antiochus III the Great is phony-baloney nonsense. You folks need to start taking these things seriously and double check your references.

Now, what if we applied Antiochus IV Epiphanes to Daniel 11:16?

​

We discover that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is a much better match. As I pointed out earlier, the 'daughter of women' phrase is a perfect match for Judea and not Cleopatra I:

Daniel 11:17 - "He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him."

Once again, the scholars and interpreters play games with not only the commentaries, but they literally rewrite the verse to make it say something it does not:

Amplified Bible
He will be determined to come with the power of his entire kingdom, and propose equitable conditions and terms of peace, which he will put into effect [by making an agreement with the king of the South]. He will also give him his daughter (Cleopatra I), in an attempt to overthrow the kingdom, but it will not succeed or be to his advantage.

There was a ton of history happening at that time and the "scholars" are cherry picking certain events to form a false narrative I beleive.

 

[Exegesis]

As I pointed out earlier, the 'daughter of women' phrase is a perfect match for Judea and not Cleopatra I:

I found this rather enlightening:



Who is the harlot?

 

[Exegesis]

The scholar is basically admitting that the interpreting this as Antiochus III the Great is phony-baloney nonsense.

How about another example?

Daniel 11:21 - "And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries."

Is it really Antiochus IV Epiphanes? We turn to the scholars...

​

Daniel 11:21 Commentaries: "In his place a despicable person will arise, on whom the honor of kingship has not been conferred, but he will come in a time of tranquility and seize the kingdom by intrigue.

Whoops! Back to the drawing board.

 

[Exegesis]

Hey Mr. A.I. What if the 'Vile Person' was Augustus? Would that work?

Interpreting Daniel 11:21 as referring to Augustus Octavian, while less commonly held in traditional biblical commentary which often identifies the "vile person" as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, involves exploring alternative interpretations and historical parallels. Here's a perspective arguing for Augustus:

• Rise to Power through Intrigue and Circumstances: Daniel 11:21 states that the "vile person" would not be given the honor of royalty initially but would come in peacefully and seize the kingdom by intrigue. Augustus, born Gaius Octavius, rose to power through a complex series of political alliances and maneuvering after the assassination of Julius Caesar. He wasn't the direct or traditional heir to the throne, and his rise involved forming alliances with influential figures like Mark Antony before ultimately defeating them and consolidating power for himself. This could be seen as aligning with the idea of gaining power through intrigue and without the honor of traditional royalty.
• A "Contemptible Person" - A Matter of Perspective: While the text uses the term "vile" or "contemptible," this is open to interpretation. From the perspective of those who opposed him or sought a different heir, or even from a theological perspective, Augustus's ambition and methods could be considered "vile" or morally questionable, especially when considering the civil wars and the dismantling of the Republic he oversaw. His cunning and political maneuvering could be seen as "intrigue" rather than a legitimate claim to power.
• Focus on the Roman Empire in Daniel: Some interpretations of Daniel, particularly historicist views, see the sequence of empires in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 leading to the Roman Empire, which would suggest a Roman ruler, rather than a Greek king like Antiochus IV Epiphanes, is in view at this point in the prophecy. This perspective emphasizes the ongoing relevance of Daniel's prophecies for later historical periods.
• The "Prince of the Covenant" as Jesus Christ: Daniel 11:22 mentions the destruction of a "prince of the covenant" at the hands of the ruler described in verse 21. Some scholars argue that this "prince" refers to Jesus Christ. If this is the case, and Daniel 11:21-22 refers to events leading to Christ's crucifixion, then the historical timeframe would point towards a Roman ruler like Augustus or Tiberius during whose reign Christ was born and crucified.
• Distributing Plunder and Wealth: Daniel 11:24 mentions the ruler distributing plunder and wealth, which could be interpreted as Augustus's distribution of land and resources to his soldiers and supporters following the civil wars...

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Daniel 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Its 2300 Evening and Mornings [SACRIFICES] in spite of what the WRONG KJV English translation says.

 

[Douggg]

Ha, you got me there as I don't have one yet. Looks like I have to make one when I get a chance.

Yes, work on a time line chart for Ezekiel 39. You may want to consult mine.

 

[covenantee]

No, it does not.



False.

The baptism was not the confirmation of a covenant. Water does not confirm a covenant — it is the blood of Christ that does.

Heb 9:14-17
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

It is the death of Messiah the Prince — and His blood — that confirmed the covenant (testament). This was the moment the Old Testament congregation fell, and three days later, He rebuilt the temple. The covenant of Daniel 9:27 pertains to the New Testament congregation alone.

From Pentecost onward, Christ has empowered His witnesses — the Christian Church — with the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel to the world for the symbolic 1,260 days, representing the entire New Testament era until the last elect is brought in.

Rev 11:3
(3) And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Rev 12:5-6
(5) And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
(6) And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

The Woman represents the congregation of Israel, once represented the Old Testament congregation before the Cross. But now representing in the New Testament congregation since Pentecost, when Christians began preaching the Gospel of salvation to the world — continuing until all the elect are secured by Christ (Revelation 7:1-4). This was also the time when Satan was bound and cast into the bottomless pit — symbolizing the restraint of his power to deceive, so that Christ could build His Church.




No — it refers to the Christian Church (Two Witnesses) bearing witness to the world during the symbolic 1,260 days, representing the entire New Testament era from Pentecost until the final elect is gathered.


No — it refers to the Two Witnesses being killed by the Beast that rises from the bottomless pit, marking the end of their faithful witness. In other words, the appointed time for proclaiming the way of salvation has ended.

The bodies of the Two Witnesses lying in the street of the great city — representing the faithful witnesses of the Church — signify that their testimony is finished. The professing Christians at that time will not grieve that the truth has been silenced; instead, they will rejoice in exchanging false doctrines among themselves within the very House of God. This is the moment when the army of Gog and Magog enters the New Testament congregation — an army of false prophets and false christs. This is not Titus and the Roman soldiers, as Preterists claim, nor Russians, as some premillennialists suggest.




Incorrect again. After the three and a half days, the “spirit of life” comes on the Two Witnesses so they rise, see the abomination of desolation, and come out of her.
Remember: just as Christ did not go to the Father immediately after the resurrection but remained for forty-five days, so Christians will also not meet with the Lord in the air until after judgment on Babylon the Great is finished first.



No — once the hour of Babylon’s judgment is complete, the 70th week concludes with the last trumpet and the Second Coming of Christ. This is the true consummation — not 70 AD, nor your imaginary physical temple falling or the Roman army!



The Great Commission and the establishment of Gentile churches began right at Pentecost, clearly seen in Acts 10–11 - - long before 70 AD ever happened.

Complete bilge, bunk, and bafflegab.

Go and hyperhallucinate somewhere else.

 

[Earburner]

Scofield dispensational futurism futurizes Daniel 9:27, including its consummation.

So your futurization of Daniel 9:27's consummation is the same as Scofield dispensational futurism's futurization of Daniel 9:27's consummation..

However, I think that most or all of your understanding of the rest of Daniel 9:27 is historical and correct i.e. the complete fulfillment of the 70th week by Christ, and the events of 70 AD's destruction of Jerusalem. Correct me if that's inaccurate.

No! Scofield's error of belief is his attempt to manipulate the scriptures by moving the 70th week of the 70 week prophecy into the far future and assigning that prophetic length of time of seven years to be attributed to a future Antichrist of his fabrication.
In so doing, Scofield's words are an attempt to wilfully deny and prevent the 70th week to be fulfilled by Christ Himself, in His first coming in mortal flesh, as the scriptures of Dan. 9:24-27 clearly prophesy.

As for the telling of a one time event of consummation, there are none to look at except 2 Peter ch. 3.

I do agree to your last paragraph.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Complete bilge, bunk, and bafflegab.

Go and hyperhallucinate somewhere else.

Say one who cannot gainsay or resist. Go figures.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To your question about "anything else":
Acts 2:15-17 and Acts 10:45 answers Dan. 9:27.

By the mind of Christ within me, in post #202, I have said what the Spirit says in the scriptures of Dan. 9:24-27. I cannot add to it, nor can I take anything away. If you choose to do so, then you are welcome to your own interpretation.

Don't get stuck in the rut of "the wisdom of men".

My understanding does not come from "the wisdom of men", so don't go there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

IOW, you want us to believe, that since only 70 weeks are involved in total, that even though verse 25 pertains to the first 69 weeks and nothing outside of this 69 weeks, that the same isn't also true of verse 27? That in the same manner it is only pertaining to the 70th week and nothing outside of the 70th week. Except you want us to believe instead that verse 27 only records the first half of the 70th week then is silent in regards to the remainder of it. I guess we are just supposed to speculate about what causes the 70th week to end in verse 27 though we didn't have to speculate about what causes the end of the 69 weeks recorded in verse 25. IOW, you are not being consistent here. You are cherry picking in verse 27.

I have said the following in the past. As to verse 27, in light of verse 26 it should be interpreted like such.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


IOW, this---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--fits with this in verse 27---And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

And this---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---fits with this in verse 27---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


One might ask, well verse 27 says he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, so how does he do that per this proposed interpretation? Simple. The first half of the 70th week is meaning 3.5 years leading to the cross. The remainder is meaning the 42 month reign of the beast leading up to his return in the end of this age. This 42 months involve many in the church falling away. Except not everyone in the church falls away, and this is because He is still confirming the covenant with those that don't fall away during the 42 months, the fact they don't fall away.

IOW, we have to be willing to discern things spiritually at times rather than interpreting everything in a literal sense.

LOL. There is no indication in the prophecy whatsoever that there would be any gaps in it. It says 70 weeks, which most of us agree is 490 years, were determined to complete the six things listed in Daniel 9:24. Your view has it as around 2,500 years that were determined to fulfill the prophecy so far.

Also, what covenant do you believe Daniel 9:27 is referring to? You say the first 3.5 years of the 70th week led to the cross, so I assume you believe it's referring to the new covenant? If so, why would you think the new covenant still needs to be confirmed in the future? It does not. It was confirmed by the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ along with the preaching of the gospel first in Israel before it went to the Gentiles. The 70th week is completely fulfilled.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It's real simple. There is a gap in the 70 weeks no matter how you look at it since verse 27, every word of it, is pertaining to the 70th week. Except the gap is not between the 69th and 70th week, it is in the middle of the 70th week following the fulfillment of this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. Which then means Christ is meant per this part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--followed by a gap, and once the gap has elasped, the prince that shall come(verse 26) fulfills the remainder of the 70th week per this part--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Why would anyone take issue with any of that? Clearly, this part----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate--was not fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having gone to the cross. Therefore, logic says that a gap has to be between this---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--and this--and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

There is no logic here whatsoever. There is nothing there which indicates that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary had to occur within the 70th week. That comes from your imagination. The destruction of the city and the sanctuary was a consequence of the Jews rejecting the Messiah Prince and the new covenant that was confirmed during the 70th week.

 

[TribulationSigns]

It was confirmed by the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ along with the preaching of the gospel first in Israel before it went to the Gentiles.

False. The studies, like yours, out there dripping with speculation of when this Covenant is confirmed. For we 'must' let the Bible itself tell us what it means.

We know From the context (after the 62 weeks) that it starts after the cross, after Messiah the Prince is 'Cut Off.' And we know that this Prince Confirms [gabar], a Hebrew word which actually is Strengthened, the Covenant after these 62 weeks. Therefore, the final week cannot start until Christ is cut Off FIRST! Not when Christ was baptized! Moreover, we know that in the middle of this final week, the sacrifice and offering will cease, and that at the end of this last week, is the consummation. This much is clearly told us in the verse. And so God has told us that that this final week is from the cross (after 62 weeks when Messiah is cut off), and goes all the way from there, to the Consummation (the End of the World). And so what need is there to speculate? On several levels we see that it signifies the New Covenant week. In fact, the only reason anyone would speculate differently would be if they didn't understand how sacrifice and offering ceases in the middle of the week. Many people believe this refers to the 'literal' sacrifice of lambs ceased at the Cross and eventually the fallen literal temple in 70AD, and so they are confused by a New Covenant week, with sacrifice ceasing, after the cross.

Selah!

The 70th week is completely fulfilled.

False. The final week of 70 weeks of Daniel is in process until the Second Coming, the Consummation. Not your fallen Jewish temple in 70AD.

 

[Douggg]

LOL. There is no indication in the prophecy whatsoever that there would be any gaps in it

Is Jesus returning to this earth ? If so, there is a gap between His first coming and His second coming.... correct ?

 

[TribulationSigns]

There is no logic here whatsoever. There is nothing there which indicates that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary had to occur within the 70th week. That comes from your imagination. The destruction of the city and the sanctuary was a consequence of the Jews rejecting the Messiah Prince and the new covenant that was confirmed during the 70th week.

Again false!

Dan 9:26-27
(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.
(27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

No, the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, the Old Testament congregation, comes before Christ confirmed a covenant for one week. The confirmation of the covenant is for the New Testament congregation - the one that Christ rebuilt in three days over the fallen tabernacle (the Old Testament congregation as a kingdom representative).