Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
My biggest problem with the latter part of Dan 9 was with the use of pronouns. "He" seems to refer back to the one whose people, an *army,* comes against Jerusalem to destroy it and the sanctuary. And "he" is the one to....The gospel record of the apostles state that Pontius Pilate wanted nothing to do with the death of Christ, washing his hands of it as he handed their Messiah over to be killed, and the record makes it obvious that Caesar knew nothing of the specific events that were taking place when Christ was crucified, until after the events had already taken place.
The historical record is that roughly 40 years later the Romans had enough of the Jews and their zealot rebels constantly trying to overthrow Roman rule over Judea and Jerusalem, and so they destroyed Jerusalem and the temple.
The only reason why the Jews still 'behaved' in this way toward Rome, is because they had rejected the Messiah. For sure, Satan was behind the Jews' rejection of their Messiah and their demand that he be crucified, as well as behind Rome's (Pontius Pilate's) reluctantly granting them their wish.
However Satan was no more behind the Jewish zealot's constant rebellion against Rome (and Rome's eventual final reaction to it in 70 A.D) than he has always been behind all wars and all conflicts, since the fall of Adam.
The difference between A.D 30 when Jesus was crucified and 70 A.D is that by 70 A.D God had withdrawn from that part of israel that had been broken off from God's covenant relationship with Israel, who had been broken off through their unbelief, hence had withdrawn from involvement in the affairs of the Jews of Judea and Jerusalem who rejected Christ.
1) confirm a covenant to fulfill the final week of the 70 weeks,
2) put an end to sacrifice and offering in the middle of the final week,
3) set up an abomination of desolation to bring about an end to the temple.
These are the 3 things that Jesus spoke about in his Olivet Discourse, which he plainly indicated would bring about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. An army, ie the Roman army, would surround Jerusalem, and is called the "abomination of desolation."
This would be accomplished first by Messiah being "cut off," which Jesus plainly predicted in advance. And in so doing, God's covenant with Israel would be irretrievably broken, delegitimizing all that Israel did under that covenant, including sacrifices and offerings.
However, the author of Hebrews indicated that the end of OT worship did not immediately end because it survived Christ's death for a short time. The temple where sacrifices were offered was destroyed later in 70 AD.
The one thing that I have most confusion about is the "covenant" that the Roman ruler makes to complete the 70 Weeks in the last week. It appears the Romans allow Jesus to minister for 3.5 years before he is "cut off," which completes the 70th Week in a half-week.
It may be that the passage is only indicating that the Roman ruler naively confirms God's covenant of Messianic Salvation, the 6 things spoken about him earlier in the passage, by bringing sacrifice under the Law to an end in Christ's crucifixion. I'm not sure.
Though these things have always been difficult for me to understand, this is how I presently see it. You're certainly welcome to explain your own position on this. I welcome it.