Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[Davidpt]

Personally I don't feel that the OP is trash. I just don't see why though the 70 weeks pertains only to the coming of the Messiah in verses 24-25, and neither the people of the prince who was to come and destroy the city and sanctuary, nor their prince were mentioned in verses 24-25, yet suddenly the 70 weeks has to pertain to them too just because they are mentioned in verses 26-27.

And I don't see why that should be the case because prophecy is riddled with closing verses of a prophecy where the subject mentioned earlier is mixed with an added statement that though related in some way, has nothing to do with the fulfillment of the actual event being prophesied

- and Hosea 1:11 is only one example of many other examples (aside from Daniel 9:26-27) where this is the case. In Hosea 1:11 the restoration of the house of Israel and their being rejoined to the house of Judah under one Head was not written into that verse because it would take place at the same time as the judgment of Israel in 722 BC.

If the idea is to interpret something correctly, can't see one doing that unless they are honest with the text first, regardless what text it might be involving. Surely you at least agree with that. Actually, everyone should at least agree with that no matter who they are.


Daniel 9:27 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.

Let's break this text down like such.

A) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

B) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

C) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Let's now say the interpreter is at least being honest with the text, that he or she fully agrees that A), B) and C), all of these things occur during the 70th week. None of it is meaning outside of the 70th week. Because, after all, isn't that the way this same interpreter is going to treat verse 25, for example? That all of it, it occurs during the first 69 weeks, none of it occurs outside of the first 69 weeks? Thus this interpreter is being honest with the text pertaining to verse 25.

What now? What does this same interpreter do next? Still insist there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks, that the text makes perfect sense as is, therefore, no need to insert any gaps anywhere?

For example. If Christ is meant per B) and that the interpreter already agrees that A), B) and C), all of these things occur during the 70th week, none of it is meaning outside of the 70th week, how then can this same interpreter insist there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks when C) alone, based on how they are interpreting B), contradicts what they are arguing?

You then go from the interpreter agreeing that A), B) and C), all of these things occur during the 70th week, none of it is meaning outside of the 70th week, to the interpreter then contradicting that by arguing there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks.

If nothing else, what I have just illustrated here is why I cannot accept that there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks, the fact I aleady fully agree that A), B) and C), all of these things occur during the 70th week, none of it is meaning outside of the 70th week. For me to then argue no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks is to contradict what I have already concluded, thus accepted, concerning A), B) and C).

 

[Zao is life]

If the idea is to interpret something correctly, can't see one doing that unless they are honest with the text first, regardless what text it might be involving. Surely you at least agree with that. Actually, everyone should at least agree with that no matter who they are.


Daniel 9:27 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.

Let's break this text down like such.

A) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week

B) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

C) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Let's now say the interpreter is at least being honest with the text, that he or she fully agrees that A), B) and C), all of these things occur during the 70th week. None of it is meaning outside of the 70th week. Because, after all, isn't that the way this same interpreter is going to treat verse 25, for example? That all of it, it occurs during the first 69 weeks, none of it occurs outside of the first 69 weeks? Thus this interpreter is being honest with the text pertaining to verse 25.

What now? What does this same interpreter do next? Still insist there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks, that the text makes perfect sense as is, therefore, no need to insert any gaps anywhere?

For example. If Christ is meant per B) and that the interpreter already agrees that A), B) and C), all of these things occur during the 70th week, none of it is meaning outside of the 70th week, how then can this same interpreter insist there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks when C) alone, based on how they are interpreting B), contradicts what they are arguing?

You then go from the interpreter agreeing that A), B) and C), all of these things occur during the 70th week, none of it is meaning outside of the 70th week, to the interpreter then contradicting that by arguing there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks.

If nothing else, what I have just illustrated here is why I cannot accept that there are no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks, the fact I aleady fully agree that A), B) and C), all of these things occur during the 70th week, none of it is meaning outside of the 70th week. For me to then argue no gaps anywhere in the 70 weeks is to contradict what I have already concluded, thus accepted, concerning A), B) and C).

OK well I still don't see how you can say any of that, because this:

"And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. 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 included in the opening verses of Daniel's prophecy in this (hence the above is not included in the 70 weeks):


[ "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, 1. to finish the transgression, and 2. to make an end of sins, and 3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and 4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and 5. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and 6. to anoint the most Holy.

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. 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." ]

All of the part in brackets is included in what Daniel was saying about the seventy weeks. NOTHING else.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Daniel 9:27 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.


Anyone being honest with the text is going to take this entire verse to be pertaining to the 70th week, then interpret it based on that.

IOW...

This part---And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week--is involving the 70th week.

This part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--is involving the 70th week.

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.--is involving the 70th week.

agree 100%

Therefore, it is impossible, thus unreasonable, to interpret this verse in such a manner where it involves no gap whatsoever.

How? I do not agree here, in fact it is impossible

To illustrate this, let's assume this part--and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--is what Christ did on the cross in the middle of the 70th week.

But he is not Christ, and sacrifice and burnt offering ceases BECAUSE of the abomination of desolation. And the text clearly says Christ was "cut off" at the end of the 69th week. not in the middle of the 70th week.

If there are no gaps anywhere, that means 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---is entirely fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having died on the cross. Totally preposterous that that part can fit like that. The way many interpreters try and get around this is by being dishonest with the text, that some of it, particularly that part, is meaning outside of the 70th week, not during it.

Well we know it did not happen in when Christ died. or at any point of 3.5 years before or after the death of Christ.

That would be like arguing that verse 25 is not pertaining to the first 69 weeks. Some of it is pertaining to events outside of the first 69 weeks. Yet no one I'm aware of, regardless what their position is, pertaining to the 70 weeks, would argue in that manner per verse 25. Why do they argue in that manner per verse 27 then? Maybe because they are being dishonest with the text, thus place their interpretation above the text, rather than actually agreeing with the text.

or maybe they just make the text flow as it is written?

As to this part in question---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 are ways to interpret that without having to take it in a literal sense. Clearly, if one is applying that part to 70 AD, not only would it be outside of the 70 weeks, it would be being taken in the literal sense per that interpretation since 70 AD involved literal events.

But if we apply that part to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 instead and what all that involves, now we are no longer obligated to take that part in a literal sense. Not unless you are a Preterist or a Pretribber. Thankfully, not all of us are either of those.

An abomination of desolation by definition is an unclean thing being placed in a holy Place renduring it unclean. hence causing sacrifice and burnt offering to cease.

Jesus spoke of this, in fact, he said when you see this standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)......


The fact is, From the comand to restore until messiah is 69 weeks.

every thing that happens after occurs way outside the 70 weeks (the destruction of the city and sanctuary in 70 AD) and the war desolations, which have been in effect for over 2000 years now)

THEN he confirms some covenant for 1 week, this is the 70th week..

The gap is between the 69th week (messiah the prince) and the covenant made by a future roman prince.

 

[Davidpt]

The gap is between the 69th week (messiah the prince) and the covenant made by a future roman prince.

Trust me, I understand where you are coming from because that too has been my position for decades now. But lately I am rethinking things, and since it's undeniable to me that there has to be a gap somewhere, I'm beginning to think it might be in the middle of the week instead. Understanding it that way appears to fit what is recorded in the NT involving the 42 month reign of the beast. The reign of the beast is 42 months not 84 months. The 2nd half of the 70th week is 42 months not 84 months. There is nothing I can see in the NT that supports the first half of the 70th week if we project that into the future. Where in the NT does it support that a covenant is made by a future roman prince at the beginning of the 70th week? One can't just read that into the text and expect that to be acceptable. The text itself has to support it.

As to the 42 month reign of the beast. the text supports that this part in Daniel 9:27 can fit that---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. If that is not what 2 Thessalonians 2:4, for example, is attempting to accomplish, which is also involving the 42 month reign of the beast, then I give up, it is apparently a lie that Scripture interprets Scripture. Thus no one should be trying to interpret the OT with the aid of the NT, and vice versa.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Trust me, I understand where you are coming from because that too has been my position for decades now. But lately I am rethinking things, and since it's undeniable to me that there has to be a gap somewhere, I'm beginning to think it might be in the middle of the week instead. Understanding it that way appears to fit what is recorded in the NT involving the 42 month reign of the beast. The reign of the beast is 42 months not 84 months. The 2nd half of the 70th week is 42 months not 84 months. There is nothing I can in the NT that supports the first half of the 70th week if we project that into the future. Where in the NT does it support that a covenant is made by a future roman prince at the beginning of the 70th week? One can't just read that into the text and expect that to be acceptable. The text itself has to support it.

As to the 42 month reign of the beast. the text supports that this part in Daniel 9:27 can fit that---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. If that is not what 2 Thessalonians 2:4, for example, is attempting to accomplish, which is also is involving the 42 month reign of the beast, then I give up, it is apparently a lie that Scripture interprets Scripture. Thus no one should be trying to interpret the OT with the aid of the NT, and vice versa.

again, I go with the flow of the passage.

from the command to restore until messiah is 69 weeks

Messiah was introduced on a donkey as the scripture prophesied

Zechariah 9:9
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.

After this we are told of events.

1. Messiah will be cut off (killed) happened the week after he entered.
2. The people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and sanctuary (happened in 70 ad. almost 40 years later)
3. The end will be with a flood until war desolation's are determined

so we already have a gap;

for this, look at matt 24. Jesus said their will be wars and rumors of wars. nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. But the end is not yet.. This is the gap. Jesus is telling us what will happen between this time until the end.

What happens next is a confirmation of some covenant for 1 week (7 years) and in the middle of this week. the abomination which causes desolation.

we see 3.5 years of general peace. followed by 3.5 years of great tribulation. How do we know the middle of the week? Jesus tells us

15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

Non of these events have taken place yet

there has been no covenant agreed to or confirmed by any prince for 1 week (7 years)
There was no abomination of desolation in the middle of that week period
There has yet to be this great tribulation which Jesus says is so great, if he does not stop it. no one will survive.
It ends with the return of Christ.

I can think of quite a few reasons, but lets start here.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Daniel 9:27 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.


Anyone being honest with the text is going to take this entire verse to be pertaining to the 70th week, then interpret it based on that.

IOW...

This part---And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week--is involving the 70th week.

This part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--is involving the 70th week.

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.--is involving the 70th week.

Therefore, it is impossible, thus unreasonable, to interpret this verse in such a manner where it involves no gap whatsoever.

To illustrate this, let's assume this part--and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--is what Christ did on the cross in the middle of the 70th week.

If there are no gaps anywhere, that means 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---is entirely fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having died on the cross. Totally preposterous that that part can fit like that. The way many interpreters try and get around this is by being dishonest with the text, that some of it, particularly that part, is meaning outside of the 70th week, not during it.

That would be like arguing that verse 25 is not pertaining to the first 69 weeks. Some of it is pertaining to events outside of the first 69 weeks. Yet no one I'm aware of, regardless what their position is, pertaining to the 70 weeks, would argue in that manner per verse 25. Why do they argue in that manner per verse 27 then? Maybe because they are being dishonest with the text, thus place their interpretation above the text, rather than actually agreeing with the text.

As to this part in question---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 are ways to interpret that without having to take it in a literal sense. Clearly, if one is applying that part to 70 AD, not only would it be outside of the 70 weeks, it would be being taken in the literal sense per that interpretation since 70 AD involved literal events.

But if we apply that part to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 instead and what all that involves, now we are no longer obligated to take that part in a literal sense. Not unless you are a Preterist or a Pretribber. Thankfully, not all of us are either of those.

I am a pretribber (for teh rapture) but I agree the 70th week has not happened yet.

If it has then the purpose for all 70 weeks has been fulfilled for Israel and Jerusalem:

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

Wat too many believers play a tortured game of twister on the Scriptures to get all this accomplished by the time of Jesus death and ascension.

 

[Davidpt]

Wat too many believers play a tortured game of twister on the Scriptures to get all this accomplished by the time of Jesus death and ascension.

If you at least agree that some of that has been accomplished, just not all of it, that might mean you and I are on the same page to some degree. That aside.

One thing in particular that makes it crystal clear per the verse you submitted, that the entire 70 weeks haven't been fulfilled yet, is this.


Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression

I would think the holy city is meaning Jerusalem. Imagine that the 70 weeks have been fulfilled, which would then equal this---upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression---thus it is finished, then 40 years later this same Jerusalam is attacked and destroyed. Does that sound like the transgression involving the holy city was finished? If it was, it seems to me that one reason why Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD was because of transgressions, and not, because of transgressions having been finished involving it. The latter makes zero sense. No one could possibly think that it makes sense that the reason Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD is because the transgression pertaining to it was finished 40 years earlier.

That would be like someone committing a crime, then getting arrested, judged then sentenced, let's say 10 years in prison, they then serving out that term, then some years later they are once again being punished for this same crime they already paid in full by serving out 10 years in prison.

 

[Zao is life]

Trust me, I understand where you are coming from because that too has been my position for decades now. But lately I am rethinking things, and since it's undeniable to me that there has to be a gap somewhere, I'm beginning to think it might be in the middle of the week instead. Understanding it that way appears to fit what is recorded in the NT involving the 42 month reign of the beast. The reign of the beast is 42 months not 84 months. The 2nd half of the 70th week is 42 months not 84 months. There is nothing I can in the NT that supports the first half of the 70th week if we project that into the future. Where in the NT does it support that a covenant is made by a future roman prince at the beginning of the 70th week? One can't just read that into the text and expect that to be acceptable. The text itself has to support it.

As to the 42 month reign of the beast. the text supports that this part in Daniel 9:27 can fit that---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. If that is not what 2 Thessalonians 2:4, for example, is attempting to accomplish, which is also is involving the 42 month reign of the beast, then I give up, it is apparently a lie that Scripture interprets Scripture. Thus no one should be trying to interpret the OT with the aid of the NT, and vice versa.

That's much more plausible IMO than trying to make the part about the people of the prince who would come and destroy the city and the sanctuary, a part of the 70 weeks.

The 'weeks' mentioned are not about "the people of the prince who would come and who would destroy the city and the sanctuary". That part is added because those other actors being mentioned there, and what they were also going to do, was pertinent by way of being related to events that would follow the Messiah having been cut off - but what they were going to do was not spoken about as part of the 70 weeks - the 70 weeks was about the coming of the Messiah.

The prophecy did NOT say this:

"70 weeks are determined for the destruction of the city and the sanctuary by the people of the prince who will come."

It said 70 weeks were determined until Messiah the Prince and 1. to finish the transgression, and 2. to make an end of sins, and 3. to make reconciliation for iniquity, and 4. to bring in everlasting righteousness, and 5. to seal up the vision and prophecy, and 6. to anoint the most Holy.

But you need to have a city called Jerusalem being destroyed as well as a temple being made desolate - by the coming Antichrist - if it fits in the final 42 months where you have it - because verse 26 says the city would be destroyed - and the prophecy makes it obvious in verse 24 that that city is Jerusalem.

Did Jesus prophesy about the coming destruction of the Temple when He was standing in the Temple talking to the Pharisees and scribes? Did He say anything about armies gathering against Jerusalem and the city being destroyed in Luke 21:20-24?

What city is going to be destroyed and what Temple is going to be destroyed in the 42 month reign of the beast? The New Testament Temple cannot be destroyed, surely?

Also, Zechariah 12-14 does not have Jerusalem being destroyed again. So if the final 42 months is about "the when" of when the city and sanctuary would be destroyed, and had nothing to do with the 70 weeks between the going forth of the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and the anointing of the Messiah, then why can't it have been 70 A.D?

Why can't the final 42 months of the 70th week = the 42 months of the reign of the beast (fulfilling that final half of the 70th week spiritually) without there being any destruction of the city of Jerusalem?

Why does the prince and the people of that prince mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27 as the one destroying the city of the Jews and making the sanctuary of the Jews desolate, have to be someone still to come?
​

If the 42 months = the 42 months of the end of this age, why would it 'have to' have anything to do with what was said in Daniel 9:26-27 about the people of that prince who would come, or about that city that was destroyed or about that sanctuary, if the 70 weeks were not even about them but only about the Messiah?

The 70 weeks was all about the period of time leading up to the coming of the Messiah, not about anyone else. So if 42 months of the final week remain they do not have to have anything to do with the destruction of Jerusalem or with the people of the prince who the prophecy said would destroy the city. IMO.

Yes, there is something that has not been completed. It will take 42 months to complete. Or should I say it will be completed at the close of the 42 months. The end of the 70th week.

But we should not confuse the 42 months and the main actor/s still to come with the people of the prince or with the prince who destroyed the city and the sanctuary following the week that the Messiah was cut off. IMO.

 

[Keraz]

What people here seem to miss; or purposely avoid, is the Words: with that one half spent......Danel 9:27
This shows how that 7 yere treaty of peace will hold true for the first half of it.

At the mid point, it will be broken, as so vividly described in Zechariah 14:1-2.
Then the things and events Prophesied in Revelation for the final half of 3 1/2 years will take place.

This truth makes it clear that the final 70th 'week', is still future.

 

[Timtofly]

But he is not Christ, and sacrifice and burnt offering ceases BECAUSE of the abomination of desolation. And the text clearly says Christ was "cut off" at the end of the 69th week. not in the middle of the 70th week.

The text does not "clearly" say "at the end of" "cut off".

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto [the Messiah the Prince] (that is Jesus) shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks."

The verse does not say the birth of nor the death of Jesus. It just says "unto Jesus".


Then in the next verse we see Jesus as being cut off, thus the Prince to come.


Now Jesus may not have even had to die, had God arranged a different phenomenon. The point of being "cut off", could have just been Jesus leaving earth, and not setting up a kingdom without a death at all.

"Cut off" does not express death. It expresses an incomplete work as the Prince part was placed on hold even though Jesus was just alive when He left as when He will return. Death did not "cut off" Jesus. Jesus ascended alive and in person in the clouds "cut off" from the rest of the title Jesus has, Prince.

The cut off part was Jesus leaving the earth alive, not dead somewhere. We know Jesus died as Messiah. But He also rose from the dead as Messiah, so death did not "cut off" Jesus. In fact it was not even for himself:

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself."

Nor does it say "at the end of" here either. Jesus was born after 69 weeks. Jesus grew up after 69 weeks. Jesus was baptized after 69 weeks. All these verses are saying is that there will be a period of time until the Messiah is revealed. Then the Messiah will leave earth, not for Himself, but will return as Prince at a later point in time.

Jesus left so that the church could grow over the last 1994 years. A point not mentioned, but that has happened as much as the death, burial, and resurrection. Now obviously death would cut off any natural born human from Adam. But the Cross did not cut off Jesus, as we also know that Jesus defeated death and the grave. Your interpretation without explanation just leaves Jesus in a tomb, if death is the point. So there is no explanation that Jesus is the 70th week, but that is how it should be interpreted so as to let Jesus be the author and finisher of those 6 promises. As Messiah the author in person. As Prince the finisher in person at the Second Coming. At some point between Messiah and Prince, Jerusalem was destroyed. Verse 27 pertains to only the 7th Trumpet after the Second Coming.

 

[wooddog]

God confirmed the covenant with his supreme sacrifice in the middle of the week. All sacrifices after are abominations to him and after 40 years he allowed the desolation of the Temple by people of the prince to come (Satan). 42 months of the Revelations is all that's left to complete the covenant. Is this hard to understand?

 

[Earburner]

Here is some more of my thinking pertaining to the OP.

If verse 27 can allegedly involve both the 70th week and outside of that week, the same should be true of verse 25 in a similar manner. That it involves both the first 69 weeks and outside of those weeks.

Here's verse 25 in it's entirety.

Daniel 9:25 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.

Now one needs to point out which part or parts is focusing on something outside of this first 69 weeks. Of course one can't point that out but somehow one can point something like that out in verse 27, though. And one reason why ,is because, even though that one is allowing the NT to explain some of verse 27, thus Luke 21:20 explains it, thus 70 AD explains it, that one is still not using the correct source to explain it because verse 27 involves abominations and that what happened in 70 AD didn't.

Nowhere does it mention abominations in Luke 21, but it does mention abominations in Matthew 24. Except none of that is involving what Luke 21:20 is involving, it is involving what 2 Thessalonians 2:4, for one, is involving, and that 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not involving 70 AD, not even remotely.

It seems rather silly to me that there is 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to contend with, and that it is involving abominations, but it is not involving anything recorded in Daniel 9:27 because that is involving abominations that allegedly took place during 70 AD. If that is true, it should no longer be a mystery what these abominations were in 70 AD.

Yet all the ones that insist abominations took place back then can't even all agree with each other. Why not? Like I pointed out, it should no longer be a mystery at this point if it was fulfilled 2000 years ago. Thus all interpreters that insist abominations took place at the time should be in unanimous agreement with one another, not in disagreement instead. All that does is raise red flags, not prove they are correct instead. Because if they were correct, obviously they would all be in agreement with what the AOD was in 70 AD. Yet they are not. One person insists it was this. another person insists it was something else instead, so on and and so on. It then become a multiple choice answer and we then need to choose who sounds more convincing. Thus raises red flags.

In your estimation, you are correct to think that there is much confusion about the 70th week.
However, most are discerning the word of God by "the wisdom of men" (their natural mind), and not by the mind of Christ, if He is within them.
1 Cor. 2
[5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the [Holy Spirit] power of God.
[6] Howbeit we speak wisdom AMONG THEM that are perfect (who are born again): yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
[7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

On every biblical topic, there can always be more than one lie, but there can never be more than ONE truth about it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The text does not "clearly" say "at the end of" "cut off".

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto [the Messiah the Prince] (that is Jesus) shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks."

The verse does not say the birth of nor the death of Jesus. It just says "unto Jesus".


Then in the next verse we see Jesus as being cut off,

Which is what I said, Thank you

if we look at it, the time period between when artexerxes gave Nehemiah the command to restore Jerusalem. And the time Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey is literally 69 weeks.

He was killed the following week on the cross.

thus the Prince to come.

No. Messiah the prince is the one who would come in the 69 weeks.

He would then be cut off (killed) immediately after this time period. which literally took place.

the prince who is to come comes from the people who destroyed the city in 70 AD (rome)

Now Jesus may not have even had to die, had God arranged a different phenomenon. The point of being "cut off", could have just been Jesus leaving earth, and not setting up a kingdom without a death at all.

How could our sins be paid if Jesus did nto die.

What hope would we have if we did not see Jesus resurrect?

but non of this matters, The prophet said he would die. So as we see, He died.. fulfilling prophecy

"Cut off" does not express death. It expresses an incomplete work as the Prince part was placed on hold even though Jesus was just alive when He left as when He will return. Death did not "cut off" Jesus. Jesus ascended alive and in person in the clouds "cut off" from the rest of the title Jesus has, Prince.

The hebrew word literally means to be cut off, to be cut down, to be destroyed. Thats what Happened on the cross.

The cut off part was Jesus leaving the earth alive, not dead somewhere. We know Jesus died as Messiah. But He also rose from the dead as Messiah, so death did not "cut off" Jesus. In fact it was not even for himself:

But in order for prophecy to be fulfilled. it had to happen. Daniel tells us he would be cut iff. it was fulfilled at the cross.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself."

Of course not, He was destroyed for us.

Nor does it say "at the end of" here either. Jesus was born after 69 weeks. Jesus grew up after 69 weeks. Jesus was baptized after 69 weeks. All these verses are saying is that there will be a period of time until the Messiah is revealed. Then the Messiah will leave earth, not for Himself, but will return as Prince at a later point in time.

This is in error. Your time line is off.. Nor does it fit the text.

Jesus left so that the church could grow over the last 1994 years. A point not mentioned, but that has happened as much as the death, burial, and resurrection. Now obviously death would cut off any natural born human from Adam. But the Cross did not cut off Jesus, as we also know that Jesus defeated death and the grave. Your interpretation without explanation just leaves Jesus in a tomb, if death is the point. So there is no explanation that Jesus is the 70th week, but that is how it should be interpreted so as to let Jesus be the author and finisher of those 6 promises. As Messiah the author in person. As Prince the finisher in person at the Second Coming. At some point between Messiah and Prince, Jerusalem was destroyed. Verse 27 pertains to only the 7th Trumpet after the Second Coming.

Not sure what this has to do with Dan 9 and my comments

 

[Eternally Grateful]

God confirmed the covenant with his supreme sacrifice in the middle of the week. All sacrifices after are abominations to him and after 40 years he allowed the desolation of the Temple by people of the prince to come (Satan). 42 months of the Revelations is all that's left to complete the covenant. Is this hard to understand?

Is this what the text says?

It says the prince who is to come (the roman prince of the people who destroyed the city in 70 AD) would confirm a ccovenant with many for 1 week.

In the middle of that week. he would put an abomination which causes desolation in the wing of the temple (most holy place)

Jesus mentions this idol in matt 24

 

[wooddog]

Is this what the text says?

It says the prince who is to come (the roman prince of the people who destroyed the city in 70 AD) would confirm a ccovenant with many for 1 week.

In the middle of that week. he would put an abomination which causes desolation in the wing of the temple (most holy place)

Jesus mentions this idol in matt 24

Is that how you interpret it, I believe the text says (the people of) KJV

 

[Earburner]

If we look at it, the time period between when artexerxes gave Nehemiah the command to restore Jerusalem. And the time Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey is literally 69 weeks.

He was killed the following week on the cross.

No. Messiah the prince is the one who would come in the 69 weeks.

He would then be cut off (killed) immediately after this time period. which literally took place.

the prince who is to come comes from the people who destroyed the city in 70 AD (rome)



How could our sins be paid if Jesus did nto die.

What hope would we have if we did not see Jesus resurrect?

but non of this matters, The prophet said he would die. So as we see, He died.. fulfilling prophecy

The hebrew word literally means to be cut off, to be cut down, to be destroyed. Thats what Happened on the cross.

But in order for prophecy to be fulfilled. it had to happen. Daniel tells us he would be cut iff. it was fulfilled at the cross.

Of course not, He was destroyed for us.

This is in error. Your time line is off.. Nor does it fit the text.

Not sure what this has to do with Dan 9 and my comments

Amen!!

 

[Arthur81]

Separating the 70th week from the 69th week is faulty human reasoning never thought of until up into the 19th century!

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18 RSV)

"And I say to you: you are Peter, the Rock; and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall never conquer it." (Matt 16:18 REB)

"Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3 RSV)

"My friends, I was fully intending to write to you about the salvation we share, when I found it necessary to take up my pen and urge you to join in the struggle for that faith which God entrusted to his people once for all." (Jude 1:3 REB)

It is hard to imagine how the body of Christ for over 1900 years of its history, missed the ridiculous idea of separating the 70th from the 69th week by 2000 years. Preposterous!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Is that how you interpret it, I believe the text says (the people of) KJV

And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;

I do not see any other way to translate it.

He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week.

Who is he?

the prince who is to come.

What do we know about him? The people from where he comes from destroyed the city (his people) Rome

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Separating the 70th week from the 69th week is faulty human reasoning never thought of until up into the 19th century!

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18 RSV)

"And I say to you: you are Peter, the Rock; and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall never conquer it." (Matt 16:18 REB)

"Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3 RSV)

"My friends, I was fully intending to write to you about the salvation we share, when I found it necessary to take up my pen and urge you to join in the struggle for that faith which God entrusted to his people once for all." (Jude 1:3 REB)

It is hard to imagine how the body of Christ for over 1900 years of its history, missed the ridiculous idea of separating the 70th from the 69th week by 2000 years. Preposterous!

lol

Yet the very text seperates them

we have the 1st 69 weeks

then messiah is cut off. then the people of the prince who is to come destroy the city, the end of this desolation to be with a flood until war desolations.

THEN we have a future prince confirm a covenant with many

Just because the roman church rejects what the passage says does not mean it was not there and it was not believed by some.

 

[ScottA]

Daniel 9:27 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.


Anyone being honest with the text is going to take this entire verse to be pertaining to the 70th week, then interpret it based on that.

IOW...

This part---And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week--is involving the 70th week.

This part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--is involving the 70th week.

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.--is involving the 70th week.

Therefore, it is impossible, thus unreasonable, to interpret this verse in such a manner where it involves no gap whatsoever.

To illustrate this, let's assume this part--and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease--is what Christ did on the cross in the middle of the 70th week.

If there are no gaps anywhere, that means 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---is entirely fulfilled within 3.5 years of Christ having died on the cross. Totally preposterous that that part can fit like that. The way many interpreters try and get around this is by being dishonest with the text, that some of it, particularly that part, is meaning outside of the 70th week, not during it.

That would be like arguing that verse 25 is not pertaining to the first 69 weeks. Some of it is pertaining to events outside of the first 69 weeks. Yet no one I'm aware of, regardless what their position is, pertaining to the 70 weeks, would argue in that manner per verse 25. Why do they argue in that manner per verse 27 then? Maybe because they are being dishonest with the text, thus place their interpretation above the text, rather than actually agreeing with the text.

As to this part in question---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 are ways to interpret that without having to take it in a literal sense. Clearly, if one is applying that part to 70 AD, not only would it be outside of the 70 weeks, it would be being taken in the literal sense per that interpretation since 70 AD involved literal events.

But if we apply that part to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 instead and what all that involves, now we are no longer obligated to take that part in a literal sense. Not unless you are a Preterist or a Pretribber. Thankfully, not all of us are either of those.

Unfortunately...that's not honesty, it's deception

The problem is, you have put too much emphasis on the words being "text", and trying to "fit" them into--well, anything. The words are not text--they are spirit; and you can't fit the Spirit into anything. But you have done it, and therefore have yourself the same can of doctrine that so many others have also been feasting on. Thank God, there are "many" who have not fallen into the same worldly "fit" of expectation!

The words as "text" are foolishness.

To the contrary, what you missed in Daniel, is his equating the whole matter to "a time, times, and half a time." Meaning, math, and days, and weeks, and years, and formulas...do not at all offer an accurate depiction of what was written. The good news is, the truth evading so many for so long was part of the prophecy, and intentionally part of the plan. It was sealed until the time of the end...just as it is written.

That time is now. But you will first have to get out from under that bolder of age-old deception...and humbly lose the attitude.