Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Why do you focus on that instead of the verse referring to by far the most significant part of the 70th week which was our Great God and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, sacrificing Himself for the sins of the world and thereby confirming and establishing the new covenant while effectually making an end of the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings? For some reason, that information means nothing and all that matters to you is that it doesn't specifically indicate how the 70th week ended. That is just unbelievable to me. You have the wrong focus. Daniel 9 is all about what Jesus was going to do. He did everything described in Daniel 9:24 and Daniel 9:25-27 is mainly about Him as well. But, premils like you miss that.What is the logic in verse 27 being the 70th week then nothing in that verse even showing how the 70th week ends?
His death made the temple spiritually desolate even until the consummation of the temple being made physically desolate. There was no need for the physical desolation to be part of the 70 weeks because that isn't what the 70 weeks is about. It's about what Jesus did.It can't be this part below if some of you insist is meaning after the entire 70 weeks already expired decades earlier.
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 it need to mean that? I see no reason for that. Is the 70 week prophecy about physical destruction or is it about spiritual deliverance? Read Daniel 9:24 and think about what was supposed to be accomplished by the end of the 70 weeks. Tell me, do you see anything about physical destruction there? There isn't. The physical destruction was an end result of the Jews not accepting what Jesus did to establish the new covenant, but there is nothing to indicate that any physical destruction had to be part of the fulfillment of the 70 weeks.In your mind then---even until the consummation---it is not involving the end of something, therefore, it can't be meaning how the 70th week ends for certain?
This is doctrinal bias at its worst. The city was completely destroyed in 70 AD. Just because it was later rebuilt does not change that fact. You make the assumption that it has to mean it was destroyed, never to appear again, but that isn't what it means. Your doctrinal bias tells you that.consummation
kalah
kaw-law'
from 'kalah' (3615); a completion; adverb, completely; also destruction:--altogether, (be, utterly) consume(-d), consummation(-ption), was determined, (full, utter) end, riddance.
I like this def---(full, utter) end---which can't even remotely fit with the city being destroyed in 70 AD the fact that same city is back on the map again, as we speak.
I can't even put into words how sad it is to see Christians try to act as if the finishing of transgression has something to do with the literal finish of transgressions by the people of Israel. If you're going to think it has something to do with that, then that wouldn't be fulfilled even when Christ returns, but rather wouldn't be fulfilled until over a thousand years later based on the premil view. Is that what you think then? That the 70-weeks isn't fulfilled until over a thousand years after Christ returns?That does not then equal this in regards to the city of Jerusalem---(full, utter) end---that that was fulfilled in 70 AD. We can't be cherry picking here. 70 AD involved the destruction of both the city and the temple. While this might be true pertaining to the temple---(full, utter) end---it clearly isn't true pertaining to the city, though. Keeping in mind this as well---Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression
Unbelieving Jews, not believing Christians, are in control of Jerusalem today. That to me sounds like the transgressions involving the holy city, they are not quite finished yet. And until they are finished, it is a contradiction to insist the entire 70 weeks have already been fulfilled.
To finish the transgression is all about what Jesus did by being wounded for the transgressions of the people of Israel (and all other people, of course) and Him being numbered with the transgressors and making intercession for the transgressors? The following passage tells us what finishing the transgression is all about:
Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.