70th Week of Daniel

[Bambi]

" that the scripture might be fulfilled" in John 19:28, is not referring to Luke 22:18, but Psalm 69:21.
John 19 isn't even the same book and chapter as Luke 22:18. In what sense did the kingdom of God come when Jesus drank vinegar (not wine)? And in what sense did Jesus eat in John 19?

It doesn't have to be in the same book. The Gospels show the same thing with a different point of view. In all four gospels Jesus was offered a drink and in three of them he did take a drink while on the cross. According to Strong's concordance the vinegar drink was sour grapes or sour wine. So he did drink of the fruit of the vine.

When Christ suffered on the cross for our sins what all did that do? You interpretation of the Transfiguration is that is was the kingdom. Matthew Henry says it was a specimen of that kingdom. All that Jesus did on the cross, his suffering, death, his resurrection were part of the kingdom. It wasn't the act of drinking it was his suffering on the cross. His payment for our sins. The fulfillment of Daniel 9:24. Once that was done he would drink the fruit of the vine.

 

[Strypes]

Where in the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks do you see a pause? In all of scripture where there is a timed prophecy, no where will you see a gap in that prophecy. Neither is there one in Daniel's. It started when the decree went out to build the city(vs25) and ended 490 years later. The 70th week came right after the 69th week. There is no gap. This prophecy is about the coming Messiah not an anti-christ. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The phrase, "Times of the Gentiles" isn't even in that prophecy. You are putting two different prophecies together to make one fulfillment.

"for it still awaits the appointed time"...

Demanding I produce a scripture relating to an electronic recording device thousands of years before it was invented is a vain attempt to perpetuate an argument. All prophecies work in concert to fulfill the will of God. Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.

 

[brakelite]

On account of a sharp eyed fellow poster, namely DHC, the following is a revised version of the original post which held a rather dubious mathematical equation which can be seen in the following post.

The 70 weeks is mesured from 457BC. This takes us 69 weeks or 483 years to the revelation of the 'Messiah' at Christ's baptism, 27AD. The 70th week naturally follows. The ministry of Jesus fulfilled all those requirements as per the prophecy. The last 7 years takes us approximately to the stoning of Stephen, at which time the Jewish rulers made their final declaration of repulsing the gospel message. Their time was up, the 70 weeks for Israel had come to an end. The time that Jesus appointed his disciples to go only to the house of Israel had now been completed, and the call came immediately to Peter to go to the gentiles (Cornelius) and the very soon subsequent conversion of Saul. The Jew's house was left unto them desolate. This is a messianic prophecy. It has nothing to do with the antichrist. Jesus, for 7 years; the first 3 and 1/2 in person, the second 3and 1/2 through His Holy Spirit, confirmed the covenant made with Israel over a 1000 years previously. The new covenant had begun, ratified by blood as had the old.
There is no future 7 years to be completed. Although in this I agree with bambi, I do not hold to preterist position regards prophecy in general. The above understanding is historicist.

 

[DHC]

The 70 weeks is mesured from 457BC. This takes us 69 weeks or 490 years to the revelation of the 'Messiah' at Christ's baptism, 27AD.

Hello Brakelite.

Something wrong with your mathematics?

69 x 7 = 483 not 490

457 BC + 490 years = 33 AD not 27 AD

Methinks a revision of your post is in order.

 

[james1523]

It doesn't have to be in the same book. The Gospels show the same thing with a different point of view. In all four gospels Jesus was offered a drink and in three of them he did take a drink while on the cross. According to Strong's concordance the vinegar drink was sour grapes or sour wine. So he did drink of the fruit of the vine.

When Christ suffered on the cross for our sins what all did that do? You interpretation of the Transfiguration is that is was the kingdom. Matthew Henry says it was a specimen of that kingdom. All that Jesus did on the cross, his suffering, death, his resurrection were part of the kingdom. It wasn't the act of drinking it was his suffering on the cross. His payment for our sins. The fulfillment of Daniel 9:24. Once that was done he would drink the fruit of the vine.

Please read from verses 15. It says "this Passover". The eating and drinking referred to in verse 18 is the Passover, not the sour wine (or vinegar) Jesus drank on the cross. What Jesus says he will not drink in verse 18, is what he and his disciples just drank in verse 17, which is wine, not sour wine or vinegar. The context is more likely to be found in the immediate passages before and after the verse in question, rather than from a different gospel. Both verse 15 and verse 30 will give this context for verse 18. It's Passover wine, and the kingdom coming is in future.
15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”


The kingdom of God did not actually come until after Christ died on the cross and He resurrected and ascended and poured out His Spirit. So a drink taken before he died cannot be the drink referred to in verse 18. The kingdom of God is the rule and reign of the Holy Spirit on the Earth, (the Spirit indwelling every believer), and this did not happen until after Christ died and released the Spirit.

 

[Bambi]

Please read from verses 15. It says "this Passover". The eating and drinking referred to in verse 18 is the Passover, not the sour wine (or vinegar) Jesus drank on the cross. What Jesus says he will not drink in verse 18, is what he and his disciples just drank in verse 17, which is wine, not sour wine or vinegar. The context is more likely to be found in the immediate passages before and after the verse in question, rather than from a different gospel. Both verse 15 and verse 30 will give this context for verse 18. It's Passover wine, and the kingdom coming is in future.
15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”


The kingdom of God did not actually come until after Christ died on the cross and He resurrected and ascended and poured out His Spirit. So a drink taken before he died cannot be the drink referred to in verse 18. The kingdom of God is the rule and reign of the Holy Spirit on the Earth, (the Spirit indwelling every believer), and this did not happen until after Christ died and released the Spirit.

So are you saying that this eating and drinking is spiritual or that Christ didn't eat or drink at all after he rose from the dead?

 

[Bambi]

Hello Brakelite.

Something wrong with your mathematics?

69 x 7 = 483 not 490

457 BC + 490 years = 33 AD not 27 AD

Methinks a revision of your post is in order.

So are you saying you believe that the 70th week of Daniel was fulfilled by 33 AD?

 

[DHC]

So are you saying you believe that the 70th week of Daniel was fulfilled by 33 AD?

Hello Bambi.

Nice to hear from you, have been reading every post so far.

What an interesting journey it has been so far!

The mathematics you quoted was in fact a correction of mine from a previous post
submitted one Brakelite. If you wish to discuss the '69 weeks' with Him I am sure he
would oblige.

By the way Bambi, the calculations are very interesting and is popular among those
interested in eschatology. Never a boring moment in eschatology.

 

[james1523]

So are you saying that this eating and drinking is spiritual or that Christ didn't eat or drink at all after he rose from the dead?

The eating and drinking is for the Passover (vs 15) and Jesus did not eat or drink the Passover on the cross, the sour wine or vinegar Jesus drank on the cross was NOT the Passover wine.

 

[Bambi]

The eating and drinking is for the Passover (vs 15) and Jesus did not eat or drink the Passover on the cross, the sour wine or vinegar Jesus drank on the cross was NOT the Passover wine.

So what is Christ referring too? Is it spiritual food, is he talking about another Passover? It can't be another Passover because he was the fulfillment of Passover. Passover didn't occur again before Jesus ascended.

 

[brakelite]

So what is Christ referring too? Is it spiritual food, is he talking about another Passover? It can't be another Passover because he was the fulfillment of Passover. Passover didn't occur again before Jesus ascended.

I am not quite sure I have followed this discussion closely enough to fully understand where each of you are coming from....that said, I would like to venture my opinion as to what Jesus was referring to when He said He wouldn't taste of the fruit of the vine until He drinks it with us in His kingdom. Now I may be wrong, but I have always believed, and still do, that He is referring specifically to the marriage supper of the Lamb. An event which takes place after the Father has delivered to His Son the kingdom, after the saints have been resurrected and translated, a future event we may all look forward to in heaven celebrating the eternal union between the Lord and His bride.

 

[Bambi]

I am not quite sure I have followed this discussion closely enough to fully understand where each of you are coming from....that said, I would like to venture my opinion as to what Jesus was referring to when He said He wouldn't taste of the fruit of the vine until He drinks it with us in His kingdom. Now I may be wrong, but I have always believed, and still do, that He is referring specifically to the marriage supper of the Lamb. An event which takes place after the Father has delivered to His Son the kingdom, after the saints have been resurrected and translated, a future event we may all look forward to in heaven celebrating the eternal union between the Lord and His bride.

That is one interpretation, and I once believed that way, but not anymore. I hold to the Post-mil point of view. Which is we who are believers are in Christ's kingdom that started off small and is ever growing. It is a spiritual kingdom that cannot be observed. Except through the believer's walk/life. I believe that the kingdom started at the cross. I think james1523 believes it started at Pentecost.

 

[james1523]

So what is Christ referring too? Is it spiritual food, is he talking about another Passover? It can't be another Passover because he was the fulfillment of Passover. Passover didn't occur again before Jesus ascended.

It's referring to verse 30, the next time that He mentions "eating and drinking". What was physical eating and drinking with the disciples, becomes spiritual in Heaven.

 

[james1523]

That is one interpretation, and I once believed that way, but not anymore. I hold to the Post-mil point of view. Which is we who are believers are in Christ's kingdom that started off small and is ever growing. It is a spiritual kingdom that cannot be observed. Except through the believer's walk/life. I believe that the kingdom started at the cross. I think james1523 believes it started at Pentecost.

It was Pentecost because at the cross no disciples were made. The cross paved the way for the kingdom of God to come, because Christ had to die for the church (Eph 5:25). But this is not when it started. The kingdom of God started at the same time when the church started. The age of the church started when the believers were baptized in the Holy Spirit which was Pentecost, which Jesus imparted to them in John 20:22 as a foretaste, and it was completed at Pentecost when the Spirit came upon Jew and Gentile, and the Spirit has been on the Earth ever since.

This is proved by 1 Cor 12:13 which says we are a member of Christ's body after we are baptized in the Spirit (which happened at Pentecost), and Acts 1:5 proves Spirit baptism did not occur until Pentecost.

Baptism in Spirit = member of Christ's body are made = God's kingdom. So the kingdom of God started when the believers were first baptized in the Spirit which was at Pentecost.

 

[brakelite]

I would like to venture an opinion if I may. I believe God's kingdom is eternal. It has always existed, and it will have no end. So long as there has been God, so there has been a kingdom. This kingdom was extended to earth at creation, and Adam was given charge over it as God's representative, or steward if you like. Unfortunately, Adam switched sides, and presented this small piece of earthly acreage into the hands of the devil. God needed to take it back, and Jesus did so. This was accomplished at Calvar, as a matter of law, the earth now lagally once again is a part of God's kingdom, but it will not be as an experiential piece of God's property until Jesus returns as triumphant king.

 

[james1523]

I would like to venture an opinion if I may. I believe God's kingdom is eternal. It has always existed, and it will have no end. So long as there has been God, so there has been a kingdom. This kingdom was extended to earth at creation, and Adam was given charge over it as God's representative, or steward if you like. Unfortunately, Adam switched sides, and presented this small piece of earthly acreage into the hands of the devil. God needed to take it back, and Jesus did so. This was accomplished at Calvar, as a matter of law, the earth now lagally once again is a part of God's kingdom, but it will not be as an experiential piece of God's property until Jesus returns as triumphant king.

I agree that it is eternal and agree that Eden was the kingdom of God, but the rest of the earth was under the rule of satan. This is why God chose man to grow and multiply, and rule over the earth, to take back the earth from satan, starting from the garden of Eden.
I believe that God is not interested in ruling and reigning over acreage only, but the souls of men and all the animals and plants also. It is the souls of men which changed from the kingdom of God to satan, and so did all the creation with man. Satan is the ruler of this world in the sense that he rules all human kingdoms, starting with Nimrod, the first ruler of a human kingdom. By default, the kingdoms of men are kingdoms of satan, which are opposed to the kingdom of God.

As you said, the kingdom of God is His reign from eternity to eternity. It includes from before the foundation of the world, the garden of Eden, the Old Testament patriarchs before the nation of Israel, then the nation of Israel, and the church in the new testament, and the coming 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, and the new heaven and new earth and finally the New Jerusalem for eternity.
The age we are in now is the age of the church, and this is how God's kingdom is manifested on the earth today. If someone were to ask "where is God's kingdom?", we could point to Heaven, and we could also point to the church (both invisible and visible). Obviously the kingdom of God is not any nation on earth today, but must be the church. By the word "church ", I mean a plurality of believers, not a particular organization or denomination. If we lived in the old testament times, and someone asked where is the kingdom of God, we would point to Israel. Of course I believe the church replaced Israel, and that there has been a succession of different ages from eternity to eternity, and other topics in this forum are devoted to this matter.

 

[Bambi]

I would agree we are in a different age. But I would not agree that the church has replaced Israel. Israel is the church. The church has been around since Moses maybe even before. Acts 7:38. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: The different in ages is the way God is dealing with his people. A different covenant. When Jesus died on the cross his death covered the sins of not just the present and future sins of mankind but those who lived before the cross. Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, etc. The the church has always been there it's just been manifested differently.

 

[james1523]

I would agree we are in a different age. But I would not agree that the church has replaced Israel. Israel is the church. The church has been around since Moses maybe even before. Acts 7:38. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: The different in ages is the way God is dealing with his people. A different covenant. When Jesus died on the cross his death covered the sins of not just the present and future sins of mankind but those who lived before the cross. Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, etc. The the church has always been there it's just been manifested differently.

According to a strict definition, of which I have researched this quite extensively, church is the assembly of saints, the plurality of believers in Christ. In this sense there was no church before Christ, Israelites were known as the "people of God". The key difference between church and "people of God", is that the church is made up of people indwelt by the Spirit of God, the "people of God", old testament saints, were not. Because the church is people indwelt by the Spirit, they are also the body of Christ. There was no body of Christ before Christ. In this sense I believe that the church is Israel and has replaced "old Israel" aka Israel of the flesh.

 

[Bambi]

According to a strict definition, of which I have researched this quite extensively, church is the assembly of saints, the plurality of believers in Christ. In this sense there was no church before Christ, Israelites were known as the "people of God". The key difference between church and "people of God", is that the church is made up of people indwelt by the Spirit of God, the "people of God", old testament saints, were not. Because the church is people indwelt by the Spirit, they are also the body of Christ. There was no body of Christ before Christ. In this sense I believe that the church is Israel and has replaced "old Israel" aka Israel of the flesh.

Based on what scripture? I just gave you scripture in Acts that state that the church was there with Moses. When Christ mentions to his disciples that he will build his church, the disciples don't ask him what a "church" is. They know what a "church" is.

 

[james1523]

Based on what scripture? I just gave you scripture in Acts that state that the church was there with Moses. When Christ mentions to his disciples that he will build his church, the disciples don't ask him what a "church" is. They know what a "church" is.

There was a church but it was not 'THE' church. If there was a church in the old testament, the Israelites would have no need to convert to Christ, because they would already be part of Christ's body. The church as a new entity, of people purchased by Christ's blood, aka the body of Christ, started in Acts 2:1-4. In Matt 16:18 Jesus said He would build His church. Therefore the church was not built yet. Christ is the foundation of the church (1 Cor 3:11), and before Christ came there was no church, just a gathering of God's people. In new testament useage, the word church has greater meaning than merely a gathering of God's people. The difference between old testament assemblies and new testament church is like night and day. The former is a gathering of uncrucified and unregenerated people with a common interest, the latter is a crucified body of Christ, of which every member drinks of the one Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13.