I don't find it baffling at all. The 490 years were literal, so why not the final one week, separated from the whole, but still falling within the whole. You can get a lot of Gedge's study going to his profile page and look for his on-line discussions here:
There are 2 tribulation periods, the “first” is to the Jews
- Thread starter Stewardofthemystery
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I don't find it baffling at all. The 490 years were literal, so why not the final one week, separated from the whole, but still falling within the whole. You can get a lot of Gedge's study going to his profile page and look for his on-line discussions here:
Spiritual Israelite, I thought I had saved Gedge's complete study of Daniel's 70 weeks, but I'm sorry to say I can't find it. The little I posted here I had copied to my document folder, and sadly it seems to be all that I have left of his EXCELLENT and incredibly thorough study. sorry
This is what must come to pass within "seventy weeks" which equates to 490 literal years from the first decree to Christ.
Daniel 9:24 (KJV) 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.
There isn't another one week added to the seventy. The one week has only been separated from the whole. Since the 490 years are literal, why wouldn't the one week divided from the whole also be literal?
This is what must come to pass within "seventy weeks" which equates to 490 literal years from the first decree to Christ.
Daniel 9:24 (KJV) 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.
There isn't another one week added to the seventy. The one week has only been separated from the whole. Since the 490 years are literal, why wouldn't the one week divided from the whole also be literal?
Last edited:
Bro, I'm looking at Chris's online Scholar's Edition of his epic The Atonement Clock. Is there any of that explanation in there?
Thank you for the link. What I posted was part of a pm with Gedge. I wish my memory was better. The thing I remember best is how impressed I was with this study. I had totally forgotten it was titled 'The Atonement Clock'. I thought I had stored it years ago, but I must have deleted it at some point. I'm in the process of printing it out this time. Thanks again.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I have no idea of what you're trying to say. Before the "one week" is referenced in verse 27, only 69 of the weeks had been previously mentioned. So, verse 27 has to refer to the 70th week and there's no reason to think the 70th week wasn't of the same duration as the previous 69 weeks.
Yes, I inadvertently left out the final one week that brings the total to 490 years instead of 483 weeks of years. Sorry for the confusion.
Last edited:
The one week belongs with 490 years. It's only set apart because all that is prophesied to be fulfilled with Messiah's coming was fulfilled in that one last week. Everything prophesied to come before this one week was fulfilled before the final one week of 490 years came. If the final one week is to be understood as seven years what seven years during the time when Christ was on this earth, fits one week being seven years?
Daniel 9:27 (KJV) 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.
Do you deny anything written to come in one week was NOT literally fulfilled in ONE week?
Here is what Gedge has written at the end of Pg 28 in his book 'The Atonement Clock' [Emphasis mine]
"Messiah would be the lamb, and he would raise up an everlasting temple not built by human hands. [At that appointed time] Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. Thus Messiah’s death was the climax, the ultimate sacrifice. It was accomplished in the middle of the final ‘week’ of a final group of seventy ‘weeks’, purchasing eternal redemption for all who believe!"
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I already described that. The time of His ministry, His death, His resurrection and the preaching of the gospel first to Israel before it went to the Gentiles.
Why would the 70th week not be of the same duration as the previous 69 weeks? You are confusing me to no end here.
Notice that Gedge said that the one week of Daniel 9:27 was the final week of a final group of seventy weeks. The previous 69 weeks were all seven years in duration, right? Well, so was that one final week, which was the 70th week. I think you are misinterpreting what he said and, more importantly, what Daniel 9:27 is saying. But, at least you recognize that the "he" is Jesus and not some imaginary Antichrist, so it's not that big of a deal.
What verses support the view that this took place for seven years? Are you saying the earthly ministry of Christ covered seven years?
I find the opinion that the ministry of Christ on this earth was seven years just as confusing.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
No. His ministry covered 3 or maybe 3 1/2 years and then He died and rose again. The remaining time of the 70th week relates to Jesus coming to dwell in His people who then brought the gospel to Israel before going to the Gentiles. I already explained this, but I guess you didn't understand what I was saying. And I'm pretty sure this is what Gedge believed, also. I haven't read his book, but I'm basing this on things he said on the forum.
I would find that confusing, too, if that is what I was saying, but I wasn't. Obviously, His ministry while He was on the earth didn't last for seven years.
Very subjective reasoning, without biblical support. If the first 483 years are literally weeks of literal seven day periods of time, why would you try to push the final seven-day one week into some vague unknown 3 1/2 days/weeks/unknown time ? of whatever into the future?
Christian Gedge does not agree with projecting the 70th week into the distant future.
Pg 54 The Atonement Clock
"At this point, it is necessary to clear up a misunderstanding concerning the 70th week. It has been widely taught by modern preachers and popular books that the ‘coming prince’ spoken about refers to the final Antichrist. The story goes that the clock stopped after the 69th week and the last week - the 70th - has been projected forward 2000 years into the future, after which it resumes when Antichrist is revealed. In the middle of this seven-year period he is supposed to enter a rebuilt Jewish temple and put an end to animal sacrifice, an act of desecration which (they say) is the ‘abomination’ mentioned in verse 27. This theory is wrong. Apart from the obvious difficulty of jamming a two-thousand year wedge into God’s timeline, it confuses the prophecy’s real intent. The passage is all about atonement, not second coming. The temple is ‘rejected’ not ‘desecrated’. The overspreading abomination was the continuance of sacrifice after it was supposed to stop. The central person is Christ, not Antichrist, and the prince who was to come refers to Titus, who came forty years after the ‘weeks’ were over."
More excerpts for your consideration: [emphasis mine]
"The traditional view of this passage, held by the Church until last century, was the correct one all along. Christ is the one who confirms the covenant! Christ is the one who causes sacrifice to cease! Christ is the one who makes the temple obsolete! Is this what happened? It surely did. In the midst of tThe 70th week – in the very midst – God caused the great curtain of the temple to be torn from top to bottom indicating that sacrifice (as far as He was concerned) had come to an end. The atonement was complete!
Shortly afterward the ‘other prince’, Titus the Roman, came and destroyed the temple altogether. Please examine the text in the box opposite comparing the alternative notes, and notice how naturally the historical explanation flows into events as they unfolded. For example, the destruction is attributed to “the people of the prince,” not to the prince himself. Such a distinction would be superfluous, if it were not for the fact that Titus had instructed his troops to preserve the temple, but they disobeyed orders and torched it anyway. The people of the prince did it!
A further objection to Titus is that he does not fit descriptions of Antichrist, nor did he install an ‘abomination’ in the temple. However, it is an assumption to expect he would do this in the first place. Yes, scripture does speak of a future ‘Man of Sin’, but the reference to him is found in chapter 7 of Daniel’s book, not chapter 9, which is to do with Messiah’s atonement and the abolition of the old method of atonement. The separate visions contained in Daniel’s writings should not be muddled together.
Another objection sometimes raised is, “How can the 70th week stretch over forty years to include the events of Christ’s ministry as well as the destruction of Jerusalem?” The answer is quite simple. The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple did not take place within the actual seventy weeks; the prophet was simply providing information of the aftermath to the weeks in order to explain what the eventual outcome would be. In conclusion then, Daniel’s 70 weeks run from the reissue of Cyrus’ decree by Artaxerxes in 457 BC. They proceed to the 69th week with John’s announcement of the kingdom and the anointing of Jesus of Nazareth by the Holy Spirit at his baptism. A final Jubilee week ending AD 34 saw the confirming of the covenant - the atoning work of Christ, his sacrifice and the founding of the Kingdom of God. These events happened more than five centuries after they were revealed by the prophet Daniel, making his prediction the most amazing of all time. The prophecy locates the middle of the 70th week when Jesus Christ died on the Cross. The ‘seventy’ was also locked into a network of Sabbaths and Jubilees stemming back to the patriarch Jacob who first saw a stairway to heaven – free access to the presence of God. Such is the precision of the Atonement Clock."
Pg 54 The Atonement Clock
"At this point, it is necessary to clear up a misunderstanding concerning the 70th week. It has been widely taught by modern preachers and popular books that the ‘coming prince’ spoken about refers to the final Antichrist. The story goes that the clock stopped after the 69th week and the last week - the 70th - has been projected forward 2000 years into the future, after which it resumes when Antichrist is revealed. In the middle of this seven-year period he is supposed to enter a rebuilt Jewish temple and put an end to animal sacrifice, an act of desecration which (they say) is the ‘abomination’ mentioned in verse 27. This theory is wrong. Apart from the obvious difficulty of jamming a two-thousand year wedge into God’s timeline, it confuses the prophecy’s real intent. The passage is all about atonement, not second coming. The temple is ‘rejected’ not ‘desecrated’. The overspreading abomination was the continuance of sacrifice after it was supposed to stop. The central person is Christ, not Antichrist, and the prince who was to come refers to Titus, who came forty years after the ‘weeks’ were over."
More excerpts for your consideration: [emphasis mine]
"The traditional view of this passage, held by the Church until last century, was the correct one all along. Christ is the one who confirms the covenant! Christ is the one who causes sacrifice to cease! Christ is the one who makes the temple obsolete! Is this what happened? It surely did. In the midst of tThe 70th week – in the very midst – God caused the great curtain of the temple to be torn from top to bottom indicating that sacrifice (as far as He was concerned) had come to an end. The atonement was complete!
Shortly afterward the ‘other prince’, Titus the Roman, came and destroyed the temple altogether. Please examine the text in the box opposite comparing the alternative notes, and notice how naturally the historical explanation flows into events as they unfolded. For example, the destruction is attributed to “the people of the prince,” not to the prince himself. Such a distinction would be superfluous, if it were not for the fact that Titus had instructed his troops to preserve the temple, but they disobeyed orders and torched it anyway. The people of the prince did it!
A further objection to Titus is that he does not fit descriptions of Antichrist, nor did he install an ‘abomination’ in the temple. However, it is an assumption to expect he would do this in the first place. Yes, scripture does speak of a future ‘Man of Sin’, but the reference to him is found in chapter 7 of Daniel’s book, not chapter 9, which is to do with Messiah’s atonement and the abolition of the old method of atonement. The separate visions contained in Daniel’s writings should not be muddled together.
Another objection sometimes raised is, “How can the 70th week stretch over forty years to include the events of Christ’s ministry as well as the destruction of Jerusalem?” The answer is quite simple. The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple did not take place within the actual seventy weeks; the prophet was simply providing information of the aftermath to the weeks in order to explain what the eventual outcome would be. In conclusion then, Daniel’s 70 weeks run from the reissue of Cyrus’ decree by Artaxerxes in 457 BC. They proceed to the 69th week with John’s announcement of the kingdom and the anointing of Jesus of Nazareth by the Holy Spirit at his baptism. A final Jubilee week ending AD 34 saw the confirming of the covenant - the atoning work of Christ, his sacrifice and the founding of the Kingdom of God. These events happened more than five centuries after they were revealed by the prophet Daniel, making his prediction the most amazing of all time. The prophecy locates the middle of the 70th week when Jesus Christ died on the Cross. The ‘seventy’ was also locked into a network of Sabbaths and Jubilees stemming back to the patriarch Jacob who first saw a stairway to heaven – free access to the presence of God. Such is the precision of the Atonement Clock."
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
What in the world are you talking about? I am not doing that. The 70 weeks were continuous and are fulfilled. Where do you get the idea that I'm supposedly trying "to push the final seven-day one week into some vague unknown 3 1/2 days/weeks/unknown time"? That's ridiculous. Have you never read anything I've said about the 70 weeks? I've never once said anything to give an indication that I believe what you're saying there.
And what do you mean when you say "483 years are literally weeks of literal seven day periods of time"? That comment makes no sense to me. Do you believe each of the 70 weeks represents seven years or seven days? It seems like you want them to represent both. I can't make any sense of what you're saying. You clearly don't understand how I interpret the 70 weeks for whatever reason. You are horribly misrepresenting what I believe. I don't expect that from you, but I'm used to premils doing that.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
All of us know with complete certainty that none of us believes in dispensationalism's decapitated 70th week.
I don't think that anything further needs to be said beyond that.
You're right and I agree nothing more needs to be said about dispensationalism's decapitated 70th week.
But there is a reason for the separation of the final seven weeks of years. It took a little research and much thinking for me to figure out why, because I'm not very familiar with the Jewish Jubilee. The passion week of Christ was literally seven days, but it ushered in the final Jubilee celebration which was when the Hebrew slaves were to have been set free. It was in the midst of the Jubilee week, as well as the midst of Christ's Passion Week that the blood of Christ's atonement was made that sin might be forgiven and the captives of death would be set free. So, it's true that the one week was literally one seven-day week, it is also true that it was the 49th or final week of seven-year cycles marking the beginning of the Jubilee celebration to "hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof".
Leviticus 25:8-13 (KJV) And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years. Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed. For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field. In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.
Hope this makes sense, I would appreciate feedback.
Similar threads
