And then applied the remainder of that verse to that of the final days pertaining to this age, basically meaning what I underlined per your post above. Except he, just like you and me, was not applying that in a literal sense involving literal Jerusalem and a rebuilt temple there.
Back in the late 70s I held to and promoted strongly the idea that there is a gap between the 1st half of the 70th Week and the 2nd half of the 70th Week. I felt the 1st half had to do with Christ terminating the Old Covenant, and the 2nd half had to do with the 3.5 years of Antichristian rule.
I have long ago abandoned this position because the arguments against were too strong for me to prevail in it. It is utterly illogical to insert a gap in any linear time period with an end date. The end date was the termination of Temple offerings in the middle of the 70th Week, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
I'm beginning to think he might be correct after all, that the gap is in the midst of the week, meaning after Christ died on the cross. This view is not a Dispy view, not even remotely.
To be clear, my complaint about *any Gap Theory* is that it has been promoted by a very small minority early in Church history and by Dispensationalists late in history. If this is true, then *any Gap Theory* concerning Daniel's 70th Week prophecy is "Dispensationalist-like."
Even if you can't agree, or maybe you just haven't thought through it enough yet...
I have been thinking it through since the late 70s! ;) That doesn't make me right, but it does mean I've listened to most, if not all, of the arguments one way or the other. I like the Dispensationalist emphasis on Israel's future salvation (as a nation). And I like the Dispensationalist futurist view of the book of Revelation.
What I don't like is that Dispensationalists tend to separate Israel from the Church, which is precisely what Amillennialists have done from time immemorial! ;) And their futurist interpretations of biblical prophecy follow this route, including Dan 9 and the 70th Week.
, instead of applying this part to 70 AD like is typically done by those such as you---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate---apply that to what I have underlined from your post above, then ask yourself why that might not make sense of the text when it's not rendering anything nonsensical by doing so. It's not like what I underlined in your post that that does not involve abominations.
This is difficult for me to follow. Let me just say that I believe the "overspreading of abominations" applied, as you indicate, to 70 AD. I think it refers to the abominable, pagan Roman Army, sent to destroy Jerusalem and its Temple worship. The "abomination" was the pagan Army, and not something inserted into the Temple to contaminate it in the way Antiochus did.
It's not like the remainder of Daniel 9:27 is not involving abominations. It is not like 70 AD was involving abominations. If it was, everyone that views it that way would all agree with each other at least, as to what abominations it was involving.
Not at all. Many have agreed that the Roman Army's destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD was the fulfillment of Dan 9.27. But they still have had problem agreeing on what the specific "abomination" was being mentioned.
And I think that is reasonable because there has always been confusion in Daniel's book between prophecy of Antiochus 4 and prophecy of the Abomination of Desolation. Antiochus 4 was identified as an AoD, and what he did is often confused with what the AoD in Dan 9.27 does.
Clearly, some think it may have been this, others think it may have been that, etc. Can't even agree about it yet you all insist abominations fit 70 AD better than the time period I underlined in your post does.
The period you underlined in my post agrees that the Roman Army in 70 AD fits the AoD of Dan 9.27.
IOW, what Christ accomplished 2000 years ago, the AC tries to undo that by redirecting worship to him rather than the real one deserving of it, Christ in this case.
You're here using a rationale you devise based on the assumption that the last half of the 70th Week fits the reign of Antichrist. While it's true that Antichrist tries to direct worship away from God to himself, this in no way means his 3.5 years of rule fits the 70th Week of Daniel.
As I said before, I believe the 70 Weeks were completed as a Half Week when Temple offerings were ended in the middle of the Week. There was no more time remaining to the 70th Week once this happened.
And the ones that don't worship the beast, keeping in mind that this involves 42 months as does the last half of the 70th week, this being when He finishes confirming the covenant with many for 1 week. The first half of that involves Him doing that during His ministry leading up to His death. Then He finishes doing that during the 42 month reign of the beast proved by the fact, though the church is experiencing great tribulation via the great wrath of satan that can't be equaled nor surpassed, not everyone falls away, thus making life easier for them if they were to, many remain faithful, regardless, even unto death.
As I've said elsewhere, calling the 3.5 years rule of Antichrist the "Great Tribulation" is a misnomer. Jesus identified the "Great Tribulation" or "Great Distress" as an entire age of Jewish punishment. That's what makes this judgment the worst in Israel's history.
This NT age of Great Tribulation was clearly focused upon the destruction of Jewish worship at the Temple, and exile from their land. At the same time it meant that Christian Jews would suffer persecution from their unbelieving brethren and from the loss of their country.
By extension, this means that Christians in every nation would go through the same kind of rejection by their nations. But there is *no question* that Jesus identified the "Great Tribulation" as "Jewish Punishment" in the present age! Nobody here or anywhere has successfully rebutted my argument in this regard. Indeed, they cannot, because Jesus himself said it!
So if you're going to focus on the reign of Antichrist and his 3.5 year rule with me, keep in mind that I view turning this into a "Tribulation Period" as a Dispensationalist-type argument. It is trying to go back to Jewish Temple worship in the interest of separating Israel's national salvation from Christian salvation in the present age.
It is difficult for us to understand one another when we begin with a different foundation for our beliefs. But I'm sure we agree on the most important things, and certainly on some of our eschatology. Take care...
