Daniel's 70 Weeks were fulfilled in 70 AD!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Like the 10 days of tribulation ? I have wondered about that myself - the most important 10 days I know of would be the 10 days from Roshashanah to Yom Kippur... this year 9/22 hence my verse Hebrews 9:22) any interpretation?

followed by the feast of Tabernacle - Sukkot

Shalom
White

Some folks have seen the "Ten Days" as the ten periods of extreme persecution under ten Romans emperors (see here):

95 Domitian
112 Trajan
177 Marcus Aurelius (cf. the famous martyrdoms at Lyon)
211 Septimus Severus
235 Maximus Thrax
250 Decius
257 Valerian
303 Diocletian
323 Licinius
361 Julian

Others see it as symbolic of the trials Christians endure in every age.

I don't have a set opinion yet, but I don't see any obvious connection with the Ten Days of Awe, since the concepts are so different.

Richard

[gilgal]

Some folks have seen the "Ten Days" as the ten periods of extreme persecution under ten Romans emperors (see here):

95 Domitian
112 Trajan
177 Marcus Aurelius (cf. the famous martyrdoms at Lyon)
211 Septimus Severus
235 Maximus Thrax
250 Decius
257 Valerian
303 Diocletian
323 Licinius
361 Julian

Others see it as symbolic of the trials Christians endure in every age.

I don't have a set opinion yet, but I don't see any obvious connection with the Ten Days of Awe, since the concepts are so different.

Richard

Could that be the Ten Kings? The ten horns of the Dragon Revelation 12 or of the beast in Revelation 13?

[deb]

I have not read enough (though I cannot leave this site alone) to know your view, sorry if it is already covered.

Some folks have seen the "Ten Days" as the ten periods of extreme persecution under ten Romans emperors (see here):

95 Domitian
112 Trajan
177 Marcus Aurelius (cf. the famous martyrdoms at Lyon)
211 Septimus Severus
235 Maximus Thrax
250 Decius
257 Valerian
303 Diocletian
323 Licinius
361 Julian

Others see it as symbolic of the trials Christians endure in every age...
Richard

May I ask, do you see the following passage as fitting any part of this picture? If so, then could you show me how it fits with ten tyrants or daily trial?

Deborah... just wondering and willing to hear

Matthew 24:15-22 nkj
"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), ...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. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning, All!

Just a few points relating to the Romans and the Jews. I still cannot agree with the clay being symbolic of the Jews. From my understanding, the statue at Daniel 2 represents world powers: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. The last of these is relevant to the feet of iron and clay. In no sense could the Jews be placed alongside any of these four powers.

Good morning Stephen!

I would have liked to respond yesterday, but I had to go to Seattle again to meet a fellow who Googled "1 Corinthians 13" and found my site and called me and said he wanted to promote the book! Very exciting. Perhaps God is opening doors. We shall see.

Now concerning the toes: First, the Jews were a political power and so could be set "along side" the others. And yes, they were so weak they were like clay compared to Roman iron. I see no problem there.

But I am not sure that's what the text is meaning. It seems to present the clay more as the people under the dominion of Rome than a power unto itself. Perhaps both are true.

They were a fairly weak and minor territory conquered by the Romans. There were many suchlike peoples subject to Roman will. They would also then have to be the clay.

Yes, that is my point. The toes represent the extended power of Rome where it mixed with the "seed of [other] men." And that is where the stone struck. There is no reason to restrict the meaning of "clay" only to the Jews. But by looking at the fulfillment in history, we know that the Stone struck the image in the Judean part of the clay in the feet.

This would then problematise the first three kingdoms, because we would then have to include all their conquered territories as some sort of amalgam mixed in with them.

Why is that a problem? The conquered territories in the previous three kingdoms did not play an essential role, so God did not mention them. Furthermore, the idea that God had to describe the same set of features of each kingdom or there would be a "problem" is obviously false. The Greeks were divided after the fall of Alexander the Great, but Daniel 2 doesn't mention it. So by the standard you present, we have a "problem" because God didn't mention the division of the Greek empire, whereas He did mention that division of the Roman.

You seem to be searching for something - for anything - to invalidate this interpretation not because of any intrinsic problems it may have, but rather because it would contradict your idea that the prophecy of the Stone is really referring to "the jurisdiction of Joseph" and will be fulfilled when the United States is revealed to be Manasseh, correct? I get this impression from these questions you posed earlier:

I agree absolutely that it is representative of Jesus Christ. But what exactly is it? Is it the church? Or is it something else? I think this whole 'stone kingdom' issue is quite fascinating. The stone symbol also appears under the jurisdiction of Joseph, too, as part of his stunning birthright (Genesis 49:24). Is the 'stone kingdom' related to this prophecy in some way? If so, how does this amplify our understanding of what the 'stone kingdom' is?

This is why I probed so deeply into your theory about Manasseh and the tribes being modern Gentile nations and all that. It profoundly affects your interpretation of the rest of the Bible. This is a good example of the total integration of Biblical theology. Every aspect affects every other aspect.

Now let me tell you upfront that I don't know if my interpretation of the clay is correct or not, but the arguments you are presenting do not seem to be addressing any real problems with that idea. You seem to be rejecting the idea not because of its own lack of merit, but because you reject a prior idea, to whit, that the Stone represents not only Christ, but Christ as the Cornerstone of the Church which is the Kingdom of God that is growing into a great mountain that will fill the whole world. It seems like you reject this point because of your commitment to theories about the future historical role of the tribes of Israel. Is this correct?

To my mind, the whole point of the iron and clay is that the fourth kingdom would become divided. Rome never split up into Rome and Judaea. The relationship was always one of conqueror and vanquished. For this reason, and others beside, I hold the identification of the Jews as the clay as untenable.

I never suggested that Rome "split up into Rome and Judea." As explained above, the image of the clay perfectly represents the relative powers of Rome and Jerusalem.

And as noted in a previous post, there is no reason to assume that the description of the kingdom as "divided" should be interpreted as meaning that a once united kingdom would be divided at a later time in the future. It could just as well be a description of the nature of that kingdom. It was divided because the iron of Rome extended like toes grasping the clay of the people conquered. Unlike the previous three kingdoms, this extension is of utmost significance in this prophecy because it was in these extended toes of Rome that the Stone struck and destroyed the whole image.

There are far more easier fits from history. The split into Western and Eastern Rome fits the bill seamlessly, with headquarters at Rome and Constantinople.

Most have seen that split as represented by the Two Legs. It certainly does fit the idea of the toes mixed with clay.

And the fit is certainly not "easier" because we know from history that the Stone is Christ and the Stone struck the image in the feet in the first century. Do you contest this point? If not, then how do you interpret the feet struck by the stone? Do you have a fulfillment still future?

The later break-up and revival of catholic Rome under Charlemagne also fits the bill historically, his kingdom eventually being divided into monarchic France, and the holy roman empire (Germany). This also fits the bill quite nicely. I think we need to study history to find what Daniel was talking about, particularly the history of the downfall of the Roman Empire, and what became of it.

Yes, I agree completely that we need to study history more. And I also know that there can be mutliple fulfillments of prophecies, so your suggestions could be true without invalidating the primary fulfillment in the first century.

In regards to a third temple, an antichrist world leader and the like, I do not believe in any of that. Screeds have been written debunking that fairytale, and there is no need for me to add to the sorry affair.

No disagreement here!

Having said all that, I admit that I haven't reached a conclusion yet as to who exactly Daniel was writing about in chapter 2. But one thing I absolutely hold to is that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 were fulfilled almost 2000 years ago. That is an absolute certainty for me. Schofield has got a lot of explaining to do for leading people astray with his dreadful misinterpretation of God's word. To me, I place him in the category of being a false prophet.

Stephen

And again, total agreement!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Could that be the Ten Kings? The ten horns of the Dragon Revelation 12 or of the beast in Revelation 13?

That seems like a viable interpretation, especially if the primary meaning of Revelation concerns the great tribulation that attended the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the three and half year siege from 66-70 AD. Persecution by ten Roman emperors after Nero would make a lot of sense.

But I don't have a strong opinion on this yet, since I have a lot of homework to do.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have not read enough (though I cannot leave this site alone) to know your view, sorry if it is already covered.

Hi Deb!

Since this is my first response to you, let me say

Welcome to our forum!

May I ask, do you see the following passage as fitting any part of this picture? If so, then could you show me how it fits with ten tyrants or daily trial?

Deborah... just wondering and willing to hear

Matthew 24:15-22 nkj
"Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), ...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. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened.

I am pretty sure that verse "fits the picture" of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And it seems probably that some parts of the Book of Revelation also prophecy concerning the great tribulation that befell Jerusalem when God sent the Romans to destroy the Temple (just like He sent the Babylonians to destroy the Temple in the 6th century BC). But the Ten Days and the Ten Kings came later, after the great tribulation. So there does not seem to be a direct link. Rather, the ten tribulations followed the "great tribulation" of 66-70 AD.

Of course, I am still in the midst of my study on this, and so my understanding will almost certainly change as I learn more.

Richard

[deb]

Who did the abomination of desolation (standing in the holy place) turn out to be? I always thought that this guy in the Holy of holies would be the distinguishing mark of this so called great tribulation.

I should tell you up front that in the bit of studying that I have done, the central time marker of the "7 weeks of years" has always been the entrance of the lawless one in the temple. (I realize you do not 'see' another earthy temple, I think I read that about you) so we may never be able to resolve anything here.

This is bad, but off the top of my head, there is at least one place (but it seems like more then one place... I will look) when the 7 weeks is divided into days, that there are ten extra days to the 2nd half before the entrance of the peaceable kingdom (hope I don't have to eat crow in a minute because I am too anxious to commit this to print now

Deborah... too long since she had the details lined up in her head I guess

[deb]

Thank you for the sweet welcome!

[deb]

Ohpp, I was wrong, it isn't 10 days. It is 45 extra days. It isn't the Revelation, it is Daniel

Daniel 12:11-12 nkj
"And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Who did the abomination of desolation (standing in the holy place) turn out to be? I always thought that this guy in the Holy of holies would be the distinguishing mark of this so called great tribulation.

I should tell you up front that in the bit of studying that I have done, the central time marker of the "7 weeks of years" has always been the entrance of the lawless one in the temple. (I realize you do not 'see' another earthy temple, I think I read that about you) so we may never be able to resolve anything here.

First, I think the "central time marker" of Daniel's 70 weeks is the crucifixion of Christ. That's really what the whole prophecy is about:

Daniel 9:25-26 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. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off [Christ crucified], but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The sacrifice of Christ was the final sacrifice that ended the sacrificial system which had no meaning after the "middle of the week" when Christ was crucified. Then after that Daniel predicted that the Temple would destroyed, which put a final physical stop to the vain sacrifices:

Daniel 9:27 And he [Christ] shall confirm the [New] covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week [3 1/2 years] 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.

Now as for your point concerning the "guy in the Holy of holies." It looks like you have combined two verses. The first is from Jesus,

Matthew 24:15-16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

I think a very strong case can be made here that Jesus was talking about the soon coming destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The early Christians obeyed His warning and fled when they saw the Roman armies, and so saved their lives.

The second verse is from Paul:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Folks have been debating the meaning of this verse for a very long time. Our understanding of it will depend on our understanding of Matt 24 and the "great tribulation" and the meaning of Revelation and all the other things we have been discussing. That is why it is so very important that we establish the fundamental principles of how to understand God's Prophecies. For example, if it is true that Daniel 9 was fulfilled by Christ in the first century then the huge mountain of books that teach about the "future fulfillment" of Daniel's 70th week are nothing more than a huge mountain of error.

There's a lot to discuss. I am glad you are here to help Deb!