Dear Kristy:About a month ago I posted this with a question, which many then wrote back their answers.I would have responded, but events were such at the time that I could not in a timely manner. Instead there was a good response from Marilyn Agee and Pastor Riley.To me the idea of making Christ's baptism the start of the 70th Week is faulty. I do not see a reference at either passage referring to the other. To me this is the whole issue. The solution should be found in the immediate context and then can it only be compared with other Scripture.In Daniel 9 after the total of 69 weeks the following things occur:
- First Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself -- Crucifixion for our sin in 32 AD.
- Then the people of the coming prince will destroy the city and sanctuary -- The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.
Therefore, Daniel's 69 weeks ended before the Crucifixion, but more importantly the city was also to be destroyed before the 70th week. The coming prince, Antichrist, is "to come"--the future. Also Messiah had to be cut off before the destruction of the Temple making Jesus the only candidate for those truly looking for the Messiah. So, no Messiahs after 70 AD. This is all between the 69th and 70th week. Beware of Amillennialism.The 70th week:
- Is begun by confirmation of a treaty for the week--the 70th week..
- The treaty is by "he" and according to the rules of grammar, "he" is the "prince to come" of the people who destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem. Is he Jesus? Are the people the Jews? Absolutely not. It is the Antichrist and the Romans.
- In the middle of the week the sacrifices are stopped and there is abomination and desolation. Does this really sound like Jesus? No, It is the Antichrist and exactly what Jesus was relaying to his disciples in Matthew 24 as a future event.
So the Antichrist must be here on the scene to start the 70th week, but we know that according to a sound exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2 (as demonstrated recently on 5 Doves) that he cannot be revealed until after our departure (Rapture) has taken place. We leave before the Day of the Lord begins. The Restrainer must be removed before the man of lawlessness can be revealed, so the Rapture must occur at some time before his revealing. I believe there will be some time before the Antichrist can make the treaty after the Rapture. I believe Ezekiel's war in Chapter 38-39 will come after the Rapture (which I believe is shaping that way right now) and this will then set the stage or rather clear the stage for the Antichrist. The Antichrist comes when people a crying for peace after a war such as this. Between us being caught up to Christ and the Antichrist confirming a treaty (having acquired the position and ability to do so), I believe will take a few years, like four of them.To me the best case for Christ establishing a covenant is at the Last Supper. To drink of the cup and eat of the bread until He returns. Is this the covenant of the 70th week? No. Did Christ bring an end to sacrifices in the Temple at his death? No, they went on until the Temple was destroyed.This passage in Daniel is key to biblical prophecy and I hope we all read it very carefully in context.At the end of the 70 weeks Jesus will be annointed the King of Kings and rule the world. Amen.By His Grace,Daniel Matson