RevZach
Puritan Board Freshman
I did a search and found a couple of closed threads about Dan 9 and the seventy sevens, but nothing that addressed my specific question...
Okay, so most Amills (myself included) view the church age (i.e. the millennium) as being synonymous with the last half-a-seven (a.k.a. 42 months, a.k.a. 1260 days, a.k.a. "time, times, and half a time")...which makes the last half a seven decidedly non-literal.
The problem is that the first 69½ sevens work out so perfectly when interpreted literally. An incredibly compelling case can be made that brings us from the decree to rebuild to the baptism of Our Lord in 69 "weeks of years," and then after a "half a seven," Christ is "cut off," or crucified. If this is just a coincidence (i.e. the prophecy is meant to be entirely non-literal), it is perhaps the HUGEST, most amazing coincidence in the history of amazing coincidences...and of course, God would be well aware of the coincidental nature of the prophecy (i.e. He knew just when he would send his Son to be born of a virgin, when Jesus would begin his ministry, and when he would die). If He did not want us to take those first 69½ sevens literally, why not give that particular prophecy at a less confusing time, when it isn't seemingly begging to be taken literally?
Does anyone know of a paper/book/dissertation that makes a case for a literal 69½ sevens followed by a non-literal ½ seven? If you think about it, it's more plausible than a random, large "parenthesis" of indeterminite length shoved between weeks 69 and 70 (like the Dispensationalists have concocted). And, of course, it would make perfect sense that God would, in his sovereignty, STRETCH OUT that last period of human history before the judgment to show His unfathomable grace and leave wide the door of salvation until the full number of the elect come in.
Any insight/feedback is appreciated.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Zach
Okay, so most Amills (myself included) view the church age (i.e. the millennium) as being synonymous with the last half-a-seven (a.k.a. 42 months, a.k.a. 1260 days, a.k.a. "time, times, and half a time")...which makes the last half a seven decidedly non-literal.
The problem is that the first 69½ sevens work out so perfectly when interpreted literally. An incredibly compelling case can be made that brings us from the decree to rebuild to the baptism of Our Lord in 69 "weeks of years," and then after a "half a seven," Christ is "cut off," or crucified. If this is just a coincidence (i.e. the prophecy is meant to be entirely non-literal), it is perhaps the HUGEST, most amazing coincidence in the history of amazing coincidences...and of course, God would be well aware of the coincidental nature of the prophecy (i.e. He knew just when he would send his Son to be born of a virgin, when Jesus would begin his ministry, and when he would die). If He did not want us to take those first 69½ sevens literally, why not give that particular prophecy at a less confusing time, when it isn't seemingly begging to be taken literally?
Does anyone know of a paper/book/dissertation that makes a case for a literal 69½ sevens followed by a non-literal ½ seven? If you think about it, it's more plausible than a random, large "parenthesis" of indeterminite length shoved between weeks 69 and 70 (like the Dispensationalists have concocted). And, of course, it would make perfect sense that God would, in his sovereignty, STRETCH OUT that last period of human history before the judgment to show His unfathomable grace and leave wide the door of salvation until the full number of the elect come in.
Any insight/feedback is appreciated.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Zach