The more I look into this, the more interesting things I see.
Because many of you may not be familiar with the Old Testament sacrificial system and the significance of the Holy Days to that system, let me describe some of it here. As you'll see, it apparently ties in directly to a proper understanding of the 70 weeks' prophecy.
According to several passages in Deuteronomy, not the least of which is most of chapter 4, the Israelites were allowed to dwell in the land by the grace and mercy of God, but only so long as they kept the Covenant. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the sins of the whole nation of Israel would be laid on the head of a goat which was brought to the entrance of the Tabernacle (and later, the Temple), there to be sacrificed. A second goat also took the sins of Israel and was exiled into the wilderness. This was done year by year because Israel wasn't perfect and their sins needed to be cleansed by blood. The two goats took Israel's punishment instead of Israel itself. In other words, instead of being killed or exiled, Israel was allowed to remain in the land which God had promised them.
Interestingly, this is the only Holy Day in which the High Priest of ancient Israel was allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies within the Tabernacle (or the Temple; see Lev. 16). Therefore, this Atonement ceremony had a special connection with God's dwelling place on this earth. If God's House were ever to be destroyed, then symbolically there would be nothing to keep Israel from being destroyed or exiled.
And that's precisely what happened.
Notice a very interesting passage in Isaiah 29:1:
"Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! Add year to year; let them kill sacrifices [to no avail]."
In other words, God would allow Israel's sins to remain unpurged year after year because their hearts weren't right, even though they would slay their animal sacrifices according to the Law.
The destruction of the Temple was directly connected with the destruction of Jerusalem and its desolation for seventy years. Hence, we have the decree to rebuild the Temple when the Jews returned to the land.
With this in mind, let's read Daniel 9:24:
"Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."
In symbolic language, much of this is referring to the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of the system of annual atoning sacrifice. The "transgression," the "sins" and the "wickedness" consisted of all that Israel had done in rebelling against God, leading up to their expulsion from the land. The "vision and prophecy" concerned the return from exile back to the land and the rebuilding of the Temple, as we can plainly see by comparing Daniel 9:1-2 with Jeremiah 25:1-11 and 29:1-14.
But what about the "everlasting righteousness" and "anointing the most Holy"?
What we see here is a conflation between the historical fulfillment of the return from Jewish exile and the building of the second Temple with Jesus' coming.
Question. Which coming?
You might think the answer to be obvious, but it's not. The making reconciliation for wickedness certainly fits Jesus' first coming. But what about "anointing the most Holy"?
To "anoint" (Hebrew 'messiah') someone or something has to do with setting it apart for service to God. Kings, priests and prophets were anointed in ancient Israel. Certain sacred objects and places were also anointed, but that's not what this passage is referring to. No, what the Jews were historically expecting was to anoint a king of the lineage of David to continue the rulership over them after they returned from the Babylonian exile. But as we all know, this isn't what happened. Nevertheless, the Jews weren't wrong in interpreting this passage to mean the coming of a Prince (as in the very next verse, in Dan. 9:25).
Jesus didn't come to rule the first time around. Although He is called a "King" in Zechariah 9:9, He came to be our High Priest (Heb. 9:11-14), and in this manner to offer atonement for us. But Jesus' second coming is as a King! So here, we not only have a conflation between the historical building of the second Temple and Jesus' first coming, but also with Jesus' second coming!
Now, it's important to connect the institution of kingship in ancient Israel with the Temple, and even with the Holy of Holies directly. God's throne on earth was represented as the Mercy Seat on top of the Ark of the Covenant, which rested in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. When a king was anointed in ancient Israel, he was given the the two tablets containing the Ten Commandments as part of the ceremony (2 Ki. 11:12). These two tablets were called the "Testimony" (Ex. 25:16-21, 31:18, 32:15-19, 34:1, 28-29, 40:20-21). The High Priest therefore had to get the two tablets of testimony from the Ark of the Covenant within the Holy of Holies in order to give them to the king.
It suffices to say that there can't be a king - a Prince, as in Daniel 9:25, who was then anointed as ruler of Israel - without a Temple, or at the very least without the Ark of the Covenant which contained the Testimony. But the Jews, at that time, didn't have the Ark or the Testimony inside it. THAT'S WHY NO KING COULD BE ANOINTED, HISTORICALLY, WHEN THE JEWS RETURNED FROM BABYLON AND REBUILT THE TEMPLE. Even Daniel must have known that this prophecy couldn't be completely fulfilled in his day, because the Ark was missing.
So what did this prophecy mean to the Jews historically? And what should it mean to us, today?
Let's look at the sequence of Daniel 9:24-27:
1. Seventy weeks are decreed for Israel and for Jerusalem.
2. From the decree to rebuild until Messiah the Prince will be 7 + 62 weeks. During this time, the wall surrounding the city of Jerusalem and the court in front of the Temple will be rebuilt in troubled times.
3. After that time period, the Messiah will be "cut off." Another "prince" and his people (read, armies) will destroy the rebuilt city and the Temple. The result will be a "flood" and further desolations until the end of this war.
4. "He" (either the one Prince - the Messiah - or the destroying prince) will "confirm the covenant with many for one week." In the midst of that week, the sacrifices will cease, and the Temple will be desolated again...UNTIL THE "CONSUMMATION" - the end of the war.
Let's look at this. In #2 we have Jerusalem partly rebuilt and the Temple completed to the point where the outer court - later known as "Solomon's porch" (cf. 1 Ki. 6:2-3; John 10:23; Acts 5:12; Rev. 11:1-2) - is finished. However, in #3 we have the Messiah being "cut off" and the city and Temple destroyed a second time by another "prince" - a false messiah. But in #4, we have the end of the desolation of the Temple at the conclusion of this final war - implying that it's to be rebuilt yet again!
I confess that I have no idea what the seventy weeks mean. The most that I've been able to come up with is that there are apparently 49 years (seven sevens) from the decree of Cyrus to the time the wall of Jerusalem was finished, in the 32nd year of "Artaxerxes," according to Nehemiah 5:14 and 6:1 and 15, if one goes by the Jewish method of reckoning the chronology. (That is, placing Cyrus' decree in 369 BC and Darius the Persian's 32nd year in 320 BC.) This also works for the Greek method of reckoning the chronology...sort of. (That is, placing Cyrus' decree in 539 BC and Darius I's 32nd year in 490 BC, even though Nehemiah calls the king Artaxerxes. Artaxerxes is Darius in the Jewish chronology, since Artaxerxes is only a title - like 'pharaoh'. But in the conventional chronology, there are two kings called Artaxerxes.) But then I have no idea what to do with the 62 weeks.
In either case, the 70 year captivity ends in a rather unremarkable year. (517 BC for the conventional chronology, 351 BC for the Jewish chronology.) The only tie-in, as I mentioned in the other post on the 70 weeks' prophecy, would be Zechariah's declaration that the seventy years of indignation were over in Zechariah 1:12. And again, this only works with the Jewish chronology. The conventional chronology is about five years off, here. So the seventy years doesn't seem to connect with the seventy weeks at all.
Nevertheless, within this seventy weeks' prophecy we can see the whole span of time from then right until the second coming of Jesus Christ. Interesting, isn't it?
Damon
More on the 70 weeks
More on the 70 weeks
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Ack! The more answers I find, the more questions I'm left with!!
I just read a Jewish commentary on the seventy weeks' prophecy, and I'd like to share the interpretation it gives. It actually makes sense, but like I said, it leaves me with even more questions than I started with.
What they have is this:
"From the emergence of the word to return and to build Jerusalem until the anointed prince will be seven weeks, and for sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, wall and plaza, but in troubled times. Then, after sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off and will exist no longer. The people of the prince will come and will destroy the city and the Temple, but his [the prince's] end will be [to be swept away as] in a flood. Then, until the end of the war, desolations are decreed. He [this prince] will forge a strong covenant with the great ones for one week, but for half of that week he will abolish sacrifice and grain-offering and the mute abominations will be upon the heights, until extermination as decreed will pour down upon the mute abominations."
Understand that Hebrew is non-specific and poetic enough that they can interpret it this way and not be too far off the mark. They understand this to mean that there were 49 years (plus three more) from the destruction of the first Temple until the "anointed prince" - Cyrus (see Isa. 45:1). Then, Jerusalem would be rebuilt, and would last for a further 434 years (plus four more, making up the full tally of seventy weeks). During that time, the "anointed prince" would be a foreign ruler like Cyrus. But sometime just before 70 AD, that foreign ruler would be swept away, and his people would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. This same ruler would make a covenant with the powerful Jewish leaders for seven years, but would interfere with the Temple sacrifices for half of that time. The Jews interpret this "mute abomination" as a temple of idolatry which was erected on the Temple mount by the Romans. (Remember, the bible often describes idols as being "dumb" or "mute," having no power to speak or do anything useful.)
Well, the timing makes sense, if one uses the Jewish chronology. From 421 BC, when the Temple was destroyed, until 369 BC when Cyrus proclaimed that the Jews could return and rebuild Jerusalem, was 52 years. From 369 BC until 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed again was 438 years.
However, is there any historical evidence for what this interpretation says happened during the last seven years prior to the Temple destruction? Did a Roman ruler get "cut off", for instance? Was there a Roman temple built on the Temple mount just prior to 70 AD?
I don't like this interpretation, but biblical understanding isn't supposed to be about whether one likes or dislikes it. *shrugs*
The bringing in of "everlasting righteousness" still has to point to Jesus coming as the Messiah, though. Anointing the "most Holy" or "Holy of Holies" could be argued as applying to the Temple and not to Jesus, but since the two are mentioned right next to one another, I think they're both talking about Jesus.
Anyway...my brain hurts now.
Damon
I just read a Jewish commentary on the seventy weeks' prophecy, and I'd like to share the interpretation it gives. It actually makes sense, but like I said, it leaves me with even more questions than I started with.
What they have is this:
"From the emergence of the word to return and to build Jerusalem until the anointed prince will be seven weeks, and for sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, wall and plaza, but in troubled times. Then, after sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off and will exist no longer. The people of the prince will come and will destroy the city and the Temple, but his [the prince's] end will be [to be swept away as] in a flood. Then, until the end of the war, desolations are decreed. He [this prince] will forge a strong covenant with the great ones for one week, but for half of that week he will abolish sacrifice and grain-offering and the mute abominations will be upon the heights, until extermination as decreed will pour down upon the mute abominations."
Understand that Hebrew is non-specific and poetic enough that they can interpret it this way and not be too far off the mark. They understand this to mean that there were 49 years (plus three more) from the destruction of the first Temple until the "anointed prince" - Cyrus (see Isa. 45:1). Then, Jerusalem would be rebuilt, and would last for a further 434 years (plus four more, making up the full tally of seventy weeks). During that time, the "anointed prince" would be a foreign ruler like Cyrus. But sometime just before 70 AD, that foreign ruler would be swept away, and his people would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. This same ruler would make a covenant with the powerful Jewish leaders for seven years, but would interfere with the Temple sacrifices for half of that time. The Jews interpret this "mute abomination" as a temple of idolatry which was erected on the Temple mount by the Romans. (Remember, the bible often describes idols as being "dumb" or "mute," having no power to speak or do anything useful.)
Well, the timing makes sense, if one uses the Jewish chronology. From 421 BC, when the Temple was destroyed, until 369 BC when Cyrus proclaimed that the Jews could return and rebuild Jerusalem, was 52 years. From 369 BC until 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed again was 438 years.
However, is there any historical evidence for what this interpretation says happened during the last seven years prior to the Temple destruction? Did a Roman ruler get "cut off", for instance? Was there a Roman temple built on the Temple mount just prior to 70 AD?
I don't like this interpretation, but biblical understanding isn't supposed to be about whether one likes or dislikes it. *shrugs*
The bringing in of "everlasting righteousness" still has to point to Jesus coming as the Messiah, though. Anointing the "most Holy" or "Holy of Holies" could be argued as applying to the Temple and not to Jesus, but since the two are mentioned right next to one another, I think they're both talking about Jesus.
Anyway...my brain hurts now.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
70 weeks
According to my info only Artaxerxes decree to Nehemiah refers to directly to the restoration of the city.According to Nehemiah 2.1-8 this decree was given in the 20th year of Artaxerxes in the month of Nisan or march-April 444BC. From this date 483 biblical years (360 day years) or 173,880 days or 69 weeks comes to April of 33AD or the date of Christ's crucifixtion.
9.27 "he shall make it desolate(the temple was made spiritually desolate) even until the consummation(the physical destruction) and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. ( destruction of temple and Jerusalem in 70AD).
9.27 "he shall make it desolate(the temple was made spiritually desolate) even until the consummation(the physical destruction) and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. ( destruction of temple and Jerusalem in 70AD).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"According to my info," Steve? Have you really read what I wrote and understood it? (I mean, what I wrote here plus what I wrote in the other "70 weeks" thread.) Your "info" comes from the analysis of Daniel 9 from the perspective of biblical scholars who buy into the "orthodox," Greek chronology! Like I said, this chronology has ten Persian kings (plus Gaumata, the usurper) instead of four (again, plus Gaumata). This chronology has Persian history as spanning over 200 years, instead of a mere half century. But Daniel 11:1-4 proves that the Greek chronology is wrong.
Therefore, your "info" comes from a false premise, because the scholars who provided it didn't know any better.
You know, I really hope that what I wrote isn't above most people's heads, here. Please don't let that be so.
Damon
Therefore, your "info" comes from a false premise, because the scholars who provided it didn't know any better.
You know, I really hope that what I wrote isn't above most people's heads, here. Please don't let that be so.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Well, if it's so, that means that people are liable to disagree without being able to fully understand the issues. That would be very frustrating for me.
My cousin had the following discussion with a friend of hers recently:
My cousin: "See this real estate ad with the couple sitting in the car, overlooking the ocean? The caption is '[name of housing development]: an experience which lasts a lifetime.' They're making an analogy with this couple's relationship lasting a lifetime."
Her friend: "Why? What does their marriage have to do with real estate? I don't see the connection."
My cousin: "*sigh*"
See my point?
Damon
My cousin had the following discussion with a friend of hers recently:
My cousin: "See this real estate ad with the couple sitting in the car, overlooking the ocean? The caption is '[name of housing development]: an experience which lasts a lifetime.' They're making an analogy with this couple's relationship lasting a lifetime."
Her friend: "Why? What does their marriage have to do with real estate? I don't see the connection."
My cousin: "*sigh*"
See my point?
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Damon, I'm sorry that I got you off the topic of the 70 weeks.
I'm also saddened that you become so frustrated when people don't see things your way. Maybe they understand you just fine and simply disagree with your point of view. Maybe they don't understand... sometimes you are a little hard to follow... so you need to try again. Either way, don't take it so hard.
I'm also saddened that you become so frustrated when people don't see things your way. Maybe they understand you just fine and simply disagree with your point of view. Maybe they don't understand... sometimes you are a little hard to follow... so you need to try again. Either way, don't take it so hard.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Michelle.
I'm not worried about people not seeing things my way. But what frustrates me is that, several times on this forum, I've been taken to task by people who really couldn't grasp the evidence that I was presenting in my behalf. When people do understand what I'm presenting and still disagree doesn't bother me anywhere near as much.
Anyway...
Damon
I'm not worried about people not seeing things my way. But what frustrates me is that, several times on this forum, I've been taken to task by people who really couldn't grasp the evidence that I was presenting in my behalf. When people do understand what I'm presenting and still disagree doesn't bother me anywhere near as much.
Anyway...
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Damon,
I think it would be to your benefit if you were to become sensitive to the way the average reader may react to your tone. Your actual attitude might be different from the way you come-off, but the people here don't know you personally (as you do), and can only get impressions from your manner of expressing yourself in your posts. I am sure that many here are grateful to have some of the information that you present, but several people at this forum, including myself, have told you that your manner sometimes puts people off.
You have a lot of interesting information at your command, which sometimes adds interest to your posts. However, you frequently come-off sounding like one who expects others to recognize his superior authority, and who is offended when challenged. Information is good—and even impressive—but the people here still reserve the right to reach their own conclusions from evidence, and to disagree with you, me or anyone else. There are many places in your posts which would be more winsome, if you were to insert such disclaimers as "in my opinion," or "I believe," or "it seems to me..."
I find that others here often argue with each other vociferously over some theological point, but I seldom get from them the sense that any of them sees himself as the unquestioned guru of the forum or that he is personally offended that others do not uncritically accept his opinion as the last word. Sometimes your posts, accurately or inaccurately, give the impression that this is your attitude.
If it is not, then it is good for someone to apprise you of the way you appear, so that you might modify the mood of your teaching. I don't mean to offend you with this observation. If my writing were to strike people this way, I would certainly wish to have this pointed out to me and to have opportunity to critically reassess my presentation.
I think it would be to your benefit if you were to become sensitive to the way the average reader may react to your tone. Your actual attitude might be different from the way you come-off, but the people here don't know you personally (as you do), and can only get impressions from your manner of expressing yourself in your posts. I am sure that many here are grateful to have some of the information that you present, but several people at this forum, including myself, have told you that your manner sometimes puts people off.
You have a lot of interesting information at your command, which sometimes adds interest to your posts. However, you frequently come-off sounding like one who expects others to recognize his superior authority, and who is offended when challenged. Information is good—and even impressive—but the people here still reserve the right to reach their own conclusions from evidence, and to disagree with you, me or anyone else. There are many places in your posts which would be more winsome, if you were to insert such disclaimers as "in my opinion," or "I believe," or "it seems to me..."
I find that others here often argue with each other vociferously over some theological point, but I seldom get from them the sense that any of them sees himself as the unquestioned guru of the forum or that he is personally offended that others do not uncritically accept his opinion as the last word. Sometimes your posts, accurately or inaccurately, give the impression that this is your attitude.
If it is not, then it is good for someone to apprise you of the way you appear, so that you might modify the mood of your teaching. I don't mean to offend you with this observation. If my writing were to strike people this way, I would certainly wish to have this pointed out to me and to have opportunity to critically reassess my presentation.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
If that were my attitude, why did I state:Steve wrote:I find that others here often argue with each other vociferously over some theological point, but I seldom get from them the sense that any of them sees himself as the unquestioned guru of the forum or that he is personally offended that others do not uncritically accept his opinion as the last word. Sometimes your posts, accurately or inaccurately, give the impression that this is your attitude.
What frustrated me is that I'd just got done posting a lot of information about the seventy weeks of Daniel and why it seemed that the Greek chronology of the Persian period must be wrong, and then Steve7150 replied back with an answer that told me that he apparently didn't understand what I wrote, if he read through it at all. (I admit that my writing is very dense, though.)Damon wrote:I'm not worried about people not seeing things my way.
What would make me happy is if most of the people on this forum could make sense of what I wrote, whether or not they agreed with me. *shrugs*
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: