Daniels' Seventy Sevens

[anochria]

OK, so I originally posted this on the old forums but alas it disappeared along with all my other posts! Anyway, I thought I'd throw it on here for good measure. I always apprecaite feedback.

Daniel’s “Seventy Sevens”

What follows is a verse-by-verse investigation of one of the most fascinating and accurate prophecies contained in the entire Bible, as well as a comparison of the way in which Futurist and Preterist scholars interpret it. It’s my contention that the Preterist perspective makes thorough sense of this passage, while the Futurist stance strains credulity.

Daniel 9:24-27 (New International Version)

24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness,

These 70 7’s are 70 ‘weeks’ of years, or 70 times 7 years. Just like we might count a large passage of time by decades, the Jewish calendar revolves around Sabbaths of Year, as laid out in Old Testament books like Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. So, we’re talking about a period of 490 years, at the end of which transgression, or sin, would be decisively dealt with (in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross).

to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

Christ brought in everlasting righteousness at his first coming by becoming our righteousness, a righteousness established forever.

Christ’s first coming and the events shortly after his death are the subject of the bulk of prophecies of the Bible, fulfilled conclusively at that time. This doesn’t preclude any prophecy beyond this point, it just stresses that the main point of the bulk of Old Testament prophecy anticipated the time surrounding Christ’s first advent.

The “most holy” to be anointed can be interpreted as Most Holy One or Most Holy Place. The first, Most Holy One, is preferable, referring to Jesus’ own anointing either in baptism, transfiguration, death, or resurrection. If taken as Most Holy Place, then I would say it refers to the anointing of the Church, which in the New Testament is seen as the New Jerusalem/ Mt. Zion/ Temple.

25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

This decree of the Persians to rebuild Jerusalem is dated to 458 BC. Add 483 years to that and you arrive at 25-26 AD, the exact timing of Christ’s baptism and the beginning of his ministry- e.g., the “coming of the Anointed One, the ruler”. Needless to say, this verse is one of the most extraordinary passages in the Old Testament*.

The first “seven sevens” (or 49 years) refers to the time it took to rebuild Jerusalem after the decree. It was indeed rebuilt in times of trouble, as you can see by reading the book of Nehemiah.

The last sixty-two sevens (434 years) was the time between the restoration of Jerusalem and the coming of Jesus, the Messiah.

26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.

Indeed, after 26 AD, Messiah was “cut off”- which means rejected and killed- in 30 AD.

In regard to “will have nothing”, the phrase fits Jesus’ experience well, though there are alternate readings you will find in your footnotes that translate “will have nothing” as: “cut off and will have no one”, which could speak of Isaiah’s prediction that the Messiah would have no physical descendants, or Zechariah’s statement that his flock would be scattered, or “cut off, but not for himself”, which could refer to the sacrificial nature of His death.

The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

Though not identifying exactly how many years after the Messiah is cut off, this prediction anticipates a future ruler who will destroy Jerusalem closely after Jesus’ death. We know this to be the case: the Roman general Titus, under the command of the Emperor Vespasian, besieged and destroyed Jersualem in 70 AD, bringing “the end” of the Jewish sacrificial system and their entire world as they knew it (which then had to be re-invented). The Jews suffered many desolations in this time period, the worst of which was the desecration of the Temple first by murderous and profane Jewish rebels, and then by the Roman occupiers.

The end here should not be seen as the “end of the world” (as it could not have been, following so closely after Jesus’ first coming) but the end of the Jewish sacrificial system.

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.

'He' who? Futurists (like Tim Lahaye, of Left Behind fame) say the ‘he’ here is a future antichrist, who rules during a future 7 year tribulation.

Remember that there is still a final week (7 years) that Daniel has not addressed (the 70th 7)? Futurists say, with scant justification, that there was somehow a 2000+ year gap between the 69th 7 and the 70th 7. This they see as a future 7 year Tribulation in which the Antichrist makes some kind of treaty or agreement with [usually] the Jews.

Because they think this verse refers to a future Antichrist ending sacrifice, they posit that a Temple must be rebuilt at some time in the future, and that Temple sacrifices must be re-instituted in order for the Antichrist, as they see in this verse, to “put an end” to that sacrifice.

But a more natural reading, in my opinion, is that the ‘he’ in this verse is Jesus Himself. He is the real ‘finisher of sacrifice’. And he accomplished his once and for all sacrifice, which ended the need for future sacrifice forever exactly 3 ½ years after He began His ministry! That brings us half-way into the 70th 7, following directly on the heels of the 69th.

The covenant Jesus made in AD 26, at his baptism, was to minister to the Jewish people, and to them almost exclusively (“I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel”, etc.. reference coming) This focus on bringing the good news to the Jews first continued after his death for the first 3 ½ years of the Church as well, until the scattering of the Church from Jerusalem, Peter’s vision about taking the gospel to the Gentiles and Paul’s conversion. That was the 70th 7; beginning with Christ’s baptism, climaxing in his death and the end of sacrifice that brough, and ending with the extending of the Gospel message to the Gentile world which brought to a completion God’s designs among the Jewish people specifically.

And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

But surely the ‘he’ must not be referring to Jesus, because of this verse! Ah, it’s a travesty of bias. Look at the footnote for this verse and you’ll see another alternate, equally viable translation, which reads:

And one who causes desolation will come upon the pinnacle of the abominable temple , until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city.

Here it stands out much more clearly that the subject is now someone else- someone who will desolate the temple, and bring about it’s destruction. This could easily be either the leader of the Jewish rebellion who performed many profane acts in Jersulame prior to its destruction (read Josephus and you’ll see what I mean vividly) or Titus, the Roman general who set up the Roman eagle standards in the Temple before utterly destroying it.

And also, in this verse, the “end that is poured out” is more focused on the city, not the person doing the destruction, as fits Jesus’ focus not on an Antichrist in the coming conflict over Jerusalem, but on the final fact that “not one stone would be left upon another” in that great city.

Conclusion:

Daniel 9: 24-27 is one of the most powerfully predictive passages in the entire Bible. However, I think the Futurist stance, which sees the first part of it (vv. 24-26) as referring to the past, and the second part (vv. 26-27) as suddenly and without transition, referring to the future, as diminishing the thrust and simple power of this amazing passage, which came true to a T in the years between 458 BD and 70 AD.

What do you think?

Footnote:

*Because of this verse, Jews in Jesus day were especially anxious for the Messiah to appear. Within a couple hundred years after Jesus’ death, many Jewish rabbinical authorities actually forbade Jews from making this calculation lest they should despair that the Messiah had not come (see Search for the Messiah, where this is quoted and footnoted). Also, this is probably the verse, written in Persia, which inspired the Magi of that country to look for a sign of the Messiah’s birth.

[Mellontes]

Daniel’s “Seventy Sevens”

What follows is a verse-by-verse investigation of one of the most fascinating and accurate prophecies contained in the entire Bible, as well as a comparison of the way in which Futurist and Preterist scholars interpret it. It’s my contention that the Preterist perspective makes thorough sense of this passage, while the Futurist stance strains credulity.

Agreed...

[RND]

The Messiah (Moshiach) Comes The 2300 Years (Daniel 8 and 9)

anochria I think your "historicist" interpretation is fairly spot on except for a few things concerning dates and such but for the most part I would agree. For example you mentioned Jesus was baptized in 26AD and if we account for the fact that there is no -zero- year the time line would be 27AD to 31AD.

Also, if we add 458BC to 70AD that would actually come to 528 years.

Many "historicists" believe the last "week" ended when Stephen was stoned in Acts 7 and the word began to be preached to the "non-Jew" starting in Acts 8, 9, 10. I heard a Baptist minister once suggest that in these three chapters we see a picture of the word going out to the similitude of Noah's sons - Shem, Ham and Japeth which I've also found an interesting take.

In the decree to 'restore and rebuild' Jerusalem there were three decrees for restoring Jerusalem and the temple:

Rebuild the Temple:
1. Ezra 1: 1-4. First decree by Cyrus in 538-537 BC.
2. Ezra 6: 7-12. Second decree by Darius (519 BC).
Restore the Temple Treasures and Rebuild the City and Walls:
3. Ezra 7: 11-12. Final decree by Artaxerxes in 457 BC provided the finances to do whatever they wanted. It restored the stolen furnishings and treasures. This provided money for the sacrifices, the vessels taken from the sanctuary and allowed people to go back to Jerusalem. Ezra also used his authority to rebuild the city (Ezra 4: 12, 21).

As part of this effort to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple, Artaxerxes also allowed Nehemiah to go and rebuild the walls in his twentieth year (Nehemiah 2: 1).

The seven prophetic weeks or 49 real years went from 457BC to 408BC. The 62 weeks or 434 years went from 408 BC to 27 AD. What happened in 27 AD?
* It was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3: 1-3)
* Jesus became the Messiah at His baptism. (John 1: 41)
* The baptism of Jesus. (Luke 3: 21-22)
* God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost. (Acts 10: 38)
* "eager expectation." There was messianic hope among the people. (Luke 3: 15). Probably because they believed that the Messiah would come in the seventy seventh generation after Adam.

* Jesus announced the fulfillment of a time prophecy. (Mark 1: 14-15)
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His son, born of a woman, born under the law. (Galatians 4: 4)

[anochria]

RND: just curious why you call my analysis "historist" rather than "preterist". I mean, I suppose it could be both, but it certainly is in line with a general preterist position.

RND wrote:

For example you mentioned Jesus was baptized in 26AD and if we account for the fact that there is no -zero- year the time line would be 27AD to 31AD.

How so? I'm not following you here. From 458 BC, adding 483 years (plus 1 for the absence of year 0) would be AD 26, right? Are you saying you add 2 for the year 0?

Either way, it's close enough. But just curious.

RND wrote:

Also, if we add 458BC to 70AD that would actually come to 528 years.

Yes, but the text itself, imo, does allow for a gap. I see Verse 26b as a parenthetical comment about what will happen after the 70 7's, and verse 27 as jumping back into the strict chronology.

RND wrote:

Many "historicists" believe the last "week" ended when Stephen was stoned in Acts 7 and the word began to be preached to the "non-Jew" starting in Acts 8, 9, 10.

Yeah, this comports closely with what I said above:

The covenant Jesus made in AD 26, at his baptism, was to minister to the Jewish people, and to them almost exclusively (“I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel”, etc.. reference coming) This focus on bringing the good news to the Jews first continued after his death for the first 3 ½ years of the Church as well, until the scattering of the Church from Jerusalem, Peter’s vision about taking the gospel to the Gentiles and Paul’s conversion. That was the 70th 7; beginning with Christ’s baptism, climaxing in his death and the end of sacrifice that brough, and ending with the extending of the Gospel message to the Gentile world which brought to a completion God’s designs among the Jewish people specifically.

Lastly, yes, I'm aware of the three decrees, but like you I think the 458 BC decree is most satisfactory.

Thanks for the input. Keep it coming!

[RND]

RND wrote:

Also, if we add 458BC to 70AD that would actually come to 528 years.

Yes, but the text itself, imo, does allow for a gap. I see Verse 26b as a parenthetical comment about what will happen after the 70 7's, and verse 27 as jumping back into the strict chronology.

I guess I didn't see where you were advocating a "gap" theory. As a "historicist" I don't buy into that theory in that I've never known calendars to stop and then start up again after 2,000 years.

The 490 years ended, in my mind, in 34AD. If we count backwards from there we begin with a start date of 457BC which is when most Biblical scholars and historical records point to as the date the Jews finally began rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem.



Daniel 9:25 states that from the" 'decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince" (NASB) would be 69 weeks, or 483 years. What date do we apply to this decree, and why?

Various dates have been given for this decree, including 538 B.C., 520 B.C., and 457 B.C. Let's look quickly at all three.

For starters, suppose someone were to accept the 538 B.C. date as the starting point. From the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (538 B.C.) unto Messiah the Prince, Jesus, would be 483 years (we're using the day/year principle, because the text demands it). Going 483 years from 538 B.C. reaches to what? 55 B.C—a date that in no way fits the time of Christ's earthly ministry.

Try 520 B.C. If that's the starting point of the decree, and we go 483 years later, what date do we arrive at, and why is that date unworkable?

If, however, we go with the 457 B.C. date, the numbers bring us right to the time of Christ. This decree was given by Artaxerxes I, and it provided for the restoration of complete civil, judicial, and religious authority of Jews in their homeland (see Ezra 7:11-28).

It's obvious that both the Jews and their enemies understood the decree to mean the rebuilding of the city. In Ezra 4:7-13 (the events in Ezra are not in chronological order), a group of Persian officers wrote to King Artaxerxes, complaining about the Jews who were rebuilding Jerusalem. In the letter, they stated two important points: (1) that the city was being rebuilt (Ezra 4:12) and that (2) the Jews who were rebuilding had come there because of the king. Said the letter, "the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city" (vs. 12, emphasis supplied). In other words, the Jews who were rebuilding the city had come there because of King Artaxerxes, and the only decree issued by the king that sent the Jews back to Jerusalem was issued in the seventh year of his reign, the one shown in Ezra 7, a date that can be established as 457 B.C.

[anochria]

I think the difficulty then was that the source I read said 458 BC instead of 457 BC, as you're maintaining.

Let me explain what I mean by "a gap". I don't necessarily mean a gap in the 70 7s (although one might argue that there's a gap between 69 1/2 and the last 3 1/2, placing the last 3 1/2 at the Jewish war). I tend to agree with you that the timeline runs right up to AD 33/34, as explained above.

What I'm saying is that when Daniel says, "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." he is temporarily talking about stuff beyond the 70th 7. You would agree, right?

[RND]

I think the difficulty then was that the source I read said 458 BC instead of 457 BC, as you're maintaining.

Let me explain what I mean by "a gap". I don't necessarily mean a gap in the 70 7s (although one might argue that there's a gap between 69 1/2 and the last 3 1/2, placing the last 3 1/2 at the Jewish war). I tend to agree with you that the timeline runs right up to AD 33/34, as explained above.

What I'm saying is that when Daniel says, "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." he is temporarily talking about stuff beyond the 70th 7. You would agree, right?

Yes, I would agree with that, but I wouldn't put that withing the prophecy of Daniels 70 weeks, which I think is what you are saying. The reason why I wouldn't is that verse 27 tells us exactly what was to happen and subsequently did.

Dan 9:27 And he (Jesus) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: - the period between 27AD and 34AD

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, - Jesus died in the middle of the week. At that point, animal sacrifice and ceremonial "oblation" ceased to have any meaning. It was no longer necesaary to point the way to the cross.

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, - "Behold your house is left "desolate." Luke 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until [the time] come when ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

even until the consummation, - I think this is referring to the final consummation of the Temple in 70AD.

and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. - the "consummation" happened upon those that had been left desolate. Those still existing in 70AD that were already "the desolate."

I do have to say that if you believe the time line shown you'd be closer to one of the "historicist" persuasion as opposed to the "Preterist." Maybe I just say that because I'm SDA and anything that evolved from the RCC is hard for me to shallow!

[Mellontes]

I think the difficulty then was that the source I read said 458 BC instead of 457 BC, as you're maintaining.

Let me explain what I mean by "a gap". I don't necessarily mean a gap in the 70 7s (although one might argue that there's a gap between 69 1/2 and the last 3 1/2, placing the last 3 1/2 at the Jewish war). I tend to agree with you that the timeline runs right up to AD 33/34, as explained above.

What I'm saying is that when Daniel says, "The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." he is temporarily talking about stuff beyond the 70th 7. You would agree, right?

Yes, I would agree with that, but I wouldn't put that withing the prophecy of Daniels 70 weeks, which I think is what you are saying. The reason why I wouldn't is that verse 27 tells us exactly what was to happen and subsequently did.

Dan 9:27 And he (Jesus) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: - the period between 27AD and 34AD

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, - Jesus died in the middle of the week. At that point, animal sacrifice and ceremonial "oblation" ceased to have any meaning. It was no longer necesaary to point the way to the cross.

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, - "Behold your house is left "desolate." Luke 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until [the time] come when ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

even until the consummation, - I think this is referring to the final consummation of the Temple in 70AD.

and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. - the "consummation" happened upon those that had been left desolate. Those still existing in 70AD that were already "the desolate."

I do have to say that if you believe the time line shown you'd be closer to one of the "historicist" persuasion as opposed to the "Preterist." Maybe I just say that because I'm SDA and anything that evolved from the RCC is hard for me to shallow!

Just three things:

1) When anochria said "he is temporarily talking about stuff beyond the 70th 7," it does not at all mean WITHIN the 70 weeks.

2) Why did you say "It was no longer necesaary to point the way to the cross?" That is a grave error!

3) I am preterist and I am okay with your timeline. The complete desolation occurred by the end of 70 AD with the annihilation of the temple complex and the slaughter and scattering (taken into slavery) of hundreds of thousands of Jews. Some preterists state there is a small gap from 33-34 AD to the Roman-Jewish war in 67-70 AD as expressed in Daniel 9. I disagree.

[RND]

[quote="Mellontes"Just three things:

1) When anochria said "he is temporarily talking about stuff beyond the 70th 7," it does not at all mean WITHIN the 70 weeks.[/quote]

Yes, that's true.

2) Why did you say "It was no longer necesaary to point the way to the cross?" That is a grave error!

Because the "ceremonial sacrifices" of the sanctuary that pointed to the Coming Messiah were made unnecessary once the Messiah came. We now offer better sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices.

Now, that is not to say these ceremonial sacrifices are no longer necessary because now they point the way to the second coming of the Messiah.

3) I am preterist and I am okay with your timeline. The complete desolation occurred by the end of 70 AD with the annihilation of the temple complex and the slaughter and scattering (taken into slavery) of hundreds of thousands of Jews. Some preterists state there is a small gap from 33-34 AD to the Roman-Jewish war in 67-70 AD as expressed in Daniel 9. I disagree.

Sure, that's understandable, I just don't agree. Jesus came to "fulfill" all the from the law and prophets that spoke of him (Luke 23:44). But "preterism" leaves out the prophecies of John the Revelator as either already happening or in "partial preterism" soon to happen, which leaves us with one very confused "anti-christ."

[Mellontes]

Just three things:

1) When anochria said "he is temporarily talking about stuff beyond the 70th 7," it does not at all mean WITHIN the 70 weeks.

Yes, that's true.

2) Why did you say "It was no longer necesaary to point the way to the cross?" That is a grave error!

Because the "ceremonial sacrifices" of the sanctuary that pointed to the Coming Messiah were made unnecessary once the Messiah came. We now offer better sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices.

Now, that is not to say these ceremonial sacrifices are no longer necessary because now they point the way to the second coming of the Messiah.

3) I am preterist and I am okay with your timeline. The complete desolation occurred by the end of 70 AD with the annihilation of the temple complex and the slaughter and scattering (taken into slavery) of hundreds of thousands of Jews. Some preterists state there is a small gap from 33-34 AD to the Roman-Jewish war in 67-70 AD as expressed in Daniel 9. I disagree.

Sure, that's understandable, I just don't agree. Jesus came to "fulfill" all the from the law and prophets that spoke of him (Luke 23:44). But "preterism" leaves out the prophecies of John the Revelator as either already happening or in "partial preterism" soon to happen, which leaves us with one very confused "anti-christ."

I am not sure what you mean when you said "I just don't agree." Are you in disagreement about the small gap between 33-24 AD to 70 AD, or are you disagreed to my statement of "I disagree," which would make you in agreement with the small gap. Do you get what I am trying to say?

How are we left with "one very confused antichrist?" Antichrist is not mentioned in Revelation even once. The characteristics of antichrists are ONLY mentioned in 1st and 2nd John...and no where else in the entire Bible - Old or New Testament.