* *
322 Guests, 1 User

Author Topic: The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 - Vindicating the Historical-Messianic Computation  (Read 15750 times)

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 - Vindicating the Historical-Messianic Computation

Part 1:

The following information is quiet in-depth, and will take some thorough review in order to effectively wrap your brain around.  For decades now, Christians have been left in a state of confusion concerning the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 due to the fact that scholars constantly throw mathematical formulas at them. The average layperson will simply accept what their scholar tells them, simply for the fact that they are incapable of understanding all the intricate mathematical complexities, and therefore, just end up exercising some faith in their professor that they obviously "must know what they are talking about". Over the years, I have been able to delve into these mathematical complexities and my purpose here is to show how the Lunar-Reckoning of the 70 weeks has been a device of the enemy to confuse souls, and steer them away from the simple formulas that God has ordained.

I will now commence with what I believe to be the Biblical and correct reckoning of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27:





As seen in the illustrations above, those of us who subscribe to the "Historical-Messianic Computation" of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 believe they begin in 457 B.C. and end in 34 A.D. The "1 week" is from 27 A.D. at the baptism of Christ to 34 A.D. at the stoning of Stephen and the commencing of the proclamation of the gospel to the gentiles. Christ was crucified in 31 A.D., in the "midst" of the week. We believe this is one of multiple reasons why the 70th week cannot be "detached" and thrown into the future.

As Historicists, we reject the Dispensational/Futurist "lunar-calendar reckoning" of 360 days to a year for the 70 weeks. We compute this timing using regular Solar years, or 365 days. After exhaustively weighing all the research and evidence, we do not believe Dispensationalists have any sound basis for using Lunar years.  Our rejection of the Lunar reckoning for the 70 weeks is not only based on historical research of the Lunar year usage, but also on sound mathematical principles using astronomical calendar calculators. Later in this dissertation, I will show why both Anderson's and Hoehner's Lunar calculations are seriously flawed, and that Solar reckoning is the only possible way to "make the numbers work out". The 70 weeks are in alignment with the sabbatical cycles, which in-turn is based on Solar years, not Lunar. To summarize, we believe that the historical and biblical evidence demands the first 69 weeks (483 years) to have commenced at the decree of Artaxerxes' 7th year in 457 B.C. for Ezra to build and restore Jerusalem (Ezra 7, as well as ancient accounts testify to this), not Artaxerxes' 20th year in 444 or 445 B.C. Counting 483 regular Solar years from this date brings us to 27 A.D.

What happened in 27 A.D.? The Messiah, Jesus Christ, was Baptized and anointed by the Holy Spirit (See Luke 3:21,22; 4:18, 21 [cf. Isa 61:1, 2]; Acts 10:37,38), and was “revealed” as the “Messiah” [meaning, “anointed one”] (See Jn 1:35-41; Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Jn 11:27). In the Greek, Cristos [translated, “Christ”] means “Messiah”, or “anointed one” (See John 1:41). We know that Christ's baptism was in 27 A.D. simply for the fact that Luke 3:1 informs us that His baptism was in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, and the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius was 27 A.D. when taking into account that Luke was 1) using Jewish non-accession-year reckoning, and 2) taking the year into factor when Augustus took Tiberius into partnership as co-emperor, and not beginning with his “sole rule” [Scholars, such as Eugen Ruckstuhl, in Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus, p. 6, date the 15th year of Tiberius as October 1, A.D. 27 to September 30, A.D. 28.]. (Critics have tried stating that the 15th year of Tiberius was actually 28 A.D, not 27 A.D. These mathematical problems are resolved in this website here: http://www.daniels70weeks.com/).

That leaves 1 week left. Adding 7 years to 27 A.D. brings us to the year 34 A.D. Christ's ministry lasted for 3 1/2 years, and is reasoned by accounting the number of Passovers that transpired during Christ’s ministry in the gospel accounts [See the following link for an image with the list of scriptures used to add up the number of Passovers: http://bit.ly/19CRlYY]. According to Daniel 9:27, "he" (meaning Christ, NOT Antichrist) would bring an end to the spiritual significance of the sacrificial system by His death on the cross. Christ was "cut off" and crucified in the "midst" of the week in the year 31 A.D. For 3 1/2 more years the disciples continued to preach to the Jews. At the end of the 70 weeks (or 490 years), we finally arrive at the year 34 A.D. when the last prophet was sent to Israel, Stephen. In 34 A.D. is when Stephen was stoned by the Sanhedrin, the leaders of the Jewish nation. This was national Israel's final sin. This was the year that Saul was converted and became Paul. This was the year that Peter received the vision of the net to go preach to the gentiles. This year was also practically about the time Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. This was the year that the Gospel went out to the Gentiles. This was the year when probation closed for the Jews as a nation (not as individuals). This was the END of the 70th week!! So the 70 weeks prophecy meets an EXACT fulfillment between 457 B.C. and 34 A.D.

The 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 must commence at Artaxerxes first decree in 457 B.C. during his 7th year, not his 20th year in 444 or 445 B.C. Contrary to criticism, the decree of 457 B.C. truly does meet the qualifications of the command/decree of Daniel 9:25 to "build and restore Jerusalem".

We must keep things very simple, however, to start with. Start with 457 B.C. Was it 458? Not after they discovered that the Jews of Elephantine used accession-year-reckoning for Artaxerxes, and the Jews of that time used a fall-to-fal calendar (Horn and Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, pp. 75-90; Neh. 1:1; 2:1). If a king ascended the throne during a year, it wasn't until the NEXT year that it was recognized as "year 1". Once this was discovered, the 457 B.C. date became vindicated. Now, let's forget 457 B.C., and say that we can't count from Artaxerxes' 7th year (457 B.C.), rather, his 20th year in 444 B.C. (some say 445) The argument is that it has to start in Artaxerxes's 20th year according to Nehemiah 1 and 2, because, according to the theory, the decree in Ezra 7 does not actually meet the requirements of Daniel 9:25 to "restore AND to build Jerusalem...and the wall". The argument is that there was no command given in the decree to Ezra to "build the wall". Well, that is easily solved once we go to Ezra 9:9 --

"For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to GIVE US A WALL IN JUDAH AND JERUSALEM." (Ezra 9:9).

There is no doubt that this decree (mentioned in Ezra 7) was quite lengthy, and it most certainly included the command to rebuild the wall. Ezra was obviously not documenting all the elements of this lengthy decree in chapter 7.

Professor Gerhard F. Hasel succinctly states:

"It is argued that the decree of Artaxerxes I to Ezra does not refer to a rebuilding and restoration of Jerusalem. It may, however, be inferred that the Jews understood such to be the king's intention. The biblical evidence is that the wall and other aspects of the city were largely constructed by Ezra (Ezra 4:7-23; 9:9). The fact that Nehemiah's building program was accomplished in only 52 days (Neh 6:15) is mute evidence that the bulk of the rebuilding already had been done before Nehemiah's arrival." (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, p. 28)

If we start in 444/445 B.C., we're forced to use the Lunar Calendar (360-day lunar years), and assuming the 70th week is still future, that brings the 69th week to 32/33 A.D. As I will soon demonstrate from Bob Pickle's documentation, this would put Nisan 14 on a Saturday or a Sunday. This does not line up with Passover. Major problem! If we leave the 70th week attached, that puts the crucifixion about 35 or 36 A.D. This TOTALLY goes against the account of Luke 3, where it says Christ was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius, and archaeological records put the 15th year of Tiberius in 27 A.D.! Counting a total of 4 Passovers in the Gospel accounts, that puts Christ's death on Nisan 14, 31 A.D., which was on Friday.

"Some also argue that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (mentioned in the prophecy) requires a termination in A.D. 70 rather than A.D. 34. However, that may be countered with the fact that it is the death of the Messiah (predicted within the prophecy) that sealed the fate of the ceremonial system as well as of the national state. The events of A.D. 70 are simply the subsequent external consequences of the advent and death of the Messiah, the chief foci of the prophecy.

While objects can be made to all four of the major interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27, the historical-messianic interpretation does not appear to be subject to the chronological, exegetical, and historical difficulties encountered by other systems. It thus recommends itself as the most adequate of the major interpretations."
(Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, p. 28, 29)

Here is a powerful document I recommend that really breaks down the Biblical issues concerning Daniel's 70 Weeks:

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 ~ by D.S. Farris

(Continue to Part 2)
« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 11:38:49 AM by Lysimachus »

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
Part 2:

I will now deal with the following computations presented by Quesar:

Quote
Exactly 173,880 days from King Artaxerxes of Persia, decree of March 14,445 BC. [From Neh.2:1-8. Based on the 360 day Hebrew year. Which makes no difference whatever from a 365 day year].

360 X 483 = 173,880 days.

1. 32 years [AD] X 365 days in our year = 11,680 days.
2. 445 years [BC] X 365 days in our year = 162,425 days.
3. Total 174,105 days divided by 365 = 477 years.
4. Plus 24 days between the date of the decree in 445 BC and Jesus cut-off in 32 AD = 477 years, 24 days
5. Subtract one year because there is no year zero between 1 BC and 1 AD. = 476 years, 24 days.
6. 476 years X 365 days = 173,740 days +24 = 173,764 Days
7. Add days of the leap years over 476 years. Divided by 4 = 119 days = 173,883 days
8. Subtract 1/128 Calendar year day for every solar year: Leap year omitted every 128 years.= -3 days
= 173,880 days!


Which reveals the 360 day prophetic year of Israel is the very same as our present 365 day year when all the corrections have been made to the latter.

On the surface, these numbers appear to workout.  But upon close inspection, these numbers actually do not workout.  The very first problem that jumps out at you is that the Julian calendar never omits 1 leap year every 128 years. The Julian calendar always has 1 leap year every 4 years. Thus, if the individual is Julian dates for the beginning and ending of the 69 weeks, you can never subtract those three days.

I will now quote from Bob Pickle who did a profound job at dealing with these calculations:

Quoting Bob Pickle on the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9:
If we start the 70 weeks in 457 BC, then the first 69 weeks unto "Messiah the Prince" would end in 27 AD. Adventists identify this as being the year of Christ's baptism. At that time He was anointed with the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:1, 22; Acts 10:38). Since the Hebrew word for "Messiah" and the Greek word for "Christ" both mean "the anointed one," it seems most logical to identify the coming of the Messiah of Daniel 9:25 with Christ's anointing at His baptism.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Dan. 9:27). When Christ died after a ministry of 3½ years (31 AD), the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Mat. 27:51). Thus Christ showed that the sacrifices were to cease, since the true sacrifice for sin had been offered.

This leaves but half a week left of the prophecy, 3 ½ years, stretching to 34 AD. In Acts 7 we find Stephen being stoned as the first Christian martyr. Immediately after this the gospel started going to non-Jews: Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Roman centurion Cornelius, along with his household (Acts 8:4-39; 10). Gabriel had told Daniel, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people" (Dan. 9:24). It therefore seems logical to end the 70 weeks with the stoning of Stephen, for at that point the gospel began to go to the Gentiles, not just Daniel's people, the Jews.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (Dan. 9:27). For one week (7 years) the gospel, the new "covenant," was "confirmed" with "many," the Jewish nation: 3 ½ years during the ministry of Christ, and 3 ½ years after His resurrection. After that, it went to the Gentiles.

The first 490 days of the 2300 thus ended in 34 AD. The remaining 1810 years can be added to 34 AD to arrive at 1844.

Before it can be said emphatically that 1844 is "an error," a better interpretation than the above must be found. None has been found to date.

The most popular alternative interpretation today is the following, which is more complex than what was above, which should tell you something: The first 69 weeks stretch from Artaxerxes' supposed twentieth year in 445 BC to about the death of Christ, and the 70th week is yet future.

Sir Robert Anderson proposed multiplying the 69 weeks, or 483 days, by 360 days to the year, and then dividing this product by 365.25 days per year. By this method he reduced the 483 years to just over 476 years, a total of 173,880 days. He then began the time period on March 14, 445 BC, what he supposed was the first day of the first Jewish month of Nisan that year. Then he ended it with April 6, 32 AD, what he supposed was Nisan 10, Palm Sunday, the week Christ was crucified. The 70th week of Daniel 9 Anderson put off into the future to a yet unknown time (The Coming Prince).

There are a number of serious problems with Anderson's theory:

In making this calculation, he mistakenly added three leap days too few, owing to his misunderstanding the differences between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars. 173,880 days should really end on Thursday, April 3, not Sunday, April 6.

Nisan 10 could not have been earlier than Wednesday, April 9, in 32 AD, and so could not have been April 6. This is because the sighting of the new moon which begins the new Jewish month could not have occurred as early as Anderson's theory demands.

Thus, Nisan 14 would have been on a Sunday or Monday in 32 AD, not on a Thursday as Anderson supposed. Anderson tied the last supper to Nisan 14, with Christ dying on the 15th. If Nisan 14 was on a Sunday or Monday, that would put Christ's death on a Monday or Tuesday in disagreement with the gospel accounts.

The Jews of Elephantine used accession-year reckoning for Artaxerxes, and the Jews of that [p. 27] time used a fall-to-fall calendar (Horn and Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, pp. 75-90; Neh. 1:1; 2:1). A king's accession year ran from the date of his enthronement until the next New Year's day. In a fall-to-fall calendar this would be Tishri 1, sometime in September or October. Not till after the accession year did the king's first year of reign begin. In contrast, non-accession year reckoning has no accession year, but begins the first year of reign with the king's enthronement. Each year of reign still ends on New Year's day.

Xerxes was murdered sometime in 465 BC. An Aramaic papyri, AP 6, written on January 2, 464 BC, is still dated in Artaxerxes's accession year, meaning that his first year would not begin until Tishri 464 (Ibid., pp. 98-115, 172-174). This makes Nisan in his twentieth year 444 BC, not 445. So Anderson's starting date was a year off.

Daniel 9 requires a "commandment to restore and build." While we have record of a decree from Artaxerxes' seventh year in Ezra 7, we have no record of a decree from his twentieth year. So how can we commence the 70 weeks with the twentieth year?

The reason Artaxerxes's twentieth year is chosen is because it is thought that then is when the Jews were commanded to build Jerusalem. However, Cyrus had commanded this long before (Is. 44:28; 45:13).

Putting the seventieth week of Daniel 9 into the future ignores the linguistic ties between chapters 8 and 9, and the resulting connection between the 2300 days and the 490 days.

The method of reducing the 69 weeks of 483 years to only 476 years ignores the Jewish seven-year cycle, since the 483 years no longer coincide with 483 actual years.

The Israelites were to work their fields for six years, and then let the land keep a sabbath for the seventh year (Lev. 25:2-7). It is easy to see an allusion to this practice in Daniel 9's "70 weeks," "7 weeks," "62 weeks," and "1 week." In fact, many scholars of various persuasions have recognized just such a connection. One's interpretation of the 70 weeks ought to therefore coincide with actual seven-year sabbatical cycles.

The Adventist way of reckoning them indeed does. The fall of 457 BC began the first year, and the fall of 34 AD ended the seventh year of a seven-year cycle (see "When Were the Sabbatical Years?" posted at http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers). Thus, when 31 AD is identified as the date for Christ's crucifixion, the middle of the last week of seven years, it truly is the precise middle of a seven-year cycle.
End Quote of Bob Pickle's Article (Source)

For a full and thorough breakdown of all the math, see Bob Pickle's more detailed articles below:

1. "An Examination of Anderson's Chronological Errors Regarding Daniel 9's First 69 Weeks." Dispensational eschatology, as portrayed on Left Behind, depends on an adequate explanation of the first 69 weeks. Anderson is often quoted, and yet his theories are contradicted by plain facts about calendars and history.

2. "Dr. Harold Hohner's Refinements of Anderson's Theory: Are They Sound?"  -- Hoehner and Ice's Calculations of Daniel 9's First 69 Weeks" - Acknowledges the four improvements over Anderson that Dr. Hoehner has provided. Examines the chronological difficulties still present in his calculations of Daniel 9's 70 weeks, and suggests an alternative interpretation unencumbered by such difficulties.

3. "When Were the Sabbatical Years?" - Re-examines Ben Zion Wacholder's evidence for his sabbatical dates, and concludes that the standard position was correct after all. Using Josephus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, ancient inscriptions and documents, the Talmud, and Maimonides, when the sabbatical years were can be determined. And this all has a bearing on Daniel 9's 70 weeks.

(Continue to Part 3)
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 05:29:45 PM by Lysimachus »

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 are a Part of the 2300 Days of Daniel 8


This is yet another reason why one cannot detach the 70th week from Daniel 9:24. We believe that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are intrinsically tied to the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14.  We believe that to reject the multiple textual and contextual links between the time periods mentioned in Daniel 8 and 9 would be to reveal a plain denial of the facts. The explanation of the 70 weeks by the angel Gabriel in Daniel 9 is an "extension" of the explanation of the time element of the vision given in Daniel 8 (since Daniel fainted and became ill, leaving Gabriel unable to finish the explanation of the time element of the vision). The 70 weeks were "cut off", or "portioned out" or "marked out" of the 2300 years for the Jewish people (Another reason we cannot "detach" the 70th week and throw it into the future).  70 weeks was their probationary time to accomplish all that which is mentioned in Daniel 9:25. Because they failed to do this, the "kingdom" was taken from them and "given" to another nation (the gentiles). Matthew 21:43, 1 Peter 2:9.

It is important to realize that both the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and the 2300 days of Daniel 8 are based on the "day-year-principle".

The "simple" Biblical appeal to this "day-for-year" principle is found in Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34, and then not to mention that Daniel employs it in Daniel 9:24-27. Historicists believe that consistency demands that if we apply the 70 weeks to 490 years, and 1 week = 7 days, then we must be consistent with the 1260 days as well.  The phrase "weeks of years" is an understood concept, although the phrase "weeks of years" does not exist in Daniel 9:24.  It is just "shabuam", meaning "weeks".   In order to get around this, Futurists say this word means "sevens", not "weeks" to get "off the hook" of having to employ the day-for-year principle to the 70 weeks (because if they did acknowledge that the day-for-year principle is applicable to the 70 weeks, in order to be consistent, they would have to employ it also with the 1260 days/42 months/time, times, half a time of Daniel 7 and Revelation 11, 12 and 13!).  But scholars have refuted this, and have proven that "shabuam" can only mean "weeks", not "sevens".  Now of course, there is no doubt that the word "week" itself does mean 7, but it is a word being employed to mean "7 days".   But if they really want to squeeze blood out of this turnip, we could get just as technical and say that we prefer to use "months of years" in Revelation 13.  Or even go so far as to say that "month" = 30. (30 x 42 = 1260).

We believe that in prophetic language, especially where symbolism is employed, the day-for-year principle must be sacredly recognized and guarded. This is ABSOLUTELY essential if we are gong to come to correct interpretations of eschatology and avoid theological shipwreck.  We base this principle on Ezekiel 4:6, Numbers 14:34, and at least 80 other Biblical day-for-year parallels found in the sacred writings. To name a few prophetic time periods, we dogmatically recognize the 42 months of Revelation 13 as "months of years", the 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8 as "days of years", the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 as "weeks of years", the 10 days of persecution on Smyrna in Revelation 10 as "days of years", and the 3 ½ days of Revelation 11 as "days of years". We believe the prophetic events that transpired meet these specified time periods with exact precision, and are not "spiritualized" away. We wholeheartedly submit that Dispensationalism's refusal to adopt the day-for-year principle in their eschatological reckoning lies at the heart in spelling out their faulty conclusions of end-time Bible prophecy.

Great sources concerning the "Day-Year" Principle of the 70 Weeks:

1. Twenty Reasons to Apply the Year/Day Principle (PDF) ~ by Pastor Stephen Bohr (I encourage you to read the full thing, but pay particular attention to Reason #6 on page 4), and another one: "Seventy Sevens" or "Seventy Weeks" (PDF)?

2. The Day-Year Principle on Daniel 9:24-27 (PDF) ~ by Frank W. Hardy, Ph.D (Very exegetical, and very in-depth--to this day has not been refuted)

3. Eighty Year-Day Parallels (PDF) ~ by Frank. W. Hardy, Ph.D.  (And for more articles covering the "Year-Day Principle", click here and here.)



2300 evening-mornings = 2300 days = 2300 years (Daniel 8:14)

It is important keep in mind that the 70 Jewish scribes who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, making the Septuagint, unanimously qualified the "evening-mornings" by using the Greek word "days". The term "evening-mornings" was used by Daniel because he was using artistic "sanctuary language" concerning the lamps that burned "always", or "daily" in the sanctuary (See for example: Exodus 27:20, 21; Leviticus 24:2,3). The Hebrew word for "evening" is EREB, and for "morning", BOQER. In other words "ereb-boqer".  Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, all testify that an "evening" (ereb) and a "morning" (boqer) = a day. Dispensationalists have tried to cut this argument down by saying that "evening-morning" represents "evening and morning sacrifices or burnt offerings", and therefore, since there was a sacrifice or burnt offering in the evening and in the morning, that means we must cut the 2300 in half to 1150 days. Then they try to fit 1150 days into Antiochus IV Epiphanies' desecration of the Jewish temple.  The problem is, according to Maccabees, Antiochus desecrated the temple for exactly 3 years to the day, or 1095 days. Therefore, Antiochus (along with a HOST of other reasons) does not fulfill this prophecy. It's 55 days off.  And finally, ALL temple sacrifices and burnt offerings were NEVER offered from "evening and morning", but rather "MORNING AND EVENING" (see 1 Chron 16:40; 2 Chron 2:4; 13:11; 31:3;  2 Kings 16:15; and Ezra 3:3) In that order! The fact that Daniel used "evenings and mornings" in Daniel 8:14 is significant, and lends credence to the fact that Daniel meant full days, as a day is from evening to morning, not morning to evening according to Genesis 1. And since 2300 literal days = 6.4 years, and Antiochus only desecrated the temple for 3 years, we have no choice but to apply the 2300 evening-mornings to years, and since the "70 weeks" of Daniel 9:24 are "cut off" from the 2300 years of 8:14, that means the 2300 years end in 1844 if we begin in 457 B.C. (which I believe is the only possible date as we shall soon see) I've done the math hundreds of times, and it is VERY precise! Not to mention that in Daniel 8, the context demands that the 2300 year period stretch to the "time of the end" [8:17,19].

For a more detailed study on the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and how it is intrinsically tied to the 2300 days of Daniel 9, see Pastor Stephen Bohr's Notes on Daniel 9.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 10:41:21 PM by Lysimachus »

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
Breaking Down Daniel 9:24-27

Let us begin by quoting the full context of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:

"(24) Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (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, but not for himself: and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week 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." (Daniel 9:24-27)

Without delving into any of the mathematical time elements of this prophecy, I am going to break down the verses in relation to the Messiah the Prince.  Dispensationalists take the "he" in the last verse (27) and apply it to a future Antichrist who will put a stop to the Temple sacrifices in the midst of the 70th week, or just say in the middle of a "future 7 year tribulation".  In essence, they decapitate the 1 week off the first 69 and throw it WAY into the future inserting an infamous "gap" of about 2000 years between the 69th and 70th week!  Allow me to elaborate upon the many reasons why I believe this approach is impossible.  I believe that without any predispositions whatsoever, a plain sense of the reading of verse 27 clearly leads one to believe "1 week" follows the 69th week in sequential order, and that the "he" in verse 27 is Jesus Christ, the Messiah, not Antichrist.

Futurist authors such as Mathison and Dr. Fruchtenbaum argue that the antecedent to "he" in verse 27 is the “prince” in verse 26. And since it is assumed that the "prince" in verse 26 is an antichrist or evil ruler that desolates, the conclusion is that the "he" in verse 27 cannot be referring to Jesus Christ.  I beg to differ. I tend to lean toward a strong possibility that the "prince" of verse 26 is also speaking of Jesus Christ. However, I argue that whether the "prince" in verse 26 is referring to an evil ruler or Jesus Christ, it makes no difference!  Even if the prince in verse 26 is referring to an evil ruler or an antichrist, the chiastic structure of verses 25-27 eliminates the requirement for the "he" of verse 27 to be equated with the "prince" in verse 26. Take note to the following graph: CHIASM OF DANIEL 9:25-27

The three interpretations of the "prince" in verse 26 are as follows:
  • First, the "prince that shall come" can apply to Titus, who tried to protect the Temple, but his soldiers destroyed it anyway against his explicit orders. This does seem to fit the historical evidence.

  • Alternatively, this can be interpreted as Jesus being the "prince that shall come". Following this logic, the unbelieving Jews through their rebellion against God and Roman rule, brought about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. The city and sanctuary were destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Roman general Titus, crushing the Jewish rebellion, fulfilling this prophecy. The unbelieving Jews had rejected the ultimatum contained in the 70 week prophecy, and their destruction and scattering in 70 A.D. was the result. Both interpretations appear to fit. "the people of the prince that shall come" -- it is the people of the prince who is to come who will destroy the city and the temple, not the prince himself.

  • A yet future Antichrist who will yet come and rule in a coming Third Temple.
Interpretations 1 and 2 fit well with the grammatical structure and historical data, and although I am open to both interpretations, I prefer the second. As with the third interpretation, I have nothing historically to measure it with, nor do I find any good reason to cast it into the future based on the data that has been presented thus far, and forthcoming data.

Professor William H. Shea breaks it down nicely:

Quote
Who are the "people of the ruler [or "prince" - Hebrew: nagid]" who carried out this destruction? The Romans clearly destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70, so it has been suggested that this verse refers to the Roman people, or army, and that the "ruler" must refer either to the Roman general who led the army against Jerusalem or to the Caesar who ordered the attack. This generalization, however, fails to take into account some of the specific language used here.

The word used here for "prince" or "ruler," is nagid, the same word used in verse 25 for "the Anointed One, the ruler," also known as Messiah, the Prince. Note the following pattern of word used in this prophecy:

verse 25 - - - - Messiah - - nagid
verse 26a - - - Messiah - - - ----
verse 26b   - - - ---- - - - nagid

In verse 25, the designation, "Messiah nagid," forms a word pair--”the Anointed One, the ruler"--so that the two words are linked in a technical way. Verse 26a breaks the word pair apart and uses the first word of the pair. Then verse 26b uses the second pair of the pair. This pattern suggests that all three references are to the same Messiah Prince designated by the first occurrence of this word pair in verse 25. If so, then "the people of the ruler who will come" refers to the people of the Messiah. It is they who are going to destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary. The Messiah was a Jewish figure, and thus His people must be the Jewish people of that time. This same point is emphasized here by the use of the word "people" instead of the more correct military term "host" or "army." [Note: It should also be mentioned that the word "people" is employed 7 times in chapter 9, and every single time it is in reference to Daniel's people, the Jews. In fact, the word is used a total of 25 times in the entire book of Daniel, and never once is it used to represent armies.]

If this interpretation is correct, in what sense did the people of the Jewish Messiah Prince destroy the city and the sanctuary in A.D. 70? The Roman army was indeed the physical agent which brought about the literal destruction of Jerusalem. But why did they destroy it?  They did so because Judea had rebelled against Rome. If Judea had not rebelled, the Roman army would never have come there and Jerusalem would have been spared. We are dealing here with causes and resulting events. The cause of Jerusalem's destruction was the Jewish rebellion; the event which resulted from that rebellion was the destruction of the city and its temple. In that sense, it can be said that the people of the Jewish Messiah Prince caused or brought about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The final phrase of verse 26 amplifies the picture of that war and its consequences. "The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed." The figurative language of the flood is a very apt description for the way the Roman army finally flowed into Jerusalem to conquer it. Isaiah described the assault of the Assyrian army in similar language: "Therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty flood waters of the River--the king of Assyria with all his pomp. It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks and sweep on into Judah, swirling, over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!" (Isaiah 8:7, 8 ). In the same way, Daniel prophesies, the Roman army will overflow Jerusalem and its temple like a flood. Jerusalem"s northern wall was always the weakest of its defenses because there were valleys on the other three sides of the city. It was at this northern wall that the Roman troops finally penetrated the defenses bringing the desolation that is still well revealed today by the archaeologist"s spade. (Dr. William H. Shea, Ph.D., Daniel, pp 166,167)

I would like to take it a bit further and add that the Jews caused the desolation of their own city and temple in their rejection of their Messiah. In other words, by rejecting the Messiah that had come, they incurred the floodgates of hell that overspread their city.  In other words, the people of the prince destroyed their own city.  "The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown" (The Great Controversy, p.35). According to the prophet Hosea, we see similar terminology of self-destruction employed: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." (Hosea 13:9; 14:1). Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will." (Ibid, p.35)

I shall now proceed to break down Daniel 9:24-27 according to the second interpretation:

This New Covenant of promise is seen in Daniel 9:27: "And he [Messiah] shall confirm [Hebrew: "make strong"] the covenant** with many* for one week".  The Antichrist is never known to make a covenant with ANYONE! 

Proof of this lies in Matthew 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new covenant**, which is shed for many* for the remission of sins" [Unfortunately, the Futurist interpretation of this verse (beginning around 1850 based off of the Roman Jesuit Francisco Ribera's work of the 16th century) falsely interprets the "he" as the Antichrist. But even a casual look at Daniel 9:24-27 will prove that "the most Holy" (verse 24), "Messiah the Prince [nagiyd]" (verse 25), "Messiah" (verse 26a), "the prince [nagiyd]" (verse 26b) and the "he" (verse 27) are ALL referring to the same individual--Jesus Christ.

Let's evaluate the full context:

Daniel 9:24-27 --

(24) "Seventy weeks [490 years, from 457 B.C. to 34 A.D.] are determined upon thy people [the Jews] and upon thy holy city [Jerusalem], to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy [When the Messiah would come to the Jewish nation, born as a babe, and be anointed by the Holy Ghost at His baptism in 27 A.D.].

(25) "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [nagiyd] shall be seven weeks [7 weeks/49 years], and threescore and two weeks [62 weeks/434 years]: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

(26) And after threescore and two weeks [after 62 weeks, which is "after the 69th week" or 483 years] shall Messiah be cut off ["killed"], but not for himself: and the people [Jewish people, not "army"] of the prince [nagiyd = Messiah the Prince] that shall come [Messiah is the one that "comes", not the people] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary [Hosea 13:9 "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself]; and the end thereof shall be with a flood [Roman Armies], and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. [Said Jesus: Matthew 23:38 - "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate"]

(27) And he [Messiah] shall confirm [make strong] the covenant [same word as "testament"] with many [Matthew 26:28 - "This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many"] for one week [starting 27 A.D. at Christ's "anointing" in Acts 10:37,38 at his baptism to 34 A.D. when the gospel went forth to the Gentiles, Stephen was stoned, Saul became Paul, and Peter received the vision to preach to the Gentiles] : and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease [Christ's sacrifice caused the meaning and value of animal sacrifices to cease in 31 A.D. at his death], and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate [Matthew 23:38 "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."], even until the consummation [Israel as a nation will be spiritually desolate even until Christ's Second Coming], and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. [Christ spoke when the house was desolate, and he predicted the desolations were determined upon the "desolate" -- meaning, the Romans would desolate that which was already spiritually "desolate", which went into effect 39 years later in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem]

Notice the following phrase from verse 26:

"the people of the prince that shall come" -- Futurists interpret this to mean that the "people will come"-- or "the armies will come up to the city". However, the grammatical structure is not referring to the "people" coming. It's really saying "the prince [messiah] that shall come", not the people! There are two ways to interpret it, but in the light of the understanding presented, it HAS to be "the Messiah that shall come", based on tons of scriptural references that speak about the coming of the Messiah. This goes marvelously with John 1:11 which says: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." -- "the people of the prince". The "prince" in verse 26 and the "he" in verse 27 are both speaking of Jesus Christ, not Antichrist. To read antichrist into these passages forces us to stretch the texts far beyond their simplicity.

Gerhard F. Hasel once again insightfully states:

Quote
Ninth, another serious problem concerns the assumption of an unprecedented covenant-making by antichrist. [A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, (New York, 1911), p. 142; Walvoord, Daniel, pp. 232-236).]  The OT (and the NT) "contain no hint of any such covenant at all, let alone some earlier one that he could confirm at this point in Dan. 9." [Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.] The difficulty with this assumption is that it takes a lesser figure, namely "the prince that shall come" (vs. 26), as the antecedent of the "he" in verse 27, rather than the dominant figure, the "Messiah" (vs. 26). The word "prince" is a subordinate figure in verse 26. It is not even the subject of the clause. The subject of the clause is "the people." Therefore, the fitting grammatical antecedent of the "he" (vs. 27) is the "Messiah" (vs. 26).

Tenth, the futurists interpreters transform the "prince" into "a future deputy of the devil"
[Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.] and a "future enemy of the people of Israel." [Ibid.] This interpretation overlooks the fact that the emphasis in verse 26 is not upon the "prince" but upon the "people of the prince." Young points out, "This prince, therefore, must be one who rules over these people, . . . he must be their contemporary, alive when they are alive." [Young, pp. 211-212] A prince living 1900 years later than the people is quite contrary to the text. L. Wood replies that the phrase "the one coming" means "from whom will come." This makes the entire phrase read "the people from whom will come a prince." [Wood, p. 258.] However, such a reading is not supported by the Hebrew text.

Eleventh, recent study of the poetry of 9:24-27 indicates a very intricate literary structure.
[See J. Doukhan, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study," AUSS 17 (1979): 1-22; W. H. Shea, "The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27," chap. 3, pp. 75-118 in this volume.] Such a structure binds the entire section together in literary patterns that do not permit the kind of chronological fragmentation demanded by the dispensational system. The literary arrangement supports the idea that the three titles--Messiah Prince (vs. 25), the Messiah (vs. 26a), and the Prince (vs. 26b)--refer to the same person who is cut off in the middle of the last week. [Shea, "The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27," pp. 92-94 in this volume.] (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, pp. 24, 25)
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 05:49:18 PM by Lysimachus »

Offline Quasar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
I will now deal with the following computations presented by Quesar:

Quasar: First of all, my name is Quasar, like the Super Nova. 

L: On the surface, these numbers appear to workout.  But upon close inspection, these numbers actually do not workout.  The very first problem that jumps out at you is that the Julian calendar never omits 1 leap year every 128 years. The Julian calendar always has 1 leap year every 4 years. Thus, if the individual is Julian dates for the beginning and ending of the 69 weeks, he can never subtract those three days.

Q: A review of Sir Robert Anderson's formula reveals it is present in #7, with 119 of them over a period of 476 years.  476 divided by 4 = 119 days.  Nothing wrong with the math there that I can find.  Furthermore, if changes are made to it, the formula does not come out properly at all.  Neither the Julian or Gregorian calendars had been known in those days.

L: I will now quote from Bob Pickle who did a profound job at dealing with these calculations:

Quoting Bob Pickle on the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9:
If we start the 70 weeks in 457 BC, then the first 69 weeks unto "Messiah the Prince" would end in 27 AD. Adventists identify this as being the year of Christ's baptism. At that time He was anointed with the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:1, 22; Acts 10:38). Since the Hebrew word for "Messiah" and the Greek word for "Christ" both mean "the anointed one," it seems most logical to identify the coming of the Messiah of Daniel 9:25 with Christ's anointing at His baptism.

Q: The beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy as stated in Dan.9:25: "So you are to know and to discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat

The starting point of the 70 weeks therefore begins with the only decree by Artaxerxes to be in his 20th year of reign, in 445 B.C., in the 6th year of Darius, in 515 B.C., when the second temple was completed, as recorded in Ezra 6:15 and Neh.1:1-8.  Placing the starting point of the 70 weeks at 457 B.C. was a decree by artaxerxes, in his 7th year of reign, for anyone who wanted to return to Jerusalem with Ezra could go with him and to take all the gold and silver taken from the temple by Nebuchadnezzar back with him.  It says nothing whatever about rebuilding Jerusalem.  Which completely throws your calculations out the window.


"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Dan. 9:27). When Christ died after a ministry of 3½ years (31 AD), the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Mat. 27:51). Thus Christ showed that the sacrifices were to cease, since the true sacrifice for sin had been offered.

Q: Where did vs 26 go?  The Messiah was cut off in vs 26 and about 40 years later, the people of the prince to come, i.e. the Roman army under their general Titus, who later became emperor of Rom, destroyed the temple and Jerusalem.  Take note of the fact that in vs 26, the "prince" to come never has a capital "P," which you have misinterpreted to mean Jesus, who is cut off in vs 26 and does not somehow return in vs 27.  With the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D., 69 weeks, 483 years of the 490 year prophecy were fulfilled.     

The covenant , or agreement, with many, is between Israel and her neighbors, is confirmed by the first of three "he's," who are all the very same person, the man of lawlessness in 2 Thes.2 3-4 and 8 and the beast out of the sea who m Satan gives his throne, power and great authority to, as recorded in Rev.13:1-3, the antichrist!  He breaks his agreement in the middle of the week, stops the sacrificing and grain offerings and sets up the abomination of desolation in the temple of God.  Which Jesus confirms in His Olivet discourse in Mt.24:4-31 as well as in the Mk.13 and LK.21 accounts of it, in vs 15 and 21, amplifying Dan.9:27, the vs which is the 70th and final week of God's decree on the destiny of Israel, the seven year tribulation, culminating in His second coming in vs 30


L:This leaves but half a week left of the prophecy, 3½ years, stretching to 34 AD. In Acts 7 we find Stephen being stoned as the first Christian martyr. Immediately after this the gospel started going to non-Jews: Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the Roman centurion Cornelius, along with his household (Acts 8:4-39; 10). Gabriel had told Daniel, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people" (Dan. 9:24). It therefore seems logical to end the 70 weeks with the stoning of Stephen, for at that point the gospel began to go to the Gentiles, not just Daniel's people, the Jews.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (Dan. 9:27). For one week (7 years) the gospel, the new "covenant," was "confirmed" with "many," the Jewish nation: 3½ years during the ministry of Christ, and 3½ years after His resurrection. After that, it went to the Gentiles.

The first 490 days of the 2300 thus ended in 34 AD. The remaining 1810 years can be added to 34 AD to arrive at 1844.

Before it can be said emphatically that 1844 is "an error," a better interpretation than the above must be found. None has been found to date.

The most popular alternative interpretation today is the following, which is more complex than what was above, which should tell you something: The first 69 weeks stretch from Artaxerxes' supposed twentieth year in 445 BC to about the death of Christ, and the 70th week is yet future.

Sir Robert Anderson proposed multiplying the 69 weeks, or 483 days, by 360 days to the year, and then dividing this product by 365.25 days per year. By this method he reduced the 483 years to just over 476 years, a total of 173,880 days. He then began the time period on March 14, 445 BC, what he supposed was the first day of the first Jewish month of Nisan that year. Then he ended it with April 6, 32 AD, what he supposed was Nisan 10, Palm Sunday, the week Christ was crucified. The 70th week of Daniel 9 Anderson put off into the future to a yet unknown time (The Coming Prince).

There are a number of serious problems with Anderson's theory:

In making this calculation, he mistakenly added three leap days too few, owing to his misunderstanding the differences between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars. 173,880 days should really end on Thursday, April 3, not Sunday, April 6.

Nisan 10 could not have been earlier than Wednesday, April 9, in 32 AD, and so could not have been April 6. This is because the sighting of the new moon which begins the new Jewish month could not have occurred as early as Anderson's theory demands.

Thus, Nisan 14 would have been on a Sunday or Monday in 32 AD, not on a Thursday as Anderson supposed. Anderson tied the last supper to Nisan 14, with Christ dying on the 15th. If Nisan 14 was on a Sunday or Monday, that would put Christ's death on a Monday or Tuesday in disagreement with the gospel accounts.

The Jews of Elephantine used accession-year reckoning for Artaxerxes, and the Jews of that [p. 27] time used a fall-to-fall calendar (Horn and Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, pp. 75-90; Neh. 1:1; 2:1). A king's accession year ran from the date of his enthronement until the next New Year's day. In a fall-to-fall calendar this would be Tishri 1, sometime in September or October. Not till after the accession year did the king's first year of reign begin. In contrast, non-accession year reckoning has no accession year, but begins the first year of reign with the king's enthronement. Each year of reign still ends on New Year's day.

Xerxes was murdered sometime in 465 BC. An Aramaic papyri, AP 6, written on January 2, 464 BC, is still dated in Artaxerxes's accession year, meaning that his first year would not begin until Tishri 464 (Ibid., pp. 98-115, 172-174). This makes Nisan in his twentieth year 444 BC, not 445. So Anderson's starting date was a year off.

Daniel 9 requires a "commandment to restore and build." While we have record of a decree from Artaxerxes' seventh year in Ezra 7, we have no record of a decree from his twentieth year. So how can we commence the 70 weeks with the twentieth year?

The reason Artaxerxes's twentieth year is chosen is because it is thought that then is when the Jews were commanded to build Jerusalem. However, Cyrus had commanded this long before (Is. 44:28; 45:13).

Putting the seventieth week of Daniel 9 into the future ignores the linguistic ties between chapters 8 and 9, and the resulting connection between the 2300 days and the 490 days.

The method of reducing the 69 weeks of 483 years to only 476 years ignores the Jewish seven-year cycle, since the 483 years no longer coincide with 483 actual years.

The Israelites were to work their fields for six years, and then let the land keep a sabbath for the seventh year (Lev. 25:2-7). It is easy to see an allusion to this practice in Daniel 9's "70 weeks," "7 weeks," "62 weeks," and "1 week." In fact, many scholars of various persuasions have recognized just such a connection. One's interpretation of the 70 weeks ought to therefore coincide with actual seven-year sabbatical cycles.

The Adventist way of reckoning them indeed does. The fall of 457 BC began the first year, and the fall of 34 AD ended the seventh year of a seven-year cycle (see "When Were the Sabbatical Years?" posted at http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers). Thus, when 31 AD is identified as the date for Christ's crucifixion, the middle of the last week of seven years, it truly is the precise middle of a seven-year cycle.
End Quote of Bob Pickle's Article (Source)

For a full and thorough breakdown of all the math, see Bob Pickle's more detailed articles below:

1. "An Examination of Anderson's Chronological Errors Regarding Daniel 9's First 69 Weeks." Dispensational eschatology, as portrayed on Left Behind, depends on an adequate explanation of the first 69 weeks. Anderson is often quoted, and yet his theories are contradicted by plain facts about calendars and history.

2. “Dr. Harold Hohner’s Refinements of Anderson’s Theory: Are They Sound?”  -- Hoehner and Ice’s Calculations of Daniel 9’s First 69 Weeks” - Acknowledges the four improvements over Anderson that Dr. Hoehner has provided. Examines the chronological difficulties still present in his calculations of Daniel 9's 70 weeks, and suggests an alternative interpretation unencumbered by such difficulties.

3. “When Were the Sabbatical Years?” - Re-examines Ben Zion Wacholder's evidence for his sabbatical dates, and concludes that the standard position was correct after all. Using Josephus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, ancient inscriptions and documents, the Talmud, and Maimonides, when the sabbatical years were can be determined. And this all has a bearing on Daniel 9's 70 weeks.

Q: Unfortunately, I do not have the time today to go any further and must now quit until a later time when I man continue.  However, as I do not agree with Sir Robert Anderson in all aspects of his calculations, he is much closer to the intended interpretation than what you are presenting here by what I have already shown which comes directly from the Scriptures themselves.


Quasar
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 12:55:38 PM by Quasar »
"I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except by me."  Jn.14:6.

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
Quote
I will now deal with the following computations presented by Quesar:

Quasar: First of all, my name is Quasar, like the Super Nova.

My apologies for the typo.  Indeed, I shall remember "Quasar" from now on. :)

Quote
L: On the surface, these numbers appear to workout.  But upon close inspection, these numbers actually do not workout.  The very first problem that jumps out at you is that the Julian calendar never omits 1 leap year every 128 years. The Julian calendar always has 1 leap year every 4 years. Thus, if the individual is Julian dates for the beginning and ending of the 69 weeks, he can never subtract those three days.

Q: A review of Sir Robert Anderson's formula reveals it is present in #7, with 119 of them over a period of 476 years.  476 divided by 4 = 119 days.  Nothing wrong with the math there that I can find.  Furthermore, if changes are made to it, the formula does not come out properly at all.  Neither the Julian or Gregorian calendars had been known in those days.

I give credit to Bob Pickle for helping me to understand this one.

I don't follow what is being said here.

First of all, the prophecy calls for 69 weeks, which would be 483 years, not 476. Anderson was wrong in using only 476 years when the prophecy specified 483.

Second, it is true that the Julian and Gregorian calendars were not known in 457 BC, but the Julian calendar was in use in 27 AD. However, the point is irrelevant since historians and astronomers often date ancient dates using the Julian calendar by extending it back in time.

When Anderson gives dates of March 14, 445 BC and April 6, 32 AD, he is using Julian dates, not Jewish dates. Yet when he calculates the number of days between these dates, he calculates as if those dates were Gregorian dates rather than Julian. And that is the problem.

Even if we converted Anderson's dates into Jewish dates, we would still have to conclude that he was off in the number of days he calculated as being between those two dates.

Quote
L: I will now quote from Bob Pickle who did a profound job at dealing with these calculations:

Quoting Bob Pickle on the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9:
If we start the 70 weeks in 457 BC, then the first 69 weeks unto "Messiah the Prince" would end in 27 AD. Adventists identify this as being the year of Christ's baptism. At that time He was anointed with the Holy Spirit descending upon Him in the form of a dove (Luke 3:1, 22; Acts 10:38). Since the Hebrew word for "Messiah" and the Greek word for "Christ" both mean "the anointed one," it seems most logical to identify the coming of the Messiah of Daniel 9:25 with Christ's anointing at His baptism.

Q: The beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy as stated in Dan.9:25: "So you are to know and to discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat

The starting point of the 70 weeks therefore begins with the only decree by Artaxerxes to be in his 20th year of reign, in 445 B.C., in the 6th year of Darius, in 515 B.C., when the second temple was completed, as recorded in Ezra 6:15 and Neh.1:1-8.  Placing the starting point of the 70 weeks at 457 B.C. was a decree by artaxerxes, in his 7th year of reign, for anyone who wanted to return to Jerusalem with Ezra could go with him and to take all the gold and silver taken from the temple by Nebuchadnezzar back with him.  It says nothing whatever about rebuilding Jerusalem.

It is evident from your response above that you did not truly grapple with all the arguments I presented.  Had you done so, you would have seen in my very first post my quotation of Ezra 9:9 which states thus:

"For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to GIVE US A WALL IN JUDAH AND JERUSALEM." (Ezra 9:9).

Ezra is acknowledging that the decree given by Artaxerxes granted them permission to repair the desolations of Jerusalem.

However, allow me to ask you a question:

1. Why does the decree itself have to mention the rebuilding of the city in order for it to not be implied by the king?

2. What proof do you have that Ezra quoted the entire lengthy decree in chapter 7?  It is more than likely that Ezra only highlighted certain portions of the decree, not quote the entire decree issued in 457 B.C.

Ezra 6:14 -- "And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia."

Pickle points out the following:

Those who have abandoned Protestant historicism in favor of futurism typically contend that the only thing that the commandment (singular) of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes did was command the building of the temple. Thus, they contend, this commandment (singular) cannot fulfill Dan. 9 because it said nothing about rebuilding the temple.

But this ignores Isaiah.

Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid."

Isaiah 45:13 "I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts."

Futurists pride themselves on taking the Bible literally. They should therefore take these verses literally: Cyrus commanded the building of Jerusalem, not just the temple, according to the infallible Word of God.

But then, why did not the 70 weeks begin with Cyrus' decree? Because the decree was a process that Cyrus began, Darius affirmed, and Artaxerxes completed, as indicated by the singular "commandment" in Ezra 6:14.

How did Artaxerxes complete it? Dan. 9 said "from the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem." Cyrus and Darius dealt with building, not restoring.

Isaiah 1:26 - "And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city."

The decree of Ezra 7 given in Artaxerxes' 7th year restored the judges to the point that they could enforce the law of God on pain of death, and thus completed the decree process foretold by Daniel.

If a futurist does not want to accept this conclusion, he should be challenged to explain why the 70 weeks cannot begin until Artaxerxes' 20th year, when Cyrus himself commanded Jerusalem to be built, according to the divinely inspired Isaiah.

I would also remind you Quasar of a quote I cited in my first post which shows that Ezra 4 affirms the city was being constructed. 

"It is argued that the decree of Artaxerxes I to Ezra does not refer to a rebuilding and restoration of Jerusalem. It may, however, be inferred that the Jews understood such to be the king's intention. The biblical evidence is that the wall and other aspects of the city were largely constructed by Ezra (Ezra 4:7-23; 9:9). The fact that Nehemiah's building program was accomplished in only 52 days (Neh 65:15) is mute evidence that the bulk of the rebuilding already had been done before Nehemiah's arrival." (Gerhard F. Hasel, 70 Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, p. 28)

But even without Ezra 4 (which scholars today believe is out of chronological order, and is referring to Artaxerxes), Ezra 9:9 and the references in Isaiah concerning Cyrus' command to build up the city of Jerusalem already validate and confirm the reality of Jerusalem's rebuilding decreed prior to Artaxerxes' letter of permission granted to Nehemiah (which is not listed at all as a decree, rather, a letter of permission granting Nehemiah to resume that which Artaxerxes had already decreed in his 7th year).

Quote
Which completely throws your calculations out the window.

From the above, it appears that my calculations were vindicated long before you responded, and still stood vindicated long after you responded.  There was a reason why I covered as many holes as I could long before they were targeted.

Quote
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" (Dan. 9:27). When Christ died after a ministry of 3½ years (31 AD), the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Mat. 27:51). Thus Christ showed that the sacrifices were to cease, since the true sacrifice for sin had been offered.

Q: Where did vs 26 go?  The Messiah was cut off in vs 26 and about 40 years later, the people of the prince to come, i.e. the Roman army under their general Titus, who later became emperor of Rom, destroyed the temple and Jerusalem.  Take note of the fact that in vs 26, the "prince" to come never has a capital "P," which you have misinterpreted to mean Jesus, who is cut off in vs 26 and does not somehow return in vs 27.  With the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D., 69 weeks, 483 years of the 490 year prophecy were fulfilled.
 

Verse 26 says that after the 69 weeks the Messiah will be cut off.  Verse 27 goes on to explain "when" after the 69th week he was "cut off"--that being the "midst" of the 70th week. The decision to not make "prince" (nagiyd) not have a capital P was done by the English translators, who assumed that it must not be talking about the same Messiah the Prince. However, in the original Hebrew, there are no "capital Ps", and frankly no difference whatsoever between the "nagiyd" (prince) of verse 25a and verse 26b. It is an assumption by many that the desolation of Jerusalem must occur only after the first 69 weeks and not after the 70th week. Verse 26a says that "after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself"--in other words, after these 69 weeks are over, the Messiah will be killed. Then verse 26b goes on to explain the subsequent external consequences of killing the Messiah--that being--"and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."" (Daniel 9:26b)

The pronouncement went into effect before the 70 weeks were finished. The consequences, or results of rejecting and killing the Messiah went into effect in 70 A.D., approximately 40 years after the pronouncement.

Dispensationalists wish to read these sections in chronological order rather than reading the events in terms of the spiritual message of judgment and consequences being portrayed. They fail to recognize the chiastic structure found in Daniel 9:24-27.

Verse 27 simply BACKS UP to fill in more details pertaining to the 70th week between 27 A.D. and 34 A.D.:

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week 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. "

In essence, the Messiah Prince, in the midst of the week, causes the sacrifices to cease (although they still continued them against the divine decree). Their spiritual value ceased.  It is for the overspreading of abominations (rejecting the Messiah) that Christ declared the Temple "desolate" (Matthew 23:38). This spiritual desolation of the Jewish temple would be carried out even up to the consummation, the Second Coming.  When Christ declared the temple "desolate", he pronounced its judgment. He pronounced what the people caused. Why? "for the overspreading of abominations".

Pastor Bohr insightfully states:

"At the end of verse 27 we find once again that this outpouring of the unmitigated wrath of God had already been determined beforehand. This is clearly indicated by the expression: "that determined shall be poured out upon the desolate." This is clear evidence that even though the city and temple were destroyed in the year 70 A. D., the sentence had already been determined previously, in the year 34 A. D.  It is common in the Bible for the door of mercy to close sometime before destruction falls. Two monumental examples are: The flood where the door of mercy closed seven days before the destruction of the world and the end of the world when the door of probation will close before the Second coming (Revelation 22:11-12)." (Stephen Bohr, Study Notes on Daniel 9, p. 33.4)

And that which Christ determined was certainly poured out upon that which was already spiritually desolate.

Quote
The covenant , or agreement, with many, is between Israel and her neighbors, is confirmed by the first of three "he's," who are all the very same person, the man of lawlessness in 2 Thes.2 3-4 and 8 and the beast out of the sea who m Satan gives his throne, power and great authority to, as recorded in Rev.13:1-3, the antichrist!  He breaks his agreement in the middle of the week, stops the sacrificing and grain offerings and sets up the abomination of desolation in the temple of God.  Which Jesus confirms in His Olivet discourse in Mt.24:4-31 as well as in the Mk.13 and LK.21 accounts of it, in vs 15 and 21, amplifying Dan.9:27, the vs which is the 70th and final week of God's decree on the destiny of Israel, the seven year tribulation, culminating in His second coming in vs 30

2 Thess 2:3-4 and 8 mention nothing about a covenant made with many. Instead, Paul confesses that the mystery of lawlessness was already work in Paul's day and would not be destroyed until the consummation of all ages--at the Second Coming. Hence, the "man of sin" began to brew in Paul's day, fully surfaced in the Dark Ages, was once again subverted terminating it's dark age reign, and will once again manifest itself prior to the Second Coming.  The Antichrist has been among us since the days of Paul, and will continue all the way up until the Second Coming.

Like John Wycliff said:
"Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the fourth kingdom. For it grew from [among ] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. Therefore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws."(Wyclif's De Veritate  Sacrae Scripturae, Vol. 3, 267, 268).

The Bavarian Reformer, Andreas Osiander (1498-1552) emphasized the danger of "Overlooking The Real Antichrist While Awaiting The Fictitious One" (Cited in Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 299.

And that's EXACTLY what you are doing Quasar.  You would do well to take heed to the advice given by these Godly men, and turn away from the Jesuit lies that have INFESTED Protestantism like a plague!

2 Thess 2 makes it very clear that the man of sin sets himself up in the "temple of God".  This temple cannot be the temple of God, for Acts 17:24 states unequivocally: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands." God's temple is now His spiritual church (1 Cor 3:16; 1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Pet 2:4,5).  To resume the sacrifices inside this "temple" would be an OUTCRY and an ABOMINATION in the sight of God--an INSULT to Jehovah--as it would be outwardly acknowledging that Christ was not the ultimate and final sacrifice.  Such a theology, I believe, can be no less than a MOCKERY against our Redeemer.

It blows my mind how Dispensationalists can be in their right mind about this.  How they can POSSIBLY think that a temple which resumes sacrifices can possibly be called a "temple of God" when we know ALL TOO WELL that this would be a DENIAL of Christ's ULTIMATE sacrifice that put an end to ALL sacrifices.

Notice:

"He shall confirm the covenant with many." (Dan 9:27)

"This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many." (Matthew 26:28)

"This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many." (Mark 14:24)

You will find NOWHERE in all the sacred writings where the Antichrist makes a covenant with anyone!  The scriptures irrefutably show us that the "he" in Daniel 9:27 is referring to none-other than Jesus Christ.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 08:06:54 PM by Lysimachus »

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
I realize Quasar that you are a man of many years, with some sound credentials.  However, let me emphasize to you that man can go their whole life believing a lie and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

Unfortunately, when most dispensationalists run into me, they start under the assumption that my arguments are "old hat", and that they have "heard it all".  It is not until after they have allowed me to present my positions in their fullest (which is rare), from beginning to end, that only then do they begin to realize that my conclusions are not built upon flimsy research, poor data, or misguided superiors.  The truth is, my research is not only the culmination of 14 years of personal study on these Biblical subjects, but also incorporates 40 years of my father's intense study prior and during his ministerial work as well as after retirement. However, let me be clear--I believe it is without question that one can go their whole life researching a subject, and studying intensely, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.  Paul reminds us of how people may be "ever learning", yet "never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". 2 Tim 3:7.  This applies to all religious and non-religious classes. So just because Dispensationalists may claim to have done their "thorough homework" on a subject does not mean they have "heard it all".  It matters not to me how many "expert book" they have read on the subject, or how "objective" they have been in evaluating both sides of the coin. Instead, what matters is how well the data is presented, how well it harmonizes with the Word, and how willing one is to change their positions if the Biblical evidence contradicts their views.  As you carefully investigate the following material, I believe you will see this observation of mine become a reality.

We have to remember that while we may be sincere at heart, this does not mean we may be infallible in our theology.  Even I, who rely on what I believe to be a firm foundation for my beliefs rooted in the Word, refuse to lock myself into such a mould, where should the Sacred Writings demand otherwise, it becomes impossible to bring me to the light.  This hardness does not translate into a receptive heart and open-mind.  If we are going to truly live up to our Christian name, we have to be willing to hear someone out to see if God is trying to tell us something.  A true sincere seeker for the milk of the gospel will be willing to discover the worst of their case, as this mindset is absolutely necessary for spiritual growth.

Like my father once said, "Many are afraid of accepting error. But how equally afraid should they be of rejecting heaven sent light."   As Christians, we need to be willing to be shown where we err, no matter how long we have grown up believing a certain way. Time will not turn error into truth.  So it matters not how long an erroneous view may be held, the bottom-line is, does it line up with "It is Written"?  No matter how many books we have written on the subject, it matters now how many degrees we have earned, and no matter how many sermons we have preached, and no matter how much research we have put into it---If the Word of God proves it to be error, then true Christians are bound by the scriptures to bring their beliefs into harmony with it.  We must be willing to humble ourselves in the dust and abandon our positions if they are found to be faulty.   Though we may be firm in our positions, this does not mean we are infallible in them.  Come what may, our obligation is to remain open-minded and willing to be shown where we may err.  If our positions are truly solid, we have nothing to fear, for the scriptures will testify of themselves.  As Christians, we should have the attitude that if there is any point in our theology where we might be in error, then the sooner we find out about it, the better!  No truth will lose its value by close investigation!

Theological pride is one of the worst kinds of prides someone can have.  At your age of 87, I can only imagine how difficult it is for you to have to grapple with this overwhelming fact that you may have been wrong your whole life. But those who are truly hungry and sincerely seeking for truth will allow the Holy spirit to dissipate this theological pride like frost before the rising sun. It must be uprooted from the heart, and burned up to ashes.  The unwavering theme of the sincere seeker for the true milk of the gospel will be "truth at all cost!"  It will truly take all to enter glory.  "Dear God, whatever it takes, whatever it takes. I am at your service. Teach me thy ways oh Lord!"

I give a two thumbs up to a great number of Dispensationalist advocates who are sincere and thorough in their research (even though they are still not thorough enough).  I find that a great number know how to defend what they believe, because they study.  But since there are so very few true Historicists left on this planet, it is extremely rare for any Dispensationalist to even run into one that will challenge their theological framework.  And if they do run into one that challenges them, they are usually Preterists who use another error to counter error.  But when such a rare encounter with a learned Historicist does take place, I'm not kidding when I say that most Dispensationalists are shocked and blown away to discover just how much about Historicism and Dispensational Futurism they don't know!  Regardless of how much or how long they have studied!

Therefore, it now becomes my duty before God to lay the cards on the table, and present that which the Dispensational world is either ignorant of, or has refused to acknowledge and take into serious consideration.  The material I have been putting forth will provide you with all the thorough exegesis you need as to why, to date, I am forced to subscribe to an advanced understanding of Historicism (which is what we call "recapitulation historicism" adopted by Adventism, not "straight through historicism"), and thus far am unable to accept Dispensationalism or Futurism. But please do keep in mind; if I can be proven otherwise (after you have thoroughly gone over the material), then I am more than willing to abandon my positions.  Thus far, to-date, the material I have been exposed to over many years is what prevents me from adopting the Dispensational/Futurist scheme of prophetic interpretation.

Amen.

~ Lysimachus
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 05:56:45 PM by Lysimachus »

Offline Quasar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
Quote by Lysimachus:
It is evident from your response above that you did not truly grapple with all the arguments I presented.  Had you done so, you would have seen in my very first post my quotation of Ezra 9:9 which states thus:

Quasar: That is an arrogant set of remarks from your trashing the Scriptures with a wild distortion of false prophecy!  I took about one third of your post and took it apart with the Scriptural facts and if I had the time, I would clean up on it all.  But I have two sites of my own and post at www.carm.org as well as here when I have time.

I "grapple" the prohetic Scriptures a great deal better than I have seen from your work as of now.


L: "For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to GIVE US A WALL IN JUDAH AND JERUSALEM." (Ezra 9:9).

Q: FYI, the Scriptures reveal a decree by Artaxerxes was issued for those who went back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple to stop rebuilding the walls and foundations in Ezra 4:21!  In (:9 Ezra prayed that God had given them a wall protection in Judah and Jerusalem, which has nothing whatever to do with the physical walls around the city of Jerusalem!

L:  Ezra is acknowledging that the decree given by Artaxerxes granted them permission to repair the desolations of Jerusalem.

Q: No decree was ever given to Ezra by Artaxerxes to repair the desolations of Jerusalem!  Remarks to suit what you believe just roll right out of you but you cannot support them from the Bible!  What Artaxerxes decreed/ordered is recorded in Ezra 7:11-26, in which you will find absolutely nothing about rebuilding Jerusalem, the walls, moat and streets in his 7th year of reign, in 457 B.C. until in his 20th year of reign in 445 B.C., in Neh.2:1-8 

L:However, allow me to ask you a question:

1. Why does the decree itself have to mention the rebuilding of the city in order for it to not be implied by the king?

Q: Because the Scriptures pertaining to all prophetic issues are precise, not leaving a single thing to guesswork!  Or there wouldn't be a single one of them accurate.

L:2. What proof do you have that Ezra quoted the entire lengthy decree in chapter 7?  It is more than likely that Ezra only highlighted certain portions of the decree, not quote the entire decree issued in 457 B.C.

Q: Wishing the Scriptures read the way they fit your belief system will never work.  The facts are there and with one third of the Bible prophecy, it is easy to understand why trying to make them fit your belief system would be massive confusion, with nothing fitting as it does now.

L:Ezra 6:14 -- "And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia."

Q: The temple!  Not the city of Jerusalem, the walls, moat and streets as was decreed by Artaxerxes in 445 B.C!


Quasar


"I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except by me."  Jn.14:6.

Offline saved

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
    • http://www.gerald285.com
The scripture tells us that 70 weeks are given to deal with the Jew, not the church. 69 and the messiah would be cut off and one remains. The cutting off i believe took place at the triumphful entry and that was the end of the 69 weeks. That left one week. The church age is like a peroid within or between the 69th week and the 70th week. The Jews are not being dealt with today, but they will during the tribulation period of 7 years which is in accord with one week that is left.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 03:57:38 PM by saved »
Isaiah 48:18,Oh that you had paid attention to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
Quote by Lysimachus:
It is evident from your response above that you did not truly grapple with all the arguments I presented.  Had you done so, you would have seen in my very first post my quotation of Ezra 9:9 which states thus:

Quasar: That is an arrogant set of remarks from your trashing the Scriptures with a wild distortion of false prophecy!  I took about one third of your post and took it apart with the Scriptural facts and if I had the time, I would clean up on it all.  But I have two sites of my own and post at www.carm.org as well as here when I have time.

I "grapple" the prohetic Scriptures a great deal better than I have seen from your work as of now.

I could say the same to you---that you are trashing the Scriptures with a wild distortion of false prophecy. It is my belief, after years of research, that Dispensational ideology is the most false and dangerous theology on the planet, as it masks the true identity of Antichrist.  Thus, those Dispensationalists who have refused to accept that the Antichrist/Beast power is realized in the Papal System will be caught "unawares" in the last days, because when the Papacy makes its full recovery for its second manifestation since its deadly wound in 1798 (at the end of the 1260 years), Dispensationalist-Pretrib-Rapturists will deny that the Papal System is the Antichrist, and therefore, continue to hopelessly wait to get raptured....because they will falsely conclude and say "well, since we aren't raptured yet, the Papal System can't be the Antichrist!"  This is a MASSIVE deception that will take the world captive. Hence, they will easily fall for the Mark of the Beast and receive it (the enforcement of Sunday worship). Oh and how teachers like Tim LaHaye, Jerry B. Jenkins, Thomas Ice, Perry Stone, Hal Lindsay, Chuck Missler, John Hagee....etc. etc. are going to pay.  These men are the core of the "False Prophet", emanating "false prophecies" that are deluding the masses into a false hope.

There are 3 powers contending in the spiritual battle:

1. Adventism (The Three Angel's Message and the Loud Cry)
2. Dispensationalism (The Voice of the False Prophet)
3. Catholicism (The Beast)

It is my prayer that some day you will see what I am saying.  Dispensational ideology is by far the most popular Christian ideology on the planet.  Almost EVERY Christian I run into has bought into this heresy. Just the fact that it is SO popular to me is testament in itself that it is wrong.  About 80-90% of Protestants adhere to Dispensationalism. But the Bible says "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14)

But Quasar, I've got big news.  Gigantic news!

Truth isn't popular!

Dispensationalism is!

Quote
L: "For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to GIVE US A WALL IN JUDAH AND JERUSALEM." (Ezra 9:9).

Q: FYI, the Scriptures reveal a decree by Artaxerxes was issued for those who went back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple to stop rebuilding the walls and foundations in Ezra 4:21!  In (:9 Ezra prayed that God had given them a wall protection in Judah and Jerusalem, which has nothing whatever to do with the physical walls around the city of Jerusalem!

Obviously you missed the part that says "repair the desolations thereof". You also have not provided a shred of evidence to prove that the "wall" mentioned in Ezra 9:9 has nothing to do with a physical wall. You also seem to forget that Artaxerxes' decree is the only decree that fits the bill as for as "restoring the judiciary of Jerusalem'.

I also don't see how your case looks anymore appealing, as there is not a single mention of a decree given to Nehemiah.  There is no mention of a decree given to Nehemiah in 444 B.C. (yes, 444 B.C., not 445--you need to get that straight. Hoehner has completely dismantled Anderson's calculations on this matter. If you doubt what I'm saying, read this link here). In fact, what happened in 444 B.C. was not a decree at all.  It was simply a letter granting permission to RESUME that which had already been decreed by Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes prior!

It is a wild assumption on your part that the mentioning of "restoring and building Jerusalem" must be given in 457 B.C. 

As Bob Pickle insightfully states:

Quote:
This interpretation (The Historical-Messianic Computation) commences the prophecy immediately after the completion of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem, not 13 years later:

a. The principal reason given by futurists for using the 20th year of Artaxerxes as the starting point for the 70 weeks is that Cyrus did not command the building of the city. However, according to Isaiah 44:28; 45:13, Cyrus did indeed command the building of Jerusalem, and this interpretation does not ignore that fact.

b. Ezra 6:14 speaks of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes issuing a single decree, as if Cyrus began the process, Darius affirmed it, and Artaxerxes completed it. (My note: It is an assumption to conclude that all requirements for the decree mentioned in the prophecy must be found in only Artaxerxes' decree)

c. Isaiah 1:26 predicted that the judiciary would be "restored," using the very same Hebrew word that is translated "restore" in Daniel 9:25. Artaxerxes' unique contribution to the commandment process was that he fully restored the judiciary by the decree of his seventh year, giving Jerusalem full authority to enforce the law of God (Ezra 7:25, 26).

d. Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month, and the judges were at work by the tenth month (Ezra 7:8, 9; 10:14, 16). This means that the judiciary was restored sometime between the fifth and tenth months in the fall of 457 BC. Somewhere around that time would be the proper starting point for the 70 weeks.
End Quote

However, even if this method of reckoning the command to build and restore Jerusalem was not convincing to you, Ezra 9:9 is sufficient proof that the decree issued in 457 B.C. included the permission to build and to restore Jerusalem.

Your allusion to Ezra 4:21 is actually testament to the fact that Artaxerxes had previously decreed the building of the city.

Concerning the command to "restore", Pastor Bohr gives the following:

Quote:
In conclusion, we have seen that there were four "decrees" having to do with the Jews after the exile.  Two of these decrees were "original" and the other two were simply "confirmatory." Notice:

536: Original decree of Cyrus to rebuild the temple -- Suspended by Cambyses in 522.
 
520: Decree of Darius I -- Confirmed Cyrus' decree and revoked Cambyses' suspension.
 
457: Original Decree of Artaxerxes I to restore and build Jerusalem -- Suspended by Artaxerxes himself early in his reign when the Samaritans complained.

445:  "Decree" of Artaxerxes I -- Revoked  his previous suspension and confirmed his original decree to Nehemiah.

"To Restore and Build Jerusalem"

Many have overlooked the fact that in order for Daniel 9:25 to be fulfilled, a decree must be given to both restore and build Jerusalem, in that order. Some commentators have simply assumed that both of these words mean basically the same thing. But is this the case?

In order to understand what it means to restore and build Jerusalem we must first comprehend what "Jerusalem" means. Frequently, when the Bible speaks of "Jerusalem" it is not merely referring to the physical city but rather to the city as a polis, that is, as a living social, religious and political entity composed of people, commerce, rulers, magistrates, judges and civil and religious laws. In order for the city to function as a polis it must have self-governance as well as legal sovereignty over the land.

The captivity of Jerusalem involved far more than the destruction of the physical city. In fact, Jerusalem lost its governance before the city was destroyed. In Daniel 1:1-3 we are told that Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in 605 and besieged it. He took king Jehoiakim captive as well as the royal seed and the princes. Thus Jerusalem lost her political autonomy or right to self-governance. She became subservient to Babylon. Even though the physical city of Jerusalem was not destroyed at this time, the seventy year captivity of Jerusalem did begin.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the captivity of Jerusalem began 19 years before the physical city was actually destroyed! Of course we know that in 586, the city itself was finally destroyed (II Chronicles 36:17-20). At that time the land was laid waste, the religious cultus came to an end,  and the remaining political and military leaders were removed. Now Jerusalem had a double whammy: She had lost her political/religious autonomy and the physical city was in ruins. This two-fold idea is expressed clearly in Jeremiah 25:11 where we are told that the whole land was to be a desolation and astonishment and the nations [including Israel] would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.   II Kings 24 describes the actual destruction of the city and the temple. We are told in II Kings 24:14-15:

And he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon. . . ."

Obviously, Nebuchadnezzar did not carry away the physical city of Jerusalem. "Jerusalem" here refers to a socio/political entity composed of king, officers, military men and craftsmen (in actual fact, Daniel himself attributes the loss of self-governance and the destruction of the city to the apostasy of the kings, princes, fathers and judges [Daniel 9:6, 8, 12]).   

Now, in order for Jerusalem to be reestablished in her previous position after the captivity, two things must happen: Her political/religious self-determination must be restored and the physical city must be built. These two tasks, though related, are not identical. The word "build" refers to the reconstruction of the physical city. But what does the word "restore" mean? The word "restore" means "to give back to" or "to return to a condition which existed before."

In Judges 11:13 the king of the children of Ammon complains to Jephthah: "Israel took away my land, when they came out of Egypt." He then makes the appeal: "now therefore restore those lands again peaceably." In II Samuel 9:7, David promised Mephibosheth: "I will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father." In both of these texts the emphasis falls on legally giving back land to an original owner.

In II Kings 14:22 we have the same two words which appear in Daniel 9:25. There we are told that Azariah "built Elath and restored it to Judah."  This text makes it clear that "build" and "restore," though related, are not identical. What the text means is that the physical city of Elath was built and then governance over it was given to Judah.

In I Kings 12:21 we are told that Rehoboam came to Jerusalem and laid plans to "fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again [literally, to restore the kingdom] to Rehoboam the son of Solomon." In II Samuel 8:3 we are informed that David went on a military campaign to "recover [restore] his border at the river Euphrates." 

None of the examples presented above have to do with the physical rebuilding of a city. The central idea is to legally  restore land, to legally restore political governance or to restore the legitimate borders of the kingdom.  We therefore must conclude that "restore" in Daniel 9:25 does not have to do so much with the physical rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem as such, but rather with the legal restoration of the land to its original owner and a giving back of  the right to political self-governance according to the laws of God. The actual building of the city then follows. As we have previously seen, only the decree of Artaxerxes meets the criteria necessary to fulfill Daniel 9:25. Only the decree of Artaxerxes officially authorized the restoration of  the Hebrew civil order and the right of Israel to govern herself according to the law of God (see, Ezra 7:25-26; also Nehemiah 8-13). And only the decree of Artaxerxes authorized the physical rebuilding of the city (review pages  9-11 above). Below we will provide further corroborating evidence for this.

Source: Notes on Daniel 8, pp. 12-14)
End Quote

Thus we see more and more how commencing the 70 weeks at the decree of Artaxerxes to build and restore Jerusalem is airtight! The 70 weeks commencing in 457 B.C. and terminating in 34 A.D. stands without impeachment!

Dispensational theology is going to be have to be rewritten, from top to bottom. The entire ideology is built on a monstrosity of multifarious layers of error.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 02:27:56 PM by Lysimachus »

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
Quote
L:  Ezra is acknowledging that the decree given by Artaxerxes granted them permission to repair the desolations of Jerusalem.

Q: No decree was ever given to Ezra by Artaxerxes to repair the desolations of Jerusalem!  Remarks to suit what you believe just roll right out of you but you cannot support them from the Bible!  What Artaxerxes decreed/ordered is recorded in Ezra 7:11-26, in which you will find absolutely nothing about rebuilding Jerusalem, the walls, moat and streets in his 7th year of reign, in 457 B.C. until in his 20th year of reign in 445 B.C., in Neh.2:1-8

And no "decree" was given to Nehemiah to repair the desolations thereof either. And as I have already proven, Ezra 9:9 confesses to this fact. Ezra 9:9 IS support from the Bible, not to mention that Cyrus had already decreed it long before in Isaiah.  So this fact stands even if we remove one or the other (Ezra 9:9 or Isaiah 44 and 45) from the equation.

Ezra 7:13 - "I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee."

Nehemiah 2:7-9 - "Moreover I said unto the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah; And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which [appertained] to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me. Then I came to the governors beyond the river, and gave them the king's letters. Now the king had sent captains of the army and horsemen with me."

A "decree" nowhere to be found in Nehemiah.  So 444/445 does not fit the bill for the commencing date of the 70 weeks.

Quote
L:However, allow me to ask you a question:

1. Why does the decree itself have to mention the rebuilding of the city in order for it to not be implied by the king?

Q: Because the Scriptures pertaining to all prophetic issues are precise, not leaving a single thing to guesswork!  Or there wouldn't be a single one of them accurate.

I don't buy it.  That's not how we operate when it comes to a careful deduction of what is being said in the scriptures.  The idea that something must be "written down" for it to be implied is not how we treat the scriptures.  A careful exegesis of scriptures reveal that information can be understood based on deducible evidence.  Ezra 4:7-23; 9:9 and Isaiah 44:28; 45:13 is sufficient evidence that the decree given in 457 B.C. very well qualifies for the commencement of the 70 weeks prophecy.

Let's not even fail to mention that no matter how you slice it, cut it, or dice it, you cannot make the lunar calendar work out.  173,880 days do not exist.  It is 173,883, and as Pickle has already proven, this number does not allow Christ to die on Passover. Math does not lie.  If you still need help in this area, go here: An Examination of Anderson's Chronological Errors Regarding Daniel 9's First 69 Weeks.

Quote
L:2. What proof do you have that Ezra quoted the entire lengthy decree in chapter 7?  It is more than likely that Ezra only highlighted certain portions of the decree, not quote the entire decree issued in 457 B.C.

Q: Wishing the Scriptures read the way they fit your belief system will never work.  The facts are there and with one third of the Bible prophecy, it is easy to understand why trying to make them fit your belief system would be massive confusion, with nothing fitting as it does now.

That is exactly how I see the Dispensational constructs.  They are nothing but a massive convoluted mess of jargon, which create no harmony whatsoever. Historicism flows smoothly, and makes perfect sense. Dispensational construct requires untold gymnastics to decapitate the 70th week from the first 69 and then force the 69 weeks (483 years) down to 476 by ignoring regular years, essentially disqualifying 7 years of history into oblivion.

When it says 69 weeks, it means 69 weeks, not 68 weeks. When it says 70 weeks, it means exactly 490 regular years. Not 490 lunar years.  Basing prophecy on the lunar calendar is what causes so much massive confusion in the dispensational world.

And it must be abandoned. At once.  This is an order, not a recommendation. ;) (at least i wish I had the power to do this, because I fear so much of what this ideology is doing to the world)

Quote
L:Ezra 6:14 -- "And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia."

Q: The temple!  Not the city of Jerusalem, the walls, moat and streets as was decreed by Artaxerxes in 445 B.C

No, not just the temple.  Jerusalem too.

Isaiah 44:28 - "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." (Notice that although Cyrus was only able to begin the foundations for the Temple, he still gave command for Jerusalem to be built--although he was unable to accomplish that portion---Artaxerxes finished this official decree in 457)

Isaiah 45:13 - "I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts." (Once again, while Cyrus was unable to build up the city, and only the temple, the command of building the city initiates with Cyrus)

Also, where does it say anything in the book of Nehemiah of permission granted to build the street and moat? Just as you imply that it must have been included in Artaxerxes' "decree" to Nehemiah, so we can imply that it was included in his decree to Ezra.

Another major problem I should point out is that you end the 69 weeks at Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  But that's not what the texts say.  The Bible makes it very clear that the 69 weeks ends at Christ's baptism:

Daniel 9:24a - "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 [69 weeks]."

The word "Messiah" means "anointed one". Right after Jesus' baptism, He said:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised." (Luke 4:18)

"That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;  How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (Acts 10:37,38)

Dispensationalists try to get around this by saying that Christ was not declared "Prince" until He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey in 32/33 A.D. (It was 31 A.D. by the way that Christ rode into Jerusalem, not 32 or 33 A.D.). But there is absolutely NO Biblical exegesis to substantiate Christ "not being Prince" until the triumphal entry.  Revelation 1:5 and Acts 5:31 already establish our Saviour as "Prince".  Matthew 3:16,17 establishes that when Jesus was Baptized, a voice from heaven said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased".  Isaiah 9:6 states: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Christ was already "Prince" at His birth.

But He was not "Messiah" until after His baptism when He was "anointed by the Holy Ghost".

And when did this "anointing" occur Quasar?

According to Luke 3, Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.  And when was the "15th year of the reign of Tiberius?"

Answer: In 27 A.D.!

Quote:
"Tiberius Caesar is said to have reigned from 14 A.D. to 37 A.D. but 14 A.D. is the starting year of his sole reign. After his adoption in 4 B.C., Tiberius was granted tribunician (legislative) power and proconsular (military) power and in 13 B.C., his powers were made equal to that of Augustus effectively making him ruling co-emperor. So when Augustus died in 14 B.C., the question of succession was not an issue as Tiberius already had the powers of emperor. The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar using his sole reign would make the baptism of Jesus in 28 A.D. Many get 29 A.D. because they forgot to use inclusive years. The calculation should be 14 A.D. + 15 - 1 year = 28 A.D. But this of course cannot be reconciled with the decree date to rebuild Jerusalem. But if you allow for the fact that he ruled jointly with Augustus for one year prior to 14 A.D., then that would make the baptism of Jesus to be one year earlier in 27 A.D. That is 13 A.D. + 15 - 1 = 27 A.D. This of course aligns with the other evidence we have for the starting date of 457 B.C. to rebuild Jerusalem. Observe the following two encyclopaedia excerpts for verification.

Augustus. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. 16 Jun. 2009
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/43047/Augustus/24835/
"Although Augustus was now feeling his age, these years in association with Tiberius were marked by administrative innovations: ... and the conversion of the hitherto occasional appointment of prefect of the city (praefectus urbi) into a permanent office (AD 13). When, in the same year, the powers of Augustus were renewed for 10 years--such renewals had been granted at intervals throughout the reign--Tiberius was made his equal in every constitutional respect." (More found here).
End Quote

Mr. Pickle summarizes it well:

----------------------------------------------------------
a. Christ's baptism occurred in the 15th year of Tiberius, according to Luke 3:1.

b. Tiberius took over after the death of Augustus, who died on August 19, 14 AD.

c. If Luke used both non-accession-year reckoning and a fall-to-fall calendar, then the first year of Tiberius would have commenced at his accession and ended a month or two later on Tishri 1, 14 AD.

d. . If Luke began Tiberius' second year in the fall of 14 AD on Tishri 1, then Tiberius' 15th year would have commenced 13 years later in the fall of 27 AD.

e. The death of Herod the Great is said to have been in 4/3 BC. Luke says that at Christ's baptism He was "about thirty years of age" (3:23), which He was in 27 AD, having been born a little prior to Herod's death.
-----------------------------------------------------------

As we can see Quasar, with the Historical-Messianic Computation of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27, we can make the numbers workout.

But with the Dispensational construct, we CAN'T make the numbers work out.

The only option left now is to abandon the Dispensational construct of the 70 weeks and go back to the drawing board.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 06:41:44 PM by Lysimachus »

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
The scripture tells us that 70 weeks are given to deal with the Jew, not the church. 69 and the messiah would be cut off and one remains. The cutting off i believe took place at the triumphful entry and that was the end of the 69 weeks. That left one week. The church age is like a peroid within or between the 69th week and the 70th week. The Jews are not being dealt with today, but they will during the tribulation period of 7 years which is in accord with one week that is left.

Hi saved,

Based on the all the data I have presented thus far in this thread, this interpretation of yours cannot stand.  However, I do not expect you to understand what is being talked about here because I will confess, it can be very confusing---and it took me many years to grapple with this information before much of it clicked.  Some things are still a bit blurry, but I've grasped enough to know that the Dispensational numbers for the 70 weeks do not workout. 

However, in Laymen's terms, I'll lay out for you why I believe it is completely impossible to detached the 70th week from the first 69 and insert a "gap" between these two time periods.  Keep in mind that a plain-sense reading of Daniel 9:24-27 does not cause one to insert a gap between the 69th and 70th week.  Modern false teachers have planted these ideas in people's minds, so that's why people now naturally tend to read it that way.  But if it werent for the false teachers, a plain-sense reading tells you that there are 70 consecutive weeks.  The prophecy does not say "69 weeks, then thousands of weeks, then 1 more week".  NO. 

Steve Wohlberg does a profound job at dismantling the notion that the 70th week can be detached from the first 69.  The "1 week" given in Daniel 9:27 began in 27 A.D. and ended in 34 A.D., Christ dying and causing an end to the sacrifices in the "midst" of the week in 31 A.D.   Christ's ministry lasted for 3 1/2 years from 27 A.D. to 31 A.D. when He died on the cross, and put an end to sacrifices. For 3 1/2 years more (3 1/2 + 3 1/2 = 7), the disciples ministered to the House of Israel, the Jews.  At the end of those last 3 1/2 years, the disciples switched to the Gentiles, and said "Lo, we turn to the gentiles!" (Acts 13:46)  In 34 A.D. is when Paul became Saul, and is the same here that Stephen was stoned by the Sanhedrin.  This was Israel's "final sin". 

There is no more hope for Israel as a nation anymore.  Only Jews as individuals can be saved, and be grafted into Spiritual Israel, which is Jesus Christ, the "seed of Abraham".  "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29)  This is why Jesus said "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." (John 15:5)

The name "Israel" means "Prince of God".  Jesus is the true Israel. It was a spiritual name given to Jacob because he had prevailed. Anyone who wrestles with sin and prevails is part of "Israel".

Quoting Steve Wohlberg:

Okay, here we go. The following ten points provide logical and convincing evidence that Daniel's famous 70th week has no application to any future seven-year tribulation at all. Rather, this great prophetic period was definitely fulfilled nearly two thousand years ago.

1. The entire prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 covers a period of "seventy weeks," or 490 years. Logic requires that "seventy weeks" refers to one consecutive block of time, in other words, to seventy straight sequential weeks. There is no example in Scripture (or anywhere else!) of a stated time period starting, stopping, and then starting again. All biblical references to time are consecutive: 40 days and 40 nights (see Genesis 7:4), 400 years in Egypt (see Genesis 15:13), 70 years of captivity (see Daniel 9:2), etc. In Daniel's prophecy, the "seventy weeks" were to begin during the reign of Persia and continue to the time of the Messiah.

2. Logic also requires that the 70th week follow immediately after the 69th week. If it doesn't, then it cannot properly be called the 70th week!

3.It is illogical to insert a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th week. No hint of a gap is found in the prophecy itself. There is no gap between the first seven weeks and the following sixty-two weeks, so why insert one between the 69th and 70th week?

Note: If you told your child to be in bed in 70 minutes, you obviously would mean 70 consecutive minutes. What if five hours later your fully awake son said, "But dad, I know 69 minutes have passed, but the 70th minute hasn't started yet!"? After receiving an appropriate punishment, he would be swiftly sent to bed.

4. Daniel 9:27 says nothing about a seven-year period of "tribulation," a "rebuilt" Jewish temple, or any "antichrist."

5. The stated focus of this prophecy is the Messiah, not the antichrist. After the Messiah is "cut off" (referring to Christ's death), the text says, "And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." In the past, this has been consistently applied to the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple by Roman armies led by Prince Titus in A.D. 70. 11

6. "He shall confirm the covenant." Paul said "the covenant" was "confirmed before by God in Christ" (Galatians 3:17). Jesus Christ came "to confirm the promises made to the fathers" (Romans 15:8, emphasis added). In the King James Version, Daniel 9:27 doesn't say "a covenant" or peace treaty, but "the covenant,” which applies to the New Covenant. Nowhere in the Bible does the antichrist make, confirm, or break a covenant with anyone. The word "covenant" is Messianic, and always applies to the Messiah, not the antichrist.

7. "He shall confirm the covenant with many." Jesus Christ said, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many..." (Matthew 26:28). Behold a perfect fit! Jesus was quoting Daniel 9:27 specifically.

8."In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." After exactly three and a half years of holy ministry, Jesus Christ died on the cross, "in the midst of the week [in the middle of the seven years]." At the exact moment of His death, "the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom..." (Matthew 27:51). This act of God signified that all animal sacrifices at that moment ceased to be of value. Why? Because the Perfect Sacrifice had been offered!

9. "For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate." "The abomination of desolation" (see Matthew 24:15) is not a simple subject, yet we know that Jesus clearly applied this event to the time when His followers were to flee from Jerusalem before the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. In a parallel text to Matthew 24:15, Jesus told His disciples, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies [Roman armies led by Prince Titus], then know that its desolation is near" (Luke 21:20, emphasis added). The disciples did "see" those very events. Because of the "abominations" of the Pharisees, Jesus told them, "See! Your house is left to you desolate" (Matthew 23:38). Thus Gabriel's statement in Daniel 9:27 about Jerusalem becoming "desolate" was perfectly fulfilled in A.D. 70.

10. Gabriel said that the 70-week prophecy specifically applied to the Jewish people (see Daniel 9:24). During the period of Christ's public ministry of 3 1 / 2 years, the Master's focus was largely upon "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:6). After His resurrection and then for another 3 1/2 years, His disciples preached mostly to Jews (see Acts 1-6). After that second 3 1/2 -year period, in 34 A.D., the bold Stephen was stoned by the Jewish Sanhedrin (see Acts 7). This infamous deed marked the then-ruling Jewish leaders' final, official rejection of the gospel of our Savior. Then the gospel went to the Gentiles. In Acts 9, Saul became Paul, the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13). In Acts 10, God gave Peter a vision revealing it was now time to preach to the Gentiles (see Acts 10:1-28). Read also Acts 13:46. Thus approximately 3 1/2 years after the crucifixion-- and at the end of the 70-week prophecy given for the Jewish people--the gospel shifted to the Gentiles exactly as predicted in Bible prophecy.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 08:27:10 PM by Lysimachus »

Offline saved

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
    • http://www.gerald285.com
While I don't expect you to understand this as this takes about 3 minutes to read and grasp with little study, but it is correct.

The scripture tells us that 70 weeks are given to deal with the Jew, not the church. 69 and the messiah would be cut off and one remains. The cutting off i believe took place at the triumphful entry and that was the end of the 69 weeks. That left one week. The church age is like a peroid within or between the 69th week and the 70th week. The Jews are not being dealt with today, but they will during the tribulation period of 7 years which is in accord with one week that is left.
Isaiah 48:18,Oh that you had paid attention to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
While I don't expect you to understand this as this takes about 3 minutes to read and grasp with little study, but it is correct.

The scripture tells us that 70 weeks are given to deal with the Jew, not the church. 69 and the messiah would be cut off and one remains. The cutting off i believe took place at the triumphful entry and that was the end of the 69 weeks. That left one week. The church age is like a peroid within or between the 69th week and the 70th week. The Jews are not being dealt with today, but they will during the tribulation period of 7 years which is in accord with one week that is left.

"70 weeks are cut off for your people, to finish up the transgression, and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to put an end to sin."

In other words, Jesus is saying "I'm giving you 490 years to get your act together, and if you do not do this within this time frame I'm giving you, you will no longer be my people"

The 70th week ended in 34 A.D. This was the year that Stephen was stoned, Israel's last prophet. This was their final sin. It was in this same year that the Disciples "turned to the Gentiles". Israel failed to accomplish those instructions given to them during the 70 weeks. That's why Jesus said: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Matthew 21:43)

So where are you getting the idea that I'm saying the 70 weeks have anything to do with the church? It only has to do with national Israel, as I've always taught.

The termination of the 69th week took place, not at Christ's triumphal entry, but at His baptism!  That's when He was anointed. There is absolutely NO scriptural basis whatsoever to terminate the 69th week at the Triumphal Entry.  This is nothing but a fabrication that was pulled out of thin air.  Protestants for centuries terminated the 69th week at Christ's Baptism, and this commenced the 70th week at that very same point in time.

Jesus KNEW that the 70 weeks were about to finish.

"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." (Matthew 18:21,22)

After Christ's death in the midst of the week, and after the rejection of the Messiah, Christ granted the Jews 3 1/2 more years of probation.  In His love and endearing mercy, He sent the last prophet Stephen to awaken Israel and call them to repentance to accept the Messiah.  But when the Sanhedrin killed Stephen, this was their final sin that sealed their fate, forever. This was at the "end of the 70th week".

There is no hope for Israel as a nation anymore. They are done with! Only Jews, as individual people, can be saved now by being grafted into the body of Christ, which Spiritual Israel, His Church.

Remember: the "midst of the week" is "after the 69 weeks". Not at the "end". The Messiah was "cut off" "after the 69 weeks", which was "in the midst of the 70th week".
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 07:35:41 PM by Lysimachus »

Offline Lysimachus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Gender: Male
  • Author of Vindicating the Historicist Hermeneutic
    • View Profile
    • Poke This Member
Keep in mind also that the prophecy says in Daniel 9:25:

"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." (9:25)

In other words, the "Messiah the Prince" would show up at the end of the 69 weeks (483 years). The word Messiah means "anointed". 

It was when John the Baptist baptized Jesus that He became the "Christ":

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised." (Luke 4:18)

"That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (Acts 10:37,38)

According to Luke 3:21,22, the Holy Spirit descended like a dove and the Father said "this is my beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased".

Remember, it was after Christ's baptism when Peter recognized Jesus as the Christ and said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God".

The word "Christ" is the equivalent for "Messiah" in Hebrew.  It means the same thing "anointed".

The end of the 69 weeks cannot have been the triumphal entry, but Christ's baptism. Christ's baptism marked the beginning of the "70th week", or the "1 week" for the Jewish nation.

 

ads

Recent

Shoutbox

Last 5 Shouts:

 

me again

October 09, 2014, 02:15:06 PM
Quote
Religious Lie: "God only paid for sins until the next time you sin."
Forgiveness is available until we get to eternity and then our eternal fate is sealed. Right now, people are free to sin and repent; but there is no forgiveness of sin for the damned in hell.
 

Stan

October 05, 2014, 10:24:53 AM
"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"
 

Stan

May 03, 2014, 01:12:35 PM
Lots of visitors..  easy to join,  easy to post...  come make some friends..  Play nice with others.
 

The Crusader

February 26, 2014, 04:30:18 PM
Religious Lie: "God only paid for sins until the next time you sin."
 

The Crusader

December 23, 2013, 09:38:53 AM
JUST A THINK ABOUT IT: Will you embrace the full meaning of Christmas? Jesus didn't die just so you could go to heaven. He came to give you life - His life; an abundant life free from guilt, condemnation, and slavery to both sins and religion. He came to bring a grace revolution to the world and tha

Show 50 latest

Our Amazon Store

Unique visitors since Dec 1, 2012

Flag Counter