Horizontal Menu Bar

Daniel's 70 Weeks (Dan. 9:1-27)

The Biblical Interpretation of Daniel’s 70 Weeks

           This initial post on this Theological Views blog, of Daniel’s 70 Week Prophecy (Dan 9:24-27) is chosen to be the first because of the natural and foremost place that it has in my venture in Biblical Research. It was in the endeavor to share this great prophecy with others who did not fully understand it, and/or interpret it accurately, that I found myself, while in the midst of my undergraduate University Theological studies, having to fully undertake the study of this prophecy as virtually a doctoral dissertation assignment. This therefore launched me into, what I’ve seen is the captivating and exciting world of scholarly Biblical research and it also has literally come to lay the foundation for my "Theological Views" and approach to Bible study by the precise, exegetical approach and methods that had to be mastered and exercised in accurately interpreting this prophecy. Therefore it has come to be that most, if not all the other entries in this blog, owe their development to the research that was done on this Prophecy. And I greatly thank God for all of this. The result of this study is to be officially released in a forthcoming book entitled: The Biblical Interpretation of Daniel’s 70 Weeks, but what follows in this blog is a foretaste of these findings. Here succinct summaries of these findings are given, but much more detailed and documented analysis and explanations will be available in that forthcoming book.


A worthwhile and beneficial, detailed supporting study of this prophecy can be found in the 1995 book: The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27, by (then) Doctoral Candidate Brempong Owusu-Antwi (Ph.D.).
(The full Table of Content, and Listing of Illustrations and Tables of this work is given below.[1] Available for purchase at the ATS Store). Of the many valuable contributions of this book, one of the most special is found in the way in which the various interpretations of this prophecy by other Christian writers are fully accounted for and documented with virtually every accepted variable interpretation mentioned, documented and analyzed. The 436-page book makes use of over 900 such, and other pertinent, references (see its 46-page bibliography) and cites them in over 1,400 footnotes (over a total of 144 pages (reduced font)). All of these specifications to emphasize that the book is indeed well researched and documented. As such, it is indeed worth adding to one’s Christian library, and also worth the study.

As it is almost, if not, unanimously recognized in the Christian World, the Seventy Weeks of Daniel is a foundational cornerstone in the Christian Faith. Depending of course on the method, results and application of interpretation, it can come to build an immovable foundation for: (1) one’s faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and son of God, (2) one’s doctrinal framework, and (3) one’s theological background for prophetic interpretation. It was because of these crucial reasons, that an extensive study of this prophecy was done, and the following succinct summary preview is given. As it was said above, for more information, you can buy the forthcoming book which will be announced on this blog when it is published. (To freely support its eventual publication, please do complete the related pre-publication survey poll on this page).

Prophecy's Date
Daniel 9:1 - In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed [lineage] of the Mede, who was caused to be made king over the realm of the Chaldeans.--

The Seventy Weeks Prophecy was given to the Prophet Daniel during the first year of the conquering king of Medo-Persia, the mysterious "Darius the Mede" (Dan 9:1). This up-to-now unidentifiable, and “denounced” by some to be grossly erroneous, even “fictitious”, monarch is now, -by linguistic and historical provisions and facts, identified as being Cyrus the Great himself; and this is inclusive of the information/argument from added research that Cyrus may have given over Babylon in a temporary placeholding-reign to his ‘son’ (and/or nephew) Cambyses II. The official reckoning would have still been done according to the regnal years of Cyrus a.k.a “Darius the Mede”.

Daniel's Prayer (Dan 9:2-19)
The prophecy of the 70 Weeks was given as a response to Daniel’s great prayer of confession and repentance (Dan 9:3-19) it was indeed in the same first year of King Cyrus of 538/537 B.C., which was the 69th year of Israel’s 70-year judgement captivity, that God began to act favorably towards Israel in order to fulfill His promise of restoration which He had spoken through the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 29:10-13).

Verse 24
Daniel 9:24 - Seventy Weeks [490 years] have been cut off for your people and for your holy city, For the purpose of putting a restraint on the transgression of rebellion. And thus then sealing the sin. And thus then making atonement for iniquity. And thus then causing the everlasting righteousness to be brought in. And thus then also sealing vision and prophet. And thus then also anointing a Most Holy Place.

In Daniel 9:24, the time period of the prophecy is symbolically given as "70 Weeks," literally (seven 70's). Biblical numerology comes to show that this is given in this way to emphasized that this is a probationary period given to "Israel and Jerusalem" in which seven "perfect representations" of judgements (70) will come over Israel. It is then seen, through Biblical precedence that ‘one prophetic day symbolically represents one year’ [PDF]. It therefore is the equivalent of 490 years. Furthermore, this period of 490 years is said to have been "cut off" from a previously mentioned, but yet unexplained, prophetic period of 2300 prophetic days. (Dan 8:14; -see much more here/video). The chronology of the Seventy Week prophecy therefore comes to also establish the chronology for that 2300 day prophecy.

Then in the rest of verse 24, a list of six expected actions during this probationary period are given for Israel to seek to fulfill, and thus also have God ratify, each with its own distinct and specific meaning and fulfillment.

Verse 25
Daniel 9:25 - "Know therefore and cause yourself to understand, That from the start of a judicial matter. For the purpose of restoring and thus then also building Jerusalem. Until Messiah, the King. There shall be 7 weeks [49 years] and 62 weeks [434 years]. And so (in this way), it (Jerusalem) will naturally, and definitely, come to be restored, and then (as a result of this) it will also be built with public square and "decision-making;" (but in difficult times).

The reckoning of the chronology of the prophecy begins in verse 25 and its starting point is given as (accurately translated and interpreted) "the start of a judicial/legal matter for the purpose of restoring and thus then building Jerusalem . . ." . It is later said in this verse that as a result of this "matter" Jerusalem would come to be restored and thus built up with ‘its public places for courts and its judicial authority in "decision-making"reestablished.’ The distinct terms used in these phrase points out that the "restoration" of Jerusalem dealt specifically with the political aspects of the city while the building up dealt with its physical reconstruction. After an exegetically based, and historical, search and study, this "judicial/legal matter" is concretely identified as the "judicial/legal matter" which is recorded in Neh 8, namely the "Reading of the Law" for the first time to the now returned Jewish exiles. Now while this event, due to its present location in Neh 8, has led to the conclusion that it took place some 13 years after the return of the Exiles of Ezra in 457 B.C., further detailed and in depth study show that this passage was "transposed" by later scribes from its original location in the account and writings of Ezra, namely from between Ezra 8 and 9. It therefore took place in the fall of 457 B.C., on the first day of the 7th Jewish month to be exact (=the Feast of Trumpets (Lev 23:24; Num 29:1)), -(see the related Neh 7:73b and Neh 8:2, 13[2]).

As for the prophesied "building" of Jerusalem, a study of the actual time period in the statements of adversity in Ezra 4:8-23, as supported by its agreement with events in the Persian Empire at that time as reported in Classical Greek histories, were made in regard of the exiles under Ezra and before the work of Nehemiah. It was made sometimes between 452-450 B.C. [and not ca. 448+ B.C.], during the revolt of the then Persian Governor "Beyond the River": Megabyzus.

The Messiah
The prophecy then indicates that at the end of, what works out to be, 483 years, a certain "Messiah, Prince/(sub-)Ruler" will make his appearance on the scene. This identity of the Messiah is clearly and rightfully assumed by Jesus Christ, and it is only publicly declared/revealed by Him after His baptism by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. (See also Luke 1:32; John 18:37). From the precise, uninterruptible chronology of the prophecy, which precisely began in the 7th Jewish month (i.e., Sep/Oct) of 457 B.C., the end of this 483-year period is to take place in Sep/Oct of the year 27 A.D. Then sometime after that chronological period’s ending, the Messiah is to make His official (public) appearance on the scene, as such.

The date for the baptism of Jesus and the start of His public ministry is conclusively/most objectively anchoredly indicated from by the date of the Passover revealed in John 2:20 which, when accurately translated (actually non-sequiturly), says (by the quasi-flummoxed Jewish leaders): “This sanctuary has stood built for 46 years...!!?”, is conclusively reckoned to be in the Spring of the year 28 A.D.

Then from the chronological data given early in the gospels of Luke and John, it can be further specifically determined that the Baptism of Christ had priorly taken place, actually, around the middle of that winter, earlier in that 28 A.D. year -[contra e.g., GC 327.1's ‘autumn baptism’], some ca. “2 months” (DA 144.3-145.1)/65 days (= 40 (Matt 4:1|DA 109.1ff, 114.1-2) + ca. 25 (John 1:29ff|DA 136.4-137.1ff)) leading up to that first ministering Passover visit (John 2:13ff).

Further corroborating evidence about the exact year of Christ’s baptism is then seen in Luke 3:1. -Contrary to a popularized erroneous claim [3], that specific year is not revealed by a convergence of the several reigns cited in Luke 3:1-2, for that convergence factually merely produces a wide range of years of: 27-33/34 A.D. Rather the precise year is obtained from the fact that it was also during the said “15th year of the authority of Tiberius.” (Luke 3:1) That is because the Greek term used in this verse to speak of the “authority” of Tiberius is not to be used and understood interchangeably with the term for “reign” as it is commonly done in Bible translations. An in depth study of the use of this word in the 630+ times that it occurs in other Greek works, clearly reveals that it has a specific meaning of referring to the “authority” or “power” that someone, or some entity, has in order to reign or have the supremacy and/or dominion. As such it is also a “power” that can be shared by two or more individuals or entities. Therefore, based on the documented history of Tiberius’s accession and reign as emperor, the beginning of this 15 year reckoning is from the time when Tiberius Caesar was made a co-emperor, and that by Consular law, by his adoptive father Emperor Augustus Caesar. However while that Consular Law was proposed and passed in the Senate sometime around October 23 of A.D. 12, it apparently was not formally put into effect until Tiberius’s actual return to Rome a little after the Roman’s New Year’s Day of January 13 A.D. So Tiberius’ ensuing 15th year therefore was from (some date in) January 27 A.D. to January 28 A.D. And it is towards the very end of that 15th year period, that Jesus was baptized. [The chronological chart at the end has been updated to fully indicate this newest/most accurate ‘January 28 A.D. baptism’ understanding].

(As the reference in Luke 3:23 to Christ’s approximate age is often, but falsely, used to try to determine the year of the beginning of Christ’s ministry, see this pertinent post on the actual year of Christ’s birth).

Now, succinctly stated: the manifest reconciling fact here between this more Biblically and objectively proven date of January 28 A.D. for Christ’s baptism and the prophetic chronological indicator in Dan 9:25 for an (exact) arrival on the scene of the Messiah 483 years after the start of the prophecy, thus in the Fall of October 27 AD. is in how closely the “forerunning” ministry of John the Baptist was “symbiotically” linked to that of the Messiah (e.g. Matt 17:10-13). In fact John the Baptist himself clearly states that ‘the whole reason/purpose of his ministry and his baptizing was so that the Messiah would be revealed to Israel’ (John 1:31, 33 =DA 109.3-110.1). And so, it appears that John began his ministry by first going on an extensive, itinerant preaching tour (Matt 3:1-4) and “then” (Matt 3:5a) he settled near Bethany to do baptisms, and it is then that the people who had heard his prior preaching went out to him to be baptized....and it was at that time, when also these tidings of John ministry had reached the region where Jesus lived ca. 75 miles away from Jerusalem/Judea in the Galilee region (Matt 2:19-23), that Jesus, and others in the region, traveled to where John was ministering. (DA 109.1). So, given the fact that John’s ministry did not involve miraculous signs (John 10:41; cf. 4:1), it probably took a while for his, thus “simple”, message to spread throughout Israel. Furthermore, it is evident that John ministry was started a long while before Jesus came on the scene at all as John had had time to assemble many “disciples”, some of which would immediately leave him to follow after Jesus upon John’s endorsement of Him (John 1:35-37; DA 138.4-5ff). And quite interestingly, in Luke 3:21, Luke uses very specific/deliberate (Greek) expression to (literally/accurately) say: “As a result of every-[only repenting]-one (Gk. apanta) being baptize (Gk. (aorist) infinitive (=main verb)), Jesus also was being baptized (Gk. passive (dependent) aorist participle-(of result/end)”, all strongly indicating that Jesus going out to John to be baptized was pointedly greatly dependent on when everyone else was being baptized.

So it is manifest that John had begun his “forerunning” ministry for a while before Jesus, and at first mainly as an itinerant preacher, and then John entered a non-itinerant phase of baptizing, and it is then that people now left there homes/locations to go out to him instead, and it is at that time that Jesus also did the same. So it pointedly was John’s (secondary) baptizing ministry which served as a “sign” to Jesus (See DA 109.1, cf. 109.3b).

Thus it is quite possible that John had begun, at God’s indication, preaching in October 27 AD., and then, perhaps distinctly, at God’s indication (John 1:33), began baptizing around January 28 AD, and ‘as a result’ of this news of, pointedly, this call to ‘go and be baptized by John’ also reached Nazareth, that Jesus then joined the flocking crowds to also be baptized, and was thus officially revealed as the Messiah. So it would be John’s Messiah-seeming (Luke 3:15ff; John 1:19-20ff) preaching start itself, in possibly October 27 AD, when he actually straightly announced the soon arrival of the (superior) Messiah (John 1:26-28, 30-31; Luke 3:16-17)  which had timely fulfilled the prophetic chronological element in Dan 9:25. Then Jesus merely seamlessly complemented, and continued this Messianic Advent.[4] Also, the allegorical, and timed, ‘repent or likewise perish’ (Luke 13:1-5) parable of Christ in Luke 13:6-9 (cf. Matt 21:18-19ff), told in the third (cf. John 7:2) and final year of Christ’s public ministry, shows that the (manifestly) 3.5, (inclusively reckoned: 4), years of ministry by John the Baptist and Jesus were indeed seamlessly, consecutively, conjoined. (Luke 3:8-9, 15-17; Matt 3:1-2||Mark 1:14-15 cf. Matt 17:10-13).

Verse 26
Daniel 9:26 - Then after the 69 weeks [483 years] the Messiah will allow Himself to be cut off (i.e. be killed), although He will have no sin. And the people of the coming ruler (i.e., the unbelieving Jews) will cause the city and the sanctuary to be destroyed. This, their end, in that which overflows. And until this end of war, desolations will have been determined.

In verse 26, the theme of the ultimate tragic purpose of the coming of the Messiah is addressed and it is said that he would be "cut off and have nothing." Also terms which highlight the voluntary and sacrificial nature of this event are particularly used.

Then it is predicted, through various syntactical means, that: "... the people of the Prince/(sub-)Ruler (i.e., the Messiah) who is to come (i.e, the unbelieving Jews -cf. John 19:19-22) will cause the city and the sanctuary to be destroyed." This is a prediction that is fulfilled exactly in the developments in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies under the command of, the then peace-seeking, Titus.

Verse 27
Daniel 9:27 - That is, He (the Messiah) will cause a covenant to prevail with the many believers for one week [7 years]; And in the middle of the week [after 3 ½ years]. He will cause (the meaning of) sacrifices and meal offerings (i.e. sin-offerings) to cease. But because of the most extreme of abominations, there is going to be a place that suddenly will (forcefully) be made to become desolate; And even before the utter end. Then that which has been determined, will be poured out on the place that is (already) desolate.

Then, as it is common and syntactically possible and supported in Biblical Hebrew, and as the events of Verse 27 clearly, self-evidently attest to, verse 27 goes over the events and predictions mentioned in Verse 26 but this time with more detail, elaboration and chronological precision.

The time of the Messiah’s public work towards the Jewish nation is specified to be during a period of 7 years. Then the atoning death of the Messiah mentioned in verse 26 is predicted to take place in the middle of that week, thus 3½ years after the Messiah had come on the scene. Therefore exactly in the Spring of 31 A.D. Using solely again the chronological information and indicators given in the Gospels, it can be concretely concluded that (1) the public ministry of Christ lasted for three full years from the Passover of 28 A.D., and ended when he was crucified, thus during the Passover of 31 A.D. Also like the language of the Prophecy allows for, the Messiah’s death would come to cause the Temple sacrifices and offerings to cease. This was done by first making void their spiritual meaning, and then eventually also ending them physically.[5]

As Jesus immediately ascended to heaven after his resurrection, it may seem that there remains an unfulfilled 3½-year period of the prophecy, but as the Hebrew syntax which was used for the statement in verse 27 states that: ‘the Messiah would also cause a covenant to prevail,’ it is therefore fully allowed for this work to be done either directly and/or indirectly by the Messiah. And as several Biblical passages show, Jesus did indeed accomplish this prediction in this dual way by first actively doing it Himself in over 3½ years of public ministry, and then through His disciples’ ministry, after his death. This 2nd half period of the work of the disciples amongst, solely, the Jewish nation came to an abrupt and categoric end with the martyrdom of Stephen, and the resulting persecution of Christian believers that immediately followed. (Acts 8:1ff). For many theological reasons, the martyrdom of Stephen provides a strong thematic ending for the probationary period given to the Jews as seen by the nature, theme and content of his speech given to the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 7), and the many spiritual resemblances that were manifested in his ministry which strongly mirrored the work and message of Christ himself. It was mainly due to this strong testimony and no doubt, clear reminder, which also like Christ brought unanswerable reproach to the Jewish leaders and people, that Stephen was singled out to be the first one to be put to death among all the believers of that time during these initial 3½ years of preaching by the disciples.

Chronologically, the dating of Stephen’s martyrdom also precisely fits the chronology of the 70 Week Prophecy. This date is determined from the reckoning of the chronology of Paul’s ministry following his part in Stephen’s death and his soon conversion to the Christian faith. (Acts 8:1ff). From this carefully reconstructed chronology, which finds strong support in several dates and contemporary events in the Roman Empire, it is determined that the martyrdom of Stephen occurred in ca. the fall of 34 A.D.

Predicted Destruction
Also again in this verse, like in verse 26, following the death of the Messiah, the prediction in verse 27 turn to the results of the Jews rejecting the Messiah. It is here (literally) said, with more emphasis that :

"... because of the most extreme of abominations (i.e., the murder of the Messiah) there is going to be a place that will (forcefully) be made to become desolate (i.e. the Temple)."

This is a reference to the physical destruction of the Jewish Temple that is to come. Then the prophecy shows that there would be a period of time that would take place before the prophesied destruction, through a then-to-come war, but still the sealing of this future destruction was to be made during the uninterrupted time of the 490 years, as it straightly adds:

"And even before the utter end. Then that which had been (firmly) determined, will be poured out on the (place that is already) desolate."

Thus the probationary period of these 70 weeks/490 years came to as precisely fulfilled end. However, as literal Israel failed to meet the six requirements made back in the opening verse (24), then they were officially "demoted/removed" from their position as God’s chosen people and were "replaced" by the believers in, and followers of, the Messiah Jesus Christ. While many Christians today have trouble accepting that God could and/or has rejected literal Israel as His chosen people, this is the clear message that is given throughout the New Testament and is expounded upon in great detail by Paul in Romans 9-11 where he speaks of God’s Spiritually Enduring, (a.k.a. “New”), Israel.



Summary of the Chronology of the 70 Weeks


Conclusion
The correct and accurate interpretation and reckoning of the Seventy Week prophecy provides the Christian believer today with an unshakable basis upon which to base his or her faith in Jesus Christ and His life transforming teachings. It also demonstrates and substantiates the power of God in fulfilling His prophetic word and also His great authoritative control in the events of world history. As the song says: ‘He indeed has the whole world in His hands.’ This correct interpretation of this prophecy also helps to establish the correct theology and framework for the Bible Student for studying and interpreting end time prophecies. Therefore it is imperative for believers today to understand this 'Biblical Interpretation of the Prophecy' and, as stated before, if, after having read this succinct overview, you would like to have more details and further proof for the exegetical and chronological conclusions presented here, then do purchase the book when it is released. This here is merely an informative preview of the book. (Again, please do take part in the helpful survey poll on this page.)

Notes
[1] Dr. Owusu-Antwi’s book is available in some libraries and/or is obtainable through an interlibrary loan. (See e.g., in worldcat.org).

















[2] Cf. 1905 JNL, GSAM 180.3-181.1; 524.2

[3] Again indifferently complacently & “blissfully”|ignoramusly|moronically, idiotically, yet innately/naturally/pridefully guilefully: “fluffly” (~=EW 36.2), -indeed just as per the indifferently profiteering so-called “work” of the SDA ‘dens of, moreover con artist, thieves’, (John 2:16|Matt 21:13|Ezek 13), reclaimed here by Doug Batchelor.

[4] To my own (fleshly) “disappointment”, my prior belief that ‘Jesus was prophetically timely baptized in the Fall/October of 27 AD, indeed just had to be abandoned in the light of the Biblical, and also, manifestly direct, SOP evidence, as related earlier. Sure it would surfacely seem more convincing and convicting to continue to, now indifferently, make this ‘more powerful’ claim, -(as selectively, inherently preferably “moronically”, “choir-preachingly”/outrightly circularly smugly declaratively done here[53:06-59:20ff] by Stephen Bohr), but the research history of my dealing with this prophecy has foundationally been to have the most objectively, i.e., non-circularly, demonstrable evidence as possible, pointedly as I am endeavoring to convince others of the validity of this ‘Fully Messianic’ prophetic reckoning. So “blissfully” ignoring contraring evidence is not at all seen, nor deemed, to be a viable course/alternative for me, whatever the cost.*
            And in fact, I am more deeply seeing from this sort of “monkey wrench”, (in terms of all-precise fulfillements) in this overall interpreted chronology, that here also, God had effectuated His consistent, faith-testing/proving principle that He will always leave room for doubt in whatever He does. (GC 527.2; SC 105.2). So here, while a baptism of Christ Himself in the Fall of 27AD would virtually remove most doubt, the evident, actual Biblical reality that it was the (possible, even probable) start of John’s Forerunning Messianic preaching which had (seamlessly) provided the timely fulfillement, does indeed provide the ‘hook for doubt’, so that no one will be faith-lessly “convicted” (“against their will”) by merely the “tangible” chronological evidence of this prophecy, but rather truly, primarily, by its (sealing/anchoring) Spiritual (cf. John 6:26) Fully-Messianic “running theme”. (John 6:34-35ff; cf. John 6:41ff)

* I myself had priorly been claiming as an explanation for the evidentially incontrovertible gap between a baptism of Christ in late-Sep/early-October 27 A.D. and the start of his journeying right after coming out of the wilderness, ca. 20-25 days before the Passover of 28 A.D. that ‘the Holy Spirit probably did not drive Christ into the wilderness, for 40 days, in what was the significantly colder, even with possible snowfall, winter months. Weather information showed that the ca. 1250-1750 feet above see level Judean Wilderness had average temperatures ranging from only 6C (43F) to 11C (53F). (E.g. as, still validly applicable, this would be just like the ‘pro-Fall (Feast of Tabernacles) & contra-December (25)’ Christmas argument which points out that: shepherds at Christ’s birth were probably not having their flock of sheep outside, overnight, in late December. (Luke 2:8ff)). So I thus, at “best”, had had to (contra-Biblically) posit that Jesus had not gone to the wilderness “immediately” after His Baptism, but ca. 3-4 (winter) months later, in January or February of 28 A.D.

[5] Relatedly, and most interestingly enough, Judaism has a couple of independently recorded statements in their Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds that: ‘miraculous signs in the Temple ended 40 years before its 70 A.D. destruction’ (see here and here), which if, as correctly due, is reckoned inclusively, (indeed as Jewish people do), began to occur in 31 [and not 30] A.D., -which is the accurate year of when Jesus declared the Temple to be desolate of God’s presence. (Matt 23:37-38) [Prior to Him going to the Mount of Olives where He would elaborate on its coming utter destruction. Matt 24:1-2ff = Ezek 11:22; cf. DA 829.2a].

17 comments:

  1. Yes, I know the doctoral thesis of Owusu-Antwi. In many respects it is the best work on the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. Therefore it is wise to follow its reasoning.

    However, there are some other critical points to be solved, regarding the correct reading of the Hebrew text, solving problems of textual transmission, etc.

    One of these problems are the Masoretic punctuation and vocalization of this prophetic text. For example, the verbal phrase ואין לו "wa'ain loh" in v. 25 requires necessarily a direct object, whereas the Rabbinic punctuation established a pause after this expression. Therefore, the right reading is not to take for granted the Masoretic punctuation,though it has priority rights.

    Congratulations for your site, and thanks for sending me the e-mail notice.

    Florin Laiu,
    Lector in Biblical Theology (Biblical languages, Exegesis, Hermeneutics and Apocalyptic).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well done! There are many errors that are constantly overlooked in the dates involved with the prophecy of Daniels 70 weeks, but this is the first I have found that has been researched so thoroughly that all dates are correct! Even the joint reign with Augustus was not overlooked and I have never seen anyone include this very important fact before that frequently has most with the wrong dates. This is also a topic I have researched thoroughly and have two web sites called Daniel’s 70 weeks and Prophecy of Weeks that agrees 100% with the findings by the author of this blog and his pending book. I trust and pray that your book does well. It is nice to see someone who has researched this properly and got all their facts right for a change. Once again, well done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Ronald, thanks for sending me this link. I suppose you have seen my website http://come2Jesus.info/2300days.htm where I have come to the very same conclusions. Only that I have expanded all the dates mention in Daniel. Congratulation to a well designed blog. GOD bless you forever. Rolf Vaessen

    ReplyDelete
  4. THANK YOU FOR THIS POST!!!!

    I AM NOW STUDYING DANIEL WITH KAY ARTHURS BOOK

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for sending me a link to this. You must have visited my site http://www.LeftBehindAnsweredVerseByVerse.com where the discussion includes Luther's and Calvin's understanding that the 70 weeks of years ended 3 1/2 years after Christ's death and resurrection. Yes, the common understanding among Bible believers was that the 70 weeks ran together until their end -- not the LEFT BEHIND view popular since the 1900's that the 70th week somehow got detached and still lies in the future. God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  6. This shares a question I have for all the other reconstructions of Daniel’s 70 sevens—why are the first seven sevens and the 62 sevens treated as consecutive? Why not concurrent?

    Another problem with trying to reconstruct exactly when is that our understanding of ancient history is not so accurate as we want it to be. When reading different historians, they can disagree on dates by as much as centuries, decades when dealing with dates as late as Alexander the Great.

    This was a prophecy concerning Jerusalem and its people, to last 490 years (seventy sevens). The final seven was to be a time of war, the middle of which saw sacrifices cease, waged by the people of the leader to come. Sounds like the Jewish revolt of 66 AD, that lasted seven years, both the general who started the suppression of the revolt, and his son who completed it, became emperors based on their successful leadership on the war, and the sacrifices ceased midway through because of the destruction of the temple.

    Going back 490 years before the end of that war, we come to 417 BC as the date when Nehemiah was given the order to rebuild Jerusalem. That fits, also for the historically understood time of Ezra. The anointed prince 49 years after that command to rebuild Jerusalem would be Alexander the Great. When one takes into account the co-reign of Tiberius, that brings that Jesus’ death and resurrection was in the mid 20s AD, exactly when I’m not sure, after 62 sevens after the command to rebuild Jerusalem.

    It works best when one takes the seven sevens and the 62 sevens as concurrent, not consecutive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello Melamed,

    These are interesting questions you raise, however they are all addressed in the more detail content of the book. I will give a brief reply here.

    -In my research, I also came across many conflicting dates in secondary studies. So most times, I had to do an original study from first hand sources and saw exactly where and how many of these historians had erred in their works. Therefore most of the dates mentioned here have been based on original and documented studies. Many times I found partial, if not whole corroboration, in other studies, especially more recent and more textually critical ones.

    -While the prophecy may seem, as commonly translated, to include the final events of war and destruction as part of the last 7 Weeks, the underlying Hebrew, using particular verb stems and tenses, instead only speak of what is to come as a result of the event of rejection and rebellion in the final week. Jesus also understood it this way (Matt 23:37-24:3ff) and thus went on to indicate in 31 A.D. that this prophesied firmly determined desolation would come to pass within the lifetime of the generation alive then, listening to him. Indeed as this destruction (66-70 A.D.) occurred with 39 years of His statement, most of the generation that was alive in 31 A.D. saw his prophecy come to pass.

    -In regards to the ending of sacrifices, the underlying Hebrew again does not speak of a forceful actualization and directly effectuated of the said “ceasing” event, but to one that is caused and indirect. It therefore is best fulfilled in the theologically correct view that saw all of the sacrifices being offered becoming void of their typical meaning once Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Though they still continued to be physically offered for another 39 years by non-believing Jews, they were from the death of Christ void of their spiritual meaning. Case in point, Christian Jews no longer offered them as sacrifice as they fully understood what had taken place at the Cross. While the 66-73 A.D. may outwardly parallel some of these predicted events, once the identity of the Messiah, the Ruler is correctly seen as being Jesus Christ, an interpretation of Dan 9:24-27 that does not include Him as the central, causal point of these predicted events is really not the correct one. The spiritual meaning of this prophecy (i.e., the why all of this is taking place) is paramount to its proper understanding.

    -I am not sure how you arrive at 417 B.C. for the date of Nehemiah’s commission. The date of 445 B.C. is the one that is factually best supported. A choice of Alexander does not actually fulfill the absolute title of “Messiah, the Ruler” which reoccurs as such throughout the prophecy indicating that it is one and the same person.

    -As stated in my blog post, my original studies on the co-reign of Tiberius Ceasar concretely lead to the fact that Jesus was baptized in 27 A.D. (Tiberius’s 15th year of authority). Jesus was crucified 3½ years later in the Spring of 31 A.D.

    -So in summary, in this thoroughly researched and firmly documented view, the 7 Weeks and (then) the 62 Weeks are understood as consecutive as this is the chronological reckoning that best harmonize with the specific predicted events in the prophecy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow this was extremely well written where can the book be purchased?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am currently involved in research and works to document as fully/exhaustively as possible all of the various points made throughout the book. This has already been done for most of these points, however with especially the points in which I relied on the conclusions of secondary studies, I have seen that further documentation and proofing needs to be done on various levels (i.e., linguistics, history, Biblical exegesis, etc). When all of these studies are completed, to my satisfaction, then I will release the book. Interestingly enough, I have not seen, upon cursory studies, that any of these further studies will come to contradict any of the conclusions made here, but only further and more concretely support them. It is because that I have felt that some conclusions should be first “set in concrete”, so to speak, that I have delayed the publishing of the book. It is the tedious work for such exhaustive research and documentation that is really involved and time consuming. Just making a shallow or surface statement/observation without properly/transparently proving it is quite easy, and unfortunately, that is what is done in many studies. I want to have published a final Biblical work that I myself would consider it worthy to spend money on and worthwhile to study, i.e., a Biblical Study that does not merely, “dogmatically” tell me what a truth is, but concretely shows/demonstrates/proves it, (as much as it is actually possible).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Read your comments on our video regarding the 2300 days recently posted at 3angelstube.org. It is my encouragement to you that as we each labor in the Master's vineyard together that we lift one another up not only in prayer but also in words of encouragement. Thank you brother.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I can understand your “vineyard-labourers” response to my comments*, especially as this is the deemed “politically correct” thing to say, however in the base sectarian approach that is pervasively subscribed to and used by most preachers in this Church, where everyone says what they think is correct, which then only results in disaccording sound of the trumpet and speaks more against our supposed “incontrovertible prophetic truth”, especially for this prophecy, than anything else, people are literally dying and/or are continuing to wander more deeply in vital error because clear, substantiated and objectively convincing/convicting proofs of, especially, this key prophecy is not, and cannot (harmoniously) be made by SDA preachers.

    Pastor David Perch repeatedly says that the ‘dates where correct, but the event was incorrect” and that is indeed true with the Millerites, however it is still also true that while these dates are correct, the proofs given for them and their events are, upon more in depth analysis, clearly not.’ And this is the paramount reason why the majority of Christians do not accept our, even gloriously Messianic, interpretation of this prophecy.

    Also see my other response comments on 3angelstube at:

    *See: http://www.3angelstube.com/video/1092/2300-day-Prophecy-457-BC--34-AD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As that 70 Weeks video on 3 Angels Tube has since been deleted see this archive link for it and the submitted comments [click on "Comment (10)" link]

      Delete
  12. "foundational cornerstone in the Christian Faith"""""""

    Im sorry but this is incorrect. The majority of Christians dont even know this prophecy in detail. It is the cornerstone of nothing. Our foundation is found in the indwelling of the Holy spirit. It is the Spirit that confirms that Christ was exactly who he said he was.--as Christ said--"if anyone chooses to follow me he will know my teaching is from the Father"

    If our faith is built on prophecy --then all we need to do is interpret it wrong to shake that faith. Our faith in Christ has become fact as soon as the Holy Spirit is present within us. We need not prophecies, archeological evidence, historical evidence, or clever arguments. Those things might sway an unbeliever to turn toward God instead of away--but if faith is built upon that--that person is not yet a Christian. These are the people who say they once believed but dont anymore--as John says "they left us because they were never really with us--meaning they didnt not have the Spirit.

    Is not possible for a real Christian to unbelieve--you may curse who God is-- committing apostasy--but you KNOW Christ is God--that cant be unbelieved once the Holy Spirit confirm it in your min.

    I certainly hope that Jesus Christ is a truth in your mind as much as your own name---otherwise you are praying to a God that only *might be there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, “I’m sorry”, but, succinctly-said, your view “Spirit first” is not actually substantiate by the Bible. God has always worked from an objectively demonstrable basis first and then seals the experience with the Holy Spirit. In the days since Creation when He then personally interacted with man, He Himself has counseled fulfilled prophecy for establishing a foundation of faith in Him. (E.g. Isa 46:9-11); Peter also put fulfilled prophecy determinatively ahead Spiritual experience (2 Pet 1:19) and prophecy itself is to be established from the already validated word of God (Isa 8:20; 2 Thess 5:19-22). So I see that the order of Knowing God and the Truth is as following: The Bible and prophecy rightly interpreted by the Bible and then other new Spiritual Experience. And as there is no greater prophecy in the Bible than the 70 Weeks due to the fact that it objectively confirms that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah of the OT Scriptures, then I do see it as the “foundational Cornerstone of the Christian Faith”.

      The Devil can easily counterfeit spiritual experience, and only the Word of God rightly studied out can expose him in these instances. So I logically can’t, and don’t, put such experiences over the Bible and its Prophecies as they are the tools by which any Spiritual experience is to be validated. You one indeed properly studies the teachings of the Bible, the correct interpretation of its prophecy can be accurately ascertained.

      Also succinctly said, all pertinent passages and examples considered, I don’t see a “once saved always saved” view as being Biblical.

      So I do believe in Jesus, primarily through His prophetic fulfilling, pointedly/most objectively, the 70 Weeks, then through the Biblical teaching which He upheld and expandingly taught (cf. Matt 5:17-20), and finally all that is sealed by my own personal experience with Christ, through, as He Himself taught, the recalling and confirming work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-15) which can only be correctly recognize if what He reveals is in harmony with the Bible. Any other approach, or order of validating, leaves people subject to following after the private ideas of men. (Perhaps my related prior comments in here (Paragraph {20}) on 1 John 2:20 may be further helpful to you.)

      Delete
  13. You seem to indicate in the article that Darius the Mede, and King Cyrus the Great, are one and the same person.

    I notice that among the books you list as your favorites, is Prophets and Kings. However it does appear that that book differentiates between them.

    "Babylon was besieged by Cyrus, nephew of Darius the Mede...". (Prophets and Kings p.523)
    I respectfully invite any clarification/response that you might have on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. -As stated/discussed in here until I do further study on this issue, the comprehensive evidence I see thus far allows for “Darius the Mede” to be Cyrus the Persian.

      -I suspect here that EGW in PK 523.1 was merely echoing an understanding of her time, probably Josephus in Antiquities 10:11.4 [#248] with an understanding that “kinsman” there, in relation to Cyrus meant “uncle”. But that statement by Josephus may not be reliable, as are many of his other Medo-Persian Kings identifications. And in regard to EGW, this would be similar to the (technical) identification error in PK 572.2 cited/discussed in/from here that she made in regards to the Medo-Persian of Israel’s Second Return: Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) (Ezra 4:7)

      So I am seeing that there is concrete evidence which points otherwise than a uncle-nephew association. Perhaps rather a father-son one. Perhaps it is only the precise nature of the actual relationship between Cambyses II (Darius the Mede) and Cyrus which needs to be specified. E.g., in the Bible, a brother could lawfully (also) be the biological father of his brother’s son/children if the brother had died before having any children. Perhaps the Medo-Persians also had such Levirate laws. Or the issue may here rather involve Cyrus’ adoption of his nephew....I’ll have to study/research this more....

      Delete
    2. See also the statements made here and here which clarify that: ‘EGW never understood, nor intended, her writings to be an authority on historical dates and events. She instead relied on other people’s research for such details.’

      Delete

This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.

-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.

[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]