Daniel 9 miscalculation?

[Othniel]

So as I look at the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, I tend to lean towards Steve's view of it. I believe that the one making the covenant with many is Jesus, and that He is the one who brought an end to sacrifice and offering. However, a friend of mine brought something up today that was worth consideration. I mentioned that the people of the prince to come (Titus) are the Romans, and that the city and sanctuary were destroyed in 70 AD.

His question is the same as my own: how could the text be referring to something that happened in 70 AD since it was talking about what would happen during those 70 weeks? It would seem as though the text is talking about something that happens during the 70 weeks, the end of which is the time that Jesus dies on the cross (technically the middle of the 70th week). Is this reconcilable with the view that the 70th week has already happened? I'd love to hear some of your thoughts.

[dwilkins]

Looking at the text involved,

(LXX) Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks have been determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy.
Dan 9:25 And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.
Dan 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.
Dan 9:27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

(ESV) Dan 9:27 "Then the future ruler will make an agreement with many people. That agreement will continue for one week. The offerings and sacrifices will stop for a half of a week. And a destroyer will come. He will do terrible, destructive things, but God has ordered that destroyer to be completely destroyed."

(KJV) Dan 9:27 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.

First, it seems to me that we need to figure out how to translate this passage and which base text makes the most sense. It strikes me that the ESV, as an example, seems to bring some interpretation of the text into the translation of it. But, you might be answering your own question about the 70th Week. If an action in that week happens in 70AD, and happens in the 70th week, then I guess part of the 70th week was happening in 70AD. If those two initial propositions are unavoidable, then maybe the math on when the week happens is wrong.

If we can allow the 70th week to extend somehow to 70AD, it would seem to make more sense of the rest of the prophecy. Per Paul, the Jews were still filling up the measure of their sin long after 34AD. In addition, prophets of God (the Apostles) were still making new prophecies recorded in scripture, long after 34AD. The prophecy itself is internally described as against the city and the people, which weren't destroyed until long after 34AD. Per Peter (2nd Peter 3), he's still looking forward to bringing in an era of lasting righteousness, long after 34AD. It seems to me that the terms of the prophecy have to be wrapped up for the 70th week to be over, and that couldn't have happened before the last of scripture was written, the measure of sin was filled up, or the city and people were destroyed.

Doug

[Singalphile]

These threads might have more info:
Daniels' Seventy Sevens
Daniel's 70 7's: Futurist vs Preterist Perspectives

Myself, I'm not sure. Various explanations have made sense to me (and then I promptly forget them). Jesus referenced the "abomination of desolation" from Daniel 9 (I think) in Matthew 24, Mark 13, & Luke 21 when he spoke of the destruction of the temple. He didn't exactly declare Himself there to be the "anointed one" from Daniel 9 (but of course I take it that Jesus was/is the Messiah/Lord regardless of how Daniel 9 is interpreted), nor did He say that the temple destruction would happen in the next 7 or 3.5 years. He said it would happen in "this generation", as I understand it, and He was correct. So, I have wondered why "weeks" must mean exactly 7 years. I have no strong opinions about it.

[Othniel]

First, it seems to me that we need to figure out how to translate this passage and which base text makes the most sense.

After looking at the Hebrew word with my dispensational friend, we both agreed that the term simply means "he."

If an action in that week happens in 70AD, and happens in the 70th week, then I guess part of the 70th week was happening in 70AD. If those two initial propositions are unavoidable, then maybe the math on when the week happens is wrong.

If we can allow the 70th week to extend somehow to 70AD, it would seem to make more sense of the rest of the prophecy.

This is indeed the dilemma, however there may still be an answer out there that can make sense of the two. I had heard Steve present a second opinion with a small gap that he mentioned may make sense, but I'd have to hear it again to see if it fits with the text. My problem with a small gap however is the same problem I have with dispensationalism. If the text doesn't impose a gap, why must I import it to fit my view?

Per Paul, the Jews were still filling up the measure of their sin long after 34AD.

That is true, but isn't the world still racking up its sin, even though Jesus officially killed the power of sin on the cross?

In addition, prophets of God (the Apostles) were still making new prophecies recorded in scripture, long after 34AD.

Although, while God previously spoke to us through His prophets, in these last days He has spoken to us through His Son.

The prophecy itself is internally described as against the city and the people, which weren't destroyed until long after 34AD. Per Peter (2nd Peter 3), he's still looking forward to bringing in an era of lasting righteousness, long after 34AD. It seems to me that the terms of the prophecy have to be wrapped up for the 70th week to be over, and that couldn't have happened before the last of scripture was written, the measure of sin was filled up, or the city and people were destroyed.

Doug

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Although, I feel the original question, and yours, still remains unanswered.

[backwoodsman]

It doesn't actually say the city and sanctuary will be destroyed during the 70th week. Verse 26 says, "After the sixty-two weeks". I understand it to mean, during or in the aftermath of the 70th week. I think 70AD is within a reasonable timeframe for that, especially considering Jesus' prophecy that the generation to which he was speaking, during the 70th week, would see the destruction of Jerusalem. And the events of 70AD are certainly part of the aftermath of the 70th week.

[Duncan]

My two cents.

Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

The primary source for the time of trial of three-and-a-half is the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24-27. The context of the seventy weeks—literally seventy sevens—has to do with the Jews and Jerusalem (“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city . . .” Dan 9:24; cf. Rev. 11:2). The time period of three-and-a-half is the last half of the seventieth seven.
In considering this time period, it is helpful to look at Daniel 9:26-27; these two verses present a juxtaposition of the activities of Christ and Antichrist.

26. [Christ] And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; [Antichrist] and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. [Christ] Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. [Antichrist] And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

Daniel 9:26 and 27 parallel each other; that is, they each address the same two topics. The first part of each verse contains a reference to the killing of Messiah and the resulting end of the legitimacy of the sacrificial system

26. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off . . . .
27. . . . in the middle of the week He shall bring and end to sacrifice and offering . . . .

The death of Jesus brought an end to the legitimacy of the sacrificial system (cf. Matt. 27:50-51; Heb. 10:11-18); it happened after seven and sixty-two weeks, Dan. 9:25 (i.e., during the seventieth week, at the end of its first half).
The second part of verses 26 and 27 contain a reference to the coming of the one who would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple; this would be the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week. This period of three-an-a-half would be the time of the coming of Antichrist—the one who would make the Jewish nation desolate:

26. . . . and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. . . . And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.

It is this last half of Daniel’s seventieth week that the time period of three-and-a-half is referencing.
In the middle of the seventieth week, the Christ would be cut off and then the Antichrist would come make the Jewish nation desolate (cf. Dan. 12:7). The last half of the seventieth week can thus be seen as either the time from AD 30 (when the Messiah was killed) to AD 70 (the defeat of the Antichrist) or as a three and a half year bookend at the conclusion of the seventieth week (Jesus’ three-and-a-half year ministry at the beginning of the seventieth week being the other bookend). I refer to these two variations as the literal and symbolic uses of this time period.

Footnote on a gap:
While a gap does exist, it is not the thousands of years between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week that dispensationalists claim. Some preterists, in reaction to the huge gap proposed by dispensationalists, argue that there is no indication in the text of a gap between the first half and second half of Daniel’s week. With the aid of historical hindsight, however, it seems clear that the first half of the seventieth week ended when Jesus was cut off in AD 30 and the second half ended when Titus made the Jewish nation desolate in AD 70. God was establishing and confirming the new covenant during this time. During the first half of the seventieth week He established the new covenant through the death of Jesus. During the second half He confirmed the new covenant by abolishing the old covenant Temple system.
What is essentially the same gap between the first and second half of Daniel’s seventieth week occurs in Isaiah 61:2.

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; he has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord [fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry], and the day of vengeance of our God [fulfilled in Titus’ destruction].
Isaiah 61:1-2

In Luke 4:18-19 Jesus quotes this section of Isaiah up to the last half of vs. 2. He stopped his reading at that point and left out the part that referred to “the day of vengeance of our God.” The first half of Isaiah 61:2, “the acceptable year of the Lord” was being fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry. The last half, “the day of vengeance” would be fulfilled some forty years later in Titus’ AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews into the nations. Luke writes the following on this: “For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled . . . and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations.” (Luke 21:22, 24).

That the second half of Daniel’s seventieth week is separated from the first half is also shown by the fact that the last half of the seventieth week keeps showing up in Scripture as the time period of three-and-a-half right before the AD 70 Second Coming (cf. Dan. 7:21-25). This last half of Daniel’s seventieth week would be the period when the Antichrist would overcome the Jews/saints (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5-7). It would be the time of the great tribulation; it would end with the resurrection at the time of the destruction of the Jewish nation (Dan. 12:1-7). This hardly fits AD 33, which would be the end of the seventy weeks if there was no gap between Messiah being cut off and the coming of the one who would make the Jewish nation desolate.

In addition to the above points, the purpose of the seventy weeks was related to the Jews and Jerusalem (Dan. 9:24). It was AD 70 (not AD 33) that accomplished the destruction of Jerusalem and the shattering of the power of Daniel’s people (Dan. 12:7). Furthermore, the events that the seventy weeks were to complete (“To finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.” Dan. 9:24) were fulfilled at the Second Coming in AD 70 not in AD 33.


The rest of the article is here, http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/ ... -period-of

[Singalphile]

So here are some of the options that I see as best as I can tell.

Daniel 9:24-27

1: Each "week" represents exactly 7 years and ...

• 1A: The seventy "weeks" run consecutively.
  Some of the events (destruction of the city and the sanctuary) must be pulled out and placed outside of the 490 years by about 40 years. There's no gap, it's just that some of the events don't actually occur (fully) within the seventy weeks.
• 1B: The seventy "weeks" are not consecutive.
  The verses seem to split the 70 weeks into 3 groups: 7 weeks (mentioned once), 62 weeks (mentioned twice), and 1 week (mentioned twice). There might be some amount of time between those three groups. So the 1 week has either a gap in it or there is (or was) a gap between the 62 weeks and the 1 week. The last week, if it hasn't occurred, will be exactly 7 years.

2: Each "week" represents a relatively short period of time of possibly varying lengths, an "intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven [*]." and ...

• 2A: The seventy "weeks" run consecutively.
  The weeks in each of the 3 week-grouping might not have the same length. The events of the seventh/last week spanned about 40 years. It's a consecutive group of 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week. There was no gap and everything mentioned in the 70 weeks happened within the 70 weeks.
• 2B: The seventy "weeks" are not consecutive.
  The last week could still be in the future. That is, there is a gap - going on 2000 years - between the 62 weeks and the 1 week. The last week needn't be exactly 7 years.

Any of those could be argued, I think. There are of course many other possibilities.

The Wikipedia Seventy Weeks page notes the apparent chiastic structure in the verses. How that should affect interpretation, I have no idea.

[DanielGracely]

Othniel,

I see you've dismissed the dispensational view (at least in part) because of the gap it proposes between weeks 69 and 70. Maybe I've missed it here on this Bible Forum, but even listening to one of Steve's audio clips (an older one, I think) I have yet to see any attempted refutation, let alone recognition by anyone here on this forum, of Thomas Ice's explanation of why there could be a gap. In short, Ice argues that the 70 weeks of Daniel's prophecy, in which the Divine focus is upon Israel, is an obvious echo of the 70 weeks in which Israel failed to Sabbath the land (which led to a quid pro quo 70 years of exile for every year the land was not rested). In effect, without pressing the concept too far, the 70 weeks prophecy is about a second chance, or do-over. That is, God is not done with Israel but will continue 70 more weeks to accomplish those things mentioned in Daniel 9. And since (argues Ice) many gaps occurred during this 70 weeks (490 years) of disobedience, there is no necessity to interpret the remaining 70 weeks as having to run consecutively. IMO the fact that Daniel speaks of an event after the 69th week, without speaking of it as occurring at the beginning or within the 70th week, is suggestive of a single gap.

[DanielGracely]

It doesn't actually say the city and sanctuary will be destroyed during the 70th week. Verse 26 says, "After the sixty-two weeks". I understand it to mean, during or in the aftermath of the 70th week. I think 70AD is within a reasonable timeframe for that, especially considering Jesus' prophecy that the generation to which he was speaking, during the 70th week, would see the destruction of Jerusalem. And the events of 70AD are certainly part of the aftermath of the 70th week.

I boldened the sentence because I don't understand the reasoning behind it. If the destruction happened during the 70th week, why wouldn't Daniel just say "in the 70th week" instead of saying "after the 62nd [69th] week"? Or, if it happened after the 70th week, why would Daniel speak of it happening after the [69th], rather than after the 70th, week? Or if it began in but ran past the 70th week, why wouldn't Daniel say it happened from the 70th week?

I suppose you may be theorizing about a timeline of 490 years stretching back from 70 AD. Is that what you have in mind? I don't see how that would fit with any of the standard views about when the 70 weeks began (e.g. 457 BC or 444 BC). But perhaps you have a different view?

[backwoodsman]

Sorry for the very slow reply; I've been a bit sidetracked.

It doesn't actually say the city and sanctuary will be destroyed during the 70th week. Verse 26 says, "After the sixty-two weeks". I understand it to mean, during or in the aftermath of the 70th week.

I boldened the sentence because I don't understand the reasoning behind it.

As a rule, I stay with what Scripture actually says, without importing ideas it doesn't say. It doesn't say anything about a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks, or about the 70th week being split with a gap between the halves. All it says is, "After the sixty-two weeks" (the first 7 weeks having elapsed first, then the 62 weeks, so all that's left is the 70th week). I don't think it's necessary to insist that everything prophesied for the 70th week happen entirely within the 70th week; I think it's reasonable to allow for events set in motion during the 70th week to finish some short time after the end of the 70th week. So, while the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD didn't actually happen within the 70th week, it was certainly the culmination of the events of the 70th week, and happened within a generation later, just as Jesus said it would (Matthew 24:34).

If the destruction happened during the 70th week, why wouldn't Daniel just say "in the 70th week" instead of saying "after the 62nd [69th] week"? Or, if it happened after the 70th week, why would Daniel speak of it happening after the [69th], rather than after the 70th, week? Or if it began in but ran past the 70th week, why wouldn't Daniel say it happened from the 70th week?

I don't know. All I have to go on is what he did say, what Jesus said, and the historical record of what actually happened. The above is the only way I can make it all fit together, without having to compromise or fudge somewhere, or read into the text something it doesn't say (like a gap, large or small, before all or part of the 70th week).

I suppose you may be theorizing about a timeline of 490 years stretching back from 70 AD. Is that what you have in mind?

No. The edict of 457 BC works out just about perfectly for the beginning of the 70 weeks, and puts Jesus' death right at the midpoint of the 70th week, just as Daniel said, at least as nearly as we can determine now.