Nehemia Gordon did a study just recently called "How Yom Teruah became Rosh Hoshanna". Which is informative.
He also talks about how the sounding of the Jubliee on Yom Kippur was not during the Jubilee year but to announce it was coming in the middle of the 49th Year, a fact I'd already heard, but not from a source as reliable as him. I find that intriguing on a number of levels.
Overlap that with aspects of my Time of Jacob's Trouble post, and maybe I should leave my Mid-Trib variant view and consider founding a Mid Seventh Year Rapture view. That would affiliate the Seventh Trumpet and Last Trump of The Rapture with the Jubliee Trumpet, making the end of Revelation 11, all of 12 and start of 13 about Yom Kippur, the rest of 13 and all of 14 and 15 between Yom Kippur and Tabernacles, and the Seven Bowls of God's Wrath poured out on the seven days of Tabernacles, with Haggai 2 supported the 7th Bowls being the 21st of Tishrei. This would adjust my Fall Feasts hypothesis.
The Seventh Trumpet account mentions God's Temple in Heaven being opened and The Ark of His Covenant being seen. That kinda fits Yom Kippur.
Then I would really have to change this blog's URL.
There are other factors I still have to consider. There is already a Pre-Seventh year view, but they're under the false impression that Nehemia is refuting, that Tishrei can begin a year.
I watched awhile ago a Prophecy Club video called The Chronological Order of the Prophecies in The Jubilees. There is much of this person's views that are clearly wrong, from his supporting the Britam view of the Lost Tribes, to trying to make the 120 years of Genesis 6 point to 6000 years. But his evidence for a reckoning of the Jubilees that would have the next jubilee year starting in Spring of 2045 AD (with the Jubilee Trumpet then in fall of 2044) is compelling. Here is a still I took regarding the Sabbatical Years.
The view of the 70 Weeks I've been favoring had the Decree of Artaxerxes in Nissan 454 BC putting the 70th week in 30-37 AD. But many have, using much of the same evidence, argued for the Decree being Nissan of 455 BC, and a 70th Week that is 29-36 AD. I need to look into that more, but if so that would make both the beginning and ending of the 70 weeks the start of Jubilee years in the above Jubilee model, which makes sense.
I've seen people argue for both 29 and 36 AD Crucifixion models. For the latter that includes Nikos Kokkinos who's theories I may talk about more in a future post. My personal bias remains 30 AD for the moment however. But The Resurrection and Acts 2 Pentecost being Jubilee years has a certain symmetry to it.
This makes the latest Jubilee year to happen Spring 1996-Spring 1997. And before that 1947-1948 which many see as Biblically significant. Before that 1898-1899, and before that 1849-1850.
This model could place the beginning of the 21 year Time of Jacob's Trouble in Spring of 2024 AD.
Or maybe if someone could argue the above proposed Jubilee cycle is off by a year, to make my original 70s Weeks views match up to Jubilees, things would fit better. Then it would be during a Jubilee year modern Israel was founded.
If I switched to a Mid 7th Year or mid 49th Year Rapture view. How do I match up the time-frames? The ministry of the Witnesses and consecration of the Rebuilt Temple would be around the Nissan that would start year 4 of the relevant Sabbatical cycle. The 42 Months The Beast is allowed to continue would begin about 6 months later. And the 1260 days The Woman is in the Wilderness would continue 3 years into The Millennium. Why would that happen? Who knows, perhaps I'll think of a reason later.
But I will still never accept a Non Chronological view of Revelation.
Showing posts with label 70 Weeks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 70 Weeks. Show all posts
Saturday, October 1, 2016
Friday, September 25, 2015
I no longer believe in Gaps in Daniel chapters 9 and 11
I've held that view in the past, but I've slowly come to abandon it. For that reason I changed the name of this blog, I sadly don't know a way to create a full new URL without rending all existing links to this Blog dead.
I had cited Hippolytus as an early source on Gaps in Daniel. Thing is he's the only Early Church Father to hold this view, he seems to have invented it. And while I still agree with him more then most Church Fathers on a number of End Times issues, his bizarre views on the Song of Solomon hurts his credibility. And his view on when the 69th Week ended does not agree with anyone today, he ended it at Jesus Birth.
I first started work on this 70th Week study when I was still against seeing the 70th Week as already fulfilled. But as you can see my open minded study of the evidence lead me to become convinced that yes the 70th Week was fulfilled from 30-37 AD. I talked more on that subject here.
I have also shown that Daniel 11:36-45 was about Augustus.
Gaps have nothing to do with making Daniel 2 or 7 End times, they are in nature incredibly broad symbolic visions of all history. But the visions in Hebrew Daniel are usually more narrow in scope. The way in which Revelation draws on Daniel is only really explicitly to Daniel 7 and to some extent 12. That Daniel 12 is jumping from the first to second Advent isn't a Gap really, it is again a broader in scope prophecy.
Matthew 24 is indisputably End Times. The basis for making material from Hebrew Daniel end times relevant is Jesus saying "The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel The Prophet". Thing is while terminology similar to that is arguably used in the last verse of Daniel 9, the exact phrase is used in Daniel only in 11 and 12, and in 11 it's not the part any reasonable person argues is before the gap but in the part clearly about Antiochus Epiphanes.
Now I do think it's possible that the 70th Week and Daniel 11:36-45 could have end times relevance via Double Fulfillment. And I think to an extent even Daniel 12's End Times relevance is via double fulfillment. But the only thing I see absolutely required to happen again is what Jesus specifically refereed to.
But in the case of the 70th Week I've come to view that as only being applicable if the entire 70 Weeks is fulfilled twice, which I have argued a possible model for on this blog. If that model doesn't bear out, then Daniel 9 is not End Times relevant.
If Daniel 11's relevance is via double fulfillment Then when it starts being End Times relevant may have to be pushed sooner, because again it's the phrase "Abomination of Desolation" that is the key to Daniel's End Times relevance.
One thought I just started considering is that maybe two End Times Abomination of Desolation events will happen, one that seems more like a direct repeat of what Epiphanes did at the start of the 70th Week, and then what II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 depicts at the Midway Point. (Update Sept2016: I've now considered an entirely new take on the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 11.)
Going back to Daniel 9:24, let's look again at what the purpose for the 70 Weeks are.
If you think "make an end of sins" means no one will be sinning anymore then you have to move the end of the 70 Weeks to after the Millennium, not before it. I would be curious to hear someone argue such a theory. This is referring to Jesus paying the price for Sin on The Cross, when He said "It Is Finished".
Some take "seal up the vision and prophecy" to mean no more Prophecies left to be fulfilled. Again you have to move the 70th Week to after the Millennium in that case.
I think that the anointing of the most Holy can be seen as fulfilled at Pentecost.
Every argument that the first advent wasn't enough to fulfill that requires an interpretation that places the fulfillment after not before the Millennium.
I feel there is a perfectly very real sense in which all those details were satisfied in 30-37 AD.
In my past study on the first 69 Weeks proving they ended in 30 AD. I justified the gap concept not with the usual Pre-Tirb/Dispensationalist the Gap is the Church Age logic. But by arguing that since it revolved around The Temple, the Gap was from when the Second Temple lost it's Holy Anointing when the Veil was Torn till when the future Temple will be consecrated. I brought that up in some other posts too.
I feel ashamed of that argument now, because it implies what the Veil being Torn achieved is gonna be undone. I won't remove that argument from that post because it's intent was to refute Chris White which it still does At any-rate when studying the possible dual fulfillment I realized it didn't revolve around The Temple as much as I thought. In fact it's barely mentioned at all.
I had cited Hippolytus as an early source on Gaps in Daniel. Thing is he's the only Early Church Father to hold this view, he seems to have invented it. And while I still agree with him more then most Church Fathers on a number of End Times issues, his bizarre views on the Song of Solomon hurts his credibility. And his view on when the 69th Week ended does not agree with anyone today, he ended it at Jesus Birth.
I first started work on this 70th Week study when I was still against seeing the 70th Week as already fulfilled. But as you can see my open minded study of the evidence lead me to become convinced that yes the 70th Week was fulfilled from 30-37 AD. I talked more on that subject here.
I have also shown that Daniel 11:36-45 was about Augustus.
Gaps have nothing to do with making Daniel 2 or 7 End times, they are in nature incredibly broad symbolic visions of all history. But the visions in Hebrew Daniel are usually more narrow in scope. The way in which Revelation draws on Daniel is only really explicitly to Daniel 7 and to some extent 12. That Daniel 12 is jumping from the first to second Advent isn't a Gap really, it is again a broader in scope prophecy.
Matthew 24 is indisputably End Times. The basis for making material from Hebrew Daniel end times relevant is Jesus saying "The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel The Prophet". Thing is while terminology similar to that is arguably used in the last verse of Daniel 9, the exact phrase is used in Daniel only in 11 and 12, and in 11 it's not the part any reasonable person argues is before the gap but in the part clearly about Antiochus Epiphanes.
Now I do think it's possible that the 70th Week and Daniel 11:36-45 could have end times relevance via Double Fulfillment. And I think to an extent even Daniel 12's End Times relevance is via double fulfillment. But the only thing I see absolutely required to happen again is what Jesus specifically refereed to.
But in the case of the 70th Week I've come to view that as only being applicable if the entire 70 Weeks is fulfilled twice, which I have argued a possible model for on this blog. If that model doesn't bear out, then Daniel 9 is not End Times relevant.
If Daniel 11's relevance is via double fulfillment Then when it starts being End Times relevant may have to be pushed sooner, because again it's the phrase "Abomination of Desolation" that is the key to Daniel's End Times relevance.
One thought I just started considering is that maybe two End Times Abomination of Desolation events will happen, one that seems more like a direct repeat of what Epiphanes did at the start of the 70th Week, and then what II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 depicts at the Midway Point. (Update Sept2016: I've now considered an entirely new take on the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 11.)
Going back to Daniel 9:24, let's look again at what the purpose for the 70 Weeks are.
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.It is commonly argued that the Second Advent is required for this to be fully fulfilled, that certain aspects of this clearly aren't fulfilled already. In fact I've even seen some Christians try to remove the First Advent from this altogether, like Chris White. To me that grossly undervalues what happened in 30 AD in a way no Christian, no matter how Futurist and Premillennial they are, should be willing to do.
If you think "make an end of sins" means no one will be sinning anymore then you have to move the end of the 70 Weeks to after the Millennium, not before it. I would be curious to hear someone argue such a theory. This is referring to Jesus paying the price for Sin on The Cross, when He said "It Is Finished".
Some take "seal up the vision and prophecy" to mean no more Prophecies left to be fulfilled. Again you have to move the 70th Week to after the Millennium in that case.
I think that the anointing of the most Holy can be seen as fulfilled at Pentecost.
Every argument that the first advent wasn't enough to fulfill that requires an interpretation that places the fulfillment after not before the Millennium.
I feel there is a perfectly very real sense in which all those details were satisfied in 30-37 AD.
In my past study on the first 69 Weeks proving they ended in 30 AD. I justified the gap concept not with the usual Pre-Tirb/Dispensationalist the Gap is the Church Age logic. But by arguing that since it revolved around The Temple, the Gap was from when the Second Temple lost it's Holy Anointing when the Veil was Torn till when the future Temple will be consecrated. I brought that up in some other posts too.
I feel ashamed of that argument now, because it implies what the Veil being Torn achieved is gonna be undone. I won't remove that argument from that post because it's intent was to refute Chris White which it still does At any-rate when studying the possible dual fulfillment I realized it didn't revolve around The Temple as much as I thought. In fact it's barely mentioned at all.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Suleiman and the 70 Weeks of Daniel
I've argued on this Blog for why I believe the first 69 weeks of Daniel 9 were fulfilled from 454 BC-30 AD. I decided later in response to those who are Futurists yet view the 70th Week as fulfilled, to investigate the possibility of the 70th week being fulfilled from 30-37 AD. And then I came to the conclusion that the 70th Week is a Prophecy with a dual Fulfillment.
I eventually decided to contemplate in my mind the possibility of the first 69 weeks having a second fulfillment also. This would require another decree to rebuild Jerusalem. It need not seem identical to the one by Artaxerxes or any other Persian ruler. It matters only that it fit what Daniel 9 says of it. Interestingly Daniel 9's description of the Decree says nothing about Israelites returning to Jerusalem at this time, or anything about The Temple. Only the City being restored and rebuilt with a specific emphasis on The Walls.
I decided to look at Wikipedia's Timeline of Jerusalem and saw that 1535-1538 AD Suleiman The Magnificent had Jerusalem rebuilt including The Walls which had been in ruin since at least 135 AD. Also The Dome of The Rock was renovated then. These restored Walls are the Walls that stand to this day. The story goes that he gave a decree to rebuild the Walls that was prompted by a divinely inspired dream he had. Whatever prompted the Decree, we have archaeological evidence of it.
Building inscription commemorating the rebuilding of the walls of JerusalemJerusalemOttoman period, 1535–1538StoneIsrael Antiquities AuthorityAccession number: IAA 1942-265The Ottoman Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent ordered the construction of new buildings in Jerusalem and the renovation of existing ones. Among his most notable projects were the renovation of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem city walls. The walls, reminiscent of those surrounding Istanbul, are the ones that still surround Jerusalem’s Old City today. This building inscription commemorates their renewal.“Has decreed the construction of the wall he who has protected the home of Islam with his might and main and wiped out the tyranny of idols with his power and strength, he whom alone God has enabled to enslave the necks of kings in countries (far and wide) and deservedly acquire the throne of the Caliphate, the Sultan son of the Sultan son of the Sultan son of the Sultan, Suleyman.”Digital presentation of this object was made possible by: The Ridgefield Foundation, New York, in memory of Henry J. and Erna D. Leir
I've already addressed the usual argument against Date Setting.
Problem is we don't know exactly when this "decree" was, it was in the range of 1535-1538 AD. In my view in order for it to fit perfectly it needs to have been made in Nisan.
I did some searching and found that others had noticed this possibility before me. A lot of them however seem to incorporate mistakes about the 70 Weeks Prophecy I addressed in my earliest posts on it.
I saw on one website someone arguing that only this Decree could fit Daniel 9 and not any of the Persian ones. They base it on seeing Daniel 9:25 as saying that the Wall must continually stand at least during the entirety of the 62 weeks. The Walls built during Persian times were breached at least once before the earliest possible date one could give for the 62 weeks ending (106 BC and that requires a few assumptions I view as wrong, I as you know see them as ending in 30 AD), by Antiochus Epiphanes forces, Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 12 Chapter 5 does say he destroyed the walls. Suleiman's Walls meanwhile have stood without interruption unto this very day.
The problem with that argument is that it removes the first Advent of Christ from the 70 Weeks. Also Gabriel was clearly promising something in the near future, something at least some of Daniel's original readers would live to see. What's said about the Walls standing has room for interpretation, Antiochus did not completely destroy them like the Romans did in 70 and 135 AD.
It is a common feature of Double Fulfillment Prophecies that certain key details are not fulfilled in their truest sense till the second fulfillment, that's largely why we know it needs a second. In the case of the 70 weeks we tend to see the 70th alone as what needs something yet future to be fulfilled.
But given what I argued already about my view of the 70th Week, the implication that perhaps the Walls could be torn down or breached when the Eschatological 70th Week starts is pretty provocative. Since I am expecting the Nisan that starts The Week to include an Islamic conquest of Jerusalem in response to The Temple being rebuilt. And a Decoy Antichrist will kill the true Antichrist who will be heralded as Messiah Ben-Joseph.
Most people believe if Jerusalem is conquered by a foreign enemy during the 70th Week it's at the midway point, at the same time as the Abomination of Desolation. And I have other reasons for thinking an End Times deception could involve making people think the beginning of The Week was it's middle. It was I think in Nisan that the Walls of Jericho fell.
But given what I argued already about my view of the 70th Week, the implication that perhaps the Walls could be torn down or breached when the Eschatological 70th Week starts is pretty provocative. Since I am expecting the Nisan that starts The Week to include an Islamic conquest of Jerusalem in response to The Temple being rebuilt. And a Decoy Antichrist will kill the true Antichrist who will be heralded as Messiah Ben-Joseph.
Most people believe if Jerusalem is conquered by a foreign enemy during the 70th Week it's at the midway point, at the same time as the Abomination of Desolation. And I have other reasons for thinking an End Times deception could involve making people think the beginning of The Week was it's middle. It was I think in Nisan that the Walls of Jericho fell.
If this theory is true, I think some discovery will be made before the 70th Week begins that will clarify exactly when Suleiman made his decree. And if it was in Nisan on either the Rabbinic Hebrew, Kariete Hebrew or Samaritan Hebrew calendar, then I will start feeling this hypothesis is very possible.
The margin of error currently gives us Nisan of 2018-2021 for the start of the 70th week. Tishri of 2021-2024 for the Midway Point, when I place The Rapture/Second Coming, and when we all place the Abomination of Desolation. And Nisan of 2025-2028 for the end of the 70th Week.
People have independently of this seen reasons to look to that range for the end times. Some of those I might get into in future posts. I've offered two possible 70th Week theories on this blog before, neither of which are compatible with this. I'm trying to consider many possibilities.
Update: It seems the 1535-1538 range is really the time the walls were under construction, though other construction in Jerusalem continued for awhile after, 1541 for the Golden Gate, and then additional renovations after the 1546 Earthquake. Which means the Decree could have likely been Nisan 1535 placing the 70th week as 2018-2025, with the Seventh Trumpet sounding on the First of Tishri in 2021, marking the Mid-Way Point.
I've come to view the 7 and 62 weeks distinction as that the 7 weeks is how long the construction went on. I know of no documentation that anything was exactly finished in 1584, but it's possible, that's 38 years after the earthquake.
Also a correction on something I said above, it was April 1st 1969 not 68 reconstruction in the Old City was allowed. I've seen one website suggest that the second fulfillment perhaps switched the order of the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks. I think that's torturing the text a bit, but that it is a full jubilee from then to Nisan 2018 is interesting.
Update May 2017: If you want to learn more about Suleiman himself in an easy and fun way, I recommend watching Extra History: Suleiman The Magnificent.
Update: It seems the 1535-1538 range is really the time the walls were under construction, though other construction in Jerusalem continued for awhile after, 1541 for the Golden Gate, and then additional renovations after the 1546 Earthquake. Which means the Decree could have likely been Nisan 1535 placing the 70th week as 2018-2025, with the Seventh Trumpet sounding on the First of Tishri in 2021, marking the Mid-Way Point.
I've come to view the 7 and 62 weeks distinction as that the 7 weeks is how long the construction went on. I know of no documentation that anything was exactly finished in 1584, but it's possible, that's 38 years after the earthquake.
Also a correction on something I said above, it was April 1st 1969 not 68 reconstruction in the Old City was allowed. I've seen one website suggest that the second fulfillment perhaps switched the order of the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks. I think that's torturing the text a bit, but that it is a full jubilee from then to Nisan 2018 is interesting.
Update May 2017: If you want to learn more about Suleiman himself in an easy and fun way, I recommend watching Extra History: Suleiman The Magnificent.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Messiah The Prince of Daniel 9
The 70 weeks Prophecy four times refers to an awaited personage at the the end of the 69 weeks and/or the 70th week.
Messiah The Prince in verse 25
The Messiah in verse 26
The Prince that shall come in verse 26
He in verse 27
The standard view among Christians who are Premillennial Futurists (and even some Preterists) has been that the first two are Jesus Christ and the last two the person we commonly call The Antichrist. Chris White however promotes a theory he didn't invent himself that makes each of the four something different. predicating it largely on how unclear it is which of the earlier personages the He in verse 27 appears to be.
However most people reading this Prophecy without a Christian starting point, as well as many Christians who are Preterist, see the clear grammatical logic as saying all four are the same person.
When verse 25 says to await the coming of a Messiah The Prince and then verse 26 says The Prince that shall come logic dictates that it's the same Prince. And if there aren't two or three different people refereed to earlier, figuring out who He is, isn't that complicated.
It's also pretty much unique to Christians to see a Villain in any of the four references. Because you see the "he" after "Abominations" in the KJV of verse 27 isn't in the Hebrew. So the first He is not the one who sets it/them up. That can agree with seeing him as The Antichrist however, because in Revelation while The Image is of The Beast, it's the second beast (False Prophet) that sets it up and enforces it's worship.
I'm going to suggest that the traditional Christian view, and this "only one person is mentioned" view can both be right, via the principle of Double Fulfillment. I've already documented that there are Jews without a Christian bias who see the 70th Week as yet future and separated from the first 69. But I've also argued that seeing the 70th Week as being entirely fulfilled from 30-37 AD is more plausible then my fellow Futurists realize. Recently I've argued that some of our assumptions about how the End Times 70th Week will play out are wrong.
The suggestion that there is a Prophecy which is fulfilled by both Jesus and the Antichrist is certainly controversial. But Solomon was a type of both Jesus and The Antichrist. When doing well he was the near fulfillment of the Messianic Kingdom. But when he backslid, the number 666 was directly linked to him. Samson likewise has been argued to prefigure both, especially by those who see Genesis 49 as implying a Danite Antichrist. Saul could also be viewed this way.
The word "Antichrist" means, false Christ, or counterfeit Christ, or opposing Christ, or replacement Christ, or enemy of Christ. or antithesis of Christ, or opposite of Christ. I've seen several different meanings argued for it, but they all involve Christ, which is Greek for Messiah. Many Old Testament types of The Antichrist were anointed by true Prophets of God (Jeroboam and Jehu, also Solomon and Saul I already mentioned). Jesus refereed to Judas as someone He Choose, and Judas could perform divine Miracles by Jesus authority. Yet he was a Devil and the Son of Perdition.
And at any-rate, he'll need to be able to make Messianic Prophecies apply to him if he'll be a credible Messiah Ben-Joseph.
Given what I argued on those posts I linked to. This would mean his Mortal Wounding is at the beginning of the 70th week. We tend to assume that his Resurrection happens soon after his death. But I notice that there is no reference in Revelation to The Beast being active during the first half of The Week. The first undisputed appearance of The Beast is when he kills The Two Witnesses, and hes' already ascended out of The Pit by then.
I do agree that The First Horseman is likely the man who'll become The Beast. But I've become inclined to view all of the first 6 Seals as being right at the start of The Week, due to my Sixth Seal view and other things.
Maybe the opening of the First Seal has him doing his own Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, after winning many wars. Doing it maybe even on the same day Jesus did his, the 10th of Nisan. Then he is Crowned Messiah Ben-Joseph. But the next thing to happen is the Red Horseman. Who I argued in that same Four Horseman study could be The Antichrist's killer because of his Sword. And many Christians and Jews will assume that that killer is The Antichrist/Armillus.
My main False Prophet theory wouldn't have it be possible for him to have The False Prophet with him already at this point. But I could be wrong, he could also have a Prophet with him all through those Wars. They could together claim to Christians to be The Two Witnesses, and to Jews that they're Messiah Ben-Joseph and/or Elijah and/or The Prophet like unto Moses and/or the Priest of the order of Melchizedek and/or Enoch. And then people might selectively use the day=year theory to say that The Witnesses being dead three and a half days really means three and a half years.
This deception could fit what Perry Stone (who I respect and consider truly Saved) is predicting. He's saying that The Temple will be under construction during the first half of the week, after Elijah/Witnesses conquers the Muslims. Then The Mahdi will conquer Jerusalem and kill them and stop the sacrifice sin The Temple right after it was just finished being constructed.
Messiah The Prince in verse 25
The Messiah in verse 26
The Prince that shall come in verse 26
He in verse 27
The standard view among Christians who are Premillennial Futurists (and even some Preterists) has been that the first two are Jesus Christ and the last two the person we commonly call The Antichrist. Chris White however promotes a theory he didn't invent himself that makes each of the four something different. predicating it largely on how unclear it is which of the earlier personages the He in verse 27 appears to be.
However most people reading this Prophecy without a Christian starting point, as well as many Christians who are Preterist, see the clear grammatical logic as saying all four are the same person.
When verse 25 says to await the coming of a Messiah The Prince and then verse 26 says The Prince that shall come logic dictates that it's the same Prince. And if there aren't two or three different people refereed to earlier, figuring out who He is, isn't that complicated.
It's also pretty much unique to Christians to see a Villain in any of the four references. Because you see the "he" after "Abominations" in the KJV of verse 27 isn't in the Hebrew. So the first He is not the one who sets it/them up. That can agree with seeing him as The Antichrist however, because in Revelation while The Image is of The Beast, it's the second beast (False Prophet) that sets it up and enforces it's worship.
I'm going to suggest that the traditional Christian view, and this "only one person is mentioned" view can both be right, via the principle of Double Fulfillment. I've already documented that there are Jews without a Christian bias who see the 70th Week as yet future and separated from the first 69. But I've also argued that seeing the 70th Week as being entirely fulfilled from 30-37 AD is more plausible then my fellow Futurists realize. Recently I've argued that some of our assumptions about how the End Times 70th Week will play out are wrong.
The suggestion that there is a Prophecy which is fulfilled by both Jesus and the Antichrist is certainly controversial. But Solomon was a type of both Jesus and The Antichrist. When doing well he was the near fulfillment of the Messianic Kingdom. But when he backslid, the number 666 was directly linked to him. Samson likewise has been argued to prefigure both, especially by those who see Genesis 49 as implying a Danite Antichrist. Saul could also be viewed this way.
The word "Antichrist" means, false Christ, or counterfeit Christ, or opposing Christ, or replacement Christ, or enemy of Christ. or antithesis of Christ, or opposite of Christ. I've seen several different meanings argued for it, but they all involve Christ, which is Greek for Messiah. Many Old Testament types of The Antichrist were anointed by true Prophets of God (Jeroboam and Jehu, also Solomon and Saul I already mentioned). Jesus refereed to Judas as someone He Choose, and Judas could perform divine Miracles by Jesus authority. Yet he was a Devil and the Son of Perdition.
And at any-rate, he'll need to be able to make Messianic Prophecies apply to him if he'll be a credible Messiah Ben-Joseph.
Given what I argued on those posts I linked to. This would mean his Mortal Wounding is at the beginning of the 70th week. We tend to assume that his Resurrection happens soon after his death. But I notice that there is no reference in Revelation to The Beast being active during the first half of The Week. The first undisputed appearance of The Beast is when he kills The Two Witnesses, and hes' already ascended out of The Pit by then.
I do agree that The First Horseman is likely the man who'll become The Beast. But I've become inclined to view all of the first 6 Seals as being right at the start of The Week, due to my Sixth Seal view and other things.
Maybe the opening of the First Seal has him doing his own Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, after winning many wars. Doing it maybe even on the same day Jesus did his, the 10th of Nisan. Then he is Crowned Messiah Ben-Joseph. But the next thing to happen is the Red Horseman. Who I argued in that same Four Horseman study could be The Antichrist's killer because of his Sword. And many Christians and Jews will assume that that killer is The Antichrist/Armillus.
My main False Prophet theory wouldn't have it be possible for him to have The False Prophet with him already at this point. But I could be wrong, he could also have a Prophet with him all through those Wars. They could together claim to Christians to be The Two Witnesses, and to Jews that they're Messiah Ben-Joseph and/or Elijah and/or The Prophet like unto Moses and/or the Priest of the order of Melchizedek and/or Enoch. And then people might selectively use the day=year theory to say that The Witnesses being dead three and a half days really means three and a half years.
This deception could fit what Perry Stone (who I respect and consider truly Saved) is predicting. He's saying that The Temple will be under construction during the first half of the week, after Elijah/Witnesses conquers the Muslims. Then The Mahdi will conquer Jerusalem and kill them and stop the sacrifice sin The Temple right after it was just finished being constructed.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Hippolytus of Rome (170–235), and Jewish sources on Gaps in Daniel
Hippolytus of Rome (170–235), was the only one of the Early Church Fathers to really write in depth on Eschatology. He was indisputably Futurist and Premillennial . But his understanding of the Return of Christ was also what we'd call today Post-Trib. I'm sorry Pre-Tirbbers but your desire to make it sound like the Church Fathers were pre-trib by taking their quotes on "imminence" out of context simply fails when reading everything they wrote.
I'm not bothered by the Church Fathers being wrong on the Rapture. Daniel 12 foretells that Knowledge of God's word would increase. And the Post-Trib error is the unavoidable consequence of replacement theology. Jesus returning more then once simply makes no sense if you don't understand there are two Covenant peoples he's returning for. This replacement theology was born out of the Church's reactions to the persecutions they faced from Jews during the Bar-Kochba revolt. These latter Christians weren't able to follow the example of Stephen. I said this before in my post on Ephream the Syrian.
Hippolytus like most early Christians believed the Witnesses were Enoch and Elijah. He believed Rome had to fall first and the 10 Horns were Kingdoms that would arise out of Rome's fall. Those are things I feel he was right on.
He also believed The Antichrist would be a Jew of The Tribe of Dan, and would claim to be The Jewish Messiah. He may be right on that too.
But he was also a date setter. He had an understanding of Chronology (partly based on the problematic Septuagint) that told him Jesus was crucified in the 5500th from Creation. And so he believed the Sabbath Millennium would start in 530 AD. That he didn't date set within his own life time shows a lack of personal bias. His date was wrong of course, but admittedly during the time period leading up to that date, the Western Empire had just fallen, and there were Messianic Samaritan and Jewish Revolts in the Holy Land. If there were people at the time familiar with him, it might have seemed like his predictions were coming to pass.
Among the ideas that critics of Dispensationalism like to accuse of being made up by Darby and others in the 1800s, is the idea of gaps in certain Old Testament Prophecies, particularly Daniel 9 and 11. And I've seen them abuse quotes from Hippolytus to try and back that up.
However reading his commentary on Daniel shows, that he viewed the first 69 Weeks as ending with Jesus, but that the 70th was yet Future. And likewise in Daniel 11, he viewed the first 35 verses as being The Hellenistic age, but that verses 36-45 were about a yet future Antichrist.
What might surprise one even more is to discover some Rabbinic Jewish sources who agree the 70th Week could be yet future, as well as the last part of Daniel 11.
Britam is a Rabbinic Jewish website that supports it's own unique form of British Israelism, but without any of Christian aspects of the idea. I don't desire to endorse British Israelism, but the site's commentaries on Daniel 9 and 11 are interesting.
Update September 2015: I no longer agree with the message of this post. A I have explained here.
I'm not bothered by the Church Fathers being wrong on the Rapture. Daniel 12 foretells that Knowledge of God's word would increase. And the Post-Trib error is the unavoidable consequence of replacement theology. Jesus returning more then once simply makes no sense if you don't understand there are two Covenant peoples he's returning for. This replacement theology was born out of the Church's reactions to the persecutions they faced from Jews during the Bar-Kochba revolt. These latter Christians weren't able to follow the example of Stephen. I said this before in my post on Ephream the Syrian.
Hippolytus like most early Christians believed the Witnesses were Enoch and Elijah. He believed Rome had to fall first and the 10 Horns were Kingdoms that would arise out of Rome's fall. Those are things I feel he was right on.
He also believed The Antichrist would be a Jew of The Tribe of Dan, and would claim to be The Jewish Messiah. He may be right on that too.
But he was also a date setter. He had an understanding of Chronology (partly based on the problematic Septuagint) that told him Jesus was crucified in the 5500th from Creation. And so he believed the Sabbath Millennium would start in 530 AD. That he didn't date set within his own life time shows a lack of personal bias. His date was wrong of course, but admittedly during the time period leading up to that date, the Western Empire had just fallen, and there were Messianic Samaritan and Jewish Revolts in the Holy Land. If there were people at the time familiar with him, it might have seemed like his predictions were coming to pass.
Among the ideas that critics of Dispensationalism like to accuse of being made up by Darby and others in the 1800s, is the idea of gaps in certain Old Testament Prophecies, particularly Daniel 9 and 11. And I've seen them abuse quotes from Hippolytus to try and back that up.
However reading his commentary on Daniel shows, that he viewed the first 69 Weeks as ending with Jesus, but that the 70th was yet Future. And likewise in Daniel 11, he viewed the first 35 verses as being The Hellenistic age, but that verses 36-45 were about a yet future Antichrist.
The source I copied that from has apparent typos I chose not to correct. I assume "Test of the week" should mean "rest of the week".39. Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every god, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: "And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." As also it was announced to Daniel: "And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed"--that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the test of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: "And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days."
What might surprise one even more is to discover some Rabbinic Jewish sources who agree the 70th Week could be yet future, as well as the last part of Daniel 11.
Britam is a Rabbinic Jewish website that supports it's own unique form of British Israelism, but without any of Christian aspects of the idea. I don't desire to endorse British Israelism, but the site's commentaries on Daniel 9 and 11 are interesting.
[Daniel 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.And
These verses are also applicable to future events leading up to the Messianic Age.
They don't see Jesus in the first 69 weeks of course, but that's not the point I'm seeking to prove here.Until now the account has quite faithfully followed the historical developments that did indeed occur exactly as described. From here on Scripture seems to depart somewhat and enter another future realm.
In effect we may say that this present chapter of Daniel although apparently dedicated to the Maccabee Period and what preceded it in effect is proto-typical. It is referring to the end times and using historical events as a pattern for future end-time prophecy.
Update September 2015: I no longer agree with the message of this post. A I have explained here.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Playing Devil's Advocate on the Seventieth Week
This is a follow up to my earlier post proving 7 years from Revelation.
In terms of those Futurists who view the 70th Week as past, I decided I want to give a fair open minded look at their view. Problem is, they don't even view the first 69 Weeks the same as I do (from the ones I've encountered). Now I am open minded to being proven wrong on that too, if you feel you have a sufficient fatal flaw to my argument feel free to leave one as a comment.
But for now, if you want to convince me of a Preterist view of the 70th Week, it's gonna need to be a view that has the 70th Week being from Nisan of 30 AD to Nisan of 37 AD. And the Crucifixion in that Nisan of 30 AD. Moving The Cross to the middle of The Week simply doesn't work.
I decided to look for myself at this Seven year period, to see if playing Devil's Advocate I could make that argument myself. But also with the thought as someone who believers in types and near fulfillments, that the 7 years following the end of the 69th Week could be a minor prefiguring of the true final 70th Week.
My view on The Sixth Seal actually lends itself to that. Based on the Sixth Seal parallels to Joel 2:28-32 and how Peter uses that same Joel passage in Acts 2. I argue that the Earthquake and Darkening of The Sun that happened as Jesus was on The Cross was a prefiguring of the Terrestrial and Cosmic Signs of the Sixth Seal. And with that I think the Sixth Seal will be opened on the 14th day of the Nisan that starts the 70th Week. And that the Sealing of the 144,000 will be on the following Pentecost, it'll be another great outpouring of The Holy Spirit.
So in a sense it may be as if the initiation of the 70th Week is also God sort of resetting his Clock back to 30 AD. But I would not build doctrine or date setting on anything I'm gonna suggest below. This is just fun conjecture.
With a connection made to the beginning, I decided to look at the end. It's not agreed universally which spring full moon correlated to Passover in 37 AD, it could've been March or April. But the one in March was around the 21st-23rd and the Seventeenth fell on a Sunday again like it did in 30, this time it was March 25th.
The 16th of March that year was the day Tiberius died, awfully close. And that Passover season close to Tiberius's death plays a key role in Josephus's account (Book 18 Chapter 4) of when Pilate was removed from his governorship.
Pilate is usually assumed to have been removed way back in the late summer or fall of 36. But I can't help but feel reading Josephus like it was closer to when Tiberius actually died. And others have as well, but the main such source I read does so arguing for a 37 AD Crucifixion, and then tying that into all kinds of other heresies.
It's not just Pilate and Tiberius. It seems 36 and 37 AD saw the either deaths or removal from power of all the figures Luke 3:1-2 states were in power at that time. Perhaps it prefigures how when the 70th Week begins, only one week is left for the current World Order.
But on the subject of Pilate's Removal. The Josephus account includes a sort of False Messiah or False Prophet figure of the Samaritans who helped get them riled up, and who remains unnamed.
The Samaritan chronicler Abul Fath mentions a sect headed by a R. Zadok which was tied to the heretic who claimed to be the “booth” or “booths” of the new Tabernacle. He speaks of “five brothers who from [the Samaritan holy mountain Gerizim] who were called [the Sons of Zadoq] and also another man called Zadoq the Elder from Bayt Far who deviated from “booths” and his companions, saying that Mount Gerizim is as holy as if the Samaritan temple were [still] standing upon it and that while one was obligated to do what was written [in the Law of Moses] he need not do what was not possible for him.” His community apparently “invoked him by the name mentioned [in the report of Booths] above, i.e. the Mediator, and agreed with [Booths] about abolishing … the rule of “Moses commanded for us a Law” [Deut 33:4]
I think, maybe these were the same individuals. There are other reasons to view Acts 6-11 as being about 37 AD. Wikipedia speculates that the martyrdom of Stephen must've been during the brief administration of Marcellus. And Paul synchronizes the time of his Conversion to when Aretas controlled Damascus (2 Corinthians 11:32). Which he didn't before Caligula became Emperor.
So that's the end of The Week, what about it's middle? Tishri of 33 AD?
33 AD is a complicated year to study, web searches for it will have to shift through those referencing it thinking the Crucifixion was that year. Nothing is known to be exactly dated to that year that resembles The Abomination of Desolation. But the main thing that causes people to argue for the Crucifixion being that year, is itself interesting to look at.
That being a desire starting from some Early Church Fathers to identify an Eclipse and Earthquake mentioned by Thallus placed as occurring in Bythia and Asia Minor in 33 AD as the one that happen when Jesus was on the Cross. He's quoted by Julius Africanus without much context. Apologetic circles want to think Thallus himself was connecting this to Jesus, and Africanus accusing him of trying to naturalize the darkness as an eclipse. But it seems more likely to me that Africanus simply assumed based on this being during the reign of Tiberius it was the same Darkness and Earthquake. Problem is, it occurred in parts of Asia Minor, effecting some of the same cities that had the Churches of Revelation 2-3, not in Judea.
Revelation does also link Earthquakes to the Middle of the Seventieth Week, both the Rapture of The Witnesses and the Seventh Trumpet.
The Annals of Tacitus was year by year, so it's interesting to look at, but he was recording Roman History not Jewish. Sadly nothing in Josephus seems to be linked to this year. The events our copies of Jospehus place between the Testemonim Flavinium and the drama that removed Pilate, are events Tacitus places before Pilate became Prefect of Judea.
33 AD is the year of the consulship of Servius Galba and Lucius Sulla (the whole year is named for them even though they didn't serve the entire year. Their consulship began at it's start). This Galba it may interest you to know is the same one who latter overthrew Nero and began the year of the Four Caesars. Tacitus recounts a probably urban legend that Tiberius said something which foretold him being Emperor some day during this Consulship. Which Tiberius supposedly knew because of Thrasyllus.
I find it interesting that the first thing we're told of this year by Tacitus is that the same two men who were the Consuls for 30 AD, Tiberius decided that year to marry to the two still unmarried daughters of Germanicus, Julia Livilla and Drusilla. Later these same two men are who Tiberius sent to help Asia Minor after the Earthquake mentioned above. Vinicius married Livilla and Longinus married Drusilla. A cousin of Longinus who was Consul later in 30 AD also married a descendant of Julia the Younger about this time.
A Financial Crisis happened in Rome this year, perhaps not unlike the one that will ravage the world when the Black Horseman rides. Agrippina the Elder and her son Drusus died this year as well. Also Nerva, a close friend of Tiberius.
I'm afraid Tacitus doesn't say much helping determine when in the year each event happened.
Another thing that makes people support a 32 or 33 AD Passover for the Death of Jesus is the Blood Moon Theory. A Tetrad of Lunar Eclipses happened on the 15ths of Nisan and Tishri of both 32 and 33 A.D.
Problems with this are many. The Blood Moon theory is bunk, I recommend Chris White's debunking of it. And the one on Passover of 33 AD wasn't total or very visible in Jerusalem. And at any-rate most of the events Blitz links to his Blood Moons happened a year or two before each Tetrad started, so even then they fit a 30 AD Crucifixion better. Joel and Revelation's Blood Moons are simultaneous with Darkened Suns, they're not Eclipses. They're either totally supernatural, or caused by volcanic eruptions.
What I will note just for the sake of reference is, this Tetrad ended with one on Tabernacles of 33 AD, which is estimated to have fallen on September 27th. In light of my feeling that Revelation 12 could be describing when the Moon is under Virgo's feet on or soon after Rosh Hoshanah as the middle of The 70th Week roughly. I decided to look at when this occurred about half a month before that Lunar Eclipse. And Saturn was very close to Regulus in Leo, not quite a full conjunction, but very close. I think that is interesting.
Now if I'm going to be serious about this, let's break down the last two verses of Daniel 9.
Daniel 9:26-27. From the KJV
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:"
This is where we all agree, Jesus died in Nisan 30 AD.
"And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary".
This is why we tend to see 70 AD as during the Gap, or many Preterist models as when the 70 Weeks ends. But the Hebrew word translated "destroy" here also means corrupt, ruin or decay. It is used and translated corrupt in Daniel 11:17 "and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him." It's Aramaic form is in Daniel 2:9 "ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me". If the "Prince that shall Come" is in fact the same Prince from earlier in Daniel 9, then the People of the Prince refers to the Jewish people.
So Maybe the reason for the Cleansing of The Temple is what's in mind here.
"And the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
There were Wars going on at this time. Directly relevant to Israel were a few revolts Pilate had to deal with. And Herod Antipas had war with Aretas of Petra.
It could also be consistent with seeing the 70th week as 30-37 AD to also see here a somewhat preemptive statement about the wars that went on past then to 70 AD.
"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".
The common Preterist view is this refers not to the literal taking away of Sacrifice, but them being rendered null and void after The Crucifixion. And the Covenant here the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31.
This Preterist view is why people often want to make the Crucifixion the middle of The Week, not it's end. But the word translated "Midst" is also translated "Half" sometimes. Maybe it could be meant to read "for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".
What remains is simply what's taken as an allusion to The Abomination of Desolation, but it's not the exact phrase.
"and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
Note, the occurrence of "he" after Abomination isn't in the Hebrew text, so there is no guarantee the same person is behind it..
The Preterist view of 70 AD can't work with what Jesus specifically said (probably in reference to the Daniel 12 use of the term) of it being In The Holy Place.
But the Terminology in Daniel 9:27 is much less specific about where, and it does seem to imply more then one Idol being set up. And the word that is in some translations rendered "wing" can mean Wing, Corner, edge extremity, ect. So Preterists make a strong argument that this can refer to Titus setting the "Imago" of his Father and other Roman Idols like the standards with the Imperial Eagle on them, or the Fasces, by the Gate of The Temple in 70 AD.
Same with the Last verse of Daniel 11, the word for "tabernacles" simply means tent, and so they argue it refers to the Tents the Roman legions Camped in. Also as a supporter of the Southern Conjecture, I think the "Appeden" (Translated Palace) could be the Antonia Fortress which was where the Dome of The Rock currently is.
However, what most people haven't noticed is all those factors that could make those two things apply to Titus, can also apply to Pontius Pilate. Go back and read when Josephus first introduces his readers to Pilate in Antiquities of The Jews Book 18 Chapter 3.
So, a good argument can be made for a Preterist view of the 70 Weeks. The problem is, if the Covenant is the real New Covenant, how is it confirmed for only one week and not forever? Maybe the entire Church Age should be viewed as the 70th Week repeatably playing out in cycles until the true final fulfillment comes and we're Raptured in the Middle?
Or it could be notable that the parts of Acts I estimate to be seven years after The Cross corresponds to when The Gospel began to spread beyond just Jews and Judea. So likewise with my view on the 144,000 and the Sixth Seal when the true 70th Week begins The Gospel is again focused on Israel and Israelites.
Also, it could be interesting to read Acts 3 and 4 under a premise that Peter and John there are serving as types of The Two Witnesses.
In terms of those Futurists who view the 70th Week as past, I decided I want to give a fair open minded look at their view. Problem is, they don't even view the first 69 Weeks the same as I do (from the ones I've encountered). Now I am open minded to being proven wrong on that too, if you feel you have a sufficient fatal flaw to my argument feel free to leave one as a comment.
But for now, if you want to convince me of a Preterist view of the 70th Week, it's gonna need to be a view that has the 70th Week being from Nisan of 30 AD to Nisan of 37 AD. And the Crucifixion in that Nisan of 30 AD. Moving The Cross to the middle of The Week simply doesn't work.
I decided to look for myself at this Seven year period, to see if playing Devil's Advocate I could make that argument myself. But also with the thought as someone who believers in types and near fulfillments, that the 7 years following the end of the 69th Week could be a minor prefiguring of the true final 70th Week.
My view on The Sixth Seal actually lends itself to that. Based on the Sixth Seal parallels to Joel 2:28-32 and how Peter uses that same Joel passage in Acts 2. I argue that the Earthquake and Darkening of The Sun that happened as Jesus was on The Cross was a prefiguring of the Terrestrial and Cosmic Signs of the Sixth Seal. And with that I think the Sixth Seal will be opened on the 14th day of the Nisan that starts the 70th Week. And that the Sealing of the 144,000 will be on the following Pentecost, it'll be another great outpouring of The Holy Spirit.
So in a sense it may be as if the initiation of the 70th Week is also God sort of resetting his Clock back to 30 AD. But I would not build doctrine or date setting on anything I'm gonna suggest below. This is just fun conjecture.
With a connection made to the beginning, I decided to look at the end. It's not agreed universally which spring full moon correlated to Passover in 37 AD, it could've been March or April. But the one in March was around the 21st-23rd and the Seventeenth fell on a Sunday again like it did in 30, this time it was March 25th.
The 16th of March that year was the day Tiberius died, awfully close. And that Passover season close to Tiberius's death plays a key role in Josephus's account (Book 18 Chapter 4) of when Pilate was removed from his governorship.
Pilate is usually assumed to have been removed way back in the late summer or fall of 36. But I can't help but feel reading Josephus like it was closer to when Tiberius actually died. And others have as well, but the main such source I read does so arguing for a 37 AD Crucifixion, and then tying that into all kinds of other heresies.
It's not just Pilate and Tiberius. It seems 36 and 37 AD saw the either deaths or removal from power of all the figures Luke 3:1-2 states were in power at that time. Perhaps it prefigures how when the 70th Week begins, only one week is left for the current World Order.
But on the subject of Pilate's Removal. The Josephus account includes a sort of False Messiah or False Prophet figure of the Samaritans who helped get them riled up, and who remains unnamed.
"The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there"Acts 8:9-11 says of Simon Magus. " But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries."
The Samaritan chronicler Abul Fath mentions a sect headed by a R. Zadok which was tied to the heretic who claimed to be the “booth” or “booths” of the new Tabernacle. He speaks of “five brothers who from [the Samaritan holy mountain Gerizim] who were called [the Sons of Zadoq] and also another man called Zadoq the Elder from Bayt Far who deviated from “booths” and his companions, saying that Mount Gerizim is as holy as if the Samaritan temple were [still] standing upon it and that while one was obligated to do what was written [in the Law of Moses] he need not do what was not possible for him.” His community apparently “invoked him by the name mentioned [in the report of Booths] above, i.e. the Mediator, and agreed with [Booths] about abolishing … the rule of “Moses commanded for us a Law” [Deut 33:4]
I think, maybe these were the same individuals. There are other reasons to view Acts 6-11 as being about 37 AD. Wikipedia speculates that the martyrdom of Stephen must've been during the brief administration of Marcellus. And Paul synchronizes the time of his Conversion to when Aretas controlled Damascus (2 Corinthians 11:32). Which he didn't before Caligula became Emperor.
So that's the end of The Week, what about it's middle? Tishri of 33 AD?
33 AD is a complicated year to study, web searches for it will have to shift through those referencing it thinking the Crucifixion was that year. Nothing is known to be exactly dated to that year that resembles The Abomination of Desolation. But the main thing that causes people to argue for the Crucifixion being that year, is itself interesting to look at.
That being a desire starting from some Early Church Fathers to identify an Eclipse and Earthquake mentioned by Thallus placed as occurring in Bythia and Asia Minor in 33 AD as the one that happen when Jesus was on the Cross. He's quoted by Julius Africanus without much context. Apologetic circles want to think Thallus himself was connecting this to Jesus, and Africanus accusing him of trying to naturalize the darkness as an eclipse. But it seems more likely to me that Africanus simply assumed based on this being during the reign of Tiberius it was the same Darkness and Earthquake. Problem is, it occurred in parts of Asia Minor, effecting some of the same cities that had the Churches of Revelation 2-3, not in Judea.
Revelation does also link Earthquakes to the Middle of the Seventieth Week, both the Rapture of The Witnesses and the Seventh Trumpet.
The Annals of Tacitus was year by year, so it's interesting to look at, but he was recording Roman History not Jewish. Sadly nothing in Josephus seems to be linked to this year. The events our copies of Jospehus place between the Testemonim Flavinium and the drama that removed Pilate, are events Tacitus places before Pilate became Prefect of Judea.
33 AD is the year of the consulship of Servius Galba and Lucius Sulla (the whole year is named for them even though they didn't serve the entire year. Their consulship began at it's start). This Galba it may interest you to know is the same one who latter overthrew Nero and began the year of the Four Caesars. Tacitus recounts a probably urban legend that Tiberius said something which foretold him being Emperor some day during this Consulship. Which Tiberius supposedly knew because of Thrasyllus.
I find it interesting that the first thing we're told of this year by Tacitus is that the same two men who were the Consuls for 30 AD, Tiberius decided that year to marry to the two still unmarried daughters of Germanicus, Julia Livilla and Drusilla. Later these same two men are who Tiberius sent to help Asia Minor after the Earthquake mentioned above. Vinicius married Livilla and Longinus married Drusilla. A cousin of Longinus who was Consul later in 30 AD also married a descendant of Julia the Younger about this time.
A Financial Crisis happened in Rome this year, perhaps not unlike the one that will ravage the world when the Black Horseman rides. Agrippina the Elder and her son Drusus died this year as well. Also Nerva, a close friend of Tiberius.
I'm afraid Tacitus doesn't say much helping determine when in the year each event happened.
Another thing that makes people support a 32 or 33 AD Passover for the Death of Jesus is the Blood Moon Theory. A Tetrad of Lunar Eclipses happened on the 15ths of Nisan and Tishri of both 32 and 33 A.D.
Problems with this are many. The Blood Moon theory is bunk, I recommend Chris White's debunking of it. And the one on Passover of 33 AD wasn't total or very visible in Jerusalem. And at any-rate most of the events Blitz links to his Blood Moons happened a year or two before each Tetrad started, so even then they fit a 30 AD Crucifixion better. Joel and Revelation's Blood Moons are simultaneous with Darkened Suns, they're not Eclipses. They're either totally supernatural, or caused by volcanic eruptions.
What I will note just for the sake of reference is, this Tetrad ended with one on Tabernacles of 33 AD, which is estimated to have fallen on September 27th. In light of my feeling that Revelation 12 could be describing when the Moon is under Virgo's feet on or soon after Rosh Hoshanah as the middle of The 70th Week roughly. I decided to look at when this occurred about half a month before that Lunar Eclipse. And Saturn was very close to Regulus in Leo, not quite a full conjunction, but very close. I think that is interesting.
Now if I'm going to be serious about this, let's break down the last two verses of Daniel 9.
Daniel 9:26-27. From the KJV
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:"
This is where we all agree, Jesus died in Nisan 30 AD.
"And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary".
This is why we tend to see 70 AD as during the Gap, or many Preterist models as when the 70 Weeks ends. But the Hebrew word translated "destroy" here also means corrupt, ruin or decay. It is used and translated corrupt in Daniel 11:17 "and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him." It's Aramaic form is in Daniel 2:9 "ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me". If the "Prince that shall Come" is in fact the same Prince from earlier in Daniel 9, then the People of the Prince refers to the Jewish people.
So Maybe the reason for the Cleansing of The Temple is what's in mind here.
"And the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
There were Wars going on at this time. Directly relevant to Israel were a few revolts Pilate had to deal with. And Herod Antipas had war with Aretas of Petra.
It could also be consistent with seeing the 70th week as 30-37 AD to also see here a somewhat preemptive statement about the wars that went on past then to 70 AD.
"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".
The common Preterist view is this refers not to the literal taking away of Sacrifice, but them being rendered null and void after The Crucifixion. And the Covenant here the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31.
This Preterist view is why people often want to make the Crucifixion the middle of The Week, not it's end. But the word translated "Midst" is also translated "Half" sometimes. Maybe it could be meant to read "for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".
What remains is simply what's taken as an allusion to The Abomination of Desolation, but it's not the exact phrase.
"and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
Note, the occurrence of "he" after Abomination isn't in the Hebrew text, so there is no guarantee the same person is behind it..
The Preterist view of 70 AD can't work with what Jesus specifically said (probably in reference to the Daniel 12 use of the term) of it being In The Holy Place.
But the Terminology in Daniel 9:27 is much less specific about where, and it does seem to imply more then one Idol being set up. And the word that is in some translations rendered "wing" can mean Wing, Corner, edge extremity, ect. So Preterists make a strong argument that this can refer to Titus setting the "Imago" of his Father and other Roman Idols like the standards with the Imperial Eagle on them, or the Fasces, by the Gate of The Temple in 70 AD.
Same with the Last verse of Daniel 11, the word for "tabernacles" simply means tent, and so they argue it refers to the Tents the Roman legions Camped in. Also as a supporter of the Southern Conjecture, I think the "Appeden" (Translated Palace) could be the Antonia Fortress which was where the Dome of The Rock currently is.
However, what most people haven't noticed is all those factors that could make those two things apply to Titus, can also apply to Pontius Pilate. Go back and read when Josephus first introduces his readers to Pilate in Antiquities of The Jews Book 18 Chapter 3.
"BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on whichAll the same factors are there. The Roman garrisons, the plural Idols to Caesar. And Josephus specifies Pilate was the First Roman to do this. And his "Judgment Seat" probably the same seat he Tried Jesus from, was part of the Antonia Fortress.account the former procurators were wont to make theirentry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he wouldremove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in theirrequest , on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in theopen place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea."
So, a good argument can be made for a Preterist view of the 70 Weeks. The problem is, if the Covenant is the real New Covenant, how is it confirmed for only one week and not forever? Maybe the entire Church Age should be viewed as the 70th Week repeatably playing out in cycles until the true final fulfillment comes and we're Raptured in the Middle?
Or it could be notable that the parts of Acts I estimate to be seven years after The Cross corresponds to when The Gospel began to spread beyond just Jews and Judea. So likewise with my view on the 144,000 and the Sixth Seal when the true 70th Week begins The Gospel is again focused on Israel and Israelites.
Also, it could be interesting to read Acts 3 and 4 under a premise that Peter and John there are serving as types of The Two Witnesses.
On The Issue of The Seventieth Week of Daniel
There are some Christians out there who are Preterist in their understanding of the 70 Weeks of Daniel including the 70th. But still Premillennial, and Futurist in their understanding of Revelation, Matthew 24 and other parts of Daniel. They believe there is no gap between the 69th and 70th Week, and that the 70 Weeks prophecy has no connection to Revelation or the End Times. They are all "Post-Trib" from what I've seen so far.
This belief itself can have different forms in how they believe the 70 Weeks are already fulfilled. The point is they believe it is the great error of most Futurists to force a 7 year time period into their understanding of Revelation. They insist Revelation and Daniel 12 all repeatedly define the time period of the End Times as 42 Months, 1260 days, Time Times and half a Time, ect.
That this time peirod happens to be half of seven years, and Daniel 9:27 happens to divide it's 70th week in half, and Daniel 12 again brings up the Abomination of Desolation in one of those time period references, is all just a coincidence.
Related to this is another view that there is a gap, but the gap is in the middle of the 70th week, not between the last two weeks. That Jesus on the Cross marks the mid-Way point of the 70th Week, not the end of the 69th as a plain reading implies.
They wouldn't consider what I pointed out above a coincidence. But they view the first half as having nothing to do with Revelation, and so would agree that all references to 3.5 years in Revelation are about the same time period. There is no coming seven year period.
Problem is, the 42 months of Revelation 11:2 and 1260 days of Revelation 12:6 can't be the same time period. In the former Israel controls The Temple, the Gentiles only have the Outer Court, but in the Latter they're hiding in The Wilderness.
There are two ways they would respond to this argument of mine.
Some would allegories 11:2, the Temple and Holy City there is The Church, not Jerusalem. And the Outer Court being Trodden Under Foot refers to either 1. Persecution, or 2. fake Christians within the Church. They argue this Holy City can't be the Same as terrestrial Jerusalem described latter as "Spiritually Sodom and Egypt". But that is always the nature of Jerusalem in the Old Testament. She constantly falls into a Sinful State , but God never ceases considering her his Holy City.
The alternative is to reject the The Woman being Israel, or at least National Israel, bringing replacement theology into it. Saying she's The Church, or part of The Church. Or keeping her as National Israel but only the believing Remnant. Such views convolute things too much.
So yes, a Seven Year time peirod can be demonstrated from Revelation alone, without turning to Daniel.
I believe Revelation 11's 3.5 year references are the first half of the 70th Week. The Seventh Trumpet marks the midway point and The Rapture, and then the 3.5 year references in Revelation 12 and 13 are the second half.
I've elaborated on this here.
This belief itself can have different forms in how they believe the 70 Weeks are already fulfilled. The point is they believe it is the great error of most Futurists to force a 7 year time period into their understanding of Revelation. They insist Revelation and Daniel 12 all repeatedly define the time period of the End Times as 42 Months, 1260 days, Time Times and half a Time, ect.
That this time peirod happens to be half of seven years, and Daniel 9:27 happens to divide it's 70th week in half, and Daniel 12 again brings up the Abomination of Desolation in one of those time period references, is all just a coincidence.
Related to this is another view that there is a gap, but the gap is in the middle of the 70th week, not between the last two weeks. That Jesus on the Cross marks the mid-Way point of the 70th Week, not the end of the 69th as a plain reading implies.
They wouldn't consider what I pointed out above a coincidence. But they view the first half as having nothing to do with Revelation, and so would agree that all references to 3.5 years in Revelation are about the same time period. There is no coming seven year period.
Problem is, the 42 months of Revelation 11:2 and 1260 days of Revelation 12:6 can't be the same time period. In the former Israel controls The Temple, the Gentiles only have the Outer Court, but in the Latter they're hiding in The Wilderness.
There are two ways they would respond to this argument of mine.
Some would allegories 11:2, the Temple and Holy City there is The Church, not Jerusalem. And the Outer Court being Trodden Under Foot refers to either 1. Persecution, or 2. fake Christians within the Church. They argue this Holy City can't be the Same as terrestrial Jerusalem described latter as "Spiritually Sodom and Egypt". But that is always the nature of Jerusalem in the Old Testament. She constantly falls into a Sinful State , but God never ceases considering her his Holy City.
The alternative is to reject the The Woman being Israel, or at least National Israel, bringing replacement theology into it. Saying she's The Church, or part of The Church. Or keeping her as National Israel but only the believing Remnant. Such views convolute things too much.
So yes, a Seven Year time peirod can be demonstrated from Revelation alone, without turning to Daniel.
I believe Revelation 11's 3.5 year references are the first half of the 70th Week. The Seventh Trumpet marks the midway point and The Rapture, and then the 3.5 year references in Revelation 12 and 13 are the second half.
I've elaborated on this here.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
The 69th Week ended in 30 AD
Now for the Seventy Weeks Prophecy as a separate study. I studied when Jesus died here.
Daniel 9:24-27
Daniel 9:24-27
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. 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.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. 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.
Why
the 7 and 62 weeks are distinct I don't know, I'm sure there is a
reason, but distinct or not they're consecutive, the only gap is between
the 69th and the 70th weeks, a gap that included the Destruction of the
Temple is 70 AD. One possible theory I'm considering is that Nisan of
405 B.C. is when Malachi's book was published, closing the canon of the
Hebrew Bible (what we often call The Old Testament).
Interpreting this as referring to 490 years is NOT the Day=Year theory because neither Day or Year is used. The Hebrew word translated "week" here simply means seven and can refer to seven of anything. Leviticus 25 refers to Sabbaths of years. The context of this prophecy was Daniel praying at the end of the 70 year captivity, so the context is years. 2 Chronicles 36:21 cites one of the reasons for a 70 years captivity is that for 490 years they'd failed to keep the sabbatical year.
Ezra and Nehemiah record about 4 different Decrees issued by Persian Kings. Cyrus's decree is the most famous and the first, but the text of the 70 weeks prophecy specifies the entire City including Wall be rebuilt. But the Biblical references make clear that is the 4th and final one at the beginning of Nehemiah. The text in Daniel 9 doesn't refer to The Temple's rebuilding at all.
People have tried to argue from Extra Biblical conjectures that the wall was included in Cyrus's decree anyway, but the texts of the Decree at the end of II Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra talk only about The Temple. Isaiah 44 and 45 do speak of the City, but NO mention is made of the Wall. In a poetic sense the rebuilding of The Temple begins the rebuilding of the City, but to ignore the significance that the Wall was not rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah is to miss the entire point of the narrative of Ezra, that the lack of the Wall kept hindering their attempts to rebuild the City.
The decree recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8 was given in Nisan, the same month as Passover. One argument against the Nehemiah decree is we don't know the exact day, only the month. All the text of Daniel 9 deals with is years however and Nisan is Biblically the first Month of the Year, so I never word my interpretation of Daniel 9 as saying it was fulfilled to the exact day, only the year. The day the Messiah arrives as well as the day he is cut off is determined by understanding the Spring Feasts. Nehemiah also prayed the same Prayer Daniel prayed in Daniel 9, he's clearly linked to this prophecy.
So clearly the Nisan exactly 483 years latter must be when The Messiah was to be Cut Off. This decree is often erroneously dated to 445 or 444 B.C. Because Nehemiah dates it to the Nisan of the Twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and the beginning of Artaxerxes' reign and the death of Xerxes is dated to 465 B.C. because of Ptolemys' chronicle of Babylonian kings which ignores co-regencies.
Thucydides mentions that the accession of Artaxerxes had taken place before the flight of Themistocles. This places the start of his reign 473 or 474 B.C. And give the date of 454-455 B.C. as his twentieth year and the date of the decree.
Themistocles Seeks Protection from Artaxerxes.
This famous Greek grand-admiral, war hero of the Battle of Salamis, suffered a radical change of fortune. At the time of the betrayal of the Spartan hero, Pausanias, Themistocles, rightly or wrongly, was also implicated of treason toward the very nation-state that he protected. And, having learned of the death penalty meted out to Pausanius - he was actually walled in in the very temple where he sought refuge! - Themistocles decided to not wait for a similar fate. He journeyed to Persia for refuge. Having fought valiantly against the father, Xerxes, he sought protection of the son, Artaxerxes.
Themistocles Meets Artaxerxes, not Xerxes.
First, the passage from Thucydides. Themistocles escaped across the Aegean to Ephesus. The history continues...
"He then travelled inland with one of the Persians living on the coast and sent a letter Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, who had recently come to the throne."
An Eclipse helps to fix the date.
Although this relatively late period of Greek history (in which we have Themistocles's flight) is fairly accurately settled in history (that is, there is no serious controversy as to the dates), one more event transpires that is absolutely ironclad: a near-total eclipse of the sun on August 3rd, 431 BC, at the very beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
Why is this ironclad? There is no slop factor involved. Eclipses can be both predicted as future certainties and corroborated as historical events. Such is the case with the eclipse of 431 BC that Thucydides describes. The NASA website describes this account of Thucydides as the "[o]ldest European record of a verifiable solar eclipse (annular)"
How does this relate to the first event, the flight of Themistocles? They are both reported in the famous History of the Peloponnesian War of Thucydides, a carefully calibrated account that relates all events described (except the very early history of the first chapters) according to a unified chronological frame of reference.
To know the date of the solar eclipse, 431 BC (modernly verified by NASA, for those who require such proof) is to know, by reading the History, the date of the flight of Themistocles, 473 BC. To know that date is to know also the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, which happened just a short while before this, 474 or 473 BC.
Numerous Egyptian records also corroborate that Artaxerxes co-ruled with Xerxes during the last decade of Xerxes reign.
So the Decree was in fact issued in the Nisan of 454 BC. 483 years latter takes us to the Nisan of 30 AD.
Ussher agreed with this date for Artaxerxes 20th year, but still insisted on a 33 A.D. Crucifixion, so he insisted the date pointed to the Baptism.
Those trying to make this point to 32 or 33 AD (starting from the incorrect 444 or 445 B.C. date for the Decree) by talking about "God's calendar is 360 days" are just torturing the data. The Jews always synchronized their Lunar calendar to the Solar cycle.
There is a trend of even some Christians, even Futurist/Premillennial ones, arguing that "Messiah the Prince" does not refer to Jesus, or The Messiah at all. First they argue that the definite article "ha" isn't used before Messiah here. The text does use in place of the usual definite article the Hebrew letters Ayin and Res, this is usually left untranslated. Ayin-Resh is the Hebrew word for city. It's foretelling the arrival in Jerusalem of that City's Anointed One and Prince.
The word Messiah is used of individuals who aren't Jesus often, I know. But this is actually the most unique of ALL uses of the word Messiah, only here is it so uniquely paired with the word Nagiyd, not the more common and mundane Sar. I've seen it erroneously claimed Nagyid is a Persian word not Hebrew. If it were Persian in origin the only Biblical texts it could appear in are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and perhaps the very end of II Chronicles. But it's used by Ezekiel in 28:2 (the "Prince" of Tyre here is distinct from The King), many times in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, in Jeremiah and in the Psalms, and Proverbs. And even in Job, which is possibly older then the completion of the Torah in the days of Moses.
It's a far more important and precise occurrence then just using an equivalent of "The". To me No usage of the word is more indisputably about The Messiah Ben-David promised in II Samuel 7. The Triumphal entry wasn't the only time Jesus entered Jerusalem, but it is the only time he did so in a way that matched Zachariah 9:9's prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, with the people singing Psalm 118.
A claim exists that in verse 25 a period should be after the Seven Weeks and before the 62, and that it's only after the 7 weeks that "Messiah the Prince" appears. This is not justified by the Greens inter-lineal Bible I have at all. Messiah is "cut off" AFTER the 62 weeks have ended.
I've seen some argue the translation "Messiah" as "Anointed One" in verse 26 is inaccurate. This shows complete ignorance of Hebrew, the letter Yot being used in the word the way it is here makes it always a noun, a separate word, messah, is used to simply mean anointing or to anoint. This argument uses the Septuagint version to back itself up. I need to do a whole study on just the Septuagint someday, the Septuagint is very problematic for many reasons and in my view Christians need to stop using it like they do.
This interpretation tries to get the 62 weeks to end in 70 A.D. by citing the same nonsense about the Persian Empire's history being wrong to support the Sedar Olam's dating system on which the modern Jewish calendar is based. This won't hold up under scrutiny because it is well known the Sedar Olam's dates were deliberately fudged to try and make the 70 weeks prophecy point to Bar Kochba, who lived roughly a century too late. We also have Greek kings-lists backing p the Length of this period, due to Alexander I of Macedon being involved in the first two Persian wars.
The core of this argument is that the focus of the 70 weeks prophecy is about The Temple and Jerusalem, and nothing significant happened there when Jesus died. Their forgetting something important. Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45 all record then when Jesus died on The Cross "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;". The Temple physically stood for another 40 years, but it's Mosaic anointing ended when Jesus finally became the true Sacrificial offering all the others were only rehearsals for. I'll again quote the Talmud Yoma 39b
Interpreting this as referring to 490 years is NOT the Day=Year theory because neither Day or Year is used. The Hebrew word translated "week" here simply means seven and can refer to seven of anything. Leviticus 25 refers to Sabbaths of years. The context of this prophecy was Daniel praying at the end of the 70 year captivity, so the context is years. 2 Chronicles 36:21 cites one of the reasons for a 70 years captivity is that for 490 years they'd failed to keep the sabbatical year.
Ezra and Nehemiah record about 4 different Decrees issued by Persian Kings. Cyrus's decree is the most famous and the first, but the text of the 70 weeks prophecy specifies the entire City including Wall be rebuilt. But the Biblical references make clear that is the 4th and final one at the beginning of Nehemiah. The text in Daniel 9 doesn't refer to The Temple's rebuilding at all.
People have tried to argue from Extra Biblical conjectures that the wall was included in Cyrus's decree anyway, but the texts of the Decree at the end of II Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra talk only about The Temple. Isaiah 44 and 45 do speak of the City, but NO mention is made of the Wall. In a poetic sense the rebuilding of The Temple begins the rebuilding of the City, but to ignore the significance that the Wall was not rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah is to miss the entire point of the narrative of Ezra, that the lack of the Wall kept hindering their attempts to rebuild the City.
The decree recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8 was given in Nisan, the same month as Passover. One argument against the Nehemiah decree is we don't know the exact day, only the month. All the text of Daniel 9 deals with is years however and Nisan is Biblically the first Month of the Year, so I never word my interpretation of Daniel 9 as saying it was fulfilled to the exact day, only the year. The day the Messiah arrives as well as the day he is cut off is determined by understanding the Spring Feasts. Nehemiah also prayed the same Prayer Daniel prayed in Daniel 9, he's clearly linked to this prophecy.
So clearly the Nisan exactly 483 years latter must be when The Messiah was to be Cut Off. This decree is often erroneously dated to 445 or 444 B.C. Because Nehemiah dates it to the Nisan of the Twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and the beginning of Artaxerxes' reign and the death of Xerxes is dated to 465 B.C. because of Ptolemys' chronicle of Babylonian kings which ignores co-regencies.
Thucydides mentions that the accession of Artaxerxes had taken place before the flight of Themistocles. This places the start of his reign 473 or 474 B.C. And give the date of 454-455 B.C. as his twentieth year and the date of the decree.
Themistocles Seeks Protection from Artaxerxes.
This famous Greek grand-admiral, war hero of the Battle of Salamis, suffered a radical change of fortune. At the time of the betrayal of the Spartan hero, Pausanias, Themistocles, rightly or wrongly, was also implicated of treason toward the very nation-state that he protected. And, having learned of the death penalty meted out to Pausanius - he was actually walled in in the very temple where he sought refuge! - Themistocles decided to not wait for a similar fate. He journeyed to Persia for refuge. Having fought valiantly against the father, Xerxes, he sought protection of the son, Artaxerxes.
Themistocles Meets Artaxerxes, not Xerxes.
First, the passage from Thucydides. Themistocles escaped across the Aegean to Ephesus. The history continues...
"He then travelled inland with one of the Persians living on the coast and sent a letter Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, who had recently come to the throne."
An Eclipse helps to fix the date.
Although this relatively late period of Greek history (in which we have Themistocles's flight) is fairly accurately settled in history (that is, there is no serious controversy as to the dates), one more event transpires that is absolutely ironclad: a near-total eclipse of the sun on August 3rd, 431 BC, at the very beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
Why is this ironclad? There is no slop factor involved. Eclipses can be both predicted as future certainties and corroborated as historical events. Such is the case with the eclipse of 431 BC that Thucydides describes. The NASA website describes this account of Thucydides as the "[o]ldest European record of a verifiable solar eclipse (annular)"
How does this relate to the first event, the flight of Themistocles? They are both reported in the famous History of the Peloponnesian War of Thucydides, a carefully calibrated account that relates all events described (except the very early history of the first chapters) according to a unified chronological frame of reference.
To know the date of the solar eclipse, 431 BC (modernly verified by NASA, for those who require such proof) is to know, by reading the History, the date of the flight of Themistocles, 473 BC. To know that date is to know also the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, which happened just a short while before this, 474 or 473 BC.
Numerous Egyptian records also corroborate that Artaxerxes co-ruled with Xerxes during the last decade of Xerxes reign.
So the Decree was in fact issued in the Nisan of 454 BC. 483 years latter takes us to the Nisan of 30 AD.
Ussher agreed with this date for Artaxerxes 20th year, but still insisted on a 33 A.D. Crucifixion, so he insisted the date pointed to the Baptism.
Those trying to make this point to 32 or 33 AD (starting from the incorrect 444 or 445 B.C. date for the Decree) by talking about "God's calendar is 360 days" are just torturing the data. The Jews always synchronized their Lunar calendar to the Solar cycle.
There is a trend of even some Christians, even Futurist/Premillennial ones, arguing that "Messiah the Prince" does not refer to Jesus, or The Messiah at all. First they argue that the definite article "ha" isn't used before Messiah here. The text does use in place of the usual definite article the Hebrew letters Ayin and Res, this is usually left untranslated. Ayin-Resh is the Hebrew word for city. It's foretelling the arrival in Jerusalem of that City's Anointed One and Prince.
The word Messiah is used of individuals who aren't Jesus often, I know. But this is actually the most unique of ALL uses of the word Messiah, only here is it so uniquely paired with the word Nagiyd, not the more common and mundane Sar. I've seen it erroneously claimed Nagyid is a Persian word not Hebrew. If it were Persian in origin the only Biblical texts it could appear in are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and perhaps the very end of II Chronicles. But it's used by Ezekiel in 28:2 (the "Prince" of Tyre here is distinct from The King), many times in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, in Jeremiah and in the Psalms, and Proverbs. And even in Job, which is possibly older then the completion of the Torah in the days of Moses.
It's a far more important and precise occurrence then just using an equivalent of "The". To me No usage of the word is more indisputably about The Messiah Ben-David promised in II Samuel 7. The Triumphal entry wasn't the only time Jesus entered Jerusalem, but it is the only time he did so in a way that matched Zachariah 9:9's prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, with the people singing Psalm 118.
A claim exists that in verse 25 a period should be after the Seven Weeks and before the 62, and that it's only after the 7 weeks that "Messiah the Prince" appears. This is not justified by the Greens inter-lineal Bible I have at all. Messiah is "cut off" AFTER the 62 weeks have ended.
I've seen some argue the translation "Messiah" as "Anointed One" in verse 26 is inaccurate. This shows complete ignorance of Hebrew, the letter Yot being used in the word the way it is here makes it always a noun, a separate word, messah, is used to simply mean anointing or to anoint. This argument uses the Septuagint version to back itself up. I need to do a whole study on just the Septuagint someday, the Septuagint is very problematic for many reasons and in my view Christians need to stop using it like they do.
This interpretation tries to get the 62 weeks to end in 70 A.D. by citing the same nonsense about the Persian Empire's history being wrong to support the Sedar Olam's dating system on which the modern Jewish calendar is based. This won't hold up under scrutiny because it is well known the Sedar Olam's dates were deliberately fudged to try and make the 70 weeks prophecy point to Bar Kochba, who lived roughly a century too late. We also have Greek kings-lists backing p the Length of this period, due to Alexander I of Macedon being involved in the first two Persian wars.
The core of this argument is that the focus of the 70 weeks prophecy is about The Temple and Jerusalem, and nothing significant happened there when Jesus died. Their forgetting something important. Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45 all record then when Jesus died on The Cross "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;". The Temple physically stood for another 40 years, but it's Mosaic anointing ended when Jesus finally became the true Sacrificial offering all the others were only rehearsals for. I'll again quote the Talmud Yoma 39b
Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.
So
actually even what this wrong interpretation says the 62 weeks points
to happened in 30 A.D. So I've come to interpret "Messiah be cut off"
as having a double meaning, both referring to Jesus' death on the
Cross, and the removing of divine presence from The Temple when the veil
was torn.
Jerome records in his Letter to Hedibia 120.8 that some early altered versions of Matthew's Gospels added to Matthew 27:51 that the lintel of the Temple collapsed.
After the Triumphal Entry Luke 19:41 records that Jesus.
Jerome records in his Letter to Hedibia 120.8 that some early altered versions of Matthew's Gospels added to Matthew 27:51 that the lintel of the Temple collapsed.
After the Triumphal Entry Luke 19:41 records that Jesus.
And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
And
goes on to foretell Jerusalem's coming destruction. The people were
judged for failing to recognize prophecy had been fulfilled. And not
just because what he did matched what Zachariah 9:9 described, a false
Messiah could attempt such a thing. The phrase "in this thy day",
clearly tells us timing was the key. The context of the coming
destruction of Jerusalem clearly tells us to look to Daniel 9, no where
else does the Hebrew Bible speak of Jerusalem being destroyed again in
addition to the destruction in 588 BC. And then in verse 44 the matter
is made more clear "because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."
So using Scripture to interpret Scripture, that settles the matter for me.
All I'll say here on the 70th Week, is that based on the Interpretation I've laid out of the first 69, the 70th Week must begin with the consecration of the Third Temple. The view of some that it'll not be finished being built till the halfway point I feel is erroneous and potentially sets the stage of part of the End Time deception. My understanding of Revelation 11 being the first half of the 70th Week backs that up.
So using Scripture to interpret Scripture, that settles the matter for me.
All I'll say here on the 70th Week, is that based on the Interpretation I've laid out of the first 69, the 70th Week must begin with the consecration of the Third Temple. The view of some that it'll not be finished being built till the halfway point I feel is erroneous and potentially sets the stage of part of the End Time deception. My understanding of Revelation 11 being the first half of the 70th Week backs that up.
Update March 2024: A Huge Section of this was Copy/Pasted form somewhere else without credit and now I don't even remember what the source. I'm Sorry about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)