Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Hello all,

I had a few questions regarding this passage:

"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
(Daniel 9:24-27 NASB)

We all know that the first 69 weeks or 483 years starts from 455 B.C. and extends until "Messiah the Prince" appeared in A.D. 29. It's the next part that I find confusing.

"and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and and sanctuary And it's end will come with a flood....."

Who is this prince to come? It can't be "Messiah the Prince" can it? I would think not because "the people" of the Messiah did not come to destroy Jerusalem. If that is the case, then Vespasian is the "prince to come" and the people are Romans, because they destroyed the temple.

"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week"

The last "he" that was talked about was Vespasian and the Romans. What indicates that this is the case? Did Vespasian and the Romans "make a firm covenant with the man for one week"?

"but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

There are two possible interpretations:

1) The sacrifices stop because Jesus has made the sacrifice
2) The sacrifices stop because of the Romans and their desecration of the temple

I'd like to believe the first one, but I think context demands the second.

What do you think?

If the interpretation with the Romans is true, then this Prophecy might have an end time application....

The last verse is very similar to this verse:

"Forces from him (King of the North, generally thought to be Antiochus Epiphanes) will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice And they will set up the abomination of desolation.
(Daniel 11:31 NASB)

Also, another intersting related verse

"From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the (25)abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
(Daniel 12:11 NASB)

1290 days = just over 3.5 years, half the week.

It would seem that the second conclusion is more scriptural

Well, first let's take a look at the Greek Septuagint's rendering of this passage, because that is the translation that the early Christians used:

"Seventy weeks have been determined upon your people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, to seal up transgressions, to blot out iniquities, to make atonement for iniquities, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. And you shall know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem, until Christ the Prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. And after the sixty-two weeks, the Christ shall be killed, and there is no judgment in Him. And He shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is to come: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed He shall appoint the city to desolations. And one week shall establish the covenant with many. And in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation."

Notice that here it says the Christ himself will destroy the city "with the prince that is to come." In other words, the prince is Christ's tool. I agree that this is a Roman, but I think it's Titus, who actually destroyed Jerusalem.

In this version, the prince doesn't seem to have anything to do with the covenant.

The Septuagint isn't a perfect translation.  This is seen because of the additions to the book of Esther and the Aprocrapha.

The Bible doesn't say that the early christians used the Septuagint. I'm sure the Greeks did. And I'm sure that Jewish Christians would have used the Hebrew or Aramaic translations.

I do not think your explaination has much validity.  

Show me from the Hebrew, because the OT was written in Hebrew, not Greek.

The Hebrew Masoretic Text isn't perfect either.

The apostles' quotations of the Hebrew scriptures are from the Greek Septuagint. This is well-known.

Some favorite Christian texts that depend on the Greek, but lack any basis in the Hebrew text, are:

a. the gospels' citation of Isaiah 40:3 to certify that John was the "voice crying out in the wilderness."

b. Paul's interpretation (Gal. 3:10) of Deut. 27:26 to mean that anyone who fails to fulfill "all" the things writen in the Law is under a curse.

c. Matthew's use (Matt. 1:23) of Isaiah 7:14 to show that the prophet foretold a "virgin" birth.

There are many other quotations, also, that correspond to the Greek, rather than the Hebrew, version.

Sheesh, I'm only trying to help.

It seems highly implausible for an end time application for this prophecy. God specifically said ""Seventy weeks have been determined upon your people".

He didn't say "Sixty Nine weeks have been determined upon your people, and then let's just place the last week some time well into the future."

Let's make an illustration:
I ask to borrow 100 dollars from you, and say I will pay you back in 7 days. On the seventh day you come to ask me where the money is, and I say, "Well the first 6 days have already passed, and the last day actually comes 5 years from now."

It is the same logic that takes the last week of 70 consecutive weeks and places it 1000s of years into the future.

I'm sorry don, if I came off a bit rash....

I just find it a bit of a dubious way to explain the text.

If someone aks me how do you explain this text and I say, "Well all the english tranlations might nto have it quite right when they say "and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy...", the Septuagint is a bit better where it renders it "And He shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is to come."

If I did do this, my interpretation of the text would now depend on if the Septuagint accurately portarys the original Hebrew text.  Like I mentioned before, because of the apocrapha found in the Septuagint, I think it's just not that much of a solid base to stand on.

You're right, Titus was a prince, he was son of Vespasian who was emperor at the time. I hadn't thought of that.

The greek might not say it directly, but in the other places in Daniel it does make the connection.

So the next question, is verse 27 talking about the Messiah, or the prince to come?

To me it looks like it is talking about the prince to come, because of the close relation with Daniel 11:31 and 12:11

PS> Donbodo, what is the name of that English translation of the  Septuagint?

That's all nice but some this prophecy already has two fulfillments. The part in verses 26 and 27 about the prince who is to come, the Abomonation of Desolation, the stoping of the sacrifice, has two fulfillments at least. The first fulfillment of that part of the prophecy was fulfilled with Antiochus Epiphanes who desecrated the temple by dedicating it to Zeus and offering a pig on the altar in the most holy. The second is by Titus when the Roman forces under his command undermine the temple wall.

The possibility of a third fulfillment comes in because of the context of Jesus words in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21.

The question is, does this relate to the passage here,

"Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God." (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NASB)

Hi Mavos

You know, the more I read that passage, the more I realize that there is a certain ambiguity which allows for a future "abomination of desolation", if we assume this prophecy is roughly chronological.

Messiah is cut off after the 69th week (seven weeks and sixty-two weeks). Then the Romans (the "people of the prince who is to come") destroy Jerusalem and the Temple.

I feel "he" is actually the Messiah, since he is the principle character of this prophecy - the "prince who is to come" is an incidental character.

I find the phrase "covenant with the many" to be quite intriguing. In Revelation, we see a "great crowd" standing before the throne. Could this be the many referred to?

This is a highly ambiguous passage, in my opinion. If it is the Romans, hasn't that already been covered in the earlier verse? Maybe this is a future abomination.

This translation implies the destruction is poured out upon the desolator... but some translations imply it is being poured out upon the one lying desolate. There is an important difference.

Personally, I favour the destruction being poured out upon the desolator, since this harmonizes with Daniel's earlier visions.

For instance, in Daniel 7 the 4th beast wars with the saints for a time, times and half a time, before "the beast was killed and its body was destroyed and it was given to the burning fire." (7:11, NWT)

I appreciate that there are a multitude of interpretations for Daniel's prophecies, from Antiochus to the Preterists, Historicists and the Futurists.

Personally, I am a Futurist and I believe that the 4th beast of Daniel 7 (which is the same as the legs, feet and toes of Nebuchadnezzar's vision) represents the Roman empire and its "offspring" of ten horns, and an 11th rogue horn.

God's kingdom (as a "stone" in Daniel 2) does not crush all the other kingdoms until the finale, i.e. the 10 toes of the statue, and in Daniel 7, in the rulership of the 10 horns from which an 11th springs and persecutes the saints for 3.5 times (Daniel 7).

Daniel's later prophecies are simply elaborations of this earlier vision. The 70 weeks prophecy must be seen in the context of Nebuchnezzar's dream, and Daniel's vision of the four beasts.

In Nebuchadnezzar's vision, the stone strikes the feet of iron and clay (and therefore the 10 toes).

In Daniel's vision of the four beasts, the holy ones possess the kingdom after the 4th beast's 10 horns springs an 11th, which wars with the holy ones for 3.5 times.

In Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy, the "prince who is to come" (the Romans) destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. At some unspecified future time Jesus Christ confirms a covenant with "the many", while "on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate", until destruction is poured out upon this desolator - during the same war spoken of in earlier passages.

Dear Mavos,

The English translation of the Septuagint is "The Apostles Bible." You can find it here.

http://www.apostlesbible.com/

If the Septuagint was good enough for the apostles, why would it not be good enough for you? Should you be more picky than they were?

Regarding multiple fulfillments, I think it is much too convenient. If we are told there is a second fulfillment, then fine. But to suggest that there will be a third one, just because it suits us, well, that's going too far, in my opinion, especially when we pick and choose which parts of the prophecies get fulfilled again, as if we can leave some parts out. For example, if we are going to say that the 70-weeks prophecy has a 3rd fulfillment, then the whole thing should be fulfilled again, not just the 70th week. Otherwise we would be saying that prophecies get partially fulfilled, which is an impossibility.

I'm resurrecting this old thread, because I wanted to share a few new thoughts I had on the subject.

When are the 70 weeks?

Well, let's work back from week 70. Here is the description of it:

"And he [the Messiah] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is to come: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed He shall appoint the city to desolations. And one week shall establish the covenant with many. And in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation." (Dan 12:26b-27)

Now, Matthew speaks of this scripture in his account of Jesus' warning about the destruction of Jerusalem:

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains." (Matt. 24:15-16)

Luke, in his parallel account, tells is exactly what the "abomination of desolation" is and when it appears:

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled." (Luke 21:20-22)

So the Roman armies are the abomination of desolation, and their siege of Jerusalem marks the appearance of this abomination.

Looking back at Daniel 9, we see that the appearance of the abomination takes place "in the midst [or, middle] of the [70th] week." And the city to be destroyed must therefore be Jerusalem.

This would make the 70th week run from 66-73 CE, which just so happens to be the exact duration of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome.

Now, one would think that the other 69 weeks would count back from 66 CE, but I don't think that's the case. Here's why:

Gabriel tells Daniel, "There shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks;then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted. And after the sixty-two weeks, the Anointed One shall be killed, and there is no judgment in Him."

Now, notice that after the 7 and 62 weeks expire, "THEN the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall." In other words, a time shall come after 62 weeks, in which the streets and walls of [Jerusalem] shall be built after the "times shall be exhausted." Moreover, after the 62 weeks, also the Messiah will be killed. I would argue that all of these events--the building up of the city, and the killing of the Messiah--would come between the 69th and the 70th week. In other words, there is a gap of unknown duration.

Let's think about this a little further. When was the "street" and "wall" of Jerusalem rebuilt?

Now, it could be in the days of Nehemiah, when Nehemiah oversaw the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the exile. However, if we counted back 69 weeks from this time (approx. 440 BCE), we would end up too far in the past.

Another possibility is the time of Alexander Jannaeus, king of the Jews, who was responsible for the expansion of the city. The Upper City had been inhabited during biblical times, but was deserted after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 586 BCE and still uninhabited in Nehemiah's time. Alexander Jannaeus is largely responsible for rebuilding it and having people settle there. Herod the Great, after him, is also known for his building up of the city.

So let's say, just to test this theory, that the 69 weeks (7 + 62) ended in 103 BCE, when Alexander Jannaeus took the throne.

If we count back 62 weeks of years (434 years), we come to 537 BCE, the year that Jews returned to their homeland after the Babylonian captivity, the year that Cyrus told them to go back to their home and rebuild it. If we count 7 weeks of years further (49 years), we come to 586 BCE, the year that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians. Coincidence?

If this scheme is correct, here is how it would lay out:

1. 586 BCE. Jerusalem destroyed. Beginning of the 7 weeks.
2. 537 BCE. Cyrus gives the order to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Jews return. End of 7 weeks. Beginning of 62 weeks.
3. 103 BCE. The beginning of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, who finally completes the building of the city. End of 62 weeks.
4. 103 BCE-66 CE. The gap between the 69th and 70th week, in which the city is finished, and in which the Messiah is killed.
5. 66-73 CE. The Jewish Revolt. In the middle of the week, the city and the temple are destroyed and sacrifices cease.

What do you think?

How was the sacrifice of a pig on the altar at Jehovah's Temple an "abomination of desolation", if the Temple was restored to true worship 3 and a half years later?

So I think fulfillment #1 is faulty.

Re: Daniel 9:26,27

26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Mes·si´ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.

“And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until [the] end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations.

27 “And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.

“And upon the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate.”

Where it says: "the one lying desolate." Well this makes absolutely no sense to me, how does a place that's already desolate suffer more desolations? So I checked the WT footnote and it said:

Rbi8 Daniel 9:27

Possibly, “the one causing desolation.” Heb., sho·mem´, a participle developed from the po´`el form of participle, mesho·mem´, “the one causing desolation,” found earlier in this vs. See 8:13 ftn.

Well now, which is it??? That's two completely different meanings. I choose to go with the one that makes sense. The Antichrist gets destroyed by Jesus and and his angels. Bingo, what a nice fit.

The first fulfillment was of course the order from Darius to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem in 455 BC. The 483 years was fulfilled in 29CE and the 70th week began. At the half of the week Christ died with nothing for himself and caused the end of the Mosaic Law. He kept the "Covenant" in force for the week, and that week ended on Pentecost of 36CE. Once the Holy Spirit was poured out, the Covenant was enforced by the anointed Christian Congregation. The scripture does not SAY that the desolations came immediately at the end of the 70th week.

If there was another fulfillment, what would happen if that covenant was violated by God's house? Wouldn't it need the invisible presence of Christ to enforce it again? No lets say if when Christ begins his presence and the GT breaks out, the anointed come under attack in order to be refined, but the "earth" comes to the woman's help and she is fed in the wilderness for 3 1/2 years. Well what if those included those anointed who leave the Watchtower at that time, and join some of you here on this board who are anointed and now you are all in the "wilderness", because the WT is corrupt and the man of lawlessness is residing there in the Temple of the True God.

Now I have to think of the time Jesus says to "flee Jerusalem" and "get out of her my people" because the Antichrist has been revealed right inside the anointed Christian Congregation. Granted, I understand that it is hard to imagine that some JW could mislead the world to it's destruction, but remember that the false prophet in Revelation blasphemes "God's name and his residence". Who else uses God's name? I think the answer might be that at first there is a composite "man of lawlessness" which is the "New World Order". But the NWO at first seems like the answer to man's problems and everyone worships it, especially after it creates "order out of chaos" by "saving" the world from nuclear holocaust. It's just the same old form of extortion that you all saw in "The Godfather".

So at the half of the week, gift offering and sacrifice cease because The Watchtower is GONE and soon after that so will be every other religion. Then we can all find out what the Luciferian Doctrine is all about, because that will be the UN's new religion. This is yet another time when Jesus has "nothing for himself", the 42 months that Antichrist is allowed to rule.

But we all know what happens to the 8th King of the North at the end. "At that time, Michael will stand up."

Now for the beginning of the 69 weeks, if we look for some type of order to "restore and rebuild the temple", wouldn't that mean that the Pope's stranglehold would have to end and religious freedom would have to start gaining momentum? What would you think about Martin Luther nailing the 95 theses to the Church door on Halloween of 1517? 483 years from then was October 31, 2000. Anything significant happen in the next couple of decades after that thesis nailing?

I don't have the answer but these are my speculations.

So that's my $.02 whattayathink?

Agape
Lou

It has recently dawned on me that the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah (25:11-14) is not to be understood as 70 literal years. This is made clear by Daniel:

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasu-e'rus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chalde'ans -- in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

(then Daniel offers a prayer)

While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy hill of my God; while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. He came and he said to me, "O Daniel, I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding. At the beginning of your supplications a word went forth, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly beloved; therefore consider the word and understand the vision. Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place." (Dan 9:1-3, 20-24)

The angel Gabriel tells Daniel that the 70 years of Jeremiah's vision are to be understood as 70 weeks of years.

So using the 70 years of Jeremiah to calculate when Jerusalem was destroyed would be a mistake.

Another thought: If this is the case, then the "7 times" of Daniel 4:23 may also refer to the same period of time.