![Free-eBooks.net](/resources/img/logo-nfe.png)
![All New Design](/resources/img/allnew.png)
This appendix looks at issues that may have arisen from Chapter Two. Specifically, why the 70 weeks of Dan 9:24-27 should be seen as 70 groups of 7 years; Whether there will be a third temple in Jerusalem; Does Luke 21 primarily apply to the events of 70 A.D.; How Rev 11:1-3 may suggest the sharing or dual usage of the temple mount between Jewish worshipers and Gentile.
The context of Daniel 9 favors non-figurative usage. Daniel’s prayer was based upon Jeremiah’s prophecy. In two passages Jeremiah indicates that the captivity would last for 70 years.
Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, “Because you have not obeyed My words, behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,” declares the Lord, “and I will send to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, and against its inhabitants, and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them, and make them a horror, and a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. … And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,” declared the Lord, “for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation.”
Jeremiah 25:8-9,11-12
For thus says the Lord, 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans that I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.”
Jeremiah 29:10-11
After reading this, Daniel seems to count up the years of the captivity up to that point. Would he do this if he didn’t assume the 70 years were a definite length of time that was knowable from the passages in Jeremiah? Daniel’s prayer was based upon the assumption that Jeremiah’s prophetic use of the number 70 was nonfigurative. Gabriel’s use of the 70-7s immediately follows the prayer by Daniel, which was itself prompted by the realization that 70 actual years in captivity had or was very nearly accomplished. The length of each 7 finds easier paths for interpretation when they are seen as years, rather than any other consistent measurement of time.
There are those who do not hold the “weeks” as having any direct correlation to time. For various reasons, some hold that Gabriel's words should not be viewed as definite consistent measurable lengths of time. Those who hold to this view, or some likeness of it, would see the inconsistencies I outline below as the wrong argument. If no real measurement of time is intended when Gabriel speaks of time, then inconsistencies of timing are not inconsistencies at all. Yet, this view of Gabriel's intent is not based upon anything in the passage, but upon a presumption that whatever Gabriel did intend to say, he did not intend to communicate knowable lengths of time. This view seems odd when the contents of the passage are considered because measurements of time are found throughout. In fact, it seems that the whole intent of Gabriel in 9:24-27 was to provide a basic timeline of prophetic events in answer to Daniel's prayer.
When other lengths of time are examined in Daniel, especially when they are part of a prophetic message, these lengths of time are found to be just that - knowable, measurable spans of time. There does not seem to be a single instance of a number in Daniel’s prophetic messages that is clearly something other than a knowable numeric value.
The following discussion assumes that numbers in Daniel are knowable consistent values, even when relating to time. Assuming numbers represent their normal values, then the 70 weeks in Dan 9:24-27 represent 70 groups of 7 years each, or 490 years in total. More precisely, this discussion is about the relationship that the very last group of 7 has to the rest.
So, does the 70th week flow from the end of the 69th, or is there a break before the last week begins? There are only two possibilities for placement of the 70th week. It clearly cannot come before the previous 69 weeks, or it wouldn't be the 70th. The two possibilities are that the 70th week begins as soon as the 69th concludes, or that it does not. If not, then why not, and when does it begin?
Our first reading of Dan 9:24-27 might lead us to see the 70 weeks or 490 years as continuing uninterrupted from their beginning to end. Yet there are some points that should make us pause. First, however, let's review the chronological locations for the events that happen after the 69th week. What are the possible ‘when's’ for these events that are not directly contradicted by the prophecies themselves?
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.
Daniel 9:26a
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 9:27
If the weeks of years all follow directly after each other, then the only ‘when’ for the terrible events of v. 26 is during the 70th week or after it. Of these two possibilities, either during or after, one seems very unlikely indeed. If the weeks of years flow from beginning to end without pause, then the death of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem with its temple must take place during the 70th week.
Here’s why. Gabriel is clear that they happen after the 69th. After the 70th there is the arrival of those six wonderful aspects of restoration for the Jewish people given in v. 24. It would be difficult to contend that the death of the Messiah and the destruction mentioned as coming after the 69th week would actually come about after the end of the 70 weeks. God set apart those 70 weeks of years for the judgment of his people. When the 70 weeks of years are over, it seems reasonable that there would be no further punishments. Therefore, those who hold that the weeks continue without interruption must see the destruction and the Messiah's death as happening during the seven years of the 70th week. Of the two possible ‘when's’ for the terrible events of Dan 9:26, the more reasonable location is during the 70th week. Remember, this is only if you believe that the 70 weeks of years in Daniel 9 all follow directly after each other.
So, let's consider the implications if these events occur during the 70th week. First, we must keep in mind that Gabriel also describes other events which he clearly places during these last 7 years. The sacrifices were halted midway or 3 ½ years into this last week. Also occurring at or near this time is the Abomination of Desolation. Dan 12:11 informs us that these two events occur very near each other in time. Under this scenario, the death of the Messiah and the destruction of the temple and the city occur in the same week that the sacrifices are performed, then halted, and that the Abomination of Desolation occurs.
If there are sacrifices and temple destruction in the same 7year period, then we can be fairly certain that the sacrifices do not occur after the temple is destroyed. So, the sacrifices come first. Since these sacrifices are not stopped until the midpoint of the 7 years, then the temple destruction could not happen before the midpoint either. However, since the end of the final week brings about restoration for the Jewish people, the temple destruction must occur before the 7 years are ended. This would leave a 3 ½ year window of time during which the temple could be destroyed. If one holds to a continuous flow for the weeks of years in Daniel 9, then the temple would have to be destroyed during the final half of the final week of years.
The Messiah's death would also occur during the final 7 years. This would mean that his death and the destruction of the temple and the city could not be separated in time by more than 7 years or they would not all take place in the 70th week. Additionally, since the final 7 years seems to coincide with the establishment of a firm covenant, this covenant would need to be established just after the 69th week had ended and just as the 70th had begun.
There is a curious statement by Gabriel in v. 26. He says that the death of Messiah and the destruction of the city and the temple all happen, not during the 69th week, but after it. Why would Gabriel reveal these very serious events in Israel's future in such a way? If the weeks of years all follow each other and the death of Messiah and the destruction all occur after the 69th week, then why didn't Gabriel simply say that they would occur in the 70th week? This curious wording by Gabriel is certainly not proof in itself that the weeks of years may not flow from beginning to end. But it is something to put in the back of our mind until we begin to look at this issue in more detail later. It is also a point that should be answered by those who hold that there is no break between the 69th and 70th weeks.
Another point to consider is that a continuous flow of weeks would put the death of the Messiah and the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem all occurring in the same 7-year period of time. But if we believe that Jesus' death was the death of the Messiah mentioned by Gabriel in Dan 9:26, then this view is in conflict with the history of this time. While we do not know exactly when Jesus died and rose, we do know the general time when it occurred. Jesus was crucified sometime after 30 A.D. We do know with even more certainty that Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans under Titus, their general and future emperor. Clearly, these events in history are separated by much more than 7 years.
Such an inconsistency between an interpretation of prophecy and the details of its actual fulfillment in history means that one or more of the underlying assumptions is in error. If the numerical values for the 70 - 7's in Daniel 9 represent actual consistent lengths of time, and are not days, months, or decades, but years, then the other variables considered here must have at least one error.
It was assumed that the 70th week of years flowed uninterrupted from the end of the 69th week. It was also assumed that Gabriel's words of the Messiah being “cut off” and “having nothing” indicated his rejection and death. It was further assumed that the death of the Messiah which Gabriel was speaking to was the crucifixion of Jesus. One or more of these assumptions must be in error.
The numerical values used elsewhere in the book of Daniel are not contradicted. Nothing requires the numbers to mean something other than the values they would normally represent. The assumption that the 70 - 7's represent years seems consistent, because days and months would be too short and decades would be too long. Further confirmation about the length of time comes from Daniel 12 where a 3 ½ year period of time seems to be referred to by two different expressions. “A time, times and a division of time” appear in the same context as “1290 days”. Both are a good approximation of 3 ½ years. Dan 9:27 refers to the “middle of the week” seeing the cessation of sacrifices and grain offerings. If the week is made up of 7 years, then the middle of the 7-year period would also be 3 ½ years. That the numbers represent consistent knowable values, and that the weeks are composed of 7 years, seems justified and not the source of the contradiction.
We assumed above that Jesus is the Messiah mentioned in Dan 9:26. We also assumed that the expressions “cut off” and “having nothing” indicate the Messiah's death. The Hebrew word Messiah means “anointed one” (as does the Greek word “christos”). If Jesus is not the “anointed one” in v. 26, then who else fits this title and comes on schedule according to Gabriel's timeline? Proceeding on the conclusion that the 70 - 7's are years, we have some indication when this Messiah should appear in history. Dan 9:25 indicates that the Messiah appears prior to the end of the 69th week. So, if we trace 483 years from the “decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (v. 25), we should have a good idea who the “anointed one” may be. The first task is to identify which decree fits this requirement and when it was proclaimed.
The decree that starts the counting up of 70 - 7's is one that is intended to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” It may include more, but it must include this aspect. While there is no explicit mention of the temple in v. 25, Daniel's deep longing for it presupposes it is not ignored in God's plans. There are 3 decrees which could be the potential starting point for Gabriel’s prophecy in Dan 9:25. Let's examine the 3 candidates.
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.
Daniel 9:25
The first candidate is the decree by Cyrus found in both 2 Chr 36:23 and Ezra 1:2-4. This decree did mark the end of the 70 years of captivity for the Jewish people. Under this decree, they could return to their own land with the king's assistance. The decree is dated to 538 B.C., which was the first year of Cyrus' reign over the expanded kingdom, including the now conquered empire of Babylon (2 Chr 36:22). The decree provides for the travel of Jewish people willing to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. The first chapter of Ezra lists some of the material help Cyrus made available for this undertaking. Yet, for all this, there is no mention or indication of rebuilding or restoring Jerusalem. While a settlement around the new temple would be expected, the primary focus of this decree involves the safe travel of willing Jews to go and re-establish their religion in their own land. Provision is not made for the reconstruction of Jerusalem itself.
There is a decree for the restoration of Jerusalem. In Nehemiah 2:5-8, King Artaxerxes gives permission for Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem to rebuild its walls. This support was granted in the 20th year of the king's reign, which has been placed at 445 B.C.
Yet two points are troublesome for this decree.
The first problem is the date itself. If this decree is really the one that starts the count of the 70 - 7's, then the end of the 69th week, using normal solar years, is around 38 A.D. No one is known to history who was special enough at that time to be called an “anointed one” by Gabriel in his prophecy.
To bring the date back to the time of Jesus, those who support this decree do not use a solar year of 365 days for the measurement of the 483 years. Instead, they use a 'prophetic year.’ This type of year is said to consist of only 360 days. Even if it were possible to find some evidence that a prophetic year was used elsewhere, its employment here does not lend credibility to this scheme. The almost torturous calculation of totaling all the days in 483 prophetic years (173,880), then dividing that by the number the of days in a solar year, seems beyond the native Hebrew counting schemes used before the adoption of the Arabic numbering system in the 9th century A.D. [ 73 ] Yet, this is precisely what the Jews of Jesus day would have been expected to calculate to anticipate the coming time of their Messiah.
Additionally, the context of Daniel 9 involves the prophecies of Jeremiah which contained 70 years. These 70 years were reckoned according to well-known and used calendars of the day. No special 'prophetic year' seems to be involved, even though these 70 years in captivity serve as the basis for the 70 - 7's in Gabriel's prophecy.
Finally, in the opening verses of the book, Nehemiah asks his brother and others about the Jews who had survived the captivity and about Jerusalem. Their report about the reproach of the Jewish survivors provokes an understandable response. However, he is also very moved by the condition of the walls of Jerusalem. The point that is troublesome is not that he is distressed about the broken walls, but that he almost seems surprised by their condition. Nehemiah's reaction seems to suggest that he had reason to think the condition of the city’s walls should have improved since their destruction by the Babylonians. Yet, if the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem is dated after Nehemiah makes his request to the king, then he should not have had any expectation that the walls would be in better shape.
However, Nehemiah's reaction to Jerusalem’s broken walls is more understandable if a previous undertaking had been expected to improve things. It turns out Nehemiah had a good reason for expecting conditions in Jerusalem to be better. There was a previous decree. Ezra 7:11-26 gives us the details. Ezra 7:7 says that it was put into effect in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, or 457 B.C. This was 13 years before Nehemiah first approached the same king in the 20th year of his reign. The decree in Ezra 7 emphasizes the temple restoration, but it also gives Ezra additional authority. In 7:25, Ezra is specifically given the power to appoint rulers and judges “in the province beyond the river.” When he arrives, Ezra informs the king's rulers in other provinces about “the king's edicts” and receives their support.
Still further, in Ezra's prayer, he mentions raising up the temple in addition to Judea and Jerusalem.
For we are slaves; yet in our bondage, our God has not forsaken us, but has extended lovingkindness to us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us reviving to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins, and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem.
Ezra 9:9
Whether Ezra was using “wall” metaphorically or literally, he was thankful that the king's decree had brought a time of peace in Judea and Jerusalem. These favorable conditions might have been one reason Nehemiah seems surprised to learn that
Jerusalem's walls were still in ruins more than a dozen years later. Counting off 483 years from this decree would bring the date to 27 A.D. (allowing for 1 B.C. to be followed by 1 A.D.). This would bring the 70 - 7's to an end as Jesus the Messiah begins to present himself to the Jewish people.
The decree of Cyrus did not include any provision for restoring Jerusalem. The second decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 445 B.C. does, but its date is so late that it does not seem to coincide with any “anointed one” coming to the Jewish people. However, Artaxerxes’ first decree in 457 B.C. does allow the 483 years to end at the time Jesus began his ministry. Also, the decree, while primarily focused on the temple's restoration, seems to provide a stable environment to carry out Israel's worship. That Jerusalem's walls were still in a state of disrepair after 13 years may have been another reason why Artaxerxes was willing to let his cup bearer leave to finally put things in order.
Others may disagree with this assessment. However, the primary point of looking at the decrees was to determine whether Jesus was the anointed one in Dan 9:26. The only person known to Jewish history likely to be referred to as the ‘anointed one’ 483 years from the beginning of these 3 decrees is Jesus. So, this element in our assumptions is not where the inconsistency lies.
The last assumption above was that the 70th week flowed directly after the end of the 69th without interruption. If the other variables in the premise are credible, then we are still left with the problem of reconciling all the events of Dan 9:26 and 27 into one continuous 7-year block of time. History does not seem to favor the view that the 70th week of years begins when the 69th ends.
We found that history separates Jesus’ death and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by at least 35 years. However, these same three events cannot be separated by more than seven years if the 70th week of Dan 9:27 begins immediately after the end of the 69th week. We looked at the other variables or assumptions associated with the view and they do not appear to be the cause of this flawed interpretation. So, we are forced to consider alterations to the assumption that the 70th week follows the 69th week without interruption.
If the Messiah’s death is excluded from the 70th week, presuming it to occur prior to the beginning of this last week of years, when could it occur and still be consistent with Dan 9:26? It cannot occur in the 69th week. Gabriel specifically uses the word “after” in connection with all three events in the verse.
The only way that the Messiah's death could still be after the 69th week but also not occur during the 70th week is if there is, in fact, a break between the two. It would be during this interim that the Messiah could be “cut off” and “have nothing” and still be consistent with the prophecy from Gabriel. By interpreting Gabriel's prophecy as anticipating a break before the beginning of the 70th week, we allow the numbers to still represent their normal values.
However, there is still a problem. If we see only the Messiah's death occurring in the break between the last two weeks of years, we still encounter inconsistencies. Under this scenario, we are still assuming that the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem occur during the 70th week, which is in the form of a firm covenant. If the sacrifices of v. 27 are assumed to be those occurring before the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 A.D., then what happens to initiate the “firm covenant with the many” about 3 ½ years before the sacrifices are taken away? What starts or enacts the f