Help with Daniel's 69 weeks

[George Antonios]

Dan 9:24 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.
Dan 9:25 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.
Dan 9:26 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.

Could anyone please tell me or point me to a study that identifies Christ's birth as the fulfillment of unto the Messiah the Prince at the end of the 69 weeks, rather than Christ's baptism, triumphal entry, or crucifixion?
Thank you.

 

[rlvaughn]

I do not think I can be much help. I have more questions than answers. However, one thing that stands out to me is that verse 26 says, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off..." To me that seems to put the crucifixion after the sixty-nine weeks of years (7 + 62), and sometime into the seventieth week. If so, that would make it hard for the birth of Christ to be at the end of the 69th week, since he was over thirty years of age when he was crucified.

 

[Iconoclast]

Philip Mauro....the 70th week of Daniel 9

 

[37818]

Well, there are a few issues.
1) Having a correct archaeological date for the beginning of the 69 weeks being interperted as weeks of years.
2) How the weeks of years are interperted and so to be calculated.

The calculation I used. 7 times 69. Based on the assumption of 360 day years. 483 times 360. To convert to our years by dividing by 365.25 days. 173880 divided by 365.25. Gives me 476 years to the crucifixion. So using 30 AD and subtracting 476 years I get a -446 AD. Converting this to BC becomes 447 BC. The archaeological date that I had was 445 BC. I do not have my references here at this moment. I intend to post that info later today.

 

[Jec81]

Get Sir Robert Anderson's book the coming prince. It is at least worth a read.

 

[George Antonios]

I do not think I can be much help. I have more questions than answers. However, one thing that stands out to me is that verse 26 says, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off..." To me that seems to put the crucifixion after the sixty-nine weeks of years (7 + 62), and sometime into the seventieth week. If so, that would make it hard for the birth of Christ to be at the end of the 69th week, since he was over thirty years of age when he was crucified.

If there's been a nigh-2,000 year gap between the 69th and 70th week, there could much more easily be a 33 year gap between the 69th and the 70th. Moreover, the 70th is not said to begin immediately upon the end of the 69th, but is only begun by the antichrist's (deceitful) confirmation of the Mosaic covenant.

 

[George Antonios]

Philip Mauro....the 70th week of Daniel 9

May I have the reference please?

 

[George Antonios]

Well, there are a few issues.
1) Having a correct archaeological date for the beginning of the 69 weeks being interperted as weeks of years.
2) How the weeks of years are interperted and so to be calculated.

The calculation I used. 7 times 69. Based on the assumption of 360 day years. 483 times 360. To convert to our years by dividing by 365.25 days. 173880 divided by 365.25. Gives me 476 years to the crucifixion. So using 30 AD and subtracting 476 years I get a -446 AD. Converting this to BC becomes 447 BC. The archaeological date that I had was 445 BC. I do not have my references here at this moment. I intend to post that info later today.

This is basically Sir Robert Anderson's work, but, if possible to answer the OP please.

 

[George Antonios]

Get Sir Robert Anderson's book the coming prince. It is at least worth a read.

I've read it and enjoyed it and noted all over it. He ends the 69th at the triumphal entry. Hence the OP's specificity of a study that does not land the 69th at the entry but at the birth.

 

[rlvaughn]

If there's been a nigh-2,000 year gap between the 69th and 70th week, there could much more easily be a 33 year gap between the 69th and the 70th. Moreover, the 70th is not said to begin immediately upon the end of the 69th, but is only begun by the antichrist's (deceitful) confirmation of the Mosaic covenant.

However, two of the things determined in the Seventy Weeks is to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity (cf. Hebrews 2:17). If that is not the work accomplished when Messiah was cut off, what is it? If it is, however, many common dispensational theories put the crucifixion outside of the Seventy Weeks.

May I have the reference please?

One of his books is The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. It can be previewed on Google HERE.

 

[George Antonios]

If that is not the work accomplished when Messiah was cut off, what is it?

A twoedged sword = twoedged application.
It certainly was that work accomplished, but there remains a national remission of sins (made possible by the cross) for Israel at the 2nd coming (the context of Daniel 9) as confirmed by many prophets including Peter himself who still puts it in the future even after the cross:
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

One of his books is The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. It can be previewed on Google HERE.

Thank you but do you know if he lands the 69th week at the birth of Christ?

 

[thomas15]

If there's been a nigh-2,000 year gap between the 69th and 70th week, there could much more easily be a 33 year gap between the 69th and the 70th. Moreover, the 70th is not said to begin immediately upon the end of the 69th, but is only begun by the antichrist's (deceitful) confirmation of the Mosaic covenant.

Daniel 9:26 while not proving the time gap between the 69th and 70th week it certainly allows for it since the prince that is to come will come from the people that will (future) destroy the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. The inference being that there would also be some time from the destruction to the unveiling of the prince. It would also take time for that prince to make the covenant with the many vs. 27 which also requires a temple and a sacrificial system. The covenant is broken at the mid way point of the covenant. Since there is no such covenant in history it is still in the future so the gap continues.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thank you but do you know if he lands the 69th week at the birth of Christ?

I do not know, but I would doubt it.

 

[George Antonios]

I do not know, but I would doubt it.

Thanks.

 

[George Antonios]

Daniel 9:26 while not proving the time gap between the 69th and 70th week it certainly allows for it since the prince that is to come will come from the people that will (future) destroy the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. The inference being that there would also be some time from the destruction to the unveiling of the prince. It would also take time for that prince to make the covenant with the many vs. 27 which also requires a temple and a sacrificial system. The covenant is broken at the mid way point of the covenant. Since there is no such covenant in history it is still in the future so the gap continues.

Yes, agreed. Any help with the OP?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...Thank you but do you know if he lands the 69th week at the birth of Christ?

I do not know, but I would doubt it.

You doubt correctly. Mauro lands it “at the Lord’s baptism.” From p 29 in link below:

It is clear, therefore, in the light of Scripture that the 483 years “unto the Messiah” terminated at the Lord’s baptism, when His ministry as “the Messiah” began. Moreover, the prophecy itself furnishes a means whereby we can check up our conclusions thus far, and test their correctness. To this we will refer later on. The terms of the prophecy make it plain that the expiration of the sixty-ninth week would bring the fulfillment, of the greatest of all promises, the manifestation of Christ to Israel; and we have now shown that the records of the New Testament mark the era of His manifestation with the utmost precision.​

https://asrmartins.b-cdn.net/wp-con...enty-Weeks-and-the-Great-Tribulation-1923.pdf

 

[thomas15]

Yes, agreed. Any help with the OP?

No I wish I could help but haven't even heard of anyone trying to make the case in the OP.

 

[George Antonios]

No I wish I could help but haven't even heard of anyone trying to make the case in the OP.

Ok, thanks.

 

[37818]

This is basically Sir Robert Anderson's work, but, if possible to answer the OP please.

I had not known that. And the BC year used was 444BC which calculates the 33AD date. [Historically and Biblical bad]

What connection do you see or had heard between the 69 weeks and the birth of Christ?

 

[George Antonios]

I had not known that. And the BC year used was 444BC which calculates the 33AD date. [Historically and Biblical bad]

What connection do you see or had heard between the 69 weeks and the birth of Christ?

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1387998218/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_image_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Quite a few that I see, but am just interested if others have considered it. Sir Robert Anderson, a very able teacher of the word, set us all on the entry, but there are some hiccups with it. Either way, all good