Daniel's 70th week and the misuse of nonpremills

Wow, Preach. You've really been thinking hard on this subject. Is that a bit of smoke coming from your ear?

Glad I'm premill

 

This is from John Gill's commentary -

Daniel 9:27

Ver. 27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,.... Sixty nine of the seventy weeks being accounted for, and the several events observed to be fulfilled in them; the angel proceeds to take notice of the remaining "one" week, or seven years, and what should be done within that space of time: a covenant should be confirmed with many; which is not to be understood of the Messiah's confirming the covenant of grace with many, or on account of all his people, by fulfilling the conditions of it, and by his blood and sacrifice, through which all the blessings of it come to them; for this is not for one week only, but for ever; but this is to be interpreted of the Roman people, spoken of in the latter part of the preceding verse; who, in order to accomplish their design to destroy the city and temple of Jerusalem, made peace with many nations, entered into covenant and alliance with them, particularly the Medes, Parthians, and Armenians, for the space of one week, or seven years; as it appears they did at the beginning of this week {l}:

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; the daily sacrifice of the Jews, and all their other offerings; and which was literally fulfilled "in the half part" {m} of this week, as it may be rendered; towards the close of the latter half of it, when the city of Jerusalem, being closely besieged by Titus, what through the closeness of the siege, the divisions of the people, and the want both of time and men, and beasts to offer, the daily sacrifice ceased, as Josephus {n} says, to the great grief of the people; nor have the Jews, ever since the destruction of their city and temple, offered any sacrifice, esteeming it unlawful so to do in a strange land:

and at the same time, in the same half part of the week,

for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate; that is, the Roman people shall make the land of Judea desolate, for the overspreading of their abominations or idolatries in it. The words may be rendered, as by some, "upon the wing", the battlements of the temple,

shall be the abominations, or "idols of the desolator", or "of him that makes desolate" {o}; so Bishop Lloyd; meaning either the ensigns of the Roman army, which had upon them the images of their gods or emperors; and being set up in the holy place, and sacrificed to, nothing could be a greater abomination to the Jews; or else the blood of the zealots slain on these battlements, by which the holy place was polluted; see
Mt 24:15:

even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate; that is, either these abominations shall continue in the place where they are set until the utter destruction of the city and temple; or the desolation made there should continue until the consummation of God's wrath and vengeance upon them; until the whole he has determined is poured out on this desolate people; and which continues unto this day, and will till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, Lu 21:24. Some, as Bishop Lloyd, render it, "upon the desolator" {p}; meaning the Romans; and the sense they take to be is, that this vengeance shall continue upon the Jews until it is turned upon the head of those who have made them desolate: now this "one week", according to the sense given, must begin in the sixty third year of the vulgar era of Christ, about thirty years after the expiration of the sixty nine weeks; since it ends in the seventieth year of the same era, in which was the destruction of Jerusalem, the grand event assigned to it in this famous prophecy; when it might have been expected it should have begun at the end of the sixty nine weeks, and run on in a direct line from them. The true reason of its being thus separated from them is the longsuffering and forbearance of God to the people of the Jews, who gave them, as to the old world, space to repent; but his grace and goodness being slighted, things began to work at the beginning of this week towards their final ruin, which, in the close of it, was fully accomplished: from the whole of this prophecy it clearly appears that the Messiah must be come many hundred years ago. The Jews are sensible of the force of this reasoning; so that, to terrify persons from considering this prophecy, they denounce the following curse, "let them burst, or their bones rot, that compute the times" {q}. R. Nehemiah, who lived about fifty years before the coming of Christ, declared the time of the Messiah, as signified by Daniel, could not be protracted longer than those fifty years {r}. The Jews also say the world is divided into six parts, and the last part is from Daniel to the Messiah {s}.

{l} See Marshall's Chron. Treat. p. 271. {m} ewbvh yuxw "et in dimidio hebdomadis", Montanus, Michaelis; "dimidio septimanae", Cocceius. {n} De Bello, Jud. l. 6. c. 2. {o} Mmwvm Myuqv Pnk lew "desolator", Piscator, Gejerus; "desolans", Covveius; "stupefaciens", Montanus. {p} Mmwv le "super obstupescentem", Montanus; "in stupendem", Cocceius, {q} T. Bab. Sanhedrin. fol. 97. 2. {r} Apud Grotium de Ver. Rel. Christ l. 5. sect. 14. {s} Caphtor Uperah, fol 17. 2.

 

Preach, you beat me to the punch. I was going to post the "correct" view on Daniel nine tomorrow night. So let's talk about the math, and the grammar, context, time and normal reading of Daniel 9:

First --context: Daniel had just read Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years in exile. That moved him to prayer. His primary concern was that though God had been faithful to His covenant, Israel had not, and was now suffering the resultant curses that the covenant warned of. He grieves for the desolation of the city and the temple in his day and cries to the Lord for mercy upon Israel. Then the angel Gabriel comes to give Daniel "skill and understanding" of God's plan for Israel, His continued faithfulness to His covenant, and what will become of Jerusalem, the temple and the sacrifices.

But according to Dispensationalists, Gabriel throws Daniel a curve ball. He cryptically mentions a covenant to be made by antichrist with the people of Israel, instead of dealing with God's covenant with Israel--even though that was Daniel's concern. How does this help Daniel gain understanding? Remember, Daniel didn't have a footnote to tell him that this was all about a peace treaty with the antichist like many of you do.

Instead, what if the covenant Gabriel mentioned was actually the covenant Daniel was thinking of? That would fit the context. Does the New Testament mention a firm or confirmed covenant with Israel? Yes, many times. Jesus declared the New Covenant in His blood given for "many" (Mat. 26:28), like the "many" mentioned in Dan. 9:27. But Jesus only ministered for a half week (3 ½ years), before He ascended, so what about the other half week? Well, for the first few years of the disciples' ministry, they ministered to the Jews. Perhaps they finished the "week," which was dedicated to the Jews before the Gentiles were invited in.


Second --grammar: When we have an undetermined pronoun, like the "he" in Daniel 9:27, we have to look for the proper antecedant (I was an English minor in school). First we would consider the main subject of the discourse--in this case, we could make a good case for the Messiah as the dominant subject of this section (v. 25, 26)--He is the most significant individual Gabriel mentions.

Another possibility is that the "he" refers back to the last subject mentioned. Is this the "prince that shall come" (v. 26)? No, a careful look at the structure of that sentence shows that the prince is not the subject of the sentence in verse 26, he is merely mentioned in a subordinate clause. His "people" are the subject of that sentence. But "people" is plural, so that cannot be the antecedant for "he". That means that we are making the object of a subordinate clause, "the prince",the antecedant. Possible, but not as grammatically normal. So the dispensational view portrays Gabriel as a poor grammarian.
While we're on grammar, Preach--you mentioned your concern with the small "gap" (about 40 years) in this prophecy. But actually the timetable does not say that the destruction will take place within the seventy week period, just that it will take place in association with these things. Surely we agree that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is one result of the Jews' crucifixion of Christ. Remember that Jesus warned the women and their daughters on His way to the cross of judgement to come (Luke 23:27-30). Another one of those troublesome generation prophecies.

Third--math & time: I'm always somewhat surprised that Dispensationalists like Daniel 9. The math is simply against their position here. Gabriel's initial summary of the prophecy says that everything that Daniel was concerned about would be brought to it's ultimate goal by the end of 70 sevens (of years). That is 490 years-period. Unlike other prophecies in which dispensationalists insert gaps, Daniel's comes with a schedule for completion. Unlike government work, this schedule is God-given, you can't drag it out for say---another two thousand years or so. This schedule was even proclaimed by an angel!

Ah, but what about that "prophetic clock"--that secret timekeeper that only God uses, so He can say one thing, and secretly mean another? Please! God declared that the universe was our timekeeper, "for days and for years" (Gen. 1:14). The Babylonians were quite interested in time, tracked by the stars--in exile there, I'm sure Daniel knew how to measure years. If Gabriel was sent to help give Daniel understanding, why would he give him a measured schedule with an unmentioned variable? It would be purposely confusing--which is exactly what the dispensational view on this passage is.


Now that your weak points have been exposed--please give me a strong and reasonable defense of your position on this passage. I have never heard one yet, though I've read Walvoord, Pentecost, et. al. I was raised in dispensationalism. Please deal with the context, the grammar, and the time problems inherent in the your position. If you can't, then don't be afraid to leave it--I did. After all, your interpretation of Daniel 9 is fundamental to Dispensationalism.

In Christ,

Tim

 

nevermind

[ February 22, 2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Ruthigirl ]

 

Tim I use to question the 490 years and really had trouble putting it into perspective... Until I read a passage from Matthew that seem to talk of endless forgiveness but on closer examination it revealed something entirely different. The judgement of God upon Jerusalem mentioned by Jesus to Peter... The prophetic completion mentioned by Daniel

Matthew 18:[21] Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

[22] Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Coincidence... God deals in prophetic fulfillment not coincidences... Just thought I would throw that in for good measure... Brother Glen Primitive Baptist Amil Partial Preterist ... Most of the brethren know what I am already... but for those who don't!

 

I am just always amazed at non-premillenial interpretations. How absolutely tragic.

 

To quickly reference one huge and insurmountable problem with your position, it is the covenant. It is made at the beginning of the week of seven years. Yet the covenant Christ made was not until his crucifixion, which you have already identified as the middle of the week, teh cutting off of sacrifices. Then the last half of the week goes until the final and full destruction of the prince of the people who is to come, and you identified that early as the destruction of Jerusalem, some 37 or so years later. The math just doesn't work. There was not establishment of a covenant with Israel; the covenant Christ made was not until his crucifixion; the end of the covenant is way more than 3 1.2 year later.

Your grammatical point on teh antecedent is misguided as well. The most normal antecedent is the nearest one, not the main one, unless there is good reason to look elsewhere. Here, the most normal reading is to see the "he" as the prince of the people who is to come. He is the one who will make the covenant with Israel leading them to say Peace Peace. He is the one who will cut off the sacrifices and enter the temple to exalt himself (2 Thess 2:7).

I have seen your position presented a number of times and each time it is less convincing to me than the time before.

 

Preach's quote:
"This has already been addressed. Either you don't want to learn, or you like making stuff up about us to make your position seem credible."


Sorry, I was out of line, who am I to question the wisdom of dispensationalism? Of course, it all makes perfect sense to say that 490 years is really 2490 years! But I do wonder why it took the church 1800 years to discover this "truth".

About the grammar, English construction follows certain rules of logic, I would think that other languages do too. If you search the scripture you'll find other examples of the antecedent/subject construction I went through above.

And again, there's no real logical disconnect between Christ's death and the judgement on those who crucified Him. But there is a major logical (and time) gap between God's faithfulnes to His covenant to Israel and a peace treaty between modern Israel and the antichrist. This is indeed a "curveball".

The simple fact is that keeping a future in prophecy for national Israel is the fuel that forces the strange interpretation of Daniel 9 you hold to so tenaciously. Your interpretation doesn't follow naturally from the text at all. It's more about your insistence upon physical as opposed to typological fulfillment of other O.T. prophecies.

In Christ,

Tim

P.S. Sorry I don't have the time to answer all your objections, but you haven't answered all of mine either, so I think we're even on that score.

 

Have you stopped to consider its actually the other way around?? We do not hold a future for Israel and come to the text with that. We hold the priority of the text and from that, get the ideas about the future. I think your statement is true about your position because of the multitude of texts that must be reinterpreted away from their plain meaning to fit your system. The fact is that there are promises made by a faithful God to a specific people that have not yet been fulfilled. We believe that he will fulfill them.

 

Pastor Larry,

Have you ever considered the possibility that the O.T. is primarily typological?

In Christ,

Tim

 

Praise God! Does this mean you are starting to see the light?

 

There was a large segment of the early church that was premillennial but they were what we would categorize as historical premillennial, not dispensational premillennial.

But the early church really had no systematized eschatological positions as we do today. They simply expected Jesus to return during their lifetimes.