32 thoughts on “Rightly Dividing the Weeks”

1. Tim wrote:

   “Earlier Protestant translations like the King James Version also acknowledged the separation, but eventually joined the two sets of Weeks back together again. The 1611 edition of the King James Bible recognized the separation by putting a semi-colon between the Seven and the Sixty-two, just as the JPS version did, above. But later versions of the King James eventually replaced the semi-colon with a comma, and then the New King James eliminated the comma altogether, and simply made the Seven and the Sixty-two a single unit of Weeks.”

   I would have really liked to see what Jerome and the Catholics wrote regarding this point. Futurism (Francisco Ribera) and Preterism (Cardinal Robert Bellarmine) are both fundamental Roman Catholic Jesuit counter reformation doctrines, and certainly it would be interesting to see how the Catholics made this interpretation.

   See this site here:

   http://aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

   “So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism. A 1591 edition, 1593 edition, and a 1603 edition of his commentary are now online.”

   “The inevitable conclusion of those who studied these prophesies in scripture, before and during the Protestant Reformation, was that there was only one entity that fit all the above characteristics: the papal dynasty of the Roman Catholic Church. Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church was so violently opposed to the scriptures being available for everyone to read for themselves? There was such a stir created during the reformation that the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17 A.D.) resorted to strictly forbidding anyone to publish a book without prior censorship, and also prohibited anyone from preaching on the subject of antichrist:

   SESSION 10, 4 May 1515, On censorship of books:

   … “some printers have the boldness to print and sell to the public, in different parts of the world, books — some translated into Latin from Greek, Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldean as well as some issued directly in Latin or a vernacular language — containing errors opposed to the faith as well as pernicious views contrary to the Christian religion and to the reputation of prominent persons of rank. The readers are not edified. Indeed, they lapse into very great errors not only in the realm of faith but also in that of life and morals. This has often given rise to various scandals, as experience has taught, and there is daily the fear that even greater scandals are developing.” …

   … “We therefore establish and ordain that henceforth, for all future time, no one may dare to print or have printed any book or other writing of whatever kind in Rome or in any other cities and dioceses, without the book or writings having first been closely examined, at Rome by our vicar and the master of the sacred palace, in other cities and dioceses by the bishop or some other person who knows about the printing of books and writings of this kind and who has been delegated to this office by the bishop in question, and also by the inquisitor of heresy for the city or diocese where the said printing is to take place, and unless the books or writings have been approved by a warrant signed in their own hand, which must be given, under pain of excommunication, freely and without delay.”
   “In addition to the printed books being seized and publicly burnt, payment of a hundred ducats to the fabric of the basilica of the prince of the apostles in Rome, without hope of relief, and suspension for a whole year from the possibility of engaging in printing, there is to be imposed upon anyone presuming to act otherwise the sentence of excommunication.” …

   SESSION 11, 19 December 1516, On how to preach:

   … “We command all who undertake this task of preaching, or will later undertake it, to preach and expound the gospel truth and holy scripture in accordance with the exposition, interpretation and commentaries that the church or long use has approved and has accepted for teaching until now, and will accept in the future, without any addition contrary to its true meaning or in conflict with it. They are always to insist on the meanings which are in harmony with the words of sacred scripture and with the interpretations, properly and wisely understood, of the doctors mentioned above. They are in no way to presume to preach or declare a fixed time for future evils, the coming of antichrist or the precise day of judgment; for Truth says, it is not for us to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. Let it be known that those who have hitherto dared to declare such things are liars, and that because of them not a little authority has been taken away from those who preach the truth.” …

   But the Catholic Church eventually came to the conclusion that it would not be able to ban or burn all the Bibles, heretical books, and heretics that possessed or preached from them. This oppressive and crude tactic merely confirmed their identification as the harlot persecuting church of prophecy. A new and more subtle approach was needed in order to effectively counter the application of apocalyptic prophecy to the Catholic Church.”

   Reply

2. Tim wrote:

   Under certain circumstances in extrascriptural texts, chathak is rendered “decreed” or “determined,” as Jastrow notes, but when a word is used only once in all of Scripture, the only clue we have to its meaning is the context in which it is used. Chathak, here, is used in the context of Seventy Weeks being divided into three subsets of Weeks, and that is precisely how Gabriel discusses the Weeks as his narrative progresses. From the moment he first introduced the Seventy Weeks, he spoke of their fulfillment only in their division.

   Thus did eighteenth century Hebrew scholar, John Gill, also recognize the significance of Gabriel’s singular use of the term in this very specific context. Seventy Weeks had been chathak, or cut up, or “sectioned” into smaller amounts:

   “…the word, as it signifies ‘to cut’, aptly expresses the division, or section of these weeks into distinct periods, as seven, sixty two, and one.” (John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, Daniel 9:24)

   ————-

   Yes, this is a critical distinction to be made. I’m really surprised so many ministers have ignored this critical rendering of the text. I’m more than surprised, but I am a bit in shock until I can understand what the Catholics wrote on it.

   Reply

   1. Walt,

      The typical Roman Catholic interpretation is that the “little horn” of Daniel 8 and the “little horn” of Daniel 7 are the same “little horn.” See for example, William Most’s commentary on Daniel (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=55 ) and the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on Daniel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04621b.htm ).

      What you’ll find there is considerable confusion because the numbers don’t add up (i.e., “From 594 to 539 is 55 years, not precisely seven weeks or 49 years. However, in this sort of prophecy that is a good enough approximation…”) and wavering between two positions (i.e., “the prophecy of the seventy weeks works out rather well – with allowance for some approximation – in reference to the times leading up to Antiochus, yet verse 24 refers entirely to the time of Christ, and there may be vague allusions to that same time in verse 26.)

      It does not make sense to me that Daniel 9 could be a prophecy both of Christ and of Antiochus IV, and it does not make sense to me that Daniel 8 and Daniel 7 are both referring to the same “little horn.” There is no official Roman Catholic interpretation, of course, but you can get a feel for some dominant narratives on Daniel in the above links.

      The traditional Protestant interpretation of Daniel 9 (as a Messianic prophecy) causes confusion, I think, because by making Daniel 9:24-27 Messianic, it translates the specific actions of Antiochus IV as depicted in Daniel 8, Daniel 11 and Daniel 12—into the future and attributes them to the “little horn” of Daniel 7, which horn clearly is Antichrist. Thus, in some ways Protestants end up making common cause with the Roman Catholic view in a significant way—insofar as they see the “little horn” of Daniel 8 and the “little horn” of Daniel 7 as the same “little horn.” Roman Catholics see both “little horns” as a Greek antagonist—thereby ruling out a Roman one entirely, while Protestants sometimes see both “little horns” as a Roman antagonist, thereby attributing the actions of Antiochus IV to papal Rome. But papal Rome does not fulfill the prophecies of Antiochus IV.

      When the two are kept separate, the “little horn” of Daniel 7 and the “little horn” of Daniel 8 are seen as two separate antagonists, eliminating much confusion. As I will show, the 1,290 days, the 1335 days, and the the 2,300 days are particular to the “little horn” of Daniel 8 and are not relevant to the prophecies regarding papal Rome.

      You will probably find it interesting, too, that the Roman Catholic translation (NAB) actually got the division of the weeks right, at least in how Daniel 9:24-27 separate the weeks. But that does not keep them from the confusion of making it a dual prophecy about Christ and about Antiochus.

      More on that later,

      Tim

      Reply

3. Historic Post Millennium teaches:

   “1. Here in Daniel 9:24, we see that 70 prophetic weeks are determined for God’s people Israel in order to accomplish redemption for His people through the work of Jesus Christ. Now 70 prophetic weeks equals 490 prophetic days (70 weeks x 7 days per week=490 prophetic days). It should also be noted that the Hebrew word translated “weeks” (sha-bu-im) is always used in the Old Testament to refer to a week of days, i.e. a week consisting of seven days (for example, sha-bu-im is used 20 times in the Hebrew Old Testament [according to The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 1224,George V. Wigram], 4 times in the singular and 16 times in the plural, and each time it refers to a week consisting of 7 days).
   2. Now note what is said in Daniel 9:25, “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” (this is most likely a reference to the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra in Ezra 7:11-26), “unto the Messiah [i.e. the Anointed One—GLP] the Prince” (this refers to Christ and most likely to the time in which Christ was anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit came upon Him at the time of His baptism by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:13-17), “shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.” In other words, from the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra until Christ’s anointing and baptism, the angel speaking to Daniel said there would elapse 69 weeks (7 weeks + 62 weeks = 69 weeks). It should be obvious that a literal 69 weeks or a literal 483 days (which is literally 1 year and almost 4 months) cannot take us from the decree of Artaxerxes (in 458 b.c.) to the anointing of Christ by the Holy Spirit at His baptism by John (in 26 a.d.).
   a. However, using the Day-Year Interpretive Principle that the Holy Spirit has already given to us in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4-6, when we interpret 483 prophetic days as 483 actual calendar years, we see the most amazing fulfillment of prophecy: From the decree given to Ezra (in 458 b.c.) to the anointing and baptism of Christ (in 26 a.d.), precisely 483 years had passed. God is without controversy using the Day-Year Principle of interpretation in Daniel 9:24-25.
   b. Then (according to Daniel 9:26a and Daniel 9:27a) Christ is “cut off” (i.e. crucified) 3 ½ years later in the middle of the 70th week of years. This again demonstrates that the Holy Spirit has given to us the Day-Year Principle as a means of interpreting prophetic periods of time .”

   Tim teaches:

   “Based on Daniel 9:25, what is typically done here is to find a decree that fits “the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.” Four candidate decrees are typically proposed:

   The Decree of Cyrus in 539 B.C. (Ezra 1:1-4)
   The Decree of Darius in 519 B.C. (Ezra 5:3-7)
   The Decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-16)
   The Decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1-8)

   But there is no need to search for such a decree, for Gabriel makes no mention of one. What is rendered in Daniel 9:25 as “the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem,” is the Hebrew word dabar, which may refer to any spoken thing—a command, a promise, a proposal, a comment, a question, etc… Context determines the meaning, and the context here does not of necessity demand a “decree.” What informs our context is the fact that Daniel had been reading Jeremiah (Daniel 9:2), and the book of Jeremiah is replete with such promises to rebuild and restore Jerusalem:

   “…the city shall be builded upon her own heap,” (Jeremiah 30:18)

   “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner.” (Jeremiah 31:38)

   “Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe evidences, and seal them, … in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah…” (Jeremiah 32:44)

   “And I … will build them, as at the first. … Again there shall be heard … in the streets of Jerusalem, …. The voice of joy, and the voice of gladness…” (Jeremiah 33:7-11)

   Notably, the promise to rebuild and restore the city occurred no sooner than Jeremiah chapter 30, placing it squarely in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar.

   Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in 587 B.C., the eighteenth year of his reign (Jeremiah 32:2), and that is the year he carried away a group of captives (Jeremiah 52:29). In chapter 30, the city is described as already in a “heap,” indicating that Nebuchadnezzar had already been busy sacking the city, and the chapter makes reference to the “nobles” and the “governor” as among the captives taken to Babylon (Jeremiah 30:18-21). Josephus, too, reports the date of 587 B.C. as the year Nubuchadnezzar “also took the principal persons in dignity for captives” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 10, chapter 6). In chapter 32, Jeremiah is shut up in prison and is still hearing this promise to rebuild the city, and it is still the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 32:1). In Jeremiah 33:1-5 Jeremiah is still in prison, and the sack is ongoing, and therefore it is still the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. This repeated promise of the Lord to Jeremiah to rebuild and restore the city occurs in four chapters of Jeremiah—30, 31, 32 and 33—all of which were written in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. Any earlier than Jeremiah 30, and there is no promise to rebuild Jerusalem because Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed.

   What this tells us is that the promise to rebuild and restore Jerusalem is found right where Daniel had been looking—in the “books … of Jeremiah the prophet” (Daniel 9:2)—and that promise went forth from the mouth of the Lord by Jeremiah the prophet in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, 587 B.C..

   Taking 587 B.C. as the beginning of the Seven Weeks, we proceed forward forty-nine years to arrive at 538 B.C., the first year of Cyrus the Great. This Cyrus is the “anointed ruler” of the prophecy, for the Lord had already identified Him through the prophet Isaiah as His anointed. Of Cyrus the Lord said:

   “…He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him” (Isaiah 44:8-45:1).

   Two other times in Scripture (2 Chronicles 36:22; Ezra 1:1) the particular word from the Lord by Jeremiah in chapters 30, 31, 32 and 33 is characterized as a promise (dabar), and the promise was fulfilled in the raising up of Cyrus, King of Persia. Daniel 9:25, as we can see, was not about Cyrus’ decree to rebuild Jerusalem, but rather about the Lord’s promise to rebuild it, and He made that promise in 587 B.C.. Forty-nine years later, He raised up Cyrus as His instrument—His anointed one—to make good on it.

   Thus we have in Scripture the fulfillment of the Seven Weeks. From the promise to rebuild Jerusalem (587 B.C.) to the coming of an anointed ruler who would rebuild it (538 B.C) is forty-nine years. What is typically rendered as “Messiah the Prince” in Daniel 9:25 is in reality just “an anointed ruler,” and that anointed ruler was Cyrus, King of Persia, who performed what God had promised through Jeremiah, whose book Daniel had been reading.”

   ———

   Learn and understand the differences. They are CRITICAL.

   Reply

   1. Walt wrote: “Learn and understand the differences. They are Critical.”

      Thx for the above comparison. The first quote seems to be a very random handling of the Scripture, combining the 62+7 to equal 69. It seems rather obvious that Daniel specifically separates the numbers. If the modern interpreters chose to combine 62 and 7, why not a different combination like 62 and 1? On their method it would be just as valid a combination.
      Keeping the numbers apart, as the passage has done, allows the passage to speak for itself, rather than impose arbitrary combinations back on to the reading.

      Thx for pointing out the two approaches.

      Reply

4. Tim wrote:

   “We will continue next time with the One Week, the critical Seventieth Week of Daniel 9. By way of preview—and to restate what is common knowledge to historians—it was during this period that King Antiochus of Syria confirmed a covenant with the Jews to adopt the Greek way of life. Three and a half years later, he outlawed the sacrificial offerings of the temple, and then erected an idol on the altar—the infamous “abomination of desolation.” Three and a half years after sacrifices were outlawed, the Holy of Holies was recovered in a Jewish revolt and then purified, consecrated and rededicated in accordance with the Law. And the Law requires that it be anointed (Exodus 40). The period encompassed by the confirmation of the covenant and the anointing of the Most Holy is from 171 to 164 B.C.—seven years.

   The idea that the Seventieth Week of Daniel was completed long before Jesus was born will of course be an uncomfortable concept to many, especially because the passage has for so long had the weight of a Messianic interpretation superimposed upon it. It is a weight that the passage was not meant to bear.”

   I know it is getting uncomfortable for me. My whole presupposition to Daniel 9 is getting turned upside down. This cannot be happening. First I had to give up premilliannialism as a Roman Catholic/Charismatic. Then I had to give up preteterism as a Rushdoony-God’s Law mover & shaker, and now I have to give up historicism as taught by our forefathers in the reformed Protestant faith.

   What, this is not looking good, as I know of no ministers in the world that will give these claims the time it takes to refute their own published positions. Once things are published and in the marketplace for all to read it is EXTREMELY (if not impossible) for them to be corrected or removed from the marketplace. Very few times do you ever find ministers in history who change their views, and retract what they wrote especially in eschatology.

   Reply

   1. Walt wrote ……
      ” Very few times do you ever find ministers in history who change their views, and retract what they wrote especially in eschatology”.

      Alas, too true, and not just eschatology.

      Reply

5. Tim, since Rome responded with futurism and preterism to the reformation pointing to the papacy as antichrist, what will they do with your interpretation pointing to the papacy again?

   ——–
   One major identifying characteristic the Catholic Church needed to deal with was the time period of 1260 years that the antichrist power was to rule, according to Protestantism’s Historicist interpretation. There simply is only one entity on earth that has ruled for this length of time after the fall of pagan Rome, and that is the Roman Catholic Church (See also Time, Times, and Half a Time? and The Red Dragon and Rome).

   A new “interpretation” would have to be found that deflected attention away from the twelve century papal rule of the middle ages. This would fulfill the prophecy of Dan 7:25, that the little horn power would think to change the prophetic set times of the most High, just like king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon thought to change the prophetic vision of the statue man in Daniel chapter 2, by building an all gold statue in chapter 3. The little horn, Mystery Babylon, would in like manner, try to deny and obscure the meaning of prophecy.

   http://aloha.net/~mikesch/times.htm
   http://aloha.net/~mikesch/dragon.htm

   Tim, can you make up another column to this chart?

   http://aloha.net/~mikesch/empires.htm

   Well, I guess the chart would be totally different.

   Back to the argument of 1260 years of papal supremacy.

   http://aloha.net/~mikesch/1260years.htm

   Reply

6. Tim,

   I’m going to have to step back from your blog for a while. Today I was gently rebuked in our corporate worship public prayer for generally violating 2 Timothy 3-5 (For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.)

   We are taught in Scripture to beware of false teachers and we can know them by their fruits (Matt.7:16). We know them by their doctrine and worship, and you and I both know that we have strong differences in our understanding of biblical (reformed) doctrine such as the issue of celebrating Christmas, regulative principle of worship (e.g., exclusive psalmody, use of instrumental music in public worship), binding nature of covenants, binding nature of confessions & creeds agreeable to Scripture that have been ratified by faithful Christian courts (faithful subordinate standards), occasional hearing, binding nature of terms of communion, etc.

   In history, we have seen those like Joseph Smith (prophet) and Ellen G. White (prophetess) who have deviated from historical, biblical reformed tradition, and established entire denominations upon their visions and prophetic interpretations. I am not saying you have had any visions, but certainly you are teaching against all of the reformed church, the early church fathers and the Apostles in historic eschatology and the rebuke I was given today is a public warning that I’m going to be easily deceived with itchy ears.

   Near all the reformers and early church fathers had agreement as our previous sermon quote makes clear as to how post millennial eschatology is to be interpreted in Scripture, and you have given us not one historical figure that has agreed (unfortunately) with your public position.

   The Apostles and Jesus Himself must have seen Dan.9:24 as Messianic, and there is no evidence that no Jewish church leader would have seen Dan.9 as Mosaic. Certainly, there has never been an early church father, nor any reformer that has your interpretation. How can you be right when the entire history of the faithful, remnant Christian church be wrong?

   My dad used to ask me the same question over and over. How could I and less than 50 covenanters in our church claim to be right against 1 billion Roman Catholics? It was the joke in my family to stand against 1 billion Roman Catholics when I chose to leave the church and become Charismatic-Jack Van Impe follower. Then to leave that to chase Rushdoony and other God’s Law, Baptist types was even more laughable.

   All Covenanters and reformed agree on historical eschatology, and there is not one chance they could be wrong. Chasing a lone prophecy wolf like Joseph Smith or Ellen G. White on a new prophecy trail is not only dangerous, but in light of our extreme differences in doctrine and pure worship (just like I have against Mormons & Adventists), Scripture tells me to beware of itchy ears.

   I’m not saying we don’t have agreement in identifying the Papacy as antichrist, but I’m saying that you have totally overturned all post-mill historicist Ministers and Pastors with interpretations that are dangerous to lead many astray.

   Please know I will be reading your series, but I must refrain from any support to avoid being preached against, or being rebuked in public prayers in our service. I do pray you will learn the true reformed, biblical teaching on eschatology, and repent for your backsliding and errors.

   Reply

   1. Thank you, Walt. I completely understand.

      However, I don’t know where I have taught against “the Apostles in historic eschatology.” I know you are stepping back, but I would appreciate an e-mail in private where you could show me that I have taught against the apostles. Also, your statement “The Apostles and Jesus Himself must have seen Dan.9:24 as Messianic” is precisely the “tradition of men” that I seek to rebut here on this blog. Where in Scripture do the apostles and Jesus Himself see Daniel 9:24 as messianic? It is but a tradition, and is cut from the same cloth as Tertullian’s approach in which he identified the prophecy as messianic and then set about to see if he could make the numbers work out. We are not to approach the text presuming already to know what it means. Daniel 9 is a textbook case of how dangerous it can be to “preach Christ from every text,” a modern and ancient homiletic that obscures the meaning of God’s Word.

      If I have to choose between the Scriptures and nearly 2,000 years of tradition—yes, even the tradition of the Covenanters—I will stand on the Scriptures. No new testament writer identified Jesus as the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks. Unless I am persuaded by the Scriptures or plain reason, here I stand. I can do no other.

      You asked, “How can you be right when the entire history of the faithful, remnant Christian church be wrong?”

      And how could Copernicus be right, with the weight of 1,400 years of the established tradition of geocentrism pressing against him? And yet here we are, orbiting the Sun.

      Thank you for your encouragement over the last year.

      Warm regards,

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Well said Tim.
         Traditions die hard no matter what side of the fence you are on.

         Reply

   2. Walt,

      how does this approach fit with the Bereans who: “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”? (Acts 17:11)

      Is there not a difference between:

      1. someone who searches for a teacher that talks only about pleasant and nice things

      and

      2. someone who searches the Scripture to see whether a teacher says what is in the Scripture?

      Reply

7. Tim, I will write you privately as I don’t intend to leave this research…as I have never been one to follow the crowd…no matter how well intentioned. I like Jeremiah will stand alone.

   ————
   O Lord, thou knowest; remember me, and visit me, and revenge me of my persecutors; take me not away in thy long-suffering; know that for thy sake I have suffered rebuke. Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart; for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts. I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation. Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? Wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and as waters that fail?

   Therefore saith the Lord, If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me: and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them. And I will make thee unto this people a fenced brazen wall: and they shall fight against thee, but they shall not prevail against thee: for I am with thee to save thee and to deliver thee, saith the Lord. And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible. (Jer.15:15-21)
   ———–

   Like the Covenanters, I will stand alone against the crowd too:

   ————
   Object. 3. Do you the Dissenters think you are in the Right, and all the great and learned Ministers in this present Church in the Wrong? Sure we have both the greatest Men, and the greatest Number on our Side; you have only a few, and these of the weakest Sort, and your People are ignorant, &c.

   Answ. 1. Though I would hope few should lay any Weight on this Objection; and it were enough to desire such who do lay Weight thereon to consider, John 7:47,48,49. with Mr Hutcheson’s Notes on that Chap. Yet I shall only say, That an impartial Observer will find that for most Part, in all Periods, God hath made Use of Nothings, not only to break the Ice to others, but to bear Testimony for Him: He hides from the Wise and Prudent, and reveals unto Babes: He makes the foolish Things of this World to confound the Wise, &c. Holy is our Sovereign, who doth what he will.

   2. I own this Church hath the greatest Men, and the greatest Number on her Side; and so had the Jews in the Apostles Time; and so had the Papists at the Reformation, Revel. 13:3. The whole World wondered after the Beast and so have the Prelatists at this Day in Britain and Ireland. I wonder not to hear the old Cry, Have any of the Rulers, or of the Pharisees believed on him? What if they do not? Will it follow, that Dissenters must not believe? Little did the Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, with the body of the Jewish Nation, think, that a few Men, Dissenters from the National Worship, were in the Right, and all they in the Wrong: They were so far from that Thought, that they counted them Ignorant, Deluded and Cursed; This People that know not the Law are cursed. If Christ’s Disciples were to go in the Way that the most or the greatest go, they might have no Cross to take up, which his Followers are sure to meet with.

   3. When the Spirit of God would shew us how few they are that bear Witness to the Truths of Christ, he calls them two Witnesses, Rev. 11:3. to teach us not to choose our Religion by Multitudes, or reject Doctrines and precious Truths, because few believe and practice them; for that may be the right Way which few find, Matth. 7:14. and fewer care to walk in, when they know it.

   4. I think they have little Reason to boast of their Multitudes, but rather to blush for their vain Conversation, and promiscuous Admission to Sealing Ordinances; for Multitudes of graceless Professors do but disgrace any Profession, and keep ferious Christians out of their Communion. (Andrew Clarkson, Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution Church of Scotland. Also, Their Principles Concerning Civil Government, and the Difference Betwixt the Reformation and Revolution Principles, 1731, page 185, emphasis added)

   —————

   Like a Session Decision once said that I have bound myself to:

   ————–

   First, whatsoever reverence or dignity is by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures given to particular men in office, all of it is given, not properly to men themselves, but to the office of the ministry which those men occupy. Those particular men who are called of Christ to serve in an official capacity are “clothed” with the ministry. In essence, the official requirements of the ministry, and the associated spiritual power to fulfil their attendant duties are “committed” unto them (Exod.3:4 and 14:31; Duet.17:9,10; Mal.2:4,6; Ezek.3:17; Jer.23:28 and 1:6; Matt.28:19; Acts 15:10). Accordingly, these men, as official ministers called and sent of Christ, have been given a limited ministerial power to make subordinate rules and decrees. These rules and decrees do not bind except where and when they wholly conform to that first infallible and unerring rule prescribed by Christ Himself (Luke 22:25-27; 1Pe5:2,3; 2Tim.3:15,16,17; 1Thess.5:12; Eph.6:1). In essence, the authority of all ministerial rules and decrees are founded solely upon and wholly deprived from the Word of God. Not only is the authority associated with ministerial declarations of doctrinal abstractions, such as Confessions of Faith, solely dependent upon the authority of the written Word of God, but also the administration and exercise of the same-the practical out-working of these doctrinal positions in time and history-must also conform to this alone infallible rule, or else such rules, decrees, or practical examples of mere men have no binding authority (Isa.8:19,20; Mal.2:6,7; Matt.28:19). In so far as any ministerial declaration or practical application does actually err and decline from that which is taught in God’s Word, these officers do act without power and authority from Jesus Christ. Because they are commissioned by Christ, and clothed with the ministry, ministers may do nothing against the Truth, but only for the Truth (2Cor.13:8), with power that He has given unto edification and not unto destruction (2Cor.13:10). It is, therefore, both the duty and privilege of every church member to use his own judgment and discretion in order to examine every thing that a church judicatory decrees or declares. If after a diligent and impartial examination, any ministerial decree or practice is found to be “certainly” contrary to God’s Word, then these members are not to bring their conscience in bondage to the mere dictates of men (Isa.9:15,16; Jer.8:8,9; Mal.2:8,9; Isa.40:6-8; Rom.3:4; 1Cor.13:9-12). (The Session of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, (1) What authority does that historical testimony which is manifested in our subordinate standards actually possess? (2) What are the criteria by which we judge which subordinate documents are included among the historical testimony contemplated within our six terms of communion?, 1999, pg. 1-2, emphasis added)

   ————

   I intend to take the heat and stay in the kitchen…

   Reply

8. TIM–
   Your goofy eschatology gets goofier and even Walt says goodbye.

   “And then there were none.”–Agatha Christie

   Tim says: “Unless I am persuaded by the Scriptures or plain reason, here I stand. I can do no other.”–Martin Luther

   “Alone again…naturally.”–Gilbert O’Sullivan

   Tim asked Walt: “You asked, ‘How can you be right when the entire history of the faithful, remnant Christian church be wrong?’”
   Then Tim comes back with His pat answer: “And how could Copernicus be right, with the weight of 1,400 years of the established tradition of geocentrism pressing against him? And yet here we are, orbiting the Sun.”–Timothy F. Kauffman

   Well, Mr Copernicus, you and Eric Carmen can sing together:
   

   Reply

   1. Thank you, Bob.

      Tim

      Reply

9. I leave for a few weeks and Walt leaves. Walt need to repent and come back to the church Jesus founded.

   Reply

10. Tim,
    You need to get Larry Weasels to interview you again. People really want to hear your theory. You are wasting yourself on Walter Scott alone.

    Reply

11. Tim,
    I just got back from 6 weeks in the diocese ( no relation to Diocletian ) of Portland. I have been remiss in following your blog as I was caught up in some really important stuff there that involves a Catholic all girls’ school and some lesbians. As I am related by marriage to one of the major players in that drama, your blog had to go on the back burner. Back in Portugal and getting ready to participate in a major pro-life congress coming up in Fatima in about 3 weeks, I can now devote a few minutes to your inconsequential blog.
    Tim, are you living on another planet? Does the name “Kim Davis” mean anything to you? Have you been following the story about the wedding cake bakeries in Oregon vs the gays? Are you so enmeshed in your wacky theories about the past that you are totally oblivious to the battle between the Woman and Dragon heating up around the world? Do you see the attack on our freedom of religion as serious? Are you as stupid as Kevin Falloni? Do you see “Maryolatry” and “Bread Worship” as great or greater than gay marriage? Can you conceive of Protestants and Catholics making common cause in the culture wars? Are you aware of the culture wars? Have you ever heard the name”Barack Obama”? How about ISIS?
    Tim, do you have access to radio, TV or newspaper? Are you aware of the Catholic Church’s position on abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia? Which side do you come down on.

    One doesn’t need to check out what Tertullian, Origin Lactantius or Ignatius said to refute your whole theory. One only need to wake up and smell the coffee.

    Reply

12. Tim,
    There is an ongoing struggle going on between the forces of darkness and those of light. There has been a common thread running through all of history that only those with the eyes of faith can see. It is quite possible that the final showdown between the Woman and the Dragon is about to erupt.

    You and your blog, along with the Kevins, the Walts, the Websters and MacArthurs are no more than a pathetic little chihuahua yapping at the Woman’s ankle while she takes on your father the devil. Maybe you aren’t even that important. Maybe the devil doesn’t even notice you. You are a pimple, no more.

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Jim. I don’t think you have even begun to plumb the depths of my insignificance. I am even less than a chihuahua or a pimple. You right. I am not important at all.

       Tim

       Reply

13. Hello, I am new to this blog. I will introduce myself shortly, so you have understanding from what position I am writing. I was confronted with the Gospel and saved about 18 years ago. Shortly after Lord showed me the truth of the TULIP, and currently I am studding 1689 and Westminster Confession to see which one is closer to the Truth of the Scripture.

    I spent some time going through your analysis of the 70 weeks. Your interpretation of Daniel’s 70 weeks gave me a lot to think about. Yet I can‘t agree with your conclusions. Can I ask, are you writing from historicist point of view?

    You say that the 3 week periods are separate. I will have to think about how you are applying the prophecy to the temple. You are saying that:

    1. We need to see 70 weeks as three separate periods of 7 + 62 + 1 weeks, where every day represents a year.
    2. 7 week period (49 years) began in 18. year of Nebuchadnezzar, that is in 587 B.C. and lasted till 538 B.C.
    3. 62 weeks lasted from 605 B.C. till 171 B.C. This period began before the 7 week period and ended after it.
    4. 1 week lasted from 171 – 164 BC.

    You write: „As we noted above, the Seventy Weeks are a continuation or a prolongation of the Seventy Year chastisement, and Weeks and Years are inextricably linked in accordance with Leviticus 26. Therefore, the Weeks must somehow share a common beginning with the Seventy Years, which is 605 B.C., the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. But because the Seven Weeks and the One Week each have unique starting dates identified separately, there is only one set of Weeks—the Sixty-two—that can share a common point of beginning with the Seventy Years. The Sixty-two Weeks must of necessity, therefore, begin at 605 B.C.“
    That seems to be a faulty conclusion to me. You are using a word „somehow“, and with all due respect it is very dangerous word. Leviticus 26: 18 says:
    And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

    What I read in these verses is that punishment will be x, if they do not repent then 7x will be added. You seem to say that if they do not repent this will happen:
    x + 6x
    (because they went through x already and they did not repent, they will go through another 6x. But the KJV says that if they do not repent after x then additional 7x will be added. So Leviticus 26:18 formula is:
    x + 7x
    If x + 7x is correct then none of the these periods can begin at same point as 70 year period did.
    If connection with Leviticus 26 is correct you should end up with 70 + 490 years. Even if the formula was x + 6x, you should end up with 490 Years, yet in your explanation you end up with 441 years. Laying one period on top of the other is the stranges point of your explanation. Your argumentation flows very well up to the point when you focus on
    „The idea that the Seventieth Week of Daniel was completed long before Jesus was born will of course be an uncomfortable concept to many, especially because the passage has for so long had the weight of a Messianic interpretation superimposed upon it. It is a weight that the passage was not meant to bear.“

    I do not find this uncomfortable at all. You are right that this prophecy is not primarily about Jesus. My understanding of the prophecy is as follows:

    a. We need to see 70 weeks as three separate periods of 7 + 62 + 1 weeks, where every day represents a year. These periods are separate and do not follow immediately one after the other.
    b. 7 week period (49 years) began in 18. year of Nebuchadnezzar, that is in 587 B.C. and lasted till 538 B.C. (as you say The Word of the Lord is the explanation).
    c. 62 weeks lasted from edict of Artaxerxex, as he allowed for whole city to be rebuild (possibly from 444 B.C. till 10 B.C). This period is concluded at a point when street and the moat are built again. It was Herod the Great who rebuilt the Citadel of Jerusalem, fortification that was originally built by King Hezekiah before the exile. It was only after the Citadel was rebuild that the Jerusalem returned to the size of pre exile period. Moat was part of the Citadel. Herod the Great also expanded the Temple area (that may be the street/broad place that is talked about in the same verse).
    d. After 62 weeks period we have gap in which Anointed One was cut off, but it is not description of the last week yet. In this gap, people of the prince that shall come destroyed Jerusalem. In this gap 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem happened. King Antiochus did not destroy Jerusalem before the last week as verse 26 says. During his life Jerusalem was not even rebuilt yet to the specified state.
    e. Last week, was not fulfilled yet.

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Peter. I appreciate the introduction. You asked,

       Can I ask, are you writing from historicist point of view?

       Yes, I am. I also believe that the Westminster Confession is a great confession. You continued,

       That seems to be a faulty conclusion to me. You are using a word „somehow“, and with all due respect it is very dangerous word.

       Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said “Therefore, the Weeks must share a common beginning with the Seventy Years, which is 605 B.C., the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.” In any case, you objected, observing,

       “What I read in these verses [Leviticus 26] is that punishment will be x, if they do not repent then 7x will be added.”

       I understand. I’ll give you my thoughts and I’ll be happy to hear yours.

       Although the following example is not determinative, it is nonetheless contained within Danielic literature and is in any case suggestive of the approach I took. The example is the fiery furnace into which all would be cast who did not bow to the image (Daniel 3:11). When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused, Nebuchadnezzar ordered that their punishment be increased seven-fold more than normal, i.e., “seven times more than it was wont to be heated” (Daniel 3:19). In this case, in an example when the prescribed punishment is seven-times greater than the one initially prescribed, the seven-fold increase was the original temperature (x) plus 6x more, to make it seven times hotter.

       Another example, although it is not contained in Daniel, it is nonetheless relevant because it addresses the Sabbath rest that the Jews had violated, and for which they were being punished at the time Daniel received his visions. This example also addresses the concept of the seven-fold increase. The Sabbath violations were included in the Leviticus 26 protocol (Leviticus 26:2, 34, 35, 43), and Jeremiah had invoked the Protocol as the reason for the 70-year chastisement (Jeremiah 11:8, 25:11), and the Gabriel invokes it again when he answers Daniel’s question about 70 years with an answer about 70 sevens (Daniel 9:24-26). The example comes from the previous chapter, Leviticus 25, in which the rest of the land is described.

       In Leviticus 25, Lord first enumerates 7 years, and then enumerates a seven-fold increase that includes, and is not in addition to, the original seven years. The Lord begins with the first Seven Years:

       “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.” (Leviticus 25:2-4)

       Then he continues,

       “And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.” (Leviticus 25:8)

       Here, the 49 years is seven times the first seven, yielding 49 (x + 6x), not 56 (x + 7x).

       In any case we have two examples that are relevant—one in which the furnace is heated seven times hotter, and the seven times includes the original temperature level; and one in which seven years are multiplied seven times, and “the seven sabbaths of years” included the original seven years.

       Given that the Leviticus 26 protocol was prescribed in the context of letting the land enjoy a sabbath rest (i.e., “even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths” (Leviticus 26:34), “until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years” (2 Chronicles 36:21)), and that the Leviticus 26 Protocol deals with a seven-fold increase of something (Leviticus 26:18, 21, 23-24, 27-28), and the most proximate and relevant examples we have are suggestive of a seven-fold increase of an original amount (Daniel 3:11; Leviticus 25:4,8) but not a seven-fold increase in addition to an original amount, I do not believe the mathematics in this article do violence to the text. The seven-fold increase in Leviticus 26 is directly related to the seven-fold increase in Leviticus 25, dealing with the very same issue, and the seven-fold increase in Leviticus 26 and Daniel 9 are handled in the same way the seven-fold increase is handled in Leviticus 25.

       You continued,

       “c. 62 weeks lasted from edict of Artaxerxex, as he allowed for whole city to be rebuild (possibly from 444 B.C. till 10 B.C). “

       What is your basis for starting the 62 Weeks from the edict of Artaxerxes?

       You also observed,

       “King Antiochus did not destroy Jerusalem before the last week as verse 26 says.”

       Daniel 9:26 says,

       “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.”

       How do you take Daniel 9:26 “after threescore and two weeks…” to mean that “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” will destroy it during the threescore and two weeks? It seems to me that the desolations performed by the antagonist of Daniel 9:26 (“the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; “) occur after the sixty-two weeks, and during the last week “and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,” (Daniel 9:27). During the sixty-two weeks, “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” In other words, during the sixty-two weeks, the city is rebuilt, not destroyed.

       Thanks for your thoughts and for introducing yourself to the blog. I look forward to hearing back from you.

       Tim

       Reply

       1. Thank you for your response Tim. I hope to replay in next 3-4 days.

          Peter

          Reply

       2. I spent some time pondering x + 6x versus x + 7x question, based on the texts that you quote and x + 6x seems reasonable. Yet as I came to few conclusions.

          First:
          Does Leviticus 26 suggest multiplication of the time of the punishment, or does it suggest multiplication of the intensity of the punishment?
          Once this question is asked I believe it is clear that it is the intensity of the punishment that Leviticus 26 talks about. Whole 26th chapter is gradation of the punishment, but nowhere does it suggest prolongation of it. To compare language of Leviticus 25 and Leviticus 26:
          Leviticus 25:8 – …seven times seven years… (sheba paam sheba shaneh)
          Leviticus 26:18 – …seven times more… (sheba yasaph)
          Leviticus 26:21 – …seven times more plagues… (sheba yasaph)
          Leviticus 26:24 – …yet seven… (gam sheba)
          Leviticus 26:24 – …seven times… (sheba)
          In Leviticus 25:8 it is clear that time is being multiplied, but in Daniel: “Nebuchadnezzar ordered that their punishment be increased seven-fold more than normal, i.e., “seven times more than it was wont to be heated” (Daniel 3:19)“ and it is clear that their punishment was increased in intensity, not in how long it would last.

          Second:
          Was Leviticus 26 invoked only once when Gabriel spoke to Daniel? Or was it invoked more than once? I believe it was invoked many times. Let us look to Judges 2: 11-15:
          And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:
          And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger.
          And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.
          And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.
          Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.

          This is what the LORD sworn unto them in Leviticus 26 protocol. The protocol was invoked many times during the history of the Israel.

          Another instance is in Judges 3:6-9:
          “And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.
          And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the groves.
          Therefore the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia: and the children of Israel served Chushanrishathaim eight years.
          And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother.”

          History of the nation of Israel is a downward spiral. They forgot the LORD and he sold them into the hands of their enemies (Leviticus 26:17). After they cried unto the LORD they were delivered from their enemies. With each cycle they were turning further and further away from the Lord and their punishment was getting more and more severe. Eventually the 70 year period came. Leviticus 26:43 says that once they are in exile, even if they repent, they will not return till the day when land has its sabbat years. More stubborn the Jews were, more severe punishments were coming.

          Third:
          Leviticus 26 protocol was finished at the end of 70 years and did not continue in 490 years described to Daniel in Daniel 9. Purpose of Leviticus 26 is to bring Jews to obedience to the Lord. If they are hard hearted punishments are getting harder and stronger, until they repent. What happens in Daniel 9:20 is that Daniel repents and acknowledges that punishment upon Jews was right and fully deserved. That is exactly what Is required by Leviticus 26 protocol in verses 40 and 41. After confession and repentance of Daniel, Gabirel says in Dn 9:24 that purpose of the 70 weeks is to:

          “to finish the transgression,
          to make an end of sins,
          to make reconciliation for iniquity,
          to bring in everlasting righteousness,
          to seal up the vision and prophecy,
          to anoint the most Holy.”

          Those 70 weeks are not the time of chastisement and God’s fury, it is time period in which God promised to work with nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. Part of the plan for this period is to rebuild the Jerusalem, that is contrary to the destruction that comes from Leviticus 26 protocol0. Leviticus 26 leaves room for the rebuilding of the Jerusalem only if and when they repent of their sin and when they accept their punishment. Only then will the Lord remember his covenant with the Jacob, Isaac and Abraham.

          —–
          You write:
          “c. 62 weeks lasted from edict of Artaxerxex, as he allowed for whole city to be rebuild (possibly from 444 B.C. till 10 B.C). “

          What is your basis for starting the 62 Weeks from the edict of Artaxerxes?

          To date 62 weeks properly we need to understand what this period serves for. Daniel 9:25 teaches us that it will take 62 weeks to rebuild Jerusalem including the street and moat of Jerusalem. But rebuilding effort will happen in troublous times. We cannot date 62 weeks at the beginning of the 70 years, because in 70 year period Jerusalem was destroyed. When did 62 week period began?

          Here are the Decrees of the Persian kings:
          • The Decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C. (Ezra 1:1-4)
          • The Decree of Darius in 519 B.C. (Ezra 5:3-7)
          • The Decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-16)
          • The Decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1-8)
          Cyrus and Darius talk only about the Temple in their decrees, not about Jerusalem as a city. It is Araxerxes who allows Nehemiah to rebuild the Jerusalem and its wall.. In his decree to Ezra he even allows for magistrates and judges to be set and he allows for the whosoever will not do the law of the God, and the law of the king to be judged and executed speedily (Ezra 7:23-26).

          Gabriel says that during the second period that lasts for 62 weeks (that is 434 years) Jerusalem will be rebuilt. He says that even the street (or broad place) and moat will be rebuilt. Period can be also dated by rebuilding of the street and the moat. Moat is a part of the “Tower of David“ which was important part of Jerusalem fortification. If we take 434 years from 444 B.C. we get to the year 10 B.C. It is the year when The Temple was rededicated by Herod the Great. Reconstruction of the temple under Herod began with a massive expansion of the Temple Mount. Herod’s Temple was one of the larger construction projects of the 1st century BCE. It would be strange if Herod the Great was not part of the period in which Jerusalem was to be rebuilt considered how much he cared for building projects and for architecture.

          You write:
          „How do you take Daniel 9:26 “after threescore and two weeks…” to mean that “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” will destroy it during the threescore and two weeks? It seems to me that the desolations performed by the antagonist of Daniel 9:26 (“the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; “) occur after the sixty-two weeks, and during the last week “and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate,” (Daniel 9:27). During the sixty-two weeks, “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” In other words, during the sixty-two weeks, the city is rebuilt, not destroyed.”

          Yes, I agree that during the 62 weeks city is rebuilt. But I date it differently. It is rebuilt in 10 B.C. when wide place and moat are built. Then gap follows. As there is gap between 7 weeks and 62 weeks, there is also a gap between 62 weeks and a last week. You proved that these 3 periods are separated and I completely agree.

          Daniel 9:26 says what will happen in a gap between 62 weeks and the last week:
          “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.”

          In this gap Messiah Jesus Christ will redeem his people, and the nation of the Antichrist will destroy the Jerusalem. The Antichrist will be of same nationality as the nation that destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. Syrian legions of the roman army destroyed Jerusalem. Daniel 9:27 talks about future 70th week that did not happen yet.

          Tim, I have great respect for historicist approach, I think I understand reasons for it, but I do not see it in the Scriptures.

          Thanks for welcoming me. I am looking forward to hear from you.

          Peter

          Reply

14. Tim and Peter,
    Would you two stop playing footsie and start explaining what all this has to do with Romishism? I am a patient man but this is getting ridiculous, Tim. Months have gone by and you are still beating around the bush. Mary Baker Eddie and Hal Lindsay spun a better yarn with a fraction of the ersatz “scholarship”.
    I am asking you nice now Tim, stop dancing and start fighting or I am going elsewhere to heckle and jeer.

    Reply

15. Tim, do you account for the different calendars (solar, lunar, etc.) in your calculations? If we base historical dates using the Gregorian calendar (365.242199 days per year), what happens if the prophecies are based on lunar years (360 days per year)? Wouldn’t you need to convert lunar years to solar years first – and then do the calculations? Thanks.

    Reply

    1. Dan,

       Since the Hebrew Calendar is lunisolar and the Jews had a method of intercalation that accounted for the difference, there is no need to convert to lunar or solar years in order to interpret the prophecies. A 12 month “year” for the Jews was about 10 days shy of a solar year, so every three years or so they added a 13th “intercalary” month to get back in sync with the solar year. As the years go by, they are just “years,” even if they are constantly switching between 12-month years 13-month year. No conversion factor would be necessary.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

16. Hi Tim,
    I am trying to understand why such an important prophecy would land on Onias? My ignorance is profound on these matters. Was Onias an important character in history?
    Thx

    Reply

    1. John,

       The murder of the High Priest was extremely rare. That alone would make it an unusual event. There are prophecies of kings being killed in the Old Testament. There are prophecies of prophets being killed. This is a prophecy of a high priest being murdered. He is “an anointed,” and that is what was prophesied to happen after the 62 Sevens.

       But there is more. Daniel 8:9-11 prophesies that the Little Horn that comes out of one of the Four Horns that came up after the One Notable Horn would wax “exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven.” In the context, the “host of heaven” is not the angels or the literal stars, but refers to the saints (as the 12 tribes were depicted as stars in Genesis 37). So when the prophecy goes on, saying that the antagonist will “cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host,” it is not a reference to the “prince of the angels” or Christ the King or the Great conquering Messiah, but simply a reference to the High Priest who is described in the scriptures as the prince and guardian of the covenant (1 Chronicles 9:11,20; Malachi 2:1-8). So when Gabriel interprets the vision, he says the antagonist “magnified himself even to the prince of the host,” the prince of the host is simply the prince of the people of God who is simply the High Priest.

       The fact that the Greek antagonist of Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 oppresses the people of God, even the High Priest himself, is confirmed in Daniel 11:22, depicting the same time period, where it says of the antagonist that the people shall be “overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.” Again, a reference to the breaking of the High Priest.

       Thus, Daniel 8:11 depicts a Greek antagonist who oppresses the Jews and even magnifies Himself against the High Priest, Daniel 9:26 refers to a Greek antagonist coming, before whom some of the people of God, including the High priest, will be killed, and Daniel 11:22 prophesies that a Greek antagonist will come, before whom the people, and even the high priest, shall be broken.

       Those are three prophesies of the murder and oppression of the people and the High Priest. And all occur under the Greek period.

       Difficult times were ahead for the Jews. That’s the message Gabriel came to deliver. The murder of the High Priest—a very rare event—would factor significantly into the oppression, and his murder would be a herald of a significant event, namely the beginning of the 70th week, and “the end of the indignation,” from 171-164 B.C..

       Your question is good. It should be asked of Daniel 8:11 and Daniel 11:22, too. Why would the death of the prince of the covenant during the Greek empire matter to Gabriel? The answer is because the prophesy is a Mosaic prophecy, not a Messianic one, and it is the bad guy who oppresses the high priest, desecrates the temple, and ends sacrifices, and it is the good guys who rebuild the temple, restore sacrifices, cleanse the sanctuary, and restore the altar in accordance with the Law of Moses. (In fact they did exactly as Ezekiel instructed in Ezekiel 43).

       I hope that helps.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

17. Thx very much Tim. I appreciate your consistent use of Scripture to prove the point and also your answering the questions of people on the blog with Scripture.

    This interpretation is very new to me. I have read Iain Murray’s “The Puritan Hope” and was less than convinced by that argument. Seemed too close to Rushdoony and co. for me that things will get better and better toward the end. Dr MacArthur’s pre-mill view just beggars belief with Christ sitting around in Jerusalem for 1000 years before another “big blue” happens. And the PAN-mils just say “we don’t know” and say it will all “pan out in the end”.

    Yet I appreciate that the Holy Spirit has said in Revelation that we must “hear what the Spirit says to the churches”, yet for the last 40 years I have never met anyone who could make sense about the Daniel/Revelation/Anti-Christ prophecies.
    Finally, these essays seem to be making some sense of these Scriptures.

    It is amazing how hard we have to fight to get an inkling of what the Scriptures teach because we have accumulated so much false history/teaching for the last couple of centuries. It’s hard to see through the smoke when you think the smoke is normal. Even more sadly, how many professed believers don’t even care to find out what the Bible means in these prophetic passages when we have been told specifically to “hear what the Spirit says to the churches”.

    So sorry for my “baby” questions.

    As an aside, my wife was reading your explanation of the seals/trumpets last week and all I could hear over and over again was “Ah, this now makes sense”.

    In order to “eschew” the evil as Job did we must first understand the evil we are dealing with. This blog has been a great resource in understanding the issues that Scripture speaks of concerning the antichrist, and traditions of men.

    Reply

18. Well, just came across this site and it is quite clear just how bright and knowledgeable you folks are… and I do not swim in this depth of the pool but I still would like to hear everyone’s / anyone’s response.
    I find the 70 weeks prophecy to begin in 457BC. The first 49 years brings us to the completion of the rebuilding of the city. The 457BC date is also the beginning of the “Chazon” vision, the beginning of the 4th and final Great Jubilee cycle – all things seem to line up.

    Unfortunately, I have no idea what to do with the 62 weeks or 434 years. God would not put this in the verse if it did not have its own important meaning – not just a 434 year filler until the Messiah.

    The first 7 weeks – addresses the physical restoration of Jerusalem. The last week or 7 years addresses the spiritual restoration of His people. But what is happening, either physically, or most likely spiritually in these 62 weeks or 434 years?
    Some have pointed to it being akin to the time in Egypt – where this is the “silent” period. In the post Babylonian period it is referred to as the “intertestimonial period”.

    But what is the purpose of dividing this period into 3 sections when only the 2 “end” periods can be identified? (again, assuming the 457BC start date.

    Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, Charlie

    Reply

    1. 1) Since the Seven-fold multiplication of the 70-year punishment is based on Leviticus 26 (see the Leviticus 26 Protocol), and Jeremiah had come announcing the 70-year punishment based on Leviticus 26 (Jeremiah 25) and Leviticus 26 has as its aim the restoration of Mosaic worship (Leviticus 26:1-2), the focus of the Seventy Weeks should be on the restoration of Mosaic worship rather than the coming of a Christological Messiah (I know that’s redundant—I’m trying to differentiate between the “Anointed Ruler” that was prophesied and the Messianic King that was not). (Seeing it as a Mosaic prophecy rather than a Messianic prophecy is the hardest part.)

       2) Once that is understood, and once the 3-way division of the punishment into three distinct periods is accepted, the three periods are shown to have three distinct beginnings and endings. (Seeing it as a 3 part prophecy rather than a single prophecy of 70 contiguous 7-year periods is the second hardest part).

       3) Once that is understood, and we see that Daniel had been studying the Book of Jeremiah when Gabriel arrived, we look to Jeremiah to tell us when the first period (Seven Sevens) begins: from the going forth of the word that Jerusalem would be rebuilt.

       Jeremiah received the promise that Jerusalem would be rebuilt in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 33:4-7) (587 BC), and 49 years later “Cyrus, My anointed” came (Isaiah 44:28-45:1) (538 BC), saying “saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built”. That’s the Seven Sevens.

       The 62 Sevens ends with the Anointed being killed (a reference to the death of High Priest Onias III in 171 BC) and the last Seven ends with the anointing of the Temple, restoring Mosaic worship as it was originally prescribed (at Hanukkah in 164 BC). The only “Weeks” without an explicit beginning is the 62 sevens, and the One Seven is said to occur not after the 69 Sevens, but after the 62 Sevens, so we should look at the original context of the punishment which was an extension of the 70-year punishment, which began in 605 BC. 434 years after 605 is 171 BC, the year of Onias III’s death.

       At least, that’s my take on it. But assuming that Daniel 9 is a Messianic prophecy is the first mistake, in my opinion, and assuming it’s a contiguous 490 years is the second mistake. It’s about restoring righteousness in accordance with Leviticus 26, not about introducing the Messianic Kingdom.

       I analyze the divided weeks in my podcast here.

       And I analyze the 70 years in my podcast here.

       For what it’s worth…

       Reply