The Seventieth Seven

[JoeChan82]

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

It always seemed odd that,"From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’" so this would be 69 sevens until the Anointed One comes, who is the ruler, and must be Jesus. So okay, there is a total of 70 sevens and after 69 sevens the Anointed One, who I assume to Jesus, who is the ruler, comes.             I understand this to be 483 years from the decree to rebuild the Temple to Jesus birth, or ministry, in Israel at the beginning of the first millennium. However, "After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing." which is what I do not understand and never have. Jesus comes after 483 years but apparently is put to death 434 after the decree, 70 years before he is said to come. How to reconcile this is the conundrum for me. What am I missing?

 I hope I am not flogging a dead horse here, but let me print an excerpt of The Coming Prince, which begins to address this very issue. This is only a small part of the explanation offered by Anderson.

Certain writers, both Christian and Jewish, have assumed that the seventy weeks began in the first year of Darius, the date of the prophecy itself; and thus falling into hopeless error at the very threshold of the inquiry, all their conclusions are necessarily erroneous. The words of the angel are unequivocal: "From the issuing of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." That Jerusalem was in fact rebuilt as a fortified city, is absolutely certain and undoubted; and the only question in the matter is whether history records the edict for its restoration.

When we turn to the book of Ezra, three several decrees of Persian kings claim notice. The opening verses speak of that strange edict by which Cyrus authorized the building of the temple. But here "the house of the Lord God of Israel" is specified with such an exclusive definiteness that it can in no way satisfy the words of Daniel. Indeed the date of that decree affords conclusive proof that it was not the beginning of the seventy weeks. Seventy years was the appointed duration of the servitude to Babylon. (Jer 27:6-17; 28:10; 29:10) But another judgment of seventy years' " desolations " was decreed in Zedekiah's reign,⁸ because of continued disobedience and rebellion. As an interval of seventeen years elapsed between the date of the servitude and the epoch of the "desolations," so by seventeen years the second period overlapped the first. The servitude ended with the decree of Cyrus. The desolations continued till the second year of Darius Hystaspes.⁹ And it was the era of the desolations , and not of the servitude which Daniel had in view.

[Diaste]

23 hours ago, Last Daze said:

I've never understood the reason for the distinction that's being made between the division of 7 weeks and 62 weeks.  Did the first 7 weeks somehow pertain to the "people" and the following 62 weeks pertain to the "city" as mentioned in verse 24?  I'm not sure, but I see it as two distinct time segments.  I've always taken the phrase "after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off" as a reference to that time segment that occurs after the first 7 weeks, making it a reference to something that takes place after the 69th week.  I read it as "after the 62 weeks (which is after the 7 weeks) the Messiah will be cut off", which is why I think it had to take place during the 70th week given what the prophecy is stated to accomplish in the 490 year timeframe.

I'm going to start here with what was to be accomplished in the 490 years. "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."

The one thing that stands out is "anoint the most Holy". If this prophecy is for the Jews and Jerusalem they did not accomplish "to anoint the most Holy". This would be Jesus, yes? So why doesn't this signal the end of the 69th week with the last outstanding? 

Let's say the view of "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, " is that of 62 weeks after a preceding 49 years. If the Messiah is cut off after 69 weeks this should be the crucifixion, leaving a full 7 years yet to be accomplished. Maybe the clock stopped for the Jews when they demanded the death of the most Holy some time before the crucifixion. It was obvious well before the cross the Jews rejected the savior of all men.

I have always thought it strange to have a 2000 year hiatus between the 69th and 70th week. I have really only heard this from others. What I do consider the truth about the end of the age is what I read in Matt 24. When asked about the end of the age Jesus answered with what I see as a parallel to "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.".

Which to me looks like a concise overview of both Matt 24 and the entire Revelation.

[Last Daze]

3 hours ago, Diaste said:

I'm going to start here with what was to be accomplished in the 490 years. "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."

The one thing that stands out is "anoint the most Holy". If this prophecy is for the Jews and Jerusalem they did not accomplish "to anoint the most Holy". This would be Jesus, yes? So why doesn't this signal the end of the 69th week with the last outstanding? 

Let's say the view of "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, " is that of 62 weeks after a preceding 49 years. If the Messiah is cut off after 69 weeks this should be the crucifixion, leaving a full 7 years yet to be accomplished. Maybe the clock stopped for the Jews when they demanded the death of the most Holy some time before the crucifixion. It was obvious well before the cross the Jews rejected the savior of all men.

I have always thought it strange to have a 2000 year hiatus between the 69th and 70th week. I have really only heard this from others. What I do consider the truth about the end of the age is what I read in Matt 24. When asked about the end of the age Jesus answered with what I see as a parallel to "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.".

Which to me looks like a concise overview of both Matt 24 and the entire Revelation.

Do you see "the Messiah being cut off" as taking place outside of the seventy sevens (after 69th, 70th still future)?

The 2000 year hiatus I see as God fulfilling His promise to Abraham, the times of the Gentiles, when the gospel went out to all the nations.  The fourth kingdom of the great statue in Daniel 2 was interrupted for this purpose I believe, which also caused an interruption of the 70th week.  Didn't Jesus confirm the new covenant during His ministry?  Didn't His death bring an end to old covenant sacrifice?  Aren't all future timeframes ~3.5 years long? (1335 1290 1260 days, time times and half a time, 42 months)  I see all that pointing to a partially fulfilled 70th week.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Last Daze

[Last Daze]

4 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

I see the 70 week, "shabbua" prophecy as being of a dual nature.   Why does it not start out simply as "490 years are determined upon thy people"? Instead of 70 shabbua? 

It's typically interpreted in a parable/ riddle fashion by taking the word "shabbua/ weeks"  to figuratively mean 7 years.  Not to discount the 70 "weeks of years", but i see the 490 years as a prophetic shadow of a literal 70 weeks of endtimes prophecy.   There is to be a final 70 weeks, contained "within" the final 7 years, the last week. 

Understanding the prophecy as simply a 490 year prophecy proves to be an elusive undertaking.   The appearance of the "anointed" one after the 7th week and after the 69th week,  implies that there be 2 different messiah figures because of the 490 length of the prophecy.   Actually,  some might even say that there are 3; with the anointing of the most holy after the 70th week.   

The "most holy" could be an anointed person [messiah] or it could refer to the most holy "place" as in a future temple.   This seems to be a far stretch under most schematic understandings,  with the millennial temple to be built only AFTER the 2nd advent.   But i can prophecies of a most holy temple being built during the final 7 years to fulfill the literal 70 weeks in totu.   [I, in fact,  see it referring to both at the end of the  490th year and the 70th week] 

What do I mean? [Briefly], the final 7 years (of the 490) will see a 3rd temple to be built and destroyed,  only to be followed by the building of the most holy,  messianic,  millennial temple.   The middle of the final 7 years will see the destruction of the 3rd temple,  when the sacrifices CEASE.   The Beginning of this final 7 years will see the resumption of sacrifices for 1290 days,  much like we see in the books of Ezra & Nehemiah; only to be followed by its destruction.   After which,  shortly after the rapture takes place,  will result in the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.   The final 70 weeks will take place within thee last 3.5 years. 

Blessings

The PuP 

No question that it's a difficult prophecy.  Verse 24 is kind of ambiguous on what some of those things mean, and the use of pronouns in verse 27 aren't exactly clear either.  For me, there's more than a reasonable doubt as to the likelihood of a future seven year peace treaty or other covenant made and then broken.  The confirming of the covenant has to happen for seven years to fulfill the timeframe of the 70 7s.  There may be a future seven year announcement about a temple but it's not something that I expect to happen, neither is it a sign I look for.  If you're inclined to hold onto a future seven year something, I'd hold onto it loosely.

 

[Diaste]

17 hours ago, Last Daze said:

Do you see "the Messiah being cut off" as taking place outside of the seventy sevens (after 69th, 70th still future)?

 

I guess I do at this point. I want to be sure of it since I know a future 70th week is something I was taught from all I read from early on. So far it seems to align with other passages.

 

 

[Diaste]

18 hours ago, Last Daze said:

 Didn't Jesus confirm the new covenant during His ministry? 

Didn't His death bring an end to old covenant sacrifice? 

Aren't all future timeframes ~3.5 years long? (1335 1290 1260 days, time times and half a time, 42 months) 

I see all that pointing to a partially fulfilled 70th week.

Yes to all.

In Matt 24 Jesus speaks to the A of D. If it's assumed that signals the middle of the week and the coming fulfillment of the last half, why isn't there a preceding 3.5 years? Jesus goes on at length about conditions before the A of D. I have heard many say this period of time is the last 2000 years since the ascension. I cannot see that. The disciples asked about his coming and the end of the age. I cannot construe that to mean Jesus was going to speak to 2 millennia of events. 

"There will be wars and rumors of wars". If this is not taken as near the time when Jesus returns it's meaningless. There have been wars and rumors of wars since Cain slew Able so this statement likely does not cover all of human history, nor the last 2000 years, but instead must be related in time to the sign of His coming and the end of the age. 

This 'wars, famine, plague and earthquakes' are something related to the sign of His coming in a period Jesus called 'the beginning of sorrows'. 

Briefly, and staying true to the above rationale, the beginning of sorrows look like the results of trumps and the actions of the two witnesses, not 2000 years, just 3.5 years before the A of D.

[Last Daze]

9 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

You misunderstand my beliefs.  I don't believe that the 7 year covenant is any kind of peace treaty.   It will be God confirming his covenant [with Abraham] with his people by the resumption of sacrifices on temple mount: 

*[[Psa 50:4]] KJV* He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.

*[[Psa 50:5]] KJV* Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.

For the sacrifices to cease

*[[Dan 9:27]] KJV* And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

*[[Dan 12:11]] KJV* And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

The 1290 days begins with the resumption of sacrifices and ends when they cease 1290 days later.  It takes place in conjunction with the opening of the 6th seal. 

Blessings

The PuP

Interesting view.

[Last Daze]

On 6/25/2018 at 4:10 AM, Diaste said:

I guess I do at this point. I want to be sure of it since I know a future 70th week is something I was taught from all I read from early on. So far it seems to align with other passages.

What about the constraints of the prophecy?  Do you think that what's to be accomplished in verse 24 is constrained to take place within the given timeframe in verse 24?  If not, what is the timeframe for?

[WilliamL]

On 6/22/2018 at 8:42 PM, JoeChan82 said:

This may be slightly off topic, but Sir Robert Anderson wrote an excellent book called The Coming Prince. If you have a bible program on your computer, it might be included in it.  In this book, Sir Robert proves the timing between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of the Messiah (First Advent) to the day.  It is well worth the read.

 

Many good theologians have been deceived by this book. Unfortunately, Anderson did not understand the rather tricky subject of ancient chronology very well. He presumed to use Gregorian years for years BC, when in fact all established historians and histories use Julian years, making Anderson's presumedly perfect day count off by 3 or 4 days, I forget exactly which. Also, and more importantly, the phases of the moon in 32 AD -- if I remember correctly, that is the date he came up with for the Crucifixion -- do not fit with his calculation, because the Passover could not have fallen at the date he determined.

Sorry to be the bearer of the bad news, but these are the facts.

[Diaste]

14 minutes ago, Last Daze said:

What about the constraints of the prophecy?  Do you think that what's to be accomplished in verse 24 is constrained to take place within the given timeframe in verse 24?  If not, what is the timeframe for?

It would seem that makes the most sense, the tasks are for the given amount of time, which is what the text says.

The 70 weeks also appear truncated. 

It looks like we see 69 weeks, which should have been 70, where the tasks were to be accomplished, and then we take a turn with, "and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week".

It does seem to divide 69 weeks and "one week".