chapter2 the seventy weeks of daniel 9

70 Weeks Of Daniel 9

CHAPTER TWO

THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL 9

In chapter one we discovered that the Bible extricates the second coming of Christ from the seven-year tribulation. Whatever length of tribulation will precede the millennium, we find that the rapture and the glorious appearing of Christ will be one event at the end of the tribulation. There is absolutely no indication in the scriptures that Christ will come two times before the millennium. The Bible teaches that Christ will come a second time, not two times—before the 1,000 years. The removal of the dispensational pretribulation theory, in essence, is the removal of one of the fundamental pillars in the dispensational theological structure.

In this chapter, we are going to remove the second pillar that sustains the dispensational system. The second pillar is the belief that there will be a seven-year tribulation prior to the millennium. One must raise the question: How is the seven-year tribulation a fundamental pillar in dispensationalism? In the dispensational futurist system, the seven-year tribulation is a casing—holding mechanism—in which most of the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation will meet fulfillment. This is a very serious matter—so serious—that if the seven-year theory is disproved, the entire dispensational prophetic system falls on the floor like a jar full of marbles, shattered by a rock. The dispensationalist, Alva J. McClain, gives credence to the seriousness of this issue where he emphasizes: “Therefore, apart from an understanding of the details of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel, all attempts to interpret New Testament prophecy must fail in large measure” (Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks, 7). We ask the reader to underscore the magnitude of McClain’s statement. McClain inadvertently says that if the 70 weeks do not have the meaning dispensationalists put on it, then their understanding of New Testament prophecy fails. The dispensational futurist perspective on prophecy would fail, because by their own admission: “The greater part of the Book of Revelation is simply an expansion of Daniel’s prophecy within the chronological framework as outlined by the same Seventieth Week” (McClain. Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks, 6, 7).

Could it be that the whole dispensational prophetic system has been designed to fulfill itself in a time frame that does not and will not exist in the future? We are going to thoroughly answer this question throughout this chapter; but for now, the reader should know that the dispensational system of prophetic interpretation is a multifarious construct where all of the little pieces—making up the whole—hinge on the premise that there is a seven-year period to sustain its integrity. Without the seven years, the dispensational method of interpretation falls to pieces. In chapter one we visualized the dismantling of pretribulationism from the seven-year period. In this chapter we are going to see the “glass casing” of the futurist system crack and shatter on the “rock” of truth. In other words, in this chapter we are going to visualize the dismantling of the seven-year period from the scope of prophecy as it pertains to last day events.

Copyright 8/27/03

1

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

Dispensational Futurism’s(Skeleton)

444 B.C. A.D. 33

Church Dispensation ( Rev. 2 and 3 )

Rev. 4 - 18

69 weeks ( 483 years ) 1 week ( 7 years )

GAP THEORY( Fulness of Gentiles )

3 . 5 3 . 5

(To see some dispensational charts, go to the following web pages: Dispensational views and Clarence Larkin Charts .)

The dispensational theological system places the majority of the book of Daniel and the Revelation within the seven-year period, as shown in the preceding diagram. Dispensationalists teach that the justification for such a prophetic methodology lies in the prophecy of Daniel 9:24 – 27. For dispensationalists, the 70 weeks represent a prophecy that is divided between Christ and the Antichrist in relation to the Jewish nation. They teach that 69 weeks have met fulfillment in the first Advent of Christ, and the 70th week will meet its fulfillment in the future Antichrist. Between the 69th and 70th week there is believed to be a gap, the Church dispensation. The picture of the gap says much to the observant mind. According to the preceding dispensational picture, if we add the divided second coming of Christ, the Church has absolutely nothing to do with the 70 weeks or the majority of prophecy in the books’ of Revelation and Daniel. Revelation chapters’ 2 and 3 are believed to represent the Church dispensation. Revelation chapters’ 4 – 18 are made to represent unfulfilled prophecy that will be fulfilled in the 7 years. Revelation 4:1 is viewed as being a depiction of the rapture of the Church out of the world before Revelation chapters’ 6 – 18 meet fulfillment, for all the prophecies between Revelation 4:1 and Revelation 19 are believed to revolve around the literal nation of Israel.

The arguments for the conclusion that the Church will not be on the earth during the 70th week can be read in the writings of Scofield, Ryrie, Walvoord, Chafer, and other dispensationalists. They teach that the Church is a unique body of believers, a body separate from national Israel; and both Israel and the Church have mutually exclusive rolls in God’s overall eschatological plan. Concerning Revelation 4:1, Scofield emphasizes: “This call seems clearly to indicate the fulfillment of 1 Thessalonians 4:14 – 17. The word ‘church’ does not again occur in the Revelation till all is fulfilled” (Cyrus I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible. Ft. notes on Rev. 4, 1334). Ryrie concludes: “The distinction between Israel and the Church leads to the belief that the Church will be taken from the earth before the beginning of the tribulation” (Dispensationalism Today, 159). [We do not intend to elaborate on this particular issue (What Constitutes Israel) in this part of the course; we cover this issue in chapters’ three and four. For now, we will touch on this issue as it relates to the present topic.]

The secret rapture is a dispensational conclusion based on the premise that there is a seven-year tribulation found in Daniel 9. The seven-year tribulation is a dispensational

By D. S. Farris

2

http://members.citynet.net/morton/charts.htm

http://www.geocities.com/shenlan.geo/dispensation.htm


conclusion based on the premise that God has two different people (Israel and the Church) who maintain separate roles in time. These are the reasons that the Church is made to be out of the world before the seven-years. Unfortunately, for dispensationalists, these conclusions represent an ideological chain—a chain that is based on additive reliance—which also works in reverse; meaning, the separation of Israel and the Church relies on the seven years: and the seven years rely on the rapture. The reliance of these concepts with each other can go in any order. If we terminate any of these dispensational pillars, the whole system falls to pieces. The fact that the seven-year period relies on the rapture is emphasized by McClain: “We shall find that the Seventieth Week cannot begin to run its course in fulfillment of the prophecy until the true church has been taken out of the world by translation” (Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks, 45). Already, dispensationalists have serious problems. The fact that the scriptures unequivocally place the rapture at the end of time—just prior to the millennium—creates a disaster in their systematic theology. This fact undermines the theory that there will be a seven-year tribulation, which leads to the undermining of a distinction between the Church and Israel. This is what we call, “The Domino Affect.” When each pillar—mutually exclusive—is disproved the whole dispensational system collapses. In essence chapter one caused the “Domino Affect.” Nevertheless, we are going to elaborate on each pillar so that the reader can see the “Domino Affect” from each dispensational pillar.

Dispensational Theology of Daniel 9:24 – 27Daniel 9:

[y] 24. Seventy weeks of years are determined for your people and for your holy city,(1) to finish the transgression,(2) to make an end of sins,(3) to make reconciliation for iniquity,(4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,(5) to seal up vision and prophecy,(6) and to anoint the Most Holy. [z] 25. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the command to

restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.

[z] 26. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself; And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

[Y] 27. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week, he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.(New king James Bible)

Daniel 9:24 – 27 represent a gigantic chiasm. A chiasm is a literary device set up in the pattern of Y ZZ Y. The first Y contains pieces that belong in the second Y, and the Zs are also in relation with each other. According to dispensationalists, verse 24 contains 6 propositions that will be fulfilled in the 70th week found in verse 27. According to dispensationalists the 6 propositions of verse 24 cannot be attributed to any part of

Copyright 8/27/03

3


history; but rather, they belong in the distant future in the 70th week preceding the millennium. McClain emphasizes: “The fulfillment of the tremendous events in verse 24 cannot be found anywhere in history” (Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks, 27). On pages’ 30 and 31 of McClain’s book, he demonstrates a chronology line of the dispensational futurist system. He places the 6 propositions of Daniel 9:24 at the glorious return of Christ, meaning, the 6 propositions will be fulfilled through Jesus Himself at the end of the tribulation. The following illustration explains the dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9:24 – 27:

[Y] Daniel 9:24 states that 70 weeks or 490 years are decreed for the Jewish nation to fulfill the following six propositions:

(1) to finish the transgression,(2) to make an end of sins, These two propositions convey the abolishment of moral evil from planet earth. Dispensationalists say that moral evil in its enormity can only be abolished at the consummation (The second coming of Christ). John F. Walvoord interprets proposition 1 as “bringing Israel’s apostasy to judgment and conclusion and to begin her period of spiritual restoration—that is, her restoration in the millennial kingdom” (Major Bible Prophecies, 168, 169). According to dispensationalists, these two propositions prove that the 70 weeks must have a future application to the Antichrist as well as an application to Christ’s day.

(3) to make reconciliation for iniquity,(4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,

Romans 11:25 – 27 is said to reveal the meaning of these two propositions. The “blindness” of the Jews was their rejection of Jesus as their king. This iniquity allowed the Church dispensation to come into being, meaning “the fullness of the Gentiles.” Concerning Romans 11:11–25, Scofield says, “Israel’s unbelief is the Gentile opportunity” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Rom. 10 and 11: 1204). Scofield goes on to say, “The ‘fullness of the Gentiles’ is the completion of the purpose of God in this age, viz. the outcalling from among the Gentiles of a people for Christ’s name, ‘the church which is his body’” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Rom. 10 and 11: 1205, 1206). Dispensationalists teach that after the fullness of the Gentiles has come, the “Deliverer will come out of Zion (Zion; meaning, Heaven. Hence, Christ’s second coming) and turn away ungodliness from Jacob (Israel).” The Jews will finally realize that Jesus was the long awaited messiah. When national Israel finds this truth, they will find the “atonement for their iniquity.” This will result in God “taking away their sins” (verse 27); thus, “everlasting righteousness” will be brought to the world through God and His people during the millennium.

(5) to seal up the vision and prophecy,(6) and to anoint the Most Holy.

By D. S. Farris

4


After the fullness of the gentiles has come, the Old Testament promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses will be fulfilled in the Jewish nation. Once the Jews accept Jesus, the holy place will be anointed. The anointing of the “Most Holy” will be the anointing of Jesus as king in the Davidic temple during the millennium.

[Z] Daniel 9:25: According to dispensationalists, the whole period of 70 weeks or 490 years began with the decree of the Persian king, Artaxerxes 1, in his twentieth year (445/444 B.C.) to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. McClain argues: “There is only one decree in Old Testament history which, apart from all expedients of interpretation, can by any possibility be identified as the ‘commandment’ referred to in Daniel’s prophecy. That decree is found in the book of Nehemiah”(Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks, 18). In other words, 69 weeks or 483 years are placed between Nehemiah and Christ.

[Z] Daniel 9:26: According to dispensationalists: After the 69th week, the Messiah was to be cut off or rejected by the Jewish nation. Jesus was to die after the 69th week, but not in the 70th week. McClain says: “Messiah is to be ‘cut off’ after the Sixty-ninth Week but before the Seventieth Week” (Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks, 33). The whole 69 weeks extend from 444 B.C. to A.D. 32—the year when Jesus was anointed in John 12:12 – 16 (The Triumphal Entry). After this entry, the Jewish nation rejected the kingship of Jesus. The rejection resulted in the fulfillment of Jesus Christ’s prediction in Matthew 24:1 – 3. The Jerusalem temple and the city were laid waste by the Roman armies. This event took place in A.D. 70; and because this event is depicted before the 70th week, the 70th week must be future. McClain makes this a justification for the “Gap Theory.” He says, “A Gap in time between the Sixty-ninth and Seventieth Weeks is demanded by the historical fulfillment of the two predicted events of verse 26” (Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks, 26). Concerning the second part of verse 26, dispensationalists insist that “The people [of the prince]” came and destroyed the “city and the sanctuary.” Dispensationalists insist that the prince himself is still future from A.D. 70. The prince will be the Antichrist. He will come in the 70th week. McClain argues:

Since it is now a matter of history that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Roman people, . . . it follows that ‘the prince that shall come’ cannot be the Jewish Messiah but is some great prince who will arise out of the Roman Empire (Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks, 42).

Scofield states, “The ‘he’ of verse 27 is the ‘prince that shall come’ of verse 26, whose people (Rome) destroyed the temple, A.D. 70” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Dan. 9: 914, 915)

[Y] Daniel 9:27: Pertaining to this verse, Scofield asserts: “In Dan. 9:27 and 12:11 the reference is to the ‘Beast,’ ‘man of sin’; (2 Thes. 2. 3, 4) and is identical with Mt. 24:15” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Dan. 9: 915). McClain argues that Jesus Himself taught the futurism of the 70th week. He says, “ Therefore, the Seventieth Week must also come at the end of the present age just prior to Christ’s coming in glory. This is the interpretation of Christ himself and should settle the matter” (Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks, 35). In the 70th week or 7 years, the Antichrist (prince) will attempt to

Copyright 8/27/03

5


counterfeit the propositions in verse 24. He will rebuild the temple at Jerusalem…claiming to be the messiah; thus, he counterfeits propositions’ 5 and 6. For the first three and a half years, there is relative peace; thus, he counterfeits propositions’ 3 and 4. The Antichrist allegedly will re-institute the sacrificial system. In the middle of the 7 years, he will break his covenant with the Jews by putting and end to the sacrificial system; and then, he becomes the great tyrant of the world. Scofield teaches: “He will covenant with the Jews to restore their temple sacrifices for one week (seven years), but in the middle of that time he will break the covenant and fulfill Dan. 12:11; 2 Thes. 2:3, 4” (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Dan. 9: 915). In this period, 144,000 Jews are converted and realize the deception. They convert multitudes of people throughout the world. This leads into the battle of Armageddon in the Middle East. The whole world will come against Jerusalem. This will result in Christ’s glorious return when He comes and destroys the Antichrist and his armies, and Jesus Himself will actually fulfill the 6 propositions.

Dispensational Chronology of the 70 Weeks Falsely Adds And Subtracts From The Prophecy—Making Prophetic Time Meaningless!

(The following web site compliments this section: Dispensational Chronology Wrong)

Daniel 9:24 – 27 can have the structure of a gigantic chiasm. The 6 propositions in verse 24 do pertain to the Jewish nation, and these 6 propositions do apply to the 70th

week in verse 27. However, the 70th week does not apply to the Antichrist; the 70th week is Christ centered. Before we elucidate on the meaning of propositions’ 1 – 6, we are going to establish the proper chronology of the 70 weeks.

Daniel 9:24 tells us that 70 weeks (70 weeks x 7 days in a week = 490 days. Days are years: Ezekiel 4:6; Num. 14:34) were determined (Heb. Chathak: “to divide” “cut off”) for the Jewish nation for the fulfillment of propositions’ 1 – 6. Daniel 9:25 – 27 subdivide the 70 weeks into 7, 62, and 1. Note: It is absolutely impossible to place the 7 and 62 weeks = 483 years between 444 B.C. and A.D. 32. Dispensationalists attempt to place 483 years between Nehemiah 2 and the triumphal entry of Christ. Walvoord suggests: “Modern scholarship has given credence to the conclusion that the death of Christ occurred in 33 A.D., which would fit precisely into the pattern of the 483 years . . . .”(Major Bible Prophecies, 171). Walvoord is dreaming when he says that 483 years can be placed precisely between 444 B.C. and A.D. 33. This interpretation does not work, because 483 years from 444 B.C. extend to A.D. 38. This calculation goes beyond the triumphal entry of Jesus, beyond his death, beyond his resurrection, and beyond his ascension into heaven. Dispensationalists know this!

In order to compensate, dispensationalists take 7 years off of the 483 years; thus, the 69 weeks become 68 weeks or 476 years. (This seven-year deduction is not to be confused with the 70th week.) Dispensationalists literally eliminate seven years as though these seven years did not exist. On top of this, they add an indefinite period of time between the 69th—or should we say 68th—and the 70th week. Daniel specifically said the prophecy was 70 weeks or 490 years. He did not say that the prophecy is 476 years + another 2,002 years + how ever many more years until the 70th week comes. Daniel laid the foundation for a visible end to the prophecy. Dispensationalists have the prophecy with

By D. S. Farris

6

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sir-robert-anderson.htm


no visible end. Scofield reveals this dispensational confusion where he says, “When the Church age will end, and the seventieth week begin, is nowhere revealed” (Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Dan. 9: 914). Nowhere in scripture has such a device been constructed. By making this prophecy 483 – 7 = 476 + 2,002 + how ever many more years + the 70th week, is subtracting and adding to this prophecy. Revelation 22:18, 19 speak about the danger of adding and subtracting to Revelation or any prophecies related to that book. (Notice the following web sites: The Real Parenthesis by David Vaughn Elliott and The Seventy Weeks and the Tribulation by Phillip Mauro )

Philip Mauro gave up this system for many reasons—reasons that we have covered and will cover in this course. Concerning the gap theory, Mauro emphasizes: “Never has a specific number of time-units, making up a described stretch of time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time-units” (The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, 95). Mauro also acknowledges: “This manner of dealing with Scripture is, so far as our experience goes, without parallel or precedent in the field of exegesis” (The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, 76). We completely agree with Mauro for the following reasons: God told Abraham in Genesis 15:13 that his seed would be afflicted in an alien land for 400 years. Exodus 12:40 confirms that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. If there was no reason to place a “gap” in that time frame, what justification is there to do so with the 490 years? Jeremiah 25 (Also see 2 Chron. 36:21; Dan. 9:2) says that the captivity of the Jewish nation was foretold before Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in 606 B.C. The prophecy foretold a 70-year period. There were no “gaps” placed in this period of time, so what justification do dispensationalists have to place a gap in the 70 weeks. Edward J. Young argues this matter rightly where he says, “If there is no warrant for inserting a gap in Jeremiah’s prophecy, what warrant is there for doing so in the prophecy of the 70 sevens? Had there been a gap in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 29:10) Daniel could never have understood the years of the captivity. The prophecy would have deceived him. The same is true in the present case (The 70 weeks)” (The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 216).

Another important aspect of the chronology of the 70 weeks is that this period represents 70 Sabbatical periods. There are 7 days in a week. Six days precede the Sabbath day. When this prophecy speaks of 70 periods of 7 days—equaling years, there must be unity in the sevens. We cannot expect that God would retain the unity of 69 Sabbatical periods of 7 only to chain saw the last Sabbatical period of 7 with an indefinite period between the two. Dispensational hermeneutics do not take into consideration issues that retain the amount of time prophesied, much less issues of far greater importance such as the continuity and unity of God’s Sabbatical periods.

Dispensational Chronology Fails, Because It Overlooks The Decree Of 457

What then is the proper chronology of the 70 weeks? Daniel 9:25 reveals that the 70 weeks began at the decree to rebuild the City of Jerusalem to governmental status. Dispensationalists assert that such a decree did not come into being until 444 B.C., and they maintain that Nehemiah 2 confirms their interpretation. The faulty chronology line of dispensationalism is evidence—in itself—that the decree of Artaxerxes was not first established in 444 B.C. There was indeed a decree put forth by Artaxerxes to rebuild the city of Jerusalem before 444; the first decree came in Artaxerxes’ 7th year between 458 –

Copyright 8/27/03

7

http://www.historicist.com/mauro/index.htm

http://jgibbons.8m.com/Art6-Parenthesis.htm


457 B.C. This fact is confirmed in Ezra 7. Let us ask the question: Why does the decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 go unnoticed by dispensationalists? The decree of 457 goes unnoticed, because it is viewed as an additional decree for the rebuilding of the temple, not a decree for the restoration of the city. Let us explain this a little further.

Dispensationalists believe that there were three decrees put forth in regards to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple (not to be confused with the decree for the rebuilding of the city): Cyrus (537 – 530), according to Ezra 1:1 – 3, put forth the decree to rebuild the Jerusalem temple; Darius 1 (522 – 486), according to Ezra 6:1 – 8, reconfirmed Cyrus’s decree; and The Scofield Bible (Ft. notes on Dan. 9) says that Artaxerxes (465 – 423) in his seventh year (Ezra 7) put forth a third decree for the restoration of the temple. We must ask: Was the decree of Artaxerxes—in his 7th year—based on the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple? No! We find that the temple was mostly completed and dedicated under Darius’s reign; read Ezra 6:13 – 22. The decree of Artaxerxes in his 7th

year covered far more than Scofield admits. The fact of the matter is…Artaxerxes—in his seventh year—put forth a decree to re-institute Jewish law as a basis for Jewish government. Ezra 7: 25, 26 says:

And thou, Ezra, after the beauty of thy God, that is in thy hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

Too appoint magistrates and judges with the enactment of Jewish law, as a basis for government, is a very big issue. This kind of decree would have been meaningless if this decree did not also include the reestablishment of the city of Jerusalem. An appointment as sighted above is conducive for an established government. The decree of Artaxerxes in his 7th year was the decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. Artaxerxes’ 7th year ran from the fall of 458 to the fall of 457. The decree of Artaxerxes was given to Ezra in 458. The decree did not actually go into affect until after Ezra returned to Palestine from Babylon with the details of the decree. The decree actually went into affect in either the late summer or the fall of 457. Therefore, the calculations of the 490 years begin in the year 457. Notice the following list of Persian kings up to Darius 2: (The amounts of years are approximately calculated to make a point.)

Cyrus (539 – 530) (9 years)Cambyses (530 – 522) (8 years) Smerdis 522 Cyrus – Darius (53 years)Darius 1 (522 – 486) (36 years)Xerxes (486 – 465) (21 years)Artaxerxes 1 (465 – 423) 465 – 457 (8 years) Darius 486 –Artaxerxes 457 (29 years)Darius 2 (423 – 405/404) (19 years) In John 2:20, the Jews told Jesus that the temple was built over a period of 46 years. If their account has any accuracy, then we know that this 46-year period is between Cyrus and Darius 1. The great majority of the temple was built before Artaxerxes 1. Read Ezra 6: 15:

By D. S. Farris

8


And this house was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.

Artaxerxes’ decree finalized a few details on the temple. One should ask, “What details?” His decree could not have been based solely on the restoration of a temple that had been built for many years. The decree of 457, as it pertains to the temple, looks more like a ceremonial commemoration of the temple as the source of the Jewish political rebirth—as a self governing nation. This decree was undoubtedly the political rebirth of the nation, and the temple was mentioned, because the temple was the source of all law—the spring of action in the Jewish government. (Notice the following web site: The Starting Point - 457 BC)

Dispensational Chronology Fails, Because It Omits History Between 457 – 444 Which Establishes 457 As The Decree Of Artaxerxes To Rebuild The City.

The fact that 457 B.C. was the decree to rebuild the city to governmental status is seen in Ezra 4. A decade after 457, approximately 448, Artaxerxes’ brother-in-law, Megabyzus, was the governor beyond the river, an area that included Syria and Palestine; and he staged a revolt that brought destruction to the city of Jerusalem (See Mervyn Maxwell, The Message of Daniel: God Cares Volume One, 252). The Samaritans, well known to have animosity for the Jews, used this revolt as an opportunity to make Artaxerxes believe that the Jewish nation would use their city as a fortress to support Megabyzus (Ezra 4:7 – 16). Artaxerxes gave the Samaritans permission to stop the Jews from building the city. The Samaritans made the Jews stop with force (Ezra 4:17 – 23). Ezra 4:12, 21 says:

Be it known to the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. . . .Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.

In Nehemiah 1, we see the fact that a revolt took place before 445, and we see that there was definitely a substantial rebuilding of the temple after 457. We see Hanani, one of Nehemiah’s brothers and some men from Judah telling Nehemiah some very bad news. In Nehemiah 1:3, Hanani and his companions tell Nehemiah that the wall of Jerusalem had been broken down and the gates burned with fire. Nehemiah 1:4 shows Nehemiah weeping and mourning certain days over this bad news. Nehemiah 1:5 – 11 illustrate Nehemiah praying to God for the forgiveness of the Jewish nation. Dispensationalists say that in 445, the city walls of Jerusalem were in ruins from 586 when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. Walvoord maintains: “It is clear that the city itself was left in ruins until the time of Nehemiah in 445 B.C.”(Major Bible Prophecies, 172). Dispensationalists teach that the city and the walls did not begin construction until 444 B.C. This is utterly impossible! If the city and the walls had been in ruins for 142 years, why did Nehemiah weep over this? Nehemiah grew up knowing about the ruins of the city. Also, why would Hanani and his companions make a big deal over the burning of the walls and the gates, an event that took place 142 years in the past? No, they were

Copyright 8/27/03

9

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/457.html

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/457.html


upset, because there had been a substantial rebuilding of the city following the decree of 457.

In Nehemiah 2, we see that Artaxerxes gave another decree to restart and finish the building of the city. The fact that Artaxerxes gave another decree in 444 is not in dispute. What is in dispute is which decree actually initiated the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Chronologically and historically, in looking at all these issues, 444 as the first decree to rebuild the city is absolutely impossible. Dispensationalists expect people to believe when Nehemiah said to Artaxerxes, “why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchers, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire (Neh. 2:3)” that Nehemiah was upset over 142 year old fire. That is ridiculous!Notice the following chart:

Substantial Rebuilding

457 B.C.

1st Decree

448 B.C.

Ezra 4: 12, 21

Revolt

445 B.C.

Weeping

Neh. 1

444 B.C.

Neh. 2

2nd Decree

Ezra 7: 25 - 27 ( Political Rebirth )

Rebuild Again From PreviousDestruction In Revolt

The fact that Artaxerxes had to make a second decree is beside the point; Persian decrees were irreversible (See Daniel 6:8 and Esther 8:8). Ezra chapters’ 4 and 7 in conjunction with the account of Nehemiah 2 and an understanding of the great revolt disqualifies 444 B.C. as being the starting point for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. Dispensationalists are neither supported chronologically nor historically. Like pretribulationism, they are willing to change “the reality of the definition of what is actually being said” to support a system that does not—and cannot—rightly demonstrate what is factual. Dispensationalists want the 70th week to be a future occurrence so much, that chronology and history must be omitted. We must impugn the dispensational position on the chronology of the 70 weeks, for it lacks sense—chronologically and historically. Now, we can proceed to find out where the 70 weeks extend to from 457. Notice the diagram:

The True Chronology Of The 70 Weeks

70 Weeks ( 490 Years)

7 weeks ( 49 years) 62 weeks (434 years)

69 Weeks ( 483 Years)

1 Week

31 A. D.

A. D. 27 A. D. 34

408 B. C.

457 B. C.

3 . 5 Years 3 . 5 Years

By D. S. Farris

10


The whole 490-year period extends to A.D. 34. Now your calculator will say, 457 + 34 = 491 years or 490 – 457 = 33 A.D. The calculator is set up on the cardinal numerical system: - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3. This system assumes a “0” between “-1” and “1”. In ancient times the ordinal numerical system was used. This means that there was not a “0” year between 1 B.C. and A.D. 1. The number line from B.C. to A.D. looks like this: 3 2 1 1 2 3. If we measure 3 B.C. to A.D. 3 on the cardinal line, we get 6 years. If we measure this span of time on the ordinal line, we get 5 years. The ordinal calculation demonstrates that the 70 weeks or 490 years, from 457 B.C., extends to A.D. 34. On the calculator we get 457 + 34 = 491; then, we subtract the zero year—which is equivalent to one whole imaginary year = 490.

The Father Anointed Jesus In A.D. 27

The 69 weeks (483 years) are made up of 7 weeks (49 years) and 62 weeks (434 years). Daniel 9:25 explains that the city of Jerusalem was to be built again in troublesome times. Ezra 4 is a good example of such troubles. These troubles went on during the 7 weeks, until finally, the city was completed (or near completion; no one knows exactly for sure) in 408. After the 7 weeks, there were 62 weeks remaining for the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy. Jesus came at the end of the 62 weeks and was anointed. Let us raise the question: How is it that Jesus was anointed A.D. 27? Luke 3:1, 21 – 23 states, that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. His 15th year was in A.D. 27.

Modern calculations have the 15th year of Tiberius in A.D. 28, which is very close. This calculation omits the tradition of “inclusive reckoning,” a tradition that was used in ancient times. Maxwell explains that in this time frame, the Jews, “though they began their religious year from the first day of the month Nisan in the spring (sometime in March or April), they began the reigns of non-Jewish kings on the Jewish civil New year’s Day (Tishri 1, Rosh Hashanah) in the autumn, following the new moon of either September or October.” Maxwell continues: “They had also adopted the custom of considering a king’s ‘first year’ as the interval between the day he began to reign and the arrival of the following autumn New Year’s Day” (The Message of Daniel, 223, 224. For a good analysis of Inclusive Reckoning see pp. 46, 260). Tiberius Caesar began ruling on August 19 A.D. 14 when Emperor Augustus died. There was only a two-month interval between August 19 and the New Year, but this counts as his first year. Notice the following diagram:

Copyright 8/27/03

11


Jan.

A.D. 14 A.D. 15

Jan

A.D.16

Jan

A.D.17

Jan

Aug 19 Sept/ Oct Sept/ Oct Sept/ Oct

Tiberius

begins

reign

Jewish N. Y.

for non Jewish

kings

1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year

Understanding that Tiberius Caesar’s 3rd year was in A.D. 15 and his 4th year was in A.D. 16, we can now look at the following diagram:

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

N.Y. N.Y. N.Y. N.Y. N.Y. N.Y. N.Y. N.Y. N.Y. N.Y. N.Y.

Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan.

N.Y.

4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th

Tiberius Caesar's 15th year came in the Jewish civil New Year of A.D. 27

Modern scholarship acknowledges that A.D. 26 – 28 is most likely Tiberius Caesar’s 15th

year. The Interpreter‘s Dictionary of the Bible comments:

When Augustus died, the Senate decided to name Tiberius emperor (September 17, A.D. 14). The Gospel of Luke dates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius’ reign (Luke 3:1). (George A. Buttrick, Thomas S. Kelper, John Knox, eds. etal, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, 640).

Several writers developed this volume set. Interestingly, they come up with September A.D. 28 as the 15th year of Tiberius. These writers were very close. If they had calculated the period before September as being the first year of succession, they would have come up with A.D. 27 as Tiberius’s 15th year. In the Bible Almanac we get even closer to A.D. 27. Notice the following:

Josephus indicates that Tiberius became emperor at the death of Augustus in A.D. 14 (Antiquities Bk. 18, Chap. 2, Sect. 2). His fifteenth year would therefore have been A.D. 28 or 29, depending on whether he used an accession or a non-accession scheme of dating. John and Jesus began their ministry at about the same time. Let us assume that Jesus had a ministry of three and a half years and was about 30 years of age, as Luke 3: 23 says, when He began to serve. At once a problem emerges: Josephus’ date for Tiberius requires us to place the death of Jesus about A.D. 31 or 32, and to move His birth date to 3 or 2 B.C., which as we saw is too late. However, the problem is not insuperable. We know that Tiberius ruled with Augustus Caesar for two or three years

By D. S. Farris

12


before Augustus died. This means he began his official duties in about A.D. 11 or 12, and on this reckoning the fifteenth year of his rulership came in A.D. 26 or 27. The date of A.D. 26 is probably the best choice for the beginning of John’s ministry, because it squares with the 5 – 6 B.C. birth date of Jesus (James I. Packer, Merrill C. Tenny, and William White, Jr. eds. The Bible Almanac, 63).

The preceding group of writers indicates that Jesus’ ministry began towards the end of A.D. 26. They indicate on page 64 of their Almanac, through a chronology line, that Christ’s ministry was three and a half years and that He died shortly after A.D. 30. The issue of whether Tiberius’ 15th year was in A.D. 26, 27, or 28 is solved when one realizes that back in Christ’s day, according to the Jewish tradition, the amount of time preceding the first civil News Years’ day was considered the first year of non Jewish kings. In the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia we see that modern scholarship still comes very close to A.D. 27:

Tiberius is mentioned by name only once in the NT (Lk 3:1): “the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.” The question is, From what date is this to be reckoned- the date of T.’s co-regency, 13 (or 11) A.D., or from his accession, 14 A.D.? (James Orr, John L. Nuelsen, Edgar Y. Mullins, eds. etal. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 2979, 2980)

If A.D. 13 would had been the beginning of Tiberius’ reign, according to these writers, Tiberius’ 15th year would surely had been in A.D. 27

Dispensationalists argue that Christ was anointed in A.D. 32 at His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. No! Shortly after Christ’s baptism (Luke 3) we read in Luke 4:16 – 21 that the Father had anointed Christ with the Holy Spirit. Jesus told the people that Isaiah’s prophecy was being fulfilled in front of their eyes. Acts 10:38 clearly shows that when Jesus was anointed, He was anointed from the Father with the Holy Spirit.

Since the scriptures make plain what issues surrounded Christ’s anointing we must conclude: Christ was anointed at His baptism. Before Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:3 – 10) in A.D. 31, He said—between A.D. 29 and 30—in Mark 1: 15, “The time is fulfilled.” What did he mean by this statement? Obviously, He was talking about the 69 weeks. When Jesus said, “the time is fulfilled,” He was referring to His past episode of “baptism,” not the still yet future occurrence of the “triumphal entry.” God the Father anointed Jesus in A.D. 27. This Baptism of water and the Spirit demonstrated God’s approval of His Son as the Messiah.

The Age Of Christ In Respect To Proper Chronology Of The 70 Weeks

Now someone will raise the question: How could Jesus have been 30 years old in A.D. 27? Christ was not born in A.D. 1, for Jesus was born when Herod the great was still alive; and Herod died in 4 B.C. (Matt. 2:13 – 20). This means that Jesus was around 30 or 31 years of age in A.D. 27. (Jesus was born either in 5 B.C. or 4 B.C. We are not dogmatic on this. )

Copyright 8/27/03

13


5 4 3 2 1 1 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Jesus

Born

Herod

Died

1 2 3 4 5 1 25 26 27 28 29 30

5

5 + 27 =

5 + 28 =

5 + 29 = 34

5 + 30 = 35

B. C. A. D.

3. 5 Years 3. 5 Years

32

33

+ 26 = 31

We agree with the following statements:

Though some scholars divide Herod’s reign slightly differently, it is convenient to divide his reign, 37 – 4 B.C., into three parts: consolidation (37 – 25); prosperity (25 – 13); domestic trouble (13 – 4). (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2, 588).

Herod the Great was king in Judea when Jesus was born (Matt. 2:1). Josephus writes in his Antiquities that there was an eclipse of the moon just before the death of Herod (Bk. 17, Chap. 13, Sect. 2). This might refer to any of the three eclipses in 5 and 4 B.C.; the most likely choice is March 12, 4 B.C. Furthermore, this Jewish historian states that the king died just before the Passover (Bk. 17, Chap. 6, Sect. 4) and Passover occurred on April 11 in 4 B.C. So we must conclude that Herod died in the early part of April that year. Wise men from the East came to worship God’s Messiah. But when they did not report back to him, Herod ordered his soldiers to kill all babies in Bethlehem, two years and under (Matt. 2:16). This suggests that Jesus was born in 6 or 5 B.C. and He was between one and two years old when Herod died. He was probably born in 5 B.C., and was taken to Egypt sometime in 4 B.C. (The Bible Almanac, 62).

If Jesus lived 4.5 years in B.C. (give or take a year) and 30.5 years in A.D., His 30th year would have been in A.D. 25 and 26. Luke 3:23 says that Jesus was about (Gr. Hosei, “about” or “nearly”) thirty. This text gives an approximate estimation, not an exact estimation. This approximation is very intriguing, because this correlates well with the fact that Jesus was baptized in A.D. 27, and both of these issues confirm the accuracy of the decree in 457. After explaining 445/444 as the decree to build the city of Jerusalem, Walvoord argues: “This also makes impossible the amillennial interpretation that the 483 years ended with the beginning of the public ministry of Christ” (Major Bible

By D. S. Farris

14


Prophecies, 173). In light of all the information explained in this chapter, Walvoord’s statement makes us wonder how dispensationalists can come to such conclusions. They either don’t know about this research, or they don’t care. The original Scofield Bible contains dates on every chapter in scripture. They have Jesus’ birth in 5 B.C. and they have the 15th year of Tiberius in A.D. 26 (26 is close to 27). Having these dates, how can dispensationalists not see the clarity of the issue? Their stumbling block is 444. This date cannot be sustained chronologically or historically as the first decree of Jerusalem’s restoration. Dispensationalists have usurped authority above scripture, history, and plain reasoning, for they attempt to nullify what is factual in order to sustain what cannot be sustained.

Jesus Was Crucified In The 70th Week

Daniel 9:26 says that after the 69th week, the Messiah was to be cut off. Dispensationalists say that there is no detailed explanation in this prophecy when Jesus would go to the cross. They state that the prophecy as it pertains to Christ…ends with verse 26. This is not true! Dispensationalists have taken verse 27, which speaks so loudly of Christ’s ministry and His cross, and they have given it in whole to some antichrist at the end of time. This is perfidious! We agree with Mauro:

To make this last week refer to a paltry bargain between antichrist and some apostate Jews of the future, for the renewal of those sacrifices which God has long ago abolished forever, is to intrude into this great Scripture a matter of trifling importance, utterly foreign to the subject in hand, and to bring the entire prophecy to an absurdly lame and impotent conclusion (The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, 88).

Jesus was cut off after the 69th week. Where? In the 70th week! Where in the 70th week? In the middle of the week! Look at the preceding diagram. Notice that there are 7 years between A.D. 27 and A.D. 34. The whole 70 weeks ends in A.D. 34, and we have seen how 69 of those weeks ended in A.D. 27. Jesus died in A.D. 31 at the age of 34/35. When the Bible Almanac supposed that Christ’s ministry was three and a half years, they were right on track in their projections. We agree with Mauro: “It is as near as possible demonstrable from the Gospel by John that our Saviour’s public ministry lasted three years and a half” (The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, 89). It is utterly amazing that so many Christians today can miss such a faith confirming prophecy as outlined in Daniel 9. This prophecy undoubtedly proves that Jesus was and is the Messiah. 2 Peter 1:19 – 20 states the issue in truth: “We have a more sure word of prophecy.” One will raise the question: Was Jesus’ ministry three and a half years? Yes. We surely have good indications that this is the case. Notice the following list:

Copyright 8/27/03

15


The Ministry Of Jesus Was 3. 5 Years Into The 70th Week

Childhood to Manhood (Autumn 5 B.C. to Autumn A.D. 27)

Matt. Chap. 1 – Chap. 2Mark (Nothing)Luke 1 – 2; 3:23 – 38John 1:1 – 18

Early Ministry (Autumn A.D. 27 to spring of A.D. 28)

Matt. 3 – 4:11Mark 1:1 – 13Luke 3:1 – 18, 21 – 23; 4:1 – 13 John 1:19 – 2:12

Ministry in Judea (first Passover A. D.28 to second Passover in A. D. 29)

Matt. 14:3 – 5 Mark (Nothing)Luke 3:19, 20John 2:13 – Chap. 5:47

Ministry in Galilee (second Passover A. D. 29 to third Passover A. D. 30)

Matt. Chap. 4:12 – Chap. 14:1, 2, 6 – 36; Chap. 15:1 – 20 Mark Chap. 1:14 – Chap. 7:1 – 23 Luke Chap. 4:14 – Chap. 7:35; Chap. 8:1 – Chap. 9:17; 11:14 – 32; 13:18 – 21 John Chap. 6:1 – Chap. 7:1

Retirement From Public Ministry Retirement (third Passover A. D. 30 to Autumn A. D. 30)

Matt. Chap.15:21 – Chap. 20:34; 26:6 – 13 Mark 7:24 – Chap. 10:52; 14:3 – 9 Luke 7:36 – 50; Chap. 9:18 – Chap. 11:1 – 13, 33 – 54; Chap. 12 – 19:28 John Chap.7:2 – Chap. 12:9

Passion Week (fourth Passover A. D. 31)

Matt. Chap. 21 – Chap. 26:1 – 5, 14 – 19, 21 – 45, 57 – 75; 27:1 – 61 Mark Chap. 11 – Chap. 14:1, 2, 10 – Chap. 15:47Luke Chap. 19:29 – Chap. 23:56John Chap. 12:10 – Chap. 19:42

Crucifix in Passion Week (A. D. 31)

Matt. 27:31 – 56Mark 15:20 – 41Luke 23:26 – 49John 19:17 – 37

(This list is a less complex version from the SDA study Bible, ACADEMY ENTERPRISE, INC, 1999.)

By D. S. Farris

16


Prince In 70th Week Is Not Antichrist

Dispensationalists argue that the second half of Daniel 9:26, as it deals with the “people of the prince who is to come,” moves perfectly into verse 27 and identifies that prince as the one who ends the sacrifices in the middle of the week. Walvoord explains: “The pronoun ‘he’ of Daniel 9:27, if it refers to the nearest antecedent, would refer to the ruler of verse 26 rather than to the Messiah” (Major Bible Prophecies, 173). Interestingly, McClain notes: “Does the ‘he’ refer back to the Messianic prince or to the Roman prince? Grammatically, it might refer to either, although presumption favors the latter because he is mentioned last before the pronoun” (Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, 43,44). McClain was almost in the realm of factualness, but he chose “presumption,” as he said. If the dispensational method of interpreting is correct, then they must also say there will be two Antichrists. Verse 27, after mentioning the one who will end the sacrifices, says, that a desolator will come and bring desolations until he himself is destroyed. It is absolutely clear that the desolator in verse 27 is a different character than the “he” in the first part of verse 27. The method dispensationalists employ to interpret verses’ 26 to 27 causes serious problems, which they seem to ignore. The problem with the dispensational method is it violates the poetic literary style of Hebrew writing in certain passages of scriptures, such as Daniel 9:24 – 27. Maxwell, in his book God Cares Vol. 1, Daniel, 217, gives a very clear and concise definition and illustration of these poetic writing styles in the book of Psalms. After elucidating on certain patterns of poetic writing, Maxwell illustrates how Daniel 9:24 – 27 possess these kinds of patterns.

(A)Messiah Prince To Come [25] Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;

(B) The City To Be Rebuilt The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.

(A) Messiah To Be Cut Off

[26] And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself;

(B) Desolator Prince To Destroy the City And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

(A) Messiah To Terminate Sacrifices

[27] Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week, He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

(B) The Desolator Prince To Be Destroyed

And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate .

Maxwell illustrates that Daniel 9:25 – 27 are set up in alternating and contrasting parallels. The “A” sections are combined by “Messiah and Weeks.” The “B” sections are combined by “Desolations and Destructions.” When this style of writing is placed in perspective, we see uniformity between the “A” sections and the “B” sections. Note: To say, “The desolator prince in verse 26, who is the Antichrist, must be the one who ends

Copyright 8/27/03

17


the sacrifices in verse 27,” creates serious problems when looking at the second half of verse 27. According to the style of the dispensational interpretation on verses’ 26 to 27, the second half of 27 infers that there will be another desolator after the Antichrist. This kind of misunderstanding of verse 27 need not exist when we understand the alternating and contrasting parallelism of these scriptures.

If verses’ 25 and 26 have the pattern of A – B, it is clear that verse 27 follows this pattern. The “A” sections in Daniel 9:25 – 27 tell us: From the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah came, there was 69 weeks. After the 69 weeks, the Messiah was cut off. The Messiah was cut off in the 70th week—3.5 years after he was anointed. Jesus went to the cross and put and end to the sacrificial system, for He was the focal point of the sacrifices. The “he” in verse 27 must be Jesus Christ.

The “B” sections are combined in the following way: The city and the walls of Jerusalem were built under the most troubling circumstances. We find in Ezra 4, before the decree of 444, that the Samaritans tore down sections of the walls and delayed the decree of 457. We find that in 444, when the decree was re-instituted, the problems continued (Read Nehemiah). After the 70 weeks, in A.D. 70, the soldiers of Rome under Titus came and destroyed the city and the sanctuary. Verse 26 says, “And till the end of the war desolations are determined.” The war on Jerusalem under Titus fulfilled what Jesus said in Matthew 24:1, 2 and 23:37, 38. Indeed “their house was left desolate.” Luke 19:40 – 44 and 21:20 completely correlates with the prophecy. The desolator prince in Daniel 9:26 is the desolator in verse 27. This is Titus and the Roman army. The second half of verse 27 can be interpreted two ways: (1) The one (Rome) who is carried on the wing of abominations will make Jerusalem desolate until the consummation. The next part of the verse, “which is determined, is poured out on the desolate,” intensifies God’s wrath on the Jewish nation for their disobedience; (2) The one (Rome) who is carried on the wing of abominations will make Jerusalem desolate until the consummation. The desolator (Rome) will continue to bring desolations until he himself is destroyed. Thus we can conclude that the “B” sections of verses’ 25 – 27 deal with desolations and destruction that the Jewish nation faced, while the “A” sections deal with the Messiah.

Dispensationalists argue that Titus was not the prince spoken about in verse 26. They argue that the prince himself is future and will be the Antichrist at the end of the Church dispensation. This interpretation proceeds from “non sequitur” reasoning. There is absolutely no warrant to assume that the desolator prince himself has been chiseled out and away from his people in A.D. 70 as the future Antichrist. In repudiation to Walvoord’s argument on the phraseology of Daniel 9:26, Edward J. Young has the following to say:

The emphasis in vs. 26 is not upon a prince from the people, but upon the people who belong to the prince. This prince, therefore, must be one who rules over these people, who can truly say they are his. In other words, he must be their contemporary, alive when they are alive. We cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, legitimately call the army of George Washington the army of a general, and by that general have reference to Eisenhower. The armies of Washington are in no sense Eisenhower’s armies (The Prophecy of Daniel, 211, 212).

After looking at the dispensational application of the chronology and history of the 70

By D. S. Farris

18


weeks and their exegesis of Daniel 9:26 – 27, it is not difficult to conclude that dispensationalists have, again, entered the realm of theological jugglery.

The Issue Of The Abomination Of Desolation

Another issue concerning Daniel 9:26, 27 is the issue of the “Abomination of Desolation.” McClain argues that Jesus, in Matthew 24:15, clearly places the “Abomination of Desolation spoken by Daniel the prophet” beyond His day in the 70th

week (See Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, 34, 35). McClain is correct when he says this event came after Jesus’ day. However, when McClain places the “Abomination of Desolation” up in the distant future in the 70th week, he is in error. The “Abomination of Desolation” did come after Christ’s day; this event took place in A.D. 70. Compare Matthew 24:15 – 21, Mark 13:14 – 19, and Luke 21:20 – 24. These scriptures give a clear example of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Each of these apostles gave their own account of what Jesus said; meaning, these Gospels are unified, not divided. Interestingly, Scofield applies Luke 20 to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; but then, he applies Matthew 24 and Mark 13 to the distant future. Here are his words:

Verses 20, 24 are not included in the report of the Olivet discourse as given by Matthew and Mark. Two sieges of Jerusalem are in view in that discourse. Luke 21. 20 - 24 refers to the siege by Titus, A.D. 70, when the city was taken, and verse 24 literally fulfilled . . . .The references in Mt. 24. 15 - 18, Mk. 13. 14 - 26 are to the final tribulation siege (Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Luke 20: 1106).

It is absolutely amazing that Scofield can audaciously divide these Synoptic Gospels with such little respect for the inviolability of Biblical unity. These divisions are unwarranted. We agree with Hans K. LaRondelle’s analysis on this issue:

Apparently such an interpretation of Christ’s words is guided, not by exegesis that takes into account the context of the Synoptic Gospels, but by a preconceived futurism that forces a system of dispensationalism into Christ’s words. Such an interpretation is saying that Mark and Matthew wrote nothing about the impending desolation of Jerusalem that took place in A.D. 70, while Luke wrote nothing about the “final” abomination and tribulation. . . . (The Israel of God In Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, 199).

The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army was the immediate historical fulfillment of the “Abomination of Desolation,” for Jesus Himself said, “This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled (Matt. 24:34).” The prophecy also had a secondary fulfillment in the Antichrist power during the dark ages and also applies to our day when the final struggle between good and evil will reach its climax. Historicists understand that prophecy has an immediate historical fulfillment; but also has reference for progressive enlargement through time. This method is called, “The world wide symbolized by the local” and “Repetition and Enlargement.” The Abomination of Desolation in A.D. 70 prefigured the Abomination of Desolation, which was manifested in the Christian Church for over a thousand years. (See System of Antichrist part 1 and 2)

Copyright 8/27/03

19


Dispensationalists argue that the events surrounding Jerusalem’s destruction, depicted in Daniel 9:26, came after the 69th week in A.D. 70. And since the destruction of Jerusalem took place in A.D. 70, it is justifiable to place the 70th week after A.D. 70. In other words, dispensationalists see in Daniel 9:26 a justification for placing the 70th week beyond A.D. 70; hence, they have a justification for the “gap” theory. Against the idea that the whole 490 years was fulfilled in Christ’s day, Walvoord argues: “In this time period two events, the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, occur at least 33 years apart. It would be impossible to compact these two events into the last three and a half years of the prophecy” (Major Bible Prophecies, 173). This argument only seems plausible to the Biblically unlearned. Walvoord omits two important facts: (1) Daniel 9:25 – 27 are set up in a Hebrew poetical writing style of alternating and contrasting parallels; meaning, the “A” sections point to the Messiah, and the “B” sections point to the tribulations surrounding the Jewish nation. (2) The destruction of the city of Jerusalem was not promised in the 6 propositions of verse 24. Let us elucidate on this further:

Daniel 9:24 gives us the main elements in the focal point of the 70 weeks. Verse 24 focuses on the Messiah and His work for the Jewish nation. When dispensationalists look at Daniel 9:24 – 27 as a kind of giant chiasm, this outlook looks plausible. Why? Daniel9:24 contains 6 propositions that totally point to the Messiah’s relationship with Jerusalem, while verse 27 concentrates the fulfillment of the 6 propositions in the 70th

week. Therefore, verse 24, being the first “Y,” totally meets its fulfillment in the second “Y” in verse 27. Where dispensationalists have failed, is in the realization that Daniel 9:25 – 27—within the giant chiasm—have alternating and contrasting parallels, which undoubtedly separate the “B” sections from the “A” sections. When we understand this, it becomes clear that the 6 propositions of verse 24 were promises fulfilled in the “A” section of verse 27 between A.D. 27 – 34; therefore, Walvoord’s argument cannot work.

The fact that Daniel 9:26, 27 prophesied about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 does not preclude the fact that the 70th week is Messianic in application within the framework of the 70 weeks between 457 B.C. and A.D. 34. Dispensationalists are not applying the proper hermeneutic of these scriptures. We agree with Young: “From vs. 27 we learn that the cutting off of the anointed one occurs in the middle of the 70th seven. The destruction of the city takes place after the expiry of the 70 sevens” (The Prophecy of Daniel, 206). The destruction in A.D. 70 was the result of the Jewish rejection of the Messianic covenant brought out in the 70th week. In other words, Daniel not only prophesied concerning the 70 weeks and the final work of the Messiah in the 70th week, Daniel prophesied concerning the long term results that would follow the Jewish nation after they rejected the Messiah within the 70th week.

As we are going to see in following chapters, the 70th week between A.D. 27 – 34 was the focal point of the establishment of Christ’s New Covenant with Israel (Hebrews 8:10). We are going to see that Jesus came to the nation of Israel to bring them a spiritual kingdom in which all men—both Jews and Gentiles—were to be gathered together as the Israel of God. The Jewish nation rejected this Covenant; the result was the destruction of Jerusalem. Now we will proceed to analyze the six propositions of verse 27, and we will see the absolute fulfillment of the 70th week in Christ. Chronology supports the Messianic fulfillment between A.D. 27 – 34 and so does a correct understanding of the 6 propositions in Daniel 9:24.

By D. S. Farris

20


The True Prince of The 70th Week Is Defined By The 6 Propositions

Are the 6 propositions in Daniel 9:24 to be counterfeited by some antichrist at the end of time in the 70th week and then finally be fulfilled in the glorious return of Christ at the end of the 70th week? No! Verse 24 was fulfilled in the 70th week back in Christ’s first Advent. We think Young has the proper perspective on Propositions’ 1 – 6: “The six items presented in this vs. are all Messianic” (The Prophecy of Daniel, 201). On the same page in Young’s book, he then proceeds to quote Mauro as saying, “For when our Lord ascended into heaven and the Holy Spirit descended, there remained not one of the six items of Daniel 9:24 that was not fully accomplished.” Let us now confirm this statement by Young.

Daniel 9:24 states: 70 weeks are determined (Heb. Chathack, “To Cut” or “Cut off”) for your people and your holy city:

(1) To finish the transgression: There are three possible interpretations for this proposition:

(A) (Finish: 40 Hebrew manuscripts use the word lekalleh from kalah. This means, “To bring to a completion.”) This proposition says that within the 70 weeks, the Jewish nation would bring to a completion their sin or bring to a completion their iniquity. Matthew 21:18, 19, 33 – 43; 23:1 – 39 and Acts 7:51 – 54 demonstrate, unequivocally, that the Jewish nation did bring to a completion their transgression.

(B) Some manuscripts read lekalle from kala, which means “to keep back” or “restrain.” If this is the case; then, this is in reference to God keeping the Jewish nation from being overcome by the forces of evil in order that the Messianic prophecy would reach its fulfillment.

(C) Because the following five propositions in Daniel 9:24 are Christ centric, it would be more consistent to interpret “To finish the transgression” as transgression being brought to a completion in the person of Christ at the cross. This third interpretation not only keeps all six propositions Christ centric, but also correlates with proposition 2. It seems logical to conclude that all three interpretations are inherent in proposition 1.

(2) To put an end to sin, (Sin: Heb. Chatta ‘ah or Catta ‘th can mean either sins or sin offerings.) We see a two-fold meaning in this proposition:

(A) In the 70 weeks, the principle of sin came to an end in Christ. John 1:29 says that Jesus was the lamb who came to take away sin from the world. How did Jesus accomplish this? 1 Peter 2:24 states that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the tree. Hebrews 2:14, 15 and 2 Timothy 1:10 tell us that Jesus abolished death. Romans 6:23 states, “The wages of sin is death.” Therefore, in order to abolish death, sin had to be abolished. Why? Sin is the cause of death. Romans 8:3 says that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh, and Jesus condemned sin “once for all when he offered himself”(Hebrews

Copyright 8/27/03

21


7:27). Thus, we must conclude here that the proposition “to put an end to sin” does not describe a doing away with moral evil from the earth, as is described in Revelation 20—at the second resurrection. Rather, this proposition points us to the fact that the sacrifice of Christ has abolished both sin and its wages for those, who through faith, accept him as Savior and Lord.

(B) In the 70 weeks, Jesus made an end of the sacrificial system. Look at Luke 23:45 and Mark 15:37, 38. The ripping of the veil in the Jewish temple by the hand of an angel points to the fact that the sacrificial system was only a type and shadow of the Messiah. When Jesus died for the sins of mankind, the sacrificial system no longer needed to exist. Hebrews 10:1 – 10 states clearly that the sacrificial system did not save the sinner. Someone may ask: How were the Jews of ancient Israel saved? Hebrews 9:15 declares that Jesus died for the sins of those in the Old Testament. Hebrews 9 and 10 prove that the “act” of sacrifice in the Old Testament was an “act” of faith in the coming Messiah. Dispensationalists argue that if the sacrifices had really ended at the cross, they would not have continued for many years thereafter. McClain argues: “The death of Christ did not cause the Jewish sacrifices to cease. They continued, in fact, until the destruction of Jerusalem nearly forty years latter . . . .” (Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, 44). Dispensationalists make the course of fulfilled prophecy dependent on whether or not the Jews actually do their part. The reality of the issue is that the Jews, as a nation, were always in disobedience to God. Whether or not the Jews mentally adhered to the reality of Christ’s sacrifice is beside the point. The point of view of the priests after Christ’s death and the point of view of dispensationalists are of no consequence. From God’s point of view the sacrifices ended at the cross. The ripping of the temple veil loudly speaks God’s point of view. We definitely agree with Young’s analysis:

It is true that immediately after Christ’s death the sacrifices did not cease. Nevertheless, at his death, the veil of the temple was rent in twain; the way into the Holy of Holies was opened, the Gospel was preached, and the sacrifices of the Jews could no longer be regarded as legitimate (The Prophecy of Daniel, 217).

The dispensational perspective that these two propositions must represent “a doing away of moral evil from the earth” robs Christ of His glory in that he did away with sin as a principle in His death. “To put an end to sin” must be understood as it relates to Christ and His cross, for the prophecy points to the timeframe where mankind received redemption. Redemption is not a one-dimensional process, but three-dimensional process. What do we mean by "three dimensional vs. one dimensional?" The terminologies justification, sanctification, and glorification have become important theological terms describing three phases of salvation. Justification is imputed when one receives Christ as their Savior. The blood of Christ is applied to the sinner with the gift of imputed righteousness. But this is where many in dispensationalism stop (especially southern Baptists) and create salvific fiction. For many in the dispensational system, all three parts of salvation are tied together and imputed at once on the believer. Of course this leads to the conclusion that all believers are permanently saved regardless of how they choose to live. It is called "Once saved, always saved." This doctrine makes the necessity of "doing

By D. S. Farris

22


away with sin" non important. We see this issue far differently. Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification are not vertically aligned and imputed on the day when one repents; but span the period of the believers existence from the day of repentance to the second coming. Christ, in His atoning death, gave those who will accept Him as savior and Lord the freedom to “walk in the divine nature escaping the corruption in the world through lust (2 Peter 1:1 – 4).” This is why Romans 6 emphasizes the Christian experience as being dead to sin. The faith of those who receive the ultimate redemtion (glorification) is not "a once saved always saved" redemption. Romans 1:17 says: "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith." The statement "from faith to faith" indicates a growing process of obedience to God. James 2:14 agrees with this: "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him." The context of this chapter demands that faith without works cannot save. There will be more on the issue of redemption in following chapters. For now, we emphasize that Daniel 9:24 – 27 illustriously points to the power of Jesus and His cross. The power of Jesus and his cross is to grant us with imputed righteousness, but also to lead us away from sin, as we prepare for the Second Coming (Hebrews 10:23 - 27).

(3) To make reconciliation for iniquity,(4) To bring everlasting righteousness,

Propositions’ 3 and 4 of Daniel 9:24 require deep contemplation. These two propositions are completely realized in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We will analyze Romans 5:12 – 19 and see with clarity how propositions’ 3 and 4 speak of the Gospel.

Let us raise the fundamental question: How did sin and iniquity come into the world?

Notice Romans 5:12 – 19 (the following scriptures in Romans 5 are in the NRS version for clarity.)

(Verse 12) Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned – This text tells us that sin came into the world through Adam; and as a result, death came into the world. 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22 say: “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” This text tells us that both sin and death came into the world as a result of Adam’s fall, and death spread to all because all have sinned (Gr. Hamartano: indicative aorist active 3rd person plural). The question is: Did death spread to the world because all have sinned independently of Adam. It is true that all men have sinned apart from Adam. The verb in Romans 5:12 is identical to the verb in Romans 3:23, which says: "For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." But it is our belief, based on the continuity of verses 12 - 14 that Paul is making a different point.

Copyright 8/27/03

23


Note: Some interpreters, namely those who advocate an “In Adam” and “In Christ” motif, argue that death spread to all men, because “all have sinned” in Adam. Usually, these interpreters do not believe in original sin in that all men are guilty of Adam’s sin, but that all men are born into a fleshly nature, which is subject to death, and is, in essence, “under the law.” Hence, 1 Corinthians 15:22, when it says, “In Adam all die” is applied synergistically with Romans 5:12.

(Verse 13) Sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law.

Before the law was given (at Sinai), sin was in the world. But sin is not imputed (Gr. Ellogeo: to put on ones account) when there is no law.

(Verse 14) Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

Death (The wages of sin Rom. 6:23) reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the likness (Gr. Homoioma: “likeness”) of Adam’s transgression (Gr. Parabaino: “to break” associated with “willful sin”).

The following diagram represents our interpretation of versus' 12 - 14:

ADAM( Mankind )

Transgressed

Tree of Knowledge

BETWEEN

NO VISIBLE LAW

personal sins existed

sin is not imputed when there is no law

( Romans 4: 15; 5:13)

MOSES

VISIBLE LAW

Sins are imputed

Those who advocate the “In Christ” motif believe the following:

Paul’s explanation of verses’ 12 – 14 does not teach that there was no form of law between Adam and Moses. There may not have been an explicit system of law--for all men to read--prior to the days of Siani, but certain elements of that system existed, for example: the Sabbath existed before sin entered the world (Genesis 2:1 - 3). Exodus 16:23 – 28 demonstrate that some form of God’s Law existed before Sinai. It was said of Abraham in Genesis 26:5 “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statues, and my laws.” 2 Peter 2:6, 7 clearly show that before Sinai, “The wages of sin (law breaking) was death,” for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra proves this. Also, in Romans 2:14, 15, Paul tells us:

By D. S. Farris

24


For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

In light of these biblical facts, what then is Paul’s argument? Paul was emphasizing that whether or not there was an explicit testimony of God’s character in writing—between Adam and Moses—to reveal sin and thus put people under the law for transgression; ultimately, all men share in the effects of Adam's sin. Paul is describing the universality of sin as principle and power. All men posses a humanity subject to death and with the infectious power to sin. So, in reading verses 12 - 14, Paul is arguing that regardless of personal sins (all have sinned); all men stood under the law in their fallen humanity. Does this mean that all men sinned Adam's sin? No! Ezekiel 18:13 - 21 show that the sins of the fathers cannot be passed on to the sons. Everyone is judged individually for personal sins. The issue of Romans 5 is that all men have inherited a nature subject to death and subject to sin. What Adam did, affected the whole human race. This is why David said in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Paul tells us in the following:

Romans 7:14. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 21. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

In other words, those who advocate the “In Christ” motif, when interpreting Romans 5:13, 14 believe that human nature possess “the law of sin” which brings all men into captivity to the activities of sin; this truly gives credence to the term “body of death.” This is why all men stood under the law, regardless if an explicit law existed to condemn the human race for personal sins.

(Verse 15) But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.

Copyright 8/27/03

25


(Verse 16) And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification (Gr. Dikaioma: “an act of righteousness” “a requirement”).

The end of Romans 5:14 says that Adam was a figure (Gr. tupos: “form” “a pattern” “fashion”) of Christ. This means that Christ came to save the world in a pattern similar to the way the world was lost. As Adam brought the principle and power of sin into the world, Christ brought the principle and power of righteousness in the world. 1 Corinthians 15:45 – 47 calls Jesus the “Last Adam.” The free gift of Christ is not like the effect of Adam's sin. One sin (Adam’s sin) brought condemnation to many, but Jesus as the second Adam, in his perfect obedience, brought justification to the world, and has made his salvation available to those who enter into Covenent relation with him.

Before going any further, we should ask: How did Jesus become the second Adam? Colossians 2:9 says, “ In Christ dwells all the fullness (Gr. Pleroma: “What is put in to fill up”) of the Godhead (Gr. Theotes: “Deity”; God in Gr. Theos) in bodily form. 1 Timothy 3:16 says, “God was manifest (Gr. Phaneroo: “to declare” “show” “to appear”) in the flesh (Gr. Sarx: This word is used to describe man’s humanity).” This word is related to the word, carnal. Carnal in the Gr. is Sarkikos: “carnal” “fleshly.” Hebrews 2:14 says, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself (Gr. Autos: “he, she, it, self” “self same”) likewise took part of the same (Gr. Auton: This is a plural form of autos and an identical adjective. Auton, in essence, identifies autos with the substance that the children posses). Hebrews 2:17, 18; 4:15; 5:7 – 9 illustrate clearly that Jesus suffered in his humanity with fleshly inclinations the way all people suffer. The difference with Jesus is that he never yielded to the flesh. According to these scriptures in Hebrews, this is what qualifies Jesus to be our High Priest. Jesus became the second and last Adam by means of sharing in the humanity of Adam. Galatians 4:4 states that Jesus was “made of a woman, made under the law.”

(Verse 17) If, because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness (Gr. Dikaiosune: “What is right” “Justice” “putting in a right relationship with God”) exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

(Verse 18) Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness (Gr. Dikaiomatos: “regulation” “requirement” “righteous deed”) leads to justification (Gr. Dikaiosis “Set free” “the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable in him”), and life for all.

In other words, In Adam all die; but in Christ, all have the potential to be lead to Justification and the free gift of righteousness, because Christ died for the whole world.

By D. S. Farris

26


Romans 5:6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

(Verse 19) For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made (Gr. Kathistemi: “to render, cause to be, set, conduct, make”) sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

In Adam, mankind has received a nature that is bent towards sin; thus, sin as a principle in us can produce personal sins or sinning. On the other hand, through Christ’s obedience, we can be made righteous. Romans 8:3, 4 says:

For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

In Christ, the old nature with its fruit was abolished on the cross. When we accept Christ’s imputed righteousness through faith, imparted righteousness will follow. Meaning, as we listen and obey the Holy Spirit, we will develope and mature in the divine nature. Look at 2 Peter 1:3, 4 and Ephesians 2:10. Though we have sinful natures, we are to consider ourselves dead to the Adamic nature (read Romans 6); then, we will become “partakers of the divine nature.”

Copyright 8/27/03

27


In concluding this section we must emphasize that propositions’ (3) To make reconciliation for iniquity and (4) To bring everlasting righteousness of Daniel 9:24 were fulfilled by Christ, for “through our Lord Jesus Christ, we have now received the reconciliation” (Romans 5:11). Through Christ we have received the “free gift of righteousness” (Romans 5:17).

Because Jesus was manifested in our humanity; he has linked humanity with himself in a way to where he has shared in our temptations and propensities; but yet has overcome where we have failed. Because he has taken the very essence of humanity on himself; he is able to rightly represent us in heavenly places in the courts of heaven. In fact propositions' 3 and 4 of Daniel 9:24, though first accomplished at the cross, points us to the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary as high priest and mediator on behalf of those who enter the New Covenant through faith.

Though Christ died for the world in his person on the cross, the free gift of Salvation must be received by the believer through Faith. Romans 3:21, 22 says: “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.” In essence, when a person accepts the atoning death of the cross, that person receives justification (imputed righteousness). This means that Christ has become the substitutionary lamb for the believer. All sins, ever committed, are covered by the blood. The believer then enters the sanctuary in the form of Christ's mediation. Not only does the believer accept the substitutionary death of Christ, but he then makes a commitment to live as Christ by crucifying the principle and power of sin in the Adamic nature. Christ, in both his life of obedience and his sacrificial death, crucified this nature. Though we don't go to a literal cross, we are to die through self denial and life commitment to the Everlasting Covenant.

(5) To seal up vision and prophecy,(6) And to anoint the Most Holy.

In this text, to seal means to “ratify” or “confirm.” The question should be raised: What vision is being confirmed or ratified? In Daniel 9:3, he began to pray a long prayer for his people. In Daniel 9:20 – 23 the angel Gabriel came to Daniel to give him skill and understanding concerning the vision. Gabriel then said, “70 weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city.” In reading this scripture, its clear and natural setting shows that, whatever the vision was, this was an issue before Daniel 9, and we can see that 490 years were cut off of the vision. What is the vision? Daniel 8:9 – 13 gives us the picture of a little horn power that would magnify himself to the hosts of heaven even as high as the prince of the host. The little horn would take away the daily sacrifice and cast down the place of the princes’ sanctuary along with truth to the ground. In Daniel 8:13 the question is raised: How long will this go on? Daniel 8:14 says, “2,300 evenings and mornings (days) and the sanctuary shall be cleansed.” In Daniel 8:1 – 15, 17, the Hebrew word that is used for “vision” is “Chazon.” This word is used here to depict the “divine oracle” or “prophecy” of Daniel 8 as a whole with all its prophetic elements. Interestingly though, in verses’ 26, 27 the Hebrew word that is used for “vision” as it

By D. S. Farris

28


applies to the 2,300 “evenings and mornings” is “Mar’eh.” This word means “phenomenon,” “spectacle,” and “appearance.”

Daniel 8:27 perspicuously shows that Daniel did not understand the matter of the vision (Mar’eh). For emphasis: In verses’ 26, 27 we learn that Daniel did not understand the “phenomenon” of the “Mar’eh” (the 2,300 evenings and mornings). It is not until Daniel 9:20 – 24 that we find out—at least in part—what the vision means. Daniel 9:21 explains that while Daniel was in prayer, Gabriel who Daniel had seen in the vision (Chazon: “the whole prophecy of Dan. 8”) came to speak to him. In Daniel 9:23 we learn that Gabriel came to Daniel to give him understanding of the vision (Mar’ eh: “the ‘phenomenon’ of the 2,300 ‘evenings and mornings’) In other words, it was not until Daniel 9:23, 24 that the “Mar’eh (2,300 evenings and mornings) from chapter 8:26, 27 was understood. The interpretation that the 2,300 days is connected to the 490 days is not hard to ascertain, if one simply reads Daniel chapters’ 8 and 9 together. This is the plain “literal” deduction and “literal” connection of reading these two chapters. Reading Daniel 8 – 9 brings one to the conclusion that the 2,300 days are years, for in 9:23 Gabriel clearly said that he came to Daniel to make him understand the vision (Mar’eh); meaning, the vision of the 2,300 (Daniel 8:26, 27). Then Gabriel proceeded to say in verse 24, “70 weeks are cut off for the Jewish nation.” It is absolutely impossible to cut off the 490 years from 2,300 literal days. Therefore, it is left over that the 2,300 days are years, and the 2,300 years began their commencement with the 490 years. (Notice following web site: Seventy Weeks and 2300 Days).

After hearing this interpretation, one will say, “ This means 2,300 years from 457 extend to 1844, and 490 years from 457 extend to A.D. 34. What happens between A.D. 34 and 1844?” This is a very important question, because the 2,300-year prophecy depicts a little horn power taking away the daily sacrifice and casting down the sanctuary as he magnifies himself to the prince of the host of heaven. Could it be that between A.D. 34 and 1844 a power existed that took away the daily sacrifice of a literal sanctuary in Jerusalem? No! Not a literal building with literal sacrifices. Daniel 8 really does not give a warrant to interpret the “daily” as pertaining to sacrifices in some building. The Hebrew for “daily” is “tamid” and this means, “continual.” The word “sacrifice” is not in the original. Between these two periods (A.D. 34 – A. D. 1844), Pagan Rome and—especially—Christian Rome, with a false priesthood, obscured the priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

The prince of the hosts of heaven in Daniel 8 is the Messiah prince in chapter 9 who died for us in the middle of the 70th week. Jesus Himself and the sanctuary in heaven constitute the “Most Holy” in proposition 6 of Daniel 9:24. Proposition 6 is completely realized in Christ and His work as high priest in the sanctuary. The little horn of Daniel has been Rome who, through a counterfeit priesthood, has eclipsed the truth concerning the priestly ministry of Christ. Dispensationalists are also obscuring the priestly ministry of Christ, for their insistence on the distinction between Israel and the Church has led into a complete distortion of Daniel chapters’ 8 and 9—much more the unity of the two chapters. Dispensationalism by nature obscures who Christ was between A.D. 31 and 1844 all the way up to our day, and they obscure who the true Antichrist is and how the Antichrist has trampled on Christ’s priestly ministry. Dispensationalism

Copyright 8/27/03

29

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q25.htm

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q25.htm


gives credence to Romanism as the author of their faith (These allegations are proved in the SECOND BLOCK of this course.).

Christ sealed the vision of the 2,300 years in the 70th week and He anointed the heavenly sanctuary. This is propositions’ 5 and 6 completely fulfilled in Christ. (In following chapters we completely expound on propositions’ 5 and 6.) Jesus Christ was the focal point in the 70th week. He fulfilled propositions’ 1 – 6.

Final Statements

Dispensationalists believe that the 6 propositions in the 70th week are applicable ONLY to the people and the city of the Jewish nation. Dispensationalists believe that if the 70th week were applicable to Christ’s first Advent, such an interpretation would rob Israel of its glory at the end of the age as God’s chosen earthly people. No! The Old and New Testament prophecies are Christ centered, not Israel centered. God has never favored a particular group of people above everyone else because of nationality (This is an issue that we thoroughly cover in chapters’ 3, and 4). Young put the issue in a good perspective:

The phrase “upon thy people” etc., does not mean that the blessings described are for the benefit only of the literal nation Israel. Such a thought is utterly foreign to the universalistic nature of OT prophecy generally. Rather, the phrase “upon thy people” serves to indicate that as far as Israel is concerned, a period of 70 sevens has been decreed in order to bring about blessings which, while having a primary reference to Israel, do as a matter of fact, characterize the New Dispensation (The Prophecy of Daniel, 198).

God chose the Jewish nation as the people in whom the Messiah would come to bless not only the Jews, but also all mankind. Compare Isaiah 42:6, 7 with Acts 13:46, 47. In the pursuit, which dispensationalists have taken to uphold the glory of the literal nation of Israel, they have robed Christ of His glory.

Dispensationalists argue: “Those who hold that Messiah is the maker of this seven year covenant have never been able to produce the evidence to show the existence of such a covenant between our Lord and the Jews” (McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, 44). This statement from McClain is akin to the fallacy “Complex Question,” which is to get someone to accept a conclusion by using a question that presupposes the conclusion. McClain attempts to prove that Jesus is not connected to the 70th week by the fact that Jesus never made a 7-year covenant on the presupposition that there is a 7-year covenant in this verse. McClain’s argument looks like this:

(1) The 70th week is a 7-year covenant.(2) Jesus never made a 7-year covenant.(3) Therefore, Jesus is not connected to the 70th week.

McClain attempts to divert our attention to the truth that Jesus never made a 7-year covenant, when this is not the issue. The issue is: Is a 7-year covenant mentioned in verse 27? Daniel 9:27 says, “And he shall confirm (Heb. Gabar, “to prevail” “strengthen” “confirm”) a covenant with many for one week.” The Hebrew says that the “he” would “cause to prevail” a covenant for one week. This phrase does not say that the

By D. S. Farris

30


Messiah would “make” a one-week covenant. This phrase says that the Messiah would “prevail” an already existing covenant for the period of one week. Dispensationalists, by arguing that Jesus never made a 7-year covenant, are focusing on an imaginary issue. The fact is, Jesus “prevailed, strengthened, and confirmed” the Everlasting Covenant that He introduced to the patriarchs, prophets, and the nation of Israel (This is an issue that is covered in the next two chapters) within the 70th week.

When Jesus went to the cross, the Old Covenant sacrificial system no longer had any meaning. On Christ’s ascension to heaven, according to the book of Hebrews, Jesus became high priest for all those who will accept salvation in Him. The Melchizedek priesthood is the New Covenant made with the house of Israel (Hebrews 8:10). This was accomplished in the first three and a half years of the seven. The second three and a half years was a period of probationary time for the Jewish nation to accept Christ and choose to accept His New Covenant. In A.D. 34, according to Acts 7:1 – 60, Stephen elucidated on the meaning of the whole Covenant bequeathed to the Fathers of Israel. Stephen told the Jewish leaders the fact that God does not dwell in temples made with hands (Read verses’ 48 – 60). These words sealed the finality of the 7 years for the Jewish nation. In Stephen’s speech, in A.D. 34, we see God working through a man to appeal to the Jewish nation the meaning of the whole of the Covenant and how it pointed to the living Christ. The Jewish nation rejected the Everlasting Covenant of our Lord by the act of Stoning Stephen. The dispensational argument: “They cannot point to the place in history where it (Christ’s covenant) began nor where it has ended (In the 70th week),” as McClain maintains (Daniel’s Prophecy, 44), becomes a hopeless case of semantic jugglery to maintain a mythical theological system. Philip Mauro concludes this issue excellently:

In view of all this, we would ask, how can any sober minded expositor of the Scriptures set aside the perfect and heart-satisfying fulfillment of this wonderful prophecy, so clearly to be seen in “the events of which Calvary was the scene,” and propose instead a contrived fulfillment, in a supposed covenant (whereof the Scriptures say not a word) between antichrist and the Jewish people of the last days, relating to the imagined revival of the long abolished sacrifices of the law. Therefore we conclude that the modern interpretation which takes Christ and the cross out of the last verse of the prophecy, where it reaches its climax, and puts antichrist and his imaginary doings into it, does violence to the Scripture and serious wrong to the people of God (The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, 90).

In conclusion of this chapter we must emphasize that dispensational methods of interpreting Daniel 9 are inconsistent with both history and chronology. Dispensationalists have taken the most sublime prophecy ever written about our Lord and His atoning death, and they have given the most important part of the prophecy—the 70th

week—to the Antichrist. Dispensationalists have robbed Christ of His glory in order to maintain the glory of the Jewish nation. Furthermore, dispensationalism is a prophetic system that is designed to fulfill itself in a time frame that does not exist in our day; but rather, was fulfilled back in Christ’s day. This means that their prophetic structure has been extricated and removed from the big picture of prophecy as God defines it. First the “divided second coming” was extricated from the seven years; and now, the seven years itself is removed from the big picture of last day events. Though the dispensational

Copyright 8/27/03

31


system is already destroyed, we will take this issue further. We will see how Daniel 8 and 9 along with other scriptures prove that God’s temple is the Church, not some building in Jerusalem. We will also analyze who constitutes the Israel of God. We will completely dismantle the dispensational delusion that has blinded millions to the truth as it is in Christ.

Works Cited For Chapter 2

Buttrick, George A., Kelper, Thomas S., John Knox, eds. etal, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon Press, 1962)

LaRondelle, Hans K. The Israel of God In Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1983)

Mauro, Philip. The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. (Boston: Hamilton Bros., 1923)

McClain, Alva J. Daniel’s Prophecy Of The Seventy Weeks (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1940)

Maxwell, Mervyn. The Message of Daniel: God Cares Volume One. (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1981)

Orr, James., Nuelsen, John L., Edgar Y. Mullins, eds. etal. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: WM. B. EERDMAN’S Pub. Co., 1939)

Packer, James I., Tenny, Merrill C., and William White, Jr. eds. The Bible Almanac. (Thomas Nelson Pub.,1980 )

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965)

Scofield, Cyrus I. The Scofield Reference Bible. (New York Oxford University Press, 1909, 1917)

Walvoord, John F. Major Bible Prophecies. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1991)

Young, Edward J. The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: WM. B. EERDMAN’S Pub. Co., 1949)

Return to Prophetic Toolchest Main page

Go to next chapter

By D. S. Farris

32

http://hearingthetruth.org/chapter3.pdf

http://hearingthetruth.org/

http://hearingthetruth.org/


Copyright 8/27/03

33

chapter2 the seventy weeks of daniel 9

Spiritual