Have Any Aspects Of Daniels Seventy-Week Prophecy Been Fulfilled?

Have Any Aspects of Daniel’s Seventy-Week Prophecy Been Fulfilled?

By Author Eli Kittim 

To begin with, here’s an excerpt from my book, The Little book of Revelation: 

“The rebirth of Israel marks a turning point in apocalyptic expectations, and Christ’s message concerning end-time events seems to point toward this 1948 prophetic countdown: 

‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24.34). 

But what on earth does he mean by this? In order to comprehend this terse remark, we must inquire into the standard time limit of a Biblical generation. The Book of Psalms makes known that a generation is equal to seventy actual years (90.10). Similarly, a noteworthy Hebrew soothsayer named Jeremiah exclaims that the Deity will intervene in earthly affairs after a seventy-year period has elapsed (25.12). Daniel, one of the most prominent seers of the Jewish Scriptures, also claims that the Deity has appointed a portent which consists of a seventy-week interval until the conclusion of all things is finalized (9.24). Among scholarly circles, this prophecy is known as The Seventy Weeks of Daniel… . The proof is found in a revered text called the Book of Daniel. In a vision, ‘The man [named] Gabriel’ appears before Daniel to grant him ‘insight with understanding’ (9.21-22). The angelic man imparts a cryptic scriptural clue which, in effect, equates the seventy weeks of Daniel with the seventy-year oracle revealed to Jeremiah (Dan. 9.2; cf. Jer. 29.10)… . Gabriel is basically showing us that the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy must continue to be calculated as years within Daniel’s seventy weeks’ oracle. Clearly, more specific details are ultimately furnished by Daniel’s seventy-week vision, but the reason why Jeremiah’s seventy years are now termed as weeks is for the purpose of allowing us to perform calculations using weeks as the standard of measuring time in addition to using actual years. Taken together, both prophecies refer to an actual seventy-year period whose completion will signal the end of the world (Dan. 9.24). But the details at the micro level entail calculations, which combine measurements in both weeks and years.” 

As I will show, Daniel’s seventy weeks’ prophecy refers exclusively to the end-time and has nothing to do with the time of Antiquity. A common misconception is to assume that the starting point of this prophecy began after the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian exile during the 500’s B.C.E. However, there are many problems with this theory. For one, the Babylonian exile didn’t last for 70 years. Historically, if the first deportation came after the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II in c. 586 BCE, and the Jews returned to Judah in c. 538 BCE & began to rebuild the second temple in Jerusalem in c. 537 BCE, according to the Book of Ezra, then the Jews were actually held in Babylonian captivity for approximately 48 years, not 70! Thus, Jeremiah’s prophecy (29.10) is seemingly referring to the end-times Babylon of Revelation 18 (cf. Dan. 9.2). And that’s precisely what we find in the 70-week prophecy of Daniel. Daniel’s prophecy actually refers to the end of all visions and revelations, an end-time period that will in effect “seal both vision and prophet” (Dan. 9.24). The fact that John of Patmos continued to furnish us with additional visions and revelations many years later proves that the interim between the Babylonian exile and the coming of Christ in or around 30 CE cannot possibly be the timeline of Daniel’s prophecy. John MacArthur, in describing Dan.9.24, was once quoted as saying: “It’s got to be a final thing cause everything is a final… . Boy, that’s final stuff, isn’t it? The end, the finish, the seal, seal it up, close it up, that’s the way it is!” If it is “final stuff,” then the prophecy cannot possibly be referring to the time of Antiquity but rather to the time of the end! Note also that this prophecy refers to “times of distress” (Dan. 9.25 NASB), a phrase which is also used to refer to the time of the end (Dan. 12.1 NASB). 

The traditional Christian interpretation is further compounded by breaking up the prophecy into two parts: one part fulfilled during the time of Antiquity, the other referring to the last week of the great tribulation. In other words, exegetes assume that there is a two thousand-year gap between the so-called “sixty nine” weeks and the seventieth week. However, there is no indication of a long time-gap between these weeks, but rather a successive sequence of events, thus rendering the expositors’ imposition on the text unwarranted: 

‘Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator’ (9.24—27 NRSV). 

 Here are some further observations excerpted from my book, The Little Book of Revelation: 

“The terminology of Daniel’s prophecy suggests that we must use both weeks and actual years in calculating the Messiah’s advent within the overall context of the seventy-year time period… . Many experts have erred in their interpretations by either attributing the starting date of these prophecies to the period of time when the Jews returned to Palestine from their Babylonian captivity – sometime between roughly 538 and 536 B.C. – or by separating them (Jeremiah’s seventy years and Daniel’s seventy weeks) as if they are two mutually exclusive oracles that employ different calculation techniques. 

 At any rate, if we resume our discussion of Christ’s prophecy (Matt. 24.34)—as mentioned earlier in this section—the issue of the seventy-year generation will now become immediately apparent. Jesus is indicating that it will take one generation since the rebirth of Israel ‘until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24.34; cf. 1 Thess. 4.15). Modern Israel, then, becomes the preeminent sign as regards the end of days.” 

I should mention parenthetically that the original text was written without punctuation, thus making it difficult to determine where commas and periods should be placed. For example, some inferior translations of Dan. 9.25 do not separate the seven and sixty-two weeks, thus giving us the wrong impression that they comprise sixty nine weeks. However, the more accurate versions (e.g. NRSV; ESV) do properly separate them, implying that they represent two distinct time periods. Isaac Newton—in his Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel (published 1733)—notes that we should not combine the seven and sixty two weeks as if they were one number. That is a spot-on interpretation by Newton. Quite frankly, if the authorial intent was to impress upon us the notion that the numbers seven and sixty-two must be combined, using the same measurements, the author would have simply written sixty nine weeks. The fact that two sets of numbers are given in the text suggests that they are distinct. 

What is more—in stark contrast to the mainstream view—Newton also mentions in the aforesaid book that Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy should not be confined to the time of Antiquity, but must be applicable to Christ’s eschatological coming. Just like in Revelation 12.3—4 in which the final empire is contemporaneous with Christ—(i.e. “a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns … stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born”)—so in Dan. 9.26 the two princes of Daniel’s prophecy are juxtaposed to suggest that they are contemporaries: ‘After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed’ (NRSV). According to the text, there does not appear to be a two-thousand-year gap separating these two figures or events. Moreover, the Old Greek Daniel form of the Septuagint (LXX) says in Daniel 9.27, ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας, (i.e. “until the time of the end”; cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX), indicating that the context of this verse is clearly eschatological. 

 First of all, Dan. 9.24—26 predicts the return of the Jews to Palestine, which occurred in 1948 (cf. Isa. 11.11). It also forecasts the atoning sacrifice of a forthcoming Messiah, an event which, according to the Danielic text, has not yet occurred. Furthermore, Dan. 9.26 informs us that the Messiah will be ‘cut off,’ which in Biblical terminology means slain (cf. Prov. 2.22; Ps. 37.9). In working out these calculations, one comes to realize the approximate date signifying the epoch of the forthcoming Messiah. So, if we apply Jesus’ prophecy (i.e. ‘this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’; Matt. 24.34) to Jeremiah’s seventy-year time frame (Dan. 9.1—3; cf. Ps. 90.10), we get one generation of seventy years after the rebirth of Israel (1948), which would bring us to 2018 CE! 

Surprisingly, a different calculation yields similar results. On June 7, 1967, Jerusalem (the holy city) was captured by Israel. Even if 1967 becomes the starting point of a different calculation, the result is identical. For instance, the seven weeks can be measured in weeks of years (cf. Gen. 29.27-28; Lev. 25.8), whereas the sixty-two weeks could be calculated using only days (cf. Lev. 23.15—16). Thus, the ‘seven weeks’ may represent fifty years (e.g. a jubilee), whereas the ‘sixty-two weeks’ would signify a period of approximately one year plus two and one-half months. In other words, both measurements would equal to 51 years in total. This is how the calculation looks like if we take Jerusalem as our starting point: 1967 + 50y (7 weeks) = 2017 + 1y (62 weeks) = 2018! Once again, we arrive at the same date (i.e. 2018), namely, one generation of seventy years after the rebirth of Israel! In fact, from June 7, 1967 to August 21, 2018 or thereabouts is approximately fifty one years and two and one-half months, using a 365-day calendar, which is the equivalent of seven weeks of years plus sixty two weeks of days. Could this be the initial fulfillment of the prophecy? Or is it perhaps the year 2019 or 2020, given that the prophecy must be fulfilled *after* the seventy years have elapsed? This would bring us to the starting point of the end-times, namely, 2019, in which began a terrifying era for the human race. 2019 brought about pandemics, lockdowns, passport mandates where “no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark” (Rev. 13.17), mass media censorship, mass hysteria & psychosis, the abolition of human rights, the totalitarian global control of the masses, the mass protests, and the starting point of the so-called “Great Reset” that has been planned by the elite & the heads of governments for some time. Whichever it is, the Bible warns us to be vigilant:

‘From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away’ (Matt. 24.32—35).

First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology

By Author Eli Kittim

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" (1 Peter 1.10-11 NIV).

BIBLE EXEGESIS

First, notice that the prophets (Gk. προφῆται) in the aforementioned passage are said to have the Spirit of Christ (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) within them, thereby making it abundantly clear that they are prophets of the New Testament (NT), since there's no reference to the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament (OT). That they were NT prophets is subsequently attested by verse 12 with its reference to the gospel:

"It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven."

Second, the notion that 1 Peter 1.10-11 is referring to NT as opposed to OT prophets is further established by way of the doctrine of salvation (Gk. σωτηρίας), which is said to come through the means of grace! This explicit type of Soteriology (namely, through grace; Gk. χάριτος) cannot be found anywhere in the OT.

Third, and most importantly, observe that "the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" were actually "PREDICTED" (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by "the Spirit of Christ" (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the NT prophets so that they might record them for posterity's sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance——or prophesied, if you will——according to this NT passage!

Here's Further Evidence that the Gospel of Christ is Promised Beforehand in the New Testament

In the undermentioned passage, notice that it was "the gospel concerning his Son" "which he [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures." This passage further demonstrates that these are NT prophets, since there's no reference to "the gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) of God . . . concerning his Son" in the OT:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son" (Romans 1.1-3 NRSV).

Also, Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture” in 2 Pet. 3.16, while Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture” in 1 Tim. 5.18!

Biblical Sin: Not as Behavior but as Ultimate Transgression

By Author Eli Kittim

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in this particular context the phrase “no sin” (2 Cor. 5.21) is referring to Jesus’ action or behavior, it contradicts many New Testament (NT) passages. One that immediately comes to mind is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness by Satan. If Jesus is sinless in the sense that he is born without a sin-nature——and therefore incapable of committing a sin, as the church proclaims——then the so-called temptation of Jesus becomes absolutely meaningless because how can you “tempt” someone who, by definition, cannot be tempted? And would Jesus “be like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he was unable to be tempted? The answer is a resounding no! If by “sin,” the NT is referring to behavior, it would also contradict aspects of human nature and common knowledge. It would imply that in his human development, from childhood to adulthood, Jesus never made a mistake and was without error, which is patently ridiculous (cf. Luke 2.52; 18.19).

So, what does the NT imply when it refers to Jesus being “without sin”? I would like to suggest that this reference has nothing to do with Jesus’ actions or behavior but rather with the nature of his being. According to Robert Mulholland, a NT scholar, “sins” (in the plural) are behavioral symptoms whereas “sin” (in the singular), out of which these symptomatic behaviors and attitudes arise, is a question of being. In this sense, it is a throwback to the garden of eden and the “sin” of Adam and Eve. There’s no particular “action “ or “behavior” that is associated with their transgression except that they accepted the serpent’s advice and partook of the idiomatic apple. Similarly, although It would have been utterly impossible for Jesus to avoid sin as an activity or behavior, nevertheless he did not sin in his being because, during his temptation by Satan, he ultimately did not transgress the law of God as Adam and Eve had done! He kept it!

Just as “Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, … [so] Christ’s one act of righteousness brings [salvation] … for everyone” (Rom. 5.18).

Author Eli Kittim's official trailer demonstrating how his biblical convictions helped to shape his book

Was James the Brother of Jesus?

Eli Kittim (Author)

——-

Given that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, he wouldn’t have written “the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ.” So, it’s very likely that the James passage in book 20 of Antiquities is, at the very least, a partial interpolation.

This phraseology smacks of redaction as Josephus supposedly uses NT messianic terminology to refer to Jesus as the Christ! The purpose of the interpolation is seemingly to establish James both as a historical figure and as “the brother of Jesus.”

In fact, scholars such as Tessa Rajak and G. A. Wells, among others, have argued against the authenticity of the James passage for various reasons. Not to mention that there are conflicting reports between Josephus and other early Christian writers regarding both James’ type of death and time of death, which leaves a lot of room for conjecture and speculation.

——-

The scholarly preoccupation with James is so complicated and confusing that it has taken on a life of its own. Personally, I think it’s a circular argument. It probably started out as a simple acknowledgement on the part of Josephus of the NT writings and ended up as an elaborate conspiracy theory that fueled much scholarly debate. There are quite a few people called “James” in the Scriptural record, and many early interpretations give rise to wild speculations and cases of mistaken identity. For ex, James, son of Alphaeus is said to have been stoned to death. The similarity of his purported martyrdom to that of James the Just, has led some scholars, notably James Tabor and Robert Eisenman, to assume that these “two Jameses” were one and the same. This specific identification of James, son of Alphaeus with James the Just, as well as James the Less, has been asserted since medieval times. Obviously, these presuppositions lead to divergent interpretations. There is also much scholarly disagreement about James’ exact relationship to Jesus.

——-

Archaeological findings do not support a historical James either. We know, for example, that the James Ossuary is a forgery.

——-

Surprisingly, however, there is wide attestation to James from Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, the apocryphal works of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Thomas, and so on. But we need to put these findings in perspective. Many of these writers come from centuries later, and they’re doing Midrash (interpretation), irrespective of whether the James story is historical or not, much like men of letters who have expounded on works of Shakespeare throughout the centuries. So, the wide attestation to Hamlet, for example, doesn’t mean that he’s a real, factual, historical person. Thus, despite its wide attestation, the story of Hamlet is still a legend.

——-

According to the gospel narratives themselves, there is strong evidence that James was NOT the brother of Jesus, so that no matter what Josephus wrote, it was wrong. Even if the James passage in Book 20 turns out to be authentic, which I seriously doubt, it would still be false contextually and linguistically because Josephus suggests a biological blood-relationship between James and Jesus, which is unwarranted according to the sitz im leben of the gospels.

Both the Church Fathers and the Gospels reveal who the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are

Here are the proofs:

Mt. 13.53-57 names the so-called “brothers” of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

There are scholarly debates about the precise relationship of these men to Jesus that goes back to the Patristic Fathers.

We also know that the term “brother” can be employed to convey the meaning of “cousin” or “ nephew (see Gen. 13 & 14).

In Jn. 19, just before his death, when Jesus entrusts the safekeeping of Mary to John, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would’ve done this if he was survived by his brothers, such as James. It would’ve been their obligation to take care of their mother.

Mt. 27.55-56 references Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (who were mentioned back in Mt. 13.55 as the so-called “brothers” of Jesus).

Mt. 27.59-61 depicts the so-called other Mary (mother of James & Joseph), who is obviously not Mary, the mother of Jesus. This implies that James and Joseph cannot possibly be the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

In other words, even from the point of view of the allegorical narratives, James and Joseph cannot be portrayed as the brothers of Jesus.

In Jn. 19.25 Mary, the mother of Jesus is clearly distinguished from her “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas. It demonstrates that the terms “brother” or “sister” don’t necessarily mean a blood-brother or blood-sister but rather a relative of some kind——perhaps even a brother in the faith.

——-

External Evidence

Eusebius, Church History, 4.22.4: Simon, who was earlier mentioned as the “brother” of Jesus, turns out to be a cousin.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.11-12: Here we have, once again, a reference to cousins.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.32.1-6: Judas, the so-called “brother” of Jesus also turns out to be a cousin.

——-

Summary

Therefore, both the internal and external evidence demonstrate that James could not have been the biological brother of Jesus in any sense, whether literal or historical.

——-

Based on Translation and Exegesis of the Greek New Testament, the Woman of Revelation 12.4-5 Can Only be Placed in Eschatological Categories

By Author Eli Kittim

_________________________________________

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 12.4--5

καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν. Καὶ ὁ δράκων ἕστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν, ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς καταφάγῃ. καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱὸν ἄρσεν, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ. καὶ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ.

---- Novum Testamentum Graece NA28

________________________________________

Translation:

REVELATION 12.4--5

His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne.

---- New Revised Standard Version 1989

________________________________________

The key words used in the original Greek text are as follows:

τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν

which are traditionally interpreted as "the woman who was about to bear a child."

However, there seems to be a mistranslation of the original word μελλούσης, which essentially misleads the reader with regard to the proper chronological context of the passage in question! And we're not even covering the eschatological context of the seven-headed dragon with ten horns that "stood before the woman" (12.4), which is later depicted in Rev. 17 as a final empire on earth. So let's take a closer look.

The Greek term μελλούσης that is mentioned in Rev. 12.4 is derived from the root word μέλλω, which means "about to happen" and refers to "coming" or "future" events. An inflection of the word μελλούσης is the term μέλλουσα, a derivative of the root μέλλων, which means “future” (i.e. μέλλουσες γενεές ― future generations).

We must always bear in mind the future context of the Book of Revelation, which is firmly embedded in the very first verse concerning "what must soon take place" (cf. 22.6), and which then undergirds "the words of the prophecy" (v. 3), an expression that is later reiterated several times beginning in chapter 22 verse 7 with regard to "the words of the prophecy of this book." Thus, the eschatological nature of the Book of Revelation is clearly emphasized. This would imply that any interpretations which look to the past are, by definition, anachronistic!

Here are several New Testament quotations for the word μελλούσης and its inflections:

1) μέλλοντα (i.e. things to come), Rom. 8.38, cf. 1 Cor. 3.22;

2) εἰς τό μέλλον (i.e. in the future), Luke 13.9, cf. 1 Tim. 6.19;

3) σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων (i.e. a shadow of what is to come [things future]), Col. 2.17;

4) ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καί τῆς μελλούσης (i.e. the present life and the life to come), 1 Tim. 4.8;

5) τήν οἰκουμένην τήν μέλλουσαν (i.e. the world to come), Heb. 2.5;

6) τό κρίμα τό μέλλον (i.e. the coming judgment), Acts 24.25;

7) τὴν μέλλουσαν πόλιν (i.e. the city that is to come), Heb. 13.14.

As you can see, each time the Greek term μελλούσης or one of its inflections is used (i.e. μέλλοντα, μέλλον, μελλόντων, μέλλουσαν), it is always in reference to a future event. Nowhere does it refer to a past event. For example, just as Matt. 3.7 refers to a future wrath----ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς (i.e. from the wrath to come?)----so Matt. 12.32 refers to a future age: ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι [αἰών] (i.e. in the age to come).

Conclusion

It cannot be gainsaid that the Greek term μελλούσης in Rev. 12.4 is referring to an eschatological figure. However, according to the standard interpretation of the New Testament, there is often a proleptic interpretation that accompanies this verse, which begs the question: how could a future woman possibly give birth in Antiquity? Such an interpretation seems anachronistic and contradicts not only the content but also the context of Rev. 12.4--5.