Daniels 70 Weeks - Tumblr Posts

Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, ... to seal up [end] vision and prophecy. ... So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [1948] until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. ... Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off [die] … and the people of the prince who is to come [the antichrist] will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

Daniel 9:24-26

You are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [1948] until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. ... Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off [die].

Daniel 9:25-26

The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days
By Eli of Kittim (Amazon) https://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Revelation-First-Coming/dp/1479747068

https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-little-book-of-revelation-eli-of-kittim/1114638416

Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecies About the Year of the Coming Messiah

By Author Eli of Kittim

“If you shall see kingdoms rising against each other in turn, then give heed and note the footsteps of the Messiah.” —Bereshit Rabbah XLII: 4

“Each of the world’s major religions contain Messianic prophecies. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Zoroastrian religion and even the Native American religions all foretell the coming of a Promised One.” (Joel Smith).

Astoundingly, both the biblical and extra-biblical prophecies concerning the coming Messiah seem to converge in the 2010 decade: the Mayan (their twenty-six-thousand-year cycle ended in 2012), the Sikh (in which, according to Sakhee 15th, the avatar or god man is said to appear around the year 2015), Rabbi Yitzchak Kaduri’s prophecy (according to which the messiah will appear within a year of Ariel Sharon’s death—or 2015); Malachy’s prophecy of the 112 Popes (Pope Francis being the last, according to experts, who was inducted in 2013); Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks prophecy (in which Messiah is said to appear seventy years after the restoration of Israel: 1948+70=2018); Vilna Gaon’s prophecy (which predicts the Russian invasion of Crimea (2014) as a sign of the coming Messiah); Judah Ben Samuel’s prediction of the Messiah appearing by 2017); and the Four Blood Moons that fall on Jewish holy days (apocalyptic omens that culminate in 2015)!

Here are the links to explore some of these prophecies in more detail:

1) Vilna Gaon: The Russian invasion of Crimea (2014) is a sign of the coming Messiah https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/vilna-gaon-the-russian-invasion-of-crimea-is-a-sign-of-impending-redemption/

2) Judah Ben Samuel (Messiah will come by 2017). http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/12th-century-rabbi-predicted-israels-future/

3) Malachy’s prophecy (Ends in 2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxw4S7xGXMg

4) RABBI YITZHAK KADURI: THE MESSIAH WILL APPEAR SHORTLY AFTER ARIEL SHARON'S DEATH (in other words, sometime around 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwN1QXDujp0

5) Four Blood Moons (End in 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrObwDtYBrg

To sum up, both the biblical and extra-biblical prophecies indicate that the latter half of the 2010 decade is of extreme importance to all the inhabitants of the earth because it is during this time that the Messiah will appear to elevate our consciousness and transform the world. There is overwhelming evidence that the 2010 decade is the Messianic decade, as we are told in one prophecy after another! Apparently, we are the messianic generation that the prophets of old longed to see. The signs are everywhere:

"But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." Daniel 12:4

A Critique of the Three Comings of Christ

By Eli Kittim

Mainstream Christianity holds to the three comings of Christ. This modern eschatological position is so bizarre that it has actually devised not one, not two, but three comings of Christ. Some offshoots of this doctrine have additional comings. Here’s a brief summary of this view:

1. First Coming = Christ’s Incarnation, believed to have been witnessed in the first century c.e. (cf. Lk 2.11).

2. Second Coming = Christ will *invisibly* return for the rapture of the faithful (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17).

3. Third Coming = Christ will return once again and will be followed by a great multitude of saints (cf. 1 Thess. 3.13).

By contrast, I propose that there’s only *one* coming mentioned in the New Testament (NT), which complements the *one* coming mentioned in the Old Testament (OT).

The Gospel Genre

This is the starting point of all the hermeneutical confusion, which sets the tone for the rest of the Christian Canon. The gospels are not biographies or historiographical accounts. As most Bible scholars acknowledge, they are largely embellished theological or apocalyptic documents that show a heavy literary dependence on the OT. So, the assumption that the gospels are furnishing us with biographical information seems to be a misreading of the genre, which appears to be theological in nature. In comparison with the expository writing of the NT epistolary literature, which is explicit and didactic, the literary style of the canonical gospels can only be described as a theological genre of historical fiction!

The epistles apparently contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων in Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s *initial* appearance with unsurpassed lucidity:

“He was marked out before the world was

made, and was revealed at the final point of

time.”

The 70-Weeks Prophecy of Daniel

Daniel’s seventy weeks’ prophecy refers exclusively to the end-time and has nothing to do with the time of Antiquity. It specifically alludes to the reestablishment of the State of Israel, a prophecy that was fulfilled in 1948 (cf. Ezek. 38.8)! A common misconception is to assume that the starting point of this prophecy began after the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian exile during the 500s b.c.e. However, this prophecy 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). 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! This prophecy also refers to “times of distress” (Dan. 9.25 NASB), a phrase which is used elsewhere in the Book of Daniel to refer to the time of the end (see Dan. 12.1). Note also that Daniel outlines the timeline of the Messiah’s *death* as occurring *AFTER* the prophesied rebirth of Israel (9.25-26) at the end of days!

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 (GT). 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 Biblical evidence of a long time-gap between these weeks, but rather a successive sequence of events that combines both *princes* within the same context of the eschatological timetable (cf. Dan. 9.24-27), thus rendering the expositors’ imposition on the text unwarranted. That’s why Isa. 2.19 puts the resurrection of Christ in the last days. He says that people will hide in the caves of rocks when “the Lord … arises to terrify the earth” (cf. Rev. 6.15-17). First Cor. 15.22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by British New Testament scholar James Dunn).

2 Thessalonians Chapter 2

The author of 2 Thess. 2 warns against deception by stating unequivocally that the coming of Christ for the rapture cannot occur “unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed” (2.1-3). There’s a further condition that has to be met before the rapture can take place, and before the “lawless one” (i.e. the Antichrist) can be revealed, namely, someone needs to be removed from the earth. A common misinterpretation is that this must either be a reference to the *Holy Spirit* or to the *church*, which will be taken out of the way before the Antichrist can be revealed. But if it is the Holy Spirit or the church it would directly contradict the Book of Revelation (7.13-14), which foresees a great spiritual revival during the time of the GT. For instance, John the Revelator sees “a great multitude that” came “out of the great ordeal [GT]” (Rev. 7.9, 14). This multitude represents the “church” of Christ, which is obviously present, not absent, during the GT. And without the Holy Spirit no one can be saved (Rom. 8.9b). Therefore, the so-called “restrainer” of 2 Thess. 2.6-7 can neither be the Holy Spirit nor the church. This mysterious figure can only be explained by my unique eschatological view. Since I hold that the first horseman of the Apocalypse is Christ (the white horseman), it is he and he alone who is the restrainer, and after he is *slain* the Antichrist will be revealed.

Millennialism

Christian eschatology holds that the so-called “second coming” of Jesus will transpire either before the Millennium (i.e. premillennialism) or after the Millennium (i.e postmillennialism). First, a literal millennial kingdom would contradict the Bible because it would imply more than 2 comings of Christ, 2 apocalypses, 2 Great Wars, 2 resurrections, 2 Great Endings, and so on, as opposed to one of each, which is what the Bible teaches. Second, the endtime war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same war mentioned in Ezekiel 38: Gog & Magog. Third, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture “we will be with the Lord forever,” not just for 1,000 years. Fourth, the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Good and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2). By contrast, the second death in Revelation 20.14 is incorporeal, NOT physical. It’s the lake of fire; a spiritual death. It’s a category, not an event. So, only 1 physical resurrection is indicated in the Bible; not 2! Fifth, the only physical resurrection mentioned in the Bible is the one that is called the 1st resurrection, presumably because it comes prior to the above-mentioned spiritual one. And this resurrection is said to occur when the thousand years are finished (Rev. 20.5). And if it’s explicitly mentioned as the first resurrection, then it means that there couldn’t have been an earlier one. So then, how could the same people who would not be resurrected “until the thousand years were completed” (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! Therefore, Amillennialism (i.e. the view that there will be no literal millennial reign of the righteous on earth) is not obliged to subscribe to the *three-comings-of-Christ* model!

Does Christ Return Multiple Times?

The belief in the *three comings* of Christ equally contradicts a number of NT passages (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.22—26, 54—55; 2 Tim. 2.16—18; Rev. 19.10; 22.7, 10, 18—19), not to mention those of the OT that do not separate the Messiah’s initial coming from his reign (e.g. Isa. 9.6—7; 61.1—2). Rather than viewing them as three separate and distinguishable historical events, Scripture sets forth a single coming and does not make that distinction (see Lk. 1.31—33). Indeed, each time the “redeeming work” of Messiah is mentioned, it is almost invariably followed or preceded by some kind of reference to judgment (e.g. “day of vengeance”), which signifies the commencement of his reign on earth (see Isa. 63.4).

Conclusion

Most people expect Christ to come from the sky. The truth is, he will come from the earth (cf. Acts 1.11). The sequence of eschatological events is as follows: Christ will appear “at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB; Rev. 6.2). He will die “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV; Zeph. 1.7-8, 14-18) and resurrect (1 Cor. 15.22-24; Heb. 9.27-28) to rapture the faithful (1 Cor. 15.51-52; 1 Thess. 4.15-17; 2 Thess. 2.1-3) and fight the nations (Isa. 31.5; 63.3; Zech. 14.3; Rev. 19.15)!

The difference between my view and the classical Christian perspective is that I’m convinced that there are not multiple comings and multiple returns of Christ, but *only one* decisive coming at the end of the world, which includes the resurrection, the rapture, and his appearance in the sky!

The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: A Critique of Questionable Interpretations

By Author Eli Kittim

Christological readings

The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks is given by the angel Gabriel and inscripturated in the Book of Daniel ch. 9. Despite being the subject of much hermeneutical study for thousands of years, it has nevertheless continued to baffle scholars and prophecy pundits alike. I will only deal with Christological readings and will not consider the historical-critical approach to Jewish eschatology, which usually presumes that the 70-weeks prophecy of Daniel pertains to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c. 215-164 BCE). Liberal epistemology is based on historical reductionism, which often leads to gross misinterpretations of Scripture. Historically speaking, Jews began to return to Jerusalem from their Babylonian exile in 538 BCE. They were prompted to do so under an edict issued by Cyrus, King of Persia, aka Cyrus's edict. They also began to rebuild their Temple which had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians. By ca. 515 BCE, the Second Temple was completed.

There are Three Major Historical Starting Points for the 70-Weeks Prophecy

The key passage to the 70 weeks prophecy is Dan. 9.25 (NRSV):

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 . . . sixty-two weeks . . .

Daniel 9.26 goes on to predict the timeline pertaining to the death of the Messiah:

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.

So, with regard to Daniel 9.25, there are 3 historical starting points of the prophecy. One is 538 BCE, which is associated with Cyrus’ edict. If you’re going to apply a historical interpretation, this appears to be the most precise date, given that it accurately portrays when “the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” as well as the timing of the restoration and rebuilding of the Temple sometime around 515 BCE!

The second date of the alleged starting point of Daniel’s 70-week prophecy, that some scholars employ, begins with the decree bestowed to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (Ezra 7), which supposedly terminates with Jesus’ Baptism 483 years later (i.e. 7 weeks = 49y & 62 weeks = 434y; thus 49 + 434 = 483y). These calculations employ the day to year principle (cf. Num. 14.34; Ezek. 4.5-6): one year for each day.

The third possible date, and the most popular, that follows Sextus Julius Africanus, is 445 BCE, which refers to the letter given to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I (Longimanus cf. Ezra 2). It’s important to note that many writers use a 360-day year period based on biblical passages for reckoning time (e.g. Gen. 7.11, 24; 8.4).

Criticisms of the 70-Weeks Prophecy Historical Interpretations

There are, however, many confounds in these historical theories. One problem is that the text itself does not explicitly state whether the king reference in the passage is to Artaxerxes I (465–424 BCE) or to Artaxerxes II (404–359 BCE). Although many scholars contend that Ezra probably lived during the time of Artaxerxes I, others are not convinced. Another problem is that the 69 weeks of years are supposed to terminate with the death of Christ, and yet the calculations from this perspective do not match the time of the purported Crucifixion.

Another exegetical problem is that although Christ and Antichrist appear simultaneously as contemporaries and are juxtaposed in the same verse (e.g. Dan. 9.26) regarding the 70th week, exegetes nevertheless deliberately separate the 70th week from the 69th week by a proposed 2,000 year gap between them. This decision doesn’t account for the end-time events that are described in the text (cf. Dan. 9.27). Furthermore, despite the violence done to the text, the proposed dates still do not match: they’re either too early or too late. They only appear to be close if you round them out.

There are other problems as well. Those who hold to the second possible date as the starting point of the prophecy, namely the date 457 BCE, contend that Jesus appeared during the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus (Lk 3:1), who reigned from 14 to 37 CE. This would put Jesus’ appearance at approximately 28 CE. But Daniel predicted not that the messiah would appear but that he would die on that date. So, this is also an inexact calculation. In his lectures, Chuck Missler frequently quoted a phrase that was coined by economist Ronald Coase: “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”

The Historical Model: Sleight of Hand Hermeneutics

The first and only possible decree or edict to return, restore, and rebuild Jerusalem has to be the first one issued by Cyrus II of Persia, aka Cyrus the Great! In fact, the rebuilding process of Jerusalem had actually begun under Cyrus the Great, who had freed the Jews from Babylon, allowing them to return to Jerusalem in order to rebuild Solomon's Temple. As a result, many Jews returned in 538 BCE and began building the Temple in 536 BCE (Ezra 3.8). Not only that, but they completed it by 516/5 BCE (Ezra 6.15).

So why do most prophecy scholars attribute the starting point of the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel to the letter of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) in 445 BCE? Almost a century earlier, in 538 BCE, King Cyrus made a public declaration granting the Jews the right to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But because that date doesn’t fit their calculations——because it would put Jesus’ appearance at about 55 BCE——scholars conveniently try to manhandle the Danielic prophecy in order to force their own private interpretations. So they arbitrarily move up the starting point of the prophecy to 445 BCE, 93 years later, with the aforesaid letter of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus). But this is underhanded exegesis which is not supported by the data.

In fact, many such theories were devised in the 1800s (to calculate the coming of Jesus) which had as their starting point the *Babylonian exile.* All of them were wrong! The classic work on the 70 Weeks of Daniel is Sir Robert Anderson’s 1894 book, “The Coming Prince.” Similarly, the Millerites also used the *Babylonian exile* as their starting point to predict the future coming of Jesus. They also used the Book of Daniel chapter 8 (specifically Dan. 8.14), which ultimately led to a false prophecy and the “Great Disappointment” of 1844! In short, these 19th century writers have devised complicated, elaborate, and convoluted schemes which ignore history and arbitrarily assign chronological dates that only match or confirm their specific biases.

Returning to the 70 Weeks historical model, the alleged chronological timetable is also intentionally broken up and divided, as if there is a 2,000 year gap between the 69th and the 70th week, even though this is not what the text is describing. For example, the death of the *anointed messiah* and the timing of *the prince to come* are inextricably linked together and juxtaposed in the same verse as if they are contemporaries rather than separated by 2,000 years (Dan. 9.26). In fact, this thought continues seamlessly into the following verse (v. 27) as part of a running narrative without the slightest hint of a change in chronology!

This exegetical decision is therefore a case of special pleading. These exegetes make little effort to support the data. They use bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous, and vice versa.

The construction of this confusing exegesis is unwarranted. It embraces some questionable assumptions that do not square well with the data. It’s a failed attempt by Christian evidentialism to validate historical Christianity and the historical Christ by appealing to his fulfillment of Daniel 9. This is bad exegesis that prevents the text from being interpreted in a straightforward manner that is consistent with its grammatical and canonical contexts.

The Futurist Eschatology of Daniel 9

Notice that these events take place not in Antiquity but at “the end of time.” The Brenton LXX has the following footnote regarding Daniel 9.27:

. . . the original writes ἕως τῆς συντελείας,

i.e. -until- the end of time.

The realization that the 70-week prophecy is not referring to Antiquity is clear from Dan. 9.23-24:

So consider the word and understand the

vision: ‘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.’

Notice that fulfillment of this prophecy requires the end of all transgression and sin, and the beginning of everlasting righteousness, which signifies the end of all vision and prophecy. This is reminiscent of the end-times in Rev. 10.7 when “the mystery of God will be fulfilled.” Many scholars know that the chronology of Dan. 9.24 is within a futurist eschatological timetable. To attribute it to the Babylonian exile is therefore inappropriate. Why? Because sin has not yet ended. Neither has prophecy. Another reason is that 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 and 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. Let’s not forget that Ezekiel 38.8 prophesied that “In future years” Israel would be restored as a nation. So what is the timeline that the prophecy is alluding to?

The question is twofold:

If the 70-Weeks prophecy is referring to a restoration and a rebuilding that takes place in the end-times,

1) is it referring to the nation of Israel?

2) or is it referring to the rebuilding of Jerusalem?

Possible Answers:

1) Israel 1947/8

2) Jerusalem 1967/8

These are the most pertinent questions that should guide our hermeneutic. Depending on one’s exegetical decision, the calculation will take a different trajectory. In hindsight, we should be more accurate than our predecessors. We are not trying to set dates but only to frame the question correctly so as to set the tone for further exegetical studies.

How Can Weeks Be Interpreted as Years?

How can “weeks” be interpreted as years rather than heptads or seven-year periods?

The first reason is that Gabriel himself imparts a cryptic clue which, in effect, equates the “seventy weeks” of Daniel (Dan. 9.2) with the “seventy-year” oracle revealed to Jeremiah (Jer. 29.10). Gabriel suggests that the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy must continue to be calculated as “years” within Daniel’s seventy-weeks oracle. In other words, this framework allows us to perform calculations using “weeks” as the standard of measuring time in addition to using actual “years.” That’s precisely why Gabriel doesn’t say 69 weeks but rather 7 weeks and 62 weeks! The values of these numbers appear to be different. The former is interpreted as weeks of years; the latter as years per se. However, an inversion would not work. For instance, if the former (i.e. the 7 weeks) is calculated as years, the calculation cannot work simply because we have exceeded the 50-year time period. That’s why the author did not clamp them together but carefully separated them to emphasize that their values are not equivalent.

The second reason why weeks can be interpreted as years has to do with the meaning of the Hebrew term for “weeks” (Heb. שָׁבֻעִ֨ים šā·ḇu·‘îm; BHS) in Dan. 9.24. This term comes from the Hebrew term “shabua,” which typically means a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week, etc. But it can also refer to a Feast of weeks (Shavuot), otherwise known as Pentecost (cf. Exod. 34.22; Num. 28.26; Deut. 16.10, 16; 2 Chr 8.13):

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7620.htm

Interestingly enough, a Shavuot occurs once per year. So, using this definition of one “week” or one Shavuot per year would give us *70 weeks* or 70 Shavuots in 70 years.

Therefore, from starting point x until the coming of Messiah there will be 7 weeks and 62 weeks (Dan. 9.25). Why doesn’t Gabriel just say, “from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be” 69 weeks? But that’s not what he says, precisely because the 7 and the 62 do not comprise identical values. And why is that? Because the 7 weeks represent *one of the 2 Questions* we asked earlier, while the 62 weeks represents *another one of the 2 Questions* that I proposed. It appears, then, that the 7 weeks represent *weeks of years,* while the 62 weeks represents actual *years.*

Bear in mind that the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem technically began in 1968 when Israel started to rebuild the Jewish Quarter. Thus, the starting date for this variable may actually be 1968. Let’s not forget that the calculation must be consistent with a period “After the sixty-two weeks” in which “an anointed one shall be cut off” (Dan. 9.26).

The rebirth of Israel in 1948 may also be a viable option. The 70-year generation that culminated in 2018 may represent the final generation that “will not pass away until all these things have taken place” (Mt. 24.34). Notice that the Danielic verse (9.26) says AFTER the 62 weeks (not during) the messiah will be slain. So, hypothetically, 1948 could still work as a starting point since the messiah’s death may come a little while after the 62 weeks run out (i.e. *after* 2018). As already mentioned, there’s evidence to suggest that the 70 weeks of Daniel may be referring to 70 Shavuots or 70 actual years. This lends credence to an alternative interpretation that the 70 Shavuots may actually begin on Sabbath years. That is to say, the 70-Shavuots countdown may actually *begin* on the first Sabbath year in the modern State of Israel (which was 1951-1952), rather than in 1948!

How do we know which date is correct?

There is a litmus test. The coming of Messiah should fall within one generation from its starting point, be it Israel (1948) or Jerusalem (1967).

In fact, there is still one generation from 1948 to 2037 because Ps. 90.10 reads:

The days of our life are seventy years, or

perhaps eighty, if we are strong;

This means that people born in 1948 would still be in their 80s by the year 2037 CE. This would qualify as one generation!

It is important to remember Irenaeus’ claim in Against Heresies Book 2 Chapter 22 that Jesus lived to be about 50 years old. Compare Jn 8.57:

You are not yet fifty years old, and have you

seen Abraham?

This is why the Bible repeatedly emphasizes that the “promise” is fulfilled in Abraham’s old age. That’s why something happened to Enoch when he was 65 years old, represented metaphorically through his giving birth to Methuselah, a symbol of eternity (Gen. 5.21; cf. 5.24)! All these pericopes are symbols of the promised “seed” who is Christ (Gal. 3.16).

Conclusion

To sum up, in contrast to the *historical* starting points of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy that have been traditionally proposed, I have presented an alternative *futurist-eschatological* model that can be equally applied with more success, and one that is actually more straightforward and faithful to the text’s grammar, canonical context, and authorial intent.

Here’s a case in point. By way of allusion, Dan. 12.1 is almost certainly employing the messianic terminology of “an anointed prince” (Dan. 9.25; cf. 10.21; Isa. 9.6) to signify the Messiah’s death and resurrection at the time of the end:

At that time Michael, the great prince, the

protector of your people, shall

arise.

In the following verse (12.2), Daniel goes on to describe the general resurrection of the dead that will occur during the same time period. Thus, the Messiah’s death apparently transpires *AFTER* (not before) 1948, as Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy seemingly suggests. This time period is elsewhere referred to as “καιροῦ συντελείας” (Dan. 12.4 LXX), which is translated as “the end of time” in Daniel ch. 9 (Dan. 9.27 LXX cf. 9.23-24; 12.4, 9, 13 NRSV)! Despite the fact that we don’t know the precise date, nevertheless Daniel’s 70-Weeks prophecy strongly suggests that the messiah will not come hundreds or even thousands of years from now but that he’s right around the corner: “right at the door” (Mt. 24.33 ISV)! In fact, according to Mt. 24.34, the last generation that sees the end-times signs will also see all things fulfilled. And Joel 3.1-2 ties the return of Israel to Armageddon. He claims that during the same time period that Judah and Jerusalem will be restored as a nation (1948) is when all the nations will come down to the valley of Jehoshaphat!