Daniel’s 70 Weeks: An Alernative Premillennial Understanding – Conclusion
*This is the fifth part of a series, so be sure to check out parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 before reading this.
As we can see, this alternative view meets all of the textual, contextual and historical criteria for Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy, and accords best with the NT eschatology of Jesus, Paul and John. In every way it is therefore preferable to the DP view, which makes an eisegetical diversion from the thematic flow of Daniel 9 and has absolutely no support from the rest of Scripture. When we let the text speak for itself, and build a unified eschatology from the witness of each Biblical writer instead of plugging their witness into our own preconceived system, I think we will find that there is no room in that eschatology for a future 7-year peace treaty in the Middle East.
None of this means that the Antichrist won’t “come in peaceably” and “by intrigue” prior to his revealing, for he surely will. And nor does it mean that he won’t make a “peace treaty” of sorts among the Middle East nations, for he will make many. We are confident that he will do all of all of this and more before the abomination of desolation because Scripture unambiguously says so; but the point is that we are given no definite time frame in which he will do them. They will most likely be much more subtle and drawn out than we have assumed, since, as Paul says, the Antichrist will not be notably “revealed” until he “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess 2:3-4).
The first half of Daniel’s 70th week is already past. Jesus’ ministry on earth was about announcing the Kingdom of God, plundering Satan’s house, and formally inaugurating the new covenant – a “prevailing”, everlasting covenant with “many”, not just with Israel. That purpose was accomplished in part at the end of his 3 1/2-year ministry, when he brought an “end to all sacrifice and offering” through his death and resurrection.
But we must remember that the promise of the new covenant was made first of all to Israel, and because of their rejection of Christ it has not been realized for them. And because it has not been realized for them, it has not been fully realized for the earth, for it is in their acceptance of Christ that, as Paul says, “life from the dead” and “riches for the whole world” comes (Rom 11:12, 15).
This is why there has been 2,000-year gap in between the first and second halves of the 70th week. Right now we are living in the “already but not yet” of God’s kingdom; the new covenant has been inaugurated, but it has not yet been consummated. According to Ezekiel, that consummation coincides with the resurrection from the dead (Ez 36-37); which, coincidently, is exactly what Daniel says also (Dan 12).
God has “pressed pause”, so to speak, on His “prophetic time clock” because of Israel’s rejection of Christ, so that “many” besides Israel might come into the covenant. As Paul says, Israel’s fall has resulted in riches for the rest of the world (Rom 11:12). But once “transgressors have reached their fullness”, that is, “at the climax of abominations”, Jesus, by the authority earned at the cross, will take the scroll and open its seals (Rev 5:9).
At that time “one who makes desolate” will come; one who according to both Daniel and Revelation will only have authority for 3 1/2 years, not 7 (Dan 7:25; Rev 13:5). Those 3 1/2 years are the last of the 490 decreed by the angel Gabriel; they are the second half of Daniel’s 70th week. Finally, at the end of those final 3 1/2 years, the Antichrist will be judged, Israel will be fully restored, the righteous dead will rise again, and God’s covenant will be made to prevail throughout the earth!
Matt, I need to check in on your blog more often. This looks like a great series, and I’ll read the preceding articles soon. Of course, I just love Daniel, so this is right in my sweet spot.
Hey, I could use some help if you wouldn’t mind, with Joel 3? Assuming that you might be nodding in the affirmative (I hope), here it is, two questions:
1 – In verse 1 God is going to bring back the captives of Jerusalem and Judah. In verse 2, He is going to gather all the nations. So the question is this: given God’s patience and long time frame, is it possible that verse 1 has already occurred and verse 2 is slowly occurring now? In my thoughts, verse 1 would refer to the “captivity” of the Jews in WWII and the “bringing back” would have culminated in 1948 with the formation of the political state of Israel. Then, in my thinking, the “gathering” of verse 2 would have essentially begun right after 1948 and continued very gradually to this very day, and will continue until the gathering reaches a crescendo as Jesus is returning? Normally I’d think of the gathering of the nations as occurring rapidly, maybe over weeks or months. But perhaps that is exactly what has been going on for many years already: the world’s hatred of Israel is causing a metaphorical gathering, and sometimes a literal gathering when little wars break out. But the collective mindset of the world is “gathering” itself to an inevitable military conclusion, to get rid of this pesky people once and for all.
What do you think?
2. Question 2: verses 19 to 21 – there are two reference to blood. In verse 19 it’s “shedding of innocent blood” and that appears to refer to Edom. But verse 21 refers to “acquitting them of the guilt of bloodshed”". This appears to refer to Judah, but in the flow of the context would make better sense if it was again referring to Edom. This is confusing and I can’t understand how to exegete the passage. Logically it seems that both mentions of blood should refer to the same subject.
Got any insight on that??
Thanks, Matt. Hope you’re doing well.
Scott
Scott
Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 8:23 am
Hey Scott! Thanks for stopping by!
Since you’re into Daniel, I’d love to hear your thoughts once you’ve read the series.
Regarding Joel 3, I do nod in the affirmative, but I’m not sure how helpful I will be.
1. I resist seeing 1948 in any verses about the regathering and restoration of Israel, because we know explicitly from passages like Isaiah 27:13, Isaiah 42 and 49 and Matthew 24:29-31 that their regathering will coincide with their spiritual restoration, which will itself coincide with Christ’s return. So I take a more Art Katz-like position on how I view 1948 in the plan of God.
2. That’s a great question, and I have no insight on the answer. You’re right, it does seem like it should refer to Edom again. Hmmm, let me know if come up with something!
Matt
matthartke
Monday, March 3, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I agree that the other scriptures about setting prisoners free seem to correlate to the actual return of Jesus. I guess my thoughts on that subject were prompted by a realization that God’s timeframe is so long, compared to ours, that sometimes two events can seem vastly separated in time to us, but to God they are just a moment apart. Say Jesus comes back in 2045. Are the events of 1945, in God’s view, all part of one process? Maybe.
Hey, I like your picture. Do they let you look like that when you’re running the bookstore?
Scott
Monday, March 3, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Matt, I have read them all now, but I need to re-read them with the Word beside me.
The contention that the first half-week is already past makes a lot of sense to me, if for no other reason than whenever scripture talks about the end of this age, the discussion is of the last half of the week only. Sometimes its expressed as time, times and a half time, or 1260 days, or 1290 days, etc, but no discussion of seven years. As if the first 3 1/2 years are already past. Is that right?
Scott
Monday, March 3, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Hey buddy, *great* study (that rhymed – fun!). Thank you so much for this. Seriously. You’ve persuaded me! (I find it interesting that until I read your paper I came to the same conclusion as DPs yet apart from reading any of their beliefs. And, being a teacher, I’m very teachable.) I’ve never studied Daniel in depth before, and I have yet to read through Jeremiah entirely, not to mention I’m *way* confused about sacrifices continuing into the millennium by the command of Jesus Himself, so I hope you don’t mind if I ask a couple questions?
1) Is the “seventy years” mentioned by God in Jer. 25:11-12 the same “seventy years” as in Jer. 29:10?
2) Why is it that every other time in Daniel when mentioned that sacrifices will be ended (Dan. 8:11; 11:31; 12:11) it’s negative, and not something Daniel and the Israelites were looking forward to?
3) Do you think that instead of the millennial sacrifices being memorials of the cross, that they are *still* looking forward, prophetically decreeing the fullness of the age to come, when Death itself is cast into the lake of fire?
4) Would you talk a bit more about Jesus being a Kinsman-Redeemer, and how that “works” (especially noting the scroll written on both sides)?
5) When can we meet over Spring Break?
- BMV
Ben Varner
Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Scott,
In response to your first comment, I don’t think so, because not only does Scripture say that Israel’s regathering and restoration coincides with Christ’s return, but it also links those events to her repentance. God’s plan to restore Israel and fulfill His covenant promises to her (which include her possession of the land) cannot happen as long as she is outside of the covenant relationship. As far as God is concerned, right now she is still in exile, for she is still running to her other lovers and not to him. Her prosperity at the moment is the product of her rebellion against God, as she covetously clings to everything but him. It is not a good thing.
Thanks for the compliment on the picture! I actually don’t work with the bookstore anymore; but I doubt they would have a problem with the beard if I did.
Blessings!
Matt H
matthartke
Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Ben,
Thanks buddy (bummer! I can’t think of anything else that rhymes!).
In answer to your questions,
1) Seems like it to me.
2) Why is it that every time the color white is spoken of in Revelation it always symbolizes righteousness, except for the one reference to the Antichrist in 6:1? Because a point is being made in that one reference about the AC; namely that he will seem righteous to the world, but that in fact that appearance is a sham. A similar point is being made in those 3 negative references to sacrifices ceasing in Daniel. What the AC will do in the abomination that causes the sacrifices to cease will be seen as a good thing – even as a redemptive thing, as he will be accepted as the Messiah – but in fact it will be an evil and empty mimicry of the accomplishment of calvary, where Christ “put an end to sacrifice and offering” once and for all.
3) Yes and no. Yes, inasmuch as the salvation which Christ initiated at the cross will not be fully realized until death is finally conquered. And no, because the ultimate “sacrifice” which made it all happen was at the cross, not at the end of the mill.
4) Don’t really know all that much on the subject. Would you talk more on it?
5) I’ll email you. I will, I will, I will! I’m excited to get together bro! I haven’t checked out your blog recently (do you have it back up yet?) but I was just reading some great stuff of yours on the onething forums! You’re an anointed writer. Do you know that?
matthartke
Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Yopp, it’s been nearly a full year, but Kel and I are both re-dedicating ourselves to blog regularly. And thank you for the compliment! Yes, I do know that, and I know that my calling somehow includes writing / being a priestly scribe (Matt. 13:52), though I am admittedly unsure of how that fits underneath my overarching call as a general in God’s army (whatever that means and looks like). But yeah, I’ll be seeing you soon! Take care. – BMV
Ben Varner
Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 11:56 pm
ok, matt. ive been wrestling with this dan 9 reconception.
1) the covenant that God was making with Israel was an everlasting covenant. Not just a one week covenant.
2) every other time that the end of sacrafice and the abomination are mention, they are mentioned a) in a negative context and b) together as the same event. (Dan 11:31, Dan 12:11)
3)Dan 9:27 would seem to give the events of the covenant and the end of sacrafice as contrasting events. As in the covenant having the appearance of good, “but” here is the evil that is done. That but makes it hard for me to interpret: a good event is going to happen, but a good event is also going to happen.
4)Im having trouble, assuming that Dan 9:27 and Dan 12:11 are the same event (or even a foreshadown partially filled by Xerses IV or Titus of the AC to come), reconciling how to seperate the two events. either
a) they are the same event (which is contrary to the alternate view we are discussing)
b)the 1290 is refering to the time in between the events (which makes it hard to put a large seperation of 2000+ years ) or
c) there is equally 1290 days until a significant event from both the abolishment (ad33 + 1290days) and the abomination (2012AD <– just for humor + 1290 days) being that the abolishment happened in AD 33ish and the abomination is yet to come.
5) Jesus’s baptism to His crucifixion is debatable as to whether it was 31/2 years.
im trying to look from all angles here. I like your theory and it is the best presentation ive seen yet. I just dont want to cut two holes in my jeans to patch three, if ya know what i mean.
the covenant being God’s covenant i really like though. (11:28-30 refers to the holy covenant) not sure what context this fits. maybe you could shed some light.
I follow you and im almost on ship.
tj martin
Friday, April 25, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Hey TJ! Welcome to my blog!
Great observations/questions. Let me see if I can do justice to each of them…
1) Exactly. As I said in the paper, the fact that the covenant is said to be made “for one week” does not suggest that it lasts only seven years. It could not be merely 7 years long because Gabriel specifies that it is a “strong” or “prevailing” covenant (the literal meaning of “confirm” in the NKJV). What the text actually means is that the covenant takes seven years to establish. In other words, to invest the phrase with NT understanding, it means that the process of inaugurating (first 3 1/2) and bringing God’s prevailing covenant to consummation (second 3 1/2) is what characterizes those last seven years. Or to say it another way, “confirm a covenant with many for one week” should be understood as the climactic 7 years in which the Messiah actively advances God’s end-time plan of redemption.
2) The answer to this is two-fold. First, it’s unlikely that “on the wing of abominations” in 9:27 is the same as “the abomination of desolation” of 11:31 and 12:11. Here are a few reasons why: 1) Nowhere in the OT is “wing” used to refer to a corner of the temple. 2) Notice that “abominations” is plural, not singular as in 11:31 and 12:11. 3) Never is the temple referred to as abominable in the sight of the Lord. It’s much better to see it as a statement like the one in 8:23: “And in the latter time… when transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise… who understands sinister schemes.” The reason this is important is because it thematically separates “he shall make an end of sacrifice” from “on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate”. We’re used to linking the two statements simply through reading 11:31 and 12:11 into 9:27, but it’s actually quite different. This is confirmed by the fact that the subject (“he” ) who puts an end to sacrifice seems to be distinguished from the subject who comes on the wing of abominations (“one who makes desolate”).
Now, with that in mind, let me pose a question: Why is it that every time the color white is spoken of in Revelation it always symbolizes righteousness, except for the one reference to the Antichrist in 6:1? Because a point is being made in that one reference about the AC; namely that he will seem righteous to the world but that in fact that appearance is a sham. A similar point is being made in those negative references to sacrifices ceasing in Daniel. What the AC will do in the abomination that causes the sacrifices to cease will be seen as a good thing – even quite possibly as a redemptive thing, as he will be accepted as the Messiah – but in fact it will be an evil and empty mimicry of the accomplishment of Calvary, where Christ “put an end to sacrifice and offering” once and for all.
3) The ESV translates that word as “and” and not “but” there. I believe it’s the same Hebrew word as the “and” at the start of v. 26 and the “then” at the start of v. 27. So it doesn’t necessarily imply contrast; that’s a place where ones own theological perspective has bearing on the particular slant of the text. Translating it as “but” probably represents a more Dispensational slant.
4) I think I already answered why I would separate them. Let me know if that’s not quite satisfying though.
5) True, but it is the traditional view. Loads of theories emerge based on this and that from history for when exactly his ministry started and when exactly he was crucified, and there is no consensus. John’s gospel says that 3 Passovers occurred over the course of Jesus’ ministry (2:13; 6:4; 11:55), and none of the synoptics say as much or contradict this, so that is enough in my book to say that his ministry lasted at least 3 years. Combine that with the fact that Christ patterned his ministry in so many ways after the ministry of Elijah (and it could be argued that he was speaking of himself as the coming Elijah who will restore all things), and Elijah’s ministry was 3 ½ years long. Jesus even explicitly compares himself with Elijah in Luke 4 and in that same instance references the length of Elijah’s ministry. For some reason God just seems to do things in 3 ½ year timeframes.
Daniel 11:28-30 is interesting, and so is the reference to the “Prince of the covenant” in 11:22. I don’t really have any thoughts though. If you get any let me know!
matthartke
Friday, April 25, 2008 at 5:09 pm