Very interesting end to the series, Andrew. I wasn't sure what to expect, but you definitely lay forth an interesting case. There is so much to get into with this that I don't think it would be productive (or practical) to have a long discussion in the comments, especially since I myself don't have an absolutely firm belief with which to argue. Therefore, I'll suggest some resources that might be helpful in case you hadn't seen them before, as well as a few (hopefully) brief thoughts of my own. They are all articles written by Rick Lanser here: https://biblearchaeology.org/uncategorized-list/4672-articles-written-by-rick-lanser
While he has some points about here and there about dispensationalism that the two of us wouldn't consider accurate (such as saying that after Christ's death, the Jews were essentially done away with as God's special people), he does go very in depth into the chronology, especially into which "word" is meant by verse 25. He also makes some good points about the "atnah" in the 69 and 70th weeks article, and how it should be interpreted, as well as why the first 69 weeks are separated.
A point I'll make here that I think is a flaw in the way you interpret the punctuation is that there is some Christian tradition affecting the translation. However, as Lanser points out, it is only the Masoretic Text, a rabbinical translation well after the time of Christ (so they would obviously have understood the Christian interpretation at this point), that contains the atnah. The Septuagint (which ironically is flawed in most other chronological aspects) does not have the punctuation. All other major OT translations also do not have the atnah, but they are also after the time of Christ, so they might be considered on the same footing as the MT as far as potential bias is concerned. Therefore, I don't think using the atnah as a foundation on how to date the 69 weeks is as strong a foundation as you think.
Additionally, the literal Hebrew seems to better support interpreting the "word" of verse 25 as indeed the decree of a foreign king giving the Jews permission to rebuild Jerusalem, but that's too long enough of an issue to get into here (which is why I linked those articles).
The problem I have with accepting your view, although it offers many advantages, is why God would have made it so that in the traditional view, the difference from the decree (457 BC) to the coming of the Messiah (27 AD) was in fact 483 years (69 sevens). Additionally, the language of verse 24 still seems to me to describe Jesus, the ultimate High Priest who did and will do all these things (although you admittedly make a strong case for the other side). However, you could make the same argument in reverse, which makes me think: could there be some dual fulfillment going on here? I admit this view seems far-fetched, but as of right now that's the only way I can reconcile two viewpoints that each have their own advantages.
Finally, and I think you would agree with this, another strength of the traditional view is that it seems to gel much better with the words of Jesus and the NT authors (such as the Olivet Discourse, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation). They all used Daniel as a framework, as well as the fact that as you pointed out in a previous comment, Jesus himself declared another abomination to be future. Therefore, if we have a clear-cut case of dual fulfillment (one abomination fulfilled in Antiochus, one that is future), I think it might open up the door for others. An article that I've found helpful (this is one you might have actually seen before, since it's by Aaron Welch) is this: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-defense-of-doctrine-of-future-70th.html
His other articles on the timing of the snatching away and tribulation also seem to point towards the 70th week being yet future, considering how perfectly it fits into Revelation and 2 Thessalonians.
The issue that you might find in further research into implications for NT eschatology is that my guess would be that the majority of people who hold your view (which does not see Jesus as the Messiah of Daniel 9) would be Jewish, and therefore do not hold the NT in high regard as something to align their viewpoint with.
I know I said I didn't want to get into a long post in the comments (lol), but hopefully these thoughts are something to think about, and thanks again for the series of thought-provoking articles.
I do think it's possible that the 70 weeks are from 457 BC until AD 34, but that doesn't seem to fit with Daniel's other prophecies IMO. If it can be shown that the fourth kingdom in Daniel is Rome, and that the "little horn" is not Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then I'd find this interpretation more likely. I think that all of Daniel's prophecies should fit together, so if the other prophecies focus on the time of Antiochus IV, it's most likely that Dan. 9:24-27 does as well (which is IMO confirmed by the fact that the events of the 70th week fit so well with 171-164 BC).
Yeah, I agree, but just a caveat, the interpretation I'm advocating says the first 69 weeks are from 457 BC to 27 AD, but that the 70th week is still future. As you, Aaron, and many others have pointed out, the Seventh Day Adventist position that places Jesus' death in the middle of the last week simply does not work. And you're right, it's so difficult to consider things like this when your viewpoint on one thing (such as the identity of the four kingdoms) affects another. Like I said, I don't really have a firm view, but overall like I said, I believe Daniel to do much more "telescoping" into the future than your view suggests, which will inevitably skew the conclusions down the line. Such is the power of paradigms. One last thing I would caution against is the dependency of your view on the accuracy of 1 and 2 Maccabees. As you mentioned, there are certainly historical parts mixed with some legendary embellishment. However, they are not on par with inspired Scripture (although I'm obviously not saying we can't use outside sources), but if even a few details were rendered inaccurate (which as you can imagine, many historians believe), it could have severe implications with the connection of Daniel to the Maccabean Revolt. In that sense, the futurist view is a bit "safer" (if that's the right word haha), since it doesn't need to find as parallels with recorded history. Overall, though, and I'll close with this, is that as we talked about in your first post of the series, this is a case where we can agree to disagree more or less. I'm not saying there isn't a correct answer, but just that it's a more minor issue (compared to the salvation of all, free will, the Trinity, etc.) and therefore doesn't affect membership in the body of Christ. For a funny example of this, you should see Martin Zender's MZTV 1217 from a few days ago about Elijah. He goes over an article from Tom Ballinger, who distinguishes between the two gospels properly, but literally believes that the 490 years are yet future, and that Nebuchadnezzar will be resurrected along with Elijah before everyone else to work at the so-called "National Department of Restoration" to prepare for Christ's return. Seriously, if you need a good laugh, check it out.
I can tell you put a lot of work into these last three posts (with the added historical element), so bravo once again. Any idea what you'll focus on next?
Very interesting end to the series, Andrew. I wasn't sure what to expect, but you definitely lay forth an interesting case. There is so much to get into with this that I don't think it would be productive (or practical) to have a long discussion in the comments, especially since I myself don't have an absolutely firm belief with which to argue. Therefore, I'll suggest some resources that might be helpful in case you hadn't seen them before, as well as a few (hopefully) brief thoughts of my own. They are all articles written by Rick Lanser here: https://biblearchaeology.org/uncategorized-list/4672-articles-written-by-rick-lanser
ReplyDeleteWhile he has some points about here and there about dispensationalism that the two of us wouldn't consider accurate (such as saying that after Christ's death, the Jews were essentially done away with as God's special people), he does go very in depth into the chronology, especially into which "word" is meant by verse 25. He also makes some good points about the "atnah" in the 69 and 70th weeks article, and how it should be interpreted, as well as why the first 69 weeks are separated.
A point I'll make here that I think is a flaw in the way you interpret the punctuation is that there is some Christian tradition affecting the translation. However, as Lanser points out, it is only the Masoretic Text, a rabbinical translation well after the time of Christ (so they would obviously have understood the Christian interpretation at this point), that contains the atnah. The Septuagint (which ironically is flawed in most other chronological aspects) does not have the punctuation. All other major OT translations also do not have the atnah, but they are also after the time of Christ, so they might be considered on the same footing as the MT as far as potential bias is concerned. Therefore, I don't think using the atnah as a foundation on how to date the 69 weeks is as strong a foundation as you think.
Additionally, the literal Hebrew seems to better support interpreting the "word" of verse 25 as indeed the decree of a foreign king giving the Jews permission to rebuild Jerusalem, but that's too long enough of an issue to get into here (which is why I linked those articles).
The problem I have with accepting your view, although it offers many advantages, is why God would have made it so that in the traditional view, the difference from the decree (457 BC) to the coming of the Messiah (27 AD) was in fact 483 years (69 sevens). Additionally, the language of verse 24 still seems to me to describe Jesus, the ultimate High Priest who did and will do all these things (although you admittedly make a strong case for the other side). However, you could make the same argument in reverse, which makes me think: could there be some dual fulfillment going on here? I admit this view seems far-fetched, but as of right now that's the only way I can reconcile two viewpoints that each have their own advantages.
Finally, and I think you would agree with this, another strength of the traditional view is that it seems to gel much better with the words of Jesus and the NT authors (such as the Olivet Discourse, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation). They all used Daniel as a framework, as well as the fact that as you pointed out in a previous comment, Jesus himself declared another abomination to be future. Therefore, if we have a clear-cut case of dual fulfillment (one abomination fulfilled in Antiochus, one that is future), I think it might open up the door for others. An article that I've found helpful (this is one you might have actually seen before, since it's by Aaron Welch) is this: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/09/a-defense-of-doctrine-of-future-70th.html
ReplyDeleteHis other articles on the timing of the snatching away and tribulation also seem to point towards the 70th week being yet future, considering how perfectly it fits into Revelation and 2 Thessalonians.
The issue that you might find in further research into implications for NT eschatology is that my guess would be that the majority of people who hold your view (which does not see Jesus as the Messiah of Daniel 9) would be Jewish, and therefore do not hold the NT in high regard as something to align their viewpoint with.
I know I said I didn't want to get into a long post in the comments (lol), but hopefully these thoughts are something to think about, and thanks again for the series of thought-provoking articles.
Thanks for commenting!
DeleteI do think it's possible that the 70 weeks are from 457 BC until AD 34, but that doesn't seem to fit with Daniel's other prophecies IMO. If it can be shown that the fourth kingdom in Daniel is Rome, and that the "little horn" is not Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then I'd find this interpretation more likely. I think that all of Daniel's prophecies should fit together, so if the other prophecies focus on the time of Antiochus IV, it's most likely that Dan. 9:24-27 does as well (which is IMO confirmed by the fact that the events of the 70th week fit so well with 171-164 BC).
Best,
Andrew
Yeah, I agree, but just a caveat, the interpretation I'm advocating says the first 69 weeks are from 457 BC to 27 AD, but that the 70th week is still future. As you, Aaron, and many others have pointed out, the Seventh Day Adventist position that places Jesus' death in the middle of the last week simply does not work. And you're right, it's so difficult to consider things like this when your viewpoint on one thing (such as the identity of the four kingdoms) affects another. Like I said, I don't really have a firm view, but overall like I said, I believe Daniel to do much more "telescoping" into the future than your view suggests, which will inevitably skew the conclusions down the line. Such is the power of paradigms. One last thing I would caution against is the dependency of your view on the accuracy of 1 and 2 Maccabees. As you mentioned, there are certainly historical parts mixed with some legendary embellishment. However, they are not on par with inspired Scripture (although I'm obviously not saying we can't use outside sources), but if even a few details were rendered inaccurate (which as you can imagine, many historians believe), it could have severe implications with the connection of Daniel to the Maccabean Revolt. In that sense, the futurist view is a bit "safer" (if that's the right word haha), since it doesn't need to find as parallels with recorded history. Overall, though, and I'll close with this, is that as we talked about in your first post of the series, this is a case where we can agree to disagree more or less. I'm not saying there isn't a correct answer, but just that it's a more minor issue (compared to the salvation of all, free will, the Trinity, etc.) and therefore doesn't affect membership in the body of Christ. For a funny example of this, you should see Martin Zender's MZTV 1217 from a few days ago about Elijah. He goes over an article from Tom Ballinger, who distinguishes between the two gospels properly, but literally believes that the 490 years are yet future, and that Nebuchadnezzar will be resurrected along with Elijah before everyone else to work at the so-called "National Department of Restoration" to prepare for Christ's return. Seriously, if you need a good laugh, check it out.
DeleteI can tell you put a lot of work into these last three posts (with the added historical element), so bravo once again. Any idea what you'll focus on next?