# April 6, 32 A.D. - end of the first 69 Weeks of Daniel & day Messiah is manifest king



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2015)

> “Sir Robert Anderson by a careful analysis of the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 calculated that Jesus, to the very day, fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy concerning the appearance of the Messiah. Dr. Alva McClain has written, ‘April 6, 32 A.D., therefore, is fixed definitely as the end of the era of the first 69 Weeks; and according to Daniel’s prophecy, it should mark the very day of Messiah’s manifestation as the Prince of Israel.’ Without attempting to enter into the clear but intricate chronological calculations set forth by Anderson in his book, The Coming Prince (Pages 95-105), I shall simply state his conclusion that April 6, 32 A.D., was the tenth of Nisan, that momentous day on which our Lord, in fulfilment of Messianic prophecy, rode up to Jerusalem on the ‘foal of an ass’ and offered Himself as the Prince and King of Israel.” Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), p. 20.



Do other writers concur with Anderson here?


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 17, 2015)

Wouldn't it be either the end of 69 1/2 weeks or the 70 weeks, not 69?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 17, 2015)

That is why I am asking, in part.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 19, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> > “Sir Robert Anderson by a careful analysis of the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 calculated that Jesus, to the very day, fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy concerning the appearance of the Messiah. Dr. Alva McClain has written, ‘April 6, 32 A.D., therefore, is fixed definitely as the end of the era of the first 69 Weeks; and according to Daniel’s prophecy, it should mark the very day of Messiah’s manifestation as the Prince of Israel.’ Without attempting to enter into the clear but intricate chronological calculations set forth by Anderson in his book, The Coming Prince (Pages 95-105), I shall simply state his conclusion that April 6, 32 A.D., was the tenth of Nisan, that momentous day on which our Lord, in fulfilment of Messianic prophecy, rode up to Jerusalem on the ‘foal of an ass’ and offered Himself as the Prince and King of Israel.” Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), p. 20.
> 
> 
> 
> Do other writers concur with Anderson here?



They don't all agree. E.g. the ESV Study Bible has a page on whether the Crucifixion (and Resurrection-Ascension) were in AD 30 or AD 33, and concludes for AD 33. I don't know how much the reasoning of the ESV scholars was based on Daniel's 70 weeks. 

The NKJV Study Bible got April AD 33 based on Daniel's 70 weeks.

I'll maybe look them up to give you the intimate and arithmetical reasoning!

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 19, 2015)

I appreciate all the concern some people have had (like Sir A.) to prove the veracity of the Bible and prophecy pertaining to Jesus Christ by means of various prophetic calendars, in particular Daniel's 70 sevens. I happen to think the effort has only limited value. Conviction of the truth is primarily a spiritual matter.

The power of persuasion will in some sense be dependent on the presenter being trusted by those listening. He will be assuming certain things about his material, and he must persuade his students that he has done his homework correctly.

One of the main obstacles re. Daniel's 70 sevens--after the convenient assumption that a "seven" is a septad of years--is an admitted starting point, to say nothing of the end. Is there one? A single one? Are there three (for 7, for 62, and for 1)? Let us assume a "ballpark" (rather than exact) dating scheme for Christ's crucifixion. Given what we have to work with in "years," a straight-line application of 483 years (69x7) puts us back in the vicinity of 450 B.C. If we are allowed the 70th septad in calculating from A.D. 33, we could come very close to Artaxerxes proclamation of 457 (Ezra 7). Yet this scheme seems to disturb the intent of the prophecy to teach that the Messiah should die in the middle of the 70th septad, rather than then end.

Furthermore, it is not obvious, that despite Artaxerxes' letter in a convenient location "in the ballpark" as a peg to hang the starting point for this prophetic "clock," this proclamation must be "the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Dan.9:25), i.e. the Temple, especially when Artaxerxes himself refers to Cyrus' proclamation of 538. What some interpreters often do is "start" and "stop" the alleged clock a few times to help various points hit their alleged marks.

The interpreters, who appeal to the later "enforcement" decree as the _real_ signal to begin the countdown, have not thereby "solved the vital question," or managed to avoid all possibility of "painting themselves into a corner" by insisting on a strict numerical and year-by-year accounting of the time in view.

It isn't obvious that the Holy Spirit (by Daniel) intended to provide such a clock; and expecting his septads to do that work is at least partly a product of a certain hermeneutical paradigm, and a few convenient assumptions.


It's just my opinion, but I haven't seen a better treatment of the relevant material since E.J. Young's commentary on Daniel.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 19, 2015)

I have collected Bible chronologies, in part to seek to understand the dating of this passage (Dan 9:24-27) and its precise prophetic fulfillment. I eventually came to the conclusion stated by Pastor Bruce above that E.J. Young has the best treatment of it, which indicates it is not meant to be a precise timetable. In his BOT commentary he interacts with the various hypotheses. I give a scan of Young's brief conclusion below:




​


----------

