Daniel 9 questions

Status
Not open for further replies.

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Professor
How are the 70 7s supposed to be counted?
I have read from Riddlebarger that the last half of the week is the time between the first and second coming. Also regarding Daniel 11 and the prince of the covenant, how do we know he's talking about Onias III? Context?
 
Last edited:
I also have another question...what do you guys think of the idea that the fourth kingdom is Greece, and the second kingdom Media?
 
I also have another question...what do you guys think of the idea that the fourth kingdom is Greece, and the second kingdom Media?

I think that when we consider the totality of Scripture, Old and New Testaments, we simply must conclude that Christ came during the fourth kingdom. That means the fourth kingdom is most likely Rome, no matter what other considerations may suggest Greece. I suppose it remains possible that our historical thinking has given too much attention to Rome as a worldwide kingdom, or that Rome ought to be considered an extension of Greece somehow, or that Christ's appearance less than 200 years into the period of Roman domination is equivalent to putting him at the end of the Greek kingdom—so that we could call Greece the fourth kingdom. But those ways of thinking are probably a stretch.
 
My own view is very close to EJ Young, who wrote a commentary on Daniel mid 20th cent.

The seventy "sevens" are only intended to be a rough correlation to years. Do note that he doesn't use the word "years," perhaps intending us not to try to peg start-and-end points? So, all the attempts to fix a definite chronology are doomed to founder on the problems that arise from trying to get an answer to an improper question.

The three "periods" (62, 7 and 1) are generally more significant that most folks give credit for, who are only interested in the start-finish chronology.

I am perfectly satisfied that the final "seven" begins the focus on Christ's earthly ministry, in which he was "cut off" after about 3.5 years.

I am not at all dogmatic about the other "half" of the final seven, being content to think of it as irrelevant, or as extended/open-ended (ala Riddelbarger). But my preference is to think of it as the 3.5 years Titus spent in wasting the land of the Old Covenant, and destroying Jerusalem--which final ruin is alluded to in v26. In between, then, comes a 40yr, "generational" stay-of-execution, when even the slayers of the Christ are given a window of repentance.


As for Dan.11.22, the term "nageed" (prince) I think is used once in all Scripture to refer to Christ, in Dan.9:25; its use even one v later, v26, is in reference to Titus (a foreign prince). Hence, the term "prince of the covenant," in 11.22, insofar as the term is quite general, is well-worth the application to the wanton murder of one of the most (if not the most) prominent of the then-current Jewish nobility.

Remember, the focus of ch.11 is how meaningless and insignificant appear God's people in the midst of the world's conflagrations and power-struggles between the mighty-men of the earth. So, it is as if one of these bullies (too big in his own eyes to care more or less about these "hill-people") casually crushes their supreme leader like a little bug. It means no more to him than any other man's death; certainly less than a truly "powerful person's" would.

We can map these predictions (in Daniel's time) to the events that followed. But we need to remember that it wasn't as vital for the people in the days of the prophet, the after days, the days of fulfillment, or our days to know the specific fulfillments. After all, not everyone had or has access to the minute historic details that actually saw the prophet validated. If it had been important to know names (as when "Cyrus" was predicted by Isaiah), names would have been given. Instead, multiple kings bear the names "North" and "South." It obviously isn't critical know who (by name) a certain "prince of the covenant" was. Not in order to profit from the predictions.



Edit, to answer the other Q. : the fourth kingdom of ch2 is Rome. And ch2 second kingdom (silver) and ch8 ram are coeval, and the second interpretation (8:20) seals the deal, i.e. Medo-Persia.
 
Patrick Fairbairn in his "The Interpretation of Prophecy" (BoT) points out that the Danielic last symbolic 3 1/2 years, which is "picked up" in Revelation, is much shorter than the symbolic 1,000 years in Revelation. The 3 1/2 years would end in Revelation 19, according to Fairbairn and others, when the Beast, the False Prophet and Babylon would be dispensed with in history by Christ through His activity in history.

So by these general standards Fairbairn was looking for a very long postmillennial "Golden" or "Silver Age" before the Second Advent and Eschaton.
 
"Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven"-Matthew 18:21-22

Could it be possible that 70 times 7 was simply a Jewish expression that meant an infinite number and we have all been over thinking it? Just a thought.
 
Media as the second kingdom doesn't make historical sense. Media had already been united to the Persian Empire by the time Babylon fell. Dividing the kingdoms has been a liberal way to say that Daniel was really written during the Maccabean era and telling history from the end, pretending to be a prophet, and the Roman Republic was an important Jewish ally and he "couldn't" have known about the evil empire, because the liberal god does not show the future.
 
With regard to these first questions:

How are the 70 7s supposed to be counted?

I would say quite literally -- 490 years, consecutively.

I have read from Riddlebarger that the last half of the week is the time between the first and second coming. Also regarding Daniel 11 and the prince of the covenant, how do we know he's talking about Onias III? Context?

In my opinion, stretching the entire last half of the 70th week to make it fit the inter-advental period is just as bad exegesis as projecting the 70th week into the far future and separating it from the timeframe. Again, I'd say the 70 weeks are consecutive. As to the Prince in Daniel 11, I would say that was Antiochus Ephipanes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top