Daniel 9

[jogri17]

How would you interpret Daniel's 70 weeks from an Amil. persprective or a postmil. perspective?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My view is that the entire period has reference to the first coming of Christ.

Dan 9:26-27

And after threescore and two weeks [plus the seven previous, BGB] shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst [Jesus had about a 3.5 yr ministry] of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease [that's what the death of Jesus means, cf. v24], and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

To summarize, Daniel's prayer of grief and repentance (for the Exile's general UNrepentance) is answered with another redemptive-historical promise. God is still bringing his Savior. There is still some time to go.

I don't think the "sevens" were meant to be crisp, precise figures.
That's one reason why they are not, um ... crisp precise figures, unless so interpreted.

The first 7 "seven" refers to the period of time between the command to rebuild Jerusalem, and--either the completion of the exile's return, the rebuilding of the wall, or the rebuilding of the Temple, all which together constitute a complete return.

The 62 "sevens" refers to the troubled period until Messiah's day.

The final "seven" refers to the Messiah's own day, during which, in the middle of it, he is "cut off."

Is there any significance to the "rest" of the last "seven"? That's debatable. Some have argued that since the Roman crusade against the Jews took about 3.5 years, that should be connected with Jesus' earthly ministry, with a "generational" (40 year) window of repentance.

Personally, I don't think the "rest" of the seven matters to the prophesy. The prophesy didn't say that the last event would occur on the final day of the "seven". Only that all would take place in the designated frame. The focus is on Christ, not on anything or anyone else.

The desolation of the city and sanctuary predicted is not necessarily included in the "seventy". It is simply the conclusion of the matter.

 

[Hilasmos]

Do you reject Riddlebarger's view that the final 3.5 years represents the millennium (cf. Rev. 12:14)?

 

[Spinningplates2]

Do you reject Riddlebarger's view that the final 3.5 years represents the millennium (cf. Rev. 12:14)?

I think that the 3.5 years only equals the millennium in Dogma years. I have been taught that the 70 weeks are years leading up to birth and life of Christ.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do you reject Riddlebarger's view that the final 3.5 years represents the millennium (cf. Rev. 12:14)?

I do not reject a connection between these ideas. But it is interpretation of the relation, not an explicit tie.

I think the Rev.12:14 "x, 2x, 1/2x" could well be theological reflection on the Daniel 9:27, but it isn't as direct a literary parallel as to Dan.7:25 and 12:7, where the precise language of "time, times, and 1/2 time" is used. In Daniel 9, "seven" is the term used, and it is qualified with "70" "7", 62", and "1", and "midst" (which I don't think is a very "exact" reference).

I don't believe that in Daniel's prophecy, 7:25, 9:27, and 12:7 refer to the same period of time or historic moment.

I do think that Dan.7:25 and Rev.12:14 are the closest to describing coterminous periods of time, although in Dan.7:25 "x, 2x, 1/2x" focuses on the "end" of the longer age(s)-of-the-fourth-beast.

I am not persuaded that "time"= one year, "times"= two years, and "half a time"= 6 months. In fact, I think to read it that way is basically a misreading.

Having said all that, let me repeat: I can appreciate that Rev.12:14 is "millennial" or refers to the inter-advent. If we can make a biblical argument that the "remainder" of the "7th week" has any significance, then I don't have any principial opposition to referring it to the same inter-advential period, but I think it could be interpreted otherwise, again by similarly plausible biblical arguments.

Since I can't be definitive, I have to leave it open. Personally, I don't think that ancient interpreters of Daniel all the way up until the apostles would have been too concerned with the "rest" of the week, other than to say it was the "beginning" of Messiah's reign.

 

[Hilasmos]

Thank you fellow Michigander