A Review of Eschatology

In this post, I am going to attempt to lay out the various views of eschatology, and then suggest which I believe makes the most sense.  To begin, I have posted a two part series on Daniel 9 in the past, (Daniel 9, part 1 post, Daniel 9, part 2 post), which gives a good background for this discussion.  Daniel 9 is important because one particular interpretation of those passages drives much of the popular apocalyptic fiction available today.  After reading this background post, tackling those two posts on Daniel 9 will be significantly more easily accomplished.

While eschatology is the study of redemptive history from Genesis to Revelation, it is often condensed to a discussion of end times.  The reason that this occurs is that there are presuppositions concerning which events have already occurred.  As Christians, we can generally agree that Jesus, the messiah, has already come incarnate, died, arose and ascended into heaven.  This covers a lot of time, but it is important to state explicitly what is assumed to have already occurred before discussing what is potentially yet to come to pass and also what may or may not have already come to pass.  That particular event in redemptive history we will call the First Coming.

How we interpret the whole Old Testament, particularly the prophets, Jesus, Acts and the Epistles will weigh heavily on how we view end times.  You will notice that I have not even mentioned Revelation.  Eschatology is contained in every word of the Bible.  The mistake that is easily made is to try to interpret John’s Revelation without any redemptive historical context, or with an inaccurate historical context.  Before we even wade into Revelation, at least some sort of framework or grid for dealing with that book is very helpful.

Let us start with a concept called the millennium.  This is literally a thousand year period.  Most views of eschatology that we are going to discuss will be either named or classified based upon their understanding of that term.  To begin, from where in the Bible does this term originate?  For the rest of this discussion, you will find these charts helpful.  Follow this link and then click on the pdf file link on that page to get the charts.  By the way, I want to take this opportunity to plug both the series of lectures found on the right column of that link on eschatology called Amillennialism 101 as well as both of Dr. Riddlebarger’s books on this topic, A Case for Amillennialism and The Man of Sin.  Back to the Bible, let’s try 1 Chronicles 16 for a moment.  I do not believe that this is the first mention of this idea of a thousand generations, but it is certainly clearly expressed here.  In verses 15-16, we see the idea of a thousand generations for the duration of Abraham’s covenant.  Interestingly, the Genesis text uses words like everlasting to describe the duration of the covenant.  So this reference is clearly a mixture of texts by David.  Even the Davidic Covenant prophesy in 2 Samuel 7 contains the word forever.  In fact, it is clear that this reference refers to the Mosaic Covenant found in one instance in this section of Deuteronomy 7.  We can therefore begin to understand the confusion among the Jews concerning the covenants when David himself is quoted (perhaps misquoted) as saying that there is a thousand generation duration to the Abrahamic Covenant.  In Psalm 105, David is again quoted as saying the same thing regarding this time span and Abraham.  But the point of this verbal gymnastic is this: perhaps this is a metaphor for a very long time that equates with forever.  Psalm 90, called A Prayer of Moses, seems to suggest this very point.  We’ll come back to that thought in a moment.

Now, let’s go to the back of the book, Revelations 20.  This clearly talks about a thousand years.  Go to the charts for a moment and notice that in all four charts, the millennium comes prior to the Last Day of Judgment.  The differences lie in two important areas.  The first difference depends upon the idea of whether the thousand years are literal or metaphorical.  In the first two charts, Dispensationalism and Historic Premillennialism, there is a clear and definite literal millennium.  But these two also have a second difference.  In these two, first Christ comes back to establish the Millennial Kingdom, then He comes back again at the end of the Millennium for the Last Day of Judgment.

Now, let’s break down the differences between the first two and the second two, Postmillennialsim and Amillennialism.  Dispensationalism is a subset of Premillennialsm in which, not only is there a second period of apostasy after the Millennial Kingdom and an actual second revolt before Judgment Day, but the dispensations and periods are marked by the changing focus of Redemptive History.  We are in the pre-Rapture period where God is dealing primarily with Gentiles.  Notice in the chart that in the post bodily second coming millennial period of Jewish conversion, that there is a return to Temple Worship.  This should be a red flag to your Christology that absolutely sinks this system beyond any possible consideration, and yet this is the most commonly held position in the US today.  So many passages suggest that there is no role for the Temple after the Ascension that this idea is preposterous.  The Historic Premillennialism view softens some of the rhetoric, no rapture and no post second coming temple worship, but still has a revolt of believers after the second coming of Christ, and the split of the second coming into two events separated by a thousand years.  Even if you turn my prophets seeing two mountains as one argument from a few weeks ago back on me now, do you really think that having believers in a millennial kingdom revolting against Christ is theologically sound?  And the last issue against these premillennial systems is the splitting of the Second Coming and Judgment Day into two events.  There are simply too many passages that suggest that these are one event.  Let’s try out this passage of Matthew 25 for starters.  It all sounds like one event when Christ comes back to me, and, frankly, to the reformers as well.

The other two systems either do not look at a millennial kingdom at all, or that the millennial kingdom is figurative.  The idea of pre- versus post- millennialism is based upon whether the Second Coming is before or after the millennium.  In these last two systems, since the Second Coming is concurrent with Judgment, the Second Coming is after the millennial period.  The difference between these two models is that Post-Millennialism still requires the transformation of this present age into a predominantly Christian realm prior to the Second Coming, while Amillennialism doesn’t care about the state of this present evil age, only that the Gospel has reached all corners of the world.  This difference between the need to actually convert the majority of the world versus actually just deliver the Gospel to all corners of the world is subtle, but important.  One could certainly argue that Christ may come back at any time now if you are Amillennial in your views.

So, which system do I support, if I haven’t made this clear yet?  The millennial arguments did not come into popular believe until the last 150 years.  The Chilists, or historical premillennialist appeared in the fourth century, but their view was refuted by Augustine and later the reformers.  Amillennialism as a system satisfies all of the pertinent texts without leaving unanswered questions and contradictions.  Therefore, the hour of the King’s return is completely unknown, and it could be tonight, and it might not be for thousands of years still.

The most important aspect of eschatology is that your hermeneutic for Biblical interpretation determines your eschatology.  A completely Christocentric hermeneutic combined with Covenant Systematic Theology yields an amillennial view of the end times.  These things go together naturally and easily.  If you keep those charts available whenever you read passages that have eschatological importance, and they are everywhere in the Bible, and then go through the exercise of deciding how to interpret these passages in each of the four systems that I presented, you will soon see both which system you prefer, and what assumptions you have to make for that eschatology to work.

—Troll—

Prelude to Nehemiah 8-10

As we move into this pivotal section of Nehemiah, I thought that maybe 20,000 feet was too low a perspective.  Let’s try 30,000 feet.  Last week, there was a comment about the Old Testament being boring and not particularly useful.  As Protestants, we have received poor instruction from the liberal establishment on the Gospel.  Therefore, the instruction of the Old Testament can only be worse.

Here is a radical statement that I heard last year that changed my view of the Old Testament.  The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about Jesus.  Perhaps, more accurately, the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about God’s redemption of His creation through the work of Jesus on the Cross.  While on the one hand, being told that the Bible is about Jesus seems redundant, on the other hand, I am also saying that every verse in the whole Bible is within the context of the redemptive plan of God through Jesus.  This becomes very important in how we interpret passages.

First, I’ve made a claim that bears some scrutiny.  In the realm of modern evangelicalism and protestant liberalism, the predominant view of the Old Testament is within the context of a dispensational system of eschatology.  Eschatology is the study of the redemptive history of God through mankind.  It is not just an end times discussion.  What point is there to discussing end times without some idea of how we got to that chapter of redemptive history?  In the dispensational systems, redemptive history is sort of divided into periods defined by key Biblical events.  In the most common dispensational framework, there are seven dispensations, and we are living in the sixth currently, but the number ranges from about 4 to 8.  The point is that salvation has different rules in each dispensation.

How can this be?  I do not intend to defend a position that is contrary to my own, but by way of explanation, consider this.  Between Moses and Jesus, the Jews had the Law, the full Levitical Law.  Therefore, for a Jew living in that age or dispensation, their salvation was based upon adherence to that law.  I can start in Matthew and destroy this manner of thinking by the time we get to Galatians, but what is amazing is that the Old Testament has already done this.

On the Road to Emmaus, Jesus instructs a couple of his disciples on scripture.  Later, in Jerusalem, he does more of the same.  The evidence that we have of the teaching that was given is seen in the sermons recorded by Luke in the Book of Acts.  All of the Apostles ground the historical events of the resurrection in the Old Testament scripture.  In addition, we see these sermons using all sections of the Old Testament as pointing to Jesus.  Therefore, we can infer with a high level of confidence that Jesus thought that the whole Old Testament was about Him.

When reading a particular passage in the Old Testament, the questions are these.  What is the context of that passage within the whole redemptive historical context?  What is the specific office of Jesus’ ministry that bears on that passage: prophet, priest or king?  Is the passage in question focused more upon Law or Gospel?  The corollaries of this type of thinking are boundless.

Second, one of the more difficult aspects of reading the Old Testament is its organization.  The Old Testament is more or less organized into the groupings of historical narratives, poetry and prophecy.  The original organization of the Hebrew books was somewhat different, and the idea of historical narrative was somewhat redundant with prophecy.  The Hebrew notion is that the role of the historian is to point out the failings of Israel in respect to their covenantal relationship with God, which is in no small part a prophetic office.  The result of all of this grouping and regrouping is that the chronological thread of the narrative can get very twisted.

Adding to this problem is that some of this internal chronological meandering can occur within a single book.  Jeremiah is a great example in which he witnesses the fall of the Temple in chapter 40, but continues on with pre-destruction narrative in later chapters.  We have encountered this in Ezra and Nehemiah to some degree as there is some overlap of the chapters between the books and even between chapters in Nehemiah.

Therefore, flying at altitude has many advantages in reading the Old Testament.  The primary advantage is that Jesus seems to have suggested this strategy to the Apostles, and then the Apostles delivered Old Testament scripture in their sermons in the book of Acts in this fashion.  It assists us in making sense of the jumbled timeline that results from the structural organization of the Old Testament.  It keeps us focused on why we are Christians.  Redemption is the solution to the problem of the fall.  Jesus provides all of the parts of our redemption to his remnant elect.  In the Old Testament, we learn why he did it, and why it had to happen in the way that it did.  Knowing about the resurrection without understanding the reasons behind it is knowing only half the story.  That manner of scholarship leaves the believer vulnerable to bad teachers, the wolves that mislead His sheep.

In the next post, following up on this model, I hope to compare the prophecy of Jeremiah with the actual recorded work of Ezra and Nehemiah.

--Troll--

Biblical Foreign Policy? - White Horse Inn Blog

Biblical Foreign Policy? - White Horse Inn Blog

Michael Horton talks about Obama, Israel and Jack Hayford. For those of you who don't know, Hayford is from California, like Horton, and is also the mentor of the pastor at the church that my family has been attending in our break from mainline Protestantism. In this week that has so spotlighted dispensational eschatology, this again brings home the point, it is really Biblical?

--Troll--

Pre-Rapture's Eve or J-Day minus 2

It would be just like Jesus to actually select the timing of His Second Coming in Judgment to be on the very day that Harold Camping has predicted for the "rapture." I posted a link this morning to a great article discussing the theological problems of the rapture and dispensationalism.  There is plenty more I can add to the pile, but let's get back to my original thesis.

The scripture says that no one will know when the day is coming, and it will come like a thief in the night.  Who will suspect the Second Coming on or just after Harold Camping's prediction?  It is the ideal time.  Personally, I think that for theological closure, it should be a Sunday.  I also think that the bursted dispensational bubbles from Saturday will be completely unsuspecting of a Sunday event.  It is perfect.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about a rapture.  The Bible talks about a Second Coming in Judgment, not a bunch of theologically silly events leading up to a Second Coming after which there is still another revolt against the returned Christ from post judgment people, people who passed judgment.  I am talking about Judgment Day.  The big one.  The Last Day.

So, wouldn't it be cool if Jesus planned it all for Sunday?  I'm ready, but I'm not holding my breath.  OK, yes, I am.  Talk to you again on Monday...maybe.

--Ogre--

Time to Leave Behind the Rapture

Time to Leave Behind the Rapture

Enough is enough. This is a great review from Chaplain Mike, who runs the late Michael Spencer's blog at internet monk. Please read.

--Troll--

Daniel 9, Part 2

Part 2.  There are two important points to this portion of the discussion.  Let’s start with verse 27. 

27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

That verse is very dense and worthy of considerable conversation.  Let’s start with the word “he.” The antecedent of pronouns is a subject that causes grammar teachers to turn blue in the face discussing, and perhaps Daniel should have been subjected to such a tirade.  Much has been made of the issue of the antecedent of this one pronoun.  The history of the 20^th century is punctuated by a lack of understanding of this one word.  I am referring, of course, to the recreation of the political state of Israel in 1948.  But, I’m moving ahead; let’s go back to the text.  Who can “he” be?  The dispensational view is that “he” is the desolator at the end of the verse.  Also, in verse 26, the prince who is to come and destroy the temple is read as the devil as opposed to some earthly and human prince.  Therefore, they believe that the devil is in the covenant making business.  This concept is nowhere else seen in scripture.  In fact, throughout scripture, it is God who is in the covenant making business.  Instead, in the Christocentric view of this pronoun, it is Jesus who makes a strong covenant.  Jesus does put an end to sacrifices and burnt offerings.  Jesus does declare the end of the Old Covenant and states that there is a New Covenant in Him.  It is amazing that Dispensationalists will work so hard to make the numbers fit to get Jesus into this prophesy, but then will clearly miss the prophesy about the New Covenant in Christ, who ends sin. 

The second point is that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in 70 A.D.  While the final apostasy is what is probably meant in verse 27, dovetailing with Revelations, it is this temple destruction that seems to be spoken of in verse 26.  The secular accounts of Titus’ reign of carnage over Jerusalem would make a grotesque movie even by modern standards.  It is interesting that the preterist position looks at this whole passage as being completed by 70 A.D.  As horrible as the sacking of Jerusalem was, the final apostasy most would hold involves the whole world.

We could go farther about which half of the last week Gabriel is discussing, but most people believe that it is the first half of the week.  Christ has a ministry on the world for about 3 ½ years.  At the end of his ministry, His death and resurrection occur, and that changes everything.  The end of the Old Covenant, the end of the bondage of man to sin, the end to the curse of the first Adam, the binding of the desolator, for all who believe in Christ, this all comes with His death, resurrection and ascension.  The second half of the week is interpreted by Revelation, according to the amillennial position as representing all of the time between the first and second Advent, however long that might be.  The point of 70 x 7 again is symbolic, and the leftover half of a week gets us to the Second Advent.  This is not the same as the gap that follows in an important way.  All of the events of prophesy except for the final apostasy and the Second Coming are finished by the end of 70 A.D.  This means that the last 3 ½ weeks represent the whole inter-advental period.  The final apostasy is a result of the unbinding of Satan and his lashing out against the world one final time before the second coming and judgment.

And finally, dispensationalists, where is the second gap, the one between week 69 and week 70?  I’m reading along, Gabriel is telling us a smashingly good story, and then Gabriel says, that there will be a gap of 700 weeks between weeks 69 and 70.  What?  You don’t see those words?  Neither do I.  The Dispensational view requires some clarification so that you will see the problem.  In the dispensational view, remember that the “he” is the devil.  The devil has to make a covenant with Israel.  And notice that it has to be national Israel.  Gabriel says that the covenant will be with “many.” Importantly, there is no mention of Israel in this place.  Gabriel knows that Jesus will be redefining the elect in His own covenant.  And so “many” is intentionally vague at this point in redemptive history.  Assuming that Daniel means ethnic and political Israel by the word “many” flies in the face of logic.  It seems more likely that many will be chosen, but some will not.  It is easy to see that the Apostles would initially look at this as meaning that many of the ethnically Jewish will be saved and miss at first glance that Christ’s ministry was much larger than that.  But it is equally clear that they understood that the New Covenant was with individuals, not with the state of Israel.  This is where that often abused idea of a personal relationship with Jesus comes into play.  In Christ, there is no corporate deal; personal and individual redemption is on the table.  The New Covenant is not with the whole of any nation.

The temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is part of the Dispensational problem.  This temple is a real earthly building in their literalistic hermeneutic.  The problems for this begin immediately, however.  This temple is supposed to be built on a mountain, a mountain that overlooks Jerusalem.  Such a mountain doesn’t exist.  Secondly, as the temple grows in the text to the size of the whole city, the obvious imagery of the spread of the temple beyond its traditional boundaries is lost.  In the NT, this spread, according to Jesus, is to the whole world.  See Revelation 21.  Read the whole chapter, then look carefully at verses 22-27.  Look at verse 22 again.

22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.

Remember that the dispensationalist takes the Bible literally.  Does the OT interpret the NT or does the NT interpret the OT?  Look at verse 27.  There is that pesky Book of Life, the one that Daniel had to shut.  John is looking at it.  There is no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb.

Getting back to the Dispensational view, the idea of the rapture is that Jesus comes and quietly calls his elect from the world just before this new covenant with the Devil is made.  In the passage I sited in part one from Matthew 24, it seems that Christ’s second coming will be rather loud and obvious, not the sort of stealth move implied by the idea of the rapture.  I will deal with the rapture specifically in a later post, but the implications of this theology in redemptive history are startling and probably not what any Christian really wants to believe, if they just thought it through.  For our current purposes, let us just ask the Dispensationalist to show us the 2000+ year gap in the text.  If their hermeneutic is that they take the Bible literalistically, and it is, then where is the gap?

Why is this important to the modern Geopolitical debate?  If you are a dispensationalist, you need Israel to be back in the land.  In order for the end to come, in order for there to be a second coming, in order for there to be a treaty between Satan and Israel, you need an ethnic and political entity called Israel to be in that ground.  Not only that, but they expect to achieve national borders that resemble Biblical borders.  If you haven’t noticed, somewhere in the last 1000 years, this other group build a mosque in Jerusalem, to follow a descendant of a different of Abraham’s sons.  They claim this same real estate and want to convert everyone to their theology or else kill them.  And so, while Christ came into this world and made a new Covenant with His elect, the Dispensationalists want another covenant, with a national Israel, after reestablishing old borders, so that they can help bring about the second coming of Christ.

This really is what is at the heart of this whole post WWII drama.  We have leaders, who with good intentions, but with really bad theology, who felt really badly for the Jews after Hitler, who took advantage of the political climate to force Israel back into the land.  In the book by Hal Lindsey, The Late, Great Planet Earth, in 1970, this was all laid out for us, as plain as day.  The thought was that 1948 plus half of 70 or 35 is 1973; there was a war that year in Israel.  That year came and went and the rest of the story didn’t unfold.  And so the Dispensationalists have had to recalculate.  Add another 35 and you get 2018.  If you subtract 7 for the rapture, you get 2011.  If you pile on the Mayan Calendar and Nostradamus and some planetary alignment that will happen this year, you get a lot of people who are nervous about events in the world and the period around May 21 of this year.  My son plans to have a party on May 22.  I hope that he comes up with an appropriately clever name for that bash, perhaps the Hal Lindsey earth renewal celebration.

*Is it necessary for Israel to be in the land?  No.  The land promise of Sinai was broken.  Daniel and other OT prophets make that clear.  The land promise of Abraham is expanded by Christ to mean the whole world.  *Did Jesus make a specific land Covenant with His people?  No, not really.  He made a wholly, and Holy, different type of Covenant.  *Does this make me an anti-Semitic bigot?  Absolutely not.  The Jews have access to the same Covenant that I do.  In fact, it can be argued that they may get one last chance at it before the end (again, for another post.) Many Jews will be saved, but through their faith in the promise that is manifested in Christ Jesus.  *Is it horrible that we have such incredible tension in our day in the Middle East?  Absolutely, but the Bible is silent about this.  Remember Matthew 24. (There are other similar passages, for another post.) *Why is Israel back in the land?  Because a bunch of secular rulers decided to make it happen.  There is no Biblical prophecy that requires it, nor forbids it.  The Bible is silent about this issue.  *Is there a reason to be nervous about current events?  Yes, for their own sakes, yes.  For more, I refer you to Kim Riddlebarger, here: see the right column Amillennialism 101—Audio Resources, or here and here: the printed versions of the material in the audio series.

--Troll--  and  --Ogre--

Daniel 9, Part 1

Daniel 9:24-27 is the key to modern Middle Eastern politics.  The whole understanding of the Premillennial, Dispensational view of eschatology hangs upon the interpretation of this passage.  What I am going to attempt to do in two posts is summarize about 40 hours of lectures that I will cite at the end.  Why should we care about this topic?  Many of the leaders of our country subscribe to this flawed world view and make decisions that affect our future based upon these ideas.

There is one basic hermeneutic that runs throughout scripture.  The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about the redemptive work of Jesus.  It is incredible that so many learned men can miss this point.  The first corollary to this principle is that Jesus and the Apostles, in the New Testament, interpret the Old Testament for us; the Old Testament does not tell us how to interpret the New Testament.  This notion is called Christocentricity and is the proper way to interpret scripture.  One of the best descriptions of this I heard recently was from Rod Rosenbladt who said that when we read the OT today, it is like watching the movie “The Sixth Sense” for the second time; we already know the ending and we can now see how the OT events clearly point forward toward the first Advent.

Dispensationalists have a different hermeneutic.  They claim to interpret the Bible literally.  While this sounds faithful and proper on the surface, it is not exactly what Jesus and the Apostles did.  Frequently, we find Jesus quoting OT passages and referring them to himself.  The Apostles likewise do this from Acts to Revelation.  But the Dispensationalist will argue that you cannot do this because it changes the clear and obvious meaning of the text.  The best example of this is the term Israel.  While Israel means ethnic and political Israel in the OT, it is clearly expanded by Jeremiah and Isaiah as well as Jesus, Peter and Paul to mean all of the elect in the whole world, Jews and Gentiles.  This is the beginning of our problem.

In the lead in to the passage in question, I’d like to bring up a couple of points.  First, the genre of Daniel is apocalyptic literature.  It is written with allegory and symbolism.  You clearly need to understand the historical background behind the passage and also which OT passages are being cited and quoted in order to understand the meaning.  Daniel is having a prophetic vision.  This is not a clear snapshot of the future, but rather a dream.  Another example of this genre is Revelations, which will be discussed as we go along. 

As far as this apocalyptic literature goes, the key item of interest is the Book of Life.  Daniel is told to close it, but John gets to open it and have a look.  This is a very important point.  If John gets a better look at the book, then it is John who should be used to interpret Daniel, not the other way round.  Going back to the movie analogy, if you know that Bruce Willis’ character died at the beginning of the movie, you can no longer make assumptions that his wife hears their conversation during the earlier portions of the movie.  The end has changed our understanding of the beginning.  Such is also the case concerning Revelation and our understanding of Daniel.  But it can also be said that Jesus speaks prophesy regularly and that all of the New Testament should be viewed as relevant to the interpretation of the Old Testament.  Since Jesus fulfills the OT prophesy, what he says about the OT matters.  This is also true of the Apostles.  Putting on blinders to the NT makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

To begin our discussion of Daniel 9, let’s look at verses 4-5.  In this section, Daniel makes two key points: God is a covenant maker, but He expects the other side to keep the Commandments.  He is talking about the Sinai Covenant and this refers back to Deuteronomy 7.  Israel in that passage is clearly national and ethnic Israel.  Let us continue and see what happens next.

I often wonder if Dispensationalists have actually read the next ten or so lines of Daniel.  Daniel describes in no uncertain terms that Israel has broken the Sinai Covenant and that God, as promised, has already delivered His wrath, in accordance with the broken Sinai covenant, upon his people.  It is already done.  This is why Daniel is praying for Israel.  He is already in captivity in Babylon.  What is remarkable is that Daniel records that the angel Gabriel answers his prayer and Gabriel’s response is recorded in verses 24-27.

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Now we need to break down the reply.  The first and most obvious question to ask is whether 70 weeks means a literal 70 weeks.  There seems to be some consensus on this point that a week is actually a year, and that there is an implied multiplication by 7 meaning that the actual time frame is 490 years.  I have cited a chart that discusses the possible interpretations of each of the three main eschatological systems.  Notice that after the 70 years of captivity, the next 483 years added brings us up to about one group of 70 from Christ’s life on earth.  The starting point of these years is variably held to be based on a decree of Cyrus versus a decree of Artaxerxes.  Let’s compare the differences between these two passages in Ezra.

In Ezra 1, we read the decree from Cyrus for the Israelites to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.  The next 5 chapters are about the red tape and obstruction that came to hinder the effort.  In Ezra 7, Ezra is commended by Artaxerxes to return to the now completed temple and teach.  The number of years of this gap is 80.  What 80 years does is close the gap in the number of years between Daniel 605 B.C. to Christ’s life and ministry 26-33 A.D.  Therefore, to literalists, it makes sense to number the years from Ezra’s arrival with the later decree rather from the first decree, for mathematical reasons.  The point here is that both sides are going to have to do some funny business with numbers, because there is this extra 80 years.

Next, the issue is the word “week.” Since we have already decided to deal with this term figuratively, a week is a year, perhaps we should investigate whether a week is some other measurement.  Let’s start with the captivity.  Jeremiah prophesied the captivity as 70 years and this is supported in three other places in the Bible.  Therefore, it seems that those 70 years are literal.  Particularly important in this regard is that the historical years of the exile are known and rooted in the lives of non-Jewish kings.  Cyrus existed and is documented in literature outside of the Bible.  But what of the gap? 

Ezekiel 4:5-6 uses days to mean years, so it is reasonable to accept this idea of prophetic speech having symbolic uses for numbers when dealing with Daniel.  There is much agreement on this issue.  So what does Gabriel actually say to Daniel in the vision.  The time from the setting out with the decree to rebuild to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, shall be 7 weeks.  I’ve tried several times to make 49 years fit much of anything, but the 80 years between Cyrus’ edict and Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem seem to fit the best.  What can we say about this apparent discrepancy?  First, once we start saying that the numbers are not exact, this will affect all of the calculations.  Second, it seems rather clear to me that Gabriel is talking about the edict from Cyrus.  There is no 80 year gap in the Passage the way that I read this.  Is there a translation issue for this word “week?” Maybe, there is some use of the word “seven” in place of week.  With this type of thinking, 7 is the number of the Sabbath, the number of perfection, the number of God.  One less is 6, repeated three times is the number of another.  So 70 x 7 is a period that symbolizes God, but is not meant to be an exact number.  There is help in this vein from Jesus in discussion over the timing of His second Advent.  If we are not to know the exact timing of His second Advent, perhaps the exactness of the prophesies concerning his first Advent are also purposefully vague.  There are many other theories of how to calculate these sevens or weeks, and each runs into a problem.  So, let us shift our conversation to the issue of the second gap, the Dispensationalists' gap between the 69^th and 70^th week.  End part one.