Daniel 9: Need Help!

[oneshot012]

I need to some help with Daniel 9:24-27. In need some help understanding the orthodox -Preterist and Idealist view points on this passage.

Now I understand that an Amill believer could be a preterist but what else could they be?

Thanks for the help in advance.

[franktalk]

oneshot012 ,

Welcome to the website. You will find this place most rewarding. I am not a preterist so I can't help you but there are many who may.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I need to some help with Daniel 9:24-27. In need some help understanding the orthodox -Preterist and Idealist view points on this passage.

Now I understand that an Amill believer could be a preterist but what else could they be?

Thanks for the help in advance.

They could be (and most likely would be) historicist.

[franktalk]

oneshot012 ,

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freeb...s/2226_47e.htm

I was told the book "Days of Vengeance" by Chilton David was a good source.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Days of Vengeance does not deal with Daniel 9 but is a commentary on Revelation. Here is a good link for Daniel 9:

http://www.historicism.com/mauro/mauro70.htm

[oneshot012]

Days of Vengeance does not deal with Daniel 9 but is a commentary on Revelation. Here is a good link for Daniel 9:

http://www.historicism.com/mauro/mauro70.htm

Thanks for the help but this says that this is a historicist view. Any help with preterism or idealism on this passage. Thanks so much again.

[franktalk]

Days of Vengeance does not deal with Daniel 9 but is a commentary on Revelation. Here is a good link for Daniel 9:

http://www.historicism.com/mauro/mauro70.htm

Have you read "Days of Vengeance"? It pulls from the entire Bible in order to support the authors points. And how exactly do you explain Revelation without dealing with Daniel 9? And how do you explain Daniel 9 without dealing with the book of Revelation? Take that chip off your shoulder it is making you lean to one side.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Have you read "Days of Vengeance"? It pulls from the entire Bible in order to support the authors points. And how exactly do you explain Revelation without dealing with Daniel 9? And how do you explain Daniel 9 without dealing with the book of Revelation? Take that chip off your shoulder it is making you lean to one side.

Don't be a dork. For one thing my post was a simple comment, nothing at all to justify your "chip" comment which is simply your butt-cheek hurt talking from getting spanked in the other thread. Now this response is aggressive since you decided to try to take an uncalled for swat at me. No one simply reading my post would have thought it was rude and your response appropriate. It is YOU that need to get over yourself apparently. Check this out:

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/scripindex.html

What do you see? Hundreds of verses. Including Daniel 9. HOWEVER THE WORK THAT REFERENCES IS NOT DEALING WITH DANIEL 9 BUT MATTHEW 24.

I can't help it if you are ignorant. OBVIOUSLY any commentary on prophecy is going to mention other prophetic passages but Days of Vengeance is a commentary on Revelation NOT DANIEL 9 and thus SUCKS as a recommendation to learn Daniel 9.

Here is the full title:

The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation

Not an exposition of Daniel. You keep saying ignorant things, you are going to get called on it. Have YOU read Days of Vengeance? I have.

PA180018.JPG

That is my hand just now holding my copy. Not some free online copy. Notice the ripped jacket? That is how much I read it.

That picture shows that I even still had some tabbies on it from that last study. See the blue piece of paper sticking out?




And if you have, then your excuse for saying that dumb thing about AD70 meaning Jesus coming in our hearts was your understanding of the preterist position is inexcusable since Chilton explains the preterist view.

The book I linked to is entitled:

THE SEVENTY WEEKS AND THE GREAT TRIBULATION

A Study of the Last Two Visions of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse of the Lord Jesus Christ

It purports to be a study on Daniel.

Next time please think twice about dragging in your bruised ego on another thread into new ones. I wasn't at all hostile to you in that response, which wasn't even to you but to the original poster. Sheesh.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thanks for the help but this says that this is a historicist view. Any help with preterism or idealism on this passage. Thanks so much again.

Hi where does it say it is a historicist view? I think you are confusing the fact that it is hosted on a historicist site (the owner of that site is a friend and a member here). Plus, what I was trying to explain before is that historicists and preterists have much agreement (if not total agreement) on Daniel 9. So historicist material will be helpful to you. That book is excellent.

[oneshot012]

Hi where does it say it is a historicist view? I think you are confusing the fact that it is hosted on a historicist site (the owner of that site is a friend and a member here). Plus, what I was trying to explain before is that historicists and preterists have much agreement (if not total agreement) on Daniel 9. So historicist material will be helpful to you. That book is excellent.

Wonderful! Sorry for the confusion. I will begin reading it in the morning.

While on the topic of eschatology and preterism I would like to ask a few other questions as well:

1. Are there any good free commentaries from the preterist perspective on Daniel as a whole?
2. What is the view of the little horn in Daniel 7?
3. Are there any preterist's who believe that Revelation was written after AD70?

Sorry for all the questions. Just seeking knowledge.

Thanks.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Wonderful! Sorry for the confusion. I will begin reading it in the morning.

I don't agree with everything in that book but it is very good. The author is a lawyer so argues his points well.

While on the topic of eschatology and preterism I would like to ask a few other questions as well:

1. Are there any good free commentaries from the preterist perspective on Daniel as a whole?

I don't believe so, but there are a lot of free resources from which you can piece together a whole picture. Have you visited http://www.preteristsite.com? I have a ton of free resources there.

2. What is the view of the little horn in Daniel 7?

There are various ones - I apologize but I am somewhat in a hurry (and my memory is horrid) so I really can't collate that right now. I think Mauro in the book link may deal with that a little. I could be wrong though.

3. Are there any preterist's who believe that Revelation was written after AD70?

None that I know of, but there are fringe in every group. So I would generally speaking say no.

Sorry for all the questions. Just seeking knowledge.

Thanks.

No problem. I love answering questions from seekers. I go ballistic as you can see when people try to get in jabs or sneak in their presuppositions and then point to their presuppositions as proof of them. (that is what was going on in the other thread I referenced)

[oneshot012]

I don't believe so, but there are a lot of free resources from which you can piece together a whole picture. Have you visited http://www.preteristsite.com? I have a ton of free resources there.

Yes, I have been to your blog and just listened to one of your podcats. I am a former historical premillenialist.

I have since left that position due to my reading, N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham and Jurgen Moltmann. Honestly, when Wright talk about the resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 8 and the 2nd coming in 1 Thessalonians 4 you can't be a premillenialist. Jurgen's idea creation being redeemed in Eschatology just doesn't sit well with the destruction ideas. Lastly Bauckham's work on Revelation and the Nero Resurrected theory, I don't know if I subscribe to it yet...Futurism for me just doesn't work.

So I have decided the only thing to be is a preterist/idealist but now I have to rework some of my ideas. Hence my seeking.

Also for saying you are not a "semianarian" you sure do go through the scriptures quite well.

There are various ones - I apologize but I am somewhat in a hurry (and my memory is horrid) so I really can't collate that right now. I think Mauro in the book link may deal with that a little. I could be wrong though.

No problem. Again thanks for the source.

None that I know of, but there are fringe in every group. So I would generally speaking say no.

Yeah this is where I have trouble with preterism. I mean, I read some of Greg Beale who is an Idealist-Preterist and a commentator on Revelation and he is a post AD 70 person. His commentary on Revelation is considered by many to be one of the finest works ever on Revelation.

Thanks again. I look forward to more dialogue.

[Lazarus43]

I don't agree with everything in that book but it is very good. The author is a lawyer so argues his points well....

I just want to give a short plug for the book and author she mentions.

Not just any lawyer, the author, Philip Mauro, argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and prepared the argument which William Jennings Bryan used to win in the famous Tennessee-Scopes trial in 1925.

I probably don't agree with everything either, but I really like the way Philip Mauro logically uses Scripture to explain Scripture. It is well worth reading.

The following quoted excerpt is from Chapter 1 of The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation by Philip Mauro.
*******************************************************************************************************************
PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD GOVERN IN THE
INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY

....we purpose, in entering upon the present line of studies, to be governed by certain principles which, we believe, should control at all times those who assume to expound the Word of God to their fellow saints.

The first of these controlling principles is, neither to accept nor to give forth as settled interpretation anything that rests upon surmise or mere probability; but only what is supported either by direct proof from Scripture, or by reasonable deduction therefrom. We maintain that it is far better to have no explanation at all of a difficult passage than to accept one which may turn out to be wrong. For it is not easy to give up an idea when once we have committed ourselves to it.

In fact, that which chiefly stands in the way of the acceptance of fresh light and truth from the Scriptures is the strong (in some cases almost invincible) reluctance of the human mind to surrender, or even to examine the ground of, opinions which possibly were originally accepted upon human authority only, and without any inquiry as to the support which can be found for them in the Word of God.

Another guiding principle is that the proof adduced in support of any interpretation should be taken from the Scripture itself. Our conviction is that, whatever information is essential for the interpretation of any and every passage of Scripture is to be found somewhere in the Bible itself. Were it not so the Holy Scriptures would not be able to make the man of God perfect, that is to say, complete, and thoroughly furnished unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). We must, of course, appeal to history in order to show the fulfilment of prophecy; for it cannot be shown in any other way. But the interpretation of Scripture is another matter.

Furthermore, wherever we offer a statement or opinion to the reader for his acceptance, we feel bound to give along with it the proofs by which we deem it to be established. This should be demanded of every writer. But, most unhappily, there are now in circulation many books dealing with Bible subjects, whose authors deem themselves to be such high "authorities" that they habitually make assertions of the most radical sort without citing in support thereof any proof whatever. We earnestly caution our readers to beware of all such. It is not according to the mind of God that His people should rest upon any human "authorities" whatever. His own Word is the only authority.

These papers are prepared for the benefit of "the common people." What we undertake by the grace of God to do is to make every statement and conclusion so plain, and to support it by such clear proof from the Scriptures alone, that the ordinary reader will be able both to see for himself the meaning of the passage, and also to comprehend perfectly the scriptural evidence by which that meaning is established. Thus he will be entirely independent of all human "authority."

This is an exceedingly important point. For, as matters now stand, it would be difficult or impossible to find any one whose view of the Seventy Weeks prophecy does not rest, as to some one or more essential features thereof, upon mere human authority. In our own case, when we began these studies (about May 1921) our opinion (in regard especially to the Chronology of the prophetic period) had no better basis than that such were the views of certain eminent writers on Bible-topics; and this was most unsatisfactory, because we knew that there were other equally eminent students of the Bible who held an entirely different view. But now we are in no uncertainty. We have solid ground under our feet; for every conclusion rests upon the unshakable rock of God's own testimony. This is as it should be.

We wish particularly to impress upon our readers that the proofs furnished by the Scriptures for our comprehension of this great and marvelous prophecy are not hard to understand or to apply. On the contrary they are quite simple. On a moment's reflection it will be seen that it could not be otherwise. For the Scriptures were written, not for the erudite, but for the simple-minded. Our Lord said, speaking of this very prophecy, "Whoso readeth, let him understand" (Matt. 24:15); and it should not surprise us to find that all the materials needed for our understanding of the matter are contained in the Bible itself...
*******************************************************************************************************************

I do not think even Dee Dee Warren could have said that better.

However, I could be wrong.

Blessings,
Lazarus43

[COPLAND 3]

Here is an article that I did on this passage



This prophesy is found in Daniel 9:21-27. It is a 490 year period that has led many scholars to go the great lengths to figure out exactly when it is. Some have thought that it is connected to the End Times, while others have figured that it has already been completely fulfilled.

The weeks are actually to be understood as a sabbatical measure of time in the Jewish calendar, which means that each week is a 7 year cycle (compare to Genesis 29:26-28 ).


Of all the commentators that I have researched on this passage, Theodoret of Cyrus provides the closest and most satisfactory explanation in my opinion. I have used his interpretation as a model for this critique, but I have some minor modifications that I have grafted in.





70 WEEKS CALCULATION IN BRIEF

The 70 weeks begins at the year of Artaxerxes somewhere around 465BC.

The 62nd week marked the time period around when the high priests were being appointed illegally and the death of John Hyrcanus II around 31BC. The calculation does not start here exactly at the death of Hyrcanus, but in this time period, so an exact calculation would be around 22BC.

The 69th week brings us to the Baptism of Jesus around 27AD.

The 70th week is broken up into two 3 and a half year periods. The first half is the 3 and half year ministry of Jesus until His Passion around 30AD, and the second half being the 3 and half year period of the Apostles establishing the Church starting in Jerusalem until around 33-34AD.

The abomination of desolations does not only pertain to the final week but also to the entire time until the end of the world (Daniel 9:27). Pilate brought images into Jerusalem in this time period, and the same kind of abominations will continue until the end of the world.





DANIEL 9:24-27 WITH COMMENTARY

note: This translation of the Scripture passage comes from the Greek Septuagint.

24 Seventy weeks have been determined upon your people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy.

70 weeks= 490 years: this began with Artaxerxes to the crucifixion of Christ and 3 and a half years beyond.

In this passage God allows Jerusalem to be rebuilt and a further set of years of living according to the Law. Here Jesus is referred to as Most Holy.




25 And you shall know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and the times shall be exhausted.

The 7 weeks and 62 weeks makes 69 weeks, in turn makes 483 years. This would bring us to the bapism of Jesus by John the Baptist.





26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations.


"After the 62 weeks" takes us back 7 weeks from verse 25 which marks the end of when the high priests flourished and others were appointed illegally. This would bring us to Hyrcanus II, the last high priest of the Hasmoneans, whom Herod slew (31 BC). From this time period to the Baptism of Jesus is the period between the 62nd and the 69th week. and there is no judgment in him: And since those appointed illegally were called high priests, Daniel was right to say there was no judgment in him. If they are appointed but not anointed according to the Law, they take it upon themselves to act illegally. and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: The city will suffer and so will the illegal rulers who are to come; by the prince who is coming he is referring to the foreign kingdom and high priest.




27 And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the middle of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away: and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation.

This one week/seven years, is the period of time beginning with the baptism of Jesus to that of the holy Apostles teaching in Jersualem after the Resurrection. The Lord preached for about 3 and a half years, and strengthened His disciples. But after the Resurrection, Ascension into Heaven, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles spent the rest of the three and half years preaching in Jerusalem, working wonders and guiding many thousands, and they imparted the new covenant and caused them to enjoy the grace of baptism.


The abomination of desolations is to be understood as something that took place and continues to take place even until the end of time. It is not to be understood as a one time event in the past or future. Pilate was responsible for such an offense according to Josephus (Ant. 18.55-59) and Eusbeius (Hist. eccel. 2.6.3-4).


And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: The new covenant will be given to the believers in this week, and He will fill them with all power. and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease: sacrifice according to the law will come to an end when the true sacrifice of the innocent lamb, who takes away the sin of the world, is offered; when it is finally offered, the other will cease. And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate: that is, that formerally venerable and fearsome place will be made desolate. A sign of the desolation will be the introduction into it of certain images forbidden by the law; Pilate was guilty of this by introducing into the divine temple by night the imperial images in violation of the law (according to Josephus Ant. 18.55-59 an Philo The embassy to Caligula 299-305). Read Philo and Josephus' quotes HERE


In case the Jews should think the divine temple would recover its former splendor and glory, he consequently added..

even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate: until the end of the age the consumation of the desolation will continue, undergoing no change.

[Ted]

You might wish to look at http://www.bibleonly.org/press/dan/index.html.

This is the full text of my A Primer on the Book of Daniel, just released by Resource Publications, a division of Wipf & Stock, Eugene, OR

Ted