The 7 year covenant conundrum

[seanD]

I'm having an issue with Daniel 9:27. I don't buy either the futurist or preterist interpretations. I don't buy the preterist interpretation because it's just outright ridiculous to me (at least the interpretation explained here).

I have a problem with the futurist view also for two reasons: a) no one knows the day or hour yet once the covenant is made, you just count 7 years and wala; b) neither the specific 7 years nor the covenant is mentioned anywhere in the NT (I find this odd especially in 2 Thess 2).

This is not intended as a debate thread. Please explain your interpretation, whether preterist or futurist (if you're a futurist, please explain why this is not mentioned anywhere in the NT). The best interpretation wins.

[Faber]

Dr. John Peter Lange [John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy ScripturesThe covenant referred to is the agreement between Antiochus and Menelaus and his supporters made in 171 BC, establishing Menelaus as high priest, a position which gave him the authority to enforce Hellenistic culture upon the Jews. This covenant is described in 1 Maccabees 1:11-15:

In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, "Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us." This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil. [1 Maccabees 1:11-15, RSV]

167 BC, the midpoint of the seventieth week, was a very eventful year. Apollonius and his 22,000 mercenaries besieged the city on a sabbath day, tore down its walls of defense, and constructed the Akra, a fortress to hold the Syrian army. Shortly after that Antiochus made the decree forbidding any worship of the God of Israel and demanded that the people take part in the worship of Zeus. Then came the abomination of desolation, a statue of Zeus bearing the likeness of Antiochus, placed in the temple of God. A few days later was the sacrifice of a pig in the sanctuary and the sprinkling of pig blood upon the altar and upon the utensils of the temple of God.

It was only a few months, how many we cannot be sure, after the cleansing of the Holy of Holies that Antiochus died a horrible death:

[DeaconZ]

I thought that Albert Barne's old commentary had an interesting take on this.

Summary: the "seven years" represent the ministry of the church. The first half was Jesus' ministry in the incarnation. Then the crucifixion was the sacrifice "once for all" to end the temple sacrifices. Then the ministry of the apostles as they left the tenants of Judaism behind and went to the Gentiles preaching faith, not law.

Copyright Statement: These files are public domain.

[tabibito]

I'm having an issue with Daniel 9:27. I don't buy either the futurist or preterist interpretations. I don't buy the preterist interpretation because it's just outright ridiculous to me (at least the interpretation explained here).

I have a problem with the futurist view also for two reasons: a) no one knows the day or hour yet once the covenant is made, you just count 7 years and wala; b) neither the specific 7 years nor the covenant is mentioned anywhere in the NT (I find this odd especially in 2 Thess 2).

This is not intended as a debate thread. Please explain your interpretation, whether preterist or futurist (if you're a futurist, please explain why this is not mentioned anywhere in the NT). The best interpretation wins.

I see it as the events surrounding Christ's time on Earth: there doesn't seem to be any other way to interpret it in view of verse 25: So - Daniel there is speaking of the death of Christ and the destruction of the temple - at that point in his writing.

[Darfius]

What covenant does "he" come to strengthen/confirm? God's covenant. Which of God's covenants? He made many, with Noah, with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, with Israel, with David, with Christ...

They're all the same covenant because He's the same God. Some of the conditions change, but that is because we change, not Him.

Who is the "he" who strengthens/confirms the covenant? This was purposely left ambiguously worded because it would see double fulfillment. The first fulfillment was by Christ, who came 69 "weeks" after the Persian king's decree to restore Jerusalem where the weeks were weeks of years. He provided the "better" covenant; that is, God's covenant given under better conditions which we find easier to fulfill. The Jews rejecting Him, the ruler, led to the destruction of the temple.

The second fulfillment will be when the Davidic prince who is one of the two witnesses comes to strengthen Christ's covenant by regathering the lost tribes and rebuilding the temple "in times of trouble" (code for the Tribulation). When he is killed by the Antichrist, the Antichrist will then desecrate the temple, proclaiming himself God. I don't understand where the concept of a "peace treaty" came from. The Davidic prince and the Antichrist will certainly not be at peace with one another, being mortal enemies. At any rate, one will not be able to calculate any specific day. For reference, this Davidic prince is called Messiah ben Joseph by the Jews, as differentiated from Messiah ben David.

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 50

In those days, at that time [eschatological code languageeverlasting covenant
that will not be forgotten.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Ezekiel 37

My servant David [Davidic prince/two witnessesI will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse: Jeremiah 30

that day will be!
No other will be like it.
It will be a time of trouble for Jacob,
but he will be saved out of it.


8 David their king,
whom I will raise up for themTheir leader will be one of their own;
their ruler will arise from among themIn days to come
you will understand this.

© Copyright Original Source

[Ged]

I'm having an issue with Daniel 9:27. I don't buy either the futurist or preterist interpretations. I don't buy the preterist interpretation because it's just outright ridiculous to me (at least the interpretation explained here).

I am not preterist but am Amil, and here is my view on Daniels weeks in diagrammatic form. As you can see the number of 'weeks' add up from the decree of Artaxerxes to the promised atonement. To my way of thinking, Daniel's 70 weeks needs no more explanation than this,

.
daniels70.png