Without an understanding of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, the student will never grasp the Revelation. It has been said the Revelation of Jesus Christ is the New Testament Daniel.What we desire to show here is Daniel’s prophecy of a day of desolation was intended for Jerusalem, temple worship, and the Jewish people. It was the Great Tribulation Jesus spoke about (Mat 24:21). This great tribulation was to come and did come upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The seals, vials, and trumpets of Revelation were for Israel.
THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST – The Stone Cometh
By Pastor Delbert Young
Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
Videos are not actually “videos of the teaching” The purpose was to make this teaching more available on Youtube, Vimeo, and web searches for this Revelation of Jesus Christ teaching.
Also, “page numbering” used in the audios cannot be the same on a web page as with hard copy. Please do a ctrl + f (cmd + f Mac) and type in a search. Please remember this webpage is an entire chapter or teaching of notes.
Does it not seem strange if Jesus did not mean the great tribulation was intended for Judaism and their generation then Jesus missed it all together? If he did not mean the great tribulation was intended for their land at their time then Jesus allowed such a horror to come upon them with no warning. He would not do this.
The most commonly taught contemporary eschatology teachings today proclaim a “great tribulation” (Mat 24:21). This tribulation is to last seven years. Because of the necessity of this seven-year tribulation to the dispensational doctrine, those who teach it will fight to preserve it. They want and must have a “great tribulation.” If this tribulation is removed, this teaching falls off its hinges.
Those who refuse this seven year tribulation do so because the “great tribulation” spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24:21 has already historically taken place. The pronouncement by Jesus was a direct prophetic statement concerning the generation to which Jesus spoke. In each of the Scriptures given as reference, the Lord spoke concerning the “great tribulation.” Each use was to the generation to which He came.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Mar 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
The dispensationalists hold tenaciously to the tribulation. It matters not if one is of the “pretribulation,” “mid-tribulation,” or “post-tribulation” persuasion. They must have a tribulation to make their doctrine work. No trib, no need to rapture. No trib, no future kingdom, which must mean we have a kingdom now.
With such importance placed upon this seven-year tribulation, where do they find the scriptural references necessary to teach it? It is based upon a portion of Scripture found in Daniel 9. The portion is referred to as “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.”
- CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE
Daniel, during a time of prayer, reading the word of God, and meditating, was enlightened to a passage in Jeremiah 29:10-11. This is the passage where Jeremiah spoke of the captivity time in which Daniel lived. This time was to be 70 years (Dan 9:2). Daniel set his face to the Lord and began to fast and pray as he confessed Israel’s sin (Dan 9:3-19). During Daniel’s prayer, the angel Gabriel came and spoke with Daniel. Gabriel was to give Daniel understanding.
Dan 9:22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
The revelation given to Daniel by Gabriel is very similar to the book of Revelation. An angel was sent to John to give John understanding. The book of Daniel and the book of Revelation are to give understanding, not confusion. In fact, Daniel was instructed to “seal the book, even to the time of the end” (Dan 12:4). John was instructed to “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand” (Rev 22:10). What Daniel sealed, Jesus opened (Rev 6:1).
Gabriel told Daniel of things concerning a period called “seventy weeks” (Dan 9:24). According to the Scriptures, this 70-week period would begin with the command to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem. However, Gabriel was not actually speaking of 70 weeks. The prophetic word actually says 70 years. However, it’s not only 70 years, but 70 years times 7. Though one can never fully understand what is happening here, it becomes an interesting exploration to go on. If one did not know how this worked out, it could easily be seen as a waste of time and exaggeration of Scripture. Nevertheless, it is actually of great importance. In addition, it is from this scripture passage the most popular contemporary eschatology teachings are founded.
Why did Gabriel say “weeks” when “years” is what he meant? In addition, why do we multiply it by 7? Strange is it not? At any rate, most theologians believe (me included) a day here does symbolize a year. This is founded from other passages. A day must mean a year here for the passage to have any meaning. Other passages do show a day can equal a year (Num 14:34; Eze 4:6).
This is not too very strange when we remember the nation thought in sevens as we think in tens. Concerning the 70 years times 7, the word “seventy” (shib`iym Hebrew) is clear enough. It means “seventy.” The word “weeks” (shabuwa` Hebrew) means “sevened.” Thus interpreted to mean “times 7.” (It must be terrible to have one’s entire theology hang on something this complex.) We now have 70 times 7, which equals 490 years. The NIV translation says, “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed.”
…determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city
These “seventy weeks” were only to be for Daniel’s people and Daniel’s holy city. All seventy weeks, or 490 years, were “determined” upon the Jewish nation and the city of Jerusalem. This is extremely important. None of this was to come upon any nation other than Israel and Jerusalem. If there is a tribulation here, it was to come only upon Israel and Jerusalem. It was not to come upon any other nation.
Now for an eye-opener. The word “determined” is the word chathak (Strong’s #2852). It means, “to cut of.” Israel and Jerusalem would be “cut off” at the end of these seventy weeks or 490 years. What does this mean? At the end of these 490 years both Israel and Jerusalem would be “cut off” from their place as God’s chosen people and God’s holy city. Gabriel said, “…to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”
Did all this happen? Yes! It happened exactly as the Gabriel told Daniel. Israel’s transgression would be finished. Their rebellion against God would be judged and finished. Jesus Christ would bring everlasting righteousness. All the visions Daniel records would be completed. The most Holy Jesus Christ would be anointed.
When did all this happen? Well, Jesus Christ said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me…” When did the Lord announce this fact? According to our calendar, it was around 30 A.D.
From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem
The beginning of the command to rebuild Jerusalem came in 457 B.C. This was by the decree of Artaxerses of Persia. This decree gave Nehemiah the unlimited resources needed to rebuild the city’s walls. The first part of the seventy weeks began.
Seven weeks (years) times 7 equals 49 years given to rebuild Jerusalem (according to this prophecy). It began in 457 B.C. and was completed in 408 B.C. Presto, we have 49 years exactly as Gabriel said.
Immediately the next phase began (immediately is important). Note no parenthesis of time is used here. The next phase began. “…threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” Sixty-two weeks (years) times 7 gives 434 more years. We now find ourselves in the days of the human life and walk of Jesus Christ.
Another complexity is now added to this already super-complicated, eschatological doctrine. Remember exactly what we are looking for and attempting to prove. We are looking for the seven years delegated for the tribulation. This complexity now faced within this prophetic formula comes in calendar computations. We here quote from Kelley Varner who has put this into words for us.
“Jesus was born three to four years before the beginning of the Christian Era, the year called A.D. 1. This mistake in dating arose when, in A.D. 532, Dionysius Exiguus invented the calendar of the Christian era based upon the time of the building of the city of Rome. This kind of time was called ab urbe condita, or A.U.C. (or simply, U.C. time). Dionysius placed the birth of Christ U.C. 753. Later, when it was ascertained that Herod had died in U.C. 750, Jesus’ birth was moved back to the latter part of U.C. 749, a little more than three years before A.D. 1. Therefore, Jesus Christ was 30 years of age in A.D. 27. The ‘Child’ had been born in Bethlehem; the ‘Son’ was given 30 years later at the Jordan (Is. 9:6-7)!”2
What has happened is by beginning with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 457 B.C., then adding the required years (weeks), we arrive at the Jordan River when Jesus is baptized. This is the “after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off” feature of Daniel’s 70 weeks.
There is no dispute, in fact, there is rejoicing from all, when Daniel’s weeks equate to the time of Jesus with exactness. However, the unity is short lived. If the passage in Daniel 9 is continued and interpreted as it has thus far been interpreted, the seventy weeks end 3 1/2 years after the birth of the church at Pentecost. The message of the kingdom would have actually been proclaimed to Jerusalem and the nation of Israel or Daniel’s people and Daniel’s holy city.
We would think everyone would be excited at the exactness of Daniel’s prophecy. Not so. The problem is the dispensationalist doctrine must save these last seven years for a tribulation. The dispensationalist doctrine does not continue into the 3 1/2 years of the church. Their doctrine finds a way to terminate the 62 weeks with the death of Jesus leaving them the necessary seven years. To do this, a different decree to rebuild the city is found. This will back-up the 62 weeks to begin three years earlier.
“The Persian edict which restored the autonomy of Judah was issued in the Jewish month of Nisan . . . The seventy weeks are therefore to be computed from the 1st of Nisan B.C. 445 . . . Now the great characteristic of the Jewish sacred year has remained unchanged ever since the memorable night when the equinoctial moon beamed down upon the huts of Israel in Egypt, bloodstained by the Paschal sacrifice; and there is neither doubt nor difficulty in fixing within narrow limits the Julian date of the 1st of Nisan in any year whatever. In B.C. 445, the new moon by which the Passover was regulated was on the 13th of March at 7h. 9m. A.M. And accordingly, the 1st Nisan may be assigned to the 14th March.”
What this writer desires to show is what the dispensationalists’ doctrine seems to be based upon. Anderson here says a particular moon phase points to the beginning of the 70 weeks rather than the decree. Varner gives us the correct facts.
“Artaxerses made this decree in the seventh year of his reign (Ezra 7:8). Ezra arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month (Ab) the same year (Ezra 7:9) – August 1, 457 B.C. According to ancient chronological records, Artaxerses’ decree went into effect in Jerusalem in the fall of 457 B.C.”
This now brings the remainder of Daniel 9:26 into historical interpretation. The next part of Daniel 9:26 says, “…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.”
A continual interpretation (meaning continuing the interpretation with no delays) is correct and is in flow with the exegeses of the passage. This is the form of interpretation used after the first section of 7 weeks. Yet, what the dispensational doctrine does is not continually interpret the passage. It places a now 2,000-year parenthesis (delay) between the Messiah being cut off and today. By adjusting the decree date to rebuild Jerusalem and adding the 3 1/2 years after Messiah is cut off, they have 7 years for a tribulation. Why do they interject a 2,000-year parenthesis? There is not parenthesis after the first 49-year period. If the Lord does not come and their doctrine does not change, by the year 3,000 the parenthesis will be a 3,000-year parenthesis. They will still be teaching and waiting for their tribulation.
- EARLY CHURCH INTERPRETATION
How did the apostles and church fathers interpret this passage?” We need to know there are no recorded writings about a 2,000-year delay interpretation until 1585.
“The Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribera (1585), was the first to stretch Daniel’s prophecy and separate the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks by a ‘gap’ or ‘parenthesis’ of 2,000 years.”
The earliest records referring to this Daniel passage interpretation is found from the writings of Josephus. The seventy weeks were taught by the Jews and early church, but not with any parenthetical 2,000 plus year interpretation. The weeks, once begun, went on without interruption. This is what the angel Gabriel said to Daniel. Gabriel didn’t mention a parenthesis, much less a several millennia parenthesis.
The manner in which the prophecy of Daniel’s weeks was taught by both the Jews and by the early church was the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled it. Josephus, who once functioned as a Jewish priest and witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, writes,
“…according to Daniel’s vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner, Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel. “
The writings of Josephus were made public around 75 A.D. Therefore, in A.D. 75, the conclusion and understanding of Daniel’s prophecies was the destruction of Jerusalem.
It must be pointed out one essential element for understanding the weeks of Daniel is with whom and with what it actually concerns itself.
The prophecy clearly concerns itself with only the Jews referred to in Daniel 9:24 as “thy people.” It concerns itself only with the land and area of Jerusalem “thy holy city.” This is clear and in no way lends itself to a tribulation upon the whole planet. Gabriel said, “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” (Dan 9:26).
We should notice this 2,000-year “gap” or “parenthesis” or “delay” was not the doctrine of the church prior to 1850. As stated earlier, the Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera had first projected the “gap” theory in 1585. When Ribera gave the “gap” theory, it was rejected by church fathers. This is easily proven by the writings of the Rev. Matthew Henry (1662 – 1714).
Matthew Henry was born on October 18, 1662 and was the son of Pastor Philip Henry. Philip Henry was a scholar and teacher. His teachings show us today much about the doctrinal beliefs imparted in those days prior to the 1850’s. Matthew Henry began writing his commentary notes in 1704. Henry died in 1714, leaving his monumental Commentary to and for the world. For over two centuries, his interpretation of Scriptures has stood the test of time. It is one of the most accepted and quoted commentaries today. From Matthew Henry’s Commentary, we interpret the last verse of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks. The reason the time and space are taken here is because it is from this verse both the tribulation and the rapture hang.
“Concerning the final destruction of Jerusalem, and the Jewish church and nation; and this follows immediately upon the cutting off of the Messiah”
It is here contemporary theology inserts the “gap” or “parenthesis” which is now nearly a two millennia space of time. The manner which Matthew Henry and the early church fathers interpreted the seventy weeks was continuous. Once the 70 weeks began, it continued until it was finished. Matthew Henry says, “this follows immediately upon the cutting off of the Messiah.”
“not only because it was the just punishment of those that put him to death, which was the sin that filled up the measure of their iniquity and brought ruin upon them, but because, as things were, it was necessary to the perfection of one of the great intentions of his death. He died to take away the ceremonial law, to abolish that law of commandments, and to vacate the obligation of it…”
We, today’s church, must see the interpretational reasoning prior to the dispensational input. Matthew Henry saw the destruction of Jerusalem as punishment of the Jews for crucifying the Messiah, but also “one of the great intentions of his death.” According to Matthew Henry, one of the primary reasons Jesus went to the cross was Jerusalem and Judaism would be destroyed. This would end the age of Moses.
This is absolutely necessary to grasp. The contemporary teaching includes a doctrine teaching the temple will be rebuilt for the reinstituting of animal sacrifices in Jerusalem. This temple (according to contemporary doctrine) will be destroyed and another built or created which will also observe animal sacrifices during the millennium.
Arno C. Gaebelein writes,
“The temple which the remnant built does in no way whatever correspond with the magnificent structure which Ezekiel beheld in his vision. The fact is, if this temple is a literal building as it assuredly is it has never yet been erected…. The true interpretation is the literal one which looks upon these chapters as a prophecy yet unfulfilled and to be fulfilled when Israel has been restored by the Shepherd and when His glory is once more manifested in the midst of His people. The great building seen in his prophetic vision will then come into existence and all will be accomplished.”
- Dwight Pentecost says,
“One great stumbling block that hinders the acceptance of literal sacrifices in the millennium is removed by observing that, while there are many similarities between the Aaronic and millennial systems, there are also many differences between them that make it impossible that they should be equated.”
A problem with Pentecost’s (above) doctrine is he attempts to disassociate with the Law of Moses to justify sacrifices. Yet he has a temple in his doctrine, which is only of the law of Moses. The doctrine most believers sit under today is one reinstituting animal sacrifice during both the tribulation and the millennium.
Prior to the 1850’s, the teaching was how one major reason Christ died was to destroy the temple and animal sacrifice. The Scriptures agree with this teaching (Mat 23:38; 24:2). Matthew Henry continues.
“He died to take away the ceremonial law, to abolish that law of commandments, and to vacate the obligation of it. But the Jews would not be persuaded to quit it; still they kept it up with more zeal than ever; they would hear no talk of parting with it; they stoned Stephen (the first Christian martyr) for saying that Jesus should change the customs which Moses delivered them (Acts 6:14); so that there was no way to abolish the Mosaic economy but by destroying the temple, and the holy city, and the Levitical priesthood, and that whole nation which so incurably doted on them. This was effectually done in less than forty years after the death of Christ, and it was a desolation that could never be repaired to this day. And this is it which is here largely foretold, that the Jews who returned out of captivity might not be overmuch lifted up with the rebuilding of their city and temple, because in process of time they would be finally destroyed, and not as now for seventy years only, but might rather rejoice in hope of the coming of the Messiah, and the setting up of his spiritual kingdom in the world which should never be destroyed.”
Matthew Henry points out the context of this passage in Daniel given to the Jews in captivity. They would rebuild the temple after the Babylonian captivity, but God would only destroy it again. The emphasis was not to look to the temple, but rather look to the coming of the Messiah and His never-ending kingdom. Notice Matthew Henry’s belief was the kingdom began with the first advent of the Messiah.
“Now, it is here foretold that the people of the prince that shall come shall be the instruments of this destruction that is, the Roman armies, belonging to a monarchy yet to come. Christ is the prince that shall come, and they are employed by him in this service; they are his armies (Matt. 22:7), or the Gentiles who, though now strangers, shall become the people of the Messiah, shall destroy the Jews.”
Herein lies a great doctrinal difference between those prior to the dispensationalist and those who attach to and follow dispensationalist doctrine. Prior to the teachings of Darby and Scofield, Dake, etc. the “Prince” of Daniel 9:26 was Jesus Christ Himself, the same Prince of Daniel 9:25 “the Messiah the Prince.” Contemporaries change the “prince” of 9:26 to the “antichrist.” This seems extremely dangerous.
Here is the contemporary reasoning.
“…there are two different princes mentioned: first, ‘Messiah the prince’; and second, ‘the prince that shall come.’ The expression ‘prince that shall come’ cannot possibly refer to ‘Messiah, the Prince’ for the simple reason that it is ‘the people of the prince that shall come’ who are to destroy Jerusalem after the death of Messiah. And since it is now a matter of history that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Roman people, not by the Jewish people, it follows that ‘the prince that shall come’ cannot be the Jewish Messiah but is some great prince who will arise out of the Roman Empire.”
Matthew Henry has already dealt with this. The reference, which Matthew Henry makes to the Gospel of Matthew 22:7 is the context of the parable told by the Lord of the Wedding Banquet in which invited (Jews) did not come. The Lord said, “But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” The Roman army became the Lord’s army to destroy Jerusalem just as Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and his armies became the servant of God (2Ki 25:1; Jer 27:6).
“That the destruction shall be by war, and the end of that war shall be this desolation determined. The wars of the Jews with the Romans were by their own obstinacy made very long and very bloody, and they issued at length in the utter extirpation of that people.”
In all truth, both the city of Jerusalem and the temple itself were destroyed by the Jews. Josephus writes,
“for that it was a seditious temper of our own that destroyed it; and that they were the tyrants among the Jews who brought the Roman power upon us, who unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning of our holy temple; Titus Caesar, who destroyed it, is himself a witness, who, during the entire war, pitied the people who were kept under by the seditious, and did often voluntarily delay the taking of the city”
Again, Josephus writes,
“For he [Titus] was very desirous to preserve the city for his own sake, and the temple for the sake of the city.”
Again, Josephus writes,
“I shall relate the barbarity of the tyrants towards the people of their own nation, as well as the indulgence of the Romans in sparing foreigners; and how often Titus, out of his desire to preserve the city and the temple, invited the seditious to come to terms of accommodation. I shall also distinguish… how the temple was burnt against the consent of Caesar”
“That the city and sanctuary shall in a particular manner be destroyed and laid quite waste. Titus, the Roman general, would fain have saved the temple, but his soldiers were so enraged against the Jews that he could not restrain them from burning it to the ground, that this prophecy might be fulfilled.”
It is strategic to again use Josephus’ writings to grasp how both Jews and Christians interpreted the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The reminder Josephus released his writing around 75 A.D. helps us to understand the interpretation by the first century church. Josephus writes concerning how people perceived God’s part in Jerusalem’s destruction.
“It was certainly God, therefore, who brought the Romans to punish the Galileans, and did then expose the people of the city every one of them manifestly to be destroyed by their bloody enemies.”
“…but in reality it was God who condemned the whole nation, and turned every course that was taken for their preservation to their destruction.”
“And who is there that does not know what the writings of the ancient prophets contain in them, – and particularly that oracle which is just now going to be fulfilled upon this miserable city? – for they foretold that this city should be then taken when somebody shall begin the slaughter of his own countrymen! and are not both the city and the entire temple now full of the dead bodies of your countrymen? It is God therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions.”
This A.D. 70 desolation was a foundation of interpretation. It was taught until the contemporaries removed its importance in the 1850’s by inserting the “gap.” From this time, the A.D. 70 destruction has not been taught. It seems to have even been purposely lessened and even hidden. The destruction of Jerusalem fulfills the “lost” or “delayed” week of Daniel and stands in opposition to the dispensationalists’ doctrine. Even today, the A.D. 70 event is only taught by a few. Most believers have never heard of it. Yet it was such a vital part of first century theology.
“That all the resistance that shall be made to this destruction shall be in vain: The end of it shall be with a flood. It shall be a deluge of destruction, like that which swept away the old world, and which there will be no making head against. That hereby the sacrifice and oblation shall be made to cease. And it must needs cease when the family of the priests was so extirpated, and the genealogies of it were so confounded, that (they say) there is no man in the world that can prove himself of the seed of Aaron.”
After Nebuchadnezzar took captive the northern kingdom consisting of ten tribes, there was no way to determine their exact lineage ever again. Though important to those ten tribes, the proof of lineage is paramount to the tribe of Levi and especially the genealogies of Aaron. The priests must come from Levi and the High Priests from Aaron. Thus, a problem of the contemporaries is there is no way today to prove Levitical lineage, much less the lineage of Aaron. Who then will be the priests of the temple which today’s teachings say must be built?
Matthew Henry points this out.
“The genealogies of it were so confounded, that there is no man in the world that can prove himself of the seed of Aaron.”
“That there shall be an overspreading of abominations, a general corruption of the Jewish nation and an abounding of iniquity among them, for which it shall be made desolate, 1 Thess. 2:16. Or it is rather to be understood of the armies of the Romans, which were abominable to the Jews (they could not endure them), which overspread the nation, and by which it was made desolate; for these are the words which Christ refers to, Matt. 24:15, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, stand in the holy place, then let those who shall be in Judea flee, which is explained Luke 21:20, When you shall see Jerusalem encompassed with armies then flee.“
Matthew Henry interprets the Bible by using the Bible. This removes the mysticism of the “abomination of desolation.” Matthew Henry shows the abomination of desolation was when the generation to which Jesus spoke looked and saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem. This is not a day to come. It was a day that has already happened.
“That the desolation shall be total and final: He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, that is, he shall make it completely desolate. It is a desolation determined, and it will be accomplished to the utmost. And when it is made desolate, it should seem, there is something more determined that is to be poured upon the desolate (v. 27), and what should that be but the spirit of slumber (Rom. 11:8, 25), that blindness which has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in? And then all Israel shall be saved.“
As one can see with a small amount of research, the gospel of the Kingdom is not a new message. It is the message proclaimed until the 1850’s. Until the 1850’s, the seventy weeks of Daniel was preached as having been fulfilled. Thanks to Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, we now spend more time defending the truth of the gospel than we do proclaiming it. A lie has become truth, and the truth is a lie.
The church must understand the seventy weeks of Daniel. The individual must comprehend the contemporary doctrine of the “pretribulation rapture” hinges on the seventieth week. The seventieth week is to the contemporary dispensationalist as the ascension (Daniel 7:13, 14) is to the doctrine of kingdom. This seventieth week, to the “pretribulation,” “mid-tribulation,” or “post-tribulation” followers is vital. However, if it has been fulfilled as the first century believed and as Matthew Henry believed, the tribulation is history, not future. The seventy weeks of Daniel are over and fulfilled.
A last thought concerning the computation of Daniel’s 70 weeks. If this is figured with the 69 weeks bringing the Messiah to John’s Baptism in A.D. 27 as Varner showed, we come to A.D. 34 (A.D. 27 + 7 years = A.D. 34) by using continuous interpretation. By adding the generation years of 40 to this, we come to A.D. 74. Jesus said this generation would not pass until all was fulfilled. The war literally ended in A.D.73, one year before the end of the time of their generation.
After Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70, the Roman armies occupied the city and land for some 3 1/2 more years. It was not until A.D. 73 the Romans took Masada. The war actually ended in A.D. 73.
“After bitter fighting, the Romans captured Jerusalem and burned the Temple in A.D. 70; At Masada, the Zealots held out until A.D. 73, when most of the 1,000 surviving defenders killed themselves to defy capture by the Romans. As a result of the revolt, thousands of Jews were sold into slavery and thus were scattered widely in the Roman world. The last remnant of national independence were obliterated.”
Though not necessary to prove, the war lasted 7 years. It began in A.D. 66 and lasted until A.D. 73. During this time, they totally desolated the cities remaining and captured prisoners for slavery throughout the nation. During these years Titus, the Roman general responsible for the capture of Jerusalem, went back to Rome where a massive parade was given in his honor. These events would take us to the year A.D. 74.
A.D. 74 would be the 70 weeks of Daniel plus the addition of 40 generational years Jesus Christ said would not pass until the great tribulation came.
A reason the enemy does not want this taught and understood is because this is the proof Jesus, the Son of man, is upon His throne and the proof the Kingdom has come.
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Other Related Sermons:
1 DR. Marty Tinglehoff, message at Life Gate Church
2 Kelly Varner, Whose Right It Is, page 264
3 Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, page 121-123
4 Kelly Varner, Whose Right It Is, page 261
5 Kelly Varner, Whose Right It Is, page 242
6 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, XI, 7, page 227
7 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible, Volume 4, page 859
9 Arno C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Ezekiel, page 272-273
10 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, page 518-519
11 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible, Volume 4, page 859
13 Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, Bibliontheca Sacra, 112:11-27, October, 1955
14 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible, Volume 4, page 859
15 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Preface, page 427, 428
16 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book V, VIII, 1, page 560
17 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Preface, page 429
18 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible, Volume 4, page 859, 860
19 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book III, VII, 31, page 513
20 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book V, XIII, 5, page 569
21 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book VI, II, 1, page 575
22 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible, Volume 4, page 860
24 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible, Volume 4, page 860
25 1997 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia