Tag: Gap theory

Posted on

Is the last week of Daniel 9:27 the last seven years before Christ returns?

Last seven yearsEXCERPT: In Dispensationalism, the last week of Daniel 9:27 is the last seven years before Christ returns. However, the Poetic Pattern and the repetition of words identify the desolations in verse 27 as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Therefore, the last week must be before AD 70.

THE ABOMINATION

Jesus teachingJesus said:

“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand) …” (Matt 24:15)

Here Jesus by name refers to Daniel and to the “abomination of desolation”.  This phrase is used a number of times in Daniel.  This phrase is not used in Daniel 9 in that format, but the last part of verse 27 does refer to desolation and abominations:

“and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate” (NASB)

An abomination is some grave sin.  “Desolation” means ‘destruction’.

DISPENSATIONALISM CLAIMS:

(1) That our Lord in Matthew 24:15 placed the “abomination of desolation” at ‘the end,’ just before His second coming in glory (Matt 24:15, 21, 29, 30).
(2) That the “Abomination of Desolation” is the stop that will be put to sacrifice “in the middle of the week” (Dan 9:27).
(3) Therefore, “he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering” at the end of the age; just prior to Christ’s return.

Abomination of DesolationHowever, Jesus, in Matthew 24:15, did not put the “abomination of desolation” at the end of the age, as Dispensationalism claims.  To the contrary, He linked it to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The parallel statement is Luke 21:20-23 (compare Matt 24:16-19). Luke, writing to Gentiles, who were not familiar with the book of Daniel, interpreted Jesus’ reference to the abomination of desolation as the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem.  See Little Apocalypse.

CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE

The question in this section relates to the chronological sequence of the destruction of Jerusalem in 9:26 and the last seven years in verse 27.

Daniel's propheciesVerses 26 and 27 read:

26 … after 62 weeks shall Messiah be cut off … and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city … 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

Notice the “he” used twice in verse 27.

DISPENSATIONALISM

The destruction of the city in 9:26 is dated to 70 AD.  Dispensationalism assumes that the events in verses 25 to 27 are presented in chronological sequence.  Consequently, since the last seven years (9:27) are mentioned after the destruction of Jerusalem (9:26), the last seven years follow after AD 70.  Since the first 483 years came to an end at the time of Christ, this necessitates a gap between the first 483 years and the last seven years.

Jerusalem destroyed
Jerusalem destroyed

It would also mean that the “he” of 9:27 cannot be the Messiah, for the Messiah died about four decades earlier.  The only remaining option is that “he” refers to the prince whose people destroyed the city in AD 70 (9:26).  It should logically follow that “he” is to the Roman Caesar in 70 AD, and that the last week is the time around 70 AD.  But, as already stated, Dispensationalism proposes that the Roman Empire will be revived in the years just prior to Christ’s return and that “he” (9:27) is the Roman Caesar at that time.

NOT STRICTLY CHRONOLOGICAL

These proposals may be disputed in a number of ways:

parallelismFirstly, because of the poetic parallelism, as discussed in the previous article, the assumption of a strict chronological sequence is incorrect.  The following examples confirm that the prophecy is not presented in chronological sequence:

The rebuilding of the city (25c) is mentioned after the appearance of the anointed one (25b), while the city was rebuilt four hundred years before the Anointed.

The prince causes sacrifices to cease (9:27) after the sanctuary is destroyed (9:26).  But if the sanctuary is destroyed there does not remain a sacrificial system that can be ceased.

Since 70 weeks have been determined for the city of “your people” (Dan 9:24), the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in verse 26 must occur after the end of the 70 weeks, and therefore after the 70th week of verse 27.

DESOLATIONS REPEATED

Summary: The last part of verse 27 describes the destruction of Jerusalem.  The covenant in verse 27 is therefore confirmed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. 

ROMAN EMPIRE DESTROYED

The question in this section is what the last part of verse 27 refers to.  This verse describes undefined abominations and a complete destruction:

NASB: “and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate”

KJV: “and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate“

Notice the difference in the final words of the two translations:

In the KJV translation, ‘desolations’ are poured on the desolated one which, in the context, seems to refer to the city Jerusalem, which is destroyed in verse 26.

In the NASB, desolations are poured out on a desolator which, in the context, refers to the people who destroy the city (9:26).  The NASB hereby introduces a concept not mentioned by the previous verses.

Dispensationalism uses the NASB-type translation to argue as follows:

(1) The last part of 9:27 refers to the destruction of the Roman Empire.
(2) Since the Roman Empire was not destroyed in Christ’s time, it must be in our future.
(3) Since 9:27 describes the last seven of the 490 years, the last seven years must be in our future today.

Dispensationalism further proposes that the Roman Empire will be revived in those last seven years, to be destroyed again at Christ’s return at the end of those last seven years.

DISCUSSION

However, since different translations present 9:27 differently, we must assume that this verse may be translated in more than one way.  We should not rely too much on a specific translation.

Secondly, according to the literary analysis of the text, the desolation in the last past of 9:27 refers to the destruction of the city, some 40 years after Christ’s death.  See Poetic Pattern in the previous article or the article Chronological sequence in Daniel 9.

DESOLATIONS REPEATED

Furthermore, the last part of 9:27 repeats the main words and concepts from the last part of verse 26, which describes the destruction of Jerusalem.  Below verses 26 and 27 are compared:

MESSIAH CITY
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

Note the key phrases from verse 26 that are repeated in verse 27:

Both verses refer to desolations (Strong number H8074) that are decreed (Strong number H2782).  The NASB in v26 reads “desolations are determined” and in v27 “desolate … one that is decreed”.

Both verses use water as a symbol of the force of destruction.  In verse 26 desolations will come with a flood, while they are poured out in verse 27.

Both verses include the concept of completion.  Verse 26 refers to the end (of the city) (NASB).  Verse 27 similarly refers to a “complete destruction” (NASB), which is another way of expressing the end of the thing that is destroyed.

Destruction JerusalemDispensationalism associates the desolation in verse 27 with an end-time despot, but the similarity between the last parts of verses 26 and 27 implies that they refer to the same event, which is identified by verse 26 as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  The last part of verse 27 does not deal with the destruction of the Roman Empire.

CONCLUSIONS

Above Matthew 24:15 is discussed.  If we do make the assumption that Jesus in Matthew 24:15 referred to Daniel 9:27, as Dispensationalism does, then Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:15 confirms that the last part of 9:27 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

In the parallelism of the prophecy, the destruction is mentioned twice, with the description of the last seven years in-between.  Those last seven years must, therefore, be limited to the time prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  It cannot describe an end-time Antichrist.

The Daniel 9 prophecy promises the reconstruction of Jerusalem to receive the Messiah, but it also predicts that Jerusalem will be destroyed as a consequence of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah.  The destruction of Jerusalem is an integral part of the Messiah-events of 2000 years ago.

ENTIRE 9:26 REPEATED

The previous article concluded that it is the Messiah who dies in 9:26a, who confirms the covenant for the last seven years and who puts a stop to sacrifices in 9:27a.  Since we have now shown that the last part of 9:27 repeats the last part of 9:26, it follows that the entire verse 27 is a repeat of verse 26 (NASB):

A: Messiah B: Jerusalem
26 Messiah cut off after the sixty-two weeks people … will destroy the city
27 he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week … in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction

To appreciate this repetition requires a high-level view of the prophecy.  It consists of three divisions; each provides information from the perspective of a different period of time:

(24) Verse 24 sets the goals for that entire period of 490 years.

(25-26) Verses 25 and 26 describe events, including the killing of the Messiah and, consequently, the destruction of the city after the end of the 483 years, from the perspective of the first 483 years.

(27) Verse 27 describes these same events, but from the perspective of the last seven years.

THE LAST PART OF VERSE 27

What does the last part of 9:27 mean?

9:27c reads “On the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate” (NASB).  In other words, a desolator will arrive shortly after (on the wing of) abominations.  A desolator is a person; a destroyer.  An abomination is some repulsive sin.  The desolator in 9:27 is, therefore, a person who arrives after some repulsive sin to make “desolate, even until a complete destruction”.

The Cross
The Cross of Christ

In the context, the repulsive sin is Israel’s rejection, first of its Messiah and later of the Holy Spirit.  The desolation refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans 40 years later.

The above three arguments used by Dispensationalism, to show that there is a gap of 2000 years or more between the first 69 weeks and the 70th week, are discussed and opposed.  Other arguments against such a gap include:

REVIVED ROMAN PRINCE

The Romans destroyed the city (9:26) in AD 70.  Their “prince” must, therefore, be the Roman Caesar.  In Dispensationalism the “he” in verse 27 is this Roman Prince that will rule in the final years before the return of Christ.  This means that the Roman Empire must exist during those final years.  But how can the Roman Empire be revived 1500 years after it ceased to exist?  And how can one claim that the Roman Empire of ancient history was the people of an end-time Antichrist if the people and their prince live 2000 years apart?

It is to the contrary proposed here that, since the prince in verse 26 is the Roman Caesar, and since no known ruler of the Roman Empire ever confirmed a covenant with the Jews for seven years, that this prince cannot be the “he” in verse 27.

DEFEATS THE PURPOSE

The only event during the initial 483 years is the construction of the city.  But the prophecy predicts significant events for the last seven years.  The covenant is confirmed for the last seven years and the sacrifices are caused to cease in the middle of those last seven years.  The last seven years are therefore the core and purpose of the 490 years.   The only purpose of the first 483 years is to foretell the timing of the last seven years.  Hence, to dislodge that last seven years from the previous 483 years and to propel it into the distant future is to defeat the purpose of the 483 years.

NO INDICATION OF A GAP

The wording of the text of Daniel in no way indicates a break or gap.  There appears to be no valid reason, or defensible ground, for separating the 70th week from the previous 69.

To postpone the last seven years of the final crisis to the end of the age is a form of exegesis without a precedent in all prophetic exposition.

It destroys the simple unity of the prophecy and divides it into two completely separate and unrelated prophecies; one about Christ 2000 years ago, and one about some future Antichrist.  Dispensationalism places most of the prophecies in the book of Revelation in the last seven years.  Because of this emphasis that Dispensationalism places on the last seven years, this prophecy about Christ is effectively converted into a prophecy about the Antichrist.

SUMMARY

A major issue in this article is to identify the desolations in the last part of verse 27.  In this article, it is argued that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  It then follows that the last week, described earlier in verse 27, must have been prior to AD 70:

The abomination of Desolation – Jesus spoke about the “abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15.  The parallel verses in Luke 21:20-23 indicate that He referred to the Roman armies that surrounded Jerusalem in AD 70.  Since the phrase “abomination of desolation” could possibly be linked to the last part of Daniel 9:27, it is possible that the desolations in that verse might refer to the events of AD 70.

Desolations Repeated – The last part of verse 26 describes the destruction of Jerusalem.  The Poetic Pattern of the prophecy indicates that the destruction in verse 27 refers to the same event.  This is confirmed by the repetition of words and concepts from the last part of verse 26 in verse 27.

The covenant in verse 27 is therefore confirmed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  It cannot be an end-time covenant.

OTHER ARGUMENTS

Other arguments against such a gap include:

ChronologicalChronological Sequence – The destruction of Jerusalem is mentioned in 9:26 and the last seven years in verse 27.  Dispensationalism uses this to argue for a gap, but the prophecy is not given in strict chronological sequence, as implied by the poetic parallelism and as confirmed by examples from the prophecy.

Roman Empire Revived – How can the Roman Empire be revived 1500 years after it ceased to exist?

Defeats the purpose – The only purpose of the first 483 years is to foretell the timing of the last seven years.  Hence, to dislodge that last seven years from the previous 483 years and to propel it into the distant future is to defeat the purpose of the 483 years.

No indication of a gap – The wording of the text of Daniel in no way indicates a break or gap.

Previous articles – The previous articles already concluded that it is the Messiah that works in the last week and that He confirms God’s covenant with Israel.  The last week, therefore, cannot be the time of an end-time Antichrist.

CONCLUSION

The last part of 9:27 links desolations (destruction) to abominations (severe sin).  The repulsive sin is here understood to be Israel’s rejection of its Messiah.  The desolation refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans 40 years later.

Dispensationalism converts this prophecy about Christ into a prophecy about the Antichrist.

DISPENSATIONAL VIEW OF DANIEL 9
– LIST OF ARTICLES –

      1. Overview of the Dispensational view
      2. When did the 490 years begin?
      3. Whose covenant confirmed; God’s or Satan’s?
      4. Who confirms that covenant; Christ or Antichrist?
      5. When are the last seven years?
      6. Inconsistencies in the Dispensational View
      7. When will Christ fulfill the goals in Daniel 9:24?
      8. Pre-Wrath Dispensationalism – the church will suffer.

OTHER AVAILABLE ARTICLES

Posted on

Evaluation of the Dispensational Interpretation of Daniel 9

PURPOSE

The academic consensus (at large, independent universities) is that Daniel is a forgery because it pretends to predict future events but really was written after these things already happened. This is because the universities of the world – including their theological faculties – no longer accept the supernatural. Therefore, they do not accept that God guided the writing of the Scriptures or that God gave predictions of future events. (See Critical Interpretation for a discussion of their interpretation of Daniel 9.)

The dispensational interpretation is the dominant conservative interpretation. To contrast it with the traditional historic-messianic interpretation of Daniel 9, in which the entire Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the events in the first century A.D., the dispensational interpretation may also be called the eschatalogical-messianic interpretation because it does believe that the Messiah in Daniel 9:24-27 is Jesus Christ, but it believes that the last seven years are eschatological, namely, that it will be the last seven years before Christ returns.

This article evaluates the Dispensational Interpretation of Daniel 9 by summarizing various other articles that discuss specific aspects of Daniel 9. Links are provided to the articles where more detail is available.

Dispensationalism

OVERVIEW

In Dispensationalism:

The 490 years began with Artaxerxes’ second decree in 445/4 BC.

The first 483 years came to an end with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem; a few days before His death.

Confirm the covenantThe final seven years are separated from the first 483 years by a huge gap and are the final seven years before Christ returns, commencing with the rapture of the church. During the 70th week, the Antichrist – a prince of a revived Roman Empire – will oppress the Jews and, during the latter half of the seven years, bring upon the world a 3½ year tribulation.

A summary of this article is available HERE.

WHICH DECREE BEGAN THE 490 YEARS?

The 490 years begin with “a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25). In Dispensationalism, that was Artaxerxes’ SECOND decree of 445/4 BC. However:

Firstly, that decree did not “restore” Jerusalem. The word that is translated as “restore,” does NOT mean the same as “rebuild.” It means to return Jerusalem to the Jews to serve as their capital from where they would govern themselves according to their own laws. Artaxerxes’ second decree did not “restore” the city because:

(1) His first decree already did that,

(2) The second decree said nothing about the right of Jews to rule themselves, and

(3) The second decree only dealt with the physical construction of the walls of the city. (Which Decree)

Secondly, the second decree does not fit the time of Christ. If we add 483 years to 445/4 BC, we come to about seven years after Jesus died. To make the 445/4 decree fit the time of Christ, Dispensationalism interprets the 483 years as ‘prophetic years’ of 360 literal days each. This reduces the 483 years by about 7 years. However, Israel had two types of weeks: Weeks of days and weeks of years. In both, every seventh was a Sabbath (year or day of rest). The 70 weeks are 70 weeks of years and, therefore, equal to 490 LITERAL years; not ‘prophetic years’ (Overview).

Thirdly, interpreting the 483 years as ‘prophetic years’ brings us to Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, but that was only a few days before His death. In other words, that was the END of His ministry. In contrast, the implication of Daniel 9:25 is that the Messiah’s ministry will BEGIN at the end of the first 483 years. Jesus’ ministry began about three years earlier when He was “anointed” at His baptism.

COVENANT SUSPENDED

In Dispensationalism, God suspended His covenant with Israel at the Cross and postponed the last seven years to just before Christ returns. However, the first chapters of Acts show that God’s covenant with Israel did not come to an end at Christ’s death. Israel had one final opportunity to repent. For this purpose, God sent His Holy Spirit, but ONLY TO Jerusalem and ONLY TO Jews (Acts 10:45, 47-11:3, 18, 19). (End of the Covenant) See also – Jerusalem Phase of the Early Church.

The end of the covenant came two to four years after the Cross when Israel, by killing God’s Spirit-filled disciples, rejected the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 6:8-13). Thereafter, for the first time, God allowed Gentiles to receive the Holy Spirit.

Specifically, Stephen’s death was the turning point. Since the 490 years of Daniel 9 were an extension of God’s covenant with Israel (Extend Covenant), the 490 years came to an end when Christ stood to announce, through Stephen, announced judgment on the Jewish nation (End of the Covenant). 

Furthermore, Daniel 9:27 is the core of the Daniel 9 prophecy. All important events occur AFTER the long period of 69 weeks (483 years). The purpose of the first 69 weeks is, therefore, merely to help us to know WHEN the last week will be. Hence, to postpone that final week of years and to propel it into the far distant future is to defeat the purpose of the 69 weeks.

WHO CONFIRMS WHAT COVENANT?

According to Daniel 9:27, “he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.” This is the last of the 70 weeks; the last seven years. The “he” must refer to somebody mentioned in the previous verse. That verse refers to two people:

      • The Messiah who is “cut off” and
      • “The prince that shall come,” whose people will destroy the city.

In Dispensationalism, the first 69 weeks came to an end in the year when Jesus died but the 70th week will be the last seven years before He returns. The “he” is then interpreted as the “prince” of verse 26 and as an end-time Antichrist that will make a covenant with “many.”

In contrast, the article What Covenant shows that:

(1) “He” cannot be the Antichrist,

(2) The covenant of the 70th week (Dan 9:27) is God’s covenant with Israel, and

(3) “He,” who confirms the covenant, is the “Messiah” (Jesus Christ).

The following are some of the arguments to support these conclusions:

The prince who destroys the city in verse 26 is a supernatural being; not a human. 

By determining “seventy weeks” for Israel, God extended His covenant with Israel by 490 years (Covenant Extended). Consequently, the covenant that is confirmed during the “one week” (the 70th week – Dan 9:27) is the final seven years of God’s time-limited renewed covenant with Israel; not the covenant of an Antichrist.

The poetic pattern of the prophecy, which shifts the focus back and forth between Jerusalem and the Messiah, identifies the “he,” who confirms the covenant (v27), as Jesus (Chronological Sequence). He died in the middle of that week. He confirmed the covenant with Israel personally before His death and, after He died, through the Holy Spirit, which He sent to Jews only.

Daniel 9:25-27 is also structured as a chiasm. It identifies the “he” in verse 27 as the Messiah and the destruction in verse 27 as Jerusalem (Chronological Sequence).

The purpose of the 490 years is to solve this world’s sin problem (Dan 9:24). This must be achieved through the appearance and killing of the messiah (Dan 9:26), while, at the same time, an end will be made to the sacrificial system (Dan 9:27). In the light of the New Testament, this is a prediction of Christ’s mission. The animal sacrifices pointed forward to the Lamb of God. When He died, the sacrifices ceased in terms of meaning.

In conclusion, the final seven years are the period from Jesus’ baptism in AD 26/27 until Stephen’s death in about AD 33/34. During these final seven years, Jesus confirmed God’s covenant with Israel: Never before or after in human history has God appealed so strongly for the heart of any nation as He did, firstly, through Christ’s personal ministry on earth for 3½ years and, secondly, through the Holy Spirit during the 2 to 4 years after He died.

WHO IS DESTROYED IN VERSE 27?

Verse 26 ends with the destruction of Jerusalem. Verse 27 begins with the seven last years and ends with further destruction. The question is what that last destruction is:

Most translations of verse 27 read that a desolator will be destroyed (e.g. NASB). In that case, in the context of verse 26, where the Roman Empire destroys Jerusalem, this would refer to the destruction of the Roman Empire. If that is correct, and if we also assume that that destruction happens at the end of the last seven years, it cannot be the fall of the Roman Empire in the sixth century AD. Then it is possible to argue, as Dispensationalism does, that it is the destruction of an end-time revived Roman Empire.

However, in certain more literal translations, the desolations are poured out on the desolated one, which, again in the context of verse 26, would be Jerusalem.

Since different translations are possible, we should use the context to interpret this verse. For various reasons, the destruction in verse 27 is the same as the destruction mentioned in verse 26, namely the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Who is destroyed in verse 27?). For example:

    • In the poetic pattern, the last part of verse 27 is the destruction of Jerusalem.
    • In the chiasm, the destruction in verse 27 stands in opposition to (links to) the construction of Jerusalem.
    • The destruction in verse 27 uses the same words as the destruction in verse 26.
    • Jesus possibly referred to the destruction of verse 27 in Matthew 24:15, and that is a reference to the destruction in AD 70 (Luke 21:20-23).

Verse 27 says that a desolator will arrive shortly after (on the wing of) some repulsive sin (an abomination). In the context, the repulsive sin is Israel’s rejection and killing of its Messiah. The desolation is the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans 40 years later.

If the last part of verse 27 refers to the destruction of AD 70, the last week, described in the first part of verse 27, must be prior to AD 70.

CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE

Daniel 9 first mentions the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and then the “firm covenant” of the 70th week (Dan 9:26-27). Dispensationalism argues that the 70th week will be later than AD 70, which would require a gap between the first 483 years and the last seven years.

However, Daniel 9 does not list events chronologically. For example, while verse 25 mentions the appearance of the Messiah first and then the rebuilding of the city, the city was rebuilt four centuries before the Messiah appeared.

To understand the sequence in which the events are listed, the article Chronological Sequence shows that the prophecy alternates between two foci; Jerusalem and the Messiah:

The Jerusalem-events are in chronological sequence and the Messiah-events are in chronological sequence.

But the relationship between the Jerusalem-events and the Messiah-events is not chronological but one of cause and effect: The city was rebuilt to receive the Messiah (Dan 9:25) but again destroyed because it did not accept the Messiah (Dan 9:26; cf. Luke 19:44; 21:20-24).

The previous two sections have argued that the first part of verse 27 describes the seven years around the Cross and that the last part of verse 27 describes the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This means that verse 27 repeats verse 26. Both verses first describe Christ and then the destruction of Jerusalem. Verse 27, therefore, does not follow chronologically after verse 26.

WHEN ARE THE GOALS FULFILLED?

Daniel 9:24 sets 6 goals for the 490 years. In the traditional interpretation, Jesus’ life and death fulfilled these goals.

In Dispensationalism, in contrast, these goals will only be fulfilled at the end of the 490 years, namely when Christ returns. However, verse 24 gave these goals to Israel and gave Israel 490 years to fulfill them. To propose that these goals will only be fulfilled when Christ returns is to deny Israel its responsibility and to deny the 490 years their purpose. Israel must fulfill these goals DURING the 490 years.

Furthermore, Daniel did not pray for a messiah or for the goals in verse 24. He only prayed for Jerusalem and the temple. But the prophecy includes a Messiah because the goals were to be fulfilled through the Messiah.

The article on the goals argued as follows:

The first two goals, “to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins,” were given to Israel to fulfill. They had to make an end to the sins in their society that led to the exile. These two goals were not fulfilled.

The third and fourth goals, “to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” were fulfilled by Jesus through His life and death.

The fifth goal, “seal up the vision and prophecy,” was that the Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah would come true through the events of the 490 years; particularly through the appearance and the death of the Messiah (e.g., Rom 15:8).

The sixth and final goal, “to anoint the most holy,” symbolizes the eternal and cosmic consequences of His death.

That these goals were fulfilled will only become visible when Christ returns, but the way in which the Bible speaks about redemption, reconciliation, and everlasting righteousness, these things are a current reality.

OTHER DIFFERENCES

TEMPLE REBUILT TWICE

The Daniel 9 prophecy explicitly promises that Jerusalem will be rebuilt. This was fulfilled with the rebuilding of Jerusalem a few hundred years before Christ. But, in Dispensationalism, the temple will be rebuilt a second time, namely at the end of the age. If the temple was to be rebuilt after the destruction of Daniel 9:26, would the prophecy not have explicitly stated that, given that it is so clear about the rebuilding in Danie; 9:25?

SACRIFICES RESUMED

in Dispensationalism, sacrifices will be resumed. However, there can never be a valid return to the old covenant and its earthly temple worship.

ANTICHRIST BREAKS HIS COVENANT

According to Daniel 9:27, “he” will confirm the covenant for the full seven years but, in Dispensationalism, the Antichrist breaks his covenant with Israel and “put a stop to sacrifice” in the middle of the last seven years.

DESTROYED WITHIN THE 490 YEARS

According to the prophecy, 490 years have been determined for the city of Daniel’s people (Dan 9:24). Therefore, the sanctuary and its services will not be destroyed during the 490 years; only at the end or after the end of the 490 years.

But, in Dispensationalism, the sanctuary will be destroyed in the middle of the last week, when “he will put a stop to sacrifice.”

DESTROY THE ROMAN EMPIRE

In Dispensationalism, the last part of 9:27 describes the destruction of the Roman Empire, and since the Roman Empire was not destroyed in Christ’s time, it argues that this verse must describe the destruction of the Roman Empire when Christ returns. But how can the Roman Empire be revived 1500 years after it ceased to exist?

THE GAP

There is no indication in the prophecy of a gap. On the contrary, this prophecy is very concerned about specifying time precisely. To insert an undefined period into the 490 years seems to contradict the spirit of the prophecy.

RETURN OF CHRIST

If the seven last years end with Christ’s return, as Dispensationalism proposes, we should expect the prophecy to refer to that earth-shattering event, as the other prophecies in Daniel do. But there is no indication in the prophecy of the return of Christ. In contrast, the Daniel 9 prophecy ends with the accumulation of desolations and chaos.

CONSEQUENCES

Dispensationalism’s interpretation of the book of Revelation is based on its interpretation of Daniel 9. The typical Dispensational interpretation puts everything in the last 19 chapters of Revelation in the final seven years of Daniel 9, which it interprets as the final seven years before Christ returns. Since this article has shown that those seven years do not describe end-time events, but the Messiah-events 2000 years ago, the whole Dispensational interpretation of Revelation collapses.

OTHER ARTICLES

Proudly powered by WordPress