Daniel 9, The Seventy Weeks and the LXX
Don K. Preston (eschatology.org)
Needless to say, Daniel 9:24-27 has generated an endless amount of prophetic speculation. Some of it has been, shall we say, off the wall, while other students have attempted to deal objectively and seriously with this important text.
Much of the speculation concerning Daniel 9:24-27 has been and continues to be focused on where to begin the prophetic countdown. Others, such as myself, have focused on identifying with some degree of certainty, the ending point, the end of the seventieth week. See my books, Seal Up Vision and Prophecy, and Seventy Weeks Are Determined…For the Resurrection, and, The Resurrection of Daniel 12:2: Future or Fulfilled? to understand my position.
In this article I wish to corroborate what I set forth in those works by an examination of the LXX, i.e. the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Since the NT writers appealed so many times to the LXX, we are on good ground to at least consider the possibility that the LXX of Daniel 9:24f may contribute positive evidence to help identify when the seventy weeks were to end. After all, when one does a Google search on how extensively the NT used the LXX, on top of the very opening page we find this: “It has been estimated that the GNT (Greek New Testament, DKP) quotes directly from the LXX in 340 places, while quoting from the Hebrew (in what would become) MT (Masoretic Text, DKP) in only 33 places.” It is very clear that the NT writers had not aversion to citing the LXX.
For this article, I want to focus on verses 26-27 in the LXX translation in the Brenton version (1990) of the LXX found on BibleHub.com:
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. And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifices and drink-offering shall be taken away-and in the temple shall be the abomination of desolations: and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.
To grasp the significance of the LXX rendering we need to examine several elements of verses 24-27 a little more fully.
Seventy Weeks Are Determined
The prophecy begins with the declaration in v. 24: “Seventy weeks are determined.” The word “determined” is important for what is to follow. This word is translated from the Hebrew khatak (Strong’s #2852), which means that God, “cut out” the seventy weeks from the rest of time and He designated, He determined, He appointed those things to occur within the confines of that seventy weeks. The six constituent elements of v. 24 would be fully accomplished within that determined seventy weeks. Those elements were not to be fulfilled outside the parameters of the seventy weeks. Everyone of them were to be fulfilled within the seventy.
It is somewhat common, however, for commentators to claim that the destruction of Jerusalem foretold in verses 26-27 were not a part of the actual 70 weeks. Kenneth Gentry for instance claims:
The events involving the destruction of the city and sanctuary with war and desolations (Dan.:26b; 27b) are the consequences of Messiah’s cutting off and not necessarily occur within the seventy weeks time frame. They are an addendum to the main prophecy, which Daniel presents in verse 24. The destructive acts are anticipated, however, in the divine act of sealing up or reserving Israel’s sin for punishment. Israel’s climactic sin– her completing her transgressions (v. 24) by cutting off Messiah– results in God’s act of reserving Israel’s sin until a later time. God will not postpone Israel’s judgment forever; it will come after the seventy weeks expire. This explains the “very indefinite” phrase ‘till the end of the war”; the “end” will not occur during the seventy weeks. The end occurs in AD 70, exactly as Christ makes abundantly clear in Matthew 24:14-15 (cp. 23:28; 24, 2, 34). (Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 319).
Gentry, continues to posit the end of the seventy weeks well before the destruction of the city and sanctuary
Although the prophecy clearly specifies the terminus of the sixty-ninth week, such is not the case with the terminus of the seventieth. The exact event that ends the seventieth week is not so significant for us to know. Apparently, at the stoning of Steven, Christianity’s first martyr, the covenantal proclamation begins turning toward the Gentiles (Acts 8:1). (Dominion, 2009, 318).
There are several problems with this claim and this article will demonstrate that. But look closely at just a few of the problems with Gentry’s claims.
✘ Gentry is essentially claiming that the seventy weeks were determined to determine the fate of the city and the temple. In other words, within the seventy weeks, Jesus determined the fate of Jerusalem, in Matthew 24 for instance. But Daniel was not told that seventy weeks are determined for Jesus to determine the fate of the city. The fate of the city had been determined long before Daniel wrote (cf. Isaiah 65-66)! And that determination was being confirmed in Daniel 9! Just as the making of the Atonement was predicted in Daniel and had to be fulfilled within the seventy weeks, the fate of the city was predicted in Daniel and was to be fulfilled within the seventy weeks. Gentry puts the final fate of the city outside the seventy weeks, when the text is very clear that “seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city.”
✘ Gentry’s claim flies in the face of the text: “Seventy weeks are determined on your people and your holy city.” The fate of the city and sanctuary was confined to the seventy weeks just as much as the other constituent elements. Thus, if you put the fate of the city outside the seventy weeks, you can put the fate of the people, including the blessings of the putting away of sin and the making of the Atonement, the fulfillment of all prophecy, etc., outside the weeks.
✘ Gentry overtly ignores the full narrative of Daniel 9 in regard to the finishing of the transgressions, i.e. the filling up of the measure of sin on the part of Israel. He claims that Israel filled the measure of her sin by rejecting Jesus and putting him on the cross. Make no mistake, that was a huge factor and element in that filling up of Israel’s sin (see Matthew 21 and the parable of the Wicked Vineyard workers). But that is not the full story.
In Matthew 23:29ff Jesus clearly said that Israel would fill the measure of her sin in that generation, and involved in that was to be the fact that she would kill his apostles, prophets and scribes. Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, Paul said Israel had killed the prophets, Jesus, and were killing the apostles “so as to fill up the measure of their sin.” The killing of the apostles, which was of course well after the cross, and yet, that slaying of the apostles was contributing to the filling up of Israel’s sin. Paul even went so far as to say that it was through his personal suffering that he was “filling up that which is lacking in the affliction of Christ” (Colossians 1:24).
Finally, in Revelation 6:9-11 we find the martyrs under the altar crying out for vindication. They were given white robes and told to “rest for a little while, until your fellow brethren who should be slain such they were, should be fulfilled” (Revelation 6:9-11). The measure of suffering – and thus, the measure of sin – was not yet filled. But it was to be soon filled up because in Revelation 17:6 Babylon, the great persecutor of the saints, is depicted as holding a golden cup full of the blood of the saints. The number of the martyrs to be filled up as mentioned in chapter 6 is now full, and this is clearly not before the cross. It is simply wrong to say that Israel filled the measure of her sin by putting Jesus on the cross. For much, much more on the issue of filling the measure of sin / suffering see my book, Who Is This Babylon?
Since the filling up of the measure of sin was not completed in AD 51 (1 Thessalonians 2), and was not completed in AD 62 (Colossians 1) but was about to be completed in the later AD 60s (Revelation 6) this effectively negates Gentry’s claims that Israel had filled the measure of her sin by putting Jesus on the cross.
✘ What Gentry is suggesting is that the actual fate of the people and the city do not belong to the seventy weeks but rather determination of their fate is what belongs to the seventy. But as the respected Hebraists Keil and Delitzsch note, the Hebrew of the text uses a series of infinitives which indicate that the constituent elements and the goal of the seventy was confined to the Weeks themselves:
The following infinitive clauses present the object for which the seventy weeks are determined, i.e., they intimate what shall happen till, or with the expiry of, the time determined. Although לְ before the infinitive does not mean till or during, yet it is also not correct to say that לְ can point out only the issue which the period of time finally reaches, only its result. Whether that which is stated in the infinitive clauses shall for the first time take place after the expiry of, or at the end of the time named, or shall develope itself gradually in the course of it, and only be completed at the end of it, cannot be concluded from the final לְ, but only from the material contents of the final clauses. (Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996), Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 9, pp. 718–719). Hendrickson, Logos Bible program).
So, it runs counter to the text to say that the consitituent elements had to be fulfilled within the confines of the Weeks, but that the final fate of the city lay outside the Weeks. In reality, the constituent elements constitute and result in the fate of the people and the holy city. There are numerous other problems with Gentry’s views, which are held by a large number of futurists, but these few points show effectively that his attempt to divorce the actual fate of the city and people from the Weeks is misguided. See my fuller discussion of Gentry’s view in my book Seal Up Vision and Prophecy, available from this website, Amazon and other retailers.
As we proceed it will become very obvious that the end of the seventieth week had to have been in AD 70 with the determined destruction of “the city and the sanctuary.”
The thing to be noted is that the seventy weeks were as a unit “cut out” (khatak). That Seventy was the appointed time for the accomplishment of redemption. That Seventy was the designated time for the resurrection.1 That Seventy was the divinely determined time for the bringing in of the New Creation.
The Divine Countdown of the Weeks
In verses 25-26 we are given a time line of the key markers of the seventy week countdown:
Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. (NKJV).
Notice that there are some very distinct time line markers in the text:
#1 – “From the going forth of the decree to rebuild to Messiah, there shall be seven and sixty two weeks.” That is from the command to rebuild the city until the coming of Jesus, sixty nine weeks. That is an initial time marker. But notice:
#2 – “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off.” It is all but universally admitted that “after the sixty-two weeks” actually means after the sixty ninth week, meaning “in the seventieth week.” Messiah would be cut off in the midst, the middle of the seventieth week. (This fact is devastating to the Dispensational paradigm that says the seventieth week was postponed by Jesus’ death. But per this time marker, his death was in the middle of the seventieth week. There was no postponement).
#3 – 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.
It is somewhat perplexing that commentators have no problem noting that the death of Jesus was during the seventieth week, since it comes after the sixty ninth. Yet, they insist that the destruction of the city and temple must lie outside the seventieth. This in spite of the fact that the text says: “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. Thus, those positing the end of the seventieth week have to divorce the destruction from “after the sixty ninth week,” ignoring the connective conjunctive, and engage in “gapology” inserting a gap into the “and he shall destroy the city…” I suggest that this is inappropriate and that Daniel was being told that just as the death of Messiah was to be in the seventieth week, the destruction of the city and temple likewise belonged to the seventieth.2
Notice the focus on “the end.” What time of the end is this? Well, it is patently the end of Jerusalem and the temple, but more than that, it is the end of the appointed time! It is the end of the determined time ,” that was, “cut out.” by YHVH. Remember, Daniel was emphatically told that “seventy weeks are determined on your people and your holy city.” What is being described here in verses 26-27 is the consummation of that cut out time. This is where the LXX comes into play.
Remember now, the LXX is cited, echoed, quoted over 300 more times by the NT writers than they cite the Hebrew text. They clearly valued the LXX. With that in mind, look again at the LXX translation of the latter part of verses 26-27
And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifices and drink-offering shall be taken away-and in the temple shall be the abomination of desolations: and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.
Notice that it speaks of “in the midst of the week” sacrifices and drink-offerings shall be taken away.” In the midst of what week? Notice that there are two “in the midst of the week” references. Messiah would be cut off in the midst of the week, and in addition the cultus taken away and the abomination of desolation set up in the other “in the midst of the week.”
There are only seventy weeks under consideration in Daniel 9. In what week was Messiah to be cut off? It was to be after the sixty ninth week, which, as even Gentry acknowledges, must refer to the seventieth week. So if Messiah was to be cut off in the midst of the seventieth week (which I personally take to be near the end of the first half of the seventieth week) then are we supposed to believe that the taking away of the sacrifices would take place in another week, totally disconnected and divorced from that same “after the sixty ninth” period, i.e. in the seventieth week? Or, is it better to understand this taking away of the sacrifices to occur in the second half of the time after the sixty ninth week?
Those who hold to the view that the Law of Moses was “nailed to the cross” affirm that the sacrifices became null at the time of Jesus’ death in the midst of the week and that annulling meant that they would be taken away. Appeal is made to Colossians 2:16-17:
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
We are told that here, Paul posited the annulment of the cultus of Israel, the mitigation, or nullification of those feast days, while their actual removal – as demanded by the text of Daniel 9 – then took place in the Jewish War – after the end of the seventieth week. This view is tenuous at best and actually contradicts what Paul said.
The apostle urged his Gentile audience not to be judged in regard to the New Moons, feast days and Sabbaths. The Judaizers were seeking to impose the Law of Moses on Gentile Christians. But Paul would have none of it. But contrary to popular belief, he was not saying that the Law was nailed to the cross. He said it was the “handwriting of ordinances” or better “the handwriting of debt” incurred through violation of the Law, that was nailed to the cross. As David Patterson, says in the Pillar Bible
The world exalphein (blot out) is the same as in Colossians 2:14f where it means “cancelling the bond that the law creates.” Thus, it was not the Law itself that was removed, nailed to the cross, it was the bond created by the law.”3
A search on BibleGateway.com shows that the force of the text – again, supported by the LXX – demands the objective cessation of the feast days, the sacrifices, the drink offerings, not “simply” an annulment of those heortes (feast days).
The feast days, the daily sacrifices, were removed in AD 66 at the initiation of the three and a half year Jewish War. (It was the daily sacrifices for the emperor that were removed at that time, due to the Zealots, and Josephus says that it was the cessation of those sacrifices that led directly to the war).4 The entire cultus was finally obliterated in AD 70 with the destruction of the temple.
When one carefully observes what Paul says in Colossians it becomes obvious that he did not say that the Law, with its festal observances, was nailed to the cross. Notice that after saying that the “handwriting of ordinances” was nailed to the cross, he says that the New Moons, feast days and Sabbaths were still, when he wrote, (present tenses in the Greek), still, when he wrote, “shadows of the good things about to come.”
Scot McKnight comments on how the commentators reject (or rather, “re-conceptualize”) the present and future tenses of the text:
Skia mellontwn, with the genitive being objective (they foreshadowed him who was to come”). The present tense of the participle is re-conceptualized in many grammar discussions to a past tense because, after all, that is the reality: Since Christ has come, the shadow imagined what was to come. However, one might consider aspectual theory as shedding another light: the author intends to depict the anticipatory time as action occurring in the audience’s imagination.5
The problem with this assessment is that those commentators who insist that the good things had already come, (and thus reject the present and future tenses), are overlooking the reality that the New Moons, feast days and Sabbaths, which Paul said were shadows, foreshadowed the eschatological consummation.6 Unless one is willing to accept the view that the Judgment, the parousia, the resurrection, all typified in the last three of Israel’s feast days, were already fulfilled, then this “re-conceptualization” on the part of the commentators needs to be rethought and rejected. None of the scholars or commentators who “re-conceptualize” the present and future tense of the New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths” believe that the typological foreshadowing of those final feasts has been fulfilled even to this day.
My point in this is to show that the claim that Daniel’s prediction of the cessation of the sacrifices would be “in the midst of the week,” at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, is untenable. It simply does not fit. The typological cultus was to pass away when it was fulfilled, when the shadow gave way to the “body,” and that was still future in Colossians (see also Hebrews 10:1-2).
All of this brings us to the time of the consummation, the end of the seventieth week. Since the cutting off of the sacrifices was to be in the midst of the seventieth week, and yet, could not be referent to the cross, this is highly suggestive that this second reference to the “midst of the week” points us to the second half of the final week. This means that Jesus’ death in the midst of the seventieth week occurred in the first half of that climactic week, while the cutting off of the sacrifices in the midst of the week referred to the last half of the seventieth week. And of course, this means that any suggestion that the final week ended with the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 “does not compute.” So, let’s look closer at the LXX and what it says about the consummation.
And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifices and drink-offering shall be taken away-and in the temple shall be the abomination of desolations: and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation. (My emphasis).
It has to be observed that the LXX posits the time of the taking away of the sacrifice at the same time as the appearance / committing of, the abomination of desolation in the temple. This means that those who posit the “taking away of the sacrifice” at the cross, must, once again, insert a gap of time between the cross and the appearance of the abomination. But these are clearly synchronous, or closely synchronous events and one would be hard pressed to identify the cross as the abomination and claim it took place in the temple. Furthermore, if one were to suggest this, it would demand that the church was to flee Judea when they witnessed the cross. That patently did not happen.
Take particular note of the last sentence: “at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.”
The text does not, as a few translations give it, refer to the “end of time.” It is the time of the end. The Greek of the LXX text is tes suntelias kairou. Suntelia means consummation, full end.7 And it is literally “the end of the kairos. The word kairos means divinely appointed time. So, ask yourself the question: in Daniel 9:24f what was the divinely appointed time? What was the determined time that God had “cut out” (khatak)? The only textual and contextual answer is, it was the seventy weeks that had been “cut out.” This refers to “the war,” when the city and sanctuary would be “cut off with a flood” (v. 26). At the time of that “the war” the Lord would “appoint the city to (the) desolations.” What we see in verses 26-27 then is the repeated, emphasized focus on the appointed time of desolation and destruction of the city and sanctuary. This is emphasizing the fate of the people and the holy city that was divinely “cut out” to be fulfilled within the confines of that “cut out” time, the seventy weeks.
Attempts to divorce “the (appointed) time” of “the desolations” fail in light of this constant emphasis on suntelias tou kairos, (the end of the appointed time) which is nothing less than the khatak, the time cut out by YHVH.
Let me offer this:
The seventy weeks were determined (cut out, appointed) on the people and on the city.
The end of the determined, appointed time was the destruction of the city and temple (v. 26- 27, suntelias kairou).
Therefore, the end of the seventy weeks, the determined (cut out, appointed) time was at the destruction of the city and temple.
Take note of v. 24 and conflate it with v. 27:
Seventy weeks are determined (cut out) on your people and your holy city…
And,
“Its end shall come with a flood: literally “his (or its) end is a flood.”
Whose end, what end, was to come with a flood? Very clearly, the end of the people, the holy city and the sanctuary. JHVH had cut out and appointed the seventy weeks to seal the fate of the people and city, to accomplish consummation. The destruction of the city and sanctuary was “the appointed end of “the time.” The fate of the city did not lie forty years beyond the appointed, divinely designated and cut out time.
This means that in spite of all efforts to posit the end of the seventy weeks at the time of Stephen, at the conversion of the Gentiles, or in our future today, the text of Daniel 9 traces for us key temporal markers of the countdown of the seventy weeks. The end of that countdown was the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This is confirmed by a closer look at the final phrase of verse 27: “An end shall be put to the desolation.”
We have here a promise that when the fate of the city was completed in her destruction, that the appointed time (of verse 24) was truly completed. The desolation was fulfilled. The seventy weeks were ended. Consider a couple of facts.
Luke 21:24 and Daniel 9:27
Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Note that the word “times” is from kairoi, the plural of kairos – the divinely appointed time. Thus, there was a divinely appointed time for the Gentiles to trod down Jerusalem and Jerusalem would be trodden down until the end of that appointed time).
We have here a text that virtually all commentators agree is focused on the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans.8 Notice that Jesus said that destruction was to be the fulfillment of “all things written” (Luke 21:22). This statement stands as strong confirmation of the premise of this article.
Daniel was told that the seventy weeks were determined to “seal vision and prophet.” There is a wide ranging consensus that the meaning of the Hebrew means to put an end to the prophetic office through the fulfillment of all prophecy. Here is an extremely small sampling of scholarship on this, taken from my book, Seal Up Vision and Prophecy9: In that book, I adduce well over 20 top Hebraists testimony as to the meaning of “Seal Vision and Prophet.”
1.) “Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy ceases, no more prophets any more appear.”10
2.) “The impression of translators being that all visions and prophecies were to receive completed fulfillment in the course of these seventy weeks. It appears…, to be more agreeable to the context to suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all prophecy. I Cor. 13:8.”11
3.) “The vision and prophet will be sealed, that is accredited, because their final accomplishment has been reached in those events of blessing for God’s earthly people.”12
4.) “The reference is not to the accrediting of the prophecy, but to sealing it up so that it will no longer appear. Its functions are finished and it is not henceforth needed.”13
5.) “The words taken together refer to the final fulfillment of revelation and prophecy, i.e., when their functions are shown to be finished.”14
So, Daniel said that by the end of the seventy weeks all vision and the prophetic office would be brought to an end through the fulfillment of all prophecy.
The end of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 is the time of the destruction of the city and sanctuary, the time of the suntelia kairon, the consummation of the appointed time.
Jesus, predicting the destruction of Jerusalem, said, “these be the days of vengeance when all things written must be fulfilled”, and he was speaking of the kairos appointed for that destruction.
All of this falsies the claim that the seventy weeks ended at the stoning of Stephen, or in AD 34-35, or at any time prior to the fall of Jerusalem. If one admits that “seal vision and prophet” was reference to all prophecy and the end of the prophetic office, (as most scholars admit), it is untenable and illogical to suggest that the seventy weeks ended long before all prophecy was fulfilled and the prophetic office ended.
This is perfect harmony, perfect agreement, and helps confirm that the LXX of Daniel 9:26-27 is correct.
The fulfillment of all things written would in fact be the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 9 which anticipated that within the seventy weeks “vision and prophet” would be sealed, fulfilled and finished.
Gentry has vacillated on this. On the one hand he is on record taking the position that all constituent elements of Daniel 9:24 were fulfilled in Jesus’ personal ministry.
It has been pointed out by several evangelical scholars that also contained in Daniel is an important prophecy which seems to tie the close of the canon and all prophetic revelation to the AD 70 destruction of the temple. Daniel 9:24 reads, ‘Seventy Weeks are determined… to make an end of sin, to make the atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place… after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince that is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood.’ This seventy weeks of years period is widely held among conservative scholars to read to the First Advent of Christ.15 (My emphasis).
To say that this comment is self contradictory is an understatement. If Daniel 9:24 was completely fulfilled in the “first advent of Christ” then Daniel 9:24 did not connect the close of the canon and all prophetic revelation to the AD 70 destruction of the temple. You see, Daniel 9:24 foretold the sealing of vision and prophet – i.e. the close of the canon and all prophetic revelation. That patently did not take place in the “first advent of Christ.”
Gentry vacillates- badly. He says the term seal vision and prophet means, “By this is meant that Christ fulfills (and thereby confirms) the prophecy ( Luke 18:31; cf. Luke 24:44; Acts 3:18).” (Dominion, 2009, 316). But this is not the same as saying that seal vision and prophet refers to the cessation of the prophetic office and completion of the canon by AD 70. Notice that Gentry claims that the sealing of vision and prophecy referred to, “By this is meant that Christ fulfills (and thereby confirms) the prophecy ( Luke 18:31; cf. Luke 24:44; Acts 3:18).” But this violates the Hebrew of the text. Daniel 9 does not refer to a singular prophecy, e.g. the prophecy of Jesus’ death. And it did not refer to the singular prophecy of Daniel 9 (limited, as Gentry attempts to do, to the personal ministry of Jesus). There is no definite article in the Hebrew of 9:24 to allow that application. The prophecy is a prediction of the comprehensive nature of vision and prophecy and cannot be restricted in the manner that Gentry does.
Commentators strive mightily to avoid the force and power of Jesus’ words about “all things written” being fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment. We are told that the “all things written” referred only to all Old Testament prophecy”16 or some other limited “all.” But those attempts fail for the simple fact that every eschatological tenet, the parousia, the judgment, the resurrection, the New Creation is inextricably linked to the time of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 in the OT.17 Jesus was only saying what the OT prophets said many times, and that in the last days destruction of Jerusalem, “vision and prophet” would be sealed up – all prophecy would be fulfilled and the prophetic office put to an end (Daniel 9:24 / 1 Corinthians 13:8-13).
Objection to this is offered by claiming that “the times of the Gentiles” refers to the time of Gentile domination and control of Jerusalem from the sixth century BC destruction of Jerusalem until the restoration of Israel in 1948 – or until the Second Coming of Christ. Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger says:
When we come to the Olivet Discourse, we will see a redemptive- historical shift occurred with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish era. Yes, this destruction ushered in the times of the Gentiles. But the contrast between two ages is a contrast between the temporal and the eternal. ‘This age’ ends at the harvest, said Jesus, which is the day of final judgment when the wheat and weeds are finally separated and go to their eternal rewards. This does not refer to a temporal judgment on Israel but to the final judgment of the righteous and unrighteous.18
William Hendrickson, says that the times of the Gentiles extend to the final coming of Christ and cites Lenski and others who say that the times of the Gentiles last until the parousia.19
Linguistically this suggestion fails the test, however. The word translated as “trodden down” is the word pateo, and means active violent conflict and warfare20 (or in non-warfare texts, such as Luke 10:19, where it speaks of trodding down a serpent).
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary says that pateo is used in the LXX to speak of God’s historical judgments against the nations or Israel (p. 941). Cognates of the word are used to describe the destruction of warfare. Commenting on the NT usage of the word, with the exception of Luke 19, they say that “Like katapatein in the LXX passages, patein has here the sense of ‘ ‘plundering’ though one might go further and define it as ‘to plunder and desecrate”21
The fact is that from BC 586 until 1948 – and from 1948 to the present -Jerusalem experienced many times of extended peace without active warfare. It is therefore improper to claim that Jerusalem was trodden down for that period of time. What Jesus was saying is that Jerusalem would be trodden down, at the time of verse 20, the surrounding of, the conflict and desolation of the city by the Romans armies, until her destruction and desolation was completed. That was the time (kairos) of her visitation from God (Luke 19:43-44):
For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.22
So, Jesus said that Gentile warfare against Jerusalem to trod her down would endure for an appointed time. It must not be forgotten that Jesus emphatically posited that trodding down for his generation. He did not extend it beyond that time. He no where indicated that the trodding down would begin in his generation and then extend for two millennia. The trodding down is confined to his generation and specifically to the time of the war against Jerusalem.
Revelation 11:1-4 agrees with this, telling us that the holy city would be trampled down of the Gentiles for 42 months– which happened to be the time of the Jewish War!:
Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread (pateo, DKP) the holy city underfoot for forty-two months. And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.
Thus, we have Jesus in Luke and John in Revelation telling us that Jerusalem was going to be trodden down for an appointed period of time, the 1260 days, the time of the Jewish War, a period of 3 ½ years (i.e. 1260 days). Those defined times were the appointed times for the accomplish God’s wrath on Israel (depicted in the seven bowls of wrath in Revelation). That was the kairon time.
This is precisely what the LXX of Daniel 9:27 foretold. Notice again the LXX on Daniel 9:27:
And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifices and drink-offering shall be taken away-and in the temple shall be the abomination of desolations: and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation. (My emphasis).
Note carefully that it would be at the end of the appointed time (suntelia kairou) that “an end shall be put to the desolation.” So, Daniel foretold a “determined” (cut out, divinely appointed) time for the people and the city. The desolations on the city would come at the climax or consummation of that determined time. That means that the end of the desolation and destruction would come at the end of the determined time. At the end of the determined, appointed time, the desolations would be brought to an end. To reiterate, what is the only “appointed, determined” time in the context of Daniel 9:24? It is the seventy weeks. Thus, the end of the determined time is the end of the seventy weeks since the end of the appointed time is explicitly said to be at the end of the desolations, it simply cannot be argued that the end of the determined time -the end of the seventy weeks – occurred long before the destruction.
Likewise, in Luke 21, Jerusalem would be trodden down, suffering desolation and destruction until the appointed times of the Gentiles (the kairoi of the ethnoi) was completed. It is important to see that in Luke 21:24 – The times of the Gentiles– is the divinely appointed time (Kairoi) appointed by YHVH, for the completion of the Days of Vengeance. This parallels Daniel 9 where the “cut out” seventy weeks was the time divinely appointed to consummate the kairos as expressed by the LXX. That is the time appointed, cut out, by YHVH for the trodding down of the city and temple.
Notice how Luke further corresponds to Daniel 9. The arch-angel told Daniel that, “the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Or to refer again to the LXX, the Prince who was to be cut off in the midst of the week would then use another anointed one to destroy the city and sanctuary. Just like the death of the first Prince was after the sixty ninth week, the second prince would come and destroy the city and sanctuary. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus (the first Prince of Daniel 9 was to be cut off after the sixty ninth week. But he was going to come in judgment of the city and sanctuary (Matthew 24:29-31. In Luke 21:20, the Roman army (the Gentiles) was the instrument used by the first Prince to destroy Jerusalem.
In Revelation 11, we find that forty two months were divinely “cut out” or appointed for the Gentiles – the people of the second prince in Daniel 9 – to trod (pateo) the “holy city” underfoot. The end of the forty two months – the end of the desolations – is the end of the appointed time. It is the end of the time divinely allotted to the Gentiles to trod down Jerusalem. It is the time of the end (or end of the time – suntelieas kairou) in Daniel 9.
We thus have in Luke and in Revelation a confirmation that the LXX rendering is correct: at the end of the appointed time for Jerusalem’s desolation, the desolations would end. That appointed time, as stated, is the seventy weeks. It is the kairos of Luke 19:44, the kairos (time) of the Gentiles of Luke 21. It is the forty two months of Revelation 11. This accumulative evidence is probative that the seventy weeks did not end at the Cross, or with the stoning of Stephen or the conversion of the Gentiles. It was in AD 70, the appointed time of the end.
Daniel 9 and Daniel 12 – The Kairos & Suntelias Kairos
Having established the importance of Daniel’s use in chapter 9 of kairos and suntelieas kairos, we need to turn to Daniel 12, where we find those identical words and terms. Once again we will look at the LXX and how it uses these critical words.23
– Daniel 12- Kairos is used twice to speak of “at that time” the Great Tribulation would occur and those in the Lord’s book of Life would be delivered.
– In Daniel 12:4 Daniel was told to seal his vision (which included the Great Tribulation and the resurrection) “until the time of the end” (heos kairou suntelieas).
– In Daniel 12:7 we find the term “time, times and half time” which uses kairos three times, to speak of the appointed time for the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision. Just as in chapter 9 the seventy weeks had been “cut out” appointed for the fulfillment of the vision, the “time, times and half a time” were equally “cut out” – divinely appointed- for the fulfillment of chapter 12.
– In Daniel 12:9 Daniel was told once again to seal the book of his vision “heos kairos peras” – until the time of the end. The word peras (end) was earlier used in 12:6, when one angel asked the other concerning the vision: “when shall these things be, and what shall be the end (peras) of these things.”
– In Daniel 12:13 the prophet was told that the fulfillment of the vision was for many times and seasons to come; it was far off. Daniel was told that he would rest until the suntelian hemeron (the end of the days)” – the time of the resurrection.
What must be recognized is that Daniel 9 and Daniel 12 are directly parallel with each other. This is proven in a variety of ways.
✸ Both passages speak of the “appointed time of the end.” This alone does not demonstrate that the two texts spoke of the same events, since, as noted above, Daniel 8 foretold the appointed time of the end, but specifically identified that as the last days of the Grecian empire. Nonetheless, when we consider the other constituent elements shared in Daniel 9 and 12, the parallels are impressive and probative.
✸ Both texts speak of the final fate of Israel – Seventy Weeks are determined on your people and your holy city” (9;24); “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered all of these things will be fulfilled” (12:7).
✸ Both texts speak of the abomination of desolation (9:27 / 12:11.
✸ Both texts speak of the taking away of the daily sacrifice (9:27).24
✸ Both texts speak of the overt destruction of Jerusalem, the temple and people (9:26-27 / 12:7). To reiterate the point from above, this clearly delineates chapter 9 and 12 from chapter 8 as well as chapter 11, since the city and temple were not destroyed in the time of Antiochus. They were desecrated and defiled, to be sure, but they were not destroyed as the texts in Daniel demand.
✸ Both passages foretold the time of the resurrection (9:24- “Seventy weeks are determined… “to seal vision and prophet” and, “to bring in everlasting righteousness.” It is agreed by all that the time of the resurrection and New Creation is the time of the final fulfillment of all prophecy. As I demonstrate in my book, Seal Up Vision and Prophecy, that term means to bring the prophetic office to an end by the fulfillment of all prophecy.25
Similarly, the prophecy in Daniel 9:24 anticipated the arrival of “everlasting righteousness.” While some commentators claim that this referred to Jesus’ incarnation work, establishing himself as “our righteousness” (1 Corinthians 1:30). While of course, the text is clearly true, what is being overlooked is that the NT writers, after Jesus’ ascension to the Father, were still anticipating the arrival of the world of everlasting righteousness in fulfillment of the OT prophecies:
Galatians 5:5 – “For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.”
2 Peter 3:13 – “According to his promise we look for a New Heaven and New Earth wherein dwells righteousness.” This new creation where righteousness was the order of the day was about to be revealed when John wrote Revelation (chapter 21). That New Creation would follow hard on the resurrection (Revelation 20:10-12).
So, Daniel 9 foretold the resurrection, the bringing in of everlasting righteousness at the fulfillment of all vision and prophecy, which is definitively delimited to the seventy week period. There is no allowance in the text to suggest the fulfillment of these elements anytime outside the Weeks.
Then, of course, we have the explicit prophecy of the resurrection in Daniel 12:2: “Man of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting condemnation.” Now, since the time of the resurrection is the time of the arrival of everlasting righteousness, and the arrival of the everlasting righteousness is confined to (not afterward) the seventy weeks, this is prima facie demonstration that the end of the seventy weeks was at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. This is true because the resurrection was to be fulfilled “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered (12:7). So,
The time of the resurrection is the time of the bringing in of everlasting righteousness.
The bringing in of everlasting righteousness was confined to the seventy weeks.
Therefore, the resurrection is confined to the seventy weeks of Daniel 9.
Building on that and adding to it:
The resurrection is confined to the seventy weeks of Daniel 9.
But the resurrection would occur at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Daniel 12:7).
Therefore, the end of the seventy weeks was at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
These points undeniably demonstrate that Daniel 9 and Daniel 12 foretold the same time and the same eschatological tenets. Observe then, once again, that in Daniel 9 we find the appointed time of the seventy weeks. And the time of the end of the appointed time, the suntelias kairou, was the time of the devastation of Jerusalem and the temple (v. 27). Likewise, in Daniel 12 we find the appointed time of the end, the suntelias kairou, and that appointed time of the end is the resurrection, which was to be “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered” (12:7).
We thus have perfect correspondence between the “cut out” time of Daniel 9, (the seventy weeks) and its consummation (inclusive of the fulfillment of all prophecy and the resurrection) at the time of the overwhelming flood of destruction of the city and temple, In Daniel 12, that cut out, designated, appointed time of the consummation (inclusive of the fulfillment of all prophecy and the resurrection) is posited at the resurrection in Daniel 12.
I suggest therefore, that these facts fully establish that the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24 ended with the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
Implications
The establishment and identification of the end of the seventieth week in AD 70 has profound implications for a proper understanding of eschatology. Among other things, beyond the scope of this relatively short article, we can say that if our establishment of the seventieth week being consummated in AD 70 is valid, then several things flow from that:
★ It means that the Old Law did not pass away at the cross, since Jesus said not one jot or one tittle of the Law could pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).
★ It confirms that Gentry and others who say that the actual destruction of the city and temple was after the seventieth week, but was “determined” in Jesus’ ministry are wrong. As noted, Daniel was not told that seventy weeks were determined to determine the fate of the city. The fate of the city was determined and sealed in Daniel 9 (not to mention Isaiah 65-66) and thus, the end of the weeks cannot be divorced from the weeks.
★ It proves that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70, just as Jesus confirmed in Luke 21:22, and as confirmed in Revelation 10:7 / 11:15f.26
★ It establishes that Jesus was after all citing Daniel as a prediction of the coming end of Jerusalem and the temple. If / since, the events foretold by Daniel cannot properly be applied to the time of Antiochus- see below for a very small sampling of the problems- then our construct falsifies the Antiochan application.
★ If, as I propose in my book The Elements Shall Melt with Fervent Heat, Peter (2 Peter 3) and Revelation (21-22) Peter and John were anticipating the imminent arrival of the world of everlasting righteousness foretold by Daniel 9, this establishes that Daniel 9 was thoroughly eschatological. In fact, it predicted the resurrection and the New Creation. And of course, since Peter and John wrote long after the stoning of Stephen and the conversion of the Gentiles, and yet, they were still anticipating the bringing in of everlasting righteousness foretold by Daniel, it proves that the seventy weeks had not ended at those earlier times.
★ To build on the previous point, if in fact the seventieth week was fulfilled in AD 70, that more than effectively falsifies all attempts to mitigate the overwhelming objective imminence of the end expressed in hundreds of NT passages. If, as 1 Peter affirms, the OT prophecies of “the sufferings of Christ and the glory to follow” (which assuredly includes Daniel 9), then the realization that those things were to come by the end of – or at the end of – the seventieth means that the NT writers were living on the very cusp of that consummative fulfillment. And they were, therefore, absolutely correct to say that the “end of all things has drawn near” (1 Peter 4:7) and “in a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come, and will not delay” (Hebrews 10:37).
I believe that the LXX translation of Daniel 9:24-27, compared with Luke and Revelation, effectively proves that the seventieth week of Daniel 9 ended in AD 70 with the prophesied end of the city and the temple.
Side Bar: As already suggested, the translation of the LXX falsifies the view that Daniel 9 predicted the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. In that view, first suggested by an anti-Christian named Porphyry, (third century AD) the “prince that is to be cut off in the midst of the week” was Onias III, the Jewish High Priest, who was displaced by Jason and then treacherously slain by Menalaus, who desired the priesthood for himself.27 But notice what the LXX says of this prince who was to be cut off in the midst of the seventieth week:
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.
The Angel spoke of that Messiah / Prince who was to be slain, and said, “he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming.” (My emphasis). One objector to my position on this insisted that since the LXX says this Anointed One would be “destroyed” that this cannot be reference to Jesus. The problem with this claim is that the word in the LXX does not mean taken out of existence. It is commonly translated as “cut off” just the Hebrew text suggests. Thus, this “objector” was trying to impose his own concept of “destroyed” onto the text without understanding that it does not carry that meaning.
So, since the first Anointed One was to be cut off (meaning killed) we have the right to ask: How can a slain prince destroy the city by means of another prince that is coming? The LXX is patently telling us that this slain Anointed One, would use another prince to destroy the city! Is this not a subtle, but nonetheless powerful, prediction of a resurrected Messiah? (Makes one wonder if this reading, along with other details in the LXX text that has caused the Jewish rabbis to disparage the use of the LXX and do not consider it to be of “prophetic” significance”).
My point in regard to the Antiochan application of Daniel 9 is that if one identifies “the prince who is to come” and who was to be cut off in the midst of the week, as reference to the Antiochan period, this cannot, in any sense whatsoever, refer to the murder of Onias by Jason and Menalaus. How could Onias, who was murdered, destroy the city and temple by using another prince to do that? That was impossible. In fact, what Daniel was told tacitly suggests the resurrection of the slain prince. (Furthermore, as Brant Pitre observes,28 the city and sanctuary were not destroyed in the time of Antiochus. And of course, it must be noted that the slaying of Onias did not in any way cause the supposed destruction of the city and sanctuary). So, whatever prince it was who was to come and be slain, “he (that is the slain prince) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming.” The second prince was to be the instrument of the slain prince. And that unequivocally and irrefutably excludes Onias from being the slain prince. It likewise excludes Antiochus himself, as well as Jason and Menalaus as the second prince used by the first prince to destroy the city and sanctuary.
So, what we have is that Daniel’s vision gives us the termination of the appointed time: “At the (appointed) time of the end an end shall be put to the desolations.” The appointed time of the end is the end of the seventy weeks, and that terminus is clearly defined as the end of that appointed time. The seventy weeks therefore, did not end at the cross, on Pentecost, with the stoning of Stephen, or with the conversion of the Gentiles. The end of the seventy weeks was the consummation of the sunteliea kairou, the end of the seventy weeks at which point “an end will be made to the desolations.” The end of the desolations did not come at any of the times suggested above. The desolations came to an end in AD 70.
1 See my book, Seventy Weeks Are Determined…For the Resurrection for a fuller discussion of this crucial reality. The book is available from my websites, Amazon and other retailers.
2 I suggest that Jesus was put to death in the first half of the seventieth week, and that the last half of the seventieth was the Jewish War of 66-70. My premise– totally unlike that of Gentry and others – is based on the fact that Daniel 9 is based upon the Jewish feast days, with the final three, Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur, Succot, being expressed in the overwhelming flood of the judgment, i.e. “the war” of v. 26-27, that would destroy the city and sanctuary. I cannot fully develop that here, but see my book “Resurrection Feast Fulfilled!” for a full discussion. What this means is that there was an ordained period of time between Jesus’ sacrificial work, and his coming in the judgment / “the war.” This construct properly accounts for the interim between the death of Jesus and the end of the seventieth week. Gentry’s view has no accounting for this, ignoring the festal foundations of Daniel 9.
3 David Patterson, Commentary, Acts of the Apostles (Nottingham, England; Eerdmans, 2009),180. See the excellent article by Dr. Dallas Burette on Colossians 2, where he shows that Paul was absolutely not teaching that the Law had been nullified at the cross: https://donkpreston.com/guest-article-dr-dallas-burdette-on-colossians-214f/.
4 https://cojs.org/cessation_of_sacrifice-_66_ce/.
5 Scot McKnight, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2018), 270, n. 215.
6 See my book, Temple to Telos, for a fuller discussion and demonstration of this. Modern Bible students, with some exceptions, are lamentably out of touch with the centrality of the Jewish feast days for a proper understanding of Biblical eschatology. And in this vein, let me just note that Daniel 9:24-27 is saturated with festal allusions! My book is available on my websites, Amazon, Kindle and other retailers.
7 It is important to consider that in the NT, the term suntelias tou aionion, (consummation of the age) is used in Matthew 13 in Jesus’ prediction of the “end of the age” at which time Daniel’s prophecy of the harvest and resurrection would be fulfilled (Matthew 13:43–> Daniel 12:3-7). The term is also used by Jesus’ apostles in Matthew 24:3 when they understood (properly) that Jesus’ prediction of the coming destruction of the city and temple was to be the time of his coming and the end of the age. I suggest that Daniel’s use of suntelia kairos in 9:27 ties it to both Matthew 13 and chapter 24 and if that is true, this is probative that Daniel’s appointed time of the end of the age was in AD 70.
8 Keep in mind here that as noted above, the LXX has the slain Messiah destroying the city by utilizing another prince. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus promised that in the judgment of Jerusalem he was going to come in the glory of the Father. This meant that just as the Father had utilized one nation to judge another nation many times in the OT, (Isaiah 10:5ff / 19-20 / Ezekiel 30-32, etc.) Jesus was going to do likewise. As King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus used the Romans to destroy Jerusalem.
9 My book is available from my websites, Amazon, Kindle and other retailers.
10 Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 9, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1975), 344.
11 Charles John Ellicott, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Cassell and Co., London; 1884), 387.
12 A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, (Kregel, 1968), 133.
13 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1953), 200.
14 James Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, (Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1973), 250.
15 Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, Tx; Institute for Biblical Economics, 1989), 135.
16 Kenneth Gentry, Dominion, 2009, 542ff. Gentry clearly did not realize how self destructive his admission was when he made this claim. Simply put, to affirm that “all OT prophecy” – and he gave no qualification of “all Old Testament prophecy” anywhere in his discourse – demands that all eschatological prophecy is fulfilled since the Old Testament foretold the Last Days coming of the Lord, the judgment, the resurrection, the kingdom, the New Creation! See my article in response to Gentry’s claims: http://www.eschatology.org/index.php/articles-mainmenu-61/73-engaging-the-critics/678-kenneth-gentrys-latest-desperation.html .
17 See my book, These Are The Days When All Things Must Be Fulfilled, (2023) which is available on my websites, Amazon, Kindle and other retailers.
18 Kim Riddlebarger, Amillennialism (Grand Rapids; Baker, 2003), 95.
19 William Hendrickson, New Testament Commentary, Luke (Grand Rapids; Baker, 2002), 939.
20 Pateo is used in the LXX to speak of active military warfare, Assyria desired to trample down the nations (Isaiah 10:5ff. Edom was trodden down by YHVH (Isaiah 63). In Lamentations (1:5; 2:8) the prophet spoke of how the Babylonians had (past tenses) trampled down Jerusalem. Since the tredding down was in the past it is improper therefore to say that the tredding down extended to 1948. For an excellent discussion of pateo see: https://donkpreston.com/the-times-of-the-gentiles-past-present-or-what/
21 Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. V, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1973), 943+.
22 Repeatedly in the NT, Jesus and the writers describe the impending destruction of Jerusalem as the coming of the Lord, the Day of visitation, the Day of Wrath, and similar terms.
23 It needs to be noted that in Daniel 8 we also find the term kairos and suntelias kairos. But this chapter is not eschatological as is Daniel 9 and 12. Daniel 8 specifically tells us that the “time of the end” under consideration is the last days of the Ptolemies and Seluecids (Daniel 8:26). While history confirms the accuracy and application of chapter 8, (and parts of chapters 10-11) to that period, history falsifies the claims that Daniel 9 and 12 referred to the time of Antiochus.
24 It must be noted that in Daniel 11:31 we also have the Abomination and the taking away of the daily sacrifice which did occur in the time of Antiochus. This has been, rightly I think, seen as reference to the times of Antiochus being a type and shadow of the end times actions.
25 My book is available from my websites, Amazon, Kindle and other retailers.
26 See my book, These Are the Days When All Things Must Be Fulfilled for further confirmation of this. The book is available from my websites, Amazon, Kindle and other retailers.
27 For a discussion and history of the Oniad family see: https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/O/onias.html. For a brief history of the killing of Onias see: https://efinne1540.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/the-murder-of-the-high-priest-onias-2-macc-430-434/.
28 “While the destruction of both the Temple and city is quite explicit in the text of Daniel, it is routinely downplayed by proponents of the ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’ interpretation of Daniel 9 (since, I would suggest, it is the Achilles heel of that interpretation)” Brant Pitre, Jesus and the End of the Tribulation, (Grand Rapids; Baker Academic, 1975) 304, n. 188.
