daniel's "sevens" prophecy

8/18/2019 Daniel's "Sevens" Prophecy

1/58

Daniel's "Sevens" Prophecy

The Prophecy

"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the

decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the

Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven

sevens and sixty-two sevens. It will be rebuilt with

streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the

sixty-two sevens, the Anointed One will be cut off and

will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will

come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end

will come like a flood: War will continue until the end,

and desolations have been decreed." (Daniel 9:25-26)

Key Elements

There is a beginning event e0 - the issuing of a

decree to rebuild Jerusalem. As a result, the city will

be rebuilt, including streets and a trench (or city

moat) during a time of trouble and opposition. The next event, e1, is the arrival of the Anointed

One, which will occur sixty-nine (7+62) sevens

later.

The next associated event, e2, is the cutting off of

that same person after the sixty-nine sevens.


2/58

Sometime after e2 the end will come.

Beginning Event - e0

Beginning Event Attributes

Some writers, both Christian and Jewish, have

assumed that the prophecy's beginning event date was

the first year of Darius, the time of the prophecy itself.

Jerusalem was in fact rebuilt as a fortified city, but the

question is whether history records a command for its

restoration.

When we turn to the book of Ezra, three decrees of

Persian kings are noteworthy. The opening verses speak

of an edict that Cyrus gave to build the temple, but here

the house of the Lord God of Israel is specified with

such exclusivity that it can in no way satisfy the words

of Daniel. Also, it must be stressed that the prophecy

states, "It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench." Some

writers have pointed to the prophet Isaiah's statement

that Cyrus intended for the city to be reconstructed in

addition to the temple. Regardless, his decree did not

result in it actually happening, as the prophecy requires.

Most Jewish scholars believe that the decree of

Cyrus was the divine fulfillment of the promise made to


3/58

Satisfying e1 and e2

the captives in the twenty-ninth chapter of Jeremiah, and

in accordance with that promise, the fullest liberty was

granted to the exiles to return to Palestine. But no

temple construction was to proceed on Mount Moriah

until the era of the desolations had run its course. This

explains the seemingly inexplicable fact that the order to

build the temple granted by Cyrus remained suspended

until after his death.

When the period of desolations expired, a command

was proclaimed for the building of the sanctuary, and in

obedience, without waiting for permission from the

capitol, the Jews returned to the work that they longed

for. (Ezra 5:1, 2, 5) The wave of political excitement

that had carried Darius to the throne of Persia was

swelled by religious fervor against the Magian idolatry.

The moment was opportune for the Israelites. And when

the word of their seemingly rebellious action at

Jerusalem reached the palace, Darius searched the

Babylonian archives of Cyrus, and finding the decree of

his predecessor, he issued his own edict to give effect to

it. (Ezra 6)

This is the second event that affords a possible

beginning of the prophecy, but though plausible

arguments may be presented, it fails to satisfy the


4/58

required attributes. The fact remains that neither the

scope of the royal edict, nor the action of the Jews in

pursuance of that edict, went beyond building the

temple, whereas the prophecy foretold a decree to build

the city (not only the streets, but the fortifications of

Jerusalem).

After five years of construction, the building was

complete and served as a shrine for Judah during the

five centuries that followed. But, in striking contrast

with the temple they had assembled in the days of

Solomon, where gold seemed as cheap as brass in

Jerusalem, no costly furniture adorned the second house

until the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus)

when the Jews obtained approval to beautify the house

of the Lord . (Ezra 7:19, 27) This letter authorized Ezra

to return to Jerusalem and to fully restore the temple and

the ordinances of their religion. However, this third

decree makes no reference to construction, and it might

be passed unnoticed were it not that a few other writers

had believed it was the beginning event of the prophecy.

The temple had already been built many years before

and the city was still in ruins thirteen years afterwards.

Actually, the book of Ezra does not mention any

commandment to restore and build Jerusalem.


5/58


The book of Nehemiah opens in Susa where he was

cupbearer to King Artaxerxes, an honor of no small

magnitude in Persia. When brethren arrived from Judah,

he inquired about Jerusalem to which the emigrants

responded that all were, "in great distress and reproach,

and the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates

are burned with fire." (Nehemiah 1:2) The first chapter

closes with the record of Nehemiah's prayer. The second

chapter narrates how, in the month Nisan, in the

twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah was discharging

the duties of his office, and as he stood before the king

his expression displayed grief. The king called on him to

explain his trouble. "May the king live for ever,"

Nehemiah answered, "Why should my face not look sad

when the city where my fathers are buried lies in ruins,

and its gates have been destroyed by fire?" Artaxerxes

demanded in reply, "What is it you want?" Nehemiah

answered, "If it pleases the king and if your servant has

found favor in his sight, let him send me to the city in

Judah where my fathers are buried so that I can rebuild

it." (Nehemiah 2:2-5) The king approved the petition,

and at once issued the necessary orders to make it

happen. Four months later, eager hands were busy upon

the ruined walls of Jerusalem, and before the Feast of


6/58

Tabernacles, gates and a wall once more enclosed the

city. (Nehemiah 6:15)

Historian Henry Milman explains, "The cause of this

change in the Persian politics is to be sought, not so

much in the personal influence of the Jewish cup-bearer,

as in the foreign history of the times. The power of

Persia had received a fatal blow in the victory obtained

at Cnidos by Conon, the Athenian admiral. The great

king was obliged to submit to a humiliating peace,

among the articles of which were the abandonment of

the maritime towns, and a stipulation that the Persian

army should not approach within three days' journey of

the sea. Jerusalem, being about this distance from the

coast, and standing so near the line of communication

with Egypt, became a post of the utmost importance2."

It has been asserted that the decree of the twentieth

year of Artaxerxes is only an enlargement and renewal

of his first one, but clearly this is not the case. The

decree in his seventh year gave the Israelites authority to

beautify the House of the Lord, which is in Jerusalem,

(Ezra 7:27) extending the edicts of Cyrus and Darius.

The result was a gorgeous shrine in the midst of a ruined

city. The movement of the seventh year of Artaxerxes

(Ezra 7:10) was chiefly a religious revival sanctioned


7/58


and subsidized by royal favor, but the event of his

twentieth year was nothing less than the restoration of

the autonomy of Judah.

Furthermore, the execution of the work that Cyrus

authorized was stopped on the false charge that enemies

of the Jews carried to the palace, claiming that their

objective was to build not merely the temple, but the

city. As a result, its destruction was ordered. To allow

the building of the temple was merely an accord to a

conquered race, giving the right to worship according to

the law of their God. It was vastly different to permit the

construction of the famed fortifications of their city and

to restore the old governance of the Judges.

Another question is whether Artaxerxes' command

qualifies as being a decree. The Hebrew word in

question from Daniel 9:25 literally means going forth of

the word . It is translated as decree (NIV), commandment

(KJV), going out of the word (ESV), command (NKJV),

and order (NIRV). The text does not require the

formality of a royal decree or edict, rather a command3.

The letters that the king sent to the province governors

and to Asaph definitely show how this qualifies as

such4. (Nehemiah 2:7, 8)


8/58

Qualified Event

The beginning event of Daniel's prophecy is the

decree of Artaxerxes given to Nehemiah as it satisfies all

required attributes:

The command given by Artaxerxes is in regard to

the city's restoration (2:3, 5).

This command resulted in the city being rebuilt as

required by the prophecy.

Jerusalem's gates and walls are specifically

mentioned (2:3, 8).

Artaxerxes sent letters to the governors of Trans-

Euphrates and to Asaph ordering them to support

this effort (2:7, 8).

The entire book of Nehemiah and Ezra 4:7-23

describe the trouble and opposition to the building of

Jerusalem.

No later commands were given by Persian kings to

rebuild the city5.

This was a revival of the national existence of Judah,

and therefore it was the beginning event of Daniel's

prophecy.


9/58


Beginning Event Date

This event is aligned to the reign of a Persian king

and therefore we have a sizeable amount of information

on the subject. The ancient sources of cuneiform text,

the Ptolemaic Cannon, the Babylonian Chronicle, and

Elephantine papyri, provide crucial insight into the

succession of kings throughout the fifth-century B.C.

It has been reported that in August of 465 B.C., King

Xerxes was murdered by Artabanus and Aspamitres in

his bedchamber6. Subsequently, his son Artaxerxes I

acceded to the throne, but as customary, he did not enter

his first regnal year until the following New Year7. We

know this was at the next month of Tishri

(September/October) since the Jewish reckoning for

reigns of foreign kings was employed over the Persian

Nisan-to-Nisan (March/April) method8. Supporting this

claim is Nehemiah's statement, "In the month of Kislev

[also known as Chisleu] in the twentieth year..." coupled

with, "In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of

King Artaxerxes..." (1:1; 2:1) Nehemiah states that he

received information about Jerusalem in Kislev

(November/December) and then later met with the king

in Nisan of that same regnal year. Only the Tishri-to-

Tishri reckoning could plausibly account for this.


10/58

Discovery of the Elephantine papyri confirm the

Jewish reckoning. For example, the document Kraeling

3 from September 13, 437 B.C. has Artaxerxes in a prior

regnal year than that of document AP 10 from December

13, 437 B.C.9 Researchers Horn and Wood state, "[The

papyri] thus show clearly that the Jews in Elephantine

used a fall-to-fall calendar as their contemporaries in

Judah did10

."

There is no doubt that Artaxerxes' accession year,

the fractional year before his first New Year, was in 465

B.C., but recent findings have cast doubt on the month

that this took place. A date before Tishri would mean his

reign began in that same civil year, while a date

afterward would mean it did not begin until the

following civil year. There is one document of the

Jewish Elephantine papyri written between Tishri 465

and Nisan 464 dated as the accession year of Artaxerxes,

however the same document is also dated as the twenty-

first year of Xerxes11

.

There was a tremendous amount of confusion after

Xerxes was killed, not only in the Elephantine

community, but the entire region. Artabanus asserted

control for seven months although the rightful heir,

Artaxerxes I, would eventually succeed12

. Again Horn


11/58


and Wood assert, "[this] indicates that they had not

recognized Artaxerxes on the throne before Tishri, either

because Artabanus was at that time recognized the de

facto king, or because the political upheaval in Persia

made it impossible to know who would emerge from the

struggle as the permanent king13

."

Another controversial document discovered was a

contract between four brothers, dated in the twenty-first

year of Xerxes, but in the month of Kislimu

(December)14. At first, this might lead us into thinking

that Xerxes was still alive at that time, but we've already

seen that those few months were extremely chaotic and

even accurate news did not travel quickly across the vast

region.

Despite this one document and the self-contradictory

papyrus AP 6 , all other later papyri show the correct

dates for Artaxerxes. The documents Kraeling 1 (14th

year of Artaxerxes on 7/6/451), Kraeling 2 (16th year of

Artaxerxes on 7/13/449), and AP 14 (25th year of

Artaxerxes on 8/26/440), as well as others, all show the

king beginning his official reign in 465 B.C. For further

evidence, we have the astronomical cuneiform tablet

LBART 1419 that asserts Xerxes died between the 4th

and 8th of August, 465 B.C.15


12/58

It is evident that after the dust settled, scribes began

using the correct regnal years for Artaxerxes as would

be expected. We may discover even more conflicting

documents dating from that same chaotic seven month

period, but only the later scribes who had a clear

understanding of how and when the transfer of power

took place should be given credence. Artaxerxes' reign

began in Tishri 465 B.C. and consequently the Persian

king was in his twentieth year during Nisan 445 B.C.

when he ordered the reconstruction of Jerusalem. And

for our purpose, this date corresponds to e0, the

beginning event of Daniel's prophecy.

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

1. Anderson, R., The Coming Prince, (1895), passim.

2. Milman, H., History of the Jews, p. 435.

3. Goss, G.R., The Chronological Problems of the

Seventy Weeks of Daniel (unpublished dissertation,

Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966), p. 120.

4. Hoehner, H.W., Chronological Aspects of the Life of

Christ (1977), p. 127.

5. Ibid., p. 127.

6. Dandamaev, M.A., The Political History of the

Achaemenid Empire, (1989), p. 234.


13/58


7. Horn, S.H., and Wood, L.H., The Fifth-Century

Jewish Calendar at Elephantine from Journal of Near

Eastern Studies, XIII , (January, 1954), p. 9.

8, 9. Ibid., p. 4, 12.

10. Horn, S.H., and Wood, L.H., The Chronology of

Ezra (1970), p. 124.

11. Ibid., p. 125.

12. Dandamaev, p. 234.

13. Horn and Wood, The Fifth-Century Jewish Calendar

at Elephantine, p. 9.

14. Tarn, W.W., Cambridge Ancient History vol. 4, p.

114.

15. Horn, S.H., and Wood, L.H., The Chronology of

Ezra (1970), p. 115.

Events e1 and e2

Recall that the prophecy states, until the Anointed One,

the ruler, comes and the Anointed One will be cut off

and will have nothing.

Attributes of Event e1

The Anointed One means The Messiah ( Mashiach in

Hebrew, Christos in Greek) or, "the expected king and


14/58

deliverer of the Jews," as described by Webster's

dictionary. In Old Testament times, only priests and

kings were anointed, sometimes consecrated with oil, for

a special purpose. Jewish contemporaries of Daniel

would recognize this title from Psalm 2:2, "The kings of

the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together

against the Lord and against his Anointed One."

Now Daniel specified that the arrival of this

individual is of primary importance, so we must make

sure to identify the correct occasion. The term arrives

implies his first time on the scene. If a friend from a

foreign country visited, we would refer to the first day as

her arrival to distinguish it from all other days. So does

that mean the event here is the Messiah's birth? Since

the baby, although special, would not have been

anointed yet, this cannot be the occasion.

Notice that the prophet Isaiah, speaking of the

Messiah in the first person, states, "The Spirit of the

Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach

good news to the poor..." (61:1a) Ancient Jews

understood that their God would anoint this individual

with the Holy Spirit analogous to kings and priests

becoming anointed in a physical manner with oil.

Furthermore, by definition, people are anointed for a


15/58


special purpose. Isaiah announces, "he has anointed me

to preach good news to the poor," and then continues in

the same verse, "he has sent me to bind up the

brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and

release from darkness for the prisoners."

Accordingly, this individual would be anointed,

typically at age thirty for Jewish priests, before he could

proceed into his ordained purpose of preaching the good

news. It follows then that the arrival of the Anointed

One is the time when he begins his mission after

becoming anointed with the Spirit.

Attributes of Event e2

The second event that must take place according to

Daniel is the cutting off of this Anointed One. The

Hebrew term means to destroy or to kill1. Similar uses

of this language include, "I establish my covenant with

you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of

a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the

earth" (Genesis 9:11) and, "...I did not realize that they

had plotted against me, saying, 'Let us destroy the tree

and its fruit; let us cut him off from the land of the

living, that his name be remembered no more.'"

(Jeremiah 11:19). Not only is the event marked by the


16/58

Messiah's death, it is described as a time when he will be

abandoned. At the time of his execution, he will have

nothing implying that he will be stripped bare of not

only his physical possessions, but of his closest

relationships.

The Correct Event?

It should be noted that some individuals have

suggested that the prophecy's e1 event is the Messiah's

triumphant entry into Jerusalem as described in

Zechariah 9:9. The problem is that the prophecy's

messenger said nothing to indicate this. On the contrary,

it seems that the messenger is describing the beginning

and the end of the Messiah's mission on Earth. These

bookend events capture his complete story of salvation

for the world - from the time he received God's Spirit

until he gave up his own spirit into his father's hands.

Timing of Events e1 and e

2

The time span in Daniel's prophecy is described in

terms of units of seven: "From [e0] until [e1], there will

be seven sevens, and sixty-two sevens." To determine an

acceptable date for event e1, or rather when it must occur


17/58


to satisfy P, we must first understand what this

terminology means.

The prophetic text above is from the Bible's New

International Version and, although this was directly

translated from the original Hebrew, it refers to a period

of seven while the King James Version uses the term

week . The truth is both are equally valid because in the

Old Testament context they are interchangeable.

To our modern ears it sounds strange to speak of a

week as anything other than the familiar definition, but

scholars agree it was far otherwise. Bible scholar John

Walvoord explains, "The English word weeks is

misleading as the Hebrew is actually the plural of the

word for seven, without specifying whether it is days,

months, or years2." It is used twenty-five times in the

Old Testament and its definition is determined solely by

the context. This is illustrated by another single Hebrew

word that is translated as ten days in thirteen verses of

the Old Testament. But in three other verses, it is

translated as ten strings since the term actually means a

unit of ten in the same way that week is only one

translation of the term that means a unit if seven3.

But then what is the related unit? Just as Greek and

Latin philosophers have used the term weeks of years,


18/58

the unit here must be year, as the period of seven days

makes no contextual sense as shown by:

Other time periods that Daniel spoke of related to

years. The visions appearing earlier in his book refer

to three kingdoms rising and falling - events

obviously requiring years to transpire.

The length of the prophesied Babylonian captivity

period was seventy years - one year for each seven-

year period that Israel refused to observe God's

command regarding the Sabbatical cycle (the

ordinance of Jewish law that stated every seventh

year the land was to lie inactive for a host of

reasons). Refusing to honor this ordinance was by no

means Israel's only identified sin, but it was the

method for calculating their penance. The era that

lead to this captivity was specifically 7x70 years of

disobedience (Jeremiah 25:11; 29:10), the same

number, in total, as Daniel's prophecy. The parallel

is noteworthy, but the contrast is significant. A

period of 490 sinful years would lead Israel into

bondage, while another 490 years would lead his

people into everlasting righteousness4.

The only other time Daniel uses this term meaning a

period of seven is in 10:2-3 where he adds the


19/58


qualifier day to the end. The occasion was Daniel's

three sevens of days of mourning. Here he wanted to

differentiate his language from that of the angel

earlier. It was unnecessary for Daniel to emphasize

the unit here since his readers would not think he

mourned for twenty-one years. But he did it anyway

so that the description would be different and there

would be no possibility that readers would interpret

both units as days5.

At the midpoint of another future week, a treaty will

be broken, as depicted in Daniel 9:27, but also

referenced in 7:25, 12:7 and Revelation 12:14.

These three verses use the language of a time, times

and half a time, which is defined as a year, two

years and half a year 6.

The Mishnah, a collection of oral laws, traditions

and traditional wisdom (also known as a record of

the Oral Torah), employs the same term that appears

in Daniel 9:24-25 to mean a period of seven years7.

We must conclude that the units are seven years, but

we also need to determine the duration of the year in this

context. Up through the early part of the Babylonian

Empire, the Hebrew calendar was strictly lunar,


20/58

consisting of twelve months of thirty days each. Later

the Empire converted to a lunisolar calendar based on

months of twenty-nine or thirty days, with a leap month

added seven times every nineteen years (once every two

to three years) to synchronize the twelve lunar cycles

with the slightly longer solar year. Sir Isaac Newton

states, "All nations, before the just length of the solar

year was known, reckoned months by the course of the

moon, and years by the return of winter and summer,

spring and autumn; and in making calendars for their

festivals, they reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and

twelve lunar months to a year, taking the nearest round

numbers, whence came the division of the ecliptic into

360 degrees8." But does the prophecy imply the use of

this ancient perfect circle year or the later civil year

devised by the Babylonians?

Although there are examples of the 360-day year in

the Old Testament, the book of Revelation, written 600

years later, makes any other evidence superfluous. The

prophecy's timeline is divided into three eras consisting

of seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week.

Associated with the last two eras are two figures: first,

the Messiah, and second, a leader who will force the

destruction of Jerusalem. The sixty-two weeks ends just


21/58


before the cutting off of the Messiah and the next era

dates from the signature of a treaty by this second leader

with Israel. In the middle of this last seven-year period,

the treaty will be violated by the suppression of Judaism

and a time of persecution will follow.

Recall Daniel's vision of the four beasts. The identity

of the fourth beast is the Roman Empire and we read

that a king will arise territorially connected with that

empire, but historically belonging to a later time. These

two prophecies of Daniel refer to the same leader. He

will be a persecutor of the saints of the Most High, and

his fall will be immediately followed by the blessing of

God's people – the precise event that marks the end of

the seventy weeks. The duration of that persecution,

moreover, is stated to be a time, times and half a time –

an expression we have already seen that is synonymous

with three and a half years, or half of a seven-year

period.

The identity of the king in Daniel 7:25 is also the

same as the first figure of the thirteenth chapter of

Revelation, the Apostle John's prophetic vision. He

describes this leader as a composite of a leopard, a bear,

and a lion – the symbols used for Daniel's first three

beasts. In Daniel, there are ten kingdoms represented by


22/58

ten horns - exactly the same as in Revelation. According

to Daniel, "He will speak against the Most High and

oppress his saints." According to Revelation, "He

opened his mouth to blaspheme God," and, "He was

given power to make war against the saints and to

conquer them." According to Daniel, "The saints will be

handed over to him for a time, times and half a time," or

three and a half years. According to Revelation, he was

allowed to "exercise his authority for forty-two months."

(Revelation 13:5)

The seventieth week is also a period of seven years,

and half of this period is described on three occasions as

a time, times, and half a time (Daniel 7:25; 12:7;

Revelation 12:14), on two occasions as forty-two months

(Revelation 11:2; 13:5), and two other occasions as

1,260 days. (Revelation 11:3; 12:6) But 1,260 days are

exactly equal to forty-two months of thirty days, or three

and a half years of 360 days, whereas three and a half

Gregorian years contain 1,278 days. It follows therefore

that this prophetic year is not a solar, or even an adjusted

lunisolar year, but the ancient lunar year of 360 days.


23/58


First Two Eras

We've seen that the prophecy specifies a time span

divided into eras of seven and sixty-two. To determine

the associated dates of these eras, one must understand

whether they are contiguous. Unfortunately, the

translation from Hebrew into modern English, as well as

other languages, has unnecessarily caused some

confusion. Although the original text had no

punctuation, individuals inserted some at will, thereby

varying semantics9. After the second century A.D., the

Jewish Masoretes inserted an Ethnarch, a pause symbol,

before the sixty-two in verse 9:25. This punctuation

mark was later translated into a period, but Desmond

Ford comments, "There is no valid reason for choosing

to use a period here as the equivalent of the Ethnarch10."

Other illustrations of the same punctuation in Daniel's

book include:

"Then these men came by agreement and found

Daniel [ Ethnarch] making petition and

supplication." (6:11).

"I, Daniel, perceived in the books [ Ethnarch] the

number of years." (9:2).


24/58

"Then this Daniel became distinguished above all

the other presidents and satraps [ Ethnarch] because

an excellent spirit was with him." (6:3)11

.

Clearly there are textual connections between the

terms separated by the Ethnarchs in these examples. And

rightly, the Septuagent, Theodotion, Syriac, Vulgate,

and all modern translations have removed the period and

imply continuity between the first two time periods in

the prophecy12.

The final reason to refrain from inserting a break

between the two weeks in verse 25 is that it makes no

contextual sense13. Separating these segments would

imply that the messenger meant there would be 62x7 or

434 years between the decree to build the city and the

streets actually being constructed. But even more

illogical, forcing a break into the text would mean that

the Anointed One would arrive after 7x7 years, but then

be executed after another 434 years. Writers in the Old

Testament sometimes separated numbers, such as, "our

years are threescore [60] years and ten (Psalm 90:10

KJV). The messenger of the prophecy followed this

style without concern.


25/58


Even so, some writers such as Sir Robert Anderson

have theorized that there is an unspecified yet very

significant event that consummates the first era. Near the

end of that era, 7x7 years after Artaxerxes' decree,

Malachi uttered the last words of the Old Testament - a

prophecy concerning the forerunner to the Messiah:

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the

coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord."

(Malachi 4:5) For 400 years, God was subsequently

silent, but just as Malachi foretold, John the Baptist

(figuratively Elijah) was born to prepare the way of

Jesus14. Whether we accept Anderson's hypothesis or

not, there is no reason to insert a break arbitrarily

between the first two time segments. We can conclude

that Daniel's words in verse 9:25 mean nothing more

than 7+62 or sixty-nine contiguous sevens.

The events required to fulfill Daniel's prediction are:

e1 - the arrival of the Anointed One, and e2 - that same

figure being cut off. They are different from each other

in the sense that e1 must occur during the sixty-ninth

week, while the second event must take place afterward.

The prophecy clearly distinguishes how the two events

are to transpire. Substituting into the text we get, "Until

e1 there will be sixty-nine weeks. [...] After the sixty-


26/58

nine weeks, e2 will occur." Note that the text removed,

"It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times

of trouble," is yet another event that was described

earlier.

There are five primary points leading us to realize

that the first event occurs during the sixty-ninth week.

The unit or the granularity of the prophetic timeline

is seven years - not more or less. The messenger's

statement is similar to saying, in two hours to mean

the second hour without specifying the minutes or

seconds.

It seems logical that the messenger of the prediction

would use that same wording of e1 as was used of e2

if both were to occur after the sixty-ninth week.

The messenger could not have used the words after

the sixty-eighth because this would not imply the

sixty-ninth week any more than it would the

seventieth.

The messenger could not have used the wording

until the seventieth for e2. Although e2 occurred after

the sixty-ninth week, it did not occur during the

seventieth.

In the Old and New Testaments, time periods were

reckoned inclusively. For example, "...Go to the


27/58


people and consecrate them today [day 1] and

tomorrow [day 2]. Have them wash their clothes and

be ready by the third day [day 3]..." (Genesis 19:10-

11; See also Genesis 42:17-19; Esther 4:16, 5:1; 1

Kings 20:29; 1 Samuel 30:12, 13)

The reader may be tempted to assume that e1 should

fall on the last day or last hour of the sixty-ninth week,

but this is no different than assuming that e1 should fall

within the last month. It is arbitrary and unnecessary.

Further Refinement

The only refinement we can make is limiting e1 to

the latter half of the sixty-ninth week. This seems

reasonable because a week of years is our granularity

and falling into the latter half makes us round up to the

next whole week. Let's say that a father announces,

"We're going to Disney World in one year." Two days

later his children ask whether it's time to leave. Of

course he'll explain to them that it has not been one year

yet. But if they end up leaving 350 days later, then the

claim is true that, "they went to Disney World one year

later", again, because year is the implied granularity.

This is a matter of accuracy rather than of semantics.


28/58

Date of the Sixty-ninth Week

We have already identified Nisan 445 B.C. as the

month/year of e0 and since Nisan began during the third

new moon (or more accurately, the time when the

waxing crescent moon is visible at sunset to official

observers), there is little difficulty determining the

Gregorian equivalent. Based on astronomical

calculations, Nisan 1 began approximately March 26th.

Since Nehemiah does not explicitly state the day of the

month, we'll choose Nisan 15 or April 10 as our

beginning point.

Next we need to calculate the date of the sixty-ninth

week using the best estimation of universal time

available to us. To perform mathematical operations on

dates, we first convert them to Julian days - a continuous

count of days and fractions since January 1st, 4713 B.C.

Converting April 10, 445 B.C. to its Julian equivalent

gives us 1558987 and thus the sixty-ninth week begins

68x7x360 (171,360) days later at 1730347 or June 7, 25

A.D. The sixty-ninth week ends 69x7x360 (173,880)

days after April 10, 445 B.C., at 1732867 Julian days or

May 1, 32 A.D.


29/58


Conclusion

Daniel's prophecy, P, has the following requirements:

To be legitimate, eP, the proclamation of Daniel's

prophecy, must have occurred long before e1. [We

now know that this event took place in the sixth

century B.C.]

e0 must be an event where: 1) a command is given to

rebuild Jerusalem, 2) later, it actually happens as a

result of the command, 3) it happens during a time

of trouble. [We've already seen that the decree of

Artaxerxes I in Nisan 445 B.C. satisfies these

requirements]

e1 must be an event where a person reportedly

possessing the attributes of the Anointed One arrives

between June 7, 25 A.D. and May 1, 32 A.D. to

fulfill his ordained purpose.

e2 must be an event where the person identified

above is abandoned and executed after May 1, 32

A.D.

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

1. Walvoord, p. 229.

2. Ibid., p. 219.

3. Hoehner, p. 117.

4. Ibid., p. 117.


30/58

5. Ibid., p. 118.

6. Ibid., p. 118-119.

7. Mishnah: Baba Metzia ix. 10; Sanhedrin v. 1.

8. Newton, I., Astronomy of the Ancients, chapter i,

section 7.

9. Ford, p. 229.

10. Ibid., p. 229.

11. Ibid., p. 229.

12. Hoehner, p. 130.

13. Hengstenberg, E.W., Christology of the Old

Testament , translated by James Martin (1878), p. 123.

14. Anderson, p. 166.


Jesus and e1

For now, we will regard Jesus as someone who lived

in the early first century, was crucified, and whose

followers believed possessed messianic attributes (for

example, being born in Bethlehem). We have

reconstructed part of Daniel's prophecy to state, "The

Anointed One, the ruler, will arrive between June 7, 25

A.D. and May 1, 32 A.D." And we have already

determined that event e1, his arrival, is the time that he


31/58


initiates his sanctified purpose and mission after being

anointed. The Messiah's anointing, as described by

Isaiah, happens when God's spirit descends onto his

chosen one.

Jesus was most likely born near the end of 5 B.C. or

the beginning of 4 B.C. before Herod the Great's death6.

Some scholars date his birth as late as 2 B.C., with

Herod dying about a year later, but very few assert any

dates outside this range.

Except for one event in Jerusalem when he was

twelve years old, the Gospels are silent on his life until

his baptism a little over thirty years later.

When John the Baptist was at the Jordan River,

Jesus approached him, but John questioned why Jesus

would need to be baptized. He responds, "Let it be so

now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all

righteousness." (Matthew 3:15) The anointing had to

take place before his ministry could begin. "As soon as

Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that

moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of

God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a

voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love;

with him I am well pleased'." (16-17) In Luke 4:16-18,


32/58

Jesus declares his anointing by reading Isaiah's prophecy

describing the event.

Luke later writes in Acts 4:27, "Indeed Herod and

Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the

people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy

servant Jesus, whom you anointed ," and again in 10:38,

"how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy

Spirit and power..." After the Spirit fell on Jesus, he

began his ministry of preaching the good news; hence,

this was the Messiah's arrival.

The commencement of Jesus' ministry is surrounded

by a few historical facts that allow us to ascertain the

date. Luke 3:1-3 states, "In the fifteenth year of the reign

of Tiberius Caesar when Pontius Pilate was governor of

Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip

tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch

of Abilene during the high priesthood of Annas and

Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of

Zechariah in the desert. He went into all the country

around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for

the forgiveness of sins." Jesus was baptized after the

beginning of John's ministry, which is linked to the

historical markers in the above passage from Luke - the

most precise being the fifteenth year of Tiberius.


33/58


Luke also states, "Now Jesus himself was about

thirty years old when he began his ministry." The

expression about thirty years implies some margin.

Henry Alford states in his Greek Testament that the term

hosei tpiakonta gives considerable latitude, but only in

the upper direction (in other words, it does not allow for

him to be in his twenties)7.

Through much analysis, researcher Harold Hoehner

determined the following chronology: 1) John baptized

Jesus in early 29 A.D., 2) Jesus was tempted, 3) he

called his first disciples, 4) attended the wedding feast at

Cana of Galilee, 5) travelled to Capernaum, 6) went to

Jerusalem for his first Passover of his ministry on April

7, 30 A.D. Hoehner therefore concludes that Jesus began

his mission in the summer or autumn of 29 A.D.8

Jesus and e2

Duration of Ministry

The New Testament does not explicitly state how

long Jesus' ministry was, but by examining the

chronology of events, we can determine the most

probable duration. Scholars believe that between one

and four years elapsed before he was crucified.


34/58

The one-year theory is the most improbable since it

does not give nearly enough time for the required events

to transpire. Jesus attended at least three Passovers and

another unspecified feast according to John. This also

makes it difficult to conclude a two-year ministry unless

chapters of the New Testament are rearranged. There

have been scholars who have suggested swapping

chapters five and six of John in order to make the puzzle

pieces fit. However, there is no compelling textual or

logical justification for doing so9.

The four-year theory falls apart unless some

significant, yet unsupported, assumptions are made.

After recalling how Jesus recruited his first disciples, a

few verses later John describes the Passover in

Jerusalem where Jesus overturned the tables of

moneychangers. Some supporters of the four-year theory

insert an entire year between these two events. Others

suggest that a year should be inserted between John 10

and the Passover of the following chapter. However,

there are no good reasons to do so in either case.

Although described differently, John's chronology is in

line with that of the other three Gospel writers without

these additional time periods assumed10

.


35/58


Then we come to the three-year theory where the

events can be reconciled without transposing chapters

five and six of John. Supporters do assume a year

insertion between the Passovers of John 2:13 and 6:4,

but with ample justification.

Jesus’ first Passover, as described by John, is

followed by Jesus conducting his ministry in Judea.

However, the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark,

and Luke) state that he was with his disciples in

Galilee. This implies that the Passovers were most

likely in different years.

Between the Passovers of John 2:13 and 6:4, Jesus

attended a pilgrim feast, likely the Feast of

Tabernacles in October11. However, prior to this

event, he was in Samaria seemingly in January or

February. This implies that two years elapsed

between the previously mentioned Passovers12.

In conclusion, the theory that Jesus had a three-year

ministry is more plausible than the other three

possibilities.


36/58

Day of Crucifixion

Scholars have theorized that Jesus died on a

Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. We will examine each

possibility to determine which day is the most likely.

The primary reason for choosing a Wednesday or

Thursday is Matthew's statement, "For as Jonah was

three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so

the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the

heart of the earth." (12:40) But the explanation of this is

simple: it was customary in Jewish culture to reckon any

part of the day as a whole day. "Thus according to

Jewish tradition, ‘three days and three nights’ need mean

no more than ‘three days’ or the combination of any part

of three separate days13." The Gospel writers clearly

describe Jesus rising on the third day: "...Jesus began to

explain to his disciples that he must [...] be killed and on

the third day be raised to life." (Matthew 16:21) In John

2:19 Jesus proclaims, "...Destroy this temple, and I will

raise it again in three days." Even Paul writes, "that he

was buried, that he was raised on the third day according

to the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:4)

As detailed previously, the Old Testament provides

numerous examples of this inclusive reckoning such as,

"...Go to the people and consecrate them today [day 1]


37/58


and tomorrow [day 2]. Have them wash their clothes and

be ready by the third day [day 3]..." (Genesis 19:10-11;

See also Genesis 42:17-19; Esther 4:16, 5:1; 1 Kings

20:29; 1 Samuel 30:12, 13)

The New Testament writers claim that Jesus' tomb

was found empty on the first day of the week implying

that he rose on Sunday. For example, in Matthew 28:1

we read, "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of

the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to

look at the tomb." The same day that he arose two

disciples were walking to the village of Emmaus when

Jesus caught up to them. Not knowing who he was

speaking to, Cleopas says, "And what is more, it is the

third day since all this took place." (Luke 24:21) Based

on the passages above we can conclude that Jesus was

crucified on Friday.

It is more difficult to determine the day of the month

that Jesus was crucified because the Gospel writers

approached the subject differently. They are all in

agreement that Jesus ate the Last Supper a day before

the crucifixion. Mark states that this happened on the

first day of Unleavened Bread when they sacrificed the

Passover lamb to make preparation for him to eat the

Passover . Matthew’s and Luke's accounts are also in


38/58

harmony that the Last Supper was the customary

Passover meal celebrated on the fourteenth day of the

month making the crucifixion day Nisan 15. But John

states that Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover

preparation (John 19:14) and Paul calls him our Paschal

Lamb. This reckoning would mean that Jesus died on

Nisan 1414

. (Note that the Passover meal or supper

should not be confused with the festival or feast which

followed it, and to which it lent its name. The supper

was a memorial of the redemption of the firstborn of

Israel on the night before the Exodus whereas the feast

was the anniversary of their actual deliverance from

bondage15).

In ascertaining the day of the month, the primary

challenge is reconciling these two accounts, which seem

in conflict. Hoehner lists thirteen reasons why scholars

believe that Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal

together16

:

The Synoptic Gospels state that the Last Supper was

a Passover (Matthew 26:2, 17, 18-19; Mark 14:1, 12,

14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7-8, 13, 15).

As required by Law, it occurred within the city of

Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 16:7).


39/58


The Upper Room was made available as is

customary.

The Last Supper was eaten at night, which is unusual

for ordinary meals.

Jesus limited himself to a small circle of people, a

Passover custom.

A reclining posture at the table was reserved for

special occasions.

The meal was eaten in Levitical purity as shown by

their manner of washing.

Jesus broke bread during the meal rather than

beforehand, as customary during ordinary meals.

Red wine was reserved for special occasions.

According to John 13:29, when Judas urgently left,

other Apostles thought that he was purchasing

supplies for the feast. This would not have been

necessary if the supper occurred a day prior to the

Passover since the next day (Nisan 14) would be

available.

Other Apostles thought that Judas exited to give to

the poor, as was customary on Passover night.

The meal ends with a hymn, which would have been

the Passover Hallel (collection of Psalms sung on

special occasions).


40/58

Jesus did not return to Bethany, but stayed within

Jerusalem's limit for the Passover Feast.

The only legitimate reasons to suggest that the Last

Supper was not a Passover meal are related to John's

treatment of the events. John states on Friday, "By now

it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial

uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they

wanted to be able to eat the Passover." (18:28b)

Additional arguments beyond John's testimony are not

very strong as supporters of the non-Passover concept

cannot identify which meal this was, for clearly it was

not ordinary.

Some have suggested that the Synoptic writers were

correct, and John's account cannot be harmonized.

Others have theorized that Jesus had his own private

Passover meal before the proper one. But the lamb had

to be slaughtered within the temple precincts and it is

unlikely that temple officials would prepare the lamb

early, against regulations17

.

Can the differences between the Synoptic Gospels

and John be reconciled? There is one scenario that is

factually based and harmonizes the two Passover times

better than all other theories. There were two methods


41/58


for reckoning Jewish days: sunrise-to-sunrise and

sunset-to-sunset. For example, the Feast of Unleavened

Bread (Exodus 12:18), the Day of Atonement (Leviticus

23:32), and the weekly Sabbath (Nehemiah 13:19) all

ran sunset-to-sunset. Additionally, passages

Deuteronomy 1:33; 28:66; 1 Samuel 25:16; 1 Kings

8:29; Esther 4:16; Mark 4:27; 5:5; Luke 2:37 all list

evening before morning. However, there are passages

that list morning before evening such as Genesis 1:4, 16,

18; 8:22; 31:40; Numbers 14:14; 2 Samuel 21:10; 1

Kings 8:59; Nehemiah 1:6; 4:9; Luke 18:7; Acts 9:24;

Revelation 4:8. In fact, since Matthew 28:1 states,

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the

week..." we can conclude that the Sabbath had just

ended and the next day began at sunrise. And

specifically concerning the Passover, Deuteronomy

reads, "...Do not let any of the meat you sacrifice on the

evening of the first day remain until morning" (16:4b)

implying a sunrise-to-sunrise reckoning18

.

Josephus, a Pharisee, writes that the Paschal lamb is

supposed to be eaten during the night with nothing left

over in the morning19

. The Mishnah says that the lamb

must be eaten by midnight20

. Both of these statements


42/58

seem to indicate that the next day would start in the

morning at sunrise.

Researchers have recently determined that the

Galileans and Pharisees followed a sunrise-to-sunrise

reckoning, while the Judeans and Sadducees used the

sunset-to-sunset method21

. Jesus and the disciples were

following the Galilean reckoning and thus had the lamb

prepared in the late afternoon for the Passover meal the

evening of Thursday, Nisan 14. The Judeans, including

those who captured Jesus Thursday night, had their

lambs prepared in the afternoon on Nisan 15. Identifying

this dual reckoning explains the confusing chronology22.

Explains why Jews, as John describes, did not want

to defile the Praetorium respecting those who

followed the Judean reckoning.

Explains why John said that the crucifixion occurred

on the day of Passover preparation.

Further clarifies why John related Jesus to the

sacrificial lamb of the Old Testament whose bones

were not to be broken (Exodus 12:46).

Aligns with the Mishnah that states Galileans do not

work on the day of the Passover, although the

Judeans worked until midday (relative to the

Galilean day).


43/58


Year of Crucifixion

To ascertain the year of Jesus' crucifixion we must

look to a variety of Biblical references, secular texts, and

astronomical markers.

The Gospels agree that Caiaphas was high priest at

this time and we know that he hailed from 18 to 37

A.D.23

with his last Passover being 36 A.D. We also

know very well that Jesus was tried by Prefect Pontius

Pilate who reigned from 26 to 36 A.D.24

Any date before 30 A.D. would not suffice since

Jesus attended at least three Passovers after Tiberius'

fifteenth year in 28/29 A.D.25

The other extreme of 36 A.D. is much too late to fit

in with the chronology of the Gospels. There is nothing

in Scripture to suggest that Jesus had a seven-year

ministry.

Since we know the day of the month that Jesus died,

we can further narrow down the possible years by

selecting those that have Nisan 15 as a Friday.

Astronomical calculations show that only the years of 30

A.D. and 33 A.D. satisfy this requirement26

.

Confirmation is given by Bradley Schaefer whose

computer model simulates visibility from Jerusalem of


44/58

the crescent moon. This is important because certain

factors such as the moon's brightness against the twilight

sky can impact its visibility and hence the beginning of

the month could be delayed. The model's results show

the moon could possibly be first visible on March 23,

but definitely on March 24 of 30 A.D. In 33 A.D., the

moon was visible on March 20th27

. These results give

the latter year a slight edge since a March 23, 30 A.D.

sighting would result in Nisan 15 being on a Thursday,

thereby ruling out that year.

What are the arguments for a 30 A.D. crucifixion?

Supporters maintain that the fifteenth year of Tiberius

should be reckoned from the time that he was co-regent

with Augustus, making John the Baptist's ministry

beginning in 25/26 A.D. However, historical evidence

shows that his reign was always reckoned from the death

of Augustus on August 19, 14 A.D. Principle sources

such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius as well as

coinage and papyri all confirm that the co-regency

theory has no factual basis28

.

Some have suggested that John 2:20 where the Jews

mention the forty-six years of the temple refers to the

continuous construction applied to it ever since Herod

commissioned it in 20/19 B.C. However, the Hebrew


45/58


term used here literally means sanctuary or edifice, not

the temple as a whole; and the sanctuary was completed

after only one year and five months of building29

. This

view is supported by the term following it that means

was built , a passive verb denoting a completed building

operation, not one that was ongoing. Therefore it's

probable that the date of this event was actually 29/30

A.D., too late for a 30 A.D. crucifixion date30

.

So there really are no strong reasons to consider 30

A.D. over 33 A.D., rather there are problems that must

be explained. Jesus attended three Passovers (John 2:13;

6:4; 11:55) and another pilgrim feast that is not named.

Unless one makes unsubstantiated assumptions about

Tiberius' reign or transposes chapters of John, 30 A.D.

cannot be concluded as the crucifixion year.

What are the arguments for a 33 A.D. crucifixion?

Although this choice is not without problems, it satisfies

all of the questions raised so far:

It's the best fit astronomically.

Does not contradict Luke's reckoning of Tiberius.

Allows for three or more Passovers.

Explains John 2:20 ( forty-six years was this

sanctuary building).


46/58

Does not require rearranging chapters of John's

Gospel31

.

The Pilate Factor

Pontius Pilate is characterized in two very different

ways: 1) In the Gospels, he is seen as a man with no

backbone, caving into the demands of the Jews who

want Jesus crucified, 2) In the works of contemporary

historian Philo and later Josephus, Pilate is described as

an inflexible, greedy, cruel leader who ruled by

oppression and criminal means before the crucifixion32.

We will see that only a 33 A.D. crucifixion date can

reconcile these opposite pictures of the man.

Pilate was appointed to his position by Sejanus, a

fierce enemy of the Jews, and he likely implemented

many of his anti-Semitic policies after arriving in Judea

in 26 A.D.33 This would be consistent with historical

events known from secular texts. For example, during

one confrontation with the Jews, he ordered soldiers to

beat protesters with clubs, resulting in many of their

deaths34

. In harmony with this secular account, Luke

writes, "Now there were some present at that time who

told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had

mixed with their sacrifices." (13:1) And later Pilate


47/58


issued coins symbolizing Roman emperor worship,

which certainly offended the Jews and increased their

hatred of the ruler35

.

After corruption was uncovered, Sejanus was

executed on October 18, 31 A.D.36

Tiberius then stepped

in and promptly ordered all governors to halt mistreating

the Jews. This caused Pilate to stop issuing the offensive

coins in early 32 A.D.37

Shortly afterward, Pilate raised

golden shields at the former palace of Herod the Great,

again causing the Jews to protest38. When he refused to

listen, prominent Jews and four sons of Herod appealed

to Emperor Tiberius who expressed his anger at Pilate

and ordered the removal of the shields. This aligns with

Luke's comment in 23:12 that before Pilate sent Jesus to

Herod, the two were enemies39.

At the time of the crucifixion Pilate was not in the

position to be the inflexible, ruthless tyrant that he once

was under Sejanus. Furthermore, when the Jews cried

out that Pilate was no friend of Caesar unless he

crucified Jesus, Pilate was not about to go against the

Jews again and face the wrath of Tiberius Caesar

(although he admitted Jesus was innocent). This

statement by the Jews, as well as Pilate's reaction to it,

would make no sense under the old guard of Sejanus40

.


48/58

Finally, because of Pilate's killing of the Galileans

and the shields incident, Herod Antipas, tetrarch of

Galilee, was his enemy. But during the crucifixion they

became friends as reported by Luke. The literal

translation of verse 23:12 is, "both Pilate and Herod

became friends on that day" implying from that point

forward . If Jesus died in 30 A.D., they would have

become friends, only to become enemies again two

years later. One cannot be sure what Luke meant, but

having the benefit of history when he wrote the Gospel,

he probably would have described it differently if the

two had become enemies again shortly afterward41.

Paul's Conversion

The primary argument against the 33 A.D.

crucifixion year is that it conflicts with the date of the

Apostle Paul's conversion. However, the rationale for

making this claim is suspect. Archaeological discoveries

have allowed us to determine that Paul was brought

before Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, probably in mid 51

A.D. Working backwards:

Paul was in Corinth one and a half years before

seeing Gallio. This means that Paul arrived in

Corinth at the beginning of 50 A.D.


49/58


Before this, Paul was at the Jerusalem Council. This

could have occurred anytime in 49 A.D.

In Galatians 1 and 2, Paul describes three-year and

fourteen-year time periods spent after his conversion

and before this Jerusalem visit.

We know that Paul tends to round up for estimation

purposes. For example, in Acts 19:9-10 the more

precise-minded physician Luke says that Paul was in

Asia two years and three months. However, during

his farewell speech, Paul mentions that he had been

with them for three years.

Reckoning the longest and shortest extremes by

taking into account the 49 A.D. Jerusalem date and

Paul's rounding up on two separate occasions (the

three-year and fourteen-year periods), we find that

Paul's conversion happened anywhere between early

32 A.D. and late 34 A.D.

Scholars have used other historical markers to

determine his conversion date. Henry Dosker writes,

"As Tiberias died in C.E. 37, and as the Arabian affair

was completely settled in 39, it is evident that the date of

Paul’s conversion must lie somewhere between 34 and

36. This date is further fixed by a Damascus coin, with


50/58

the image of King Aretas and the date 101. If that date

points to the Pompian era, it equals C.E. 37, making the

date of Paul’s conversion C.E. 34.42

"

Based on this information, we can see that a 33 A.D.

crucifixion date does not preclude an early date for

Paul's conversion.


51/58


Conclusion

e0 = Artaxerxes I issued a decree to rebuild

Jerusalem around April 10, 445 B.C.

e1 = After being anointed, Jesus began hisministry in late 29 A.D. This date occurs during

the sixty-ninth week (between June 7, 25 A.D.

and May 1, 32 A.D.) It also falls within the latter

half of the week.

e2 = Jesus was crucified on April 3, 33 A.D.,

after the sixty-ninth week.

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

1. Bauckham, R., Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the

Early Church (1990), p. 5-44.

2. Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20: chapter 9.

3. Bauckham, p. 58.

4. Ibid., p. 61.

5. Ibid., p. 72.

6. Hoehner, p. 27.

7. Alford, H., Greek Testament , as referenced in

Anderson, p. 97.

8. Hoehner, p. 44.

9. Ibid., p. 50.

10. Ibid., p. 53.


52/58

11. Ibid., p. 57.

12. Ibid., p. 59.

13. Carson, D.A., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8, p.

296.

14. Hoehner, p. 75.

15. Anderson, p. 108.

16. Hoehner, p. 76-77.

17. Ibid., p. 82.

18. Ibid., p. 86.

19. Josephus, 10, 5, section 248, as referenced on

Hoehner, p. 86.

20. Mishnah: Pesahim x. 9; Zebahim v. 8, as referenced

in Hoehner, p. 86.

21. Morgenstern, J., The Calendar of the Book of

Jubilees, Its Origin, and it Character (1955), p. 64-65;

Finegan, J., Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1964), p.

452-453; Driver, G.R., Two Problems in the New

Testament from The Journal of Theological Studies,

XVI (1965), p. 327 as referenced in Hoehner, p. 87.

22. Hoehner, p. 87.

23. Josephus, Antiquities, xviii, 4, 3 sectioin 90-95;

Hoehner, H., Herod Antipas (1972), Appendix XIII, p.

313-316, as referenced in Hoehner, p. 97.

24. Hoehner, p. 98.


53/58


25. Ibid., p. 98.

26. Ibid., p. 100.

27. Schaefer, B.E., Lunar Visibility and the Crucifixion,

Royal Astronomical Society (1990), p. 57.

28. Maier, P., as referenced in Finegan, J., Vardaman, J.,

Yamauchi, E.M., Chronos, Kairos, Christos (1989), p.

122.

29. Ibid., p. 123.

30. Ibid., p. 123.


32. Ibid., p. 105-106.

33. Ibid., p. 106.

34. Ibid., p. 107.

35. Ibid., p. 108.

36. Dio 1viii. P. 9-12 as referenced in Hoehner, p. 109.


38. Ibid., p. 110.

39. Ibid., p. 110.

40. Ibid., p. 111.

41. Ibid., p. 113.

42. Dosker, H.E., The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (1986), p. 288.


54/58

Analysis

aniel predicted that the Anointed One would

begin his ministry during the sixty-ninth week

and be executed shortly afterward. Five hundred years

later, a qualified man did exactly that. But does it

necessarily prove that God exists and Jesus is his

Messiah?

God Exists

Daniel had a premonition, a view into future events.

This is only possible supernaturally. Precognition is

physically impossible because it violates the principle of

causality (an effect cannot precede its cause), and

logically impossible since it requires the future existing

now - a contradiction in terms.

One definition of supernatural is, "of, pertaining to,

characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity," and

that is what Daniel experienced. As mentioned earlier,

the eighteenth century philosopher and skeptic David

Hume claimed, "What we have said of miracles may be

applied, without any variation, to prophecies; and

D


55/58

Appendix D - Interesting Things Jesus Said

indeed, all prophecies are real miracles, and as such

only, can be admitted as proofs of any revelation1."

The Timing of God's MessiahWhen we read the New Testament with an

understanding of Daniel's prophecy, we see how Jesus'

life was governed by its fulfillment. John the Baptist

claimed, "Fulfilled hath been the time, and the reign of

God hath come nigh, reform ye, and believe in the good

news." (Mark 1:15 Young's Literal Translation) John

was telling his own followers that Jesus 1) fulfilled

God's time requirements, 2) was God in the flesh, and 3)

had come, commencing his purpose to preach the good

news2.

Jesus himself was cognizant of the schedule that his

life was to follow. Through the beginning of his

ministry, he told people whom he had healed not to let

anyone else know. One reason for holding back this

information was that his predicted date and

circumstances of execution had not yet arrived.

We also see God’s timing through Jesus’ interaction

with his supporters. When his mother asks him to

miraculously make more wine during a wedding

celebration, Jesus replies, "Dear woman, why do you


56/58

involve me? My time has not yet come." (John 2:4)

Later when his disciples wanted him to come with them

to the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus tells them, "You go to

the Feast. I am not yet going up to this Feast, because

for me the right time has not yet come." (John 7:8) The

time was premature since Jesus was destined to be the

sacrificial lamb of the Passover.

In Chapter 8, John again says, "He spoke these

words while teaching in the temple area near the place

where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him,

because his time had not yet come." (John 8:20) In

retrospect, John analyzes the reason why Jesus' enemies

held back although they had the opportunity to capture

him. God's plan was not going to be derailed.

The Apostle Peter believed that God's Spirit had

long predicted through the prophets the time period that

Jesus, the Messiah, would suffer. He claims,

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of

the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and

with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and

circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was

pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and

the glories that would follow." (1 Peter 1:10-11) And

Paul writes, "But when the time had fully come, God


57/58

Appendix D - Interesting Things Jesus Said

sent his Son," (Galatians 4:4a) revealing that he also

believed Jesus was brought into the world according to

God's precise timetable.

Uniquely Qualified

Some readers may conclude that, although Jesus

fulfilled Daniel's prophecy, he is only a prophet, a good

teacher, or one of God's sons. However, God did not

promise an Anointed One, he promised the Anointed

One. Actually, the Hebrew text literally translates,

"...from the going forth of the word to restore and to

build Jerusalem till Messiah the Leader..."

From Genesis to Malachi, God's words cohesively

speak of one man fully divine: "For to us a child is born,

to us a son is given, and the government will be on his

shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor,

Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

(Isaiah 9:6)

Daniel stated that the Messiah is coming and this

title is reserved for one person. "For God so loved the

world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever

believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

(John 3:16) It is illogical that that God would bring this

person into the world and then allow him to make false


58/58

statements about himself. Jesus is the one and only

person who could satisfy Daniel's description of the

Anointed One.

Conclusion

On the surface, there is nothing supernatural about a

man from David's lineage, born in Bethlehem, beginning

a ministry in late 29 A.D. and consequently being

executed in early 33 A.D. But when we realize that

Jesus fulfilled Daniel's prophecy recorded 500 years

beforehand, we encounter evidence of the supernatural.

And since Jesus is the Anointed One, Mary really

was a virgin at the time of his conception. Since he is the

Messiah, Jesus really did heal the sick, walk on water,

and rise from the dead. Nothing is beyond him - the

Anointed One, the Son of God.

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

1. Hume, D., An Enquiry Concerning Human

Understanding (1758), Part 2, Section 10.

2. Thomson, J.E., Daniel from The Pulpit Commentary

(1909), p. 27, as referenced in Ford, p. 236.

- David C. Henderson

https://www.facebook.com/david.henderson.9809

daniel's "sevens" prophecy

Documents