"70 Weeks" of lunar years

I have recently been studying Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. I now believe that Daniel's "70 Weeks" began to run after Artaxerxes issued a decree in his 20th year which permitted Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem to rebuild that Holy City. (Neh. 2)

Some see a problem with this understanding. For Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" are widely understood to refer to a period of 490 years, and all historians now assure us that Artaxerxes' 20th year of ruling Persia took place in 445 BC. And 490 years after 445 BC brings us to 46 AD, which was quite a few years after the death of Christ.

How then can I understand that Artaxerxes' decree in his 20th year as king has anything to do with Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy? Because I am convinced that Nehemiah did not return to Jerusalem and give his command to begin rebuilding that city until the year 440 BC, even though he had been granted permission by Artaxerxes to issue such a command five years earlier, in Artaxerxes' 20th year as king of Persia, which historians assure us took place in 445 BC. (Neh. 1:1-6)

I believe this because the first century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that Nehemiah "came to Jerusalem" not "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" as the Bible seems to say, but in his "twenty and fifth year." (Ant. XI, 5, 7) The fact is that the Bible does not actually say that Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' 20th year. It only tells us that Artaxerxes then gave Nehemiah permission to do so. While Josephus, on the other hand, tells us of the time that Nehemiah actually "came to Jerusalem."

Concerning this matter, in his book, "History Of Israel" (third edition, 1981, pg. 381) John Bright tells us, "The Bible gives us the impression that Nehemiah set out at once, accompanied by a military escort (Neh.2:9). But Josephus (Ant. XI, 5, 7), who follows the Septuagint text, the first part of which is preserved in 1 Esdres, places his arrival only in 440. Though assurance is impossible, this may be correct. If Nehemiah first went to Babylon and collected Jews to accompany him, as Josephus has it, and then having presented his credentials to the satrap of Abah-nahara, attended to the procurement of building materials before proceeding to Jerusalem, as he possibly did since work was begun soon after his arrival, the date is not unreasonable."

I think we also do well to remember that it took Solomon nearly four years to procure similar kinds of building materials before he was able to begin building the Temple. (2 Chr. chapters 1 and 2 and chapter 3, verses 1 and 2) and Solomon was much better funded than Nehemiah, and he, unlike Nehemiah, was able to conscript all the labor he needed for his building project, rather than spend time finding volunteers.

Other scholars agree with Bright's assessment of Josephus' probable accuracy in this matter. For instance, Sigmund Mowinckel, a highly regarded Scandinavian bible scholar, believes that Josephus used a separate Greek version of Nehemiah that in several respects differed from that preserved in the LXX. He argues that Josephus' chronological information on the Persian kings was not his own calculations or mistakes, but was quoting from this now lost Greek version of Nehemiah. On Josephus' statement about the 25th year of Artaxerxes, Mowinckel says that his figures may very well be the original ones. He writes, "In my opinion the balance [of evidence] is in favor of [the figure] '25'." (Vol. 3, p.45 of Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehema, Vols. 1-3, Oslo, 1964)

But how does the fact that Nehemiah did not give his order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem until 440 BC help us to make sense of Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy? As most students of Bible prophecy know, Daniel's "seventy weeks" are generally understood as referring to seventy weeks of years (seventy sets of seven years) totaling a period of 490 solar years. But the Jews used a lunar calendar! Their years were lunar years, not solar years. And, despite the fact that the Jews adjusted their lunar calendars by adding a thirteenth month to them every few years to prevent them from falling too far out of sync with the solar year, the fact remains that a "year" to the Jews always meant a lunar year, not a solar year. And a week of years to the Jews would have meant seven lunar years. And seventy weeks of years to the Jews would have meant 490 lunar years, not 490 solar years.

Now, since one lunar year contains 354.367 days, 490 lunar years contain 173,639.83 days. And 173,639.83 days divided by 365.2425 (the number of days in a solar year) equal 475.40 solar years. With these things in mind, I have come to conclusion that Daniel's "seventy weeks" were a period of 475.4 years which ran from 440 BC to 36 AD. I believe those 475.4 years began at the time Nehemiah gave his "commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25 KJV; Neh. 2:17,18). And I believe those 475.4 years ended at the time God acted to "confirm the [new] covenant with many" by pouring His Holy Spirit out on Gentiles for the first time (Dan. 9:27 KJV; Acts 10). I believe the "many" here referred to were the "many nations" God promised Abraham that he would one day become the father of. (Gen. 17:4)

I believe that the facts of history, together with a knowledge that the Jews used a lunar calendar, combine to show that the Messiah (meaning "anointed one") was first presented to Israel in the the year 29 AD by John the baptist, after sixty-nine weeks of lunar years had passed, when John anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the waters of his baptism in "the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar." (Luke 3:1,21). At that time Jesus Christ was "cut off" from his people and, quite literally, "had nothing for himself." (Dan. 9:26) For he then began a forty day long fast in the wilderness. Then, after three and a half years, in the middle of Daniel's seventieth week, in the spring of 33 AD, Christ's sacrificial death brought an end to the Jewish system of sacrificial offerings. (Dan. 9:27) Finally, three and a half years later, at the end of Daniel's "Seventy Weeks," in the early fall of 36 AD, Christ "confirmed a covenant with many" (Dan. 9:27) when he, for the first time, poured out his Holy Spirit on non-Jewish people. (Acts 10)

Doing so confirmed the fact that God, from that time forward, would give everyone who put their faith in Jesus Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, complete forgiveness of their sins and eternal life. With this fact in mind, the good news of what Jesus Christ had done for mankind then began to be preached to all people on earth, just as Christ said that it would be. (Math. 24:14)

Postrib,

I just read your reply a couple times and am a bit confused. Are you saying that the 70 weeks did not point to the time of Christ's first coming, but to his second? Are you saying that they should not be understood as 70 weeks of years (70 x 7 years) but as just 70 years? Are you saying that the 69 weeks began in 1947 and will end in 2016. Are you saying that the last week of the 70 weeks is the only real "week" since it will be seven years long, even though all the other "weeks" were only one year in length? Are you saying that Christ will return in 2016 and will judge the world for seven years? That's what it sounds like you are saying. You keep talking about the meaning of this prophecy being "sealed." But you then explain its meaning. Which is in itself confusing. Unless you now claim to be a prophet sent to us by God to "unseal" things for us. Do you?

I don't believe Dan. 9:24-27 was ever "sealed." And I don't believe it pointed to the time of Christ's second coming. I believe it pointed to the time of his first coming.

My commentary is [in brackets.] Dan. 9:24-27 (NAS):

24 "Seventy weeks [490 lunar years] have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [Nehemiah's order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem, upon his return in Artaxerxes' 25th year as per Josephus which historians identify for us as 440 BC] until Messiah the Prince [Jesus Christ] there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks [7 x 7 lunar years + 62 x 7 lunar years = 483 lunar years. 483 lunar years from 440 BC = 29 AD, which was "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" in which year Jesus was baptized]; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. [The first "seven weeks" - 49 lunar years - ran from July of 440 BC until January of 392 BC, during which time the city of Jerusalem was completely rebuilt, despite great opposition from neighboring nations.]
26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing [Following Christ's baptism he cut himself off from all human contact for forty days while he fasted in the wilderness.], and the people of the prince [Notice the lower case "p" on the word "prince" here versus the upper case "P" on the word "Prince" in verse 25 when it is used in reference to the Messiah.] who is to come [the Roman armies led by Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian, thus a "prince"] will destroy the city and the sanctuary. [Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in 70 AD] And its end will come with a flood [the hoards of soldiers who descended upon the city]; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. [All of the words in verse 26, following its reference to "the Messiah" being cut off and having nothing, should be read parenthetically. For they refer to events which would occur shortly after the seventy weeks came to an end.]
27 "And he [the Messiah] will make a firm covenant [confirm the "New Covenant" by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the gentiles - Acts 10] with the many [all the nations of the earth, Jews and Gentiles] for [The word "for" here is absent from the Hebrew. I believe the context suggests that the word "after" should instead be here inserted.] one week [at the end of the 70th "week" which ended in 36 AD], but in the middle of the week [again the 70th "week," the middle of which was the spring of 33 AD] he [the Messiah] will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering [which Jesus Christ's sacrificial death brought an end to]; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate [In Mark 13:14 and its parallel passage, Luke 21:20, Jesus himself clearly identified the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet" as the "armies" which he said would "surround Jerusalem" prior to its destruction in 70 AD.], even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." [Jerusalem's desolator, Titus, became Emperor in 79 AD. Within months Mount Vesuvius errupted burying Pompeii. The following year, 80 AD, a fire destroyed much of Rome. Titus uttering "the fire has ruined me" was forced to sell or strip all of his imperial estates to hasten Rome's recovery. Then, in the fire's wake, one of the worst plagues on record descended upon Italy. Finally, on September 1, 81 AD, for reasons unknown, Titus fell painfully ill and died only two years after gaining Rome's throne.]

I'd be interested in reading your commentary on these verses.

RKF,

As I said, I am not a Preterist. A Preterist is one who believes that all Bible prophecy was written and fulfilled prior to the year 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome. I don't believe that. I, like you, believe Revelation contains much prophecy which is yet to be fulfilled.

However, your statement about Daniel containing exclusively or even mainly endtime prophecies is flat-out wrong. Daniel 2 contains a long prophecy that was entirely fulfilled during the lifetime of king Nebuchadnezzar. Bible scholars tell us that other prophecies in Daniel pertain to Alexander the great, to the four generals who would follow him and divide up his empire, to the Roman empire and to the Syrian king Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) who, during the time of the Maccabees, turned Jerusalem's temple into a temple of the Greek God Jupiter and slaughtered pigs on its alter. For three years, between 168 and 165 BC, he outlawed all practices of the Jewish religion under penalty of death. None of these prophecies pertained to the time of Christ's second coming. And nearly all Bible scholars, "Preterist" and "non-Preterist," tell us that Daniel's "70 weeks" prophecy pertains either entirely or at least mainly to Christ's first coming, not to his second coming.

The fact of the matter is, the interpretation which you now refer to, which applies part of this prophecy to the end times, is a very recent interpretation. The standard interpretation of this prophecy, up until the last part of the 20th century, applied all of its contents to events which took place in or before the year 70 AD. (See "Christology of the Old Testament" by the non-Preterist Luthern Bible scholar, Dr. E.W. Hengstenburg. It was first published in 1835 and is still in print. It is widely considered to be "The greatest work ever written on Messianic prophecies.")

The interpretation you now seem to adhere to is one that says the first 69 weeks were a period of 483 years which began with a decree issued by Artaxerxes and ended at the cross, and that the "70th week" will take place during this world's final seven years. This interpretation disconnects the "70th week" from the previous 69 weeks for only one reason. Its creators were unable to make the entire "70 weeks" fit between one of Artaxerxes' two decrees to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem," which he gave to Ezra and Nehemiah, and the time of Christ.

Modern historians tell us that Artaxerxes issued his decree allowing Ezra to return and begin his work of restoring Jerusalem in 458 BC. And they tell us he issued his decree allowing Nehemiah to do likewise in 445 BC. (In 1835 when Hengstenburg wrote "Christology of the Old Testament" it was believed that Artaxerxes' 20th year, in which he issued his decree allowing Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem, was 455 BC.)

Though they tried with all their might, the creators of your interpretation were unable to fit a period of 490 years (70 "weeks" of years) between either one of those dates (458 or 445 BC) and the time of Christ. So they decided to "disconnect" this prophecy's "70th week" from its first 69 weeks and send it into the future.

However, as I showed in my opening post, this is no longer necessary. For Bible scholars now understand that even though Artaxerxes gave Nehemiah permission to return to Jerusalem in 445 BC, Nehemiah did not actually do so until 440 BC. And "70 weeks" of lunar years (the Jews used a lunar calendar) from 440 BC brings us to 36 AD, 3 and 1/2 years after the death of Christ, when God poured out His Holy Spirit on the Gentiles, making salvation available to all mankind for the first time.

These things being so, we no longer have any reason to cling to the late 20th century "disconnected" 70 weeks interpretation you have here been describing.

Postrib,

I asked: Are you saying that the 70 weeks did not point to the time of Christ's first coming, but to his second?

You answered: That's what I believe.

Of course, your belief conflicts with the beliefs of virtually all Bible scholars for the past 2,000 years. But then what difference does that make? After all, none of them were personally appointed by God as His special end time prophet to "unseal" the book of Daniel for us as you seem to be saying you have been.

I asked:
Are you saying that the 69 weeks began in 1947 and will end in 2016? ... Are you saying that Christ will return in 2016?

You answered: That's what I believe.

And I believe you will find your beliefs are mistaken, just like everyone else who has ever predicted the time of Christ's return. I only hope you do not end up destroying the lives and faith of many people in the process, as many other soothsayers of the second advent have done.

I wrote: You keep talking about the meaning of this prophecy being "sealed." But you then explain its meaning. Which is in itself confusing. Unless you now claim to be a prophet sent to us by God to "unseal" things for us. Do you?

You avoided answering my question and then said: I believe God has unsealed the prophecy.

I wrote: I don't believe Dan. 9:24-27 was ever "sealed."

You answered: "Seal the book, even to the time of the end... for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end" (Daniel 12:4, 9).

The word was actually "scroll" not "book." The book of Daniel as we now have it was originally written on several scrolls. The meaning of the words then being spoken to Daniel, the ones he was writing on that particular scroll were "sealed" until the time of the end. That does not mean that everything Daniel had ever written on other scrolls in what now makes up the book of Daniel was so "sealed." Several parts of Daniel are very easy to understand. Their meaning was obviously not '"sealed." I believe Daniel 9:24-27 is one of those parts. Many people at the time of Christ were expecting the Messiah to come at that time based on their understanding of Daniel 9:24-27.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are correct. That the entire book of Daniel, every word of it including all of its 9th chapter, had its meaning "sealed" until the time of the end. I still say that the understanding I have here presented, which is a slightly new spin on a very old understanding, is a better "unsealing" than your "unsealing." : )

I wrote: Seventy weeks [490 lunar years]

You asked: Does the passage refer to "lunar years?"

No, it does not. But this prophecy has long been almost universally understood to refer to "weeks" of years or groups of "seven" years. That being the case, since the Jews used a lunar calendar, it makes sense to consider the possibility that this prophecy was referring to lunar years rather than solar years.

Of course, as anyone who has thoroughly studied the history of this prophecy's interpretation knows, this is by no means a new idea or a novel one. In the year 221 AD Julius Africanus in his work entitled "Chronographia" argued that the 490 years were lunar years of 354 days each, which he converted into 475 solar years. He counted them from the 20th year of Artaxerxes, which he correctly dated to the 4th year of the 83rd Olympiad (=445/444 BC). From this date, he said, to "the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (30/31 AD, his date for the death of Christ), there are reckoned 475 years, which take 490 according to the Hebrew numeration, as they measure the years by the course of the moon; so that, as is easy to show, their year consists of 354 days, while the solar year has 365 1/4 days." (Africanus' Chronographia XVI, 3 translated in The Ante-Nicence fathers, Vol. VI ed. A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, p. 135) Many later expositors followed Africanus in doing this.

You asked: Didn't the Jews add intercalary days to each year in order to keep their lunar calendar in step with the solar spring solstice?

No. However, every few years they added an extra month to the tail end of their lunar calendars to make sure that their lunar calendar never fell too far out of sync with the solar year. When they did so they called this month "second Adar." However, the fact that they did so does not change the fact that, to the Jews, "a year" normally meant 354 days. For that is the number of days which one of their calendars normally contained. Their calendars usually consisted of six 29 day months and six 30 day months. So, to the Jews a “year” was a lunar year, and a week of years (literally a “seven” of years) was seven lunar years. And “seventy” “sevens” of lunar years would have been understood by them to mean 490 lunar years, none of which are by nature solar-adjusted.

I wrote: which historians identify for us as 440 BC

You asked: What is the historical source for this start date, and how does this source derive this date?

I answered this question in my opening post.

There I wrote: The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that Nehemiah "came to Jerusalem" not "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" as the Bible seems to say, but in his "twenty and fifth year." (Ant. XI, 5, 7) The fact is, the Bible does not actually say that Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' 20th year. It only tells us that Artaxerxes then gave Nehemiah permission to do so. While Josephus, on the other hand, tells us of the time that Nehemiah actually "came to Jerusalem."

Concerning this matter, in his book, "History Of Israel" (third edition, 1981, pg. 381) John Bright tells us, "The Bible gives us the impression that Nehemiah set out at once, accompanied by a military escort (Neh.2:9). But Josephus (Ant. XI, 5, 7), who follows the Septuagint text, the first part of which is preserved in 1 Esdres, places his arrival only in 440. Though assurance is impossible, this may be correct. If Nehemiah first went to Babylon and collected Jews to accompany him, as Josephus has it, and then having presented his credentials to the satrap of Abah-nahara, attended to the procurement of building materials before proceeding to Jerusalem, as he possibly did since work was begun soon after his arrival, the date is not unreasonable."

I think we also do well to remember that it took Solomon nearly four years to procure similar kinds of building materials before he was able to begin building the Temple. (2 Chr. chapters 1 and 2 and chapter 3, verses 1 and 2) and Solomon was much better funded than Nehemiah, and he, unlike Nehemiah, was able to conscript all the labor he needed for his building project, rather than spend time finding volunteers.

Other scholars agree with Bright's assessment of Josephus' probable accuracy in this matter. For instance, Sigmund Mowinckel, a highly regarded Scandinavian Bible scholar, believes that Josephus used a separate Greek version of Nehemiah that in several respects differed from that preserved in the LXX. He argues that Josephus' chronological information on the Persian kings was not his own calculations or mistakes, but was quoting from this now lost Greek version of Nehemiah. On Josephus' statement about the 25th year of Artaxerxes, Mowinckel says that his figures are most likely the original ones. He writes, "In my opinion the balance [of evidence] is in favor of [the figure] '25'." (Vol. 3, p.45 of Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehema, Vols. 1-3, Oslo, 1964)

I can provide you with more information and additional scholarly references on this subject matter. But I have a feeling you wont be asking for them. After all, you seem to believe God Himself has provided you with your present understanding. If that is true, why would you care what any so-called "scholars" have to say on the subject matter.

Excuse my sarcasm. I've seen way too many "prophets" claiming to have special powers of understanding the Bible in my day. All of whom, of course, had nothing of the sort.

Postrib,

You have a lot of questions. As I wrote in my last post, "I can provide you with more information and additional scholarly references on this subject matter. ...[But] you seem to believe God Himself has provided you with your present understanding. If that is true, why would you care what any so-called "scholars" have to say on the subject matter?

In other words, before I spend any more of my time discussing this subject matter I'd like to know that I am not talking to a lunatic. I have in the recent past spent considerable time discussing the scriptures with a couple guys on the Net who later informed me that they were Jesus Christ returned in the flesh, or some very similar claim. I don't want to repeat that experience. I asked you earlier, "You now [seem to] claim to be a prophet sent to us by God to 'unseal' things for us. Do you?" Before I spend too much more time discussing this matter or others with you, will you answer that question for me? Thank you.

I also ask this because some of what you just asked me has caused me to question your intelligence, or at least your reading comprehension skills.

For instance, I wrote: In the year 221 AD Julius Africanus in his work entitled "Chronographia" argued that the 490 years were lunar years of 354 days each, which he converted into 475 solar years. He counted them from the 20th year of Artaxerxes, which he correctly dated to the 4th year of the 83rd Olympiad (=445/444 BC).

You then asked: Can we see the quote?

But I already provided both the quote and the reference. I wrote: From this date, he said, to "the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (30/31 AD, his date for the death of Christ), there are reckoned 475 years, which take 490 according to the Hebrew numeration, as they measure the years by the course of the moon; so that, as is easy to show, their year consists of 354 days, while the solar year has 365 1/4 days." (Africanus' Chronographia XVI, 3 translated in The Ante-Nicence fathers, Vol. VI ed. A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, p. 135)

I wrote: Josephus, tells us that Nehemiah "came to Jerusalem" not "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" as the Bible seems to say, but in his "twenty and fifth year." (Ant. XI, 5, 7)

You then asked: What is the historical source which says what year BC was the 25th year of Artaxerxes, and how does this source derive this date?

Try opening any encyclopedia. Look up Artaxerxes. It will tell you that he began ruling Persia in 464 BC. Simple math will tell you that if 464 was his first year 440 was his 25th year.

One of the nuts I recently spent some time discussing Bible prophecy with informed me that we can not trust any of the dates which historians now provide us with for the reigns of ancient kings like Artaxerxes and Nebuchadnezzar or for events like the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon, because he said there was a giant conspiracy in ancient times in which all the chronological historical records of the nations of the ancient Near East were changed. You are not one of those types are you? If not, then why did you ask, "What is the historical source which says what year BC was the 25th year of Artaxerxes?" As I said, the "historical source" is any encyclopedia. You do believe the historical information contained in them, don't you?

If you now provide me with some sane answers and stop asking dumb questions and questions I have already answered, I'll be glad to discuss this subject matter further with you.

RT,

I don't believe that Daniel 9:24-27 refers to "prophetic years." In fact, I don't believe that the concept of a 360 day "prophetic year" even exists in the scriptures.

The idea that this prophecy may be based on "prophetic years" of 360 days each came from the belief that the "1260 days" spoken of in Rev. 12:6 are equated with the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12:14. The "3 1/2 times" are thought to be three and a half years. (Though the use of the cryptic word "times" here certainly would seem to indicate that something more than years were here being referred to.) And, it is reasoned, that if those supposed three and a half years have a total of 1260 days, then one of those supposed years must have 360 days. And since neither lunar years nor solar years have 360 days this understanding of Rev. 12 gave birth to the supposed and so-called "prophetic year."

However, this is all based on the assumption that the "3 1/2 times" in Revelation are in fact there equated with the "1260 days" which are also there spoken of. But this is not necessarily so.

For instance, the 1260 days in Rev. 12:6 may refer to the actual period of time when Christianity was protected following Christ's ascension to heaven (Rev. 12:5,6) in 33 AD up until the time the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles in 36 AD. Then, when the Good News began to be preached to all national groups Christianity took off, as though it had wings of eagles, and was thereafter protected for a second longer period of time. This second period of protection was the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12:14. These "3 1/2 times" would then be understood to be the period of time from God's outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles in 36 AD (Acts 10) until the time of Christ's return.

Since some interpretations of Rev. 12, such as this one, say that the "1260 days" and the "3 1/2 times" there spoken of do not refer to the same period of time, it is only an assumption and quite possibly a wrong one, that the concept of a 360 day "prophetic year" even exists in the Bible. I don't believe it does.