- Dec 15, 2018
- 49
- 1
- 61
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Divorced
As many of you know, it is not clear from the Bible which events marked the start and end of the 1st 69 weeks of Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27), or even whether those 69 weeks lasted 483 actual years or 476 actual years. One current, popular interpretation of the prophecy suggests that the 69 weeks began with the issue of Artaxerxes decree in 444 BC and that they ended 476 years later in AD 33 with an event during the week of Jesus' crucifixion (there being only 1 year between 1 BC and 1AD).
I think the Bible casts doubt on the dating of both those events, which therefore suggests that that current interpretation of the prophecy may be incorrect.
Let me explain:
The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar's army and King Cyrus of Persia's conquest of Babylon are currently dated at 587/586 BC and 539 BC respectively, a gap of 48 years. I think the Bible is telling us that the gap between these two events was 70 years, a difference of 22 years. And since Artaxerxes was a later Persian king, it means that the dating of his decree may also be incorrect, and hence that the gap between the issue of that decree and AD 33 may be quite a few years less than 476 years, which is one reason why that interpretation of Daniel's prophecy may also be incorrect.
So, let's have a look at the relevant scripture:
Jeremiah 25:11 tells us that Jeremiah prophesied that Judah would serve Babylon for 70 years.
I think that 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 is telling us that these 70 years began when, following Jerusalem's destruction, the surviving inhabitants were taken into exile to Babylon, and that the 70 years ended when the Persian Kingdom was established.
And Jeremiah 25:12 tells us that Jeremiah prophesied that God would punish the king and nation of Babylon after the 70 years had ended.
Now I think Cyrus' conquest of Babylon is the punishment that fulfilled this prophecy, which would mean that his conquest occurred at least 70 years after Jerusalem was destroyed, which, as I said, is 22 years more than our current dating suggests, which suggests that the current dating of either Jerusalem's destruction or Cyrus' conquest of Babylon or both, is incorrect.
Now if it's the dating of Cyrus' conquest that is 22 years out, then since Artaxerxes was a later Persian king, it means, especially if the dating of his reign has been calculated by reference to the dating of Cyrus', that the dating of his reign, and of the issue of his decree, may also be incorrect, possibly by around 22 years, which would mean, as I said earlier, that the gap between the issue of that decree and AD 33 was less than 476 years, and hence that the interpretation of Daniel's prophecy which claims that the issue of that decree marked the start of the 69 Weeks, may also be incorrect.
And, in addition to that, I think the Bible, combined with our dating of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, is telling us that Jesus was actually crucified in AD 30, and not AD 33, as claimed by that interpretation of Daniel's prophecy, which is a second reason for thinking that that interpretation is incorrect.
Let me explain:
I think that Jesus' crucifixion was the iniquitous event that marked the beginning of the 40 years of Judah's iniquity prophesied in Ezekiel 4, and I think that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, following a siege, was the event that marked the end of that 40 years- indeed, Jesus, in Luke 19:43-44 prophesied that Jerusalem would come under siege, and be destroyed, because 'they did not recognize the time of their visitation from God'. That destruction of Jerusalem is currently dated at AD 70, which means under this interpretation of Ezekiel 4, that Jesus was crucified in AD 30.
As a final point, there are other credible candidates for the events that both began and ended the 69 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy, but that's for another posting, as I wanted, in this posting, to focus entirely on a crucial problem with the interpretation mentioned above.
I think the Bible casts doubt on the dating of both those events, which therefore suggests that that current interpretation of the prophecy may be incorrect.
Let me explain:
The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar's army and King Cyrus of Persia's conquest of Babylon are currently dated at 587/586 BC and 539 BC respectively, a gap of 48 years. I think the Bible is telling us that the gap between these two events was 70 years, a difference of 22 years. And since Artaxerxes was a later Persian king, it means that the dating of his decree may also be incorrect, and hence that the gap between the issue of that decree and AD 33 may be quite a few years less than 476 years, which is one reason why that interpretation of Daniel's prophecy may also be incorrect.
So, let's have a look at the relevant scripture:
Jeremiah 25:11 tells us that Jeremiah prophesied that Judah would serve Babylon for 70 years.
I think that 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 is telling us that these 70 years began when, following Jerusalem's destruction, the surviving inhabitants were taken into exile to Babylon, and that the 70 years ended when the Persian Kingdom was established.
And Jeremiah 25:12 tells us that Jeremiah prophesied that God would punish the king and nation of Babylon after the 70 years had ended.
Now I think Cyrus' conquest of Babylon is the punishment that fulfilled this prophecy, which would mean that his conquest occurred at least 70 years after Jerusalem was destroyed, which, as I said, is 22 years more than our current dating suggests, which suggests that the current dating of either Jerusalem's destruction or Cyrus' conquest of Babylon or both, is incorrect.
Now if it's the dating of Cyrus' conquest that is 22 years out, then since Artaxerxes was a later Persian king, it means, especially if the dating of his reign has been calculated by reference to the dating of Cyrus', that the dating of his reign, and of the issue of his decree, may also be incorrect, possibly by around 22 years, which would mean, as I said earlier, that the gap between the issue of that decree and AD 33 was less than 476 years, and hence that the interpretation of Daniel's prophecy which claims that the issue of that decree marked the start of the 69 Weeks, may also be incorrect.
And, in addition to that, I think the Bible, combined with our dating of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, is telling us that Jesus was actually crucified in AD 30, and not AD 33, as claimed by that interpretation of Daniel's prophecy, which is a second reason for thinking that that interpretation is incorrect.
Let me explain:
I think that Jesus' crucifixion was the iniquitous event that marked the beginning of the 40 years of Judah's iniquity prophesied in Ezekiel 4, and I think that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, following a siege, was the event that marked the end of that 40 years- indeed, Jesus, in Luke 19:43-44 prophesied that Jerusalem would come under siege, and be destroyed, because 'they did not recognize the time of their visitation from God'. That destruction of Jerusalem is currently dated at AD 70, which means under this interpretation of Ezekiel 4, that Jesus was crucified in AD 30.
As a final point, there are other credible candidates for the events that both began and ended the 69 Weeks of Daniel's prophecy, but that's for another posting, as I wanted, in this posting, to focus entirely on a crucial problem with the interpretation mentioned above.