Daniel 9

[petepet]

Your "sound exegesis" is based on the Hebrew word "dabar" which means "word".

NO IT IS BASED ON THE WHOLE HEBREW PHRASE 'THE GOING FORTH OF THE WORD'. WHERE THE SAME PHRASE IS USED TWICE WITHIN A FEW VERSES WITH REFERENCE TO A SIMILAR THING SOUND EXEGESIS DEMANDS THAT THE TWO BE EQUATED.

This going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem could easily be referring to a king's decree and certainly is not exclusive to Daniel's prayer.

IT COULD BE EQUATED TO ANYTHING IF WE IGNORE THE CONTEXT. BUT IN THE CONTEXT ITS MEANING IS MADE CLEAR. IT IS THE WORD OF GOD GOING FORTH AT A PARTICULAR TIME, NOT A KING'S DECREE. THUS YOU HAVE NO SOUND REASON FOR ALTERING IT TO MEAN WHAT SUITS WHATEVER THEORY YOU HOLD. IT IS THIS TAKING OF SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT AND FLINGING IT INTO THE MAELSTROM OF WHATEVER WE WANT TO PROVE THAT IS THE BANE OF INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY. WHY WORRY ABOUT CONTEXT WHEN I HAVE A THEORY BREWING IN MY MIND?

I prefer the decree of Artaxerxes in 458BC, which means that the "coming of the anointed one" occurred when Jesus was anointed in the Jordan in the autumn of 26 AD, and his crucifixion was 3.5 years later in spring of 30 AD as history can confirm.

HOW NICE. SO 'YOU PREFER'. WE CAN JUST PICK AND CHOOSE AS WE WISH. NO WONDER PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION IS IN DISREPUTE. IF WE ARE NOT TO INDULGE IN WILD DREAMS CONTEXT IS VITAL.


No problem with this.



Not really, prophecies often go back and forth between events, and often include parenthical passages referring to similar or additional events. Look at Ezekiel 39 for example, it refers to the bird's feast in verse 4 then events following the feast, then back to the bird's feast in verse 17 then events following the feast. Sound exegesis should be highly sensitive to context.

PRECISELY, HIGHLY SENSITIVE TO CONTEXT, WHICH YOURS IN DANIEL IS NOT. BUT I SEE IN EZEKIEL YOU DO WISH TO TAKE SIMILAR PHRASES AND MAKE THEM REFER TO THE SAME EVENT. SO WHY NOT FOLLOW THE SAME PRINCIPLE IN DANIEL? ANSWER, BECAUSE THEN IT DOES NOT SUIT YOUR THEORY.

IN FACT YOUR EXAMPLE FROM EZEKIEL ESTABLISHES THE TRUTH OF WHAT I SAID. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE AND THE CESSATION OF SACRIFICES ARE RELATED EVENTS. THEY ARE PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER. SO THE FACT THAT WORDS COME BETWEEN DOES NOT DESTROY THE PARALLEL. THEY ARE TALKING OF THE SAME EVENT.

ANSWERS GIVEN IN CAPITALS ABOVE.

[petepet]

Remember this a prophecy that concerns the coming of the Messiah and the crucifixion, great prophesied Jewish events. And so what was great about the Cornelius event if you say that the Gentiles were always included? I just don't see the cornelius event as ending any period in any manner, the way you describe it, God was just telling them about a new situation that already existed.
And how can you date that event? It seems a bit arbitrary to assign that particular event to the great ending of the 490 year period without even confirmation of a date.

What was great about the Cornelius event was that God gave a special revelation that revealed that from then on all distinctions between clean and unclean had been done away. It was a revelation of huge significance, and no more so than to the Jews. It was a God-given alteration to the Covenant indicating a wholly new (to the Jews) situation.

I love your suggestion that the date is arbitrary. All the dates used are arbitrary. We have no certain datings of any events related to the life and death of Jesus. We know neither the date of His birth nor the date of His crucifixion. People spin theories but they are not accepted by large numbers of people simply because they are not certain. But even you admitted that the Cornelius event came pretty close in reckoning.

[DurbanDude]

. NO IT IS BASED ON THE WHOLE HEBREW PHRASE 'THE GOING FORTH OF THE WORD'. WHERE THE SAME PHRASE IS USED TWICE WITHIN A FEW VERSES WITH REFERENCE TO A SIMILAR THING SOUND EXEGESIS DEMANDS THAT THE TWO BE EQUATED.

Phew, with the CAPS LOCK on it feels like you are shouting at me.Could you rather change the color or something?

Haha I always am amused when people use this "similar wording" argument. In 2 Thess 8,9 we have the same word used for the coming of Jesus and the coming of the man of sin. It is context which makes it clear that it is 2 seperate comings being referred to, and not one.

Going forth of a word to restore Jerusalem, means just that.

IT COULD BE EQUATED TO ANYTHING IF WE IGNORE THE CONTEXT. BUT IN THE CONTEXT ITS MEANING IS MADE CLEAR. IT IS THE WORD OF GOD GOING FORTH AT A PARTICULAR TIME, NOT A KING'S DECREE. THUS YOU HAVE NO SOUND REASON FOR ALTERING IT TO MEAN WHAT SUITS WHATEVER THEORY YOU HOLD. IT IS THIS TAKING OF SCRIPTURE OUT OF CONTEXT AND FLINGING IT INTO THE MAELSTROM OF WHATEVER WE WANT TO PROVE THAT IS THE BANE OF INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY. WHY WORRY ABOUT CONTEXT WHEN I HAVE A THEORY BREWING IN MY MIND?

It seems thatyou are being a little restrictive of the phrase in order for it to fit in exclusively with your own theory. The Hebrew is not nearly as restictive as you say. I see nothing wrong with the way the English translators expressed the Hebrew phrases, and in our English bibles and the Hebrew, the wording does not restrict the "word" to God's word.

HOW NICE. SO 'YOU PREFER'. WE CAN JUST PICK AND CHOOSE AS WE WISH. NO WONDER PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION IS IN DISREPUTE. IF WE ARE NOT TO INDULGE IN WILD DREAMS CONTEXT IS VITAL.

Autumn 458 BC is exactly 486.5 years before the crucifixion, I suppose your view on Daniel's prayer is more accurate?

PRECISELY, HIGHLY SENSITIVE TO CONTEXT, WHICH YOURS IN DANIEL IS NOT. BUT I SEE IN EZEKIEL YOU DO WISH TO TAKE SIMILAR PHRASES AND MAKE THEM REFER TO THE SAME EVENT. SO WHY NOT FOLLOW THE SAME PRINCIPLE IN DANIEL? ANSWER, BECAUSE THEN IT DOES NOT SUIT YOUR THEORY.

IN FACT YOUR EXAMPLE FROM EZEKIEL ESTABLISHES THE TRUTH OF WHAT I SAID. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE AND THE CESSATION OF SACRIFICES ARE RELATED EVENTS. THEY ARE PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER. SO THE FACT THAT WORDS COME BETWEEN DOES NOT DESTROY THE PARALLEL. THEY ARE TALKING OF THE SAME EVENT.

You seem to have missed my point, that's ok

[jeffweeder]

The word of the Lord was given to Gabriel to tell Daniel that his prayer of restoration for his people would be met with a complete atonement for his people. The timeframe of 70 weeks would commence with the issueing of a decree for the captive people to return and build Jerusalem. After the conclusion of 69 weeks Messiah would appear to fulfill their wildest dreams.
Knowing that Jesus of Naz was the promised Messiah, it is more likely that the decree was given around 457bc.

[DurbanDude]

What was great about the Cornelius event was that God gave a special revelation that revealed that from then on all distinctions between clean and unclean had been done away. It was a revelation of huge significance, and no more so than to the Jews. It was a God-given alteration to the Covenant indicating a wholly new (to the Jews) situation.

I am a bit confused, earlier you said there was no alteration, because the Gentiles were always included, and this inclusion was already made clear to the Jews in the OT. Now are you saying the Covenant was altered 3.5 years after the crucifixion?

[petepet]

Phew, with the CAPS LOCK on it feels like you are shouting at me.Could you rather change the color or something?

Sorry, not intending to shout, just using caps to distinguish.

[DurbanDude]

The word of the Lord was given to Gabriel to tell Daniel that his prayer of restoration for his people would be met with a complete atonement for his people. The timeframe of 70 weeks would commence with the issueing of a decree for the captive people to return and build Jerusalem. After the conclusion of 69 weeks Messiah would appear to fulfill their wildest dreams.
Knowing that Jesus of Naz was the promised Messiah, it is more likely that the decree was given around 457bc.

That's what I believe, the only decree that fits in with this date, was actually a highly significant decree, that of Artaxerxes given to Ezra. The decree was actually written to the Administrators of that region instructing them to assist Ezra as far as possible. This decree was delievered to the administrators of the region in the Autumn of 458 BC. Taking into account that there is no year "0" in the calendar, it goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, this date fitsin perfectly with the most sound date of the crucifixion, spring 30AD, ending sacrifice 486.5 years after the decree was issued to the administrators. Some may differ with the date being 458BC, but its easy to be out by one year in history because regal years are not clear enough, and different societies having different starting dates to their years.

[DurbanDude]

Sorry, not intending to shout, just using caps to distinguish.

No problem, I realised that, just suggesting you try something different.

[petepet]

I am a bit confused, earlier you said there was no alteration, because the Gentiles were always included, and this inclusion was already made clear to the Jews in the OT. Now are you saying the Covenant was altered 3.5 years after the crucifixion?

The covenant never said that Gentiles were excluded. Thus it did not have to be altered in that regard. But the covenant did make specific distinctions beteeen clean and unclean. Thus the alteration of that required a specific revelation through divine means. And that was given to Peter prior to his visit to Cornelius. It removed all distinctions between ritually clean and unclean in God's eyes.

As it happens i do not accept that the seventy sevens refer to years. Seventy 'sevens' are in fact contrasted with seventy years. Nowhere does Daniel say that 'sevens' are years. When seven sevens refers to years Scripture always says 'of years'. But i was making a concession in my argument becos you believe it refers to years.

The two arguments must be kept separate. Trying to argue two things at the same time is never helpful.

[petepet]

The word of the Lord was given to Gabriel to tell Daniel that his prayer of restoration for his people would be met with a complete atonement for his people. The timeframe of 70 weeks would commence with the issueing of a decree for the captive people to return and build Jerusalem. After the conclusion of 69 weeks Messiah would appear to fulfill their wildest dreams.
Knowing that Jesus of Naz was the promised Messiah, it is more likely that the decree was given around 457bc.

The Hebrew word dbr never means decree. For that Daniel uses dth. Other writers like Ezra have other words but never dbr.

What Daniel is talking about is a command going forth from God. Daniel prayed and as a result God sent forth His command for it to be fulfilled. The angel says "At the beginning of your supplications 'the command went forth'" (verse 23).

Having then declared what was determined by God in verse 24 the angel says, "from the going forth of the command" (verse 25). In my view sound exegesis demands that we see the two parallel phrases as referring to the same thing, especially as they are so closely related and make perfectly good sense. It was God Who determined all that followed, not some earthly king.

[ScottJohnson]

Hi Scott
The whole point of "until Messiah" was that he would go on and fulfill those points and bring the Gospel....in 70 weeks. If he was cut off before the 70th week then his ministry meant nothing. Fact is we preach forgiveness of sins to the world, being made righteous, and Christ ascended to the most Holy place there is.

Okay, I think I understand.

[ScottJohnson]

I would very much question your statement that there is a general concensus among scholars that the prophecy refers to seventy sevens of years. There are at least equal numbers, if not more, who see it as referring to 'sevens' (divine periods).

Indeed the way the prophecy is presented suggests this for in it is a deliberate contrast between seventy years and seventy 'sevens'. 'Sevens' are contrasted with years. Its seems strange then to see them as indicating the very thing they are contrasted with. Where the Bible means 'years' it says so.

I do, however, agree with you that there are no good grounds for suggesting an unmentioned gap between the 69 sevens and the seventieth one.

No one would dream of taking Jeremiah's seventy years and saying 'oh there is a gap between the sixty ninth year and the seventieth one'.

In interpreting this prophecy we should also note certain features which are fixed. Thus 'the time of the going forth of the word' (verse 23, 25) is fixed as the time when Daniel commenced praying i.e. 538 BC. Thus sound exegesis indicates that the time of the going forth of the word (from God) to build Jerusalem is 538 BC not 445 BC.

We cannot just pick and choose historical events so as to fit into our theories.

There are also other expressions which are fixed. Thus nowhere in Daniel is the word 'covenant' used of treaties and alliances with kings. It is used only of the covenant with God.

Nowhere in Daniel is the word used for 'prince' (nagid) used of non-Israelite kings and leaders. They are described as 'sar' or 'melech'. Indeed nagid was the favourite title for kings of Israel/Judah throughout Scripture, and it is regularly connected with their anointing. Saul was a nagid. David was a nagid. And so on.
Thus 'the nagid who will come' surely looks back to the coming of the anointed nagid in verse 25.

I would go further and point out that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is mentioned followed immediately by a reference to sacrifices ceasing. Sound exegesis would indicate that both are referring to the same event.

If we would observe these simple facts it would save a lot of misinterpretation of this chapter.

I'm not so sure that there is a dispute between us concerning the grammatical structure of the prophecy. The term "he" in verse 27 that confirms the covenant must be speaking of Messiah the prince. If it were to represent those that destroyed the city and the sanctuary it would have to use the plural pronoun "they" since it's the people of a coming ruler that is the subject and not the coming ruler.

It would seem, (correct me if I'm wrong), that the dispute between us deals with the represented value of a "seven".

Your objection to my remark concerning the general consensus among scholars as to the interpretation of the term "seven(s)" or "week(s)" has been noted. It wasn't my intention to imply that all scholars interpret a seven as a period of seven years, it was to simply point out that many scholars within the pre-millennial, post-millennial and a-millennial camps do tend to agree that Daniel was speaking of a specific timeline of 490 years broken into periods of seven year.

The fact is, this prophecy demands a specific time line for it's fulfillment. It cannot be an undetermined period of time and it cannot be stopped and started at doctrinal will. Sixty nine weeks of that time line spans between the edict to restore Jerusalem and the arrival of Messiah the Prince. Within the final week Messiah will confirm a covenant, cause the sacrifice and offerings to cease and will be cut off. The fact that the prophecy went out to the Jewish people and that a specific time line is given, there should have been no excuse for their failure to recognize Messiah at His coming, as so many of them did.

[petepet]

I'm not so sure that there is a dispute between us concerning the grammatical structure of the prophecy. The term "he" in verse 27 that confirms the covenant must be speaking of Messiah the prince. If it were to represent those that destroyed the city and the sanctuary it would have to use the plural pronoun "they" since it's the people of a coming ruler that is the subject and not the coming ruler.

Well personally I would not see it as referring to Messiah the prince because he is said to be dead and there is no indication that he has risen again. We know that He did. But that is a different matter. This was intended to be understood by the Jews in Old Testament days. My view is that the He is God. Scripture regularly introduces GOD as He without preparing us for the fact. However, I would not rule out 'the people' because the HEBREW NOUN IS SINGULAR and would therefore take a singular verb. However, in view of the fact that we would expect the covenant to be renewed between God and His people I would plump for God. It does not, however make much difference to the overall interpretation.

It would seem, (correct me if I'm wrong), that the dispute between us deals with the represented value of a "seven".

Yes I would see that as the main point of disagreement between us. In my view the text demands that we see sevens as a contrast to years, not as indicating further years. And to me its main importance lies in the fact that I do not see verse 24 as completely fulfilled by our Lord Jesus Christ's first coming. Certainly there was a partial and potential fulfilment of each item. but not a complete fulfilment. That awaits the second coming when the saints are finally glorified. In my view the whole point of the passage is to speak of the final consummation when all has been put right. Certainly it was potentially put right at the cross, but not actually.

Your objection to my remark concerning the general consensus among scholars as to the interpretation of the term "seven(s)" or "week(s)" has been noted. It wasn't my intention to imply that all scholars interpret a seven as a period of seven years, it was to simply point out that many scholars within the pre-millennial, post-millennial and a-millennial camps do tend to agree that Daniel was speaking of a specific timeline of 490 years broken into periods of seven year.

And had you actually said that I would have had no grumble. But there is a big difference between 'many' and 'most'. Most would agree to the period described being unbroken, but there are a good quantity of scholars who see sevens as meaning that and not years.

The fact is, this prophecy demands a specific time line for it's fulfillment. It cannot be an undetermined period of time and it cannot be stopped and started at doctrinal will.

I can agree with your second point but not with your first. There are certainly no genuine grounds for putting gaps into the equation. And yes there is a specific time for its fulfilment from God's point of view (that is the significance of sevens as divine periods) but I see no reason why it should be so from man's viewpoint. It is a determined period of time from God's point of view.

But now suppose that we tentatively suggest that it refers to 490 years. Can you then explain why Jesus, Who would clearly have known the correct interpretation, and also clearly read Daniel carefully, gives no hint of such an interpretation?. What better evidence could He have had to present to the Pharisees and the Sadducees with regard to His Messiahship than that? To me it is inconceivable that He would not have done so. Indeed I might even suggest it would have been remiss not to have done so (I say that reverently and with much thought). it would appear to me then that Jesus did not see it as indicating 490 years..

Sixty nine weeks of that time line spans between the edict to restore Jerusalem and the arrival of Messiah the Prince. Within the final week Messiah will confirm a covenant, cause the sacrifice and offerings to cease and will be cut off. The fact that the prophecy went out to the Jewish people and that a specific time line is given, there should have been no excuse for their failure to recognize Messiah at His coming, as so many of them did.

Well apart from the technicality that I would replace Messiah with God i can agree with your summary as you have not mentioned years. But that only underlines the fact that Jesus failed to draw it to their attention. I find that incomprehensible. How can you say that the Jews had no excuse for their failure, if the Messiah Himself failed to point it out to them? Would He not then have been equally to blame? If I know people are missing a vital point that affects their eternal future, and I can produce the evidence but fail to do so, am I not guilty if I fail to do so? Will not their blood be required at my hand? (Ezekiel 33). That is why I am convinced that Jesus saw Daniel 9 as a divine period and not as a humanly determinable period.

And of course the fact cannot be avoided that on your interpretation the seventieth seven ends indefinitely. Indeed no final aim is seen as in view. On my interpretation the end is that described in verse 24.

We are not far off from each other. But it seems to me that your interpretation finally fails on the grounds given above.

Best wishes.

[ScottJohnson]

There is a simple law of logic, that if a prophecy has not been fulfilled, it will still be fulfilled. Now Daniel 9 is concerning a special 490 year period for the Jews, however at the crucifixion any specialness for the Jews completely ceased, because the crucifixion opened the way for all. Thus only 486.5 years of the 490 year period has been fulfilled, 3.5 years are left.

Confirming this, is that nothing signicant occurred in the Jewish Autumn of 33AD to complete the 490 year period. It appears that Cornelius conversion occurred in 34AD, by approximate dating, which did not even end the Jewish period, because it was merely confirmation of what happened at the crucifixion and an including of Gentiles, definitely not an ending for the Jewish period.

Also confirming this, is that Daniel's abomination that Jesus refers to , is preceding the second coming/resurrection event, according to both Jesus and Daniel 12, both explain this short period before the second coming/resurrection thatbegins with an abomination. Thus this end-times 3.5 year period for the Jews as per Daneil 12, also starts with an abomination as per Daniel 9:27b, and is also 3.5 years long as per Daniel 9:27b, and also ends with the death of an abominator as per Daniel 9:27b. I see a perfectly matching sequence of events.

Also confirming what I am saying is that Daniel 12:11 is very difficult to explain from a purely historical view of the 490 year period, because here it mentions both the taking away of sacrifice and the abomination in a chapter concerning a future resurrection context.

¹¹And from the time (AGE) that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

The way I have explained it simplifies this mysterious verse:
From the Gentile age starting with the crucifixion, and ending with the abomination, there will be a further Jewish period of 3.5 years long until the resurrection.

Also confirming what I am saying, is that we know from Daniel 7 and Rev 13 that the beast or little horn will rule for 3.5 years of persecution of the saints. However Daniel 12 is clear that during the 3.5 years of persecution the woman with the 12 stars thatgave birth to Jesus is being kept safe, this is a confirmation for a special 3.5 years for Jews.

Also confirming what I am saying , is that Romans 11:25 can be seen as referring to a gentile period of openness to the gospel , followed by a Jewish period of openness to the gospel.
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

It appears that the current age ends with a Jewish openness to the gospel. Confirming this is the sealing of the 144000 Jews during that last period , mentioned in Revelation, sealing is a phrase used often in the NT to indicate the receiving of the holy Spirit, which is also confirmed in Joel when that attack from the northern army stirs up a spiritual outpouring on Jews.

There is no reason to conclude that this prophecy has not already been fulfilled to completion. In fact, quite the opposite. The seventy weeks or 490 years is a specific span of time beginning with the edict to restore Jerusalem, leaving no excuse for the Hebrew people not to recognize Jesus as “Messiah the Prince”, at the time of His earthly ministry, particularly in light of His miracles and authoritative rhetoric. While this passage of scripture can edify us in this day and age, the prophecy was intended for the ancient Jewish people between the end of the Babylonian exile and the time of Christ. It was not intended in any way to involve us or our posterity other than enabling us to greater understand the ways of God.

To stop the prophetic time line either at the end of 69th week or the middle of the 70th week only serves to deviate from the spirit of the prophecy in order to sustain an external doctrine that is foreign to the bible. The New Testament testifies to the fulfillment of this prophecy as seen below;

1. “To finish the transgression”
This was fulfilled; (Matt 21:33-45; 23:32,35,36,38; Luke 11:47-51; 1 Thess. 2:14-16)

2. “Make an end of sins”
This was fulfilled; (John 1:29; Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; Hebrews 9:12-14,26; 10:9-14)

3. “Make reconciliation for iniquity”
This was fulfilled; (Romans 5:8-11; II Cor. 5:17-21; Hebrews 2:17; Col 1:12-21)

4. “Bring in everlasting righteousness”
This was fulfilled; (Romans 3:21-26; 4:13; 5:17,18; 9:30,31; 14:17 (Isa. 51:8) ; Hebrews 9:12; II Thess 2:16; I Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 9:9)

5. "Seal up vision and prophecy”
This was fulfilled; (Matthew 13:14,15 (cf. Isaiah 6:9,10); 17:5; John 1:1; 12:39-41; Acts 7:37; 28:25-27; Romans 1:1-2, 3:21, 16:25-26; Ephesians 2:11-17; 3:3-6; Colossians 1:26; Hebrews 1:1-2; I Peter 1:9-11; II Peter 1:19-21)

6. “Anoint the most Holy”
This was fulfilled; (Matthew 3:15-17; Luke 4:18; John 1:32; Acts 2:32,33,38,39; 4:26,27; 10:37,38,44,45; Hebrews 9:22-24 / Not Physical Temple - Acts 7:48-49)

7. “He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week”
This was fulfilled by Jesus not the people of a coming ruler; (Matt 6:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; 2Cor 3:6; Heb 7:22; Heb 8:6; Heb 8:8-13 Heb 9:15; Heb 10:29; Heb 12:24; Heb 13:20)

I believe that Jesus was crucified sometime during the middle of 70th week. The duration of this week was dedicated to bringing the gospel exclusively to those Jews who were not blinded by the apostasies of the religious rulers. These I believe are the 144,000 spoken of in Rev 7 and 14.

The conversion of Cornelius along with Paul’s and Barnabas’ declaration to the Jews in Acts 13:46, that “It was necessary for the Word of God to be spoken first to you; but since you indeed thrust it away and judge yourselves not worthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the nations.“ marked the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy.

Act 13:46-49
(46) But speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, It was necessary for the Word of God to be spoken first to you; but since you indeed thrust it away and judge yourselves not worthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the nations.
(47) For so the Lord has commanded us, "I have set You for a Light of nations, that You be for salvation to the end of the earth." Isa. 49:6
(48) And hearing, the nations rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
(49) And the Word of the Lord was borne through all the country.

The Hebrew nation, in which Daniel's prophecy concerns, was hand selected and nurtured by God to bring the Christ into the world. In spite of their iniquity and obstinance from the time of the exodus until the time of Christ, they received favor from God. They are the first fruit. But I wouldn't expect, based on Rom 11:25, a supernatural revival among the Jewish race near the end of time. Their most favored people status expired when the vast majority of them rejected Christ. See Matt 23:37-39.

I won't pretend to have a full understanding of Rom 11, but I do know that it is only through Christ that anyone can receive salvation and far to many of the sons and daughters of Israel have died outside of Christ. So when Paul says that all of Israel will be saved when the fullness of the nations has come in, he must be speaking allegorically.

The deliverer has come out of Zion = Christ.

The covenant has been made to take away their sins = Christ.

[DurbanDude]

There is no reason to conclude that this prophecy has not already been fulfilled to completion. In fact, quite the opposite. The seventy weeks or 490 years is a specific span of time beginning with the edict to restore Jerusalem, leaving no excuse for the Hebrew people not to recognize Jesus as “Messiah the Prince”, at the time of His earthly ministry, particularly in light of His miracles and authoritative rhetoric. While this passage of scripture can edify us in this day and age, the prophecy was intended for the ancient Jewish people between the end of the Babylonian exile and the time of Christ. It was not intended in any way to involve us or our posterity other than enabling us to greater understand the ways of God.

To stop the prophetic time line either at the end of 69th week or the middle of the 70th week only serves to deviate from the spirit of the prophecy in order to sustain an external doctrine that is foreign to the bible. .

I feel your wording "foreign to the bible" is a little strong given that I did give many verses to back up my position. Additionally your post did not cover the historical fact that there is no significant event in Jewish history that occurred at the end of the 490th year that is relevent to the Jews. The great emphasis on the Cornelius event is more likely an attempt to "deviate from the spirit of prophecy in order to sustain an external doctrine that is foreign to the bible" as you say. There is nothing in the Cornelius event that indicates an ending of a Jewish period despite many posts in this thread attempting to indicate otherwise. No Jewish period ended then, it was merely confirmation of an inclusion of the gentiles that had actually occurred about 4 or 5 years earlier, not 3.5 years earlier, and I would like you to attempt to date the cornelius event earlier, others have tried and failed.

The New Testament testifies to the fulfillment of this prophecy as seen below;

1. “To finish the transgression”
This was fulfilled; (Matt 21:33-45; 23:32,35,36,38; Luke 11:47-51; 1 Thess. 2:14-16)

2. “Make an end of sins”
This was fulfilled; (John 1:29; Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; Hebrews 9:12-14,26; 10:9-14)

3. “Make reconciliation for iniquity”
This was fulfilled; (Romans 5:8-11; II Cor. 5:17-21; Hebrews 2:17; Col 1:12-21)

4. “Bring in everlasting righteousness”
This was fulfilled; (Romans 3:21-26; 4:13; 5:17,18; 9:30,31; 14:17 (Isa. 51:8) ; Hebrews 9:12; II Thess 2:16; I Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 9:9)

5. "Seal up vision and prophecy”
This was fulfilled; (Matthew 13:14,15 (cf. Isaiah 6:9,10); 17:5; John 1:1; 12:39-41; Acts 7:37; 28:25-27; Romans 1:1-2, 3:21, 16:25-26; Ephesians 2:11-17; 3:3-6; Colossians 1:26; Hebrews 1:1-2; I Peter 1:9-11; II Peter 1:19-21)

6. “Anoint the most Holy”
This was fulfilled; (Matthew 3:15-17; Luke 4:18; John 1:32; Acts 2:32,33,38,39; 4:26,27; 10:37,38,44,45; Hebrews 9:22-24 / Not Physical Temple - Acts 7:48-49)

7. “He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week”
This was fulfilled by Jesus not the people of a coming ruler; (Matt 6:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; 2Cor 3:6; Heb 7:22; Heb 8:6; Heb 8:8-13 Heb 9:15; Heb 10:29; Heb 12:24; Heb 13:20)

I believe that Jesus was crucified sometime during the middle of 70th week. The duration of this week was dedicated to bringing the gospel exclusively to those Jews who were not blinded by the apostasies of the religious rulers. These I believe are the 144,000 spoken of in Rev 7 and 14.

The conversion of Cornelius along with Paul’s and Barnabas’ declaration to the Jews in Acts 13:46, that “It was necessary for the Word of God to be spoken first to you; but since you indeed thrust it away and judge yourselves not worthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the nations.“ marked the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy.

Act 13:46-49
(46) But speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said, It was necessary for the Word of God to be spoken first to you; but since you indeed thrust it away and judge yourselves not worthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the nations.
(47) For so the Lord has commanded us, "I have set You for a Light of nations, that You be for salvation to the end of the earth." Isa. 49:6
(48) And hearing, the nations rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
(49) And the Word of the Lord was borne through all the country.

I agree that some of Daniel 9:24 was fulfilled at the cross, however there definitely was no finishing of transgression at the cross, on the contrary there was forgiveness. You quote a couple of verses to support your position but not one of them refers to a finishing of transgression. 70 AD ended Jerusalem, but that occurred 40 years after the crucifixion and not 3.5 years after the crucifixion, and yet people soon resettled there and continued to transgress as they do today.

The Hebrew nation, in which Daniel's prophecy concerns, was hand selected and nurtured by God to bring the Christ into the world. In spite of their iniquity and obstinance from the time of the exodus until the time of Christ, they received favor from God. They are the first fruit. But I wouldn't expect, based on Rom 11:25, a supernatural revival among the Jewish race near the end of time. Their most favored people status expired when the vast majority of them rejected Christ. See Matt 23:37-39.

I won't pretend to have a full understanding of Rom 11, but I do know that it is only through Christ that anyone can receive salvation and far to many of the sons and daughters of Israel have died outside of Christ. So when Paul says that all of Israel will be saved when the fullness of the nations has come in, he must be speaking allegorically.

I agree we are saved only through Christ, and Romans 11 is pretty clear that Paul was expecting that at a certain time, the partial blindness of Israel will be lifted:

25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

The Thessalonians, are warned by Paul not to become conceited, or ignorant about this, I believe this applies to all non-Jews, Israel will have their partial blindness lifted.