How do you know that Daniel's 70 weeks did not end in 33 A.D.?

Ted's Response:

If you have spent much time at my website, you probably know that I believe the seven-year European Neighbourhood Policy may be the prophesied agreement of Daniel 9:27. If that is true, then preterism automatically is an erroneous view.

Preterists believe that the 70 weeks of years already have taken place. There are variations of preterism—defining when, during the first century, they believe that the 70th Week ended—and you have linked to one of them. I have written another email response to someone else about preterism, which you might wish to read before you continue, since it contains some points I have made to refute preterism in general: The seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 already has happened, so how can you say it has anything to do with the end-of-the-age prophecies of Matthew 24? Now I will proceed to comment on certain statements in the document you brought to my attention.

<< The plain fact of history is that Daniel’s 70 weeks (490 years) began in 458 B.C. with the decree of Artaxerxes I >>

Also, the writer of that commentary adds 490 solar years to 458 B.C., arriving at 33 A.D. (since there is no year 0). However, I am convinced that God follows the lunar calendar, probably always. For instance, the final half of the 70th Week is referred to as "time, times, and half a time" (Daniel 7:25; Revelation 12:14), or 1 year + 2 years + ½ year = 3½ years. However, that period also is 1,260 days (Revelation 11:3, 12:6) in length, which is 3½ years of 360 days each, not 365¼ days each (i.e., not solar years). So, immediately, I question his starting and ending points for the 490 years.

<< It ended 490 years later in 33 A.D. with the crucifixion of Jesus. In other words, the crucifixion occurred at the end of the 70 weeks. >>

The prophecy states that the Anointed One (or, in his reference, "Messiah the Prince") will come at the end of 69 (i.e., 7 + 62) weeks of years. Jesus wept as he approached Jerusalem, because the people generally had failed to understand the timing of His coming (Luke 19:41-44), which they should have recognized from Daniel 9:25.

According to the prophecy, after 69 weeks of years (which was on Palm Sunday of Holy Week), the Anointed One would come. Soon after that (a few days later), He would be cut off (crucified). Simple. Implying that the crucifixion (or cutting off of the Anointed One) took place after 70 weeks of years had passed is deviating from what the prophecy states.

Note how the writer of that commentary does not quote all of Daniel 9:26, making it sound like the "he" of 9:27 is referring to the Messiah, and then insinuating that the "covenant" of 9:27 is the "new covenant" that the Messiah made with all who believed in Him:

<< ²⁶ And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. . . ²⁷ And He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. . . >>

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined (Daniel 9:26).

In the King James Version (KJV), "Prince" is capitalized in Daniel 9:25 (since it refers to the Messiah), but "prince" is not capitalized in 9:26. They are two different entities.  In 9:26, the "prince that shall come" is not the Messiah (Jesus); and "end" refers to the end of the age, not to the end of Jerusalem and the second temple in 70 A.D. I believe that the prince who will come is a supernatural entity (referred to by John as the "spirit of the antichrist"), with the goal of confirming a covenant, with Israel, for seven years—in effect, a "covenant with death" (Isaiah 28:15).

John indicated that the "spirit of the antichrist...is coming and even now is already in the world" (1 John 4:3). Firstly, all of this suggests to me that this antichrist spirit, in the time of John, ultimately was responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple in 70 A.D. Secondly, this will be the same spiritual prince, at the onset of the 70th week, to have direct influence over a man who will confirm a covenant with many for seven years (which already may have taken place with the establishment of the European Neighbourhood Policy in October 2006).

This "prince" was the supernatural ruler over whatever empire destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.—that is, the Roman Empire. The EU can be considered to be the revived Roman Empire, or the feet and toes of the statue in King Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:33,41-43). Presumably, the prince will inhabit or possess a man from the EU, who will be the one who "shall confirm the covenant with many for one week [of years]" (9:27).

Evidently, then, an evil supernatural prince or angel is the "antichrist spirit." Perhaps it is Satan himself. (Note, in Jude 9, that there already is a precedent for a confrontational dispute between Michael and Satan.) This antichrist spirit, having inhabited a man, will "deny the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22), which correlates with how the beast (Antichrist) will speak against the Most High (Daniel 7:25), exalt himself over God (2 Thessalonians 2:4), and blaspheme God and slander His name for 42 months (Revelation 13:5,6), or 3½ years.

<< Daniel’s prophecy tells us that "the sacrifice and the oblation" would cease in the midst of the final week of years (26-33 A.D.). This turns out to be the fall of 29 A.D., specifically, the Day of Atonement of that year, when Jesus presented Himself to John for baptism. >>

I find nothing in Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21.22, or John 1:32,33 stating or implying that Jesus' baptism, by John, took place on the Day of Atonement = Yom Kippur. Even if it did, the idea that Jesus' baptism was the time that Jesus presented Himself to the Father as the Sacrifice for sin, after which the sacrifice and oblation ceased, is so far-fetched to me as to defy logic and common sense. In my opinion, there is a desperate need for some preterists to find an event, during Jesus' life, that they can cram into the midpoint of their theorized 70th week (from about 26 A.D. to 33 A.D.). For some of them, that occurrence is it; however, I do not accept it for a moment.

Many preterists, assuming that the 70th week was consecutive with the 69th week, are compelled to believe that the "covenant" of Daniel 9:27 is the same as the "new covenant" that the Messiah made with all who believed in Him. They do not accept a gap of time between the 69th week of years and the 70th week of years, so they have to force-fit irrational notions into their proposed time frame. In any case, if the seven-year European Neighbourhood Policy is the agreement prophesied in Daniel 9:27, then it renders all preterist arguments null and void.