Daniel 9 - 70 Weeks

The Seventy Weeks

Opening Comments

First of all, I want to say that all of these various interpretations, even though I will disagree with them in a variety of ways, all of them are reasonable and faithful ways to interpret this vision of the 70 weeks.

Each of these different interpretations are the result of deep study, prayer, and contemplation. They have made decisions based upon their prior training and study.

This is why I say these interpretations are reasonable.

Next, our salvation in Christ Jesus is not based upon our ability to interpret these few verses. We are saved by grace through faith. Yet, we are given this vision of Daniel as part of God’s Word; so, we should always attempt to understand what God is telling us.

How we interpret these verses will determine where we view ourselves in the midst of the story.

Some interpretations place the 70 weeks all in our past.

Others place us smack dab in the middle of it all.

Additionally, the interpretations I am about to show you are not the only ones out there, but they are the most widely accepted by scholars.

On a side note: I am not including fringe theology and interpretations concocted through the use of type of irrational Bible-Code. Conversations about any type of Bible-code hidden within Scripture has no place in serious and faithful study of Scripture.

Also, please understand that we don’t have time to do an in-depth examination of each of these or it would take multiple classes.

I am going to quickly layout the interpretation and follow up with the reasons I did not choose this as the interpretation for the class.

Interpretation Type 1

70 weeks = 490 years

There are various forms of this type of interpretation where each day equals 1 year.

Therefore, if each day equals 1 year, then 70 week would equal 490 years.

This interpretation type also tends to hold the 2300 morning and evening sacrifices described in the previous chapter as 2300 years.

This is one of the places where we will deviate, because in the class on Chapter 8, I held that 2300 was actually shown by Scripture to be 2300 sacrifices or 1150 days that was the time period in which sacrifices ceased under the persecution of Antiochus IV until they resumed after the Maccabean revolt. The purpose of the Hanukkah celebration every year in December.

The biggest difference between the various forms of this interpretation is either where they begin the 490 years or whether or not they include a time gap in the 490 years.

I will not look at any of the interpretations that assume a gap in the weeks. That would be adding something to Scripture and we are not manipulate Scripture to make it work the way we want it. We are to let Scripture inform us; not the other way around.

490 Years

This interpretation, as I said, is a reasonable and faithful interpretation.

I say it is reasonable because I can understand their reasoning behind it.

I say they are being faithful because they have used Scripture to interpret Scripture.

If you interpret the 2300 morning and evening sacrifices as 2300 days and assume that 2300 days equals 2300 years, you would naturally also assume here in chapter 9 that 1 day equals 1 year and therefore calculate 490 years out of 70 weeks.

This interpretation commonly begins with the year 457 BC and the 3rd decree concerning Jerusalem issued by Artaxerxes.

According to Dan 9.25 “You should know and have insight: from the going forth of a word to restore and rebuild Yerushalam until Mashiach, a Leader, seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks when it again will have been built [with] plaza and moat, but during the troubled times.”

This going forth of a word here in this interpretation argues that the going forth of the word is this decree of Artaxerxes.

If you take this approach, you can make 490 years arrive roughly when the crucifixion might have taken place because we know it was ca. AD 33 … that circa means that it is possible that AD 34 could also have been the case.

To be honest, I love the fact that following this pattern you reach an end date of the 490 years at the Crucifixion. Yet, as much as I love having it arrive at that end date, I find too many problems with it.

1st: Isaiah prophesies that it would be Cyrus who would issue the decree for the Israelites to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Also, it is Cyrus that Daniel has the interaction with and who is ruling at the end of the 70 years prophesied by Jeremiah.

The edict by Artaxerxes was for the rebuilding of the wall and not the temple itself.

In verse 23 we are told: 23 At the beginning of your plea for grace, a word went forth, and I came to declare [it to you], because you are highly prized. So, understand the word and discern the vision.

and then in verse 25: “You should know and have insight: from the going forth of a word to restore and rebuild Yerushalam...

Daniel’s prayer was the catalyst for the Word that went forth from God. This Word would prompt Cyrus to issue the decree that would send the Israelites home. Daniel’s prayer, this Word brought to Daniel by Gabriel, and the decree of Cyrus all took place in 538 BC.

Therefore, to me, as well as the majority of scholars, 538 BC seems like it must be the beginning date of the 70 weeks.

If you start from 538 BC and go 490 years into the future you get to a completion date of 48 BC. That simply doesn’t work.

2nd: It follows the 2300 year assumption of chapter 8. The majority of scholars, including myself, see that it makes far far more sense in light of the descriptions given by Gabriel that we are talking 1150 days which was the time between desecration of the Temple by Antiochus and the restoration of the temple after the Maccabean revolt.

Since we established in chapter 8 that 1 day did not equal 1 year in that case, there seems little reason to automatically assume we should calculate it that way here.

2300 sacrifices (morning & evening) = 1150 days. Since the temple could not be built in 2300 days and with the description in this chapter being in weeks in which a week is a very symbolic time frame since there was a week of creation. When we talk about the week of creation we don’t assume that 1 day of those weeks equals 1 year. The re-creation of Nebuchadnezzar also equalled 7 time periods. Additionally, since 70 and weeks make more sense to also be symbolic for the totality of the time from the “word going forth” until the culmination of time when Christ returns.

While I do find this interpretation to be faithful and reasonable, for these reason I just laid out, I think there are too many flaws in its assumptions for me to ascribe this particular interpretation.

I reserve the right, in all cases to be wrong, but this is where I stand right now with my current education and training, and study.

There are variations on the 490 year interpretation. They start and end in a variety of ways, and some of them were based off faulty historical understandings where they did not have accurate dates for events in history which has sense been discovered.

As Steinmann states: “… none of the proposals that view the weeks as groups of seven literal years can adequately explain Gabriel’s words and the fulfillment of the prophecy.”

Questions/Comments?

Traditional Messianic Interpretation

There are some variations in this view as well. Martin Luther and Calvin, as well as many modern scholars also have adopted this particular view.

As I said, there is some variation in it. In some variations the 70 weeks culminates with the Advent of Christ and with other, like here, the first advent of Christ is the conclusion of the 69th week.

In this view as interpreted by Luther and Calvin, the 70 weeks are concluded with the destruction of the temple under Titus or the conquering of Jerusalem by Hadrian.

According to this view the entirety of Daniel 9 was fulfilled by AD 135.

This does agree with the words of that the “detested thing of desolation prophesied by Daniel (in the second half of the 70th week) would take place after His ministry:

Mt24.15 “15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken about by the prophet Daniel standing in the holy place” (let the one who reads understand),”

and

Mk 13.14 “14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be” (let the one who reads understand), “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains!”

The first big hesitation is that it does not say how long after Jesus ministry it would before these events took place.

If the Desolator is the Antichrist, or let’s say the spirit of the Antichrist, and the decreed end is poured out on the desolator is the decreed end of Satan and the Antichrist at Christ’s return, then we are still looking into our future.

Typological Messianic Interpretation

This is another view held by several Lutherans and others.

This view has the vision covering the entire span of time from the Vision of Daniel to the 2nd coming of Christ.

This interpretation has some pros & cons:

Con:

In this view, the Leader of verse 25 is Christ and the Leader in verse 26 is viewed as the Antichrist. It uses the same word in Hebrew, nagiid, and adjoining verses while considering them two different entities: 1 = Christ; 2 = Antichrist. I think that is an unlikely stretch forced upon it by misinterpreting other parts of Scripture.

Also, the city is suddenly changed from being Jerusalem in verse 25 to the church in verse 26 with no indication in the text that there should be a change in understanding here.

3rd: it forces the destruction of the city (if understood as the church) to be only partially destroyed because the NT states very clearly that the church will never be fully eradicated.

Mt 16.18 “18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it!”

Mt 24.22 “22 And unless those days had been shortened, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened.”

There are other variations of this view also held by Dispensationalists.

To explain dispensationalism, it would take another whole class. The simplest definition would be: A theological system that interprets the Bible and history according to specific ages or “dispensations” where different principles governed God’s relationship with people.

In other words, during different ages or dispensation God dealt with people differently and different rules applied.

I disagree with this form of theology and even though it has had a heavy influence on popular views of the end times in book and movies, it, from a theological standpoint, is a bit out there in my opinion. Hebrews 13.8 “8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” But that’s a conversation for another time.

Comments/Questions?

Christian Messianic Interpretation

Steinmann also refers to this as an Amillennial Christian Messianic Interpretation

Amillennail means that apocalyptic millennium is not a literal 1000 years but rather representative of the age of the Church. More about that to come in a future class...

This is really just a variation of the Traditional Messianic Interpretation with only one real change. I called it the Christian Messianic Interpretation, but not to indicate that the other interpretations are un-Christian, but because it adds the age of the persecuted church under during the age of the Antichrist to the rest of it.

This is not my creation, it is the view held by Dr. Andrew Steinmann. It is the view that I still hold as well. That’s why I have primarily used his commentary for the creation of the this class.

There are some arguments against this interpretation so I want to address those as well, just to be fare.

1. There is an argument that there should not be a focus on a messianic figure because, they argue, that there is no interest in a messianic figure anywhere else in Daniel.

We showed in Daniel 2 & 7 that there was indeed references to a Messianic figure, so that rules out that argument.

2. Some argue that the “going forth of a word” was actually the prophecies of Jeremiah so therefore there it would culminate long before the Advent of Christ and therefore would not be Messianic in nature.

We already showed that the “going forth of a word” was tied to 538 BC and dismissed the 490 year interpretation variants. I have not found a reason to tie them to Jeremiah.

3. Some argue that because of a character of Hebrew language that the 7 weeks and 62 weeks are not consecutive periods of time.

The argument comes out of the presence of a Masoretic accent known as an athnach. The question is whether or not it is a later addition. It’s all rather confusing, but this interpretation does hold that these time periods are consecutive time periods with no gaps.

Let’s relook at this interpretation from last week again real quick.

Gabriel uses 6 phrases to describe God’s purpose for the 70 weeks. They are arranged in two groups of three with the third in each group being the climax.

The 1st three: “to end transgression”, “to finish sin,” “and to atone for iniquity.”

These assure Daniel that the sin of him and his people will be forgiven through the coming Messiah.

These all point toward the atoning death and sacrifice of Jesus and the goal of the 70 weeks.

The 2nd three: “to bring everlasting righteousness”, “to seal up vision and prophet”, “and to anoint a Most Holy One.”

The righteousness that the Messiah will bring will be everlasting. There will be no more need of sacrifices in the temple. Christ was a once-for-all sacrifice. The 70 weeks also see a sealing of “vision and prophet.”

A seal not only witnesses to the authenticity of the words on a scroll, but it also prevents further words from being written on it. No further prophecy will be needed once the 70 weeks are concluded.

In reference to the Most Holy One, some want to point to Jesus and some want to make it point toward a new temple.

25 You should know and have insight: from the going forth of a word to restore and rebuild Yerushalam until Mashiach, a Leader, seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks when it again will have been built [with] plaza and moat, but during the troubled times.

26 “Then after the sixty-two weeks, Mashiach will be cut off and have nothing. Both the city and the holy place will be destroyed with a Leader who is coming, and its end will be with a flood. Until the end will be war, and desolations have been determined.

Gabriel’s Words & Fulfillment

“Seven Weeks” (9.25) - beginning with the going forth of a word

Rebuilding of Jerusalem (538-445 BC)

“Sixty-two weeks when it will again have been built [with] plaza and moat” (9.25)

From Nehemiah to Jesus (445-2 BC)

“Troubled times” (9.25)

The Hellenistic era (Daniel 11), especially the persecution of Antiochus. (ca. 167-164 BC).

“Messiah will be cut off” (after the sixty-ninth week and during the seventieth week; 9.26)

Jesus’ crucifixion (ca. AD 33)

“The city and the holy place will be destroyed with a Leader who is coming,” the risen Messiah who will return. (9.26)

Roman devastation of Jerusalem under Titus (AD 70) and Hadrian (AD 135), which portend the end of the world at the return of Christ.

27 “He will confirm a covenant for the many [during] one week. In the middle of the week, he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease. On the wing of detested things (is) a desolator, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Gabriel’s Words & Fulfillment

The Messiah “will confirm a covenant for the many” (9.27)

Jesus establishes the new covenant in his blood, shed for many (Jer 31.31-34; Mt 26.28; Mk 14.24; Lk 22.20; 1 Cor 11.25; 2 Cor 3.6; Heb 7.22; 8.8, 13; 9.15; 12.24; 13.20)

In the middle of the week, the Messiah “will cause sacrifice and offering to cease (9.27)

Titus conquers Jerusalem and destroys the temple, ending its sacrifices. (AD 70)

At the end of the 70th week, there will no longer be a connection between Daniel’s people and the holy city. (cf. 9.24)

Hadrian conquers Jerusalem and bans Jews from entering the city. (AD 135)

This is where you get the end of one of the previous interpretations, but it leaves out the next piece.

There will be desolation until the final decree is poured out on the desolator. (The end of the 70th week and beyond. 9.27)

The Roman Empire falls (as predicted in Daniel 2 & 7). The antichrist continues to persecute the church until he falls at Christ’s return.

Final Comments

The main reason I have used the Concordia Commentary from Steinmann is largely because of how he presented and interpreted Chapters 8 & 9. I have greatly appreciated his commentary. I think he makes very valid arguments.

Though a few of my arguments today have been issues that I raised that he did not, but that is neither here nor there.

As I said earlier, I find all of these interpretations reasonable and faithful for different reasons. I just have a preference, from a Historical, Scriptural, and Theological standpoint, for this particular interpretation.

Most importantly: As I said before, our salvation is not connected to our interpretation of this vision. We are saved by grace through faith.

The biggest thing our interpretation of this prophecy affects, is how we understand our place within it.

Questions? - Thoughts?

Next Week: The Final Vision

Chapters 10-12