Autor: φιλαλήθης

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

---

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

---

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 9

Focus: Continuation of the 70th week of Daniel 9.

In the last post we jumped into Daniel 9:24-27 and saw (to the surprise of some I am sure) that, although so many people are sure that the 70 weeks prophecy was about a timeline that had the 69th week end with the crucifixion, no New Testament writer ever quotes Daniel 9:24-27 as a fulfillment of the crucifixion (or resurrection). If that prophecy was so incredibly accurate on that point and for that reason then it seems nothing short of amazing that no NT writer ever put that together.

As we proceed, I’m going to ask a series of questions about how to interpret Daniel 9:24-27. Here’s the first:

Does the text of Daniel 9:24-27 have the mashiach (“anointed one”) coming after the first seven weeks, followed by 62 more (=69) before the 70th week, or does the “anointed one” come in conjunction with / toward the end of the 69th?

To many readers this no doubt sounds like a dumb question, since many will consider the second option to be self-evident from the passage. That is because they assume that the “anointed one” in the passage is the messiah, Jesus. No way he could have come only 49 years after Daniel has the prophecy beginning (which most take to be around the time of Nehemiah. I should say here that it is not self evident that the “anointed one” here is Jesus the messiah. As we go through some other posts it will become clear why this is the case. It is also not self evidence that the 70 weeks is to begin at the time or Nehemiah’s rebuilding — or ANY rebuilding. That may sound amazing, but we’ll hit that on in the next post. For now, we’ll stick to one issue — the question posed above: Does the text of Daniel 9:24-27 have the mashiach (“anointed one”) coming after the first seven weeks, followed by 62 more (=69) before the 70th week, or does the “anointed one” come in conjunction with / toward the end of the 69th?

This question arises from how the text of Daniel 9:24-27 was accented by the Masoretic scribes.

In Dan 9:25 the Massoretic tradition places what is called a disjunctive accent (atnah) between the words for “seven sevens / weeks” and “sixty-two sevens.” A disjunctive accent served to separate items on either side of the accent. That means the Masoretes saw a break (a disjunction) between the 7 weeks and the following 62. This in turn means that the “anointed one” comes at the end of the seven weeks, before the other 62 occur. The ESV, RSV, and NRSV translate the text according to this Masoretic division. Here they are — note how these translations (due to the accenting) has the “anointed one” coming in conjunction with the end of the first seven weeks:

25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

ESV

25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

RSV

25 Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.

NRSV

This understanding of the verse is known from early Christian sources (e.g., Eusebius) so it is not coherent to chalk this up to an anti-Jesus fiddling with the text by Jewish scribes, as some have charged. Besides, the accents were added centuries after the church began, making the presence of this translation / interpretation of the verse in early Christian sources all the more striking.

Other English translations ignore the Masoretic accent (for one reason or another). Here are some examples. Note how in these translations the “anointed one” comes after the 69 weeks (7 + 62).

“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

NIV

Now listen and understand! Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until a ruler—the Anointed One—comes. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses, despite the perilous times.

NLT

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

KJV

Getting back to our question, here’s the point. The neat 69 weeks from (whatever starting point) that culminate in the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus, assumed by so many end times teachers, may not be the intended meaning of the prophecy at all. In fact, if the Masoretic accenting of the text is accurate, then the prophecy isn’t even messianic (or at least that idea is weakened considerably). The ‚anointed one‘ would not be Jesus the messiah, but another ‚anointed one‘ (and there were a number of these in the OT, even pagans, like Cyrus the Persian king – cf. Isa 45:1).

So . . . which is it?  Does Daniel 9:25 have the “anointed one” coming after the first seven weeks, or after the 69 weeks? And how can we know for sure? Answer: we can’t know for sure.  It would sure have been nice for at least one NT writer to quote the passage in such a way that we could know. Granted, in my first post on this I sketched out the speculation that Luke may have been seeing Daniel 9 that way, but that doesn’t actually help those who want the 69th week to end with the crucifixion (when the “anointed one” is “cut off”). If Luke was angling for what I sketched out, to him the 69th week went up to the birth of Jesus, not the death. That seems incongruous with the “cut off” language (but maybe . . . just maybe . . . the “anointed one” WAS a figure in the past — not Jesus — but the NT writers see an analogy . . . that’s future fodder). I hope you see that there is more to this than you’ve been told in the Left Behind novels and XYZ (take your pick) prophecy book.

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

---

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

---

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 12

Focus: Continuation of the 70th week of Daniel 9. (Last one – features a scholarly article defending a non-Left Behind view so you know the issues involved.

[Note: The book ‚Left Behind‘, published 25 years ago, was the first in a whole series of books and movies and a movement that is about God suddenly taking the true believers to paradise before the end of the world. Those left behind must suffer the great tribulation and the end of the world.]

Before leaving Daniel 9 I wanted to comment on Peter Gentry’s very recent article, as well as two others.  All three take Daniel 9:24-27 as messianic (i.e., that the anointed one who is cut off is indeed Jesus the Messiah), though they do not take all elements of the outworking of the 70 weeks the same way.

Gentry’s article was everything I’ve come to expect from anything Peter writes. It was clear, cogent, and thorough. Frankly, it’s the most coherent explanation I’ve read on Daniel 9:24-27. I’m quite glad that a reader brought it to our attention. All of you should give it a close read.

Before anyone says, ‚wait a minute Mike, Peter takes positions in the article with which  your previous posts have disagreed, what’s up?‘ What’s up is that you haven’t been paying attention (or I haven’t repeated it sufficiently!). I wasn’t taking any positions in my prior posts (none of them), only bringing to your attention the interpretive difficulties and ambiguities in the passage.

I’ll summarize how Peter handles the specific issues we’ve been chatting about below. In a nutshell, he sees Daniel 9:24-27 as entirely messianic – no antichrist is in view – and already fulfilled. Again, this is well presented and well-argued (that is, every element has exegetical support). What this means is that, for Peter, the passage is about Jesus, his first coming, his vicarious death, and the destruction of the temple that was Jesus‘ body AND the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD.

Peter’s article covers every facet of Daniel 9:24-27, but if we zero in on how exactly he sees what’s going on in those verses, this is his most crucial note:

Verses 25-27 are not to be read in a linear manner according to the logic of prose in the western world based upon a Greek and Roman heritage. Instead, the approach in ancient Hebrew literature is to take up a topic and develop it from a particular perspective and then to stop and start anew, taking up the same theme again from another point of view. This approach is kaleidoscopic and recursive … First, v. 25 introduces the first period of seven weeks and the gap of sixty-two weeks to the climactic seventieth week. This last week is described twice in verses 26 and 27. Verses 26a and 27a describe the work of the Messiah in dying vicariously to uphold a covenant with many and deal decisively with sin, thus ending the sacrificial system. Verses 26b and 27b show that ironically, supreme sacrilege against the temple at this time will result in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. Thus verses 26-27 have an A-B-A´-B´ structure:

A 26a the beneficial work of the Messiah

B 26b ruin / spoliation of the city by his people and its desolation by war

A´ 27a the beneficial work of the Messiah

B´ 27b abominations resulting in destruction of the city by one causing desolation

KEY THOUGHT at this point. Gentry argues that since the 70^th week is really about the ending of the ultimate exile (the spiritual exile) of Israel and its solution – the coming of the messiah), only the events in verse 24-27 that deal specifically with the messiah are to be viewed as occurring WITHIN the last seven year period.  Other events that are fallout from what happened with Jesus can (and he says do) happen outside the last seven year week.  This is essential for his view that vv. 24-27 (in places) deals with the fall of Jerusalem at the hand of the Romans. You’d have to read the whole article for how he builds this case. *This* is the key place where Peter has to do some presupposing / make some assumptions that are critical to his own view. The literary structuring above seems to support him, though some could argue that he is using his assumption to ‚create‘ the structure as opposed to deriving his from an intended authorial structure. The real question would be this: does Peter’s structuring make better sense than someone else’s – someone who would want to take Daniel 9:24-27 as a linear chronology from v. 25 through the end of v. 27?

Here is the interpretation that results from Peter’s approach (and which is supported by a number of other items throughout the 19 page article):

v. 25

The anointed one, the Leader = THE messiah, Jesus

v. 26a (the beneficial work of the Messiah)

Sometime after the 69th week ends, this same anointed one (messiah, Jesus) will be “cut off” but “not for himself” (= a vicarious death not for his own benefit, but for his people).

These events occur in the last seven (week).

v. 26b (ruin / spoliation of the city by his people and its desolation by war)

These events are NOT within the last seven year period, but follow sometime after (note that Jesus himself had the abomination being fulfilled yet future to his own ministry in Matt 24).

The people of this Leader (the messiah) will be responsible , in the same seven year period (years 27-34 AD), for despoiling the city and the sanctuary. In other words, the Jewish people bear the responsibility for the pollution of the sanctuary (Gentry mentions a specific historical circumstance here) and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

v. 27a (the beneficial work of the Messiah)

This same Leader (Jesus) will “uphold a covenant with the many” (Israel).  At the halfway point of the seven (between 27-34 AD) he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease – by virtue of his vicarious sacrifice (sacrifices are no longer necessary).

v. 27b (abominations resulting in destruction of the city by one causing desolation)

Again, these events are NOT within the last seven year period, but follow sometime after (note that Jesus himself had the abomination being fulfilled yet future to his own ministry in Matt 24).

The ‚abominations‘ refer to the sacrilege which resulted from the struggle for the control of Jerusalem in the first century prior to 70 AD and after Jesus‘ crucifixion. Gentry writes:

„The ‚war‘ to refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and Temple by Vespasian / Titus (the ‚one causing desolation‘). The ‚one causing desolation‘ (Titus) comes ‚on the wing of‘, i.e., in connection with, those causing ‚abominations‘ (Jews), the one (i.e., people) being desolated. Jesus‘ mention of the ‚abomination of desolation‘ in the Olivet Discourse supports this understanding since he is probably speaking of the sacrilege of John of Gischala as the ‚abomination‘ which forewarns of the impending ‚desolation‘ of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans.“

In regard to an antichrist figure being the referent of v. 27, Gentry does a good job showing how the language used to support that from Daniel 7 and 8 confuses and interchanges the third and fourth kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7. His thoughts here are brief but, in my view, very damaging to an antichrist identification.

While I’m sure many readers will be quite enthusiastic about the way Peter establishes the messianic character of Daniel 9:24-27, they should fully realize what it means is he is correct:

1. Jesus us the point of reference through the entirety of Dan 9:24-27 with respect to any mention of an anointed one and a prince (‚leader‘) – that means there is NO BAD GUY in the passage CONNECTED TO A 70^TH WEEK. The ‚desolation‘ occurring in v. 27 refers to activity AFTER the 70 weeks prophecy is history.
2. There is no future 70^th week (which pre-tribbers identify with the Great Tribulation). The 70 weeks are over.
3. If there is an antichrist figure, that idea cannot be argued or produced from Daniel 9:24-27. That means that all the looking forward (or reading a newspaper) for the signing of a covenant with Israel to start the 70^th week and ‚term‘ of the antichrist is pointless.  There may be an antichrist, but he’d sneak up on you if you were looking for him to do things described in Daniel 9. You’d never see him coming.
4. With no seven year tribulation pending, there’s no rapture pending, since all views of the rapture see it as logically having something to do with escaping a great tribulation or separating the Church from Israel. A post-tribber might be able to weasel his/her way into viability if Gentry is right, but it would prompt the obvious question: why do you need a rapture when the old historic premill view accounts for everything here? (Historic premillennialism is the view that there is no rapture and tribulation – there is just the return of Christ to set up a literal earthly kingdom; post-tribbers would add a rapture right before the second coming – so believers go up and come right back down – seems kind of pointless, especially if there is no 70^th week to account for).

So, in a nutshell, Gentry’s view is quite workable with preterism (even full preterism), as well as what used to be called ‚historic premillennialism‘.

Again, I highly recommend reading his article.

I also mentioned two other articles that defend a messianic view. These are both by J. Paul Tanner and appear in Dallas Seminary’s journal, BibSac. Obviously, the writer would need to be pre-trib and pre-mill if writing for Dallas on prophecy, though Tanner doesn’t really get into all that in his articles. His focus is the messianic nature of Daniel 9:24-27. His articles are:

„Is Daniel’s Seventy Weeks Prophecy Messianic?“ Part 1 BibSac 166 (April-June 2009): 181-200

„Is Daniel’s Seventy Weeks Prophecy Messianic?“ Part 2 BibSac 166 (July-September 2009): 319-335

Next up: presuppositions and the rapture — are you a splitter or a joiner? (I’ll leave you wonder what I mean by that for now).

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

---

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

---

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 11

Focus: Continuation of the 70th week of Daniel 9.

As you read this, bear in mind again I am not taking a position or describing where I’m at with all this. My goal is to show the ins-and-outs of how Daniel 9:24-27 could be viewed (i.e., the “self evident” problem).

Taking another look at Daniel 9…

25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.

Daniel 9:25-27

Our focus this time around is the “anointed prince” (or is it princes?).

In verse 25: “an anointed one, a prince” shall come (after either the first seven weeks, followed by 62 more, or after the 69 weeks)

• Let’s assume (with the standard pre-trib view) that “the anointed one, the prince” comes after the 69 weeks.

In verse 26a: after the 62 weeks (69 in total by the above reckoning), “an anointed one” shall be “cut off” and “have nothing”

QUESTION: Is the “anointed one / the prince” in verse 26 the same as the one in verse 25?  This is certainly possible (and probably the easiest reading) if one presumes the 7 + 62 weeks are not to be split up via the Masoretic accenting.

In verse 26b: now we read of “the people of the prince who shall come”…

QUESTION: Is this prince (26b) the same as the anointed prince in 26a?

If YES — then …

(1) the same prince who is “cut off” in 26a is still alive in 26b to “come and destroy the city and the sanctuary.”  That would mean “cutting off” cannot refer to death (ruling out crucifixion).

(2) if one wants to identify the prince of 26a as Jesus (interpreting the “cutting off” with the crucifixion), then if one wants the prince of 26a to be the same prince of 26b, one has to posit a resurrection in between. That might sound good, but look at what it produces — the people of the prince of 26b (meaning, the followers of the resurrected Jesus) then destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the temple (sanctuary). Not only did this not happen in history, but it would be completley out of character for the followers of Jesus.

CONCLUSION: If you want Jesus to be the prince of 26a, you cannot also have him be the prince of 26b. There must be two different princes. This is the way most pre-tribbers take the passage, assuming the second prince to be the antichrist, since “his people” destroy Jerusalem and the temple.

So is there a problem with that?  To say the least, it’s an odd reading because we aren’t TOLD there are two princes — that has to be read INTO the passage. Rather, there is one prince mentioned (v. 26a) and then we meet “the people of the prince who is to come” (and since the prince we’re actually told about is being predicted as coming, one would more naturally assume the same prince is in view). In other words, one can ASSUME that these “people” and their “prince” are separate characters (and chronologically separated to boot), but it would be very easy (and natural), since we just read about a coming prince to assume that “the people of this prince that will come” refers to the same prince in 26a. But again, if they are the same, we cannot be talking about Jesus.

But let’s assume that we have a separation. The prince of 26a is Jesus, who is “cut off.” Then there is a second prince (with “his people”) who destroys Jerusalem and the temple, and then, in v. 27 “HE” (the second prince – the bad one, the antichrist — makes a covenant with many for one seven … and then we get the abomination. Standard pre-trib reading.

How could that be a problem for the standard pre-trib view? I’d say it can work, but it needs to work WITHOUT verse 24 — and verse 24 is the main reason anyone is thinking of Jesus as a candidate to be the prince of verse 26. Why do I say this? Look at verse 24 (note my boldfacing):

Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.”

Here’s the point:  All of these conditions only happen AFTER all 70 weeks. Pre-tribbers assume that some of them are accomplished at the end point of verse 26a, when the anointed prince [Jesus in that view] is “cut off” — but the text doesn’t say that. The natural (literal? face value? plain?) reading of verse 24 is that when the 70 weeks are up, all these things will be true. We have no warrant for attaching *some* of them to a time before the 70 weeks are fulfilled.  It’s just done to make the system work.

And think about the list. Did ANY of them come to pass with the crucifixion?

— was all transgression and sin ended at the cross? No. We all still sin.

— to atone for iniquity — one could argue that was accomplished, but since it is the ONLY possible connection to the cross (the others didn’t happen with the cross as we’ll see below), one ought to wonder if the phrase was intended to speak of the crucifixion. (Why would one work well and not the others?) Maybe it referred to the sacrificial system or Yom Kippur. If Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed (see vv. 25-26) you would need an end to those circumstances to be able to make atonement for iniquity again. And that would certainly be the case after the 70 weeks were done.

— “to bring in everlasting righteousness” — did that happen at the cross? This is kingdom language, but only an amillennialist *might* say that the cross and resurrection brought the kingdom about in this way. And one wonders, if everlasting righteousness was brought in at the cross, what’s left to bring about in terms of righteousness? I don’t know what we’d be waiting for if it was already accomplished. It seems if you’re premill, you can’t equate this with the cross event.

— to seal the vision — this couldn’t be done with the cross event since there were events still subsequent to the cross that had to come to pass (like antichrist and what he does).

— “to anoint a most holy place” – I don’t know how the crucifixion did this. It reads like the holy place had been desecrated and needed to be sanctified.  That would be the case after the 70 weeks horror (all of it) were over — and that speaks to interpreting the atonement language the way I outline above — not having to do with the crucifixion.

This is why I think if you’re going to take the standard pre-trib view of Daniel 9:25-26, you need to forget verse 24, but that amounts to dispensing with the very thing that fuels your view.

More briefly to the point: If you think the standard pre-trib view is a straightforward reading that is completely clear and coherent, think again. You would need to account for all these issues that arise from the text.  It might be possible, but it isn’t self-evident. To me the biggest issue is the arbitrariness of having two princes. Again, that’s possible, but it feels dicey.

Next up – last post on Daniel 9. I’ll finish up the Gentry article and have some notes on it, as well as two others. Then (finally) on to the rapture idea.

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

---

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

---

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 10

Focus: Continuation of the 70th week of Daniel 9.

Continuing on with our series, “why the seventy weeks of Daniel is more complicated than popular prophecy writers tell you — or even know.”

This Daniel 9 issue requires especially close attention. It runs so contrary to what all the popular end times experts have planted in your mind that it may go right past you. The focus now is the context of Daniel 9:25 — i.e., what context is set in Daniel 9? (What a novel idea — view verse 25 in light of what has preceded in the chapter).

Here’s how Daniel 9 begins:

1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. 3 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. 4 I prayed to the Lord my God and made confession, saying…

Notice that Daniel tells us he had been reading the book of Jeremiah — specifically, the word of the prophet about the 70 year exile. The exile is referred to as a time of “desolations” for Jerusalem. The passage Daniel refers to is Jeremiah 29:10-14:

10 For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, declares the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.

Now take a look at Daniel 9:25 – “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”

The relationship between Daniel 9:1-4 (with its allusion to Jeremiah 29) and Daniel 9:25 isn’t readily apparent. Let me try to make it clear.

Typically, Daniel 9:25 is viewed as Daniel looking into the future to a time when Jerusalem will be rebuilt by its people. That rebuilding campaign would be the starting point of the 70 weeks prophecy. Those who hold to a trib/pre-mill view usually debate over dates in the mid-400s BC as the time of this rebuilding, and hence the commencement of the 70 weeks prophecy. This allows the 69 weeks to end at the crucifixion, leaving a yet future 70th week still out there in prophecy.

But what if Daniel wasn’t looking AHEAD? What if he saw the beginning of the seventy weeks prophecy BEFORE his own time?

Here’s what I mean. What if the seventy weeks prophecy given to Daniel by Gabriel began with the decree of Jeremiah?  Jeremiah would have uttered this “word” sometime before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC. This would mean that as soon as Jeremiah prophesied what he did in Jeremiah 29, the 70 weeks started ticking down.  That’s over a century before the popular view starts the 70 weeks, and it therefore destroys a connection with the crucifixion.

Now, I know this is quite foreign to what many of you have heard. It’s actually a simple matter of which phrase in Daniel 9:25 one focuses on. Let me illustrate (note the boldfacing for which words are considered to mark the beginning of the 70 weeks):

Popular View, where the 70 weeks begins with Nehemiah’s rebuilding so that the 70 weeks end with Jesus‘ death:

from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one (mashiach), a prince (nagid), there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

Jeremiah View – If Daniel, who we know was reading Jeremiah (Dan 9:2) was thinking of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the end of Jerusalem’s desolations (Jer 29:10-14):

from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one (mashiach), a prince (nagid), there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

(in this view, the “word that went forth” in Dan. 9:25 = Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jer. 29:10-14)

Given the context of Daniel 9:1-4, it is entirely possible that Daniel was thinking BACK to Jeremiah’s decree — that Gabriel was telling him that the clock started ticking as soon as God gave Jeremiah that word.

So how would that work in chronology? It’s pretty straightforward, actually.

1. Let’s say Jeremiah got the Jeremiah 29 prophecy right before Jerusalem was destroyed, say 588 BC. We don’t know, but logic says it would have been close to the end of Jerusalem, which was 586 BC.
2. From 588 to Cyrus’ rise to power over Babylone in 539 = 49 years, or the first seven sevens of Daniel 9:25. Cyrus was the guy who liberated the Jews and ended the exile.
3. If we go with the Masoretic accenting (see the post prior to this one), then the anointed one immediately follows those 49 years. The identity of the anointed one is obvious: Cyrus himself. Why? We need an anointed “prince” [ruler] from Daniel 9:25, and Cyrus is called by God “my anointed” in Isaiah 45:1. It is he who would deliver the exiled nation (and he did). It’s quite explicit.
4. Following Cyrus’ decree to let the Jews return, there are 62 more periods of seven years to follow.  That brings us to 104 BC.
5. Some could (and have) argued that 104 BC is significant since it marks the death of John Hyrcanus, the last of the Hasmonean (Maccabeean) rulers (ethnarch and high priest).  At the end of his reign, John Hyrcanus had built a kingdom that rivaled the size of Israel under King Solomon. After Hyrcanus, his son and successor (they were not Davidic) took the title of “king,” something they had no claim to. Not good. The Romans were (in this view) God’s instrument of punishment for that.

At any rate, any attempt to rationalize the chronology with the events of history has its points of special pleading. The trib/pre-mill view has been trying to work out its own chronology since the late 19th century. Other views have the same task.

The point here is not to argue for any specific chronology. Rather, it is to point out that the beginning of the 70th week in the mid-400s is not a self-evident starting point, especially since Daniel tells us he was reading Jeremiah 29 when Gabriel unloaded on him.

Only omniscience could give us certainty here.  I’m running short on that.

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

---

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

---

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 8

Focus: The 70th week of Daniel 9 (identifying it is more uncertain than you realize).

I was going to try and address Daniel 9:24-27 in one post and then move into another point of eschatology, but the comments have persuaded me that this passage needs close scrutiny. My reason for that is the same as it has been for this entire series:  I want readers to see for themselves how the popular end times view of the 70 weeks is far from being self evident. There are many issues in this passage that I expect most readers will never have seen before. The standard pre-trib (any trib, actually) pre-mill view is presented to the masses in overly simplistic ways. Each element that you’ll see in this and other posts in regard to Dan 9:24-27 must be accounted for before one decides what the prophecy meant and thus how it was or will be fulfilled.

To begin, here is a summary of some of the issues we’ll encounter from John Goldingay’s Word Biblical Commentary volume on Daniel. Each of the items highlighted below has its own set of sub-issues as well. Goldingay writes:

Seventy sevens presumably denotes seventy times seven years, as the original seventy of Jeremiah was explicitly a period of years (v 2). The period suggests that the seventy years of punishment due according to Jer 25:11/29:10 is being exacted sevenfold in accordance with Lev 26 . . .

Ancient and modern interpreters have commonly taken vv 24-27 as designed to convey firm chronological information, which as such can be tested by chronological facts available to us. It may then be vindicated, for instance, by noting that the period from Jeremiah’s prophecy (605 b.c.) to that of Cyrus’s accession (556) was 49 years and the period from Jeremiah’s prophecy to the death of the high priest Onias III (171) was 434 years so that the sum of these periods is 483 years, the final seven years taking events to the rededication of the temple in 164 (e.g., Behrmann). Or it may be vindicated by noting that according to some computations the period from Nehemiah (445 or 444 b.c.) to Jesus‘ death at Passover in a.d. 32 or 33 was exactly 483 years, the seventieth seven being postponed (Hoehner, BSac 132 [1975] 47-65; Anderson, Prince, following Julius Africanus reported in Eusebius; Driver instances other comparable theories). Both these understandings of the seventy sevens may be faulted on the grounds of their arbitrariness. In the case of the first, it is not obvious why two partly concurrent figures should be added together. In the case of the second, it is not obvious why the word about building a restored Jerusalem should be connected with Artaxerxes commission of Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem; nor why we should accept the basis of the computation, that of a 360-day year; nor why we should separate off the seventieth seven, as the theory requires; nor why we should date Nehemiah’s commission in 444 b.c. or Jesus‘ crucifixion in a.d. 32 the computation requires one or the other, but the usually preferred dates are 445 and a.d. 30 or 33 (see, e.g., IBD 278-79; J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology [Princeton: Princeton UP, 1964] 285-301; according to J. K. Fotheringham, a.d. 32 is absolutely impossible! [The Evidence of Astronomy and Technical Chronology for the Date of the Crucifixion, JTS 35 (1934) 160]). Further, it is striking that the NT itself does not refer to the seventy sevens in this connection; Luke 1-2 applies v 24 in a quite different way.

This last comment deserves a closer look. How does Luke 1-2 refer to the seventy sevens? Understand the import of this. The question we are asking is “How does the New Testament itself understand the 70 weeks?”

There’s more here than meets the eye.

First, we need to observe that the 70 weeks passage is not quoted in the gospels in relation to the crucifixion, which is the assumed reference point for the prophecy in the standard trib/mill view(s). That is very curious if the end of the 69th week was intended to end with the crucifixion of the messiah. How could all the gospel writers have missed that?

Second — and here’s where we need to think about the deliberate literary UNITY of the Bible — there are a series of parallels between Daniel 9 and Luke 1, and so the question is, are they deliberate:

a. The angel that speaks to Zechariah to announce the birth of John the Baptist, the eschatological herald, is Gabriel. Gabriel is the same angel who spoke to Daniel in Daniel 9. He’s the same guy that gives Daniel the information of Dan 9:24-27.

b. Gabriel’s appearance to Daniel when Daniel was praying (Dan 9:20-21). In Luke 1:8-13 his appearing happens in connection with the hour of incense when prayers are being offered.

c. The description of the fear of Daniel and Zechariah respectively are parallel (Luke 1:12 matches that of Dan 8:17; 10:7).

d. The Greek word  hoptasia (vision”) in Luke 1:22 is found six times in Dan 9-10 (Septuagint; Theod.)

e. Both Zechariah and Daniel are rendered mute (Luke 1:20, 22 and Dan 10:15).

f. Luke gives chronological details in his gospel that mirror the 490 weeks of Daniel 9: There are six months (180 days; Luke 1:26) between the two birth announcements to Elizabeth and Mary; Mary’s pregnancy lasted nine months (270 days); there were 40 days from the birth to the presentation in the temple [cf. Lev 12:1-4; i.e., 7 + 33 = 40 days before the mother could go to the sanctuary]. These numbers produce a total of 490 days, the number of the total of weeks in Daniel 9.

Is this all a coincidence?  Maybe. If it’s not, then what we have here is that, in the mind of Luke (who of course traveled with Paul, the Pharisee, and used Jewish sources), the presentation of the infant Jesus in the temple sanctuary when he was 40 days old marked the end or fulfillment of the seventy sevens — both in years and in the days since God first moved to begin the fulfillment of OT prophecy (the announcement of the herald, John, who would “prepare the way of the Lord” in fulfillment of Isaiah 40).

Now, for sure, this may be a coincidence, or there may be more to Daniel 9, or other ways Daniel 9 could work (including but also aside from the standard trib/mill view). But that’s my point: HOW CAN WE KNOW FOR SURE which scheme is right?  We can’t, and to assume one view is somehow “biblical” and the others are not is arrogant, as it depends on our own omniscience.

More Daniel 9 to come.

By Dr. Michael S. Heiser

---

This series contains the blog articles by biblical scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser in his blog series on eschatology.

---

Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 7

Focus: Is there any biblical proof that the 70th week of Daniel = the tribulation period? Everyone assumes it, but there’s no Bible verse that says it.

The question to address in this post is much simpler than others: Is there any biblical proof that the 70th week of Daniel = the tribulation period? 

This equation is critical to the pre-trib, premill view of the rapture. That is, without this equation, that view is very damaged. 

Sure, there are plenty of biblical references to a time of tribulation, “the time of Jacob’s trouble,” and of course there is the “70 weeks” prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.  But is there any biblical proof that these terms overlap or are to be defined by each other? Is the 70th week of Daniel ever called or alluded to as a period of tribulation? You’d think that would be important (at least I would).

A couple of observations are in order on this one – I’d like some participation from you all, too.

1. Here is a link to all the occurrences of the word used in Matthew 24 for “tribulation” (Greek: thlipsis). Does any use of the term allude to Daniel 9’s 70th week?

2. Notice that in Daniel 9 the only reference to “trouble” (v. 25) is placed before the 70th week.  The Septuagint does *not* use thlipsis in this passage to translate this word.

3. The only time Daniel 9:24-27 is specifically referenced in the New Testament is Matt. 24:15.  Note that the “tribulation” period in Matthew *follows* in Matt 24:21 (the earlier reference to “tribulation in 24:9 is obviously personal to each of the disciples of Jesus’ day). This suggests that the tribulation period cannot be the 70th week of Daniel, though *part* of that 70th week is defined as a period of tribulation. This is a common position of the pre-wrath rapture view.

So, what I’d like in terms of interaction is for those who would define / equate the 70th week of Daniel with a seven year tribulation to provide some textual support for that view.

We’ll get into the 70 weeks prophecy itself shortly.