Daniel's 70th Week
“Seventy
weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the
transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring
in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the
most holy place. “So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of
a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be
seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat,
even in times of distress. “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be
cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will
destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to
the end there will be war; desolations are determined. “And he will make a firm
covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a
stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come
one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed,
is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
-Daniel
9:24-27 Many do not realize where the concept of a future 7 year "Great Tribulation"
comes from. It is assumed by most that it is somewhere in Revelation (though
there is no reference to a 7 year anything in Revelation), when
in fact it is derived from this verse in Daniel (although the Great Tribulation
is not mentioned anywhere in the passage). Much has been made of the prophecy
of the 70th week of Daniel, especially in recent times. Until the 1800's
this prophecy was seen in a very different light... so different in fact
that the smallest change has paved the way for an entire system of thought
that now dominates the eschatological landscape of today's prophecy teachings.
The question must be asked...was the Church confused for 1800 years on
this issue?
“O
Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding.
“At the
beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come
to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and
gain understanding of the vision."
The following is an exposition of the prophecy that may surprise you. If
you have never studied the issue yourself, and you realize the implications,
it may amaze you. You will see that almost every single detail of what
today is considered solid Biblical teaching on the end times hangs on this
matter. Consider the following without preconceived ideas of what awaits
you, and you may find yourself not so much amazed by what it teaches, as
astonished that such a simple thing could ever have been missed at all.
Two Schools
of Thought
The following
chart shows the prophecy of the 70 weeks with the pronouns replaced with
each view's interpretation:
A Prophecy of Christ
- “So you
are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem until
Jesus there
will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and
moat, even in times of distress. “Then after the sixty-two weeks Jesus
will be cut off and have nothing, and the Roman army under Titus
will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood;
even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. “And Jesus
will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the
week Jesus
will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations
will come the
Roman army under Titus,
even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the Roman army under Titus.”Antichrist.”
A Prophecy of Antichrist
- “So you are to know and discern that from the issuing
of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Jesus there will be seven
weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even
in times of distress. “Then after the sixty-two weeks Jesus will be cut off
and have nothing, and the Antichrist and his people will destroy the city and
the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will
be war; desolations are determined. “And the Antichrist will make a firm
covenant with the many for one week (far in the future), but in the middle of
the week the Antichrist will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and
on the wing of abominations will come the Antichrist, even until a complete
destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the
So the two
schemes can be spelled out like this:
This is a prophecy predicting
the coming of Christ, His establishing the New Covenant by His crucifixion 3 1/2
years into His ministry, and the subsequent judgment on Jerusalem - its
destruction in 70 AD by the Romans.
or:
This is a prophecy predicting the coming of Christ and His crucifixion,
then proceeding to some unknown time in the future where the Antichrist
comes and makes a 7 year agreement with Israel to let them rebuild their
temple and start sacrificing animals again, only to put a stop to it after
3 1/2 years so that he can set himself up in the temple demanding worship
as a god, thus beginning the great tribulation (some would say that the
whole seven year period is the great tribulation, others that the first
half is only "tribulation" and the second half "great tribulation").
What
are we to make of this?
490 Years
“Seventy weeks have
been decreed..."
490 or over
2400?
If I told you that I was going to pick you up in 4 hours for a meeting,
and I did not show up until the next day, what would you conclude about
my statement? Obviously I was either mistaken, delayed, or I lied. But
what if I claimed that I was in fact on time? What if I were to tell you
that I was counting the first three hours in a row, but counted the fourth
as a separate hour that was to come only after some undetermined interval?
Would that make sense? If I truly reckoned time in that way could you ever
trust me to be clear in the future? Of course not. This is the problem
we face when we try to do what so many Bible expositors do today with the
words of the angel in Daniel.
What many teach today is that the first 483 years of this 490 year prophecy
passed as would be expected - that is, consecutively (a "week" is a group
of seven - it is similar to our english word "dozen"- in this case
it is years). Then, for reasons that will be explained below, the last
of the weeks (the last 7 years, or "70th week") got pushed into the future
- so far into the future in fact, that they remain part of our future.
So 490 years became well over 2400. How did this happen? Why was it missed
for so long? What ramifications to our understanding of prophecy are there
to consider if this view is correct?
The Break
Theory
Before we look into the "alternate" interpretation of this passage, it
would be only fair to present the reasoning behind today's popular view.
Just in case the reader has not already heard of it from bumper stickers,
videos, or overpriced novels - the break theory consists mainly in the
following:
1. That Daniel's 70th week remains in our future.
2. That "the great tribulation" is in our future and takes place within
this seven year period.
3. That the predicted events of the last seven years revolve around a future
antichrist (the "he" of 9:27).
4. That the requirements listed in vs. 24 - having not been met by national
Israel - and must therefore occur some time in the future.
The popular view of today suggests that only 483 of the 490 years were
fulfilled consecutively in history, and that we have yet to see the last
seven. Because of this, the teaching identifies the "he" of verse 27 as
a future world leader who will make a seven year agreement with Israel
to allow them to begin their sacrifices again in a rebuilt temple. Further,
this world leader will break the agreement at the halfway point, and introduce
some sort of idol worship - setting himself up in the temple as a god etc.
Usually the 3 1/2 year time frames in Revelation are seen as occurring
within one or the other half of this seven year period.
X---------483
years--------->???---2000
years (so far)---???<---7
years---X
The Historical View
Although
this viewpoint is very popular today, it must be pointed out that it is
far from the historic view of the Church. For the first 1800 years of church
thought the following was considered correct:
1. That Daniel's 70th week has already passed (coming right after the 69th).
2. That "the great tribulation" is in our past, having nothing to do with
this seven year period.
3. That the predicted events of the last seven years revolve around Jesus
Christ (the "he" of 9:27).
4. That the requirements listed in vs. 24 were met by Christ as predicted,
and not by national Israel (hence their need for Messiah?).
Now, we do not want to elevate
church "tradition" too high... but at the same time we must not be so arrogant
as to think we have "found" something that all the great minds of the Church
missed for 1800 years, and then act as if we are incapable of being wrong.
In that light, I present below an alternate interpretation, one that has
only recently been displaced by today's teachers.
X------490 years------X
The requirements
of 9:24
An interesting
problem for either interpretation is how the 5 major prophecies regarding "your
people and your holy city" were to be fulfilled. Do they refer to national
Israel and Jerusalem? If so, how could they have fulfilled them at all?
Much less in the time specified. Was the result of their failure the calamity
of 9:27? Or was this a prophecy of what the One who would come out
of Israel, thus fulfilling the prophecy?
"to finish the transgression," Jerusalem
certainly fulfilled this in crucifying Messiah.
(Matt 23:32; Luke 21:28-31; 1 Thess. 2:15-16)
"to make an end of sin," This brought the
end of sin's consequences... which could not have been done by any mere
man or nation.
(Heb. 1:3, 9:12-14, 26 10:12; Acts 13:27)
"to make atonement for iniquity," There
is none other than Christ who could atone for our transgressions.
(Romans 5:8-10; Colossians 1:12-22; etc.)
"to bring in everlasting righteousness," Christ
alone provides for our righteousness.
(Jeremiah 23:5-6; Romans 3:21-26; 1 Cor . 1:30)
"to seal up vision and prophecy," Was
vision and prophecy sealed from Israel?
(Isaiah 6:9-10, 28:16 cf. 29:1-11; Matt. 13:14-15; Luke 21:24; John
12:39-41; Acts 13:27, 28:25-27)
to anoint the most holy place. This may mean
the temple of God in Heaven and/or:
the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
(Hebrews 9:23-24; 2 Cor. 1:21, 6:16)
While it
could be argued that some of these may not be the only possible
means of fulfillment, the following are worth noting:
1. The Scriptures cited above provide adequate evidence that national Israel
was not in mind.
2. It can hardly be argued that any country or people could ever
"end sin", "atone for iniquity", and "bring in everlasting righteousness"
apart from Christ.
3. If, on the other hand, Israel was given the charge to accomplish
such things - they obviously failed to do so within in the allotted time.
In this respect, due to their failure and their subsequent rejection and
execution of Messiah, the judgments prophesied in the verses following
this seem only fitting.
483 Years
“So you
are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and
rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and
sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times
of distress."
The first 69 weeks of this prophecy are agreed upon by most scholars. Briefly,
it foretells the coming of Messiah, "the anointed one", Jesus Christ. While
various secular timelines have been produced throughout history (none of
which agree) as to when exactly these decrees were made, we can ascertain
from Scripture that counting from the decree of Cyrus (Isa 44:28, 45:1-4;
2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-8, 3:7, 4:3-5; 6:3-14) - and subsequent
decrees and affirmations following shortly thereafter to the time of Christ
we arrive at 483 years (Mark 1:15). The prophecy gives details concerning
the first seven weeks as a time of trouble while the city and its walls
were being made, and then simply a period of silence from the last prophet
to the time of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ Himself. Of these figures
and their interpretation, few would argue.
Decree----------483
years----------Messiah
After 483
Years
“Then after
the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the
people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war;
desolations are determined."
Verse 26 brings us past the 483 years to the time of Christ's crucifixion
and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. Several key facts
need to be noted here for the rest to make sense. First, the prophecy does
not say how long after the 483rd year these things would take place.
In other words, neither is specifically said to be within the total 490
year period. Second, it is the people of the prince who destroy
the city - not the prince himself. Third, it is "the people" who are the
subject of the second half of the sentence, not the prince. These
are matters of historical record.
Christ was crucified in about 30-34 AD and the army of Titus destroyed
the city and the temple in 70 AD.
483 years---Messiah---(no
time frame)--->Messiah cut off---(no
time frame)--->Destruction of Jerusalem
"he"
“And he
will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle
of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on
the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a
complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who
makes desolate.”
Here is where the difficulty lies. Does the "he" in this verse refer back
to Messiah, or back to "the prince" (Note: the prince of verse 25 is not
to be confused with the prince of verse 26. Both are specified in their
descriptions, one being the anointed prince who was to be cut off, the
other a Roman prince who was yet to come - that is, after the anointed
prince was cut off).
It is precisely here that two radically different schools of thought depart
ways. Today's popular teaching is it refers back to "the prince" of verse
26. The historic view identifies this "he" as the Messiah. Quite a difference!
There are two major considerations here. One is grammatical, the other
historical. Both must be used to determine whether this is a continuance
of the Messianic prophecies of verses 25-26, or whether we are now being
launched thousands of years into the future to yet another Roman
prince, another Roman people, another rebuilt Jerusalem with another
rebuilt temple and another sacrificial system.
Grammatical
Consider the following sentence:
"Mike is
going to the movies with his friends and he is paying for the tickets."
Who is paying for the tickets? Is it Mike, or his friends? Clearly it is
Mike, otherwise the sentence would have ended with, "and they are
paying." Grammatically it would make no sense to use a plural pronoun to
refer to a singular noun.
How about this:
"Mike's
friends are going to the movies. Jack is also going. He is paying for the
tickets."
Who is paying now? It cannot be Mike's friends, for the same reason as
above. Can it be Mike? No, because Mike is not the subject in either
sentence. We could remove Mike's name from the first sentence and it
would not change the meaning so long as we used other words to tell of
his friends. Mike is only modifying "friends" so that we know who they
are (notice how I must use a plural pronoun to refer to the subject of
that sentence).
Now - the crucial question:
Then
after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing,
and the
people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
...And
he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week...
Who is making the covenant??? The prince? No, for the prince is not the
subject of the sentence - "he" only modifies "the people". We could remove
his name and, so long as we knew who the people were, the sentence would
mean exactly the same thing. To make this crystal clear let's do just that:
Then
after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing,
and the
people_will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
...And
he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week...
"He", it seems, must refer back to the Messiah.
Historical
We must now see if the context of history supports the contention that
Jesus Christ did in fact do what the prophecy says He would. For if He
did not, then (and only then) must we look elsewhere for fulfillment. Below
we will look at each item of the prophecy individually and see what history
has to say on the matter. Comparing Scripture with Scripture should yield
the best results.
"A firm
covenant with many"
NOTE:
The word "for" does not appear in the original text, and may confuse the
issue. The last of the 70 weeks is referred to as the time in which the
covenant would be made, not to its duration.
Did Christ
confirm a covenant with many?
And when
He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink
from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured
out for many for forgiveness of sins.
-Matthew
26:27-28
“Behold,
days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant
which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I
was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which
I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord,
“I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it;
and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
-Jeremiah
31:31-33
For
by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
“This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, says
the Lord: I will put My laws upon their heart,
And
upon their mind I will write them,” He then says,
“And
their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
-Hebrews
10:14-17
And for
this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant,
-Hebrews
9:15
By His knowledge
the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will
bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with
the great,
And He
will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to
death,
And was
numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded
for the transgressors.
-Isaiah
53:11-12
And
Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is
appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel,
-Luke
2:34
"...the
Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life
a ransom for many.”
-Matthew
20:28
"in the
middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering"
It is accepted that according to the Gospel of John that Christ's ministry
lasted 3 1/2 years. If the 70th week began where one would expect (that
is, at the conclusion of the 69th), and if that last week marked the coming
of Messiah, then the middle of the 70th week would fall upon the time of
Christ's crucifixion... His "cutting off". The question that remains is,
what did Christ's death accomplish? Did Christ put a stop to sacrifice
and grain offering? How was this accomplished and when was this accomplished?
...not
through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered
the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if
the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those
who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much
more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself
without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve
the living God? And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant,
Hebrews
8:12-15
nor
was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the
holy place year by year with blood not his own. Otherwise, He would have
needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once
at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin
by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for
men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having
been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time
for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
For the
Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the
very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which
they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would
they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once
been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But
in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For
it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins
-Hebrews
9:25-10:4
He takes
away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time
the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having
offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand
of God,
-Hebrews
10:9-12
Anyone
who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony
of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he
will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded
as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has
insulted the Spirit of grace?
-Hebrews
10:28-29
Coincidence?
So it seems
that Scripture supports the idea that:
Christ confirmed the New Covenant
by His shed blood,
which ended the sacrifices
(both physically: with the torn curtain in the holy place, and spiritually:
from God's eyes and in the practice of New Testament believers), and
this event took place 3 1/2 years into Jesus' ministry or,
"in the middle of the week."
What, we must ask, is the justification for superimposing
a future antichrist (see especially 1 John 2:18-22, 4:3) over this
beautiful prophecy of the coming of the Messiah and His accomplishments?
While the view that a future world leader may come and bring the world
into much trouble may be true, there is no need (nor warrant) to look for
him here.
The Abomination
of Desolation
“Therefore when
you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel
the prophet, standing in the holy place (let
the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;
let him who is on the housetop not go down to get the things out that are
in his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to get
his cloak. “But woe to those who are with child and to those who
nurse babes in those days! “But pray that your flight may not be
in the winter, or on a Sabbath; for then there
will be a great tribulation, such as has not
occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.
-Matthew
24:15-21
“But when
you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation
is at hand.
“Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who
are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country
enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, in order that
all things which are written may be fulfilled. “Woe to those who
are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days; for
there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people,
and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into
all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles
until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
-Luke
21:20-24
The Great
Tribulation - 70 AD
The
Abomination of Desolation is mentioned more than once in Daniel. The reference
in Daniel 11 refers to Antiochus Epiphanies' sacrifice of a pig on the
altar in the temple after invading Jerusalem, so it was already history
by the time these words were spoken. The other is mentioned in Daniel 9.
The disciples would have understood these words to refer to that particular
prophecy, one that Christ said was about to be fulfilled in "this generation"
(Luke 21:32), and which did in fact begin within 40 years... the
siege of Jerusalem... leading to the great tribulation itself.
But that
is not the end of the story...
|
