Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Daniel 9:24-27 and the Parenthesis Interpretation of Dispensationalism and Bible Presbyterianism


After a brief survey of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, we shall now consider the parenthesis interpretation adhered to by both Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians. The parenthesis interpretation “regards vss. 24 and 27 as both referring to events which are still entirely future.”[1] This, as we have noted previously, produces an end-time schema which is a drastic departure from the eschatology found in the Reformed confessions.

When we peruse the Bible Presbyterians’ understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, we find a striking similarity between their interpretation and the Dispensational parenthesis understanding of the seventy weeks.

The Events of Daniel 9:24 Still Future?

Conservative scholars generally agree that the first three goals of Daniel 9:24 are fulfilled by the vicarious, substitutionary death of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the timing of the fulfillment of the last three goals that is controversial. Dispensationalists regard Daniel 9:24-27 as a prophecy concerning earthly, national Israel. As one of the ramifications of their theological-hermeneutical system, the literalistic Israel/Church distinction is read into the prophecy of Daniel. As a consequence, Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians insist on finding a nationalistic, Jewish fulfillment of Daniel’s seventy weeks.

Concerning the fourth goal mentioned in Daniel 9:24, Kenneth Barker writes,

“If “everlasting righteousness” based on the atoning work of Christ is to be brought in for Israel as a nation, it must be brought in while Israel is still constituted as a nation, i.e., before the eternal state begins. The only possible point in time when this could occur and remain within the time parameters offered (i.e., within the 490 decreed years) would be at the end of the Great Tribulation and at the inception of an earthly kingdom.”[2]

In this understanding of the fourth goal, “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” Barker sees a parenthesis of more than 1900 years between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy. The 70th week is reinterpreted to be the seven years Tribulation period.

The sixth goal, “to anoint the most Holy,” is understood as referring to the Holy of Holies, or the Jewish temple. Once again, the over-literalistic hermeneutics of Dispensationalism demands a literal, earthly temple as the subject of anointing. Barker explains,

“If the anointing of a holy of holies in Daniel 9:24 refers to a temple, its provenance must be earthly, inasmuch as there is no temple in the New Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 21:22). The only possible point in time for the anointing of an earthly temple must be late in the Great Tribulation or early in a millennial kingdom . . . If the Temple of Ezekiel 43 is to be taken as millennial, it becomes a likely candidate for this event.”[3]

According to Allis,

“The special reason that Dispensationalists must insist that vs. 24 refers to the future is quite clear. If the fulfillment of the prophecy is still incomplete, and if the predictions relating to the 69 weeks had their fulfillment centuries ago, then the 70th week must be still future. Hence there must be an interval between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week; and the entire Church age can be regarded as forming a parenthesis at this point.”[4]

The Triumphal Entry of Jesus as the Terminus Ad Quem of the Sixty-Ninth Week

It is notable that Timothy Tow, the principal of Far Eastern Bible College, concurs with dispensationalist Alva J. McClain that the 69th week ends with the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. After elaborating on a labyrinthine mathematical deduction conceived by McClain concerning the date (32 AD) of the terminus ad quem of the first sixty-nine weeks, Tow exclaims, “Does this not fit with the date arrived at by McClain that Christ rode a donkey on Palm Sunday into Jerusalem? Before Holy Week was consummated, our Lord was cut off but not for himself, by crucifixion!”[5] From McClain’s mathematical calculations, Tow apparently thinks that Christ’s triumphal entry clearly marks the terminus ad quem of the 69th week.[6]

But Daniel 9:25a only reads, “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 phrase “unto the Messiah the Prince” nowhere suggests that the terminus ad quem is marked by the triumphal entry of the Messiah. In fact, there is no exegetical basis for this interpretation based upon a literal understanding of this text. According to Young,

“[The Prophet Daniel] therefore was to look for the one who at the same time was both an anointed one and a prince (the definite article is missing) and when such a one appeared, the prophecy would be fulfilled.”[7]

Apart from McClain’s arithmetic of Byzantine complexity, Tow ignores the fact that the text (Daniel 9:25) does not specifically refer to the triumphal entry as the terminus ad quem of the sixty-ninth week. Allis reminds us that the exegetical basis for such an interpretation is tenuous at best. He argues that,

“The word “prince” (nagid) is far too indefinite an expression to warrant such an inference. For that matter, the words of the annunciation to Mary (Lk. i. 32) would justify us in regarding these words as referring to the birth of “the Son of the Highest,” who was acclaimed by the angel as “Christ the Lord”; or they might refer to the baptism, at which He was declared to be God’s “beloved Son.’”[8]

Nonetheless, it is obvious that Far Eastern Bible College follows McClain’s parenthesis interpretation faithfully, including his arithmetic.

The Cutting-Off of Messiah Not in the 70th Week

A study of Timothy Tow’s commentary on Daniel elucidates that he places the “cutting-off,” or the crucifixion, of the Messiah in the church age parenthesis, and not within the 70th week. This is because Bible Presbyterians do not understand the 70th week as being immediately sequential to the antecedent sixty-nine weeks. Between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel is posited an indeterminable time gap, known as the church age parenthesis.[9]

The Gap Theory

Dr J. O. Buswell, according to Dr Jeffrey Khoo, clearly understood a “time gap” between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27. Khoo writes,

“The Second Coming will be preceded by a literal seven-year tribulation period that consists of two halves of three and a half years each. The 70th week will commence at the signing of a peace covenant engineered by the Antichrist between Israel and her enemies (Dan 9:27).”[10]

In accordance with Khoo’s understanding, a time gap of more than 1900 years precedes the 70th week. Towards the end of the parenthesis Church Age, the 70th week “will commence at the signing of a peace covenant engineered by the Antichrist.” In the Dispensationalist’s end-time schema, the indeterminable time gap is essential for the entire premillennial system. “If the gap theory cannot be proved from a study of this messianic prophecy [of Daniel 9:24-27], then there is no validity to dispensationalism, and the entire end-time system called dispensationalism must be rejected. Because dispensationalists understand this, they must devise a way to create a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks.”[11]

Oddly, the duration of this time gap is almost 2000 years - twice the duration of the entire earthly Millennium propounded by Dispensational Premillennialists, and four times longer than the time frame of Daniel’s prophecy of 490 years. Despite the Bible Presbyterian’s insistence upon a literal hermeneutics, there is no “literal” or obvious hermeneutical basis for the interposition of an indefinite time gap between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27. Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians should at least bear the burden of proof in their exegesis.

In describing the Bible Presbyterian tradition of a consistently literal hermeneutics, Charles Seet proclaims,

“God had given the Scriptures to us in a clear, simple and straightforward manner. The message is meant to be accessible to the rank and file who belong to God. No special class of people such as prophets, teachers, theologians or scholars stands between the people and the message. All of this argues for a principle of interpretation that brings the meaning of the Bible within the grasp of the rank and file of the people of God. This principle, clearly stated, is that of taking the Scriptures in their literal and normal sense, and understanding that this applies to the whole Bible, including passages on eschatology. If the plain sense of such a passage makes good sense, there is no need for us to seek some hidden or symbolic meaning.”[12]

According to Seet’s “literal and normal” hermeneutics, the “rank and file who belong to God” should be able to decipher an indeterminable time gap between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 without the assistance of “prophets, teachers, theologians or scholars”. This time gap of almost two millennia should be undeniably obvious to any reader.

Seet continues his tirade against non-literalists,

“As you can see, those who do not interpret this passage literally, take quite a lot of liberties with the text, making it mean things that are not natural to the plain sense of the text. The plain meaning of the text is therefore ignored in favour of a hidden, cryptic message, which only those who are qualified can understand.”[13]

According to Seet’s hermeneutics, those who do not interpret prophetic passages literally “take quite a lot of liberties with the text.” In fact, he alleges that unless one understands prophecy “literally,” one is inadvertently practicing eisegesis. This includes making prophetic texts mean “things that are not natural to the plain sense of the text.” But Seet begs the question: Is the time gap of almost two millennia between Daniel 9:26 and 9:27 considered the “plain sense of the text?” After the fulfillment of the first 69 weeks of years in chronological sequence and continuity, Seet’s eschatological schema demands an unnatural, abrupt postponement of the 70th week. In reality, the “rank and file who belong to God” will view such a gap as “a hidden, cryptic message,” which only a forced eisegesis will spawn.

Seet would do well to heed the advice of Jeffrey Khoo, who perceives that a “dualistic way of interpreting the Scriptures is due to . . . presuppositional bias. . . . The spiritualising method of biblical interpretation is fallacious. It fails to allow the text to say what it actually means (exegesis), but imposes upon the text what the interpreter wants it to mean (eisegesis).”[14]

The necessity of a chronologically sequential fulfillment of the seventy weeks will become apparent when we consider the background of Daniel 9:24-27. In Daniel 9:1-19, the prophet Daniel prayed that Yahweh would restore Jerusalem and the temple. Daniel prayed, “O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us (Dan. 9:16).”

Daniel had understood (Dan. 9:2) from the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11-14) that Israel would go into captivity to Babylon for seventy years. When the angel Gabriel answered Daniel’s prayer in 9:20-27, the seventy years of captivity was drawing to a close. According to Daniel’s understanding, the seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy was intended to run consecutively and sequentially. It is obvious that Daniel would not have expected God to place an indeterminable time gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth years of Israel’s captivity. He was anticipating the restoration of Jerusalem at the end of seventy consecutively running years.

DeMar explains,

“The seventy-year period of captivity as described in Jeremiah 29:20 is a pattern for the “seventy weeks” in Daniel 9:24. “Therefore, as Jacques Doukhan has pointed out, ‘The seventy weeks’ prophecy must be interpreted with regard to history in as realistic a way as Daniel did for the prophecy of Jeremiah.’” From this alone we can conclude that since the seventy years of captivity were consecutive with no gap or parenthesis, the “seventy weeks” must also be consecutive, seeing there is nothing in the text to make us think otherwise. Daniel bases his prayer for restoration to the land on the certainty of the re-establishment promised by God when the seventy years were completed (Jer. 29:10).”[15]

Therefore, just as Daniel understood the seventy years of Israel’s captivity as chronologically sequential earth years, we must interpret the seventy weeks of years (Dan. 9:24-27) as running consecutively without interruption. As God had promised that Israel would go into captivity for seventy years, it would be unreasonable to say that God had kept His word if a time gap is arbitrarily posited between the sixty-ninth and seventieth years of Israel’s captivity. After all, God had specified that Israel would be held captive for only seventy years, and not more.

DeMar argues,

“Could God have placed a “gap” between the sixty-ninth and seventieth years of Israel’s captivity, adding, say, a hundred years and still maintain that He had kept His word? There is no way He could have done it and remained a God of truth. But what if God came back and said, “I didn’t actually add any years; I just postponed the final year by means of a ‘gap’ of 100 years. The ‘gap’ consisting of 100 years, which you assume to be additional years, should not be calculated in the overall accounting.” This would mean that 170 years would have passed. Using “gap logic” the Bible could still maintain that Israel was in captivity for only seventy years. Let’s call this what is it: nonsense.”[16]

Oswald Allis, likewise, criticizes the dispensational understanding of Daniel 9:24-27:

“Is it credible that this prophecy, which speaks so definitely of 70 weeks and then subdivides the 70 into 7 and 62 and 1, should require for its correct interpretation that an interval be discovered between the last two of the weeks far longer than the entire period covered by the prophecy itself? If the 69 weeks are exactly 483 consecutive years, exact to the very day, and if the 1 week is to be exactly 7 consecutive years, is it credible that an interval which is already more than 1900 years, nearly four times as long as the period covered by the prophecy, is to be introduced into it and allowed to interrupt its fulfillment? It would seem to be obvious that the more definite and precise the chronology of the weeks is held to be, the more difficult must it become to regard the insertion of a quite indefinite and timeless interval into it as permissible or possible.”[17]

Covenant theologians should all the more believe in a covenant-keeping God. It is ridiculous, to say the least, to argue that God can delay the fulfillment of a prophecy, and still be called a covenant-keeping God. The crux of the matter is not whether such a delay in fulfillment can be theologically – and perhaps, euphemistically – labeled as a parenthesis, a postponement, or a gap. If a prophecy is not fulfilled within its determined time frame, then such a prophecy is considered false and unfulfilled. It is strange that Bible Presbyterians, who are professedly covenant theologians, contend that God can insert an indefinite time gap between the last two weeks of Daniel’s prophecy, and yet maintain the integrity of the prophecy which has a specific time frame of 490 years. Ironically, the time gap or delay is almost four times as long as the specified time frame itself: a delay of more than 1900 years.

This insertion of an indeterminable time gap is a self-contradictory violation of the Bible Presbyterian’s supposedly literal hermeneutics. Yet, the entire dispensational premillennial schema is dependent upon the parenthesis interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.

The Jewish Prophetic Clock Theory

In his commentary on Daniel, the Principal of Far Eastern Bible College, Reverend Timothy Tow, wrote:

“While Daniel was thinking that the consummation of 70 years exile according to Jeremiah’s prophecy would usher in the Messianic Kingdom, God rather revealed what would happen to Israel in 70 x 7 prophetic years hereafter. A new Day indeed was coming when the Messiah shall judge this sinful earth and bring in righteousness, but not until 70 x 7 prophetic years had passed. . . . What Daniel actually said in Hebrew was “seventy sevens are determined”. This is to say God was telling him it would not take seventy years but seven times seventy to consummate His saving work with Israel. This was a cryptic way of saying, 490 years. . . . With the cutting off of the Messiah the “prophetic clock” seemed to have stopped ticking. In Daniel’s “prophescope” what is in the distant future is brought into focus, viz the last or seventieth week.”[18]

It is indubitably clear that Tow believes that the Jewish clock “stopped ticking” sometime during the First Advent of Christ. Allis explains that “Dispensationalists are fond of the illustration of a clock. The ticking clock, they tell us, represents “Jewish” time. The mystery parenthesis is “time out.” God only counts time in dealing with Israel, when the people are in the land.”[19]

Some dispensationalists go further, and add that this Jewish clock will only tick when the nation of Israel is governed by God. But where in the text of Daniel 9:24-27 do we find an exegetical basis for this time clock? It is apparent that not only the theological-hermeneutical system of the Bible Presbyterians is similar to Dispensationalism, but even their exegeses of critical prophetic texts are similar to that of Dispensational exegetes.

Allis reasons that, according to history, the nation of Israel was in their land for almost 40 years after the clock had allegedly stopped ticking i.e. when Christ was “cut-off.” The Israelites were dispersed only at A.D. 70, when the city of Jerusalem was ravaged by the Roman army. Whether one asserts that the clock stopped at the Triumphal Entry, or at the crucifixion of Christ, there are almost 4 decades to account for, in which the nation of Israel was still in their land after the Jewish clock had supposedly stopped. Therefore, it cannot be that the clock ticks only when Israel is in their land.

On the other hand, if one argues that the clock ticks only when Israel is governed by God as a theocracy, we must ask if this condition was fulfilled during the 69 weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. Allis explains,

“The last theocratic king of the House of David had lost his throne full 50 years before the edict of Cyrus and nearly 150 years before the decree of Artaxerxes. “The times of the Gentiles” are regarded by Dispensationalists as beginning with Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem. Hence this entire period was distinctly not a period when Israel was “governed by God.” If the clock represents “Jewish” time, with Israel in the land and governed by God, how then could it tick at all during the entire period from 445 B.C. to A.D. 30?”[20]

Therefore, whether one holds to “the edict of Cyrus” or “the decree of Artaxerxes” as the terminus a quo of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy, one has to agree that there is no theological or exegetical basis for the Jewish ticking clock theory.

It is notable that Dr Jeffrey Khoo, the Academic Dean of Far Eastern Bible College, apparently rejects the notion that “the present church age is a ‘parenthesis’ or ‘intercalation’ during which God has temporarily suspended His primary purpose with Israel.”[21] In his other writings, Dr Khoo emphasizes that Bible Presbyterians “categorically reject . . . [the dispensational] theological grid.”[22]

As the academic dean of the only Bible Presbyterian seminary in Singapore, statements made by Khoo certainly have weight and significance. Despite the aforementioned emphatic declarations, the students in Far Eastern Bible College are being taught that a church age ‘parenthesis’ exists between Daniel’s sixty-ninth and seventieth week.[23] As Tow had succinctly written, “With the cutting off of the Messiah the “prophetic clock” seemed to have stopped ticking.”[24]

Consistent with the dispensational understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, the prophetic clock for Israel “stopped ticking” at the end of the sixty-ninth week of Daniel’s prophecy. Khoo reminded us that the 7 years of Tribulation, according to Bible Presbyterian understanding, is “the 70th week of Daniel (Dan 9:27).”[25] This is when the prophetic clock for Israel starts ticking again. Given the evident discrepancies in his writings, I am sure that Khoo was not trying to convey an impression of equivocation, or worse, confusion. It is, indeed, unfathomable how Khoo and Tow can justify the placement of an indeterminable time gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy, and at the same time, repudiate the ‘parenthesis’ theory of dispensational ecclesiology. Surely the dispensationalists appear more candid and consistent in this aspect.

No plain or literal reading of Daniel 9:24-27 will allow the dispensationalist or Bible Presbyterian “to insert a period of time between the feet and the toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue (Dan. 2:40-43) and between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of the prophecy outlined in Daniel 9:24-27.”[26] This is an egregious violation of the consistently literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, “in order to make the dispensational system work.”[27]

Allis aptly concludes,

“In short, the clock does not run on Jewish time or on Gentile time. It stops at the triumphal entry and resumes ticking at the rapture simply because the exigencies of the Dispensational theory require it, because room must be found for the entire Church age . . . .”[28]

Who Confirms the Covenant in Daniel 9:27: Christ or Antichrist?

What is the identity of the person who confirms or makes firm a covenant with many in verse 27? Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians believe that this person is the eschatological Antichrist. John Walvoord writes,

“[T]his refers to the coming world ruler at the beginning of the last seven years who is able to gain control over ten countries in the Middle East. He will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5-7).”[29]

So according to Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, the Antichrist will make a covenant with many during the seven years Tribulation. The Mosaic ritual of sacrifice will be restored, but in the middle of the seven years Tribulation period, the Antichrist will break the covenant, abolish the temple sacrifices, begins his reign of terror, and persecute the Jews. This begins what Dispensationalists call the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21; Rev. 11:2-3).

Tow agrees with Walvoord that it is Antichrist, and not Christ, who confirms the covenant in verse 27. Tow writes,

“With reference to that prince earlier mentioned, he would be the Antichrist, the last World Dictator: “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.’”[30]

As maintained by Dispensationalists, “the prince that shall come (Dan. 9:26)” is the person who will confirm the covenant with many in verse 27. “It is argued that “prince” is the subject of the verb “confirm” because it is nearer to it than is the word “anointed (one).” But this argument is more than offset by the fact that the subject of the verb “destroy” is not “prince” but “people” (“and the people of the prince, the coming one, shall destroy”). If the nearest subject must be regarded as the subject of the verb “confirm,” it should be “people” not “prince.”[31]

Dispensationalists agree that “the people of the prince that shall come (Dan. 9:26)” refers to the Roman army under General Titus. If the Dispensationalist insists that “the prince that shall come” must be the subject of the verb “confirm” in verse 27, then the Antichrist must be Titus himself, or Titus redivivus.

Gentry concurs with Allis that,

“The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26. That “prince” is a subordinate noun; “the people” is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: “Messiah” (v. 26a).”[32]

Young reminds us that “the prince (verse 26)” is not even the subject of a sentence. Grammatically, “the people” are in a more prominent position than “the prince.” In fact, “the phrase of the prince in vs. 26 is in such a subordinate position that it is extremely unlikely that we are to regard it as antecedent of “he will confirm.” Furthermore, this entire passage is Messianic in nature, and the Messiah is the leading character. The general theme of the passage, introduced in vs. 24, is surely Messianic.”[33]

Meredith Kline argues that God’s covenant with Israel forms an overarching redemptive-historical grid which undergirds Daniel 9:24-27. He writes,

“The whole context [of Daniel 9:27] speaks against the supposition that an altogether different covenant from the divine covenant which is the central theme throughout Daniel 9 is abruptly introduced here at the climax of it all.”[34]

According to Kline, the form and content of Daniel 9, as well as the concept of God’s covenant with Israel, anticipates a prophecy about the messianic consummation of the very same covenant God made with the Jews. Therefore, when we read of a covenant in 9:27, it is clear what this covenant is. Besides, the language throughout Daniel 9 supports the identification of the person who shall confirm the covenant in verse 27.

In Daniel 9:26, we read that the Anointed One will be cut off. Even the verb karat, which is translated “cut off (verse 26),” has a covenantal allusion. Kline writes,

“There is an interesting link between the Messiah and the covenant in verse 26.  His death is there described by the verb karat, the verb regularly employed for the act of ratifying a covenant by a cutting ritual which portrayed the curse of the covenant oath.  The statement about the covenant in verse 27 is then in clear continuity with the covenantal allusion in verse 26.  Gabriel here assures Daniel that the cutting off of the anointed one (vs. 26) would not mean the failure of His mission but, on the contrary, its accomplishment.”[35]

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament further elucidates thatthe most important use of the root [word karat] is “to cut” a covenant bĕrı̂t.”[36] In fact, “the word here is pregnant with theological meaning. A covenant must be cut because the slaughter of animals was a part of the covenant ritual. . . . Genesis 15 is a significant passage in this regard. The Lord made (cut) a covenant with Abram (v. 18) involving a mysterious ceremony. Animals were cut in half and the parts laid opposite each other.”[37] Thus, there is no doubt that the verb karat has strong allusion to the covenantal promise of Yahweh.

Although the usual verb used for making a covenant, karat, was used in verse 26, it is paramount for us to note that a different verb higbir was used instead in Daniel 9:27. Kline reminds us that this verb higbir means to “make strong, cause to prevail.”[38] This understanding of the verb higbir imposes another difficulty for the futuristic interpretation of Daniel 9:27. Dispensationalists would have us believe that it is the Antichrist who makes a covenant de novo with the nation of Israel. But the use of higbir strongly implies that the covenant in 9:27 is not a new covenant, but a confirmation or enforcement of a pre-existing covenant. Obviously, this covenant is a reference to the covenant of grace which Yahweh had made with the patriarch Abraham, which is now being confirmed by the Messiah with the believers of Israel.

In view of the context of the entire passage in Daniel 9:24-27, verse 27 “may properly be taken to mean that during the brief period of His earthly ministry Jesus fulfilled the terms of the ancient covenant made with the seed of Abraham (cf. Rom. xv. 8), that He secured its benefits to “many,” that is “to the believers in Israel,” for the period up to the stoning of Stephen, or perhaps, in mercy, until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, at which time the “new covenant,” which was in fact only the full unfolding of the old covenant and made no distinction between Jew and Gentile, went fully into effect through the destruction of the temple and of Jewish national existence.”[39]


With the understanding that the Messiah is the subject of the verb “confirm” in verse 27, we can now safely deduce that the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy weeks had been fulfilled in the First Advent of Christ. The traditional messianic interpretation is superior to the parenthesis interpretation because, firstly, it does not necessitate the introduction of a covenant which is completely foreign to the redemptive-historical grid intrinsic to Daniel’s prophecy. Secondly, the hermeneutics of the traditional interpretation is consistent with the analogy of faith. The understanding that 9:27 refers to the abolishing of sacrifice and oblation by Christ’s atoning death is in accordance with New Testament revelation, viz. Hebrews 10:9-14. Thirdly, it does not require the reinstitution of the Jewish cult of temple sacrifice, only to be terminated by a Titus redivivus.

Most importantly, the traditional interpretation adheres more closely to the plain or normal meaning of the text. There is no need of an indeterminate time gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy. “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city (Dan. 9:24).” The seventy weeks of years are given by God as a measuring time frame for the prophecy. If the parenthesis theory is correct, then all concepts of time and measuring are made redundant for the fulfillment of prophecy. In fact, time itself may become irrelevant for the fulfillment of any prophecy. By virtue of this erroneous hermeneutics, prophecy can be made to appear as being fulfilled within any specified time frame. This, I believe, is the most serious weakness of the parenthesis interpretation.


[1] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 115.
[2] Kenneth L. Barker, “Evidence from Daniel,” in The Coming Millennial Kingdom: A Case for Premillennial Interpretation, eds. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1997), 145.
[3] Ibid., 145-146.
[4] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 116.
[5] Timothy Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet: A Study of the Book of Daniel (Singapore: Christian Life Publishers, 1995), 94.
[6] McClain’s calculations are reproduced in Tow and Khoo, Theology for Every Christian, 402-404.
[7] Young, Daniel, 204.
[8] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 116. Allis also repudiates the mathematical methods of deduction used by Sir Robert Anderson and others in pp. 116-117.
[9] See Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 93. In Tow’s diagram “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel,” the Messiah is cut-off after the 69th week, during the Church Age parenthesis. Also see Tow and Khoo, Theology for Every Christian, 404. Here, Tow and Khoo unequivocally state, “Between the 69 weeks and the final 70th week, there is an interval: a period of God’s patience (2 Pet 3:9). But when the time is up, the 70th week will commence with the Antichrist making peace with Israel (Dan 9:27), and finally conclude with the battle of Armageddon (Rev 16:16).”
[10] Khoo, “Dispensational Premillennialism in Reformed Theology: The Contribution of J. O. Buswell to the Millennial Debate,” 712- 713.
[11] DeMar, Last Days Madness, 329.
[12] Charles Seet, “Premillennialism,” The Burning Bush 3, no. 2 (1997): 98-99.
[13] Ibid., 99.
[14] Khoo, “Amillennialism Examined,” 4.
[15] DeMar, Last Days Madness, 330, quoting Jacques Doukhan, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetical Study,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 17 (Spring 1979): 8.
[16] Ibid., 330-331.
[17] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 118.
[18] Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 90, 94, emphasis mine. Rev Timothy Tow is also the Lecturer in Systematic Theology of Far Eastern Bible College.
[19] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 118.
[20] Ibid., 119.
[21] See Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 28-29 under section on dispensational ecclesiology.
[22] See Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 12. Cf. idem, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 46.
[23] See Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 93-94. The Church Age as a ‘parenthesis’ is clearly intimated in the diagram entitled “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel” on p. 93. The ‘Church Age’ is placed between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy. Also see Tow and Khoo, Theology for Every Christian, 404.
[24] Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 94. Also see Tow and Khoo, Theology for Every Christian, 404.
[25] Khoo, Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, 133.
[26] DeMar, Last Days Madness, 326.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 119.
[29] Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 257.
[30] Tow, Visions of the Princely Prophet, 94.
[31] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 121.
[32] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 334.
[33] Young, Daniel, 208-209.
[34] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week”, 463.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980), s.v. “kārat.”
[37] Ibid.
[38] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week”, 465.
[39] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 122.

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

The 70th Week of Daniel's Prophecy: Daniel 9:24-27 and the Traditional Messianic Interpretation


The dispensational understanding of Daniel 9:24-27 is fundamental to the establishment of the Bible Presbyterian’s end-time schema. The seven year tribulation period which follows the pretribulation rapture, according to Far Eastern Bible College, is the fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy. The 70th week of Daniel begins with the Antichrist’s signing of a peace treaty with national Israel. This roughly coincides with the secret rapture of Christians.

The Antichrist will impose his cruel, despotic rule during the second half of the seven years tribulation period, also known as the Great Tribulation. All converts to Christianity will be fiercely persecuted during these three and a half years. At the end of the 70th week of Daniel, Christ will return visibly with His saints to execute judgment upon the ungodly. Instead of hovering in midair as in the secret rapture, Christ will now touch down upon terra firma.[1] A majority of Israelites will now turn to Christ in repentance and faith. Satan will be bound, and Christ begins His Davidic, earthly reign for one millennium.

For Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, “probably no single prophetic utterance is more crucial in the fields of Biblical Interpretation, Apologetics, and Eschatology” than the seventy-weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.[2] In fact, the dispensational exposition of Daniel 9:24-27 “is often appealed to as the conspicuous proof that the entire Church age is a parenthesis in the prophetic program which is to be discovered between vss. 26 and 27 of Dan. ix.”[3] The most striking characteristic of the dispensational understanding is the placement of a time gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. Kenneth Gentry writes,

“Dispensationalism incorporates a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. This gap spans the entirety of the Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the rapture.”[4]

The first 69 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are understood to be chronologically sequential, and therefore, fulfilled consecutively. However, Bible Presbyterians, following their Dispensational brethren, impose an indeterminable time gap between the last two weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. This time gap is also known as the church age.

It is well known amongst exegetes that the exposition of Daniel 9:24-27 is notoriously controversial and difficult. Montgomery laments that “the history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O.T. criticism. . . . [T]he trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories in the efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology.”[5]

Gentry concurs that,

“This “extremely important prophecy” [of Daniel 9:24-27] is the most difficult for dispensationalists to make credible to those outside of their system. Even dispensationalist Robert Culver admits: “The difficulty of the verses that now lie before us is evident.” “Premillennial writers of two or three generations ago were very far apart on the details. Much of the same diversity appears in premillennial contemporary writers.” In fact, Daniel’s Seventy Weeks prophecy leads dispensationalism into one of its most strained peculiarities: The doctrine of the gap theory of the Church Age.”[6]

Despite the exegetical difficulty, the entire end-time schema of dispensationalism depends upon an accurate and sound exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27. The dispensational understanding of Daniel’s seventy weeks forms an indispensable foundation for Bible Presbyterian eschatology. According to Gentry:

“The chronology provided in Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Dan. 9:24-27) is a linchpin in the dispensational system, although it is not crucial to any of the other millennial systems. Walvoord comments that the “interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 is of major importance to premillennialism as well as pretribulationism.” Being such, it is the “key” to prophecy and, consequently, “one of the most important prophecies of the bible.” Surely [Oswald] Allis is correct when he observes that “the im­portance of the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Dispensational teaching can hardly be exaggerated.’”[7]

Both Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists agree that Daniel’s prophecy of seventy-weeks is an indispensable key to the interpretation of New Testament prophecy. It provides an interpretive grid for Dispensationalists to understand essential prophetic passages such as the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation. In fact, this is a good illustration of how Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians interpret the New Testament in the light of Old Testament prophecies, instead of vice versa. This methodology goes against the Reformed principle of progressive revelation.

Since Daniel 9:24-27 forms an integral part of the dispensational, hermeneutical foundation, the entire Bible Presbyterian eschaton will collapse if we can demonstrate the exegetical weaknesses of their interpretation of Daniel’s seventy-weeks. Before we critique the dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 - also known as the Parenthesis interpretation - we shall first proceed to understand the Traditional Messianic interpretation of this passage.[8]

The Traditional Messianic Interpretation Versus the Parenthesis Interpretation

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 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. 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. 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 for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate (Dan. 9:24-27).”

The traditional messianic interpretation is in many ways similar to the parenthesis interpretation of dispensationalists. As Oswald Allis has pointed out, the points of agreement are as follows:

(1) The seventy weeks represent weeks of years, a total of 490 years.

(2) Only one period of weeks is described, as is proved by the fact that the subdivisions (7+62+1) when added together give a total of 70.

(3) The “anointed one, the prince” (vs. 25) and the “anointed one” (vs. 26) are we same person, the Messiah.

(4) The first 69 weeks or 483 years had their terminus in the period of the first advent; their fulfillment is long past.[9]

Both interpretations agree that the seventy weeks of Daniel’s prophecy consist of 490 years in human history. Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, likewise, concur that the prophecy is Messianic in nature, and that “the Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 and “Messiah” in verse 26 refer to Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the first 69 weeks of prophecy is fulfilled within Christ’s First Advent. Both the parenthesis and the traditional messianic interpretation, therefore, stand in opposition to various anti-messianic interpretations that have been proposed.

However, it is the differences between these two interpretations that result in at least two diametrically antagonistic eschatological grids. The points of difference centre about these questions:

(1) Have the great events described in vs. 24 been fulfilled, or is their accomplishment still future?

(2) Is the 70th week past, or is it still to come?[10]

Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, of course, take a futurist approach to these two questions. They both believe that the events of verse 24 have yet to be completely fulfilled, and they both hold to the position that the 70th week is a future occurrence.

The Traditional Messianic Interpretation of Daniel 9:24

According to the traditional interpretation, “all of the great transactions referred to in vs. 24 are to be regarded as having been fulfilled at the first advent and, more specifically, in what is to be regarded as the climactic event of the prophecy, the redemption at Calvary, which is referred to literally in vs. 26 and figuratively in vs. 27.”[11]

Readers will be able to recognize that these transactions of verse 24 speak about the active and passive obedience of Christ. Young understands the 70 weeks as being decreed to accomplish six results or transactions, and he categorizes these six results into two groups of three members each.[12]

The negative results are referred to as: “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity (verse 24).” Indeed, the Messiah’s passive obedience – his atoning sacrifice – encompasses the work of breaking the power of sin over God’s elect (Rom. 6:1-2, 14), the removal of the condemnation of sin (Rom. 5:12-19; 6:23), and the atoning for iniquity (Rom. 3:21-26). Christ’s death on the cross of Calvary, indeed, took away all the eternal consequences of the curse.

Young writes:

“To sum up; sin is here pictured as transgression, sins and iniquity. These three words well represent in its fullness the nature of that curse which has separated man from God. The first stated purpose of the decreeing of the period of 70 sevens is to abolish this curse. It is to be restrained, so shut up by God, that it may no longer be regarded as existing; it is to be brought to an end, that it may no longer be present to enslave; it is also to be done away, because the guilt which it involves has been expiated. How is this to be accomplished? The text does not say, but who, in the light of the NT revelation, can read these words without coming face to face with that one perfect Sacrifice which was offered by Him, who “appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb. 9:26b)?”[13]

Young refers to the last three results as being positive. These three positive results are spoken of by Daniel in verse 24b, “to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.” In this group of positive transactions, all the three offices of Christ are alluded to: prophet, priest, and king.

By His perfect obedience as the final priest (Rom. 5:19), Christ brings in “everlasting righteousness.” This righteousness is the imputed righteousness of the Savior. It is by His righteousness that we can stand righteous before the judgment seat of Christ. “It is the righteousness of God which comes from God. More specifically, it is that state of rightness or right relationship with God which comes to the sinner through faith in Jesus Christ. It is the blessed condition of “being right” with God.”[14]

Jesus Christ is the Prophet of whom the Old Testament prophets had prophesized. As a prophet, Christ sealed up “vision and prophecy.” This sealing does not mean “to accredit,” but rather, “to seal up” so that prophecy no longer appears. The purpose and function of prophecy is finished, and is no longer needed in the new dispensation.

Young comments,

“The two words, vision and prophet, therefore, serve to designate the prophetic revelation of the OT period. This revelation was of a temporary, preparatory, typical nature. It pointed forward to the coming of Him who was the great Prophet (Deut 18:15). . . . When sin is brought to an end by the appearance of the Messiah, so prophecy, which had predicted His coming and His saving work, is no longer needed. It has fulfilled its task and is therefore sealed up.”[15]

According to Allis, “The “anointing of a most holy” may refer either to a person or to a place. If to a person, the reference may be to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus to fit Him for His Messianic work (Lk. iii. 22, iv. 18); if to a place, it may refer to the entrance of the risen Christ into heaven itself, when “through his own blood he entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. ix. 12) for all His elect.”[16] Both Gentry and Young argue that the anointing in verse 24 “speaks of the Christ’s baptismal anointing.”[17]

Gentry reasons that Daniel 9:24-27 is primarily a Messianic prophecy. The Messiah (mashiyach, “Christ,” “Anointed One”) is specifically mentioned twice in verses 25 and 26. Furthermore, the phrase “Most Holy” rightly describes the Messiah, “that holy thing which shall be born (Luke 1:35).”[18]

Isaiah prophesized about Christ, the Redeemer, who will usher in the ultimate redemptive Jubilee (Isa. 61:1-2a; cf. Luke 4:17-21). It was also at His baptismal anointing that the Holy Spirit came upon Him (Mark 1:9-11), which marks the beginning of His earthly ministry (Mark 1:14-15). Ultimately, “Christ is pre-eminently the Anointed One.”[19]

The six transactions or results of verse 24 are, therefore, Messianic in nature, and are to be understood as having complete fulfillment in Christ’s First Advent, and especially, in His Passion. “In a word, we have in vs. 24 the prophecy of the “satisfaction of Christ,” of His obedience and sufferings, by virtue of which the sinner obtains forgiveness and acceptance with God.”[20]

Determining the Terminus Ad Quem of the Seventy Weeks

The traditional Messianic interpretation understands the death of the Messiah as occurring within the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy. “For the period of the 70th seven the Messiah causes a covenant to prevail for many, and in the half of this seven by His death He causes the Jewish sacrifices and oblation to cease. His death is thus seen to belong within the 70th seven [or week]. Consequent upon this causing the sacrifices and oblation to cease is the appearance of a desolator over the pinnacle of the Temple, which has now become an abomination. Upon the ruins a determined full end pours out. This event, the destruction of the city [of Jerusalem], does not, therefore, take place within the 70 sevens, but follows as a consequent upon the cutting off of the Messiah in the 70th seven.”[21]

Thus, the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 does not fall within the time frame of the 70 weeks. Gentry concurs that “the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with war and desolation (vv. 26b, 27b) are the consequences of the cutting off of the Messiah and do not necessarily occur in the seventy weeks time frame. They are an addendum to the fulfillment of the focus of the prophecy, which is stated in verse 24.”[22]

From Daniel 9:25, the terminus ad quem of the 69 sevens is fairly clear. According to Gentry, Allis, and Philip Mauro, the terminus of the second period of sixty-two weeks is at the baptism of Christ when He begins His public ministry (A.D. 26).[23] This marks the terminus ad quem of the first sixty-nine weeks, and the terminus a quo of the seventieth week. It should be noted that this is the interpretation widely agreed upon by most conservative scholars, excluding Bible Presbyterians and Dispensationalists who place the terminus a quo of the seventieth week at yet a future date.

“After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (Daniel 9:26a).” This would imply that Christ is crucified after the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. This climactic event is further referred to in Daniel 9:27, “in the midst of the week he [the Messiah] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” Christ, by His atoning death, put an end to the Jewish cult of blood sacrifices. As the author of Hebrews writes:

“Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:9-14).”

Therefore, it is Christ who confirms (higbir) the covenant with many for one week (the 70th week), and His crucifixion takes place in the middle (“the midst”) of the 70th week. Allis comments that,

“If “in the midst” is taken in its natural sense, a half-week, or three and a half years, remains to be accounted for after the crucifixion. Many interpreters regard this as referring to the period of the founding of the Church and the preaching of the gospel exclusively to the Jews, a period ending with or about the time of the martyrdom of Stephen. Others hold that the period of three and a half years was graciously extended to some 35 years, to the date of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, a reference to which is found in vs. 26. Both of these explanations may be regarded as possible.”[24]

How should we, therefore, interpret the terminus ad quem of the 70th week - the last three and half years? Applying the analogy of faith, we ought to interpret Old Testament prophecies with the light of New Testament revelation. I concur with Meredith Kline who understands that in the Apocalypse of John, the apostle reinterprets the last three and half years of the 70th week as “a time, and times, and half a time (Rev. 12:14).” Kline explains his position:

“It appears that the last half of the seventieth week [of Daniel] is the age of the community of the new covenant, disengaged from the old covenant order with whose closing days its own beginnings overlapped for a generation. In the imagery of the New Testament Apocalypse, the last half week is the age of the church in the wilderness of the nations for a time, and times, and half a time (Rev. 12:14). Since the seventy weeks are ten jubilee eras that issue in the last jubilee, the seventieth week closes with the angelic trumpeting of the earth’s redemption and the glorious liberty of the children of God. The acceptable year of the Lord which came with Christ will then have fully come. Then the new Jerusalem whose temple is the Lord and the Lamb will descend from heaven (Rev. 21:10, 22) and the ark of the covenant will be seen (Rev. 11:19), the covenant the Lamb has made to prevail and the Lord has remembered.”[25]

Edward Young, however, restrains himself from drawing a dogmatic conclusion with regard to the timing of the seventieth week’s terminus. The difficulty in determining the terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks should not be misconstrued as weakness of the traditional messianic school of interpretation. Young points out that all schools of interpretation are, in fact, faced with this difficulty. Young writes:

“The question naturally arises, What marks the termination of the 70 sevens? In answer it should be noted that the text does not say a word about the termination. The terminus ad quem of the 69 sevens is clearly stated, namely, an anointed one, a prince. No such terminus ad quem, however, is given for the 70 sevens themselves. It would seem, therefore, that the terminus ad quem was not regarded as possessing particular importance or significance. No important event is singled out as marking the termination. All schools of interpretation, therefore, are faced with the difficulty of determining what marked the close of the 70 sevens.”[26]

In summary, we recall that seventy weeks of years are determined to fulfill six great transactions as indicated by Daniel 9:24. According to the traditional interpretation, these messianic transactions had been fulfilled during the First Advent of Jesus Christ. The terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks will not affect our understanding of the messianic fulfillments of Daniel’s prophecy. However, the placement of the terminus a quo of the seventieth week will determine whether the events of Daniel 9:24 have been fulfilled. If, according to Dispensationalists and Bible Presbyterians, the seventieth week has yet to begin, it might become necessary to deny the complete fulfillment of the transactions of Daniel 9:24.


[1] Cf. the dispensational understanding of Zech. 14:4-5.
[2] Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1940), 9.
[3] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 111-112.
[4] Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 331. Gentry is a postmillennialist, and a Christian Reconstructionist. We shall discuss the gap theory in detail later in this chapter.
[5] J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1927), 400–401.
[6] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 320-321, quoting Robert Duncan Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 144.
[7] Ibid., 319-320, quoting John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 24; John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 201, 216; O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945), 111.
[8] See Edward J. Young, Daniel (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1949), 192-195 for the various interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27. The two most popular interpretations of Daniel 9:24-27 are 1) the Traditional Messianic Interpretation; and 2) the Parenthesis Interpretation.
[9] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 112. It is not within the scope of this book to provide a detailed exegesis of Daniel 9:24-27. The reader is advised to refer to Edward Young’s excellent commentary, Daniel. Also see Meredith Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week”, in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, ed. John H. Skilton (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1974), 452-469.
[10] Ibid., 112.
[11] Ibid., 113.
[12] Young, Daniel, 197.
[13] Ibid., 199.
[14] Ibid., 200.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 113-114.
[17] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 326. Also see Young, Daniel, 200-201.
[18] Cf. 4:34, 41. See also: Mark 1:24; Acts 3:14; 4:27, 30; 1 John 2:20; Rev. 3:7; He is also called the “anointed one” (Psa. 2:2; lsa. 42:1; Acts 10:38).
[19] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 327.
[20] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 114.
[21] Young, Daniel, 220.
[22] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 330.
[23] See Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 323; Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 114. Also see Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation: A Study of the Last Two Visions of Daniel, and of the Olivet Discourse of the Lord Jesus Christ, Rev. ed. (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publishers, 1975; reprint, Dahlonega, Georgia: Crown Rights Book Co, 1998), 55-69. Mauro furnishes us with an excellent treatise on this subject matter.
[24] Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 114-115.
[25] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week”, 468-469. According to Leviticus 25:1-22, the first seven weeks of years of Daniel’s prophecy are comprised of seven sabbatical years, which is forty-nine years in all. These forty-nine years constitute the Jubilee, in which “seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years (Leviticus 25:8).” This precedes the fiftieth year, which is the Year of Jubilee, when liberty is proclaimed “throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof (Lev 25:10).” Mark Rooker writes, “In addition to allowing the land to lie fallow every seventh year, the year after the seventh sabbatical year, the fiftieth year, was to be the Year of Jubilee, during which each person was to return to his personal property. Thus when a series of seven years went through seven cycles (25:8), the following year, the fiftieth year called for a special celebration. The Year of Jubilee began with a trumpet blast on the Day of Atonement (25:9), thereby proclaiming liberty to all the inhabitants of the land (25:10).” See Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus: The New American Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 2000), 303. The total period of four hundred and ninety years (seventy weeks) in Daniel’s prophecy, therefore, constitutes ten jubilee eras. The emphasis is upon the ultimate Year of Jubilee, which follows the seventy weeks of prophecy.
[26] Young, Daniel, 220-221.