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 Israel
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
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 Jerusalem
Thus, the
destruction of Jerusalem
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
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]
“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.
References
[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
[26] Young, Daniel,
220-221.
