Continuing on with our series, “why the seventy weeks of Daniel is more complicated than popular prophecy writers tell you — or even know.”
This Daniel 9 issue requires especially close attention. It runs so contrary to what all the popular end times experts have planted in your mind that it may go right past you. The focus now is the context of Daniel 9:25 — i.e., what context is set in Daniel 9? (What a novel idea — view verse 25 in light of what has preceded in the chapter).
Here’s how Daniel 9 begins:
1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. 3 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. 4 I prayed to the Lord my God and made confession, saying…
Notice that Daniel tells us he had been reading the book of Jeremiah — specifically, the word of the prophet about the 70 year exile. The exile is referred to as a time of “desolations” for Jerusalem. The passage Daniel refers to is Jeremiah 29:10-14:
10 For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, declares the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.
Now take a look at Daniel 9:25 – “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”
The relationship between Daniel 9:1-4 (with its allusion to Jeremiah 29) and Daniel 9:25 isn’t readily apparent. Let me try to make it clear.
Typically, Daniel 9:25 is viewed as Daniel looking into the future to a time when Jerusalem will be rebuilt by its people. That rebuilding campaign would be the starting point of the 70 weeks prophecy. Those who hold to a trib/pre-mill view usually debate over dates in the mid-400s BC as the time of this rebuilding, and hence the commencement of the 70 weeks prophecy. This allows the 69 weeks to end at the crucifixion, leaving a yet future 70th week still out there in prophecy.
But what if Daniel wasn’t looking AHEAD? What if he saw the beginning of the seventy weeks prophecy BEFORE his own time?
Here’s what I mean. What if the seventy weeks prophecy given to Daniel by Gabriel began with the decree of Jeremiah? Jeremiah would have uttered this “word” sometime before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC. This would mean that as soon as Jeremiah prophesied what he did in Jeremiah 29, the 70 weeks started ticking down. Thats over a century before the popular view starts the 70 weeks, and it therefore destroys a connection with the crucifixion.
Now, I know this is quite foreign to what many of you have heard. It’s actually a simple matter of which phrase in Daniel 9:25 one focuses on. Let me illustrate (note the boldfacing for which words are considered to mark the beginning of the 70 weeks):
Popular View, where the 70 weeks begins with Nehemiahs rebuilding so that the 70 weeks end with Jesus death:
from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one (mashiach), a prince (nagid), there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
Jeremiah View – If Daniel, who we know was reading Jeremiah (Dan 9:2) was thinking of Jeremiahs prophecy of the end of Jerusalems desolations (Jer 29:10-14):
from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one (mashiach), a prince (nagid), there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
(in this view, the “word that went forth” in Dan. 9:25 = Jeremiahs prophecy in Jer. 29:10-14)
Given the context of Daniel 9:1-4, it is entirely possible that Daniel was thinking BACK to Jeremiah’s decree — that Gabriel was telling him that the clock started ticking as soon as God gave Jeremiah that word.
So how would that work in chronology? It’s pretty straightforward, actually.
1. Let’s say Jeremiah got the Jeremiah 29 prophecy right before Jerusalem was destroyed, say 588 BC. We don’t know, but logic says it would have been close to the end of Jerusalem, which was 586 BC.
2. From 588 to Cyrus’ rise to power over Babylone in 539 = 49 years, or the first seven sevens of Daniel 9:25. Cyrus was the guy who liberated the Jews and ended the exile.
3. If we go with the Masoretic accenting (see the post prior to this one), then the anointed one immediately follows those 49 years. The identity of the anointed one is obvious: Cyrus himself. Why? We need an anointed “prince” [ruler] from Daniel 9:25, and Cyrus is called by God “my anointed” in Isaiah 45:1. It is he who would deliver the exiled nation (and he did). It’s quite explicit.
4. Following Cyrus’ decree to let the Jews return, there are 62 more periods of seven years to follow. That brings us to 104 BC.
5. Some could (and have) argued that 104 BC is significant since it marks the death of John Hyrcanus, the last of the Hasmonean (Maccabeean) rulers (ethnarch and high priest). At the end of his reign, John Hyrcanus had built a kingdom that rivaled the size of Israel under King Solomon. After Hyrcanus, his son and successor (they were not Davidic) took the title of “king,” something they had no claim to. Not good. The Romans were (in this view) God’s instrument of punishment for that.
At any rate, any attempt to rationalize the chronology with the events of history has its points of special pleading. The trib/pre-mill view has been trying to work out its own chronology since the late 19th century. Other views have the same task.
The point here is *not* to argue for any specific chronology. Rather, it is to point out that the beginning of the 70th week in the mid-400s is *not* a self-evident starting point, especially since Daniel tells us he was reading Jeremiah 29 when Gabriel unloaded on him.
Only omniscience could give us certainty here. I’m running short on that.
If the decree alludes to Jeremiahs prophecy (Jer. 25:1, 11) for seventy years in captivity then that captivity was delivered in 605 B.C. So making the actual weeks not begin until the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. is pretty suspect.586 delivers 49 to Cyrus yet nothing at all significant for the rest.
The seventieth week is allegedly centered on when Antiochus IV Epiphanes begins to build illicit altars and illicit temples and idolatrous shrines, to sacrifice swine and ritually unfit animals, (1 Macc 1:47). But the numbers don’t work at all as this was in 147 BC. Furthermore Antiochus did not stop the sacrifice for a full three and one-half years (half of the seven; 9:27) but for only a little more than three years.
Most devastating to these sort of ideas from higher critics, is that it really does not meet the six goals of verse 9:24 in any meaningful way. There was no end to sin and everlasting righteousness as a result of the second centurys events. In the New American Commentary, Stephen Miller rightly contends that at the end of the seventy sevens an era of righteousness will pervade the earth. Consequently, liberal critics have to write off the text as hyperbole. It just doesn’t work.
The only one to put an “end to sin” and who will establish “everlasting righteousness” is Jesus Christ. It’s Messianic.
on the messianic notes, very possible of course. But it all depends on what is meant by “end of sin” and “atone for iniquity”. Sin didn’t end with Jesus (obvious – everyone still sins). And in the OT one had atonement for iniquity (the OT says dozens of times that people were “forgiven” when they offered sacrifice). The “everlasting” righteousness is also not failsafe. The word for “everlasting” (Hebrew: ‘olam) can merely mean “enduring (for a long time).” It doesn’t require a never-ending-ness to it, though it may depending on context. We naturally filter these things through THE messiah, but I doubt if any Jew thought Cyrus was THE messiah, and so they may not have been thinking about the ultimate messiah in Daniel 9 at all. But they may have. That’s the rub.
oooops I made a mistake on Antiochus IV date (He was dead by 164 BC.) but it doesn’t affect my argument. I’m just trying to show that its not as amorphous as you are making it – especially in light of the 6 goals listed.
I see how complex it is.
Another popular view is the one from Chuck Missler which I looked up to myself back in 2005-2006.
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/user/compu102#g/c/93A07CD08C6948C2
Thanks for posting this Dr. Heiser. I never heard this alternate view of Daniel before and I gotta say it is compelling stuff (makes a lot more sense than the alternative). I do see, of course, why people cleave to the messianic aspects of the verses…but you’re right; it’s not self-evident in the least.
well, as I noted before, all these views have their straining points. The messianic view may be the right view. I just don’t know how I or anyone else could be certain.
What about the Peter Gentry theory and the link to the Exodus as mentioned earlier by someone, the chronology seems to fit ;
http://www.thomsonmemorial.com/files/57._Chronology_from_Joseph_s_death_to_Judges.pdf
Per your comment “but I doubt if any Jew thought Cyrus was THE messiah”
That is no doubt true. The Essenes did not think so, if that holds any weight. They expected the coming Messiah to be “very soon”, at 70 AD, or shortly thereafter. The Essenes where destroyed by the Romans in the clean-up action of Jerusalem’s destruction, and the Romans march to Mesada to finish off the last Zealots that escaped Jerusalem. A good book about the Essene beliefs (not specifically end-time stuff) is “Holman Quick Source Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls” by Craig A. Evans. Easy reading. The Zealots also hold-up in the Temple when the Armies surrounded Jerusalem, expecting their savior to come and save them. Meanwhile the Christians and their leadership escape to the hills around 70AD per the Olivet Discourse, to save themselves and the Christian religion. As a result, the Jewish Sacrifical system ends, and their religion becomes Rabbinically based, no longer Temple/sacrifice based. End of story.
so, to be clear for everyone — you are saying the “end of sacrifice” = the sacrificial language of Daniel 9:25-27 = the 70 AD event?
haven’t gotten to the article yet. I know Peter’s eschatological position since I asked a couple years ago when I had dinner with him. But I want to read the article through before noting anything.
No problem the link i posted above is a visual to the article, if you get round to it. It shows the chronology similarities.
Per your comment: “so, to be clear for everyone you are saying the end of sacrifice = the sacrificial language of Daniel 9:25-27 = the 70 AD event?”
Not exactly. Obviously just my opinion, but Daniel’s “end of sacrifice” is the indication that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice at His crucification, thus eliminating the requirement for additional sacrifice in the Temple by the Jews. However, the Jewish establishment did not follow the hint. Jewish establishment, being the corrupt priesthood, who had a vested interest in continuing the process of sacrifice in the temple. To add insult to injury, they stoned Steven, thus sending the Christian leadership out to convert the Gentiles. So, per the Olivet Discourse, within a generation (~40 years later), the Son of Man exercised his judgement on the entire system, using the Romans as his instrument, and Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in 70 AD. So the direction to end sacrifice was at the crucification, but since Israel didn’t accept the new covenant, the actual sacrifice system in the temple was stopped in 70 AD. This, by the way, is the position of the typical “partial preterist” view, which I subscribe to…. variously described in books like:
“Before Jerusalem Fell” by Kenneth L Gentry
“The Last Days According to Jesus” by R C Sproul
“Navigating the Book of Revelation” by Kenneth Gentry
“The Last Days of Madness” by Gary DeMar (the book is very good, but I should note that Gary DeMar himself has turned rather political – he is good when he sticks to religion – but is alittle crazy when it comes to politics.
okay – this is clearer and makes sense in the context of partial preterism.
Dr. Heiser,
In point #5 you wrote
“After Hyrcanus, his son and successor (they were not Davidic) took the title of king, something they had no claim to. Not good. The Romans were (in this view) Gods instrument of punishment for that.”
I can not find any sources that claim that any of the Maccabees were of the line of David (the sentence seems to infer that Hyrcanus was of the line of David but his son and successor were not). So how (in this view) does 104 BC have any significance? The paragraph seems to imply that it is important since the Kingdom of Israel at the end of Hyrcanus reign was close to the size of Solomon reign. Since no one else ask about this I will assume I am missing the obvious
no, they weren’t Davidic.
Daniel ch.9 will not focus on times of Jesus Christ. “Messiah” described there is an Evil prince – Antichrist, the King of Last “Babylon”, who introduced the abomination of desolation, destroyed the city ‘Jerusalem” and temple, and suspended decreed by God service.
could be – and that’s the point. Is the prince language referring to one or two individuals.