“It is assumed that when Christ spoke of the
abomination of desolation, he had in mind [Dan.
9:24-27]. Since therefore he regarded the abomination as future, the 70th
7 [last week = 7 years] in which the abomination is to occur, must also be future [Matt. 24:15-16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20-21].”
“It
is important to observe that [Mat 24.15] conclusively proves that Jesus himself
regarded the fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel as yet future…This means
that a genuine theological or doctrinal issue is at stake here; for if the
hypothesis of complete fulfillment by Antiochus is correct, as many liberals
insist, it raises a real question as to whether [Jesus] was mistaken in his
understanding of prophecy and the theological interpretations of the OT.”
“The
reference of this prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans [is]
not thereby proved, because in his discourse Christ spake not only of this
destruction of the ancient Jerusalem, but generally of his parousia and the end of the age (Matt. 24:3), and referred the
words of Daniel of the Kingdom to the parousia
of the son of man.”
Vaticinium ex eventu?
The old historical/critical interpretation is held by many well-known
liberal scholars [Keil, Young] & commentaries [WBC].
Chronology
·
Metaphor or literal?
“There
is no analogy in Scripture for the use of symbolic numbers in connection with
chronological predictions…The burden of proof always rests on the litigant who
wishes to show that terms are used in a special or unusual way, rather than in
the plain, ordinary usage of the words involved.” Archer
“Yet
those who argue for a symbolic understanding of the seventy weeks of years are
overlooking the obvious. Daniel’s prayerful confession and plea on behalf of
the nation in Daniel 9 began with his reading Jeremiah 25:11–12 and 29:10 that
the nation’s exile in and servitude to Babylon would end after seventy years
(not after 490 years) and the Babylonian king would be punished. Judah lost her
independence in 609 B.C. when Pharaoh Neco II of Egypt killed King Josiah and
Judah became a vassal state of Egypt, only to be made a vassal state of Babylon
four years later. In 539 B.C. — seventy years later—Babylon was overthrown, and
the prophecy of Jeremiah was literally fulfilled. Daniel hoped that Jerusalem’s
desolations would be complete with Babylon’s downfall, but the Lord showed him
that seventy sevens of years would still be needed for her desolations to be
fulfilled. Since the latter was established on a foundation of seventy literal
years, logically the extended period should be viewed as literal as well.
A
second critical weakness of the symbolic view of the seventy weeks has to do
with the Jewish interpretations of Daniel’s seventy-weeks prophecy—some
messianic and some nonmessianic— that preceded the destruction of the temple in
A.D. 70….They were all based on a computation of a literal 490 years stemming
from Daniel’s prophecy. Significantly these reckonings derive from the very
period of time (the intertestamental period in which apocalyptic literature
flourished) when McComiskey has said symbolic figures were used in Jewish and
non-Jewish literature. While apocalyptic literature did utilize symbolic
figures at times, the evidence regarding Daniel 9:24–27 is strongly to the
contrary. This is a particularly important point, since those advocating these
various Jewish schemes relied primarily on the Hebrew text (predating the
Christian era) and not the later Theodotionic Greek text. Furthermore in the
early centuries following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, two primary Jewish
interpretations of this passage—that of Josephus and that of the second-
century A.D. Jewish chronological work, Seder
Olam Rabbah— viewed the 490 years literally and viewed the terminus ad quem as in the events of
A.D. 70.” Tanner, “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (July–Sept. 2009): 319–35.
·
Doesn’t add up:
“In
view of the fact that reckoning from Ezra’s return to the appearance of Jesus
Christ as “Messiah and Ruler” in A.D. 27 comes out to exactly 483 years (or 62
heptads), all motive for resorting to an unprecedented and unparalleled use of
“symbolic” numbers is removed.” Archer
“[If all the six
goals of v.24] were in fact attained by the crucifixion of Christ and the
establishment of the early church 7 years after his death, then it might be
fair to assume that the entire 490 years of the 70 weeks were to be understood
as running consecutively and coming to a close in A.D. 37.” Archer
“The destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans followed the death of Christ, not after an interval of
only three and a half years, but of thirty years. Accordingly, the seventy
weeks must extend to the year 70 AD, whereby the whole calculation is shown to
be inaccurate.” Keil
“The
termination of the sevens is understood to be [by some as,] the end of
Antiochus’ persecution (either the cleansing of the temple in 164 B.C. or
Antiochus’ death in 163 B.C.), at which time the kingdom of God supposedly
would come upon the earth, an event that obviously did not take
place…Montgomery [Daniel, 393]
declares, “We can meet this objection only by surmising a chronological
miscalculation on the part of the writer.” Miller
“As
a calculation of the period from the Babylonian Exile to Antiochus…Daniel’s 490
years [70 weeks] is impossibly long, by any known chronology, ancient or
modern. (By modern calculations, it is about 70 years too long.) But Daniel was
not interested in the chronology of the whole period, only in its conclusion.”
[Why specific numbers/times then?!] Collins
“The
Essenes began Daniel’s seventy weeks at the return from the Exile….they
therefore expected the period of seventy weeks or 490 years to expire in A.M.
3920, which meant for them between 3 B.C. and A.D. 2. Consequently their hopes
of the coming of the Messiah of Israel (the Son of David) were concentrated on
the preceding 7 years, the last week, after the 69 weeks. Their interpretation
of the seventy weeks is first found in the Testament of Levi and the
Pseudo-Ezekiel Document (4 Q 384–390), which probably means that it was worked
out before 146 B.C.” Beckwith, “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming in
Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation,” Revue
de Qumran 10 (December 1981): 521–42.
“This
tendency in Jewish circles to see the seventy weeks fulfilled in Jerusalem’s
destruction in A.D. 70 is even more strongly affirmed in the Jewish
chronological work, Seder Olam Rabbah, which, according to tradition, was
composed about A.D. 160 (though it may have been supplemented and edited at a
later period). This work provides a chronological record that extends from Adam
to the Bar Kokhba revolt of A.D. 132–135. The significance of Seder Olam Rabbah
is that the chronology espoused therein became commonly accepted in subsequent
Jewish writings, including the Talmud and the consensus of Jewish rabbinical
scholars (e.g., Rashi, A.D. 1040–1105). Seder Olam Rabbah says that the seventy
weeks were seventy years of exile in Babylon followed by another 420 years
until the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70.11 The latter figure of
420 is achieved by assigning 34 years for the domination of the Persians, 180
years to the Greeks, 103 years for the Maccabees, and 103 years for the Herods.
The problem, of course, is that these figures are simply unacceptable to modern
historians, especially the significantly low figure of 34 years for the
Persians. Nevertheless this became the basis for Jewish calculations of the
prophecy, though Jewish commentators differed on the details.” Tanner, “Is
Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1, Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (April–June 2009): 181–200.
·
athnach/atnah, Dan 9.25:
“In
the Septuagint, in Theodotion, in Symmachus and in the Peshitta the 7 and 62
weeks are treated as a single period, at the end of which the anointed one
comes. The same is true even of Aquila’s translation, though Aquila’s
rabbinical education was unimpeachable.”
Roger
T. Beckwith, “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic,
Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation,” Revue de Qumran 10 (1979–1981): 522.
“It
seems likely, therefore, that between the Bar Kokba revolt (132–135 A.D.) and
about the end of the second century, a disillusioned Judaism had reacted
against the Messianic interpretation of the 70-weeks prophecy, and had devised the
interpretation reflected in the Massoretic punctuation [Dan 9.26, atnah], with two anointed ones at
different eras, the first being Joshua the son of Jozadak and the second either
Ananus (as suggested by Josephus) or perhaps Phanni (high priest at the date
when the Temple was overthrown.” Beckwith, “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah's
Coming,” 541.
“The
impact of this rendering on Christian exegesis was profound. It offered
chronographers an additional 49 years to fill up the interim period between the
‘going forth of the word’ and Christ’s advent. At the same time, it allowed
interpreters to impose a single messianic interpretation on the christos hegumenos of v 25 and the
events of v 26. Neither the Vulgate, nor the Syriac text, nor the other Greek
versions did much to dispel the impression. To the contrary, their renderings,
even more than Theodotion, encouraged interpreters to assume that the 69 weeks
formed a single block of time and that vv 25 and 26 referred to the same
‘anointed one’ ” (“The Apocalyptic Survey of History Adapted by Christians:
Daniel’s Prophecy of 70 Weeks,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early
Christianity, ed. James C. VanderKam and William Adler [Minneapolis: Fortress,
1996], 223).
“Indeed,
much of the commentary on Dan 9:24–27 is marked by its polemic anti-Jewish
flavor. Jerome, on uncertain authority, goes so far as to suggest that the
interpretation of Dan 9:26 by the Jews of his time was guided by anti-
Christian animus. While allowing that the death of the ‘anointed one’ predicted
in v 26 may have referred to Christ, the ‘Hebrews,’ he says, took the words
[“but not to”] to mean that ‘the kingdom of the Jews will not be his.’ In
opposing the manifest messianic meaning of Daniel 9, Eusebius states the Jews
willfully misrepresented these verses by insisting that the events forecast in
the prophecy had not yet been realized.” Adler, “The Apocalyptic Survey of
History Adapted by Christians,” 220–21.
“The
NRSV [translation] is not convincing. First, in their original form the Hebrew
manuscripts did not have vowel points or accentuation markers. These were added
by Jewish scribes known as Masoretes many centuries after the time of Jesus’
crucifixion. The primary Hebrew manuscripts—the Aleppo Codex and Codex
Leningradensis—are from the Ben Asher family of Masoretes of the tenth century
A.D. Various systems of vowel pointing and accentuation were developed
gradually, but this one goes back to about A.D. 600–700, and it was
standardized by the Western Masoretes of Palestine in the ninth and tenth
centuries. There is nothing inspired about the accentuation markers, and they
are certainly subject to debate. The primary Greek version of Daniel (which was
accepted by the early church fathers) was the text of Theodotion. Although there
is some dispute as to the identity of Theodotion and when this text originated,
the point is that this Greek text reflects no bifurcation of the verse between
the two temporal references. Even Jerome, who knew Hebrew and lived in
Palestine in the latter part of the fourth century A.D. where he certainly
would have known of the best manuscripts of that day, made no indication in his
Latin Vulgate translation of separating the seven and sixty-two weeks. He
translated christum ducem [as
“Christ, a leader”].
Furthermore
an atnah does not always indicate a
full disjunctive accent but can have other functions [e.g., giving emphasis, Gen 1.1; clarification, Num 1.46; a pause, colon or semicolon, Gen 6.15; 35.9; parenthetical purpose, 1K 8.42].
Some may object that the verse should have said “sixty-nine” weeks rather than
“seven and sixty-two” (if that was indeed the intended time until Messiah).
However, there is good reason for expressing two stages of time. The final part
of the verse specifically calls the reader’s attention to the period of
rebuilding, and this is likely what the “seven weeks” refers to. Besides, it is
illogical to separate the sixty-two weeks from the seven weeks and have a
separate sentence begin in verse 26, for this implies that the rebuilding
efforts took sixty-two weeks of years (i.e., 434 years).” Tanner, “Is Daniel’s
Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (July–Sept.
2009): 319–35.
·
Early Church Fathers:
“The
earliest clear Christian reference to Daniel 9:24–27 is by Irenaeus in his
Against Heresies (ca. A.D. 180). In Book 5.25.3 Irenaeus clearly linked the
prophecy of the little horn in Daniel 7 to 2 Thessalonians 2, and he indicated
that the Antichrist will be in power three and a half years. In 5.25.2 he quoted
Matthew 24:15 and stated that this will be fulfilled with the Antichrist
literally going into the Jewish temple for the purpose of presenting himself as
Christ. In 5.25.4 Irenaeus has an extended discussion about the Antichrist,
which culminates in his linking this with Daniel 9:27 Although Irenaeus did not
give any calculation of the seventy weeks, it is clear from his writings that
the seventy weeks were not completely fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus
Christ, for Irenaeus said that the half a week in verse 27 is the three and a
half years when the Antichrist will reign (5.25.4). [Irenaeus, writing earlier
than Clement, did link Daniel’s seventieth week to the time of Antichrist, but
he did not fix the terminus ad quem
of the seventy weeks with the A.D. 70 events.]” ibid.
The Antichrist, nagid
·
The evil of Anti-Christ figure far surpasses any
before or since.
“‘and his end with the flood,’ the suffix
refers simply to the hostile Nagid, whose end is here emphatically placed over
against his coming…The Messianic interpreters, who find in the words a prophecy
of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus understand by the Nagid
Titus, cannot apply the suffix to Nagid. [Some] refer [“his end”] to the city
and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible since the city is
feminine...Others refer it, therefore, merely to the sanctuary; but the
separation of the city from the sanctuary is quite arbitrary.” Keil
“Denying
religious liberty is characteristic of dictators (e.g. Antiochus IV, Nero,
Domitian, Stalin, Hitler, and others), but antichrist will go beyond what
anyone has done before in his attempt to create a thoroughly secular world.
This evil dictator’s ‘power’ [sultan, ‘dominion, sovereignty, realm’] will be
taken away and completely destroyed forever [lit. ‘to destroy and to destroy to
the forever’]. Antichrist’s destruction is emphasized in an unusually powerful
manner in the original text...The little horn and the beast are merely
different figures for the same evil leader, the antichrist.” Miller
Abomination desolation
“[Dan 9.27; 11.31; 12.11] were in Christ’s mind when he predicted in
his Olivet Discourse (cf. Matt. 24.15) the final horrors of the Tribulation.”
Archer
Note: The scope of the abominations and wars described are far more
reaching than any before it.
On Antiochus
“Scholars who hold to the Maccabean view, though
Antiochus desecrated the temple and did damage to the city, he destroyed
neither…”
[In this context] “the many” is best taken as a
description of the Jewish people as a group, the nation of Israel…Antiochus’
policies seem clearly to have been acceptable only to a minority in Israel, a
fact that would dispute the Maccabean view since the covenant here is made with
“the many”. Montgomery suggests “the many” may denote only the majority of the
aristocracy in Jerusalem (Daniel, 385), but to limit the expression to that
meaning seems unjustified.” Miller
“Daniel 7:11. The slaying of the beast indicates that the evil empire
will be totally annihilated and its leader judged. [FN 49: This is another
indication that the little horn does not symbolize Antiochus IV, for after his
death the Greek empire continued.]” Miller
Studies on the Hasmonean Period,
Joshua Efrón, p 39:
“The fall of the tyrant ‘between the seas and the beautiful holy mountain’ (Dan 11.45) does
not accord with the historical facts (1Macc
6.16; 2Macc 9.28; 1.11ff; Josephus Ant.
12 355ff.)… [He died] in Iran, upon being prevented from robbing a temple in
Elam: Polybius 30.19; Appian, Roman
History, 11.16.”
Judas
Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids, B. Bar-Kochva, p 232:
“According to external sources [he] died in the
course of the expedition after trying to plunder a temple in Elam (Polybius
31.9; Appian, Syr. 66(252)), a
district in the satrapy of Susiana. According to 1 Maccabees he tried to
plunder a temple ‘in the city of Elam which is in Persis’ (6.1). Thus the term
[=Persia] should be reconstructed in our verse, the reference being to the
entire territory of historical Persia with the various satrapies that it
included, and in fact that is the denotation of ‘Persis’ in another occurrence
of the word in [1Macc 14.2] and regularly in the Septuagint. As to the
designation of Elam as a city, 1 Maccabees simply erred, as did 2 Maccabees,
generally better informed on foreign matters, in stating that the temple
concerned was in Persepolis (9.2).”
2Macc
9.28-29: So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense
suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a
most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land. And Philip, one of
his courtiers, took his body home; then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he
betook himself to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.
The Scroll of
Antiochus: when Antiochus heard that his army had been defeated in Judea,
“he boarded a ship and fled to the coastal cities. Wherever he came the people
rebelled and called him The Fugitive,
so he drowned himself in the sea.”
Polybius, Histories
31.9: In Syria King Antiochus, wishing to provide himself with money, decided
to make an expedition against the sanctuary of Artemis in Elymais. On reaching
the spot he was foiled in his hopes, as the barbarian tribes who dwelt in the
neighborhood would not permit the outrage, and on his retreat he died at Tabae
in Persia, smitten with madness, as some say, owing to certain manifestations
of divine displeasure when he was attempting this outrage on the above
sanctuary.”
The Book of
the Prophet Daniel, Keil & Delitzsch, p 253-255:
“The 10 horns represent the rising of 10 kings.
[some] have endeavored to find these kings among the Seleucide, but they have
not been able to discover more than 7 [Nicator, Soter, Theus, Callinicus,
Ceraunus, the Great, Philopator. Epiphanes did not dethrone or uprooted
anyone.] Heliodorus [Appian, Syriac 45, was defeated] not by Antiochus, but by
Attalus and Eumenes. Demetrius, after his death, was the legitimate heir to the
throne, but could not assert his rights, because he was a hostage in Rome; and
since he did not at all mount the throne, he was not of course dethroned by his
uncle Antiochus Epiphanes. Finally, Ptolemy Philometor, after the death of
Epiphanes, for a short time, it is true, united the Syrian crown with the
Egyptian (1 Macc 9.13; Polyb. 40.12), but during the life of Antiochus and
before he ascended the throne, he was neither de jure nor de facto king of
Syria; and the “pretended efforts of Cleopatra to gain for her son Philometor
the crown of Syria are nowhere proved” (Hitzig).
Of this historical interpretation we cannot thus
say even so much as that it “only very scantily meets the case” (Delitzsch);
for it does not at all accord with the prophecy that the little horn
[Epiphanes] plucked up by the roots 3 of the existing kings…Seleucus Philopator
was not murdered by Epiphanes [he lived at the time of this deed in Athens,
Appian Syr. 45]; and the murdere Heliodorus cannot have accomplished that crime
as the instrument of Atiochus, because he aspired to gain the throne for
himself, and was only prevented from doing so by the intervention of Attalus
and Eumenes.”
Summary:
·
There’s no gender agreement between the “them”
(masculine) in Daniel 8:9 and the “Horns” or “Winds” (both “Feminine”) of
Daniel 8:8 – so it is not clear out of which the “Little Horn” comes.
·
Epiphanes means “God Manifest” or “the
Illustrious” yet his own people called him “Epimames”, “The Madman”, i.e., a
“Crazy” little man; hardly a great ruler/power that is the Anti-Christ.
·
He never enlarged his territory! His entire rule
was spent in “servitude” to Rome. His
Father, “Antiochus the Great”, had been DEFEATED by the Romans and paid tribute
to keep his lands. He even pledged his
son as one of the “hostages” who were carried off to Rome. As a result,
Epiphanes continued to pay tribute to Rome and was killed while trying to raise
more; i.e., he ruled ONLY because “Rome” allowed it [cp. Dan 7.8; 8.9].
·
The “Little Horn” would become “Exceeding Great”
as the Bible says “in the LATER PERIOD OF THEIR RULE”; that is, FOLLOWING the
fall of the Ptolemaic Kingdom – or AFTER “it” was completely incorporated by
Rome between 65-30BC.] This would
completely rule out the “Little Horn” being “Antiochus Epiphanes”!!!
·
Daniel 8:24-25: Epiphanes NEVER “uprooted” or
wiped out any of these kingdoms – he wasn't even ALIVE at these times! Nor
stood against “the prince of princes.”
·
The little horn is to be different from other kingdoms: Dan. 7:24; cp. Rev 13:3-4, 8.
Miscellaneous
The Grammar:
“’till an Anointed
One, Ruler’ could be translated ‘till an anointed one, a ruler.’ [This
translation makes the titles] hopelessly vague and indefinite, applying to
almost any governor or priest-king in Israel’s subsequent history…In Hebrew
proper names do not take the definitive article, and neither do titles that
have become virtually proper nouns by usage [i.e., sadday, “the Almighty”;
satan, “the Adversary”; tebel, “the world”; elyon, “the Most High”]. We
therefore conclude that “Messiah the Ruler” was the meaning intended by the
author. The word order precludes construing it as “an [or ‘the’] anointed
ruler,” which would have to be [nagid
mashiak].” Archer
“The words [messiah nagid] are not to be translated an
anointed prince [for messiah] cannot be an adjective to [nagid] because in Hebrew the adjective
is always placed after the substantive, with few exceptions, which are
inapplicable to this case [and nagid]
is connected with it by apposition…who at the same time is prince.” Keil
Another
point to note is that the [messiah]
in verse 26 is the same figure as the [nagid
messiah] in verse 25. These are the only two anarthrous constructions of
[messiah] in the Old Testament, and the difference between them can be easily
explained by noting that once the author introduced him as [nagid messiah] in
verse 25, he simply needed to refer to him by the more abbreviated designation [messiah]
in the following verse. With such close proximity of the references one would not
expect two different individuals to be referred to.” Tanner, “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks
Prophecy Messianic? Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (July–Sept. 2009): 319–35.
In other words, the translation “an anointed one” does not reflect the
Hebrew word order which makes it clear that a specific Messiah figure is in
view, who is also a Prince or Ruler.
·
ID:
“This
priest-king can neither be Zerubbabel (according to many old interpreters), nor
Ezra (Steudel), nor Onias III (Wieseler); for Zerubbabel the prince was not
anointed, and the priest Ezra and the high priest Onias were not princes of the
people...” Keil
“When
Daniel wrote that one of the purposes for the seventy weeks is “to bring in
everlasting righteousness” (Dan. 9:24), this would have been freighted with
meaning for the Jews, for they were looking forward to what the Messiah, Son of
David, would accomplish for Israel as a nation and for the world. His kingdom
will be a kingdom characterized by righteousness under His righteous rule. Understood
in this way [it ought] to be seen as messianic and not a reference to some
other anointed ruler or priest. Obviously the seventy weeks cannot have been
fulfilled in the Maccabean period when Antiochus terrorized the nation, because
God did not then “bring in everlasting righteousness.” Tanner, “Is Daniel’s
Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (July–Sept.
2009): 319–35.
“Daniel, the prophet,” (Matt.
24.15) historian, journalist or pseudo-prophet?
The end inaugurates the KOG, not
just judgment
“Gabriel here first mentions the positive aim and end of the divine
plan of salvation with Israel, because he gives to the prophet a comforting
answer to remove his deep distress on account of his own sins, and the sin and
guilt of his people, and therein cannot conceal the severe affliction which the
future would bring, because he will announce to him that by the sins of the
people the working out of the deliverance designed by God for them shall not be
frustrated, but that in spite of the great guilt of Israel the kingdom of God
shall be perfected in glory, sin and iniquity blotted out, everlasting
righteousness restored, the prophecy of the judgment and of salvation
completed, and the sanctuary where God shall in truth dwell among His people erected...” Keil
“At that time…” Dan 12.1
Signs and Wonders: A Commentary
on the Book of Daniel, R.A. Anderson, p 144:
“The artificial chapter division at this point
should not be allowed to obscure the very real nexus between 11.45 & 12.1.
The historical connection…must not be lost sight of. The immediate context of
vv.1-3 is clear beyond question and is integral to a proper understanding of
their significance.”
WBC,
Daniel, Goldingay: 12:1 “At
that time. . .”: the phrase again indicates continuity with what precedes…”
