WHILE IT IS DAY

*This is the fourth part of a series, so be sure to check out parts 1, 2 and 3 before reading this.

The principle difficulty in interpreting this prophecy and thus the focal point of most disagreement arises in the attempts to find these 70 weeks in history, i.e., in identifying the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem (the beginning and the end) of the specific years in question. This isn’t as easy as any one commentator might suggest; hence all the disagreement. For the purpose of this study our considerations will here be limited to a PM take on the prophecy.

PM most generally identifies 445-44 b.c. as the terminus a quo, since in that year a decree was issued from Artaxerxes for the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Neh. 2-1-8). Though there are other possible decrees, this theory accords best with what is stated in Dan. 9:25. PM takes the “weeks” as weeks of years (making 70 weeks = 490 years), since this is both tenable for the Hebrew meaning of the word and comports well with Jeremiah’s prophecy of exile, which also was given in years. The alternative option, weeks of days, isn’t considered by any serious interpreter, for many reasons.

The most popular theory within PM concerning the fulfillment of the first 69 weeks comes from the calculations of Dispensationalist Sir Robert Anderson in his book “The Coming Prince” (1895). Anderson argues at length that 483 years (or more precisely, 173,880 days, according to the tenable theory that a year = 360 days) transpired exactly from Artaxerxes decree in 445-44 b.c. till the occasion of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem a few days before his crucifixion.

Although still regarded by many as possible, Anderson’s theory is unsustainable. There are simply too many assumptions – like the decree going forth in 445 b.c. and not in 44, the exact day of the month the decree was sent, taking into account years that have an extra day due to leap year, and, most crucially, the exact day and year in which Christ was crucified.

Anderson believed the crucifixion took place in a.d. 32; but most NT chronologers nowadays believe it took place in a.d. 30. Ultimately, however, we cannot be certain of any date between a.d. 30 and a.d. 33.

Another crucial place where Anderson’s theory breaks down is in his need to place the end of the 69 weeks at Christ’s triumphal entry. God anointed Jesus for his Messianic ministry when he was baptized in the river Jordan, not when he was received into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.

All of this considered, the best suggestion for the fulfillment of the first 69 weeks is to see the “going forth of the decree” as Artaxerxes decree in 445-44 b.c., and the anointing of “Messiah the Prince” as Jesus’ baptism. Regardless of our inability to perfectly chart these 483 years to the day, this is the most tenable theory.

Now what do we do with the last week? DP places a gap in between the 69th and the 70th week, suggesting that such a gap is implied in vv. 26-27a. While the necessity of a gap is admitted, being the only way to explain the prophecy with faithfulness to its contextual fulfillment to Israel, the theory that this gap would occur in between the 69th and the 70th weeks is doubtful, for a few reasons.

1. First of all, it’s unlikely that Daniel would have understood Gabriel’s saying “after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off” to imply that events would transpire in between the 69th and 70th weeks. Most naturally, he would have understood “after the sixty-two weeks” to mean “in the midst of the [last] week,” as indeed v. 27 goes on to say.

2. It is agreed that Israel’s rejection of Jesus as their Messiah was the event that caused the gap in the first place, so that God would have time to welcome the Gentiles into the covenant. Yet about 3 1/2 years passed from Jesus’ baptism till his crucifixion, so how could the gap begin at his baptism if the historical reason for the gap did not occur for another 3 1/2 years? If we posit a gap in between the 69th and the 70th week, we have a significant amount of time logically unaccounted for.

3. Of all of the teaching and prophecy in the NT on events yet to occur in the end times, nowhere is there a future 7 years mentioned. Over and over again, the only time frame given for the fulfillment of apocalyptic events prior to Christ’s parousia is 3 1/2 years. If we insist that the whole of the 70th week is yet future, and deductively insert events into the first half of that week, we directly bypass the signs that Jesus, Paul and John gave and a priori establish a major sign of our own – a singular peace treaty in the Middle East – concerning which they are all astonishingly silent. This reasoning is unsupportable and quite frankly absurd.

Therefore it would be much more understandable for the gap to take place in between the first and second halves of the last week, seeing the first 3 1/2 years already fulfilled in Christ’s ministry on earth, climaxing at the cross, and the second 3 1/2 yet to be fulfilled in the future, from the moment Christ takes the scroll from the hand of the Father and looses its first seal until he descends from heaven at the last trumpet.

Of course DP would take issue with this interpretation. They would argue that the “he” in v. 27 cannot be referring to the Messiah and “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” cannot be referring to the accomplishment of the cross because that would violate the chronology of the passage. The cross, they would say, has already been touched on in v. 26a, and Gabriel has gone on to describe the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 by 26b, so it would be out of order for v. 27a to return to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

The problem with this argument, however, is that it assumes verses 26 and 27 are phrased in a modern style of prose where events are described in a strictly chronological order. Given the actual poetic style of the prophecy, it would not in fact be unusual for 27a to jump back and explain what was left untouched in 26a. Indeed, that has occurred already in v. 25, where Gabriel goes from describing the decree in 445 BC, to the anointing of the Messiah, and then jumps back to explain the results of the decree, i.e., the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

Much more could be said here, but I believe this is enough to demonstrate that a rigidly sequential flow of thought is by no means demanded from the 70 week prophecy, and it is a poor foundation indeed if a supposed demand for chronology is the only reason one has for seeing the whole 70th week as yet future.