Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until the anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.
And after the sixty-two weeks the anointed shall be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week’ but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate. Dan 9:24-27 [NKJV adapted]
The Seventy Week Prophecy is one of a handful of prophecies in Scripture that is delineated according to a set time period. The author of this passage not only has a specific event in mind but an event which can be chronologically dated by previous events; the eventful seventieth week is positioned at the end of two previous time periods of seven and sixty-two “weeks” respectively. Given this chronological specificity one might suppose that it is simple to expose the events described by the author in veiled language and that the interpretation of the passage would thus be uncontroversial. However, the interpretation of this passage has been described by one older commentator as “the dismal swamp of OT criticism”,[1] such are the disagreements regarding its intended meaning. The various interpretations of Daniel 9 can generally be divided into two differing positions, though others have been proposed.[2]
The traditional Christian, or “conservative”, interpretation identifies Jesus of Nazareth as “the anointed prince” and states that he was “cut off” at the Crucifixion. The terminus a quo (start-date) is taken as one of the decrees made by the Persian kings allowing the Jews to return to the land (Cyrus c.538 [2 Chron 36:23; Ezra 1:14]; Artaxerxes I c.458 [Ezra 7]; Artaxerxes I c.444 [Neh 2:1-8]) and the terminus ad quem (end-date) of the seventy-weeks is given variously as the conversion of the Gentile Cornelius (c.33 AD?), the destruction of Jerusalem (c.70 AD) or some point in the future.
The “critical” interpretation, probably the prevailing view amongst scholars today, identifies the culmination of the seventy-weeks with the events surrounding the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanies. The seventy-weeks are seen as a “reinterpretation” of Jeremiah’s prediction of a seventy-year captivity (cf. Jer 29:10) and thus the fall of Jerusalem (587) is seen as the terminus a quo for the seventy-weeks.[3] The three periods are divided as follows: seven weeks between the fall of Jerusalem and the fall of Babylon (587-539), sixty-two weeks between the fall of Babylon and the murder of Onias III (539-170) and the final weeks culminating with rededication of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus (170-164).
Several objections have been raised against the traditional interpretation:
- 25 implies that the “anointed one” appears after just seven weeks, not seven and sixty-two;
- the proposed gap between the cutting off of the anointed and the destruction of the city is not indicated in the text;
- there has been disagreement about how to show Jesus began his ministry exactly 483 years (sixty-nine “weeks”) after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem[4]
However it is not these objections that generally prompt the critical interpretation. Rather the presupposition that the book of Daniel was written in the second century informs the interpretation, requiring the applicability of the passage to the crisis caused by the actions of Antiochus Epiphanies. Yet throughout this essay we will note that there are some considerable objections to this thesis.
The Seventy Years
In the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of years specified by the word of the Lord through Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. Dan 9:2 [NKJV]
In the book of Jeremiah it is recorded that Jeremiah sent a letter from Jerusalem to “the remainder of the elders who were carried away captive”. Daniel, as a captive in Babylon, would have been one of the recipients of this letter and it is to be presumed that it is this letter that is referred to in Dan 9:2.
The letter of Jeremiah gives the divine instruction to the people to settle as their captivity is not going to be short. Jeremiah continues:
For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. Jer 29:10 [KJV]
This verse is paralleled in Jeremiah in a passage dated to “the fourth year of Jehoiakim” (605):
‘And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity’, says the Lord, ‘and I will make it a perpetual desolation’ (Jer 25:11-12)
The period seventy-years is used elsewhere in OT for the period of the desolation of Jerusalem and/or the captivity (2 Chron 36:21; Zech 7:5; 1 Esdras 1:58; cf. Isa 23:15-17). Yet from the destruction of Jerusalem and deposition of the last king of Judah (587) to the fall of Babylon (539) is only a period of 48/9 years.
The explanation of the seventy-years has been the subject of some debate amongst scholars. Many have proposed that seventy is a round number, though it does not seem a suitable approximation if a period of only 48 years is intended. C. F. Whitley attempted to explain the calculation of seventy-years by appealing to the Jews focus on the Temple, since there were seventy years between the destruction of the Temple (587) and the completion of the Second Temple (516). He proposes that the period of seventy-years are inserted into the Jeremiah texts by a later writer, who equated the period of the Temple’s desolation with the period of the captivity.[5] It is not clear why seventy years should then also be applied to the desolation of Tyre in the book of Isaiah (Isa 23:15-17).
Several scholars point to the links with a temple-building inscription dated to the second year of Esarhaddon (681-669). The relevant passage reads:
Seventy years as the duration of its [Babylon’s] desolation
he had written [on the tablets of destiny].
But being merciful, Marduk soon
calmed his heart, he reserved
[the numbers he had written]
and ordered it [Babylon] restored in eleven years[6]
This is not an exact parallel of the prophecy in Jeremiah. This inscription was made to legitimize Esarhaddon’s rebuilding of Babylon only eleven years after Sennacherib’s campaign against it; Esarhaddon claims to be acting according to divine instruction. In cuneiform if the symbol for “seventy” is inverted then it is the symbol for “eleven”, so there is some element of literary convenience in the use of the word “seventy”.[7] For the Jews in Babylon there is resonance with a familiar inscription may have added to the weight Jeremiah’s words, but it is improbable that this inscription was the source of Jeremiah’s prediction, not least because there is no evidence Jeremiah ever visited Babylon.
J. M. Gurney proposes a different explanation for the seventy years, asserting that this was the length of the Neo-Babylonian ascendancy over the nations of Syro-Palestine, including Judah,
Now although Judah came under the Babylonian heel in 605 BC … Babylon’s ruling of nations actually dated from the overthrow of Assyria a few years earlier. After the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC (to the allied Medes and Babylonians), Ashur-uballit established his government at Harran. This city fell to the Babylonians in 610 BC, and Assyria was finally obliterated when Ashur-uballit failed to recapture it in 609 BC. Seventy years after she had finally conquered and destroyed Assyria, Babylon herself was conquered by Cyrus in 539 BC.[8]
This explanation seems the most plausible because it explains why seventy years are also applied to Tyre. Isaiah states that Tyre will be laid waste by “the Chaldeans” and will be forgotten “seventy years” (Isa 23:13-18); this would seem out of place if seventy years were (only) the period of Judah’s captivity but is suitable if it is the period of the Neo-Babylonian dominion over the entire region. This situation is also indicated in the prophecies of Jeremiah, who states “these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jer 25:11) and “after seventy years are completed for Babylon” (Jer 29:10 [ESV]).
Daniel and the Seventy Years
The conclusion that OT references to seventy years do have a historical referent considerably weakens the “critical” view that the author of Daniel sought to re-interpret the prophecy of Jeremiah. In fact, because the captivity of Daniel himself is dated to 605 (Dan 1:1), the context of Daniel 9 (c.539/8) the seventy years have a very personal significance to Daniel himself. Daniel would have read the words of Jeremiah and calculated, from his own experiences, that the seventy years were nearly complete.
The prayer of Daniel, and its resonances with the letter of Jeremiah, indicates that he was looking to the fulfillment of the seventy years. In his letter to the captives, Jeremiah writes:
After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you … Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity (Jer 29:10-14)
Daniel’s prayer is intended as a fulfillment of these words. He prays, confessing the sins of the people and asks for mercy for the people. He prays for “the men of Judah … those near and those far off in all countries to which you have driven them” (Dan 9:7), mirroring the words of Jeremiah “I will gather you form all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you” (Jer 29:14).
The picture given in Daniel 9 is of a Jewish exile looking for the restoration of Jerusalem and the return of the Jews to their land. The fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persian army would have brought him hope that the captivity of his brethren might be at an end. The chapter describes how on reading the words of Jeremiah he discovers that the dominion of Babylon was meant to last seventy years. By his own calculations this Jewish exile would have concluded that he had spent nearly seventy years in captivity. He thus takes it upon himself to pray, as prophesied by Jeremiah, and petition God for the end of the captivity. This prayer is dated to within a year of Cyrus’ edict allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem. This then is a picture of a Jew who looked for the imminent fulfillment of Jeremiah’s words; he would not have been disappointed.
The First Seven Weeks
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. Dan 9:25a [ESV]
It is universally assumed that “weeks” are weeks-of-years. This is nowhere stated explicitly but must be accepted since only in this way to arrive at meaningful time periods. This enigmatic approach to issuing predictions is in keeping with the established prophetic tradition. The “seven weeks” is therefore a period of forty-nine years.
The terminus a quo for the “seven weeks” is often taken to be 587, the fall of Jerusalem, based upon two propositions. Firstly, it is asserted that because this prophecy is a reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s, the terminus a quo of this prophecy must be the same as that supposed for Jeremiah’s (i.e. the fall of Jerusalem). Secondly, the period between 587-539 is so nearly forty-nine years it is assumed that this must be the referent. The latter proposition seems persuasive, but is entirely undermined by the testimony of both Jeremiah and Daniel. As we have seen, the terminus a quo for Jeremiah’s prophecy was not 587, but the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian ascendency in the region. Daniel 9:25 states explicitly the terminus a quo of the seven weeks as “the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem …”
The Sixty-Two Weeks
The calculation of the sixty-two weeks may be the weakest element of the “critical” interpretation and perhaps betrays the a priori emphasis on the Maccabean period. The terminus ad quem is predetermined as 170 by the supposition that Onias III, the high priest, is the “anointed prince” who is “cut off” (see below). The terminus a quo is likewise predetermined, as we have seen, to 539. Thus the period proposed for the sixty-two weeks is 539-170. However this proposal has to face the glaring objection that this period is not 434 years long (62 x 7 = 434) but only 369 (539 – 170 = 369), short by 65 years.
Many scholars attempt to answer this objection by claiming that it is the author of Daniel who is in error. For instance, A. Montgomery is forced to admit “we can meet this objection only by surmising a chronological miscalculation on part of the author”.[9] The reason for this miscalculation is the (assumed) “absence of a known chronology”. N. W. Porteous comments: “as the historical memory which the Jews retained of the period in question was very dim as regards facts, it may well be that they were equally vague as to the actual length of time that had elapsed since the return from exile”.[10] Several commentators attempt to call into question the knowledge of historical facts by citing Dan 11:2, which prophesizes that there would be four Persian kings before “the realm of Greece” is “stirred up”.[11] However, this verse does not state there were only four Persian kings in total but that it would be the fourth Persian king who would stir up Greek aggression. This statement fits well with the history of the period as it was the Persian attacks on Greek territories at Marathon (490), Thermopylae (480), Salamis (480), and Plataea (479) which were contributing factors in the unification of the Greek states against the Persian Empire.[12] In any case, had the author limited the Persian succession to only four kings this would have shortened, and not lengthened, his chronology.
If the author’s knowledge of chronology were truly “vague” it is seems unlikely that he would have ventured such a specific chronological prophecy, particularly as vaticinium ex eventu. Rather, a chronologically delineated prophecy is only meaningful against the context of an established chronology. Therefore it has been proposed that the author based his calculations upon faulty chronological data. This proposition has been often been defended by reference to E. Schürer’s comment that ancient Jewish historians have a corresponding inaccuracy in their chronologies.[13] Schürer cites four examples; three from Josephus (1st century AD) and one from Demetrius (3rd century BC). Our conclusion must be that we have no consistent basis for reconstructing the chronology that might have been used by a second century Jewish writer. The chronological data provided by Demetrius has a -27 discrepancy compared with known history. The chronological data provided by Josephus contains varying discrepancies of +32, +40 and +48, with a possible set of variants indicating -68, -60, and -52 discrepancies. None of these are equal to the +65 discrepancy required by the critical interpretation of Daniel. The proposition that a Jewish chronology with such a discrepancy ever is existed is entirely without evidence. The regnal years of the High Priests recorded by Josephus provide a fair approximation for the periods 164-105 and 105-70. If a second century Jewish writer had access to the regnal-data for the period 539-164 then it is likely that his chronology would have been reasonably accurate. There is, therefore, no comfort for the “critical” interpretation in the inaccuracies of individual historians.
Onias III
The selection of Onias III as the terminus ad quem has two positive features: firstly Onias was a high priest of the line of Zadok (i.e. ‘anointed one’), and secondly 2 Macc 4:34 records that he was murdered (i.e. ‘cut off’). It must be conceded that Onias was not high priest at the time of his death, having been deposed five year before, yet it might be argued that a pious Jew might have continued to regard him as the true high priest, discounting the usurpers Jason and Menelaus. However, there are several objections to this identification.
There is not complete consensus regarding the historicity of 2 Macc 4:34.[14] The incident is not recorded in 1 Maccabees. Josephus ascribes a different fate to Onias III, recording that Onias went to Egypt and there received permission from Ptolemy to build a temple to rival that in Jerusalem. Rabbinic literature also records that Onias fled to Egypt. It is also significant that the 4c. AD Christian theologian, Theodore of Mopsuestia, follows 2 Maccabees when writing his own history, except regarding the death of Onias. There is also a papyrus addressing an “Onias” in Egypt, which dates to c.164 which, if it could be unequivocally associated with Onias III, would provide definitive proof that Onias was not murdered around c.170.[15]
There are also difficulties with the account of Onias’ murder. 2 Maccabees describes how when Antiochus Epiphanes heard of the death he wept for Onias and had his murderer, Andronicus, executed. It must be considered highly improbable that Antiochus, antagonistic to all Jewish customs, would have wept or even felt any sympathy for, a Jewish priest, particularly one who is depicted as obstructing Hellenistic innovations. It also appears that this account has been created by adapting real historical events. Greek historians record that Antiochus did have Andronicus executed, not for the murder of Onias (who is not mentioned), but for the murder of the son of Seleucus IV, Philopater.[16] Given these difficulties, and the lack of corroboration, it seems more probable that 2 Macc 4:34 is a fictional account created to give legitimacy to the Maccabean revolt. The later account of Onias appearing in a vision to Judas Maccabeus (2 Macc 15:12ff) would seem to support this idea.
There is also an interpretative objection to identifying Onias III as the “anointed one”. Daniel 9 gives the impression that the cutting off of the anointed one is an event of seismic proportions, ushering in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. However, 1 Maccabees fails to even mention the death of Onias. The murder of Onias, assuming it took place, happened five years after Onias had been deposed but still three years before Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the sanctuary. In fact, 2 Maccabees records that when Antiochus heard of the death of Onias he was “moved to pity and wept” and commanded that his murderer be executed (2 Macc 4:37-38).
The final objection is that Antiochus Epiphanes did not destroy the city or the sanctuary as prophesied.
Conclusion
We have seen that there are substantial difficulties with the critical interpretation of Daniel 9. There is no reason to suppose that the author of Daniel regarded Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy as unfulfilled. On the contrary, there is explicit evidence that the author regarded the prophecy as having personal significance in his life. There is no reason to take 587 as the terminus ad quo of the seventy-weeks, in direct contradiction of the explicit statement of the text. There is no reason to suppose that the author was aware of a chronology containing a +65 discrepancy. There is no justification for equating the period 539-170 with the sixty-two weeks. There are reasons to doubt the historicity of the murder of Onias III recorded in 2 Macc 4:34. The murder of Onias III appears to be entirely irrelevant to the fulfillment of the seventy-weeks. In the face of such difficulties as these it is difficult to justify the critical interpretation in its present form. The fact that scholars have accepted this interpretation against the text suggests that their interpretation is directed a priori by the acceptance of certain assumptions.
[1] J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927), 400.
[2] For instance R. Pierce proposes that culmination of the prophecy was in the days of the Hasmonean kings of Judea. The “anointed one” of v. 25 is Aristobulus I, whose reign marks the reestablishment of the kingdom of Judah, and the “anointed one” of v. 26 is his half-brother Alexander Jannaeus, who made a covenant with Greek mercenaries to fight against his own people resulting in the cessation of the daily sacrifices. Pierce admits that the six stated purposes in v. 24 were not fulfilled at this time, but this he explains as divine postponement due to the wickedness of the people. See R. W. Pierce, “Spiritual Failure, Postponement, and Daniel 9” Trinity Journal 10:2 (1989): 211-222.
[3] N. W. Porteous, Daniel (London: SCM Press, 1965), 133-5, 141.
[4] For instance, the decree of Cyrus (the same year to which Daniel 9 is dated) cannot be shown to be 483 years prior to the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth without calling into question established history. (In fact, several inerrantists have attempted such an adjustment, e.g. J. Milner, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel and Persian Chronology” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 6 (1877): 298-303, and M. Anstey, The Romance of Bible Chronology (London: Marshall Brothers, 1913). Sir Robert Anderson achieved a seemingly precise solution taking 444 BC as the terminus a quo and calculating the 483 years as years of only 360 days (thus only 476 solar years), appealing to the idea that, what he calls, “a prophetic year” was only 360 days long. The assumptions underlying Anderson’s solution have more recently been called into question (see V. S. Poythress, “Hermeneutical Factors in Determining the Beginning of the Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:25)” Trinity Journal 6/2 (1985): 131-149.
[5] C. F. Whitley, “The Term Seventy Years Captivity” VT 4/1 (1954): 60-72.
[6] H. Avalos, “Daniel 9:24-26 and Mesopotamian Temple Rededications” JBL 117/3 (1998): 507-511 (507); M. Leuchter, “Jeremiah’s 70-year Prophecy and the ששך/לב קמי Atbash Codes” Biblica 85 (2004): 503-522 (509).
[7] Leuchter, “Jeremiah’s 70-year Prophecy”, 510.
[8] R. J. M. Gurney, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27” Evangelical Quarterly 53 (1981): 29-36 (30).
[9] A. Montgomery, Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 393.
[10] Porteous, Daniel, 141.
[11] K. Koch, Das Buch Daniel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980), 149.
[12] A. Laato, “The Seventy Yearweeks in the Book of Daniel” ZAW 102/2 (1990): 212-22 (215-216).
[13] E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüduschen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Dritter Band, Vierte Auflage, 1909), 266f; cited Montgomery, Daniel, 393.
[14] T. E. Gaston, Historical Issues in the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Taanathshiloh, 2009), 140-143. Also see F. Parente, “Onias III’ Death and the Foundation of the Temple of Leontopolis” in Josephus and the history of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory Morton Smith (F. Parente & J. Sieves eds.; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
[15] Parente, “Onias III”, 84.
[16] Diodorus 30.7.2-3; (trans. C. H. Oldfather; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958).
Jacob’s Prophecy in Gen 49 and Other Discussion Questions