Introduction

Introduction

        Ever since the Seventy Week prophecy was given to Daniel back in the 6^th century B.C.,¹ no other prophecy has so much captivated the mind and attention of prophetic expositors. All those who have come across this prophecy have immediately recognized that it does contain a most important message. Over the years, numerous attempts have been made to arrive at its exact interpretation and message, but the inherent difficult nature of this four-verse revelation has continually left its students with incomplete and many times inaccurate interpretations, and also with more unanswered questions. So while this great prophecy has been hailed as the “Crown Jewel” of the Old Testament, the history of its exegesis^E2 and interpretation has rightly been described as the "Dismal Swamp of O.T. criticism.”^B3

            From the very early days of expositions on the Seventy Weeks, this prophecy was mainly viewed as a Messianic prophecy in both Jewish^R4 and then Christian^R5 circles. Over the years, and especially from the late second century on, several significant interpretative pieces (chronological, historical and exegetical pieces) have been added to this overall Messianic theme, that is until recent years, when literally, a shattering of this Messianic prophetic "jigsaw puzzle" has occurred, due to the resurfacing of varying interpretations of old that modern interpreters have come to emphasize. These primitive interpretations are indeed quite questionable as they are based on, and derived from, the fanciful and isolated interpretations of misguided prophetic expositors of yesteryears, who were still in the “dark” so-to-speak, in regards to the message of this prophecy, yet these interpretations have still been widely upheld today, and that by many. This has therefore caused the message of the Seventy Week prophecy to no longer be strictly Messianic.^N6

            Two foremost views^R7 that have heralded as the “true interpretation” of this prophecy have been (1) a "semi-Messianic" interpretation which also predicts the coming of a future, anti-semitic, Anti-Christ and (2) a completely "Messiah-less" prophecy that centers on the 2^nd century B.C. actions of the ruthless king Antiochus IV Ephiphanes.

            When one considers the way in which the interpretation of the Seventy Week prophecy has gradually changed from being strictly Messianic, to being "semi-Messianic," and also "Messiah-less," and also when one further considers that the "Messiah-less" interpretations of the Seventy Weeks are based on pre-Christian interpretations^R8 which were embraced and popularized by the 3^rd century A.D. pagan sophist (fallacious reasoner) and Neoplatonic philosopher named Porphory (232-305 A.D.), in his overall effort to undermine and discredit Christianity^R9 through, mainly a fifteen-volume treatise called: Adversus Christianos (‘Against the Christians’)^N10 then it can, unfortunately, only been seen here that an inspired and timeless prediction/warning that the apostle Peter had made centuries ago has come to have a contemporary application. He once stated that:

“But false prophets also arose among the people just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, ...” 2 Pet. 2:1. (NASB) [i.e.s].

            This inspired warning of Peter has to really be taken seriously here so that no follower of Christ today will come and fulfill the infamous role of  being a “false teacher.” It is therefore absolutely imperative, to say the least, that the interpretation of the Seventy Weeks, (and the interpretation of the other prophecies in the Bible), be made in a most accurate way for along the lines of what M. R. De Haan once rightly remarked:

“If we err in our understanding of the seventy weeks, we shall err in all the rest of prophetic truth.”^B11

            And also as, the well-known scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, who also wrote a commentary on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation,^B12 once rightly observed, the Seventy Week prophecy is the “foundation stone of the Christian religion,”^B13 as it makes several allusions to some of the key fundamental truths in the Christian Faith.

            Therefore the interpretation of the Seventy Week prophecy must speak in accordance with the overall teachings and truths of the Bible, for as the prophet Isaiah once (literally) said:

‘Unto the Law and unto the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no (light of) dawn.’ Isa 8:20.

            In other words, what Isaiah was indicating here is that the sun will never even begin to shine on messages that in essence is actually speaking in contradiction to the already established “Law and Testimonies.”  So these messages, and their proclaimers, will then always be in the darkest part of the night, i.e., midnight darkness. As we will see in this book, the “Biblical Interpretation” of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks comes to reveal a great amount of “Light” as it centers on, the person and mission of Jesus Christ, the “Light of the World” (John 8:12), who in the light of which everything else is "midnight darkness." Indeed only the “Biblical Interpretation” of the  Seventy Weeks will prove to be its most accurate interpretation.  

Notes to Introduction

1. Contrary to the sixth century B.C. data given throughout the book of Daniel, some (historical-critical) interpreters have suggested that the history, and particularly the prophecies, in the book of Daniel were written “after the fact” (vaticinia ex eventu) during the second century B.C., during in the Maccabean Era. This view (or a related late-authorship(s) form of it) has been adopted by many, e.g. [listed by year of publication]: Anthony Collins, The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered in a View of Controversy, Occasion’d by a Late Book, Intitled: A Discourse on Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (London: Printed by T. J., 1726); L. Berthodlt, Daniel aus dem Hebräisch-Aramäischen neu übersetzt und erklärt mit einer vollständigen Einleitung und einigen historischen und critischen Excursen,* (Erlangen: Johann Jakob Palm, 1806); J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins Alte Testament*: Band III, 4^th ed. (Göttingen: C.E. Rosenbusch, 1823-1824), 515-520; A. Barton, "The Composition of the Book of Daniel," JBL 18 (1898): 62-86; G. Holscher, "Die Entstehung des Buches Daniel,"* ThStKr 92 (1919): 113-138; Martin Noth, "Zur Komposition des Buches Daniel,"* ThStKr 98/99 (1926): 143-163; Walter Baumgartner, "Ein Vierteljahrhundert Danielforschung,"* TRu 9 (1939):70; H. Louis Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1948); idem., "The Composition of the Book of Daniel." VT 4 (1954): 686-697; A. Jepsen, "Bemerkungen zum Danielbuch,"* VT 11 (1961): 386; Klaus Koch, "Spätisraelitisches Geschichtsdenken am Beispiel des Buches Daniel,"* Historische Zeitschrift* 193 (1961):2; Ferdinand Dexinger, Das Buch Daniel und seine Probleme* (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969), 15; A. Robert and A. Feuillet, Introduction to the Old Testament (Garden City, NY: Desclee Co. [1968], 1970), 2:269; R. J. Clifford, "History and Myth in Daniel 10-12," BASOR 220 (1975): 23; John G. Gammie, "The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel." JBL 95 (1976): 191-194; Klaus Koch, Dass24  Buch Daniel.*  Unter Mitarbeit von Till Niewisch und Jürgen Tubach* (Ertäge der Forschung, Bd. 144; Darmstadt, 1980), 8-14; John J. Collins, Daniel, First Maccabees Second Maccabees, with an Excursus on the Apocalyptic Genre. Old Testament Message 16  (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glacier, 1981), 11-14, 27-40; Gammie, "On the Intention and Sources of Daniel I-VI," VT 31 (1981): 282-292; Pauline. A. Viviano, "The Book of Daniel, Prediction or Encouragement?" Bible Today 21 (1983): 225; Sibley W. Towner, Daniel  Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching  (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1984), 5-7; P. R. Davies, Daniel. Old Testament Guides (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 121-126.

            These late-authorship(s) views have been forcefully opposed by numerous scholars in favor of a sixth century B.C. date and many today defend and agree with this date for the authorship of the entire content of the book, e.g. [listed by year of publication]: E. W. Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Daniel und die Integritat des Sacharja* (Berlin: L. Oehmigke, 1831); Heinrich A.C. Hävernick, Kommentar über das Buch Daniel* (Hamburg: Fr. Perthes, 1832); idem., Neue Kritische Untersuchungen über das Buch Daniel* (1838); Karl A. Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johnannis* (Basel: Bahnmaier, 1854); D. Zündel, Kritische Untersuchung uber die Abfassungszeit des Buches Daniel* (Basel: Bahnmaier, 1861); E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (Oxford: Sold by John Henry and James Parker, 1864); Th. Kliefoth, Das Buch Daniel* (Schwerin: A. V. Sandmeyer, 1868); Rudolph Kranichfeld, Das Buch Daniel erklärt* (Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz, 1868); F. Düsterwald, Die Weltreiche und das Gottesreich nach den Weissagungen Propheten Daniel* (Freiburg im Bresgau: Herder, 1890); C. F. Keil, The Book of the Prophet Daniel: Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Edingburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1891); J. Knabenbauer, Commentarius in Danielem Prophetam, Lamentationes et Baruch* (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1891); Arno C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel (New York: Publication Office “Our Hope,” 1911); Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel (1923; reprint: Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1963);  G. C. Aadlers, Het bock Daniel* (1935;- 4^th ed.; Kampen, 1975); M. A. Beck, Das Danielbuch* (Leiden, 1935); W. Möller, Grundriss für Alttestamentliche Einleitung* (reprint Berlin:  Evangelische Verlagsanstallt, 1958 [c1934]); Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel. (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1938); K. Hartenstein, Der Prophet Daniel* 4^th ed. (Stuttgart: Evangelische Missionsverlag, 1940); E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949); H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1949); Robert Duncan Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1954); Gleason C. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964), 365-388;   R. D. Culver, "Daniel," The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.  Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer  (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962); D. J. Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, ed. D. J. Wiseman et al., (London: Tyndale Press, 1965); R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969), 1010-1027; John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1971); Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973); Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel. An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity/London: Tyndale Press, 1978); H. D. Hummel, The Word Becoming Flesh: An Introduction to the Origin, Purpose, and Meaning of the Old Testament (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1979), 549-571; Gerhard Maier, Der Prophet Daniel* (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 1982); Gleason C. Archer, "Daniel," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985); Bruce K. Waltke, "The Date of the Book of Daniel." BSac 133 (1976): 319-329; Gleason C. Archer, "Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel." BSac 136 (1979): 129-147; Josh MacDowell, Daniel in the Critics’ Den. Historical Evidence for the Authenticity of the Book of Daniel (San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1979); S. J. Schwantes, "La date du livre de Daniel,"* in Daniel. Questions Debattues,* ed. P. Winandy (Collonges-sous-Saleve, 1980), 47-61; W. D. Goodwin, "The Literary Structure of the Book of Daniel and Its Implications," TynBul 32 (1981): 43-79; Arthur J. Ferch, "The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis’."  AUSS 21 (1983): 129-138; Gerhard F. Hasel, "Establishing a Date for the Book of Daniel." In Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Vol. 2. (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 84-164.

            The statement by Jesus in Matt 24:15~Mark 13:14 should clinch this debate as to who actually uttered these prophecies- the prophet Daniel himself.

2. The process of drawing the author’s original meaning and intent from a text, by considering all relevant data related to it, such as language, circumstances of writing, style, purpose, etc.

3. Cf. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC (Edingburgh: T & T. Clark, 1927), 400.

4. See Roger T. Beckwith, "Daniel 9 and Date of Messiah’s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation,"RevQ 10 (1980): 521-542.

5. See in the study of: William Adler, "The Apocalyptic Survey of History Adapted by Christians: Daniel’s Prophecy of 70 Weeks," in: The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity. Edited by J. C. VanderKam and W. Adler (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 201-238.

6. For a succinct study on the history of this development see Robert Caringola, Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative (Springfield, MO: ALM Reformed Press, 1991), “Preface,” and pp. 1-42.

7. For a concise overview  of the varying categories of modern-day interpretations see Brempong Owusu-Antwi, The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27 (Berrien Springs, MI: ATS Publications 1995), 27-58[@]. These views are categorized as: (I) Chronological Interpretations Terminating in Messianic Times (Historicism) [457 B.C.-34 A.D.]; (II) Chronological Interpretations Terminating in Maccabean Times (Historical-Criticism) [606/5 or 587/6 B.C.-ca.165 B.C.]; (III) Chronological Interpretations Using Multiple Integers of Seven [538 B.C.- 6 B.C.- 65 A.D.]; (IV) Chronological Interpretations Terminating in the Future (Dispensational-Futurism) [445/4 B.C. - 32/3 A.D. ... Future]; (V) Chronological Interpretations Using Intercalary & Parallel Computations [e.g., 605-556 B.C. /539-104 B.C. /98-88 B.C.]; (VI) Symbolic Interpretations Terminating in Messianic Times & Beyond [7 Weeks= 538/7 B.C. to Christ; 62 Weeks= Christ to Endtime Apostasy; 1 Week= Apostasy to Second Coming].

(Representative Works for each of these views are listed in Appendix D: Seventy Weeks Works List).

8. See Leroy E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1946), 1:173, 174.

9. Cf. Jerome, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel.  Translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958), 15; Brian Croke, “Porphyry’s Anti-Christian Chronology,” JTS 34 (1983): 172; Michael Herbert Farris, "The Formative Interpretations of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada), 1990. 205-215; Michael Kalafian, "The Impact of the Book of Daniel on Christology: A Critical Review of the Prophecy of the ‘Seventy Weeks’ of the Book of Daniel." Ph.D. dissertation, (New York University, 1988), 90; idem. The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of the Book of Daniel (Lanham, MD: Unversity Press of America, 1991), 61.

10. See Froom, 1:326-330. This treatise was ably answered by some thirty Christian apologists  of that time such as Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, and Jerome; and was rightly declared as a "folly" [Jerome, Preface to Daniel, in NPNF, 2nd series, 6:493], as it was mostly a biased, quickly-concluded and unfounded accusation.

11. M. R. De Haan, Daniel the Prophet (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1947), 243.

12. Sir Isaac Newton, Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, In Two Parts (London: n.p., 1773).

13. Quoted in Desmond Ford, Daniel  (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1978), 198.