Untitled Document

DANIEL’S 70 WEEKS

Most students of the Bible agree that there is a parenthetical period of time of nearly two thousand years in the 70 weeks written about in Daniel chapter nine. If there were no parenthetical period, we should have already seen the antichrist and the tribulation, which is the subject of the last of the 70 weeks. The question is, when did this break between the 69th and 70th week begin and why was there a break?

Daniel 9:25-27 reads, (verse 25) “Know therefore, and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. The street shall be built again, even in troubulous times. (Verse 26) And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off But not for Himself. (This is where the parenthetical period interrupts the prophecy.) (Verse 26b), And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end thereof shall be with a flood: and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. Verse 27, He will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate”.

The first thing to note is the phrase ” shall Messiah be cut off”. The second thing to note is the contrast between the exactness of the length of time between the issuing of the decree and the Messiah the Prince, i.e. sixty-nine weeks and the inexact period of time denoted by the phrase “after the sixty-two weeks”. That is to say, we are not told how long after the sixty-two weeks that the Messiah will be cut off. Let us look first at what it means in the Bible to be “cut off”.

The definition of the Hebrew word, “karath” (cut off) found in Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary is, “to cut. By implication, to destroy or consume”. It is a well-established principle of word study that words get their meaning from usage. As we will see, the usage does not substantiate the definition given above. It is imperative that we study how the word is used by the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. The word occurs over two hundred times. We will not study each occurrence, only those which will help in determining its basic meaning.

The word “karath” is used in several contexts. Consider for example Exodus 4:25 where we are told of the circumcision of the son of Moses. “But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off (karath) her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it”. Circumcision was required of all males of Israel. Obviously, nothing was destroyed, it was simply cut. There is no implication of destruction in the word “karath” in this passage.

Another passage where “karath” does not mean or imply destruction is Numbers 13:23. In verse one we read that “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Send some men to explore the land of Canaan which I am giving to the Israelites”. In verses 17-18 we see that Moses sent men to explore the land and told them, among other things, to “do your best to bring back some of the fruit of the land”. And in verse 23, “When they reached the Valley of Eshcol, they cut off (karath) a branch bearing a single cluster of grapes. Two of them carried it on a pole, between them along with some pomegranates and figs”. This passage makes it very clear that far from wanting to destroy the branch that they had cut off, they wanted to preserve the branch and it’s fruit. Again, we must conclude that “karath” does not always mean or imply destruction or consumption.

Another verse where “karath’ does not imply destruction and consumption is found in Joshua 9:23 where we read, “Therefore ye are cursed and there shall none of you be freed (karath) from being bond-men and hewers, or drawers of water for the house of my God”. This verse is saying, literally that the curse on these men will not be cut off. That is to say, they will never be freed (karath) from it. Obviously, a word, as suggested by Strong’s Dictionary that implies “to destroy or consume” cannot also mean the opposite, i.e. to be freed. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the Strong’s defintion because the Holy Spirit’s usage proves that “karath’ does not always mean “to destroy”.

Let us confine our study for now, to two ways in which “karath’ is used. It is used 54 times in the context of killing. That obviously fits the implication of destruction. But the word is also used over 30 times of being “cut off from his people” from “Israel” and “from the land”. I believe that as we consider some of these verses where “karath” is used we shall see that destruction was not what was meant, or implied.

Consider Proverbs 2:21-22, “For the upright will live in the land and the blameless will remain in it. But the wicked will be cut off from the land and the unfaithful will be torn from it”. The question is are the wicked who are being torn from the land, destroyed? This verse is a prophecy concerning the millennial reign of Christ. The parables of Matthew 13 concern that same period, i.e. the millennial reign of Christ. We read of some, at the time of His return, being cast into “outer darkness” where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”. The paper on The Kingdom Of Heaven found on this web-site presents the Scriptural evidence for the fact that “outer darkness” where “there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” refers to the nations outside the land of Israel during the millennial reign of Christ. Those people that are cast into outer darkness are not destroyed; they are cast out of Israel because they were not faithful. But they were cast out of the land to live among the Gentiles. Ezek. 20 also tells of the purging of Israel so that only the faithful will enter the land for His reign. Ezek. 20:38, “I will purge you of those who rebel and revolt against Me. Although I will bring them out of the land where they are living, yet they will not enter the land of Israel”. There is no Scriptural evidence to assume that these unfaithful will be brought out of their lands to be destroyed. They will not be allowed entrance into the land for that blessed 1,000 years of Christ’s reign, but they will live outside the land, not be destroyed.

Consider also Psalms 101:8, “Every morning I will put to silence all the wicked in the land; I will cut off every evil doer from the city of the Lord”. The phrase “cut off from the city of the Lord”, tells us that it was not destruction the Psalmist had in mind, but a purging of evil doers from the kingdom of Heaven, which is Christ’s rule centered on and in Israel. (Please see the above- mentioned paper on the kingdom of Heaven for the scriptural proof of that statement).

Consider Psalms 37:9-11, “For the evildoers shall be cut off. But those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; Yea, thou shall diligently consider his place and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” Note the contrast is not between life and death. The contrast in this passage is about evildoers who shall not be in the land and the meek who will inherit the land. (The Companion Bible note agrees that it is the land of Israel that is the subject here, not the earth.)

Verse 22 of this Psalm speaks of the same contrast, “For such as be blessed of Him shall inherit the earth (should be land); and they that be cursed of Him shall be cut off“. Again, the contrast is not between life and death; it is between those who shall inherit the land and those who shall be cut off. To say that they will be destroyed is to take this verse out of context and there is no scriptural evidence to show that those not allowed in the land will be destroyed.

Verse 34 makes the same point. “Wait on the Lord, and keep His way, and He shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off thou shalt see it”. Once again, the contrast is between inheriting the land and being cut off, i.e. not between life and death.

The scriptures quoted above show that “karath” does not always imply destruction or consumption. To be sure, “karath” does, in some contexts, imply destruction, but not in all. Therefore, because there are so many passages where “karath” does not imply destruction, we may not automatically assume that “karath” always implies destruction, as suggested by Strong’s Dictionary. Having seen that, we are ready to consider other scriptures which, in my opinion, the context implies “cut off”, not “destroy”.

Numbers 19:13. “That person must be cut off from Israel”. In the next sentence we are told that his “uncleanness remains on him”. Obviously, he must remain alive if his uncleanness remains on him.

Ex. 12:15, “….whoever eats anything with yeast in it….must be cut off from Israel.” The fact that that he is “cut off from Israel” means just that, and no more. There is no Scriptural reason to assume that the person will be destroyed. When possible, I believe that we should interpret Scripture in the most obvious way possible. In this verse one will be cut off from his people, not destroyed.

Ex. 30:33, “whosoever compoundeth any like it (holy ointment –verse 25) to smell thereunto, shall even be cut off from his people”. Again, there is no scriptural evidence to assume destruction. The word “karath” itself does not imply destruction.

Ex. 30:38, “Whosoever shall make like unto that (perfume of verse 35) to smell thereunto shall even be cut off from his people”.

Lev. 7:20, “…the soul that earth of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering….. having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people”.

Once we recognize the fact that “karath” does not always mean or imply destruction or consumption we are ready to study the usage of the word in Dan. 9:26 where Messiah is said to have been “cut off”. Let us now consider this phrase as it appears in Dan. 9:26, in the NIV. “…..The Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing“. The King James Version has, “will be cut off, but not for Himself“. The NIV Hebrew-English Interlinear translates the word literally as, “and there will be nothing“. I believe that the NIV is the better translation because in my opinion, it is more in keeping with the literal translation of the Hebrew. Admittedly, this is not an easy passage to understand. I believe, however, that the phrase “and will have nothing” gives us a clue as to the meaning of “cut off”. If “cut off” meant death in this verse, then the statement that He would have nothing, is, in my opinion, meaningless. Therefore, I believe that the cutting off is not the death of Christ.

As mentioned above, “cut off” does not always imply destruction (death) and often means simply “to be cut off from Israel”. I believe that in Daniel nine the phrase “cut off and will have nothing” refers to Israel’s rejection of their risen Messiah at the end of the Acts period. For 33 years after the crucifixion, all during the Acts period, Israel was given the opportunity to accept their risen Messiah. I believe that that was in answer to our Lord’s prayer on the cross asking the Father to forgive them (Israel). In spite of that nation’s heinous crime of crucifying the Lord, He still loved them and they were still His people. It wasn’t until the end of the Acts period when Paul gave the Jewish leaders one more chance to accept Christ and they refused (Acts 28:23-28) that Christ, the “Messiah had nothing”.

Now let us come to the second point of this passage in Daniel nine. The reader will note that the Holy Spirit is very exact in the number of “sevens” between one event and another. We see for example in verse 25 that there will be “seven sevens and sixty-two sevens from the issuing of the decree to the coming of the Anointed One. But then in verse 26 we read, “After the sixty-two sevens the Anointed One will be cut off”. We are not told how long is “after”; is it weeks, or is it months or is it years? “After” is a very indefinite period of time.

I suggest that the “after” of verse 26 refers to the entire Acts period.

Let me try to clarify what I see as the meaning of this very difficult passage under consideration.1) The prophecy itself does not tell us when the end of the 69th week will be. But the study of chronology tells us that it is around the time of the triumphal entrance of Christ. 2) Where the prophecy says “after 62 weeks”, the “after” refers to 33 years after the time of the entrance, i.e. the Acts period. 3) At the end of the Acts period the Messiah was cut off from His people and had nothing, that is to say, He was rejected by His chosen nation, Israel,

THE SEEMING DIFFICULTY

It is not surprising that Edward J. Young describes the passage of Daniel 9:20-27 as “one of the most difficult in all the Old Testament, and the interpretations which have been offered are almost legion”. And Stuart says, “it would require a volume of considerable magnitude even to give a history of the ever-varying and contradictory opinions that have been offered”. I have not studied all of the interpretations of this passage, but of the ones I have studied, I find one common thought. That is, that because the seventy sevens add up to 490 years, the prophecy itself must cover a period of 490 years.

As was suggested earlier, from the time of the issuing of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem unto Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem was 69 weeks. That being the case, if we interpret this prophecy of the 70 weeks in terms of years, the 70th week should have begun immediately after the crucifixion. Obliviously, that did not happen. Some would say that the reason the 70th week did not follow immediately upon the end of the 69th week was because it was then that Israel was put aside as God’s chosen people. But as the paper on this web-site, When Did The Church Begin? will show, Israel was not put aside until Acts 28.

How then can we account for the years between the end of the 69th week and the yet future beginning of the 70th week?

I believe that there is a rather simple explanation that will eliminate this seeming difficulty. This explanation is, in my opinion, more true to the actual words of the Holy Spirit than other interpretations I have read. What is being overlooked is the fact that Daniel’s prophecy is not explained in years, it is explained in sevens. The Acts period is included in the “after” not the sevens themselves.

The length of time denoted by the word, “after” in verse 26 should not be included in the “sevens”. In other words, Daniel is told that first there will be seven sevens for the rebuilding of the streets etc. Then there will be the next sixty-two sevens. And after those sixty-two sevens Messiah will be cut off. The sixty-two sevens do not include the period after them, i.e. the Acts period. Another way to put that is that the Acts period which comes after the sixty-two sevens, should not be included in the sixty-two sevens.

Again, the Acts period is not included in the sevens, but takes place after the sixty-two sevens and before the last seven. The prophecy tells of events that will take place in terms of when a certain number of sevens have passed. The Acts period is not included in the events of the sevens, but takes place after the sixty-two sevens and before the last seven.

Let me try to make that point a bit clearer. Let us say, for example, that we will set aside two hours a day in which to do the things we enjoy. Let’s say that we will study the Bible and read for that two hour time period. And then after that we will work in the garden. Working in the garden is not included in the two hours set aside. We have a very similar situation in Daniel nine. We have seen seven sevens and then sixty-two sevens and after that Messiah was cut off. In the same way that tending the garden is not included in the time set aside for Bible study and reading, the events that happen after the sixty-two sevens is not included in the sixty-two sevens time period.

The seventy sevens do indeed take 490 years to complete, but the Acts period is not included in the sevens, and therefore not included in the 490 year time period. Of course, the centuries between the end of the Acts period and the beginning of the 70th week is due to Israel having been put aside as God’s chosen people.

I believe that the reason for the difficulty in understanding this passage comes because most have assumed that the Holy Spirit really meant to state the prophecy in years, i.e. 490 years. But He did not state the prophecy in years, He chose rather to put it in terms of sevens. Furthermore, I believe that if we take this passage quite literally, and not assume that the entire prophecy will be fulfilled in 490 years, the meaning of the prophecy will be much easier to understand.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE 70 WEEKS

In the interest of clarifying my views I will offer the following brief explanation of what I understand the prophecy of the seventy weeks to mean.

Basically, the 70 weeks are divided into three sections. They are the first 7 weeks, the next 62 weeks, and the last week.

The first section of 7 weeks begins with the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. It ends with the rebuilding of the temple.

The second section of 62 weeks ends at the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem.

Thirty-three years after the end of the 62 weeks (the 33 years of the Acts period) Messiah is cut off.

The last week will begin when the covenant is confirmed,

ANOTHER VIEW

Many believe that the 70 weeks didn’t begin until after the temple had been rebuilt. They base that view on the fact that Israel was lo-ammi at the time the commandment to restore Jerusalem, and they believe that no prophecy can be fulfilled while Israel is lo-ammi. Let’s examine this view.

To begin with, Dan. 9:25 reads, “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem……”. This tells us when the 70 weeks will begin, i.e. at the going forth of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem. The sending forth of this decree is described in Neh. 2:7-9 and there is no doubt that Israel was still lo-ammi at the time. But we cannot change a statement that is so clear without doing great disservice to God’s Word. I suggest that it is a better understanding of lo-ammi that is required here.

The prophecy that Israel would become lo-ammi is found in Hosea 1:9 where we read, “Then the Lord said, ‘call him lo-ammi, for you are not my people, and I am not your God’ “. This prophecy was fulfilled approximately 100 years after it was given. And it was fulfilled again when Israel became lo-ammi at the end of the Acts period. That is to say, this prophecy had a double fulfillment. It would be very helpful in our search for scriptural truth to study another prophecy that had a double fulfillment.

We read of such a prophecy in Is. 7:14-16, “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings”. The last phrase of this verse, sets the fulfillment of the prophecy at the Babylonian destruction, when the kings of both Israel and Judah were carried into captivity.

The Hebrew word translated “virgin” is “ha-almah”. I will quote the note on this word that appears in the Companion Bible. “…..some definite well-known damsel whose identity was then unmistakable, though unknown to us. …..The Heb. for virgin (in our technical sense) is bethulah and occurs fifty times….. Its first occurrence is Gen. 24:16 where, compared with v. 43, shows that while every Bethulah (virgin) is indeed an almah (young maiden), yet not every almah (young maiden) is a Bethulah (virgin). …..As a sign to Ahaz this damsel was an almah (young maiden) . As a sign, when the prophecy was fulfilled (or filled full), it was Mary, the ….virgin”. My point in bringing up this double fulfillment is that on the second fulfillment, (where Mary was a virgin in the technical sense) the prophecy was filled in a more profound manner, i.e. it was “filled full”.

Now let us compare the lo-ammi period of the Old Testament with the lo-ammi period of the New Testament. During the Old Testament lo-ammi period Daniel wrote his prophetic book. The book of Esther was also written in that lo-ammi period. God appeared to Daniel in the form of the pre-incarnate Christ. (Please see the paper on this web-site Who Is The Angel of Jehovah?). There were miracles performed such as the when Daniel spent the night in the lion’s den and came out unharmed.

Now let’s look at the New Testament period of Israel’s lo-ammi period. There are no prophecies being written. There are no prophecies being fulfilled. Christ is appearing to no one. There are no miracles such as were seen in Daniel’s time. In short, the New Testament is a more profound fulfilling of the lo-ammi prophecy of Hosea 2.

In my opinion,we must not attempt to force the same conditions on the Old Testament lo-ammi period as are seen in the New Testament lo-ammi period. In other words, there is no reason to rewrite Dan. 9:24 which tells us that the rebuilding of Jerusalem will begin while Israel is still lo-ammi.

CONCLUSION

The most widely accepted view of the 70 weeks is that the cutting off of Messiah the Prince was the crucifixion of Christ. But if the cutting off of Messiah was at the cross, why did the prophetic clock not stop then? There is no scriptural evidence that tells us that the prophetic clock stopped at the cross.

Some would say that the prophetic clock stopped because the church began at Acts 2 and the clock stopped because Israel had been set aside at that point, i.e. Acts 2. But Israel had not been set aside until Acts 28:25. And the church certainly did not begin at the cross.

I believe that scripture is abundantly clear that Israel was set aside at Acts 28:25. It was because Israel was set aside that the prophetic clock stopped. If the cutting off of Messiah was the rejection of Christ by His people at Acts 28, and I believe it was, then there is scriptural evidence for the stopping of the prophetic clock, i.e. the setting aside of Israel.