Christmas Eve Reflections: 2013

The Theological Significance of Christ’s Birth

In his best-selling book Knowing God J. I. Packer discusses the way in which “so many make faith harder than it need be.” They wrestle with the difficulty of the atonement, the resurrection, the virgin birth, or the miracles. But Packer wisely notes:

But in fact the real difficulty, the supreme mystery with which the gospel confronts us all, does not lie here at all. It lies not in the Good Friday message of atonement, nor in the Easter message of resurrection, but in the Christmas message of Incarnation. The really staggering Christian claim is that Jesus of Nazareth was God made man – that the second person of the Godhead became “the second man” (1 Cor 15:47), determining human destiny, the second representative head of the race, and that he took humanity without loss of deity, so that Jesus of Nazareth was as truly and fully divine as he was human.[1]

            What is it about Christmas that is so special? Regrettably an honest answer for many of us would be time spent with family, good food, an abundance of gifts, or the sounds and activities of the season. These things are not wrong, far from it. They are reminders of the goodness and grace of God. They are blessings from heaven meant to be enjoyed without guilt, but none of them rise to the real significance of this holy day.

            The Bible attaches a far greater importance to the reason behind this season than any of the material comforts we associate with it. The prophet Micah announced that from Bethlehem would come “one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2). This one would “stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God” (Micah 5:4a). He would provide security for his people, and his name would “be great to the ends of the earth.” (Micah 5:4b) The one of whom the prophet spoke is the Savior, born in Bethlehem, the one whose parents by divine instruction called Jesus (Matt. 1:21, 25).

Allow me briefly to reflect on the three titles given to this precious child and announced by the angel to a group of shepherds roughly two thousand years ago. The angel of the Lord who appeared that night said, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10-11). Savior, Christ, and Lord. These are not empty words. They are not meaningless titles given to a figurehead lacking in real authority. They are mighty declarations of the power, position, and purpose with which this Child King came.

He came as Savior. Jesus was born in order to die. He came “to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10) and “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Jesus came because the entire human race was dead in sin, justly condemned by the law, destined for eternal wrath, and helpless to change their condition (Rom. 1:18-3:20; Eph. 2:1-3). Jesus is Savior, not because he gave us a moral example, not because he taught moral truths, not because he was a gentle person, not because he was a great leader. Jesus is Savior because he died in our place and rose again, breaking the power of death and sin. It was for our sake that the Father “made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). The righteousness of God. Not man’s righteousness won by works or established by his own piety or religious practices. This is the righteousness of God, a righteousness of God and from God given to those who are unrighteous but for God’s gracious work. Jesus is a Savior because we needed one. He is our hope, the only hope of redemption and righteousness before God.

He came as Christ. Christ is our English form of the Greek translation of the Hebrew term Messiah which means anointed one. Kings, priests, and, sometimes, prophets, were anointed in the Old Testament as a symbol of God’s blessing, commission, and coming in the Holy Spirit upon their new work. But Jesus is the ultimate Anointed One. He is prophet, priest, and king, the one upon whom the Father has bestowed his favor, the one who has the Spirit without measure, the one in whom the fullness of the Godhead, deity, dwells. The Jews waited long for the coming Messiah, this Christ who would redeem and lead Israel. They prayed for him, hoped for him, and watched for him, but when he came, most overlooked him. They missed him because, like many today, they expected something other than what he is; they wanted him to do something other than what he does. They wanted a political leader, not a spiritual savior. They wanted freedom from sinners, not deliverance from their own sin. In the same way today, many miss Christ, the real Christ, because they expect or demand of him something he is not and will not do. His plan for us is not our best life now; it is eternal life, an abundant life now, yes, but even more he provides the very best heaven has to offer: eternal fellowship and joy with God in Christ.

He came as Lord. It has been said many want Jesus as a Savior, but fewer want him to be their Lord. Jesus said it would be so. He asked his hearers in Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” On the day of Judgment many will stand before Jesus and say, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” But he will declare to them, “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:21-23). He is not Savior unless he also is Lord. He modeled obedience to the Father for us (Heb. 5:9), and he calls us into an eternal relationship of heartfelt, loving submission as a member of God’s family. We do not obey the Lord so that he might love us. We obey because he loves us and to demonstrate we love him too.

Savior, Christ, and Lord. The little baby lying in the manger is all three, or he is simply another child. What does Christmas mean? Not presents. Not Santa. Not family. Not food. Christmas, if we desire to call it Christmas at all, means this: that Jesus has come into this world, that God has become a man, and that he has come to be Savior, Christ, and King.

-Joel M. Ellis, Jr. (Christmas Eve 2013)

---

[1] J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1993), 53.

Seventy Sevens: A Study of Daniel 9:24-27

SEVENTY SEVENS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR ESCHATOLOGY

A Study of Daniel 9:24-27

 Introduction

The seventy sevens (or weeks) of Daniel 9:24-27 are considered one of if not the most challenging prophecy in the entire Bible. It “has been one of the most notorious interpretive problem passages in Old Testament studies”[1] and has been described as “the continental divide of Biblical prophecy.”[2] In the sixteenth century John Calvin wrote, “This passage has been variously treated, and so distracted, and almost torn to pieces by the various opinions of interpreters, that it might be considered nearly useless on account of its obscurity.”[3] Reading such assessments of so infamous a prophecy might almost cause a modern interpreter to despair.

These admissions of the text’s difficulty and controversy, however, should not deter the careful and regular re-examination of its features. This passage, like many of the prophecies in Daniel, is so explicit and specific that liberal commentators who deny the possibility of inspired prophecy dismiss it as “not genuine prophecy but known history cast in the form of prophecy.”[4] If the revelation given to Daniel is so detailed as to frustrate modernist and post-modernist scholars, it should be eagerly studied by those who acknowledge the divine origin and prescience of biblical prophecy. Despite the eschatological questions associated with it, the seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 is a powerful announcement of the Messiah’s appearance and work which God would accomplish in a new age of restoration for his people.

Textual Observations

The ninth chapter of Daniel is internally dated to “the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans” (Dan. 9:1).[5] This same Darius “received the kingdom” in 5:30 is probably either Gubaru, the Persian governor of Babylon, or Cyrus the Great.[6] “The events of Daniel 9 were triggered by the reading of Scripture,” leading to Daniel’s penitential prayer and the subsequent appearance by Gabriel and revelation of the seventy sevens prophecy.[7] It is reading the words of Jeremiah concerning Israel’s seventy years in exile that moves Daniel to pray for God to be merciful (Dan. 9:2-19).[8] After seeking the Lord “by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes,” a divine messenger appears, the angel Gabriel, with a message for the prophet from God (Dan. 9:20-23). This context, the captivity of Israel for seventy years and Daniel’s prayer for its completion, provides a necessary structure for understanding the seventy sevens prophecy.

Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.  (Dan. 9:24)

The context makes it obvious this prophecy concerns Israel and the city of Jerusalem.[9] Seventy “weeks” (ESV), literally seventy “sevens,” were announced with prophetic significance for Daniel’s nation. “The consensus among scholars of all prophetic schools” is that these “weeks” are a reference to years, though there is no consensus on whether these years are to be understood literally or figuratively.[10] The Old Testament law divided Israel’s calendar into periods of seven years, each seventh year being set aside as a Sabbath rest for the land (Lev. 25:1-7). If each “seven” in the prophecy is seven years, then seventy sevens would be 490 years.[11]

            Six objectives are given for the seventy sevens prophecy. Each is stated in infinitive form and points to Messianic fulfillment.[12] These goals describe the point of the prophecy, and any interpretation of the passage must give priority to their import. The arithmetic questions about the seventy sevens notwithstanding, Phil Roberts helpfully reminds us:

We should remember that the vision itself does not specify any particular event as marking the end of the seventy weeks. It is apparently not the precise date of the end of the seventy weeks that the vision is intended to communicate, but the objectives to be accomplished within the seventy weeks.[13]

This observation is particularly important as we wrestle with the eschatological and theological implications of the seventy sevens. Though we may be unable to resolve every difficulty and question regarding the prophecy, its purpose and outcome should be clear.

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. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.  (Dan. 9:25)

The seventy sevens would begin with “the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem.” Scholars debate whether this word refers to a decree by God,[14] Cyrus,[15] or Artaxerxes (in 458/7 or 445 BC).[16] The context of exile and return and the anticipation of Cyrus’s release of the Jews (Isa. 44:28; 45:1, 13) immediately suggest Cyrus’s decree as the starting point for the seventy sevens. This view, however, is often criticized on the grounds the king’s decree as preserved in 2^nd Chronicles 36:22-23 does not specifically authorize any rebuilding. But David Lurie notes, “This objection fails to address the fact that Cyrus is named explicitly in the prophecy of Isa 44:28 as the man who would cause both Jerusalem to be rebuilt and the foundations of the temple to be laid.”[17] Cyrus’s involvement is emphasized again in Isaiah 45:13 and is supported by Josephus, a Jewish historian in the late first century.[18] Lurie goes on to say, “The real objection to Cyrus’ decree as the terminus a quo of the seventy ‘sevens’ has always been chronological.”[19] Without dismissing the struggle to reconcile all of the data, it seems dating the prophecy from Cyrus’s decree is the most obvious option in the text.

            The rebuilding of Jerusalem is undoubtedly in view in this prophecy, as is its judgment and desolation. James Smith notes, “The expression ‘with plaza [squares] and moat’ is figurative for complete restoration.”[20] The reference to “a troubled time” may point to the opposition encountered by Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah as they sought to re-establish their fellows Jews in the homeland.[21]

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.  (Dan. 9:26)

After the initial seven sevens and the sixty-two sevens following it, “an anointed one” would be cut off. Stephen Miller rightly notes this is a prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ.[22] Many conservative scholars “identify ‘the people of the prince who is to come’ as the Roman armies which destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70.”[23] Though not explained in Daniel 9, this Messianic death is the basis for successful completion of the six objectives stated in verse 24.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.  (Dan. 9:27)

Apart from the questions surrounding the arithmetical value, if any, of the seventy sevens, this may be the most difficult portion of the prophecy. Liberal scholars identify the “end to sacrifice and offering” and “the wing of abominations” which ushers in the desolator with Antiochus IV and his desecration of the Jerusalem Temple.[24] More conservative scholars regard this either as a reference to Titus and the Roman armies which destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70[25] or to the Antichrist and Tribulation in the end times.[26]

General Interpretations

Phil Roberts notes that through the history of interpretation “four major approaches to the passage have emerged, and most of the remaining multitude of interpretations are but variations on one of these four.”[27] He summarizes these positions as the Traditional Messianic Interpretation, the Church Age Interpretation, the Maccabean Interpretation, and the Dispensational (or Futurist) Interpretation.[28] The Dispensational view is unique to that theological and eschatological system, and most, though not all, conservative commentators reject the Maccabean view which finds virtually unanimous acceptance among liberal scholars. But the rest of conservative, biblical scholarship, whether historic premillennial, a-millennial, or post-millennial in eschatology, is divided among the Traditional Messianic and Church Age positions.

The Traditional Messianic Interpretation regards the seventy sevens either as symbolic or only loosely literal and as descriptive of “the period extending from the time of Daniel down through the first coming of Christ.”[29] John Collins, writing from a liberal perspective, observes, “Messianic interpretation was for long the central issue in the interpretation of Dan 9:24-27 but is now abandoned by all but the most conservative interpreters.”[30] Collins overstates the case. The Messianic view maintains a dominant presence in biblical scholarship.

The Church Age Interpretation says “the 490 years are entirely symbolic.”[31] This view regards the first seven weeks as spanning Cyrus’s decree and the first advent of Christ, the second block of sixty-two weeks is the current church period, and the final week immediately precedes the final judgment.[32]

The Maccabean Interpretation is the typical view of liberal scholarship which denies the possibility of inspired prediction of future events.[33] This view regards the seventy sevens as leading up to the Maccabean crisis but considers the author to have erred in his anticipation of the Messiah’s appearance.[34]

The Dispensational or Futurist Interpretation regards the seventy sevens as literal years spanning the period between the return from captivity (dispensational scholars disagree on the actual starting point for the prophecy) until the Second Coming of Christ and the beginning of the millennial kingdom.[35] This view assumes a large gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth seven which allows the numbers to be taken literally but the final period to still be in the future.[36]

Hermeneutical Questions

One of the primary challenges in exegetical study is interpreting the biblical text within its context, not interpolating one’s own views into the passage. The historical, theological, and social background of a text as well as its genre, purpose, and audience must be given careful consideration before definite assertions about its meaning are made. In the case of Daniel 9:24-27, there are, at least, “three factors upon which…any correct interpretation must be based.”[37]

The first interpretive factor is the context of the covenant prayer.[38] Daniel was praying for the seventy years of captivity to end when Gabriel was dispatched with a message (Dan. 9:1-3). The angel announced, “At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved” (Dan. 9:23). This “word” should be understood as the divine command for the exile to end and for the restoration of Israel to begin. This divine decision was the basis for Cyrus’s decree releasing the Jews to return home, just as Isaiah prophesied of the Persian monarch, “He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose; saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid’” (Isa. 44:28).[39] Thus the first and obvious factor in interpreting the prophecy must be the immediate historical situation of Daniel and the Jewish nation.

The second interpretive factor suggested by Roberts is the goal of the seventy sevens.[40] Six outcomes for the prophecy are enumerated, each stated as an infinitive.[41] Gabriel explained to Daniel, “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place” (Dan. 9:24). Homer Hailey notes, “It seems clear that the six points made by Gabriel are all Messianic; hence the seventy weeks must end with the time of the Messiah and the end of the Jewish age.”[42]

            How exactly these six objectives for the prophecy should guide its interpretation remains disputed. Stephen Miller says, “’To seal up vision and prophecy’ must include revelation concerning both Christ’s first and second advents,”[43] and he regards the fulfillment of all six objectives as awaiting the future, millennial kingdom.[44] But Phil Roberts correctly observes regarding the phrase “to seal up vision and prophecy”:

In this context it seems rather to refer to the validation of vision and prophecy by fulfillment. In other words, the seventy weeks will see the fulfillment of the visions and prophecies in which God had revealed his plans for the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish people – plans which, according to this prophecy, would culminate in a second destruction of their city and sanctuary (v. 26).[45]

It should be noted “Jewish tradition related the end of the seventy weeks to the destruction of the temple,”[46] and Josephus credits Daniel with predicting Rome’s desolation of Jerusalem.[47]

The third interpretive factor given by Roberts is the numerical symbolism of the seventy sevens.[48] Roberts sees the (loosely literal, mainly symbolic) seventy years of captivity (actually 66 or 67 years, from 605 BC to 539 BC) as well as the Sabbath year concept in OT law (Lev. 25:1-7) and the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-22) as being important historical and theological background for understanding the symbolism of seventy sevens.[49] These observations weigh against a literalistic, mathematical interpretation of the seventy sevens in favor of a more theologically driven view. Nevertheless, Stephen Miller rightly points out:

Those who contend that the sevens are symbolic must account for the fact that specific numbers are used and for division of the seventy sevens into units of seven, sixty-two, and one. Why would such definite numbers be employed to represent periods of indefinite length?[50]

While it is easy to find biblical and theological significance for a symbolic use of both seven and seventy, the numbers sixty-two and sixty-nine do not have any obvious significance and seem to support Miller’s criticism. James Smith concurs:

That the numbers seven, three and ten often have symbolic significance is certainly true. Yet the seventy heptads are divided into units of seven, sixty-two and one. The latter two numbers are devoid of symbolic significance. This seems to indicate that the entire figure is intended to be taken arithmetically and chronologically.[51]

These objections to the symbolic interpretation of the seventy sevens are serious, though not necessarily fatal. The round number prophetically attached to the Babylonian exile might support the same interpretation of Daniel 9, but Miller and Smith offer a compelling challenge to it.

Despite the weakness of a symbolic explanation for the intermediate sixty-two sevens, the weight of evidence still seems to support Roberts’ conclusion that “the whole of the seventy weeks does not represent 490 literal years, but only symbolizes the period necessary for the full accomplishment of God’s plan to bring a true Sabbath rest and a true Jubilee – true rest and deliverance from sin – to his people.”[52] This is especially so since literalistic interpretations are by no means free of numerical challenges. For example, Randall Price and Thomas Ice admit, “Futurists have classically interpreted the seventieth and final week (in verse 27) as beginning long after the end of the sixty-ninth week.”[53] This is because it is difficult to make 490 literal years fit both the prophecy and history, and if one regards the conclusion of the prophecy as announcing the Second Coming of Christ, harmonization is impossible without assuming a significant (almost 2,000 years) gap.

            Futurists do not suggest a time gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth sevens solely as a means of making their interpretation work. They insist the context demands such a position. For example, Price and Ice say, “We do not yet see the answer to Daniel’s central concern – the final end of the captivity of the Jews and Jerusalem (Daniel 9:2).”[54] But this begs the question, assuming that the premillennial presupposition of complete national and political restoration of Israel is an objective of biblical prophecy.[55] If the assumption of Jewish political restoration is challenged, “There is not one thing named as a goal of, or said to happen in, this seventy weeks that had not occurred by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century.”[56] Jesus’ own use of Daniel in foretelling the Temple’s destruction in A.D. 70 argues in favor of a first century termination for the seventy sevens (Matt. 24:1-19, 34).[57] The historical and Messianic context of the passage suggest the seventy sevens are “a symbolic meaning of the time from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the return under Zerubbabel, until the death of the Messiah, the cessation of the sacrifices, the making of a covenant, and the coming of the prince who completely destroyed Jerusalem and the old order.”[58]

Theological Conclusions

It is unfortunate that eschatological differences surrounding Daniel 9:24-27 so often overshadow its explicitly Messianic message. Disagreements over the seventy sevens and how to interpret or compute them have been and will remain part of its hermeneutical legacy. J. Paul Tanner observes:

Early church fathers commonly embraced a messianic interpretation of the passage and sought to prove a chronological computation for the time of Messiah’s coming based on this prophecy. This approach has been favored by many conservatives—both premillennial and amillennial—down through the centuries. Advocates of the messianic view differ over the details of interpretation (e.g., the number of times Messiah is referred to in the passage, the termini of the calculations, or how the final seventieth week relates to the first sixty-nine), but they agree that this passage is one of the most astounding references to the Lord Jesus Christ and the time of His first advent.[59]

This agreement on the prophetic and Messianic significance of Daniel 9:24-27 should not be overshadowed or set aside by disagreement in interpreting its other elements. The seventy sevens prophecy is first and foremost about Christ and the restoration he would accomplish for Israel.

            This is not to suggest eschatological debates between futurists and preterists[60] discount the Messianic significance of Daniel 9. Futurists who insist on a future, literal fulfillment of the seventieth seven acknowledge the passage is Messianic, but they also assert, “The New Testament writers used the 70-weeks prophecy to predict future events, so we too should interpret it futuristically.”[61] This assumption, however, is by no means necessary and is seriously undermined by the prophecy’s Christological focus on the atonement, an event which Christians look back on, not ahead to. This strongly suggests the context of the prophecy concerns the Messiah’s redemptive work at his first appearance, not his Second Coming. Again, Tanner notes:

Though most early church fathers took a messianic view of the seventy-weeks prophecy, they tended to favor a messianic-historical position, meaning that the entire seventy weeks was fulfilled at some point in the first century A.D. Only a few opted for a messianic/eschatological position in which the seventy weeks would not be completed until some future point beyond the first century, such as the reign of Antichrist or the second advent of Christ.[62]

The Jews also considered Daniel’s prophecy to terminate with Rome’s desolation of the Second Temple. Josephus says Daniel’s prophecies point to Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70.[63]

Whatever questions must remain and be debated, Daniel 9 must be a passage which exalts Christ, not merely excites controversy. John Calvin rightly regards the prophecy’s theological significance as having priority over any mathematical computation from it. He says, “These two points, then, in my judgment, must be held as fixed; first, the seventy weeks begin with the Persian monarchy, because a free return was then granted to the people; and secondly, they did not terminate till the baptism of Christ, when he openly commenced his work of satisfying the requirements of the office assigned him by his father.”[64] Speaking from a symbolic view which confines the seventy sevens from the sixth century B.C. to the first century A.D., Phil Roberts offers the following summary:

Though the grammar is difficult and many details are obscure, the gist of this answer to Daniel’s prayer is clear: God is about to begin a new age for his people. It will be seventy ‘weeks’ in duration (probably to be understood as weeks of years, or 490 years) and will see not only the restoration of the temple and the city of Jerusalem but also forgiveness of sin, the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, the sealing up of vision and prophecy, and the anointing of the most holy. Moreover, near the end of this period, the Messiah will appear. But he will be rejected and desolation will follow, resulting once again in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.[65]

Though the timing of Robert’s summary will be debated, the essential import of it should be agreeable to most conservative, evangelical scholars.

Conclusion

The seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9 is, regrettably, under-appreciated as a Messianic testimony in much of the evangelical community. Its primary significance, at least, at a popular level, seems to be more in determining the timing of the Tribulation in the end times than in assuring faithful Jewish exiles of God’s plan to return, rebuild, redeem, and restore their fortunes through the work of his Messiah. Yet whatever its future significance may or may not be, the latter significance for Daniel and the Jews who returned to rebuild the homeland in the sixth century B.C. must not be forgotten. Indeed, its historic and Messianic significance must be given priority in its interpretation and application, relegating its significance for futurist depictions of the Tribulation and Antichrist to a secondary, though not necessarily insignificant, concern. The eschatological disagreements surrounding the seventy sevens must not discourage its careful study and faithful exposition by and for believers today, nor should expositors and commentators feel the need to resolve every question about the text which may be raised. Divine prophecy must be allowed to speak with the force and clarity which its Author intends while leaving us in mystery whenever and wherever he so desires.

---

[1] J. Paul Tanner, “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic?” Bibliotheca Sacra (Apr 2009), 182.

[2] James E. Smith, The Major Prophets in Old Testament Survey Series, (Joplin: College Press, 1992), 605.

[3] John Calvin, Commentary on Daniel: Volume 2, Dan. 9:24.

[4] Norman W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 144.

[5] Smith, 601.

[6] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, Volume 18 in The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 171-177.

[7] Smith, 601.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Miller, 258-259.

[10] Smith, 605; see also, Randall Price and Thomas Ice, “Seventy Weeks of Daniel,” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, ed. Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, (Eugene: Harvest House, 2004), 357.

[11] Smith, 605.

[12] Homer Hailey, Hailey’s Comments: Volume One, (Las Vegas: Nevada Publications, 1985), 259.

[13] Phil Roberts, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27,” The Doctrine of Last Things, ed. Melvin D. Curry, (Temple Terrace: Florida College, 1986), 104.

[14] Smith, 606-607.

[15] Roberts, 101-102.

[16] Price and Ice, 357; see also Miller, 262-263.

[17] David H. Lurie, “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s ‘Sevens’ and the Chronology of the Seventy ‘Sevens,’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Sep. 1990), 308.

[18] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 11.1.1-3, 343-344.

[19] Lurie, 308.

[20] Smith, 608.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Miller, 267.

[23] Smith, 610.

[24] John J. Collins, Daniel, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 357-358.

[25] Calvin, Lecture Fifty-second.

[26] Miller, 270-273.

[27] Roberts, 98.

[28] Roberts, 98-99; see also Miller, 252-257: Miller’s categories are somewhat more helpful but not as succinctly stated.

[29] Roberts, 98.

[30] Collins, 354.

[31] Roberts, 98.

[32] Miller, 255-257.

[33] E.g. Porteous, 141-144; see also, Collins, 352-360.

[34] Roberts, 98-99.

[35] Price and Ice, 356-360.

[36] Ibid., 357.

[37] Roberts, 100.

[38] Ibid., 100-102.

[39] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 11.1.1-3, 343-344; Josephus confirms the Jews’ familiarity with Cyrus’s role in decreeing the eventual reconstruction of the Temple.

[40] Roberts, 102-104.

[41] Smith, 606; see also Price and Ice 357.

[42] Hailey, 259.

[43] Miller, 261.

[44] Ibid., 259; see also Price and Ice, 359.

[45] Roberts, 103.

[46] Collins, 356.

[47] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7, 341.

[48] Roberts, 104-110.

[49] Cf. Collins, 352.

[50] Miller, 258.

[51] Smith, 612.

[52] Roberts, 110-111.

[53] Price and Ice, 357.

[54] Ibid., 358.

[55] E.g. “These six goals have not been fulfilled in the church in this age; rather, they apply to the Jewish nation in the age to come,” Price and Ice, 359; cf. 357.

[56] Roberts, 104.

[57] Hailey, 260.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Tanner, 182.

[60] I am using preterist here to refer to those who believe in a first century fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27, not to full-preterism which denies any future fulfillment of biblical prophecy and a literal, bodily resurrection.

[61] Price and Ice, 357.

[62] Tanner, 200.

[63] Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7, 341.

[64] Calvin, Dan. 9:25.

[65] Roberts, 97-98.

Bibliography

Calvin, John. Commentary on Daniel: Volume 2. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25

(accessed April 12, 2013).

Collins, John J. Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Hailey, Homer. Hailey’s Comments: Volume One. Las Vegas: Nevada Publications, 1985.

Josephus. Josephus: The Complete Works, transl. by William Whiston, A.M. Nashville: Nelson,

1998.

Lurie, David H. “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s ‘Sevens’ and the Chronology of the Seventy

‘Sevens.’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Sep. 1990). http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jets33-3-02 (accessed April 5, 2013).

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. Volume 18 in The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman

& Holman, 1994.

Porteous, Norman W. Daniel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.

Price, Randall and Thomas Ice. “Seventy Weeks of Daniel.” in The Popular Encyclopedia of

Bible Prophecy, ed. Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson. Eugene: Harvest House, 2004.

Roberts, Phil. “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27.” The Doctrine of Last Things, ed. Melvin

D. Curry. Temple Terrace: Florida College, 1986.

Smith, James E. The Major Prophets in Old Testament Survey Series. Joplin: College Press,

1992.

Tanner, J. Paul. “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1.” Bibliotheca Sacra

(Apr 2009). http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/bsac166-662-05 (accessed April 5, 2013).