|
"Classical dispensational interpretation has always recognized that the New Testament revelation of two phases to the messianic advent has
necessitated an interruption in the fulfillment of the restoration
program unconditionally guaranteed to national Israel (Jeremiah
31:31-37).."
Synopsis of the Article
A distinctive tenent of the dispensational hermeneutic is apotelesmatic
interpretation or prophetic postponement. This phenomena can be
demonstrated in Old Testament texts in which unfulfilled aspects of the
messianic program for national Israel are discernable. Daniel 9:26-27 as
a much contested model for the demonstration of temporal intervals in
eschatological passages, reveals historical, structural and grammatical
justification for the apotelesmatic approach. This Danielic model is
found to inform the sequence and motif selection of the individual
synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse, and in part to have shaped
the genre, motifs, language, and general structure of the book of
Revelation. Daniel, however, is but one of a corpus of postponement
passages, defined by type as either eschatological “Day of the Lord,” or
eschatological messianic.
Introduction
Classical dispensational interpretation has always recognized that the
New Testament revelation of two phases to the messianic advent has
necessitated an interruption in the fulfillment of the restoration
program unconditionally guaranteed to national Israel (Jeremiah
31:31-37). This is evidenced by the observation in the Old Testament
that this restoration included the two inseparable elements of spiritual
redemption (cf. Isaiah 49:1-7; 53-55; Ezekiel 36:25-27; 37:14, 23) and
national restoration (cf. Isaiah 49:8; 56:1-8; Ezekiel 36:24, 28;
37:24-28).1 The first phase of the messianic advent accomplished
spiritual redemption for ethnic Israel (Matthew 1:21; cf. Luke 2:11),
but being rejected on a national scale, i.e., the Nation as represented
by its national leadership, (Matthew 23:37, cf. Acts 3:13-15, 17;
4:25-27) necessitated a second phase of advent which was to complete the
promise of national restoration (Matthew 23:39; cf. Acts 1:6-7).
The Recognition of Prophetic Postponement
Jesus had instructed His disciples concerning these two phases of
messianic redemption and restoration following the preview of the
Messianic Kingdom (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:26-27) with Jesus’
transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36). The
appearance of Elijah with Jesus (Matthew 17:4-5; Mark 9:4-5), coupled
with Jesus’ statements concerning His rising from the dead, Matthew
17:9; Mark 9:9-10) had confused the disciples and provoked the question
“Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” (Matthew
17:10; Mark 9:11). Jesus’ reply was made with respect to the two phases
when He answered: “Elijah is coming to restore all things (cf. Malachi
4:5); but I say to you, that Elijah already came, and they did not
recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of
Man is going to suffer” (Matthew 17:11-12; Mark 9:12-13). In other
words, just as the messianic forerunner’s comings has two phases: John
the Baptizer (one to suffer and die), and Elijah the Prophet (one of
restoration and glory), so also would the Messiah’s coming. The response
to the forerunner foreshadowed the response to the Messiah, and
necessitated the postponement of the fulfillment specifically promised
to national Israel.
The Early Jewish-Christian Interpretation of Postponement
This interruption in the divine program of Israelite redemptive history
was also interpreted in early Jewish-Christian theology as a
postponement of the messianic blessings originally promised to the
Nation. This recognition of postponement is explicit in the earliest
post-Pentecostal preaching of the apostles. For example, in Acts 3:18 we
read of the fulfillment of the messianic blessings of redemption in the
first phase of Jesus’ advent in the words: “But the things which God
announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Messiah
should suffer, He has thus fulfilled.” This redemptive proclamation is
then tied in the text to the second phase of advent, which further
fulfills the messianic blessings of restoration in verses 19-21: “Repent
therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that
times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He
may send Jesus, the Messiah apointed for you, whom heaven must receive
until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by
the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.”
The phrases “times of refreshing” and “period of restoration of all
things,” are expressions for the messianic era or the promised
restoration of national Israel to the divine ideal (cf. Isaiah 2:2-4;
4:2-6; 11:6-9; 62:1-12; et. al.).2 The latter term for “restoration” is
especially related to national Jewish repentance toward the redemptive
work of Messiah, since the two terms come from the same root3 and seem
to be patterned after the prophetic condition for the restoration of the
messianic kingdom: “(re)turn to Me [with a restored heart], and I will
return to you [with restored blessings]” (Zechariah 1:3; Malachi 3:7;
cf. Matthew 3:1-2; 4:17). If all of the messianic blessings for Israel
were fulfilled in the cross-work of Christ, then why is Israel’s
repentance (verse 19) is so closely tied with the purpose of the second
advent? The text reads “repent … in order that He may send the Christ
appointed for you” (verse 20).4 Nowhere in scripture is it ever said to
Gentiles that their repentance would result in God sending the Messiah.
On the contrary, I Thessalonians 1:9-10 says that Gentile repentance has
simply put them in a position to “wait” for the Messiah’s return. Also
of significance here is the specificity of address “…for you.” That this
addresses Jews alone, and especially Jews as “national Israel” is
affirmed by verses 1, 13-18. This connection between Jewish repentance
toward Messiah and the Messianic advent for the Jews (cf. John 4:22)
therefore requires a prophetic period until fulfillment is realized.
The Pauline Interpretation of Postponement
In the Pauline apologetic for national Israel, the rejection of the
promised Messiah by Israel is presented as having brought a suspension
in the fulfillment of the messianic promises to Israel (Romans 11:12,
15, 23, 25-28, 31). Paul argues that it is only because God has not
failed (and will not fail) in His promise to national Israel (cf. I
Kings 8:56; Zephaniah 3:11-20), that Gentiles, who presently share in
Israel’s Messiah during the Church Age, can have assurance of God’s
promised blessings (Romans 9:6; 10:1; 11:11, 29-32). Yet, even the
present mercy that has come to Gentiles is not complete, but awaits a
final fulfillment. In Romans 15:8-12 Paul cites from four Old Testament
(LXX) passages that predicted Gentile salvation (Psalms 18:49;
Deuteronomy 32:43; Psalm 117:1; Isaiah 11:10) in order to show that God
is fulfilling His promise to bless the Gentiles through Israel’s Messiah
in His confirmation of the Abrahamic Covenant (cf. Genesis 12:3; John
4:22). None of the passages cited in the Greek text use the definite
article with “Gentiles,” since it is individual, not universal, Gentile
obedience to Messiah that is in view during the present age. The Old
Testament contexts depict an obesience of the Gentile nations, a future
accomplishment attending the second advent when Israel is restored as
head of the nations and itself becomes the instrument of universal
blessing, in complete fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (cf.
Deuteronomy 28:13; 30:1-10; Zechariah 8:22-23). The argument would then
run: if individual Gentiles are now being saved (Acts 15:14), it is a
proof of the future fulfillment of the promise of national Gentile
salvation. Therefore, like the proof offered in individual Jewish
salvation for national Israel’s salvation, individual Gentile salvation
guarantees that national Israel must be restored to carry out her role
with respect to national Gentile salvation (Isaiah 19:23-25).
Consequently, dispensationalists have observed that in order for God to
fulfill His stated purpose in sending the Messiah to Israel (Matthew
1:21; 4:17-18; 6:10; 26:29; Luke 12:32; Acts 1:6), He must restore
Israel, first to spiritual faith in the Messiah as Redeemer, and then to
the spiritual and national blessings under Messiah as Ruler.
Theologically, the phenomena that has occurred as a result of national
rejection has been a delay in the fulfillment of national restoration.
The Terminology of Postponement
The technical expression for this delay in the fulfillment of the
messianic program for Israel is derived from the Greek verb apotelo
meaning “to bring to completion, finish.”5 This apotelesmatic
interpretation recognizes that in Old Testament texts that present the
messianic program as a single event, a near and far historical
fulfillment is intended, separated by an indeterminate period of time.
Older dispensational writers used to refer to this as an “intercalation”
or a “gap,” however, we prefer the term “prophetic postponement.”
Postponement, because it retains the original idea of an interruption in
fulfillment, while supplementing it with the notion that such a delay is
only temporary, and prophetic, because we understand a purposeful,
preordained act in the divine program.
Such a parenthesis was implied in those Old Testament texts concerned
with Israel’s hardening (Isaiah 6:9-13; Zechariah 7:11-12), and judicial
exile (Deuteronomy 4:27-30; 28:36-37, 49-50, 64-68), yet not fully
revealed until the New Testament revelation (John 12:37-40; Acts
28:25-28; Romans 11:25-26). This parenthesis in Israelite history, then,
is not so much an interruption of redemption as an extension of
predicted hardening (Romans 11:7-10). The exile, which was a punishment
for national disobedience, has therefore been prolonged during the
present age until the appointed time for Israel’s national (including
spiritual) restoration (Acts 1:7; 3:21; Romans 11:25-27). So that none
can question the infallibility of the divine promise to Israel (Romans
9:6; 11:29),individual Israelite redemption is presently being fulfilled
within the Church (Romans 11:1-5). This salvation of an individual
Jewish remnant (a part of the “all Israel,” Romans 9:8b; 11:24, 27)
during the present age testifies to the ultimate salvation of a national
Remnant (“all Israel,” Romans 11:26) in the age to come. This
unrevealed aspect of the messianic plan (Romans 16:25-26; Ephesians
3:3-6), reveals that the promise of national Israelite redemption
(Romans 11:23b), will be accomplished by Messiah in the future as
certainly as individual Jewish and Gentile salvation has been effected
in Messiah at present (Romans 11:12, 15, 23, 31).
The Expression of Prophetic Postponement
The prophetic postponement is implied in Old Testament restoration
texts that are cited or alluded to in the New Testament in terms of
future fulfillment. For instance, the Old Testament promised that the
city of Jerusalem would be delivered from Gentile domination by
messianic intervention (Zechariah 14:1-4). This is an event that has
never seen fulfillment in Israelite history in terms of the prophetic
expectation. The New Testament, however, records that the Messiah at
His first advent promised this fulfillment at His second advent (Luke
21:24b-31). In this New Testament prediction of fulfillment, given in
response to questions concerning the future (verse 7), Jesus teaches
that the destruction of the Temple (verses 20-23), the period of Jewish
Diaspora (verse 24a), wars on an international scale (verse 10), natural
disasters (verse 11), persecutions (verses 12-19), and celestial and
terrestrial phenomenon (verses 25-26) will all precede the time of
deliverance (national redemption) brought by the second advent (verses
27-28). Therefore, the final redemption for Israel (“this generation,”
verse 32), has been postponed until these events culminate, including
national Israelite hardening, with the conclusion of “the times of the
Gentiles” (verse 24b; cf. Romans 11:25).
When the Old Testament records that the Messiah will be born (Isaiah
9:6) and will rule on the throne of David and over his kingdom (Isaiah
9:7), it portrays one Messianic Advent. However, returning again to our
text in Acts 3, we understand that the complete fufillment of this
advent has been postponed. Here it is explained that the Messiah was
sent to Israel (from heaven to be born on earth), according to the
prophetic word (verse 18), in fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6, and will be
sent again to Israel (from heaven to rule on earth) in completion of the
prophetic word (verses 20-21), thus fulfilling Isaiah 9:7.
One must ask why a second coming would be necessary if all the
prophetic promises (to Israel) were fulfilled (as preterists and
historicists contend) at the first advent (i.e., at the cross)? It
should also be noted that the apotelesmatic approach is different from
the “already … not yet” dialetic, in that the latter would see a partial
fulfilment of the complete promise, while the former would see a
complete fulfillment of part of the promise.6 Therefore, rather than
interpreting Jesus as partially fulfilling the promise to reign on
David’s throne by His present heavenly session as Lord over the Church
(Acts 2:34-36; Hebrews 1:3; 12:2), this is postponed for a future
earthly enthronement, which completely fulfills the literal requirements
of the Old Testament context with respect to national Israel (2 Samuel
7:16; Psalm 89:4; Matthew 19:28; 25:31).
Qualifications for Postponement
It is important to remember that these messianic texts were originally
directed to national Israel, and as such, they have their ultimate
fulfillment exclusively with Israel. While the Church occupies a
prophetic period in the fulfillment of Israel’s destiny , it is clear
from both the teaching and the tenor of the New Testament epistles that
the Church has not been relegated to a prophetic position by this
historical consequence (cf. Ephesians 1:12; 2:6-7; 3:9-10; 5:25-27;
Colossians 1:26-27; et. al.). Rather, the New Testament revelation
concerning the Church gives it a distinct purpose in the messianic plan,
alongside that of Israel, in the consummation of the ages to the glory
of God the Father (I Corinthians 15:23-28). It is in the Church that the
Elect (Jew and Gentile) have an equal access to God (Ephesians 2:11-22),
a new revelation of God’s saving grace through Israel’s Messiah, which
has incorporated Gentiles as fellow heirs of the messianic blessings
(Ephesians 2:3-6), including the inheritance of the Kingdom (I
Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2
Thessalonians 1:5).
It must further be recognized that the restoration promises made to
national Israel require a future fulfillment in the same manner as the
redemptive promises have found past fulfillment. As the Messiah’s first
advent was originally directed to national Israel (Matthew 15:24), and
was accomplished literally in terms of Israelite redemptive expectation
(Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:26), so the Messiah’s second advent will fulfill
the prophetic expectation of Israelite restoration (Acts 1:6; Romans
11:26-27; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; 2:3-12; Revelation 19:11-20:9). If
this was to be understood otherwise (e.g., in the first advent as the
historicist interpretation), then why did Jesus in the Olivet Discourse
and Peter in Acts (3:19-21) project its fulfillment into a time
attendant to the second advent? Or, if this text was intended to find
its fulfillment in A.D. 70 (the preterist interpretation) with the
greater domination of the Gentiles (Romans) over Israel, how are “the
times of the Gentiles” thereby “fulfilled” (concluded), and Israel’s
fortunes restored? The only way to harmonize these discrepencies is to
reinterpret historic fulfillment in terms different from the Old
Testament prophets.
We must further note that apotelesmatic passages, where intervals in
the fulfillment of prophecies occur, are a common biblical phenomena,
especially in the Prophets (where the messianic restoration of Israel is
addressed). The length of an interval is inconsequential to the
fulfillment of the prediction, as can be seen from past historical
predictions that encompassed many centuries (e.g., the prophecy of the
exodus and establishment in the Land, Genesis 15:13-16). Our final
section in this study presents a survey of the many passages which
represent examples of prophetic postponement.
Postponement and Chronological Continuity
The apotelesmatic approach includes both an extension of Israel’s
exilic condition and a postponement of the Israel’s restoration, with a
prophetic period incorporated to fulfill the messianic salvific promises
for those (whether Jew or Gentile) who have accepted Israel’s Messiah.
Since Israel’s hardening did not permit the promise of national
repentance toward Messiah at the first advent, this will be fulfilled at
the second advent. An objection to this concept of postponement,
especially in prophetic passages where a definite measure of time or
space is specified (e.g., Daniel 9:24-27), has been that in such cases
the units of time or space must be understood to run continously and
successively.7 However, postponement does not affect such fulfillment
of measured events. The same chronological events are fulfilled in the
same temporal order as if no interruption occurred. Dispensational
writers have sought to illustrate this by the imagery of a “prophetic
clock”. If we reckon that this clock is keeping only “Israeli time,”
with the “times of the Gentiles” the hands on the clock froze in
position, to resume their continuous run and complete the appointed hour
“when the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled.” From the human
perspective it would seem that the clock has stopped, and the perceived
interval may appear as a failure in fulfillment. From the divine
viewpoint, nothing has changed, and all is proceeding according to
schedule (since the “times of the Gentiles” was always an intended part
of the fulfillment). Therefore, despite the apparent delay in
fulfillment, the promise to Israel has not been prevented, simply
postponed.
Postponement and the Prophetic Perspective
Another illustration offered to explain postponement is that of
“prophetic viewpoint.” The rationale here is that biblical authors had a
need to treat prophetically events concerning both advents of Christ,
but simply had no need to describe an intervening history (particularly
since that history related more to fulfillment for Gentiles than for
national Israel). To illustrate, let us imagine the Old Testament
prophets looking at “mountaintops of prophetic revelation” (the
Messianic Advents). They could clearly see the mountaintops, but from
their vantage point the two mountaintops appeared to converge as one
peak (i.e., as one Messianic Advent). In between these mountains lay a
valley (the Church Age), which, of course, was hidden from view. In I
Peter 1:10-12 we seems to find a confirmation of this principle. In this
text, addressed to predominately Gentile exiles (cf. 1:14; 2:9-10;
4:3-4), it is explained that the prophets of Israel had received
revelation concerning God’s intentions to bring Messiah’s gracious
salvation to the Gentiles, verse 10a (e.g., Isaiah 9:1-2; 19:21-25;
42:1-2; 56:1-8). These prophets had known that Israel’s Messiah, “the
Servant of the Lord,” was to be a “light to the nations” (Isaiah 42:6;
59:6), and had diligently sought to discover in their prophetic writings
the appointed time for the Messianic Advent (verse 10b-11a), which for
them combined both the first advent (“the sufferings of Messiah,” cf.
Isaiah 53), and the second advent (“the glories to follow,” cf. Isaiah
11:1-5), verse 11b. These prophets could not clearly discern when the
Gentiles would receive mercy (the Church Age, cf. Colossians 1:26-27),
for most of the promises to this effect were connected with the time of
“the glories to follow” (the Messianic Age), cf. Isaiah 11:10; 42:6;
60:3; Malachi 1:11.
This may have been the basis for James’ argument in Acts 15:13-19, for
he cited from Amos 9:11-12 which has as its context the future
restoration of Israel, cf. “In that day…I will restore the captivity of
My people Israel” (verses 11, 13-14). James may be grounding his plea
for the present acceptance of Gentile believers on the principle of
Gentile salvation in the restored Davidic (Millennial) Kingdom, which
made no mention of proselyte requirements. In this case, James’
interpretive words introducing the citation: “After these things I will
return” (verse 16), may indicate the Second Advent.8
However, we seek to explain the phenomena of postponement, it is
evident from many prophetic texts that a postponement of messianic
fulfillment has occurred, otherwise we are left to explain such
fulfillment in terms other than that understood by the prophets, the
apostles, and our Lord in their eschatological narratives.
Prophetic Postponement and Christocentric Interpretation
Those who adopt alternate interpretive systems insist that the New
Testament reinterprets the Old Testament in christological terms, so
that complete fulfillment of the messianic program is now understood to
take place within the Church. Jesus, however, employing this hermeneutic
in His commentary on Isaiah 61:1-2a (Luke 4:16-21), appears to have
understood a postponement in the fulfillment of the text. In the Lukan
narrative, Jesus, applying the Old Testament text to Himself in terms of
fulfillment (verse 21),9 went against Jewish tradition in public
reading,10 and abruptly ended His selected passage (Isaiah 61:1-2) in
mid-sentence with the words: “to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord
…” (Isaiah 61:2a).11 The completion of the sentence in Isaiah 61:2b
reads: “…and the day of vengence of our God; to comfort all who mourn.”
If the Lord’s purpose at the first advent was to redeem rather than to
reign, then we can understand why the second half of this verse, which
focuses on the second advent (with its attendant judgment on the
nations) was omitted. It will not do, as some claim, that it was omitted
in order “to stress the grace of God,”12 for the words in verse 2c: “to
comfort all who mourn,” and especially those in verse 3, also stress the
grace of God. It seems preferable to conclude that Jesus knew that the
day of Gentile judgment was to be postponed and so read only that
portion of the verse for which He could claim present fulfillment.
Opponents of this view claim that no “gap” was intended here, because
even if the entire passage was not cited, “the day of God’s wrath as
well as the day of redemption were inaugurated by our Lord’s
ministry.”13 Historicists and preterists would find this day of wrath
fulfilled either at the cross or in A.D. 70.14 The problem with this
interpretation is that wrath fell on the Jews, not on the Gentiles, as
predicted in the Isaiah text. By contrast, Isaiah 61 sees the nation of
Israel revived and restored (verses 2b2-10) for a witness to the Gentile
nations (verse 11), who in fact will serve the Jews (verses 5-6), not
destroy them. Again, we must ask why the Parousia was postponed if two
of its primary goals: the day of vengence (on the nations), and the
restoration of Israel, was already fulfilled at the cross (or in A.D.
70) and within the Church? This example of christological (or
christocentric) interpretation of the Old Testament, therefore, seems to
incorporate prophetic postponement. We now turn to one of the most
contested examples of prophetic postponement, the Seventy Weeks Prophecy
of Daniel 9:24-27.
The Significance of Daniel 9 as an Example of Parenthetical Postponement
Daniel 9:24-27 is accepted by dispensationalists as an example of
prophetic postponement.15 Conservative and critical scholars alike hold
that Daniel’s seventy weeks (verse 24) are to be interpreted as seventy
weeks of years.16 This resulting period of 490 years (70 x7) is divided
acording to verses 25-27 as periods of seven weeks (49 years), sixty-two
weeks (434 years), and one week (7 years). Dispensational scholarship
has traditionally accepted the context of this passage as messianic,
with the Messiah coming after the sixty-two weeks (i.e., after the 7
weeks + the 62 weeks = 483 years) to die. Some would see the words “and
have nothing” to mean without inheriting the messianic kingdom (verse
26a),17 leaving the fulfillment of this purpose to the final week (verse
27), which depicts the resumption of the messianic promise for Israel
with the overthrow of the Antichrist (the apocalyptic prerequisite to
the establishment of the messianic kingdom.
This text has been regarded by non-dispensationalists as the locus
classicus for the dispensationalist argument. In this regard Gary Demar
cited Hans K. LaRondelle’s citation of Alva J. McClain: “For the
dispensationalist, ‘Probably no single prophetic utterance is more
crucial in the fields of Biblical Interpretation, Apologetics, and
Eschatology’ than the seventy-weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. If the
gap theory cannot be proved from a study of this messianic prophecy,
then there is no validity to dispenationalism, and the entire endtime
system called dispensationalism must be rejected. Because
dispensationalists understand this, they must devise a way to create a
gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks.”18
Before responding to this statement, it should be noted that DeMar
dependence upon LaRondelle has led to his misrepresentation of McClain’s
intention in his statement.19 McClain’s point, as maintained by all
evangelical and Reformed scholars alike, is that Daniel’s prophecy of
the Seventy Weeks is the classic defense of the reality of predictive
prophecy.” McClain’s statement concerning the fields of Biblical
Interpretation, Apologetics, and Eschatology, relate to the messianic
context of the prophecy and its proof for divine inspiration in light of
higher critical assumptions that would deny any “predictive element” in
prophecy. Only after this discussion does McClain add: “Finally, with
reference to its importance, I am convinced that in the predictions of
the Seventy Weeks, we have the indepensable chronological key to all New
Testament prophecy.”20
In response to DeMar, dispensationalists do not regard Daniel 9 as the
sole text for the concept of prophetic postponement, rather, it is one
among many such texts that implicitly reveal this fact in the light of
progressive revelation (Matthew 13:16-17; 1 Corinthians 10:11). The
crucial significance of the Seventy Weeks Prophecy, as McClain has
observed, is its value as an interpretive aid for comparative predictive
texts. This significance of Danelic prophecy was testified to by the
first-century Jewish historian Josephus: “He [Daniel] not only predicted
the future, like the other prophets, but specified when the events would
happen” (Antiquities x. 268).21 In this regard, Daniel 9:27 uniquely
serves as the single Old Testament text cited by our Lord in the
synoptics as a chronological indicator of eschatological events
(Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). It is also thought to be the text
underlying Paul’s eschatological treatise in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10
concerning “the son of destruction (Antichrist) and the Temple”
(language which has no other only literary referent but Daniel 9:27),22
and also may have served as a literary paradigm for the structure of the
Book of Revelation.23
Dispensationalists have been accused of theological bias in their
apotelesmatic interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27, but it is rather the
interpretation of Daniel 9:27 in light of the New Testament citations
and allusions, along with an exegesis of the original text itself, that
has convinced dispensationalists of the Seventy-Weeks prophecy as an
example of prophetic postponement. For this reason is is important for
both non-dispensationalists as well as dispensationalists to understand
the apotelesmatic argument with respect to this important text.
The Apotelesmatic Interpretation of Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy
Because of the nature of Danelic terminology in the ninth chapter,23
the earliest attempts at commentary have revealed a diversity of
interpretations.24 The question which has most concerned commentators
has been the identification of the terminus a quo (the commencement) and
the terminus ad quem (the conclusion) of the prophecy. We will bypass
discussion of the terminus a quo of the prophecy (verse 25a),25 in order
to focus on the terminus ad quem of the prophecy. However, a brief
summary of competing interpretationsof the Seventy Weeks Prophecy26 will
help us understand the difficulties in attempting to resolve these
termini:
(1) The Maccabean Interpretation,28 with the terminus a quo in 605 or
586 B.C. (either the first Babylonian deportation or destruction of
Temple) and the terminus ad quem in 167-165 B.C. (when the Temple was
purified or with Antiochus Ephiphanes’ desecration);
(2) The Roman Interpretation,29 with the terminus a quo in the Persian
period - either Cyrus (538 B.C.), Darius (519 B.C.), or Artaxerxes
(either 458 or 445 B.C.), and the terminus ad quem in A.D. 70 (with the
destruction of the Temple by Titus);
(3) The Hasmonean Interpretation,30 with the terminus a quo as the time
of the issuance of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years (605 B.C.),
and the terminus ad quem is the end of the Hasmonean dynasty under
Alexander Jannaeus (88 B.C.).
(4) The Eschatological Interpretation,31 with the terminus a quo in the
Persian period (Artaxerxes in 457 or 445 B.C.),32 and the terminus ad
quem in the end times (at the mid-point of the 70th week with the
desecration of the Temple by Antichrist). The eschatological
interpretation is sometimes combined with both the Maccabean and the
Roman interpretations by those who view the passage as having a dual
reference or fulfillment.
Interpretive Views and Historical Validation
In the first two interpretations the 70th week follows almost
immediately the 69th week, with the events described in Daniel 9:27
having been already fulfilled (with events in verse 26 already
considered part of the 70th week). The eschatological interpretation, by
definition, argues that the nature of the events in Daniel 9:27, which
take place only in the 70th week, have not yet been consummated, but
await literal fulfillment in harmony with the eschatological context of
verses 2 and 24, the Olivet Discourse, and parallel passages in
Revelation. If one takes the Maccabean, Hasmonean, or Roman view one
must either conclude that the prophecy of Daniel has failed in terms of
precise historical fulfillment,33 or that it was intended to be
fulfilled other than in a strictly literal fashion. Because of the
chronological difficulties, S. R. Driver declared at the turn of the
century: “the prophecy admits no explanation, consistent with history,
whatever…”34 Lester Grabbe, has recently written: “… much of 9:24-27
does not clearly and easily fit the known historical context. This is
highlighted by practically all the major [critical] commentaries which
resort to a great deal of emendation in order to make the statements
correspond with history.”35
In like manner, because the historical events do not fit with any known
history, amillennial and postmillennial interpreters have sought to find
a symbolical or spiritual fulfillment within the uninterrupted scope of
the seventy weeks (i.e., the first-century). Employing a hermeneutic of
replacement (of national Israel by the Church), they argue for a
christological fulfillment within the ministry of Christ or, at the
latest, the time of the first preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles.
However, John Collins36 has observed in this regard that the book of
Daniel is presented on two axes: the horizontal axis of chronology and
the vertical spatial axis of imagery (contrasting heaven and earth).
This latter axis figures prominently in every vision of the book except
chapter 9, where the chronological axis, with a clearly future
reference, is prominent. This indicates that the focus of Daniel 9 is
not in relation to heavenly mysteries, but is concerned with
historically identifiable events that will transpire on earth.
Therefore, any approach that seeks to deal with this text, must do so on
literal contextual-grammatical historical terms.
The Basis for the Eschatological Interpretation
A difficulty with all non-eschatological interpretations is the fact
that in the conclusion to the prophecy in Daniel 9:27 no specific answer
to the time of the end of captivity was given to Daniel. It was this was
very thing that Daniel was attempting to “understand” (verse 2a; cf.
8:17; 9:23), and the motivation behind his prayer (verse 19).
Non-eschatological views must find an end to exile in a temporary Jewish
revolts, all which were unsuccessful and ultimately led to the
destruction of the City, the Temple and further exile. This, of course,
offers no solution to Daniel’s specific petition for his people’s
restoration (which included a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of
the Temple, verses 16-19). However, what we do find in verse 27 are
eschatological time markers, such as the Hebrew terms qetz (“end”),
yashebitim (“cause to cease”), and kalah (“end”), ’ad (“until”), and
necheratzah tittak (“an appointed end”). These terms indicate that this
section belongs to the eschatological period, qualified later in Daniel
as “the end time” (cf. Daniel 12:4, 9, 13).37 This identification is
enhanced by the presence parallel concepts between the two chapters
(e.g., prayer for understanding, 9:2/12:8; desolation of Jewish people,
9:27/12:7; three and one-half year period, 9:27/12:7, 11; the
abolition of sacrifice, 9:27/12:11; and the abomination of desolation,
9:27/12:11). Thus, Daniel’s prayer for an end to exile will be fulfilled
in the eschatological age when all of the elements of his petition will
be realized.
The Eschatological Interpretation and Jewish Interpretation
The eschatological interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 finds further
corroboration in view of Jewish apocalyptic literature. In this
literature, probably influenced in part by Daniel’s seventy weeks, are
found the themes of an end-time Jewish persecution and war on Israel
(especially Jerusalem), cf. 1 Enoch 56; 91-104, an Antichrist figure
(Belial/Beliar) who serves as a portent of the imminent conclusion of
the age and its cataclysmic end (cf. Sibylline Oracles 635-636; IV
Esdras 13:31; Testament (T) of Joseph 20:2; T. Simeon 5:3; T. Naphali
2:6; T. Issachar 6:1; 7:7; T. Reuben 2:1; T. Dan 5:10; T. Levi 18:12; T.
Judah 25:3), an avenging Messiah who is sent by God and fights for
Israel (cf. T. Dan 5:10; cf. 5:3-7),38 and casts “the Antichrist” into
eternal punishment (cf. T. Dan 5:10; T. Issachar 6:1; T. Levi 18:12; T.
Judah 25:3).39 In the Dead Sea Scrolls (which contained 9 fragments of
the biblical Book of Daniel) many non-biblical texts present an
eschatological conflict similar to that depicted in Daniel40 and
especially a pseuepigraphical Daniel-type text (known as pseudo-Daniel)
which contains similar eschatological interpretations (cf. 4Q psDan
Aa/Dand 209).41 Of course, primary support is given by the New Testament
eschatological texts already mentioned (Matthew 25:15; Mark 13:14; 2
Thessalonians 2:4-5), which interpret the events of the seventieth week
as future to their time. Even if one considers that the events predicted
in the Olivet discourse were fulfilled in A.D. 70, the fact that they
were viewed as future at least dismisses the Maccabean interpretation.
The challenge to those who accept A.D. 70 as the terminus ad quem of the
seventy weeks is to explain the details of the prophecy in the events of
Roman history, a task of harmonization which will require as significant
a degree of re-working the text, as required for the Maccabean
interpretation.
The Eschatological Interpretation and Early Patristic
Interpretation
In support of the dispensational eschatological interpretation, it
should be noted that the earliest recorded patristic interpretations of
Daniel 9:24-27 advocated an apotelesmatic approach.42 Most of these
interpreters maintained a futurist perspective (though not all),43 which
was consonant with Jewish apocalyptic44 and rabbinic interpretation (cf.
the Seder Olam Rabbah ch. 28, the oldest tradition for interpreting the
seventy weeks).45 In order to understand the eschatological nature of
the events presented by this prophecy, and the hermeneutical precedent
in the text for literal historical interpretation, let us consider the
context of our passage.
The Context of Daniel 9:27
Daniel 9:27 concludes the prophecy of the seventy weeks (verses 24-27),
which is part of the division of the book that records visions of future
earthly kingdoms (human and divine), (chapters 7-12).46 The reference to
the seventy weeks and their predicted fulfillment in this text, points
to the purpose for Daniel 9:24-27 in relation to the prayer of Daniel
(9:3-19) following his observation of the seventy years prophecy in
Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10 (Daniel 9:2). The prophecy in 9:24-27 is
declared to be the divine response to Daniel’s prayer as communicated by
the heavenly messenger Gabriel (verses 20-23). Since the prophecy
appears as an answer to Daniel’s prayer, it should be noted that in
this prayer that: (1) Daniel’s primary petition is for divine clemency
toward the desolated Temple (verse 17), the people and the City (verses
18- 19); (2) Daniel uses a number of terms that will be later developed
in the prophetic response in verses 24-2747; (3) the prayer contains
vocabulary similar to the desecration terminology of Jeremiah and
Ezekiel:48 (a) the departure of Israel from covenant (verses 5, 10-11,
13, 14-15), (b) the judgment of the curses written in the Law (verses
11, 13), (c) the refusal to hear the prophets (verses 6, 10), (d) the
sins of the fathers (verses 6, 8, 16), (e) identification with holy Name
(verse 19), (f) exile due to cultic rebellion (verse 7), and (g) the
reproach from the nations caused by Israel’s exile (verse 16).49 These
similarities are significant, in that the concern of Jeremiah and
Ezekiel was idolatry and desecration, the very problem faced by Daniel
as a captive in exile. Further, Jeremiah’s prophecy concerned the
judgment of the Gentile nations, beginning with Babylon (Jeremiah
25:12-14) and extending to all historical oppressors of national Israel
(verses 15-38). This judgment is also affirmed in Daniel 9:27. Being
more specific, a survey of the desecration motif in these prophets
reveals that desecration by foreign invaders (as a result of Israelite
violations of covenant) form the materia prima of their discourses.
Further support may be found in the association of the terms shiqqutz
and meshomen in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which most likely influenced
Daniel’s cryptic construction of shiqqutzim meshomem in Daniel 9:27. If
this is so, then Daniel may be attempting to load a theological
summation of desecration into this expression, to convey in a single
thought the entire corpus of prophetic doctrine touching on any future
events earmarked by this phrase. This may be helpful in explaining why
Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14a) used this
expression to denote the signal event which would serve as warning of
the arrival of apocalyptic fulfillment (Matthew 24:16-31; Mark
13:14b-27).
Our point here is that Daniel’s prophecy must be interpreted within the
context of his contemporaries, who envisioned fulfillment in
eschatological terms (cf. Jeremiah 31:27-37; Ezekiel 37:23-28).
The Relationship of Daniel 9 to Jeremiah
Daniel’s prayer helps us to especially draw a link between the
desecration/restoration context of Jeremiah’s prophecy and that of
Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.50 Just as Jeremiah’s prophecy was a reaction to
desecration, with the promise of resultant judgment on all foreign
desecrators, so was Daniel’s. Just as the consequence of this judgment
of the nations was to result in Israel’s restoration (spiritually and
nationally), Jeremiah 30-33, so also in Daniel (cf. chapters 11-12,
which are prefaced by a declaration of their eschatological in 10:14).
This answers to Daniel’s petition for Israel’s restoration based on
divine election (verses 17-19; cf. Ezekiel 36:22-23). What is
significant here, is that Daniel 9:3-19 places the prophecy of verses
24-27 in an historical context as an extension of Jeremiah’s historical
prophecy.51 Therefore, as Jacques Doukhan has pointed out: “The seventy
weeks’ prophecy must be interpreted with regard to history in as
realistic a way as Daniel did for the prophecy of Jeremiah.”52
The Prophetic Goals of the Seventy Weeks Prophecy
Equally important to the contextual setting of Daniel 9:27 are the six
goals (six infinitives) given in verse 24 which serve to establish the
terminus ad quem of the prophecy. The interpretation of these goals is
germane to the consideration of postponement in the seventy weeks, for
if all of these goals can be proven to have been fulfilled historically,
then it can be argued that the seventy weeks were meant to be
interpreted as being fulfilled consecutively without interruption. These
goals are: (1) “to finish the transgression, (2) “to make an end of
sins”), (3) “to make atonement for iniquity,” (4) ”to bring in
everlasting righteousness,”(5) “to seal up vision and prophecy,” and (6)
“to anoint the most holy [place].”
First, it is crucial to observe those for whom this prophecy is to find
fulfilment, namely “your people and your holy city” (verse 24). In
other words, the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks Prophecy must occur
with respect to national Israel and the city of Jerusalem.53 Because
such a Jewish remnant did return to Judah to nationally resettle the
Land, and to rebuild Jerusalem, this prophecy cannot be interpreted
other than in terms of literal, historical fulfillment for national
Israel.
Setting aside the debate over the arrangement of these goals,54 it is
important to consider the nature of these goals to determine whether
they could have been fulfilled in past history, or require an
eschatological fulfillment. In verse 24a we find that the first three
goals relate to the sins of national Israel. The terms “finish”
(trangression) and “end” (sin) both look at the culmination of a
condition.55 A similar expression is found in an eschatological context
in the Dead Sea document Psuedo-Daniel (4Q243-245).56 According to the
Jewish commentator Abarbanel, the condition of Israelite punishment
 Dr. J. Randall Price is the Author of In Search of Temple Treasures and Ready to Rebuild and has appeared on the
nationally televised CBS special "Ancient Secrets of the Bible." He is president of World of the Bible Ministries, Inc. He is a Th.M. graduate of Dallas Tehological Seminary and holds a Ph.D. in Hebrew Languages and Literature from the University of Texas at Austin and is personally acquainted with many
leading figures in Scroll research.
Dr. Randall Price has just release his latest video entitled Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This video is a companion to his book by the same name. If you would like to order or learn more about this book and video you can contact Dr. Price at his mailing address or Email him below. Also let him know what you think of his articles.
World of the Bible Ministries, Inc.
110 Easy Street
San Marcos, Texas 78666-7336
Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.
Please send your Email to: Dr. Randall Price
Visit Dr. Price's Website at: World of the Bible Ministries
Return to Colleagues In Bible Prophecy
Return to Home Page
|
