The remarkable evidence in Appendix Part I points strongly to the conclusion that a tragic case of mistaken identity will soon unfold.
This appears inevitable in view of the widespread expectation that an evil despot, seeking world domination, is about to appear in Jerusalem; for his anticipated aims and work fit with astonishing similarity the prophecies concerning the future mission of Christ when he returns to the earth to set up His universal empire (Psalm 72:8; Daniel 2:44). That Christ should be confused with an imaginary evil dictator, the Antichrist, is a great tragedy-yet does it not seem bound to happen?
The inquisitive reader cannot be satisfied to let the matter rest here. Who is the author of this confusion? Is it from the Bible that many have been led to expect the appearance of Antichrist? Although this teaching is imputed to the Bible, few are they who can point to scriptures in support of the idea. It is needful, therefore, that an effort be made to acquaint the reader with that segment of Bible prophecy that provides the foundation for the whole concept of the coming Antichrist. The basis is a famous prophecy given to Daniel, commonly known as “The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks”, because its fulfilment spans a seventy week time period. Although this prophecy is not the only one from which believers in the Antichrist theory draw their expectations, it is fair to say that it is the key by which the other prophecies are interpreted and their meaning discerned. It follows, therefore, that the soundness of the Antichrist idea stands or falls with the correctness of the interpretation of this prophecy. Before showing how this prophecy has been understood to teach the concept of the coming Antichrist, it is first advisable to carefully examine the prophecy, discern the general features of the events described and search for their fulfilment in history. The exposition is not simple, but careful consideration of the following pages may well convince the reader of the wisdom of God in revealing to Daniel much information concerning Messiah the Prince. The prophecy is found in Daniel 9:23-27:
At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: 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. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and 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.
Notice that the prophecy expressly identifies the title of the man with whom it is chiefly concerned-Messiah the Prince. Even if the prophecy does refer to Antichrist, any possible allusion to him must be completely overshadowed by the description of Messiah the Prince, for the prophecy relates both to the time of Messiah’s coming and to the nature of the work he would do. In this exposition we shall consider each of these details in turn. Throughout the discussion that follows, the reader should be encouraged to ask himself if Antichrist, as popularly conceived, is mentioned at all in the prophecy.
The Time Period Spanned By The Seventy Weeks
In considering the time period spanned by the prophecy,
it is necessary to settle three things: first, the starting point; second, the actual measurement of time cryptically revealed as “seventy weeks”; third, the ending point. Any two of these times are sufficient to establish the third.
The information concerning the starting point is disclosed by the prophet: From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. At the time the prophecy was revealed to Daniel, he and his people were captives in Babylon, and the land of his nativity was occupied by foreigners. The temple and Jerusalem itself had been laid in ruins. The period of time prophetically indicated as “seventy weeks” was to begin when a commandment was given permitting the captive Jews to return to Jerusalem and undertake its restoration. If we can determine which commandment this was, and the year in which it was given, we shall have learned when the time period began. The problem is that the Bible records four different decrees, all of which bear examination, and are set out in the diagram below.
DIAGRAM #1: The Four Decrees of the Persian Kings
There is no obvious reason for choosing one of these decrees over the others. But one is constrained by the requirements of the case. Seventy weeks were to elapse from the giving of the decree until Messiah the Prince’s work was complete. On this basis, as shall be shown, it is the third decree that appears to be the starting point for the prophecy. The Bible’s record of this decree is set out in Ezra 7:11-13.
Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of his statutes to Israel. Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the Cod of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time. I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.
Some thirteen years later, the same Persian monarch issued a second decree, in the form of a letter given to Nehemiah. (This decree is the fourth decree on the diagram.) It would appear that Nehemiah’s work towards the restoration of Jerusalem was only a continuation of the work originally begun by Ezra, for it is evident that they laboured together for a time (See Nehemiah 8:9). This is one reason for concluding that the initial decree of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C. is the one intended by the prophecy, although admittedly a case can be made for his decree of 444 B.C. In this respect, it is interesting to note that calculations using both decrees expire at approximately the same time, if different measures of years are used. In the East where Daniel was living it was more common to measure years by the number of revolutions of the moon, twelve complete cycles of the moon being taken as one year. These years are termed “lunar years” in contrast to our more familiar “solar year” which is one complete revolution of the earth about the sun. The lunar year is about eleven days shorter than the solar year. Measuring “seventy weeks” from 457 B.C. in solar years or from 444 B.C. in lunar years results in approximately the same terminus. This point is mentioned to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that this exposition is not seriously affected by the choice of starting point, as both the third decree, measuring “seventy weeks” in solar years, and the fourth decree, measuring the time span in lunar years, yield approximately the same ending point. Although it is not possible to decisively choose one decree above another as the starting point, the strongest case, in the writers’ view, can be made for the third decree of 457 B.C.
It is now time to settle the second detail. What period of time is actually indicated by the prophetic measure of “seventy weeks”? There is universal agreement that seventy literal weeks are not intended, for this would be a period of time little more than one year. This leads us to a consideration of an essential principle of prophetic interpretation and a striking characteristic of prophetic revelation. In prophecy, a day is used to represent a time interval whose actual fulfilment will be one year (See Numbers 14:34, Ezekiel 4:6) Why should this be? The answer is that God has chosen symbols that represent in miniature things that are to happen on the earth. For example, two wild animals fighting represent the overthrow of one kingdom by another. Likewise, there has been a corresponding need to miniaturize the time associated with the event, so that it is in keeping with the character of the symbol employed. Beasts might fight for days but not for years-so that when, in prophecy, beasts symbolically enact the roles that kings and nations will later fulfil, the time associated with their activity must be expressed on a reduced scale in order to maintain the internal consistency of the revelation. Where measurements of time are involved, the key is that each day on the miniature prophetic scale represents one year of actual time when the prophecy is worked out in history. On this well established basis, the “seventy weeks” time span, comprising four hundred ninety days, corresponds to four hundred ninety years of actual time.
We are now in a position to settle the third detail concerning the time span of the prophecy-its expiry date. From Daniel 9:25 it is clear that sixty nine weeks were to elapse from the going forth of the commandment until Messiah the Prince. But what is intended by this phrase “Messiah the Prince”? Does it refer to the time of his birth or some other time? The answer to this question lies in the meaning of the term “Messiah”. It simply means anointed. Jesus therefore did not become the Messiah until the time of his anointing, and this certainly did not occur at his birth. The record of his anointing is contained in Matthew 3:16-17:
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. This was the incident in the life of Jesus by which he was manifested to Israel. And I (John the Baptist) knew him (Jesus) not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water (John 1:31)
And, it is shown in Acts 10:38, that it was at his baptism, when he received the Holy Spirit without measure, that he became the Anointed of God. How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were possessed with the devil; for God was with him. By the phrase, “unto Messiah the Prince” is intended, therefore, the time to the baptism of Jesus, for it was not until this time that he was anointed by God, and thereafter assumed the title of Messiah.
Sixty nine weeks represent four hundred eighty-three days, which, as we have shown earlier in this exposition, represent four hundred eighty three years of actual time. Adding this time to 457 B.C., when the commandment to restore Jerusalem was given, brings us to the year A.D. 27. Was this the year in which Jesus was baptized by John? It is recorded by Luke that at the time of his baptism, Jesus was about thirty years of age (Luke 3:23) However, it is generally recognized that Jesus was born in approximately 4 B.C., in which case he would be exactly thirty years of age in A.D. 27. (When the B.C.–A.D. calendar was formulated, the birth of Christ was misplaced by about four years. This explains why Jesus was not thirty years old in A.D. 30.) Thus it was about A.D. 27 when Jesus was baptized, that year being exactly sixty nine weeks or four hundred eighty three years from the first decree of Artaxerxes.
The three details concerning the first sixty nine weeks of the prophecy have now been settled–the starting date was the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C.; the time span was four hundred eighty three years; and the ending point was the baptism and anointing of Jesus in A.D. 27. It was noted at the outset that any two of these three details would be sufficient to establish the third. Notwithstanding the fact that an effort has been made to verify all three, it must be admitted that the main reason for choosing the third decree as the starting point–and it is the starting point that is the most difficult to fix–is that it fits in with the other two remarkably well. The following diagram, which summarizes the prophecy, adds the seventieth and final week to the sixty nine, for it is the events of this week that shall largely concern us for the balance of this exposition.
DIAGRAM #2 (larger version): The Time Span of the Seventy Weeks
Before leaving the subject of the time spanned by the prophecy, it is worth our time to consider whether or not the prophecy had any effect on the people in the time of Christ. Four different sources indicate that the world at large was expecting Messiah to appear at that time.
The first source is the Bible itself.
And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ (the Messiah) or not (Luke 3: 15).
The Jewish historian Josephus is the second source. Writing of this general time, within forty years of the death of Christ at the time of the Jewish wars, he notes:
“That which did especially inspire them (the Jews) to undertake this war was an ambiguous oracle likewise found in their sacred writings, how that some one of their own country, pertaining to that time, should attain the empire of the habitable earth.(1)
The Jews took their Scriptures with them as they spread throughout the Mediterranean world and two Romans, one an historian and the other a biographer, record an opinion similar to that of Josephus. It is probable they developed this expectation as a result of their contact with Jews. Referring to the time of the Jewish war, in A.D. 66 to 70, they wrote:
“A few turned these events into a cause for alarm; the greater number were possessed with a belief that it was written in the ancient writings of the priests that it would come to pass at that very time, that the East would grow mighty, and that men proceeding from Judea would gain the empire of the world.(2)
“A firm persuasion had long prevailed through all the East, that it was fated (i.e. contained in the Book of Fates or prophecies) at that time for the Empire of the World to devolve upon some one who should come forth from Judea.”(3)
These four sources show that there was an expectation of a Jewish Deliverer either coincident with or shortly after the appearance of Christ, and while none of them expressly trace this idea to the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, it is apparently the source from which it was derived. One is led to conclude that the prophecy did have a noticeable effect on the world at that time.
The Nature of Messiah’s Work
The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks reveals in considerable detail the events of the last week. There was much for Messiah to accomplish in this time. According to those principles developed earlier in this exposition, the last week represented seven years of actual time, beginning about the year A.D. 27. The first aspect of Messiah’s life during this time that is particularly striking is the reference to his cutting off. Not only does the prophecy reveal that Messiah was to be slain, or “cut off”, but it establishes the time when this was to occur. The Messiah was to be cut off after the sixty nine weeks had ended. How long after?
To answer this question, it is helpful to consider one of Christ’s parables.
(Jesus) spake also this parable: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down (Luke 13:6-9)
This parable is not difficult to interpret, because some of the symbols such as the fig tree are used elsewhere in Scripture, and their meaning can be clearly established. The “man” is evidently God Himself, who through the miracles of Christ, performed by His power, was looking for a genuine reform on the part of the nation of Israel, the fig tree. The “dresser of the vineyard” is Jesus. The last year of Jesus’ ministry saw renewed efforts to convince the people, including the demonstration of God’s power in the resurrection of Lazarus, and later the resurrection to immortality of Jesus Himself. Yet the nation remained unresponsive to this absolute seal that Jesus was the Messiah, and was “cut down” from the special relationship it formerly held with God. It was therefore about the middle of the last week that the ministry of Jesus ended and he was cut off, for according to the parable his ministry lasted into a fourth year.
This conclusion is confirmed by other details revealed to Daniel, for the prophecy expressly states that it was in the midst of the (last) week (that) he (should) cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. If the death of Christ occurred in the middle of the seventieth week, it must have been the means by which the sacrifice and the oblation were brought to an end. Is this the conclusion of Scripture? Immediately coincident with the last breath of Christ, the veil of the temple was rent in twain, signifying that the Law of Moses, with all its institutions of sacrifice’ had ceased to be the means through which God was to be approached. Explaining the importance of this event to the human race, the writer to the Hebrews says:
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins . . . Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; . . . Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh (Hebrews 10:4,8,19-20).
Christ’s sacrifice accomplished what the animal sacrifices never could do, and put to an end the need for them to be offered. Before the death of Jesus, these sacrifices were an essential obligation of the worshippers’ approach to God, but the death of Jesus caused this obligation to cease. Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled the Law of Moses which ceased to be binding on those who would approach unto God after his death (Colossians 2:14, Galatians 5:1),
If Messiah’s cutting off took place in the midst of the seventieth week, which, for the reasons we have advanced, is our conclusion, then there are still three and a half years to account for before the end of the seventieth week. The prophecy reveals that throughout the last week, Messiah would confirm the covenant with many. This covenant which Jesus confirmed is identified in Romans 15:8. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. Elsewhere these ancient promises, made to the patriarchs, are called the “covenants of promise” because the promises were simply the terms or conditions of the covenant (Ephesians 2:12). Having therefore scripturally identified the covenant Christ confirmed, another question may now be addressed: with whom was the covenant confirmed? The prophecy reveals that it was confirmed with “many”. Jesus refers to this class of “many” at the institution of the breaking of bread. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28). This class of “many” is also mentioned later in the prophecy of Daniel in connection with the resurrection of the dead. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). It is made up of both Jews and Gentiles, for both classes shall attain to the resurrection, and for both Christ died. However, in the days of his ministry, Christ preached only to the Jews, as he himself stated: I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Jesus, nevertheless, clearly believed and taught that there were others besides the Jews, his own nation, that were going to have the opportunity for salvation, and these others, the Gentiles, he called his “other sheep”. And other sheep I have, which are not of this (Jewish) fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd (John 10:16). Now Jesus did not personally preach to the Gentiles–he did it through the agency of the apostles, especially Paul. Understandably the conversion of the first Gentile, a Roman centurion named Cornelius, caused great excitement among the early believers in Christ, who were all Jews. Great prominence is given to this event in the Bible–the whole tenth chapter of Acts. The reaction of Peter and those Jews who accompanied him is thus described: And they of the circumcision (the Jews) which believed, as many as came with Peter, were astonished because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:45). On carefully reading this account, it is noted that it was not because the Holy Spirit was poured out that the Jews were amazed-it was because the Gentiles were the recipients of it for the first time, showing they had been accepted by God and had been granted the same privileges as the Jews. The Gentiles could enter the covenant by being baptized, and thereby become heirs of the promises made to the Jewish fathers, which promises Christ had confirmed by his death.
When the of Peter’s association with Cornelius reached the ears of the Jewish believers who had not been with him, they demanded an explanation of his action. After he addressed the Jewish believers they were satisfied with his conduct. When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. Many years later, Peter referred back to this event when addressing an assembly of the elders in Jerusalem. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe (Acts 15:7). The emphasis that this event received shows what a radical change it constituted in God’s dealings with the human race. Although it is impossible to prove that the conversion of Cornelius took place within three and a half years of Christ’s death, because no date for it is given in Scripture, it appears to have occurred approximately at this juncture, for in this way and at this time the covenant was confirmed with many–Gentiles as well as Jews. The final week of the prophecy, the last seven years of the four hundred ninety years, ended, then, with the conversion of Cornelius, the first of many Gentiles to become an heir of the things covenanted to Abraham by oath.
The last portion of the prophecy concerns the desolation that was to come on Jerusalem and the Jewish people as a result of their rejection of their Messiah.. .. 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 . . . 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 prophecy does not indicate that the desolation would occur within the seventy weeks; but it occurred later as a result of the action of the Jews against Messiah during this period. In both the book of Daniel and the gospel records, the destruction of the city and the temple is distinctly linked with the crucifixion of the Anointed One. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children (Matthew 27:25).
The Jewish mob who urged Pilate to crucify Jesus voluntarily accepted responsibility for the shedding of his blood. That their punishment for slaying the Son of God was to involve the loss of their city and temple is shown by a parable Jesus taught them late in his ministry. And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, The Kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: and the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city (Matthew 22:1- 7). The king in the parable is God, whose son is Jesus; and those who were bidden to the wedding feast were the Jews. The king’s servants were the apostles by whose labours the invitation was extended. Because the Jews took the life of God’s son and refused to hearken to his servants, their city and their temple were leveled. History has shown that it was about forty years after the cutting off of Messiah that the city was destroyed and the temple burned by the Roman army. In the parable, however, the destruction is said to be carried out by the king’s (that is, God’s) armies. Titus, the Roman general in charge of the conquering army, and who led the final siege against Jerusalem, acknowledged: We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men, or any machines, do towards overthrowing these towers.(4) This pagan general unwittingly confirmed that God indeed used the Roman army as “his” army, to carry out His will in punishing His people, exactly as the parable stated.
History has shown the prophecy of the seventy weeks to be accurate in another minute particular. The prophecy foretold that it would be “the people of the prince that shall come and destroy the city and the sanctuary” as distinct from the prince himself. Titus, the Roman prince in command of the operation, wanted and endeavoured to save the city and the sanctuary.
I appeal to the gods of my own country, and to every god that ever had any regard to this place (for I do not suppose it to be now regarded by any of them); I appeal to my own army, and to those Jews that are now with me, and even to you yourselves, that I do not force you to defile this your sanctuary; and if you will but change the place whereon you fight, no Roman shall either come near your sanctuary, or offer any affront to it; nay, I will endeavour to preserve your holy house, whether you will or not.(5)
However, it had been decreed long ago that the people of the prince, whether the prince willed it or not, would destroy the sanctuary. This is what actually occurred:
. . . but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried only by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward the Jews made a great clamour, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it.
And now a certain person came running to Titus, and told him of this fire, as he was resting himself in his tent after the last battle; whereupon he rose up in great haste, and, as he was, ran to the holy house, in order to have a stop put to the fire; after him followed all his commanders, and after them followed the several legions, in great astonishment; so there was a great clamour and tumult raised, as was natural upon the disorderly motion of so great an army. Then did Caesar, both by calling to the soldiers that were fighting, with a loud voice, and by giving a signal to them with his right hand, order them to quench the fire; but they did not hear what he said, though he spake so loud, having their ears already dimmed by a greater noise another way; nor did they attend to the signal he made with his hand either, as still some of them were distracted with fighting, and others with passion; but as for the legions that came running thither, neither any persuasion nor any threatenings could restrain their violence, but each one’s own passion was his commander at this time; and as they were crowding into the temple together, many of them were trampled on one by another, while a great number fell among the ruins of the cloisters, which were still hot and smoking, and were destroyed in the same miserable manner with those whom they conquered: and when they were come near the holy house, they made as if they did not so much as hear Caesar’s orders to the contrary; but they encouraged those that were before them to set it on fire.(6)
Although this exposition of the prophecy of the seventy weeks has not touched upon every detail, it has shown how some of the most important parts were exactly fulfilled. The Messiah came at the precise time indicated by the prophecy; he was put to death, thereby ending the Mosaic institutions; salvation was opened to the Gentiles and the everlasting covenant was confirmed with them; and the unbelieving and unrepentant nation of Israel was destroyed and scattered by the Roman desolator. This prophecy is a remarkable testimony to the truth of the scriptures, for all these things were foretold about six centuries before they occurred.
At the outset, the reader was encouraged to ponder whether Antichrist figured at all in the prophecy. Is it not through and through a prophecy about “Messiah the Prince”? It tells us when he should come; what he should accomplish for men; that he should be slain; what the effect of his death should be; and it tells us of the ensuing desolation of the Temple on account of the Jewish refusal to believe, undertaken by a pagan prince who unknowingly carried out the will of God. These are the main features of the prophecy, and they make no provision for the work of an Antichrist.
It must come as a surprise, therefore, that a book is described as “the classic work of the marvelous prophecy of Daniel about the Antichrist and the Seventy Weeks.”(7) What could be plainer than the content of the prophecy itself that it is about “Messiah the Prince”? Yet it is the prevailing view that this prophecy concerns the Antichrist, an evil man not yet manifested in the earth. This modern interpretation is entirely erroneous and thus dangerous, because it confuses Christ and his great work and sacrifice with an imaginary worker of iniquity. Let us consider why the modern view cannot be sustained, and ought to be rejected.
The modern view can be summarized by the following diagram.
DIAGRAM #3: The Modern Evangelical Interpretation of The Seventy Weeks Prophecy Which Received its Impetus From Sir Robert Anderson’s Book The Coming Prince (issued in 1881)
There are three major objections to this interpretation or slight variations on it.
- The phrase “unto Messiah the Prince” signifies neither the birth nor death of Jesus, but the time of his anointing, when he rightfully assumed the title, “Messiah”. Thus, it is incorrect to mark the end of the sixty ninth week with the death of Messiah.
- “After seven, threescore and two weeks” is taken to mean “at the end of sixty nine weeks” but this the prophecy does not state. “After” indicates some time beyond the end of the sixty ninth week, and the prophecy indicates that it was in the midst of seventieth week when the “cutting off” would occur.
- The last week is said to be separated by centuries from the other sixty nine, and is supposed to be the seven year reign of Antichrist still in the future. Antichrist is to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; but first, he must allow them to start, as they do not now exist; and so he must first rebuild the Jewish temple, make a covenant with the Jews, and break the covenant in the midst of the week. After the three and a half years, he begins persecuting the Jews. All these basic tenets of the Antichrist theory arise out of the misinterpretation of one verse in Daniel 9, verse 27. First, the verse is speaking about Messiah the Prince of the previous verse, and not about Antichrist; so it is only by removing the verse from its context that Antichrist can be read into it. Second, the covenant was to be confirmed with many–a term implying others besides Jews–and thus cannot be limited to the nation of Israel. Third, the covenant was to be confirmed, not made; which implies it was already in existence. This is easily understood when it is recognized that it was the covenant made with Abraham that is being spoken of, which Christ confirmed. Fourth, there is nothing in the prophecy that even remotely suggests that the weeks do not represent a consecutive time period. Thus, there is no basis for separating the last week from the previous sixty nine by over nineteen centuries. This was simply an invention of the Antichrist theorists for which there is no scriptural support whatever.
It may well amaze the reader that such an idea as the Antichrist theory could be derived from a prophecy exclusively about Christ. Perhaps it is easier now to see why so many of the similarities of Part I exist between Christ and Antichrist-because scriptures which reveal the former are mistakenly applied to the latter, of which the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks is but one clear example. How, then, could so many people be deceived and come to believe in a theory of which God’s word knows nothing?-This is a question whose answer must be deferred to Part III.