Did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 End in AD 34-35– #3
The End of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 – #3
Seventy Weeks Are Determined… To Anoint the Most Holy
Did the Seventy Weeks End in AD 34-35?
Be sure to read the previous two articles in this short series. #1 #2
Daniel was told, in response to his prayer about God’s promise to restore Israel from her sin captivity, that seventy weeks were determined… “to anoint the most holy.” This term has been the source of a great deal of confusion and discussion. I have personally vacillated in my own views about the proper meaning. There are basically two suggestions that have been made to define “the most holy.” There are variations in the definition depending on how the commentators view Daniel’s prophecy.
Higher critical scholars tend to view Daniel 9 as an “ex eventu” (after the fact) non-prophetic, “prophetic” discussion of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. In others, as a general rul, those scholars who take this position simply do not believe in such a thing as genuine prophecy. As Dr. Richard Carrier, atheist scholar, said to me in personal correspondence, there are no such things as true prophets. They were just a bunch of guys saying things.”
To put this in finer detail, the scholars who posit Daniel 9:24f in the days of Antiochus IV (second century BC) believe that some unknown author, seeking to comfort his Jewish countrymen being persecuted by Antiochus in his violent Hellenizing efforts, used the name of Daniel, who was supposedly a highly respected previous figure, and attached his name to this work to give it more credibility and respect. Again, there was no true prophecy. In fact, the events about which “Daniel” wrote were already past, but this unknown author presented the story as it were to take place in the imminent future, ostensibly to give his countrymen some degree of consolation amidst their persecutions. (This view does not explain how “predicting” the final destruction of the temple, the city and the people would give such comfort)! For one of the best iterations of this perspectives see John Collins in his commentary on Daniel, (Hermenia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, (Minneapolis; Fortress, 1984).
One of the “conservative” views of Daniel is that the book was written in the sixth or fifth century BC, by a prophet of God, inspired by the Spirit. That prophet did indeed foretell events that were to take place under Antiochus (Chapter 8 & 11) but also looked beyond that time to the days of the Roman empire and the first century events consummating in the AD 70 judgment. In fact, the following is fairly representative of the Premillennial view of Danil 9:24-27;
However, the phrase “the most holy” (lit., “holy of holies”) almost certainly refers to “a most holy place (Revised Standard Version of the Bible), as Keil recognizes (Keil, Daniel, 348). Wood comments: “The phrase ‘holy of holies’ … occurs, either with or without the article, thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, always in reference to the Tabernacle or Temple or to the holy articles used in them.” * Wood, Daniel, 250. Montgomery points out one possible exception (1 Chr 23:13) to Wood’s statement (Daniel, 375). In a footnote Wood acknowledges this alleged exception but argues that an interpretation of 1 Chr 23:13 to refer to “an anointed one” is “forced exegesis” (Daniel, 250). See also Archer’s discussion of the phrase (Daniel, 119). In this verse the Hebrew reads qōdeš qādāšîm (“holy of holies”), and Montgomery notes that the simpler term qōdeš (“holy”) in v. 26 “refers without question to the sanctuary.” Montgomery, Daniel, 376). There it is translated “the sanctuary” NASB New American Standard Bible, KJV). Almost certainly the longer form in v. 24 would have the same meaning.
Keil understands the phrase “to anoint the most holy” to apply to the consecration of the church (God’s spiritual temple) at the end of the age (Keil, Daniel, 349; cf. Leupold, Daniel, 416). Archer interprets this “most holy place” to be a literal, future temple (Archer, Daniel, 113).
(Scholars who hold to the Maccabean view believe the phrase “to anoint the most holy” refers to the cleansing of the temple by Judas Maccabeus (e.g., Montgomery, Daniel, 375). / Miller, S. R. (1994). Daniel (Vol. 18, pp. 261–262). Broadman & Holman Publishers). (Quote and citations from my Logos Bible program)
Other, non-Millennial commentators see the “most holy” of Daniel 9 as a reference to the anointing of Jesus to enter his ministry, and relate it to Jesus’ baptism when the Spirit descended on him, with the Voice of the Father declaring Jesus to be his Son (Matthew 3). Keil gives the following from Hengstenberg:
Keil and Delitszch cite Hengstenberg who offered this:
Hengstenberg (‘Christ.,’ iii. 119) points out that the phrase for “sanctuary” is קֹדֶשÑ הַקּ״, with the article. He appeals to 1 Chronicles 23:13 as a case where, without the article, the phrase applies to an individual, וַוִּבַּדֵל אַחֲרֹן לְהִקְדִישÑוֹ ק׳ ק׳ (vayibbadayl A?eron leheqdeesho qodesh qadasheem), “And he separated Aaron to sanctify him as a holy of holies.” This seems almost the necessary translation, despite the versions; for the prenominal suffix must be the object, and “holy of holies” must be in apposition to it. The act of anointing as a sign of consecration, though applied to the tabernacle (Exod. 30:26; 40:9), to the altar (10), the laver (11), is never applied to the holy of holies. It is applied most frequently to persons; as to Aaron (Exod. 40:13), to Saul (1 Sam. 10:1), to David (1 Sam. 16:3). The words of Gabriel thus point forward to a time when all iniquity shall be restrained, sin atoned for, and a priest anointed. (Citation taken from Spence, H. D. M. (1909). Daniel (pp. 267–268). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company- Logos).
Since the preceding tenets of v. 24 have to do with the priestly functions of the High Priest, I concur with Dr. Dallas Burdette in his excellent commentary on Daniel, that the phrase “anoint the most holy” is referent to the anointing of Christ as the ultimate High Priest who would make the final and effective atonement, to take away sin. (Dallas Burdette, A Commentary on Daniel: An Unraveling of God’s Messianic Kingdom (Xulon, 2016), 386+).
If in fact that anointing of the Most Holy ONE is in view this does not give us an firm data as to when the Weeks would end. I lean to the view that the anointing of the Most Holy is reference to Christ being anointed as High Priest at his baptism, when the Spirit descended on him and the Father declared, “This is my beloved Son!” This happened within the Weeks, not before and not afterward. One certainly cannot argue that the Weeks ended at his baptism.
If it is true that to anoint the Most Holy refers to a time of anointing a holy and proper High Priest, it would eliminate any application of Daniel 9 to Antiochus and his day. It is absolutely true that Onias IV was the last qualified high priest of the Zadokite line, and, that those afterward were not true high priests– either by descent or as a result of by their immorality! That totally eliminates the time of Antiochus as the time for the anointing of the Most Holy ONE.
As noted just above, when we conflate the earlier elements of Daniel 9 with this motif of the anointing the Most Holy, I believe that the focus is on the anointing of the Messianic High Priest. After all, the seventy weeks were determined “to make the atonement” which demands a qualified and holy High Priest. The “putting away of sin” likewise demanded a qualified High Priest. Thus, we find the promise of the priestly functions coupled with the promise of the anointing of the True High Priest who was to come and accomplish the Atonement and the putting away of sin (Hebrews 9:26).
The only “recourse” for those taking the Antiochan view of “to anoint the most holy” is to be able to prove that it refers to the anointing of the temple when Judas Maccabaeus recaptured the city and cleansed the temple. That was in BC 164. While the ambiguity of the language on Daniel 9:24 leaves some room for disputation about its precise meaning, I believe that the weight of evidence favors the idea that it was the anointing of the great High Priest, Jesus, the Son of God, that was in view. When couple that language with the other constituent elements of the passage, see our two previous articles, I find little support for an application to the horrific times of Antiochus Epiphanes.
It might be offered at this point that nothing in this article argues against the Weeks ending in AD 34-35. After all, if Christ was anointed as priest at his baptism, that was during the Weeks and would allow the termination of the Weeks within any other time within the Weeks. This is true, BUT, we cannot focus on this element of Daniel 9 alone. Each of the constituent elements has to be taken into consideration as well. And when we do, there is no justification for the idea that the Weeks ended in AD 34-35.
For more on the Weeks, be sure to get a copy of my book, Seventy Weeks Are Determined…For the Resurrection for an excellent discussion of these issues.