MIDWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Daniel 9:20 - 27

AN EXEGETICAL PAPER

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

DR 35090 ADVANCED BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

BY

MATTHEW MCCURLEY

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

March 9, 2018

1

Daniel 9:20-271 is a passage that documents both an answer to prayer and a message about

the future. The purpose of this paper is to perform an exegetical examination of Daniel 9:20-27.

This brief paper depicts a God who listens to the faithful, keeps his promises, and is in

comprehensive control of the future. God delivers his word concerning his people, Israel, to his

faithful servant, Daniel, by way of a visit from his angelic messenger, Gabriel. The insight given

to Daniel is meant to encourage him, Israel, and all readers of the sovereignty and surety of the

program of God.

To provide an exhaustive examination of this passage would take more papers,

presentations, and lifetimes than I have. As such, I have narrowed my focus to key issues within

the text. First, I will examine the origin of the text. Next, I will provide my translation with

applicable footnotes related to textual criticism. Each section will include exegetical commentary

on key issues leading to an expositional explanation of the text. Daniel 9:20-27 may be divided

into two subsections: vv. 20-23; 24-27. I will follow this division in my commentary and

explanation.

Origin

The authorship and dating of Daniel is significant to the interpretation of our pericope. The

authorship of Daniel 9:20-27 is important because the expositional explanation of this paper will

propose an application parallel between the faith and obedience of the Daniel and that of Hebrew

believers. Whether or not Daniel is the author of the book and consequently our pericope impacts

the application parallel I will present. Likewise, the dating of the book of Daniel is significant

1. Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are to the New American

Standard Bible, Updated Edition (NASB) (La Habra: Foundation Publications, 1995).

2

because it impacts the decision of authorship and the interpretation of the prophecies of our

selected pericope (vv. 24-27). Authorship will be treated first and followed by dating.2

Tradition long held Daniel as the author of the book, the prophecy reliable, and its

predictions as supernatural and accurate.3 The following summarizes traditional thought on

Daniel authorship. The book of Daniel claims to be written by Daniel and includes a testimony

of his life and prophecy concerning future events. The first six chapters deal with the former and

the remaining six the latter. The first person use of the name Daniel is used multiple times in the

last six chapters of the book (7:2, 15, 28; 8:1, 15, 27; 9:2, 22; 10:2, 7, 11, 12; 12:5).4 Three

passages in Ezekiel (14:14, 20; 28:3) affirm the historicity of Daniel the prophet and were

written after he had been appointed an important post in the court of Babylon.5 New Testament

acknowledgement of Daniel historicity includes Christ’s reference to “Daniel the prophet,” in the

Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:5; Mk 13:14).6 Parallel to the Book of Daniel, the historicity of Daniel

2. For a significant and concise assessment of conservative and liberal thought regarding

this issue see: Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Hermeneutical Issues in the Book of Daniel,” JTS 23.1 (March, 1980): 13-21.

3. Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing

Co.), 23. Miller cites the 2,400-year-old tradition of the church and synagogue (Ibid., 40). 4. John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press,

1989), 11. 5. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1949), 8. 6. Walvoord, 11. Miller presents concise observations concerning Christ’s reference: a)

Christ expressed his belief that Daniel was a real, historical person and an instrument of divine revelation; b) Christ held that the prophecies expressed in the Book of Daniel came from Daniel himself and not a later, anonymous individual; c) Christ expressed with certainty that the prophecy found in chapter nine regarded future events; and d) there was apparently no other view during the time of Christ than that the setting of the prophet Daniel was the sixth century B.C. (Miller, 35).

3

found in Ezekiel and the New Testament, and the tradition of the church, there exists established

and significant scholarship attesting to Daniel authorship.7

Modern scholarship, however, denies Daniel authorship of the book.8 Childs perceives that

the victory of higher criticism over the traditional view of Daniel authorship is widely

recognized.9 One such view of Daniel authorship denial is that an unknown author wrote about

Daniel ca 165 B.C. in order to encourage discouraged Jews who had experienced violent

oppression under Antiochus Epiphanes.10 Walvoord lets the cat out of the bag when he

acknowledges there is nothing surprising about the fact that higher critics disallow the testimony

of the book of Daniel, dispute Ezekiel’s mention of Daniel, and discredit the support by Christ in

7. Consult these authors and arguments in regard to Daniel authorship: Gleason Archer, A

Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 2007), 361-82; Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984), xviii-lviii; C.F. Kiel, Commentary on the Old Testament: Ezekiel, Daniel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), 19-57. Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 1994), 22-43; Andrew E. Steinmann, Daniel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2008), 1-19; John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 11-12; 16-25; Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publications), 19-23; Ronald S. Wallace, The Lord is King: The Message of Daniel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1979), 16-20. Each of these holds to similar arguments for Daniel authorship and response to higher critics.

8. Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1973), 19.

Among those denying Daniel authorship include: R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), xvii; xxi-xxiii; J. J. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, Volume One, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1-15; S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel. CBSB (Cambridge: University Press, 1905), xlvii-lxxvi; J. E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30 (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), xxi-xl; James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927), 1-23; 57-109. C. L. Seow, Daniel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 1-7; W. S. Towner, Daniel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), 4-15.

9. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress,

1979), 612. 10. Ibid.

4

the New Testament of Daniel the prophet.11 The idea Walvoord presents is that it should not come

as a surprise that higher criticism would deny Daniel authorship.

The question of dating the book of Daniel is important not only in regard to who authored

the book, but specifically the interpretation of the prophecies included in our selected pericope

(vv. 24-27). It will prove worth our time to lean on Walvoord and his treatment concerning the

dating of the Book of Daniel. Walvoord provides a summary of the primary, critical objections to

Daniel authorship with his six heads: 1) rejection of its canonicity; 2) rejection of detailed

prophecy; 3) rejection of miracles; 4) textual problems; 5) problems of language; and 6)

historical inaccuracies.12

Walvoord, along with Anderson13, believe that in proving the genuineness of the book, the

authenticity of the whole is established; in doing so the chief objections of the higher critics are

answered.14 The amount of scholarship concerning the authorship and dating of the Book of

11. Walvoord, 11. 12. Walvoord, 16-25. He notes that the ancient world did not seem to question the sixth

century B.C. of Daniel until the third century A.D. It was then that the neo-Platonist pagan, Porphyry, claimed that the book of Daniel was a second century B.C. forgery. Walvoord does well to provide the backstory of Jerome (347-420 A.D.), an early church father, defending Daniel authorship and dating against Porphyry in his own commentary on Daniel.

For additional scholarship regarding Daniel dating see Archer’s detailed presentation and

treatment of: the theory of a Maccabean pseudepigraph; historical, literary and linguistic, theological, and exegetical arguments for the late date of Daniel. Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 2007), 361-79.

13. Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,

1984), xviii. Anderson specifically proposes that the central prophecy of the book establishes the authenticity of the whole. Indeed, that is precisely what Anderson seeks to do in The Coming Prince. Anderson’s research, computations, and passion for this view is almost unequaled. Any of these three reasons may serve as rationale for reading The Coming Prince.

14. Ibid., 11-12.

5

Daniel is dense in the least.15 It is not within the scope of this brief paper to settle the historical,

critical, or theological issues regarding authorship and dating. A summarization of the traditional

and critical views has been presented and further reading on the issue is encouraged and

documented in aforementioned footnotes and bibliography. For the purpose of this paper, I will

assume an early dating of Daniel. While plausible arguments exist for second century authorship,

the internal, external, and traditional evidence supports Daniel authorship.

Translation

The subsequent translation is taken from the Masoretic Text (MT) in Biblia Hebraica

Stuttgartensia (BHS) which contains the text of the Leningrad Codex B 19A.16 Textual criticism

issues as reflected in BHS will be discussed in the footnotes of this section.17

15. For additional critical analysis of the dating of the book of Daniel, see: Stephen R.

Miller, Daniel, NAC (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 1994), 24-43; Andrew E. Steinmann, Daniel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2008), 1-19; Steinman is a recent and significant scholar who provides an exceptional listing of dating each chapter of Daniel (also providing a timeline of Daniel and related events which will be included later in this paper; Robert D. Wilson, “Evidence in Hebrew Diction for the Dates of Documents,” PTR 25 (1927): 353-88; Robert D. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, rev. E. J. Young (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959), 5-13, 87-91, 96-99, 127-29; paying particular notice to the first paragraph on page 7 which is one of the more well-written, straight forward, and significant statements that has been made concerning conservative, Old Testament scholarship; and Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1973), 19-23.

16. Andrew E. Steinmann, Daniel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2008), 63. I

chose to engage Steinmann’s translation and integrate his observations alongside others’ and my own.

17. Ibid. The Leningrad Codex B 19A was copied either in 1008/09 A.D. There exist other

MT manuscripts that offer the same text with minor variations. Many of these are included in BHS. If a reading is preferred it will be noted in the textual notes. It should be noted that it is impossible here to discuss all issues with the text, so my focus will include those that pertain to the terms and elements noted in the comment selection below.

6

Daniel 9:20-27

(20) While I was still speaking and praying and confessing my sin and the sin of my people

Israel and casting my petition18 before Yahweh my God concerning the holy mountain of my

God, (21) while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel whom I had seen in the first vision

touched me during [my] complete exhaustion19 about the time of the evening sacrifice. (22) He

instructed me, “Daniel, now I have gone out to give you insight and understanding. (23) At the

beginning of your plea for grace, a word went forth, and I came to declare it, because you are

highly esteemed20. So understand the word and discern the vision. (24) “Seventy weeks21 are

determined22 concerning your people and your holy city to end transgression, to finish sin, and to

יתנחת .18 “Petition” is preferred over Steinmann’s “prayer for grace,” because it better

communicates the idea of a humble servant petitioning a king; Daniel personally interacting with earthly kings and the heavenly King throughout his life. The word is used as “petition” in Jer. 38:26; 42:9.

Steinman notes that the phrase means, literally, “exhausted in ילא עגנ ףעיב ףעמ .19

exhaustion, he was touching me.” Gabriel touches Daniel to give him strength and reassure him; as occurs in 8:18; 10:10, 16, and 18 (Steinmann, 444). It should come as no surprise to the believer that a message from God would quite literally bring about strength and encouragement. When a child of God prays, in exhaustion or not, he is in a spiritual sense being touched and encouraged by God. This is a theological perspective to supplement, not in any way to distract from the fact that Gabriel touched Daniel in a literal sense.

התא תודומח יכ .20 Steinmann notes that the phrase refers to something of rarity and great cost

(Gen. 27:15; Dan. 10:3; 11:38, 43; Ezra 8:27; 2 Cr 20:25). (Steinmann, 445). 21. ,Literally, “weeks, seventy, are determined.” In other places in the OT ךתחנ םיעבש םיעבש .denotes “a week, seven days.” (Gen. 29:27-28; Ex. 34:22; Lev. 12:5; Num. 28:26; Deut עובש

16:9 (two times), 10, 16; Jer. 5:24; Ezek. 45:21; 2 Chr. 8:13). In 10:2-3, Daniel adds םימי “days” resulting in םימי weeks of days, seven-day weeks.” The absence of“ םימי םיעבש “days” in 9:24-27 proves that it is being appropriated in a unique way. In Daniel 9, it refers not to seven ordinary days, but to a sevenfold period of some kind (Steinmann, 445). Goldingay observes עובש literally means a heptad (a period or group of seven something) J. E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30 (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 228. Driver notes the use of sevens of years in the Mishna (S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel. CBSC (Cambridge: University Press, 1905), 135.

22. The verb is only used here in the OT (Steinmann, 445). However, it is used in ךתחRabbinic Hebrew in the Qal form and connotes “to cut” and “to be decree, determine” and in the

7

atone for iniquity; to bring everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to

anoint the most holy place. (25) You should know and have insight: from the going forth of a

word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah, the Prince, seven weeks, and sixty-two

weeks when it again will have been built [with] plaza and moat, but during troubled times. (26)

“Then after the sixty-two weeks, Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the

prince who is to come23 will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will be with a flood.

Until the end will be war, and desolations have been determined. (27) “He will confirm a

covenant for the many for one week. In the middle of the week, he will cause sacrifice and

offering to cease. On the wind of detestable things (is) a desolator, until the decreed end is

poured out on the desolator.”

Comment

Daniel 9:20-27 includes a response to the prayer of Daniel found in vv. 1-19 of same

chapter and an explanation of said response. As such, the response and explanation in regard to

the prayer of Daniel may be divided into two subsections. Verses 20-23 include the response to

Niphal form, “to be severed” and “to be decided, decreed.” J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 353; R. L. Harris, G.L. Archer, Jr., and B. K. Waltke, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2 vols., § 778; F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008), 367; M. Jastrow, comp. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (Brooklyn: P. Shalom, 1967), 2 vols., ךתח

קהו ריעהו .23 י שד אבה דיגנ םע תיחש A great majority of Hebrew manuscripts have this reading

(Steinmann, 447). The subject is אבה דיגנ םע “the people of the prince who is to come.” The compound direct object, קהו ריעהו י ,precedes Hiphil verb , שד The Hiphil reading is: “the . תיחשpeople of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” However, one MT manuscript reads the verb י as a Niphal. This use alters the translation to “the city and the תיחשsanctuary will be destroyed.” (Steinmann, 447). I prefer the Hiphil and understand this translation to fit with the view that the people of the Antichrist will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

8

the prayer; the visitation of Gabriel and affirmation of Daniel as God’s servant. Verses 24-27

provide insight and understanding concerning the response to Daniel’s prayer. The following

comments follow this division of sections. It is unreasonable to imagine a thorough discussion of

each element of the pericope. Therefore, my concentration will include analysis on what I

observe to be pertinent terms and elements for the interpretation of each subsection of the

pericope. A more complete theological discussion will follow later in this paper.

9:20-23

Prayer

The idea of prayer, speaking towards God, is premier in vv. 20-23: “I was still speaking;”

“confessing in prayer;” “laying down my supplication” (v. 20); “still speaking in prayer;” “at the

time of the evening offering” (v. 21); “your supplications” (v. 22). Wood notes the verbs for

“speaking,” “praying,” (Heb. pll)24 “making confession,” (Heb. ydh) “and laying my

supplication,” are each used earlier in chapter nine and repeated in vv. 20-23 to present a full

characterization and summary of Daniel’s prayer.25

The prayer (vv. 4-19) is precise to Daniel’s summary of the prayer in v. 20: “I prayed a

prayer of confession” (v. 4); “we have failed and gone astray, we have done wrong and rebelled,

we have turned our backs on your authoritative commands” (v. 5); “not listened to your servants

the prophets who spoke as your representatives” (v. 6); “in that we have failed you” (v. 8); “we

have rebelled against him” (v. 9); “have not listened to the voice of Yahweh our God by living

according to his instructions” (v. 10); “all Israel has overstepped your instruction and turned their

24. Andrew Hill, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Daniel-Malachi, eds. Tremper

Longmann III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008) vol. 8, 167. 25. Wood, 245.

9

backs to avoid listening to your voice…we have failed him” (v. 11); “he has kept his words

which he uttered against us and against those who acted as our leaders by bringing great trouble

upon us, in that nothing has happened in all the world such as happened in Jerusalem” (v. 12);

“all this trouble – it has come upon us; we have not sought mercy from Yahweh our God by

turning from our waywardness and giving heed to your faithfulness” (v. 13); “we have not

listened to his voice” (v. 14); “we have failed, we have done wrong” (v. 15); “Lord...may your

burning fury turn away from your city, Jerusalem, your sacred mountain” (v. 16); “listen to your

servant’s prayer of supplication, and smile upon your desolate sanctuary” (v. 17); “give ear and

listen; open your eyes and look at our desolate state in the city which bears your name; not on the

basis of our right deeds that we are laying down our supplications before you” (v. 18); “Lord,

listen. Lord, pardon. Lord, hear and act, do not delay; because your city and your people bear

your name.” (v. 19).

Robert A. Anderson argues that the long prayer succeeds in momentarily diverting the

reader’s attention from the central purpose of the chapter that includes the reinterpretation of the

Jeramiah prophecy (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10).26 Anderson is off course, whereas the repetitive

elements of prayer, confession, supplication in vv. 4-19 and 20 reinforce the Jeremiah prophecy

that begs for prayer, confession, and supplication. It is surprising that not one of the works in my

bibliography parallel the idea of prayer and supplication in chapter 9 with the prayer life of

Daniel found throughout the rest of the book.27 A servant of such humility and faithfulness as

26. Robert A. Anderson, Signs and Wonders (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co.,

1984), 110. 27. Prayer is an essential and repetitive element of Daniel’s life. I will return to this

observation in the explanation section of the paper.

10

Daniel was well fit to ask on behalf of God’s people, “When are you going to restore Jerusalem;

when will you act on behalf of your people?”28

“my people Israel”

Daniel is explicit of whom he was praying for in vv. 1-19. He summarizes the content of

the prayer in v. 20 and uses similar words and phrases to describe the party for whom his prayer

concerns: “my people Israel;” “Yahweh my God;” “the holy mountain of my God (v. 20). He

passionately desires that God will reveal and implement his plan for his people.29 Chapter nine

includes the prayer of Daniel the prophet on behalf of his people, Israel, and the response of God

to that prayer.30 I now consider Daniel’s identification with Israel, Yahweh, and the sacred

mountain.

The first time the reader is acquainted with Daniel is 1:6 in a listing of four Judean youths

from among those apprehended by Ashpenaz under the reign of the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel’s name is theophoric and Hebrew, meaning, “God is my judge.”31 To begin with, Daniel

mentions “my Israel,” because he is a part of God’s chosen race.32 Goldingay notes that when the

28. Goldingay, 253. 29. Ibid. 30. Miller, 239.

31. Goldingay, 17. 32. Although Daniel is from the southern kingdom of Judah, he is a part of the Hebrew race

which is commonly referred to as Israel. Daniel has not abandoned Israel as an entity larger than Judah and Jerusalem; the exilic and postexilic community represents Israel as a whole. The Judeans understood themselves to be the preserved remnant of that whole people of God. (Goldingay, 246-47).

11

pronoun, “my,” is used with “my Israel,” it is generally done so in reference to Yahweh.33 Here,

Daniel is proactive in his approach and includes himself alongside the people which God has

every reason to renounce.34 The connotation of “my people,” and later in the verse “my God,” is

that it links the three parties together.35

The scope of Daniel’s prayer is focused in regard to Judah, Jerusalem, and the sanctuary

(vv. 7, 16-20).36 Goldingay understands these to warrant special attention on Daniel’s part

because of the historic faithfulness of Judah, the theology and politics pertaining to Jerusalem,

and the religious importance of the sanctuary for the worshippers of God.37 Judah had been

faithful to David and Zion and, alongside the tribe of Benjamin, continued to be the embodiment

of actual Israel after the exile.38 Daniel’s inclusion of Israel undoubtedly included the place where

Yahweh chose as his dwelling place; the city bearing the name of Yahweh, the city he owns.39

The importance of the holy mountain to Daniel is in respect to the desire of reinstitution of

the worship of Yahweh at the temple on Mount Zion.40 Daniel’s longing for the holy mountain is

understood in v. 21 as he continues to observe the 3 p.m. offering even though no evening

33. Goldingay, 246-47. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid., 247-48. 38. Ibid., 247. 39. Ibid., 248. 40. Steinmann, 450.

12

oblation had occurred for half a century since the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.41 Daniel

longed for God’s program for Israel to continue and expressed such with the penitent phases:

“my people Israel;” “Yahweh my God;” and “the holy mountain of my God.”

9:24-27

“Seventy weeks”

The comment of first importance regarding “seventy weeks” is that it generally is

understood to mean a period of seventy “weeks” of years – 490 years.42 The interpretations of the

“seventy weeks” held by the majority of scholars today may be categorized into four views.43 The

first view understands the seventy weeks as literal years ranging through the reign of Antiochus

IV Epiphanes; the “sevens” or “weeks” existing of seven years each, resulting in a period of 490

years.44 Proponents of this view believe the “decree” of v. 25 as referring to the prophecy of

Jeremiah (Jer. 25:1, 11) regarding the seventy years of captivity and was delivered to him in 605

B.C.45 Even though the decree begins with 605 B.C., proponents of this view nevertheless cite

586 B.C., the fall of Jerusalem, as the commencement of the “sevens.”46

41. Walvoord, 215. 42. For further textual consideration, see footnote 21. 43. Miller, 252-53. It is not within the scope of my paper to reestablish or reconfigure

scholarship concerning the “seventy weeks.” My desire in the Comment section of this paper is to briefly summarize and interact with each view before revealing in the Explanation section which one I hold to.

44. Ibid., 253. 45. James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel

ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927), 378, 391-92. It should be noted that when I checked the Montgomery source as cited by Miller, I found a discrepancy between the date Miller cited (605 B.C.) and the date Montgomery cited (604 [“606”]) on p. 391. I hold with the

13

The seventy sevens are divided into three epochs: seven sevens (49 years); sixty-two sevens

(434 years); and a final seven (7 years). According to Montgomery’s view, the first seven sevens

extend from 586 B.C. – 539/538 B.C., the time of Babylon’s fall, release of Jewish exiles by

Cyrus, and the anointed one, considered to be Joshua the high priest.47 The next sixty-two sevens

extend from the time of Joshua to the death of the high priest Onias III (170 B.C.), another

“anointed one.”48 Proponents of this view understand the last seven years to extend from 170-163

B.C., the period of Antiochus’s persecution.49 One of the most significant problems with this view

is that the “decree” to rebuild Jerusalem most logically would refer to a decree of a king and not

the prophecy of Jeremiah which did not speak of rebuilding the city.50 Another glaring

inadequacy is that the total number of years regarding the seventy sevens does not add up and

means the other would have therefore been explicit on everything all the while not accounting

for sixty-seven years.51

The second view of the “seventy sevens” understands them in reference to symbolic periods

of time that conclude in first century A.D.52 The first seven sevens are understood to extend from

605 B.C. date offered by Miller because it is commonly used to refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s substantial victory at Carchemish.

46. Montgomery acknowledges the discrepancy but disregards it as a chronological

miscomputation of the writer (Montgomery, 392-93).

47. Montgomery, 379, 392. For further textual consideration see Miller, 254, footnote 30. 48. Montgomery, 381, 393. 49. Ibid., 393-94.

50. Miller, 253-54; also Towner, 143. 51. Ibid., 254. 52. Ibid.

14

the decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C. to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, 440-400 B.C.53 The next sixty-

two sevens range from ca 400 B.C. until the birth of Christ while the last sevens continue from

the birth to after Christ’s ascension but before A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.54 Miller

makes rapid work of this view as whereas: a) “seven” is best understood to represent seven

years, not an indefinite period of time; b) the sevens vary in length within each period and are

too arbitrary; c) Young places the destruction of Jerusalem after the seven sevens, whereas v. 26

appears to place it before the final seven in v. 27; and d) it is difficult to understand that at the

time of Christ’s birth55, v. 24 finds its fulfillment.

Others, Keil56 and Leupold57, propose the seventy sevens as symbolic periods of time

representing a prophecy of church history from the decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C. extending

through the second coming of Christ. The most significant problem with this view is that the

sevens are even more arbitrary than the previously cited symbolic view held by Young.58 The last

view interprets the “seventy sevens” as 490 literal years that will culminate with the second

53. E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 203, 220-21.

54. Ibid. 55. K. L. Barker, “Evidence from Daniel,” in A Case for Premillennialism, eds. D. K.

Campbell and L. L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 143-46. 56. C. F. Keil, “Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel”, Trans. By M. G. Easton. In

Commentary on the Old Testament by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 336ff, 373ff.

57. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), 417ff. 58. Because the base of this view is symbolic in its foundation, see Miller, 255-57 for

further consideration of this view.

15

coming of Christ.59 The first seven sevens are initiated with either the decree to rebuild Jerusalem

(either the command to Ezra in 458 B.C. or the command to Nehemiah in 445 B.C.) and

therefore terminate upon the completion of the work of Ezra or Nehemiah forty-nine years later

(Ezra, 409 B.C. or Nehemiah, 396 B.C.).60 The next sixty-two sevens range from the end of the

first seven sevens (Ezra or Nehemiah) until the first coming of Christ (his baptism in A.D. 26 or

entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, A.D. 32/33).61 The last seven immediately precedes the

second coming of Christ and includes a terrible time of tribulation for Israel and the world.62

During this time, Israel and many others will come to a saving faith in Christ; the majority of

people in Israel acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah and repenting of their sin (Zech 12:10;

13:1; Rom 11:25-29).63 If the last view is correct, then it appears Yahweh has something special

planned to culminate the program of Israel and fulfill the Abrahamic covenant.

Explanation

9:20-23

It is not an understatement to propose that Daniel’s prayer (vv. 4-19) and subsequent

summary and response by God through Gabriel (vv. 20-23) is one of the most important and

significant prayers ever uttered by a human. The response to said prayer includes a prophetic

revelation that ensures the fulfillment of God’s program for Israel. The idea of an Israel program

is rooted deep into OT and NT theology. Although I will not wade deep into dispensational

59. Miller, 257. 60. Miller, 257. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid.

16

waters, it must be pointed out that our pericope, the entirety of chapter 9, the Book of Daniel, the

OT, and the Bible from Genesis 12 through Revelation includes the basic understanding that God

consistently interacts with mankind through his chosen vessel, Israel. Yahweh, the covenant

name of God, is only found in this chapter of the book and is used seven times.64 Yahweh, the

covenant name of God, remembers his people and in vv. 20-23 he remembers a part of the

whole, Daniel, for the sake of his people. He will not break or renege on his covenant, he will see

the completion of all he intended for Israel from her inception.

Daniel found favor65 with God (v. 23) and this served as the rationale for God hearing and

answering his prayer.66 The Hebrew word for “highly esteemed” describes a person who is

considered desirous or counted as precious.67 The plural form of the word is employed in the

Hebrew to indicate great value.68 The same term speaks of the value of gold in Ezra 8:27 and

costly garments in Gen. 27:15.69

64. Ibid., 239. 65. God’s hand of favor and Daniel’s obedience appear to go hand in hand; God honors

obedience. This is not to say that God rewards us as an owner does a dog for obedience. It is to say that we cannot deny the scope of Daniel’s life; favor in the court of multiple kings, delivered from murderous threats multiple times, insight and interpretation to dreams, and the recipient of prophetic revelations. Daniel is faithful, yes, but God is even more so, not only to Daniel and Israel, but to himself.

66. Miller, 251. 67. F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the

Old Testament, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008), 326.

68. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927), 372.

69. Miller, 251-52.

17

The repetitive elements of prayer, confession, and supplication remind the reader that we

are to approach God in like manner. Reading of how God cares for Daniel through answered

prayer, a gift of strength and insight, and favor reminds the reader that Yahweh is a loving and

forgiving God. Verses 24-27 remind the reader that God is also a righteous and sovereign God.

9:24-27

The prophetic revelation begins with v. 24 and sets in place the objectives of the

culminating epoch of Israelite history.70 It includes a determined period of progression in which

sin will be overcome and atoned for.71 The final victory belongs to God, but in his covenant he

chose to use his people to play a partnership role to bring about the everlasting righteousness, the

conclusion of vision and prophecy, and anoint the most holy place.72 The seventy weeks decreed

for Israel and Jerusalem ushers in the last phase of the pre-eschatological age and we know the

end is short away; the comprehensive program of Israel taking only time.73 The seventy weeks

serve not only as an exodus of Israel from sin and discipline, but also a return to the pre-creation

order of Genesis 1 and 2.

Conclusion

This paper has provided a broad exegesis and exposition of Dan. 9:20-27. It was my

purpose to highlight only what I considered to be the elements of the passage necessary to

interpret its principled meaning and application. Exhaustive presentation and analysis of the

70. Towner, W. S. Daniel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), 141. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid.

18

“seventy weeks” of v. 24 were not entertained because of the plethora of scholarship regarding

vv. 24-27. Likewise, a detailed investigation into authorship and dating was neglected due to the

amount of space needed to encompass the perpetual volley between the higher critics and the

traditional. This brief paper sought to examine the pericope and extrapolate its key principle and

application.

The premier message of Dan. 9:20-27 is that Yahweh did not, has not, and will not forget

his covenant with Israel. This principle is illustrated by the compassionate engagement with his

humble and obedient servant, Daniel. The key terms and ideas that supplement the principle are:

“prayer (vv. 20-23);” “my people Israel (v. 20);” and “seventy weeks (vv. 24-27).” God moved

the epochs then as he does now and it is the responsibility of man to regard him in faith and

obedience. As with Israel and Daniel, the choice to believe and obey is before us all.

19

Bibliography

Arnold, Bill and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003.

Anderson, Robert A. Signs and Wonders. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1984. Anderson, Sir Robert. The Coming Prince. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984. Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute

of Chicago, 2007. Barker, K. L. “Evidence from Daniel,” in A Case for Premillennialism, eds. D. K. Campbell and

L. L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992. Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1929. Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Collins, J. J. “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and

Reception, Volume One, ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Driver, S. R. The Book of Daniel. CBSB. Cambridge: University Press, 1905. Goldingay, J. E. Daniel, WBC 30. Dallas: Word Books, 1989. Hill, Andrew. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Daniel-Malachi, eds. Tremper Longmann III

and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. vol. 8, 167. Keil, C.F. Commentary on the Old Testament: Ezekiel, Daniel. Grand Rapids: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973. Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Daniel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1949. Miller, Stephen R. Daniel, NAC. Nashville: B&H Publishing Co., 1994. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC. New

York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927. Seow, C. L. Daniel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Steinmann, Andrew E. Daniel. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2008. Stuart, Douglas. Old Testament Exegesis. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

20

Towner, W. S. Daniel. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984. Ulrich, Dean R. The Antiochene Crisis and Jubilee Theology in Daniel’s Seventy Sevens. Leiden:

Brill, 2015. Wallace, Ronald S. The Lord is King: The Message of Daniel. Downers Grove: InterVarsity

Press, 1979. Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989. Wilson, Robert D. “Evidence in Hebrew Diction for the Dates of Documents.” PTR 25 (1927):

353-88 --------. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, rev. E. J. Young. Chicago: Moody Press,

1959. Wood, Leon J. A Commentary on Daniel. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publications, 1973. Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Hermeneutical Issues in the Book of Daniel.” JTS 23.1 (March, 1980):

13-21. Young, E. J. The Prophecy of Daniel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.