THE SPRINGFIELDER April 1976 Volume 40, Number 2 The Goal of Daniel's Seventy Weeks I NTERPRETERS SHOULD HESITATE before entering afresh into the exegesis of Daniel's seventy weeks, a passage which has been characterized as "the Dismal Swamp of Old Testament criti- cism."' Yet one particular avenue of approach appears to have been insufficiently explored, namely, the nature of the goal of this four hundred and ninety year period, as it is stated in the six infinitival phrases of purpose in Daniel 9:24, and the relationship of this six- fold goal to the events that are predicted for accomplishing it, as these are elaborated in the three verses that follow, 9:25-27. Not that commentators have been unaware of the significance of 9:24 for the total interpretation of the passage-E. J. Young has written: "The six items presented . . . settle the terminus ad quem of the prophecy. The termhation of the 70 sevens coincides with . . . the first advent of our Lord."' And Robert D. Culver has written: The terminus ad quem of the full 70 weeks is . . . not to be found in any event near the earthly lifetime of our Lord . . . The scope of verse 24's prophecy requires that the last week termi- nate no earlier than the coming of Christ at the second adventV3 Despite their conflicting conclusions, both writers then lay down im- portant principles for relating the prophecy's goal to the time period that is involved: Culver stresses the unity of God's design for the period in question, "Seventy weeks-it (singular) is decreed" to achieve the goal;.' and Young stresses the necessary inclusion of the six-fold purpose within the stated years-"These things are to be accomplished before the expiry of the 70 sevens, although the bless- ings brought about may continue for long after."" But though rightly stressing the two principles thus stated, neither of the above quoted writers proceeds actually to correlate the purposes given in verse 24 with the specifications that come next. Young, it is true, cites many passages elsewhere in Scripture and makes one allusion to the pre- ceding context of Daniel 915-1 1; but he makes none whatsoever to verses 25-27 which follow. The present study seeks, therefore, to examine the meanings that have been proposed for the six purpose- phrases of 9:24, in the light of their context, and then to propose a relationship for these six to the content of 9:25-27. A. It can be said for liberal expositors that they do at least con- nect the goal of verse 24 with the context which they uniformly assume for Daniel's ninth chapter, i.e., the ideals of the Maccabean revolt. If we move from the last of the prophet's infinitives to the first (which are felt to be less clear), we find that James Montgomery, for J. Barton Payne is Professor of Old Testament at Cwenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. The editors are grateful to him for his valuable contribution to the interpretation of Daniel, although, of course, t.hey do not concur in any incidental divergence from 01-thodox Lutheran eschatology. example, understands 'Daniel's sixth phrase, "to anoint the Most Holy," as meaning this: that after JerusaIem's three-year profanation under Antiochus Epiphanes, who is supposed to be specified in verse 26, then "the holy place is to be reconsecrated" (see I Macc. 4).G The fifth phrase, "to seal vision," means this: thai "past prophecy, particularly that of Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2), is to be ratified." Next, "to bring in everlasting righte0usn.e~~" means that "Israel is to be ever- lastingly 'right' with the Lord," that is, restored and saved.' And "to atone for iniquity" means that God will "treat as covered," will "par- don or canccl," and absolve Israel from its sins of Helleni~ation.~ For the first two phrases, liberal exegetes generally follow the critical appartus of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, reading lekallZ('), "to restrain," as if it were really lekallZ(h), "to finish" the transgression, and reading, not lahtorn, from the root butam, "to seal," but, with the Qere, lehdtiim, a hiphil of the root iGmarn, "to complete" the nation's sins. The sense oE these infinitives is one of "filling up the measure of sin," as in 8:23," and then "to bring the profanation to an end."J"Montgomery's logic is that all three of the first phrases-to finish transgressions, to complete sins, and to absolve iniquity- must be "used quite synonymously . . . The parallelism requires finishing . . . The parallelism demands the Qere, ~ornpleting."~' As a result, the Seleucid cutting off of Israel's anointed leaders will be terminated at last. B. Not all liberal exegetes, it is true, have so simplistic an ap- proach. Arthur Jeffery in The Interpreter's Bible suggests that the narrower reference of the six infinitives is to "the freeing of the people from Seleucid control and the restoration of the city and templc," but that their broader reference is to "the final consumma- tion ."I" Similarly, Norman Porteous, writing in Westminster's Old Testnrnent LiOrury, emphasizes "the eschatological event the writer hoped for."' ) Jef'fery proceeds to spell out these broader implications, both negatively (as found in the first three phrases of purpose) and positively (in the latter three); see the second main column in Table 1. For the first phrase, he still prefers the variant reading, "finish," but he applies this to "outrage on true religion" in general. For the sccond, however, he feels under no co~npulsion to emend the con- sonantal Hebrew text, "to seal up sins" (for one could have a delib- erate repetition in the fifth phrase, "to seal," though there in the sense of ratifying prophecy). He cites parallel usage in Job 14:17 and Deuteronomy 32:34, where "to seal up sins" means to reserve them for punishment. Montgomery may fulminate that "the use of the same verb in quite different meanings in one verse would be intoler- able";]" but is this so impossible? With two separate objects that are as different as are sins and prophecy, the whole procedure could embody an jnciteful play on words with respect to the divine sealing. As to God's reserving of sins for punishment, Jeffery insists, "This is precisely what would happen at the grand assizes at the end of time"; contrast in the next phrase Yahweh's atoning for iniquity, jn the sense of "wiping out the old score." The three positive purposes he understands similarly: the bringing in of righteousness is an eternal gift from God to men in the Messianic kingdom;"' the sealing of ' THE 1 TABLE 1 THE MEANING OF THE PURPOSE-PHRASES IN DANIEL 9:24 "ill?('), the sasgression 1 'URPOSE- 'HRASES I ~rnatively, ninate, lekolld(11) - To seal up, 'dm, sins C to atone for LIBERAL A to bring in Grlasting asteousness CONSERVATIVE TI to seal vision fu prophecy f m to anoint a t-st Holy Past (Maccabean) ICC, pp. 373-5 The profanation ended "Future" Consiimmation: IB, VI: pp. 493-4 All outrages over Reserving sins for punishment: "grand assize" Those who leave Messiah "with nothing" (26a) will be desolated (26c, 27c). He reservecl "Jerusalem to surrounding by armies . . . days of vengeance that all may be (Lk. 2 1 : 20, 22). - . .- Contextually related to Daniel 9: 25-27 : Payne, Etzc)~clopedia of Biblical Propirecy, pp. 386-7 -- The Prince (25b) restrains Jews, desolate by their abominations (27c); e.g. "He found in the temple those who were selling . . . and I-Ie drove them all out and overturned their tables" (John 2: 14-15). Future, dispensational: Wood, Commertrury ort Daniel, pp. 248-50 Sins restrained "in an all inclusive sensew=riddance Past, classical : Young, Prophecy of Datlicl, pp. 198-20 1 Sin shut in-no longer regarded as existing To fill up the measure of sins Israel to be absolved of Hellenizing failures The Jews "saved," brought to prosperity To ratify it, especially Jeremiah's 70 years (Dan. 9 : 2) The altar reconsecrated in 165 B.C. - The wiping out of sin Righteousness granted, in the Messianic kingdom The foretold kingdom fulfilled The new Messianic temple To make an end of sins Christ's propitiating sacrifice A turning to God by Israel as a nation with God The final fulfillment of prophecy The restored millennia1 "anointed" ic "the I-JnIw nf CAA" IT I, End of sins as enslaving Christ's propitiating sacrifice The sinner's restored relationship No further prophetic revelation of the OT kind The most holy Person of Christ=the -- Messiah's ci~tting off (26a) stops sacrifice (a7b); "He takes away the first (rites) in order to establish the second," "the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 10:9, 9:26; cf. Isa. 53 : 8). . - --- Christ's new covenant (27a) : "Now the righeousness of God has been manifested . . . through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" (Rom. 3 : 2 1-2). Validation of Daniel's 490 year prophecy of the Prince lo conze (26b) : "All things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished" (Lk. 18: 3 ---- 1 ) . Unto Messiah the Prince (25b) : "God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10: 38); "the Christ" vision refers to the ratification in that era of all that the seers had foretold; and the anointing of the Most Holy must refer to the Messianic temple (as in.Isa. 60: 7, etc.) . Now, against this view of "broader reference," conservative hermmeuticians might naturally invoke the previously cited prin- ciples of Culver and of Young, objecting both that such "broadness" destroys the unity of the passage's purpose and that it places the accomplishment of at least part of its goals outside the past (sup- posedly Maccabean) scope of the seventy weeks, removing these to the future. Liberals, however, hasten to respond that the unknown second-century B.C. writer of Daniel thought that the world con- summation was imminent; even though "the end predicted did not come,"" still, at least as originally intended, the Maccabean past and the Messianic future were supposed to have been combined into one seven-year week. But though liberalism can thus, in a sense, preserve the unity of Daniel's six-fold goal and keep it within the seventy weeks, the price it demands is far too high in terms of textual emen- dation and of admitted non-fulfillment. It further proposes that when subsequent Judaism was faced with the realities of history, the syna- gogue was forced into a substitute belief, that of "the putting off of the fulfillment";Jg the rabbis are said to have moved the whole prophecy forward, first to Roman and then to Islamic times. And after all, the figure of four hundred and ninety years from the re- building of Jerusalem to the Messiah was based, as liberalism lamely presumes, on a "chronological miscal~ulation";~~y a pure coinci- dence, it was not used up in Maccabean times anyhow! C. What then about the conservative, the man who finds a miraculous correspondence between Daniel's first sixty-nine weeks, up to the Messiah, and the precise four hundred and eighty-three years that elapsed between Artaxerxes' decree to Ezra in 458 B.C. (cf. Ezra 7: 6-8 with 4:7-23 and Neh. 1 :3) and the inauguration of Jesus' ministry in the fall of A.D. 26?" Here arises a Messianic con- summation that did find fulfillment in history and that does fit the chroriology. Conservatives, however, fall into two groups, depending on whether this past achievement is recognized as the full accomplish- ment of Daniel's hebdomads or whether at least part of the comple- tion of their six-fold goal is viewed as still pending, as represented primarily by dispensat~onaljsm's concept of a yet future seventieth week." The latter view (the third column on Table 1 ) is exhibited, for example, by Leon Wood in his recent commentary, where he says of the six phrases, "Reference in these first three [or four] " is mainly to Christ's first coming, when sin was brought to an end in principle . . . Reference to Jews . . . requires the interpretation to include also Christ's second coming."?" Specifically, for Daniel's first jnfinitive of purpose Wood prefers to retain the primary Hebrew reading, lekall8('), to restrain, saying, "There is no reason for changing from the more natural root.""" Many Hebrew manuscripts, it is true, read lekallZ(h), but Driver long ago admitted that this is "an anomalous form."?: If the infinitive of "terminate" had been intended, it should have read lekall6t; and when the Gesenius-Kautzsch grammar discusses lamedh-he verbs The Goal Of Datziel's Sel~enty Weeks 123 __ .__________ -- behaving like lamedh-alephs (sec. 75 rr), it includes no such infiniti- val endings in he. Yet having made his point and having refused to emend this part of the text, Wood proceeds, without lexical support, to what can onIy be described as non-literal exegesis. He defines the sense of "restrain" as equivalent to "be removed . . . with the idea of riddance" and says, "It probably refers to sin in an all-inclusive sense." For the second phrase of purpose, Wood adopts the Qere reading, "to complete," "to make an end of sins," especially for "Israel as a nation" at Christ's second coming. For the third phrase, however, he limits the atoning to Christ's past work in His death on the cross, as eIaborated in verse 26. Its historical accomplishment serves to explain, he says, how sins can in the future be brought to an end, so that to this degree at least he can classify the first three phrases of Daniel 9:24 as belonging together in one priestly act.'G Its latter three purposes he defines as the bringing in of righteousness for Israel in the future; as the sealing of prophecy, in the sense of its final fulfillment; and as the anointing of the most holy restored, millennia1 temple." The parallels of dispensationalisrn's interpretation with liberal- ism's understanding of a "future" consummation (second column of Table 1) are striking. But there exists this major difference: all con- servatives are committed to the reality of the future that Scripture predicts, that any remaining, unfulfilled elements must yet come true. This, however, raises further problems of its own. While liber- alism can shrug off its "consummation" as a false, but still con- ten~poraneous and unified, Maccabean dream, dispensational con- servatives must surrender the unity of the six-fold goal of Daniel 9: 24 and understand its purposes as separate goals (plural). Further- more, they must surrender the inclusion of the fulfillment of at least some of these six goals within the prophet's stated period of the four hundred and ninety years. If it be argued, as dispensationaIism does, that the consummation of Daniel's hebdomads is still pending and must embrace even a restored millennial temple, then Daniel 9:27, with its reference to the final seven years, cannot go with verse 26, which locates itself "after the I seven plus] sixty-two [or sixty-nine] weeks." It must still be future; and a gap of over nineteen hundred years must be introduced between verse 25 and verse 27, which would appear to destroy the very point in counting the seventy con- secutive weeks." Furthermore, if the seventieth week be future, the achievement of verse 24's earlier goals, which Wood describes as referring "mainly" to Christ's atonement (v. 26), falls, not in the seventy weeks at all, but in the parenthesis that comes after the sixty-ninth week (v. 25) and before the seventieth (v. 27). As Philip Mauro observed, thc heart of the sequence must have "happened in an unme~ltioned gap."" Robert Culver suggests, "The basis was Iaid at the death of Christ, but . . . the full effecting comes only at the second coming.""' This, however, brings us back to the question of just what the seventy weeks, in their own context, do seek to effect. St may not be coincidental that the only part of the six-fold goal of verse 24 which Wood chose to relate to verses 25-27 was the atoning work accomplished by Christ's death-which did occur in the course of the seven years that transpired immediately after Daniel's sixty- ninth week. D. The other group that appears today within conservative Christian scholarship locates the fulfillment of the seventy weeks wholly in the past, at Christ's first coming. It rnay .with fairness be identified as the church's classical position, because until the rise of sixteenth-century deism and rationalism "the exact terminus of the 70 weeks in the Advent became universal among Christian exe- getes."'" Yet perhaps this very uniformity in understanding may have contributed to an undesirable levelling of the elements in the six-fold goal of the seventy weeks. E. J. Young, for example, combines the first three phrases of verse 24 under the negative rubric of doing away with "that curse which has separated man from God."'"pecifi- cally, for the first of the infinitives, he insists more strongly than Wood on the predominant reading, "restrain": "The interpretation to finish or conzylete does not seem justifiable.""" Yet again the same problem crops up, about preserving the literal meaning of the verb, once its form has been textually determined. Yuung quotes with approval the following statement by HengstePrberg, who shifts from one verbal meaning to another: "The sin, which has hitherto lain naked and open before the eyes of the righteous God will now be shut in and hidden by the God of mercy . . . it may be regarded as no longer existing; 1 it is1 a mode of describing forgiveness";" cf. Leu- pold's conclusio~ that sins "will no longer grow and flourish.""At one point Young had recognized a connection between the restraining of the transgression (9 : 24) and the preceding context (9 : 5-1 1 ), concerning .Daniel's confession of Israel's rebellion in exile; but in the end hk decides that 9:24 must refer "to all such apostasy and rebellion," which "Christ shut up by . . . His atoning death.""" For the second phrase, dealing with the sealing up sins, Young might have retained the consonantal Hebrew text, even if only to express Leupold's idea-based on the usage of "seal" as found in Isaiah 8: 16-that the sins are "securely locked up, as it were, and not permitted to roam abo~t.""~ But instead he adheres to the render- ing of the Authorized Version, "to make an end of sins," (the Qere rather than the Kethiv reading); for he finds this second phrase essentially equivalent to the next one, referring to Christ's atoning for iniquity. It is "done away, because the guilt which it involves has been expiated.""" For the remaining three phrases, the classical view as repre- sented by Young differs sharply from both Maccabean liberalism and futuristic dispensationalism. The bringing in of righteousness "is not mere prosperity. . . . It comprises both external and internal right- eousness. . . . It is that state of right relationship which comes to the sinner through faith in Jesus Christ." Because verse 24's fifth phrase speaks of a sealing of the Hebraic phenomena of "vision" and, literal- ly, "prophet," Young understands this situation as one with "no further need of prophetic revelation in the OT sense.""' His valid interpretation for the nouns in question thus combines with a usage for the infinitival verb that he had rejected as invalid in reference to Daniel's second phrase. As Jeffery says (while withholding his per- The Goal Of UunicL1.s Se1:etlry Weeks 125 .--...---A- sonal commitment), "Some take the meaning 'to seal up' in the sense of 'to stop,' just as above we had a sealing of sin; i.e., once the kingdom has come, the era of prophecy will be at an end.""" For the final phrase, "to anoint the Most Holy," Young says, "The words tefer to the anointing of the Messiah."" Statistically, this expression q0de.r qeddsin7, literally "holy of holies," occurs at twenty-two other points in the Old Testament and may refer to the following: eclujpment in the tabernacle (five times); to sacred areas of land (three), particularly as dedicated to priests; to sacrifices (two); most frequently to the priests' portions of the sacrifices (ten); and to persons (two), Lev. 27:28, I Chron. 23: 13, the latter refer- ence being to Aaron the priest himself12-cf. the generally priestly context of Daniel 9:24. A similar phrase, employing the definite article, "the holy of holies," occurs sixteen additional times, often denoting the most holy place within a sactuary. But in all these thirty-eight instances outside of Daniel 9:24, there is not a single undisputed reference to a temple buiIding.':: Culver may, therefore, have been a bit hasty when he asserts that Young "disposes of the linguistic evidence with a single stroke of the pen."" In point of fact Young does defend his claim by invoking the entire context of Daniel 9:24, i.e., "The six items presented in this verse are all Messianic."'j He thus appeals, indeed, to Culver's own principal argument for the unity of the passage's six-fold goal, "a single unit in the divine determination.""; Culver in turn invokes the preceding context: "It would be exceedingly strange . . . to depart from the usual meaning here in a passage as clearly tied in thought to the rebuilding of Solomon's temple";1i cf. Daniel's prayer in 9: 17, "Let Thy face shine on Thy desolate sanctuary." Yet, strangely enough, neither contender makes reference to the jollowing context, which constitutes Scripture's own elaboration on the summary statements of verse 24, and to which we must now turn for light that it can shed on this sixth purpose-phrase of Daniel, as well as on the five others. We begin, then, with the phrase "to anoint a Most Holy." There are two subjects that appear in verses 25-27 which could be related to the concluding words of verse 24. One is the allusion in 9:26 to haq-qddes, the rebuilt sanctuary, which is again to be destroyed-a forecast upon whose fulfillment conservatives agree, that it was accomplished by Titus in A.D. 70. But this holy building is probably not the intended subject of the qodes qeddsim predicted two verses earlier; not simply because of the omission of the qualifier "most" with "holy" in verse 26, but because, except for a single reference to Moses' anointing of the wilderness tabernacle (Lev. 8: 10-1 I), we have no indication whatsoever that Israel's temples were anointed- whether Solomon's, the second temple (either at Zerubbabel's dedi- cation in 5 15 B.C., or Judas' rededication in 165, cf. 1 Macc 4:42- 61 ). In any event. the sanctuary in Daniel 9:26, far from receiving 3. fsvorsble anointing from Yahweh, is destroyed. The other and more probable subject for relationship with 9:24 appears immediately after the concluding phrase of that verse. Verses 25-27 seem, indeed, to exhibit a consistent revelational pattern, name- ly, that the six elements in the goal of Daniel's 70 weeks are taken up in generally inverse order (see Table 2). That is, verse 25 picks up and develops precisely that verbal root with which verse 24 had closed. It had finished, ". . . and to anoint [root, masah) a Most Holy." Verse 25 continues: "So . . . from the decree to . . . rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah, nzlisiah [meaning "anointed"], the Prince, there will be . . .," etc. This term is repeated in verse 26: "Then after the [seven plus] sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off." The same subject seems to be repeated yet again in 26b. For, although the root "anoint" does not occur, the identical qualifying noun "Prince" (cf. v. 25) and the same sort of verbal action, destroying (cf. the cutting off in v. 26a), do occur, which seem to identify the same Anointed One. The parallelism that this usage produces sug- gests that the consonants just before "Prince," ayin-mem, should be pointed 'im (meaning "with," according to one Hebrew manuscript and the ancient versions),'~ather than 'am, "people." The text then reads literally, "The city and the sanctuary will be destroyedlg with thejO coming Prince," rather than, "will destroy [them 1, namely, the people of the coming prince." This reading of 26b is, confessedly, debated;"' but all conservatives do agree that the first two references to the Anointed One, in verses 25 and 26a, predict Jesus the Christ. To no one else could the priestly attribute of Most Holy be more properly applied (cf. Lk. 1 :35) than to Him whom even demons honored, crying out, "I know who Thou art, the Holy One of God (Lk. 4: 34) ; for "They knew Him to be the Christ," i.e., the Anointed (v. 41; cf. the verses cited in the last column of Table I). The fifth element of the goal of the weeks: Just before the anointing, the preceding statement of purpose in Daniel 9:24 reads, "to seal vision and prophet." At this point classical and dispensational conservatives unite in asserting that the verb hlitam, "to seal," must signify some kind of comprehensive stopping or fulfilling of prophecy. Both then become subject to the same criticism. Dispensationalists have objected to Young's locating of Daniel's seventieth week during our Lord's ministry because, "Much prophecy pertaining to last days is found in the Old Testament, as well as in the New, and was not fulfilled in Christ's first advent."jBut when Culver, for example, quotes Keil on "the shutting up of all prophecy by its fulfillment . . . which will reach completion in the return of the Lord,""' one wonders if he would follow the latter's amillennialism and include within the seventy weeks such prophecies as those of God's final judgment or of the new heavens and earth. Even the millennia1 prophecies about a restored and a righteous land cannot be fitted into a seventieth week that is correlated with a future, but more short-range, great tribula- tion. Far better to follow the lead of albeit liberal writers like Mont- gomery and relate verse 24's latter sealing to the ratifying of proph- ecies-not just of Jeremiah's about the seventy years (as stated in the preceding context, Dan. 9:2), but not of all prophecy either. The following context makes no such comprehensive aliusion; but verse 25, immediately after its reference to Messiah, does predict a definite period of four hundred and eighty-three years (seven plus sixty-two Tlte Goal Of L)aniells Seventy Weeks - .- -. .- . . - - . . - .- - .- -- - - - -. 127 weeks) until His coming. The next verse too, in its revelation of His subsequent destruction, refers to Him as Messiah the Prince "who is to come" (cf. such Isaianic prophecies of His coming and of His cutting off as 11 : 1 or 53: 8). For when Scripture appl~es the verb "seaI" to communications, it conveys the sense of accrediting them (John 3:33; cf. 6:27) ;jl and Daniel's fifth phrase seems to have been elaborated by our Lord Himself when He foretold His death, "All things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished" (Lk. 18 : 5 1 ) . TABLE 2. RELATION OF DANIEL 9:24 TO 9:25-26 AND TO 9:27 v. 24: Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city : First, to restrain the Fans- gresslon, Second, to reserve sins for punishment, Third, to atone for iniquity, Folirth, to bring in everlasting righteous- ness, Fifth, to validate vision & pro~hccy, Sixth, and to anoint, masah the most Holy. '1'. 25. From until is 69 the decrce Messiah weclts. for the Prince, who is Jerusalem's v. 26. the to come rebuiltling, Princc v. 27 And He v. 26. Aftcr and ]lave --- the 69 nothing; and (.=7 + 62) . . . to thc weeks end, of the Messinlr city, for deso- will bc cut latio-ns, off sememot, war is dctreminecl nchereget. will con- In the firm a middle of covenant the (70th) with week He thc many will put a for 1 week. stop to sacrifice; and thcre shall pour will be one on, 'al, the who, to desqlate . . completeness, on, al, a makes wing of dcsolatc, abomina- mesowern, tions. and that which is determined, neheriisa; The fourth part of the goal of Daniel's weeks: When the next preceding phrase speaks of bringing in everlasting righteousness, it refers, at the least, to an "imputed righteousness . . . which God must bring in." Leupold then goes further to define it either as "this right- eousness, or the Messiah who accomplishes it";"and Leupold's classical view is seconded by Wood, in-his dispensational approach, who says, "When Christ died, He provided . . . for righteousness to be granted. He made the provision of Himself.",'V(;race of this sort in verse 24 relates, therefore, to the objective side of salvation, ever- lastingly wrought at Christ's first coming, not to its subjective appro- priation, whether by the Jews or by others, at His second coming. Subsequently Daniel 9:25-27 says nothing about the latter matter; but verse 27 does contain a major prediction of a covenant1 that most probably relates to the former, to objective salvation. Here one must pause to identify another revelational pattern that appears in Daniel 9: 24-27, namely, that of repetition with elaboration. Dispensationalist writers strongly defend their hypothesis of a major gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth of Daniel's seven-year weeks because "the 70th week is not picked up for mention till verse 27"; and because the sixty-ninth week had ended in verse 25; and because verse 26 extends over forty years beyond this point, down to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. So if, "The contents of verse 27 are subsequent and consequential in relation to verse 26,".ji a gap of some sort would seem unavoidable. Yet just two verses earlier, Daniel 9:25-26, cannot be taken as subsequent to 9: 24; instead vv. 25-26 pick up (repeat and elaborate) the summary of the entire seventy weeks given in verse 24. Even so verse 27, on the seventieth week, would appear to pick up (in the sense of repeating and elabor- ating), not simply the summary fact of this week's existence, as stated in verse 34, but also the summary identification of its chief event as stated in verse 26, i.e., the cutting off of Messiah. For when verse 26 is said to come "after the [seven plus] sixty-two weeks," what couId more naturally be assumed than that it concerns the seventieth week? That verse 27 thus repeats verse 26 is recognized by interpreters of every (non-dispensational) stampss and is confirmed by the verbal correspondences that appear, particularly in the last parts of the re- spective verses. Both speak, for example, of the completeness of the city's "end,"j" of its "desolations," and of its suffering and welfare that is "determined" (indicated on Table 2). These phrases hardly suggest two separate situations. But then turning to the first parts of 9:26 and 27, one finds in 27 precisely that elaboration of the chief (Messianic) event of 26 which explains the fourth purpose phrase of verse 24, namely how eternal righteousness is to be brought to God's people. Its elaboration is this, that He (Messiah the Prince who is to come, v. 26) will confirm a covenant with the rnanyaGO For while neither history nor Scripture can document a covenant made (let alone one "con- firmed")'" by Antiochus the Greek or by Titus the Roman (or by the eschatological antichrist), history and Scripture combine to find their unification and meaning in Yahweh's everlasting covenant (see Dan. 9:4; 11 :28, 30; etc.), which was confirmed by One in the first cen- tury who, before He was cut off, said, "This is my blood of the cov- enant, which is to be shed on behalf of the many for forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:28) and which, as the apostle adds, was designed to provide "the righteousness of God through faith in . . . His blood" (Rom 3 : 22, 25 ) . The third element of the purpose of the seventy weeks: To move Tllc Coal Of Danicl's Ser'enry WceXs 129 . - - - - - - . - - -- forward from Daniel 9:25 into 9:26 brings one into an explanation for the prophet's three phrases of purpose in the earlier part of 9:24. These concluded with an atoning for iniquity. Even commentators who faiI to see the Person of the Messiah in Daniel 9 recognize this event as "the wiping out of the old score that had been piled up by iniquity."" Again, a dispensationalist such as Wood, despite his preference elsewhere for fulfillments that are still future, sees here "a clear reference to Christ's crucifixion"; and he cites as confirma- tion the words in 9:26 of "Messiah cut ~ff."~What Wood, however, fails to see is this purpose's further confirmation by the words in 9:27, the second line of which goes on to explain that "in the middle of the llseventieth] week He will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering." It is here that God's method for the atoning is brought forth, I.e., by the fulfilling, and therefore by the terminating, of the anticipatory sacrificial system of the Old Testament. As stated in Hebrews 10:9, "He takes away the first in order to establish the second," by the better sacrifice of Himself. Accordingly, when Christ died, "The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" (Mt. 37: 5 1 ), the final atonement having been accomplished. The second aspect of the goal of the weeks: Though most com- mentators recognize, when Scripture applies the verb "seal" to sins, that the resulting phrase conveys the sense of sealing them up, of reserving them for punishment (see section I-B above), many seem to have felt compelled by one of the following two reasons to re- nounce such a meaning in Daniel 9:24. First, they feel they must keep the opening three statements of purpose as parallel as possible (see I-A, C, and D above). Yet Boutflower has proposed alterna- tively, "The first three clauses grow ever stronger till they reach a climax. Sin is first held back, then bound and confined, and lastly done away with . . . by atonement: being made.""' Indeed, within these purpose phrases one might plausibly find a pattern, not of three's but of two's: in the initial pair God opposes the Jewish leaders, first restraining and then sentencing their sin; in the next pair He pro- vides for the salvation of His church, making atonement and bringing in righteousness; and in the third pair He accomplishes the incarnate ministry of His Son, validating Messianic prophecy and anointing bason Jesus as the Holy One in whom He is well pleased. A second rn lies in the fact that the purpose of "reserving sins for punishment" might seem, as Wood says, to be "an idea foreign to the text of the rest of verse 24.""Yet punishment is Ihe very point that is stressed in the explanatory context that follows, especially in the latter parts of both verses 26 and 27. The city and the sanctuary will be de- stroyed, cclning to an end with accompanying desolations; and 27 adds the instrun~entality, that there wili be one who makes desolate (i.e., Titus), who cvlil appear and accomplish complete destruction. Yet significantly, both of the verses also indicate that behind the catastrophe lies God's prior decree: the war is determined (v. 26) and that which is determined will be poured out (v. 27). For al- though the city's punishment occurred historically in A.D. 70, some thirty-seven years after the completion of Daniel's weeks, still the reserving for punishment, the decree for sealing up Judah's sins, was promulgated by our Lord's sentence of doom when he said, "All these things shall come upon this generation (Mt. 23 : 36) ";"hand this He uttered in the midst of the seventieth week. A question might yet arise, however, about the sealed up sins, which the purpose phrase of 9:24 places within the four hundred and ninety year period: Are these explained in the larger context of Daniel 9? Indeed they are. The subject of Daniel's whole opening statement (9: 4-1 9) is the national sins of Israel; and Porteous, despite his liberal orientation, properly refers this section, "not only to the wickedness of Antiochus, but also to the rebellion of Israel. Daniel's prayer of confession must be taken in all serio~sness."~~ In the verses that follow 9:24, Israel's failure toward God is further suggested by the fate that lies in store for their Messiah (v. 26); for it is said, "He will have nothing."" Young explains "This is a very forceful way of setting forth His utter rejection . . . [specifically by His own people, for] 'We have no king but Caesar,' cried the Jews."69 Boutflower thus summarizes the relationship of verse 26 to the second purpose-phrase of 24-both in respect to its prediction of judgment pronounced, the sealing up of sins (within the seventieth week), and in respect to its prediction of what follows, the judgment accom- plished, that they were "reserved for judgment" (outside the seventy weeks, as their historical epilogue)-when he says: It is most natural to look upon v. 26b as describing the judgment to be inflicted because of the great national crime foretold in v. 26a. Even before that crime was committed, its punishment was invoked by the multitude: "All the people answered and said, His blood be on us and on our children," Mt. 27:25 . . . which led to the final overthrow in A.D. 70.7" As the explanatory elaboration of Daniel 9:25-27 moves back through the six-fold goal initially summarized in verse 24, the first phrase, "to restrain the transgression," is finally taken up at the close of verse 27. There the fate determined against Judah's city and sanctuary is said to "be poured out upon siirnzm, the desolate," (AV, ASV) or (in .~fimPm's most frequent usage and as it is here defined by the Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon), upon the "appalled, awestruck (in the face of desolation, divine judgment) ."'I The RSV, it is true, reads, "on the desolator," as in 8: 13, 12: 11 (thereby denot- ing Titus).'' But since the standard transitive form for "desolator" (cf. 11 :31) occurs just six words earlier,:; it would appear that the normal intransitive meaning should be retained here at the close of the verse (cf. 9: 18, 26). The party, moreover, which is foreseen as being desolate and appalled by divine judgment can be none other than Daniel's people and city, which are the subject of his entire revelation of the seventy weeks. The very fact, then, that their deso- late status is prophetically determined indicates, in itself, a restrain- ing of transgression, per verse 24. But then what is the transgression? The Hebrew term is pesa', the language's strongest word for rebellious conduct. In the following context, moreover, the most closely corresponding term is siqqlisim, "ab~minations,"'~ again appearing in the last line of verse 27. Yet the meaning of this part of the fine- The Gonl Of Daniel's Seventy Weeks 13 1 - - -- "and upon the wing of abominations will come a desolator"-is one of the most disputed in the entire passage and is by no rneans certain under any approach. Liberal critics regularly resort to conjectural emendation, so as to reintroduce the expression of 12: 11, siqqiis sdmEm, "abomination that desolates or causes horror." This in turn is probably a contemptuous surrogate for ha'al siimzm, "the lord /Zeus] of heaven," with which Antiochus would some day attempt to profane the sanctuary in Jerusalem (see 8 : 1 1-1 3). Montgomery proceeds to render 9 :27c, "and in its ( the sacrifice's 1 place will come the abomination that causes horror.";; Retaining, however, the He- brew text (and the non-Maccabean interpretation!), one must still choose between two basic understandings that depend on whether the "wing of abominations" is related to the desolator or to tne desolate. If it be the former, one might understand, with Driver: "The foe will come . . . riding upon a winged creature which is the per- sonification of the forces and practices of heatheni~rn"~"though this would have little connection with verse 24's idea of restraining the transgression. Titus and the Roman forces under the idolatrous "eagles" of his legions were not restrained. If it be the latter and the abominable practices be those of the desolate, then the expression of vengeance coming "upon [Hebrew, 'all the wing of abominations" would parallel the final phrase about that which is determined being poured "upon [again, 'all the desolate." The "wing" would corre- spond to the second temple's plerugion (Mt. 4: 5, Lk. 4:9), "extreme tip" (diminutive), or to some other "accessible elevation, like the top of a portico."" The abominationsi~ouId then be explanatory of verse 24's opening reference to the transgression; and the use in this latter phrase of the Hebrew definite article would seem to have been designed to direct the reader back to Daniel's preceding prayer, par- ticularly verses 5-11, with its repeated acknowledgement of Israel's { sins, iniquity, and persistent rebellion. How these sacrileges were 4 intensified in the months immediately antecedent to Jerusalem's fall to Titus is made all too clear by Josephus' accounts of the Zealots, who "polluted the temple of God" and made "the house of God full of many abominati~ns."~Tompare Christ's anticipation of "the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet [a reference to Daniel 9:27] standing in the holy place" (Mt. 24:lS). But such abominations had been an object of concern during His earthly ministry forty years earlier as well; and, not only do they thereby fall within the compass of Daniel's seventieth week, but also they are known to have been repeatedIy restrained by Him (cf. Dan. 9:24). We may think of specific acts, as when the Messiah exercised His priestly power and twice cleansed the temple at the beginning of the seventieth week (John 2: 15-17) and again at its midpoint (Mk. 11 : 15-17). Or we may think of comprehensive acts of divine sovereignty. Concerning His passion He predicted, "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the prince of this world be cast out; and I, jf I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me" (John 12:31-32; cf. Rev. 125, 9, on Satan's being cast down at this time). Concerning Pentecost He foresaw that the Holy Spirit would "convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment . . . because the ruler of this world has been judged" (John 16: 8, 1 l )-even though this restraini.ng gospel would be de- nied further hearing in Jerusalem, after about A.D. 33 (Acts 8 : 1 ), at the close of Daniel's Four hundred and ninety year period. Yet so often conservative interpreters of both the classical and dispensationa1 viewpoints have missed these Ilistorical fulfillments of the first stated purpose of the seventy weeks, i.e., to restrain the transgression. A few months ago the author's view on Daniel 9 was faulted by a leading dispensational interpreter, who stated: "Payne spiritualizes these prophecies and does not expect literal f~lfillrnent.''~~ The first part of this criticism is most charitably understood as being simply the critic's way of saying that he disagrees with the present writer's interpretation. But the latter half contains this much validity: Payne really is not looking for their fulfillment-hc believes it can be demonstrated from the ~mmediate context of Daniel 9 that they are already ljterally fulfilled, and have been for over nineteen hundred years. Such a realization, however, does not mean that Daniel did not prophesy about the great tribulation, or the antichrist, or about a second coming of Messiah the Prince in the clouds and with great glory. The prophet did! But the point at which he did this must be determined on the basis of the book's larger context. Daniel's visions, recorded in [he latter half of his volume (chapters 7-12), are four, each of which commenced jn the seer's own time: the first (chapter 7) is his comprehensive survey of world history, and it concludes with the eschatological events just cited. The second, third, and fourth visions are not comprehensive but concern specific aspects of the first. Chapter 8 refers to Medo-Persia and Greece (8:20-22 ex- plicitly) up to 165 B.C.; chapter 9 refers to Christ's first coming and to Rome up to A.D. 70; and it is the fourth vision (chapters 10-12) that goes on to tell of Armageddon, the first resurrection, and the final judgment (1 1:45-12:3). But the third vision's time limit of seventy hebdomads, four hundred and ninety years, comes down to the first century and to the first century only. This is the meaning of their six-fold goal, as expressed in 9:24-if one accepts the literal meaning of the verse (without resorting to emendations or variant readings), if one maintains the unity of their goal (not of goals, millennia apart), and jf one recognizes their accomplishment within the sevenly weeks (not in a gap between them or after them). And this interpretation is validated, as is no other view, by the relation- ship of these six purpose-phrases to the further explanation given by the prophecy itself in 9:25-27. FOOTNOTES I. James A. Montgomery, A Ct.iiica1 and Exegetical Coi17tncntar.y on the Book of Daniel (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1927), p. 400. 2. Tlle Propliecy of Daniel, u Comn1ental.y (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), P. 201. 3. Ilu~tiii ilrz~i tl~c Latter Days (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1954), pp. 136, 155. 1. [bid., p. 157. i. Young, p. 197. i. ICC, p. 373; cf. pp. 375, 376. ' ri.:,J .. 272- -c - 9-c The Goal Of Danicl's Sevenry Wceks 133 - Ibitl., p. 374. Ihid., p. 373. Aquila, tcleiOsni, with the Syriac and Vulgate, support this Qere reading, though Theodotian, sphragisai, s~~pports the Kethiv. The Chigi I,XX, spcc~zisrri, ''make rare," could have developed from either. Arthur Jeffery, "The Book of Daniel," in The Intc~r~pr~eter's Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1956), VI:494. ICC, p. 374. 1 B, V1:493; cf. p. 494. L)ctniol. A Corni7lentarv (Tlrc Old Tesran~enr Lib~ury; Philadelphia: West- <. minslei-, 1965), p. 141. JB, VI:494. KC, p. 374. IB, Vl:494, developed fronl S. R. Driver, The Book of Durriel (Tile Curnbr.id.cc Bible for- Sclrools and Col1cge.r; Cambridge: University Press, 1912), p:'136. I'orteous, pp. 141. 144. On Table 1, liberalism's belief in a "future" con- summation must therefore be placed in quotes, to suggest this hypothetical character. ICC, p. 62. Ibid., p. 393. While the present study does not seek to trace the chronology of the seventy weeks, the writer has found no sufficient reason to shift from the datings given in his Enc~clopcdia of Biblictll P~.opl?ecy (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), pp. 96-97, or from Jack Finegan's placement of Christ's crucfixion on April 7, A.D. 30: Ha~ldbook of 13ihlical Cl~t~ortology (Princeton: University Press, 1974), especially pp. 301-302. He does not feel the arguments of H;trold Hoehner to be convincing for redating Chi.ist1s cr~~cifixion and ~.esul.l.ection to A.D. 33, as set forth in Ribliothcca Snci.n '1 3 1 (1 974), esp. pp. 4 1-54, or in K. N. Longenecker and M. C. 'Tenney, eds., ~Vcw Di~?lerl.riotzs ill N(.)v Tesfnr~7c.nf Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 11 5-126. Hoehner's treatment of John 2:20, on the forty-six yeal-s of Herod's temple, and his advocacy of a special three hundred and sixty day "prophetic year" seem particularly subject to criticism. Non-dispensationalists may occasionally advocate a future seventieth week-cf. J . Oliver B~iswell's A Sysfci7zotic Tl~cology of tlrc Clr listia~z Heligio~l (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 11:375-380-though his- t.orica1ly this theory entered Protestant thought only with the rise of Plymouth Brethren dispensationalism under J. N. Darby in the 1830's; cf. J. B. I'ayne, 7'lre lrnmi,lcrzt Appenl-ing of Clliist (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 149-1 50. A Cotti1tle17fal.y OIL I1trrlic.l (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1.973), p. 35 1. Ibid., p. 249. Ibid., p. 248. Ctr~nhridge Bible, p. 135. 01.'. cit., pp. 248, 249. Cf. H. A. Ironside, The Great Paue~ztllesis (second edition, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1943), p. 19. "Israel's transgression will be finished . . . because their Messiah will have made atonement for iniquity." Wood, pp. 250-25 I. Cf. the extended discussion of this point in Philip Mauro, l'ize Seveiity Weeks clnd rlre Greut Trihrtl~ltion (Boston: Hamilton Bros., 1923), pp. 9 1-99. fbid., p. 101. He adds, "Thus, according to this view, the prophecy has been con~pletely falsified." Duniel urzci rl~c Laffer Days, p. 157. JCC, p. 332; cf. Payne, note 21, above. Tile P~.ophccy of Daniel, p. 199. lbid., p. 198. Tt is true that the verb kild(') occurs elsewhere in Scripture only in the qal and niphal, not in the pie1 as here pointed. H. C. Leupold may, therefore, be justified in repointing lekallef) to likld(') with no emendation of the consonantal text or great change of meaning; Exposi- tion of Darziel (Columbus, Ohio: Wartburg, 1949), p. 41 1. Or, this pie1 might constitute a unique denominative form from kele('), "prison," with the meaning "imprison, restrain." Pr.opliecy, p. 198, qiloting 7'lic CI~r~istolo~y of 11ze Old Tcsfnrnc?rt (Eclin- burgh: T. and T. Clark, 1.858), 111: 107. Expositiorz of llenirl, p. 41 2. Loc. cit. Exposition, p. 4 13. Tlle l'r.onhecv of D~niel, D. 199. . . ihid., 199-260. IB, VI:494. Still othel-s invoke the usage of "seal" in Jsa. 29: 11 for spiritual blindness, so that the passage would be predicting this of Israel's rulers in Christ's day, Maur-0, ?'he Scve~lty Weeks, p. 51. I'~.ophecy, p. 201. "To sanctify him as most holy," though even this passage might be read, "for his sanctifying a holy of holies," ICC, p. 375. But what the "holy" would then be is left contextually undefined, and it appears best to retain the reference to Aaron (contrast Wood's dismissal of such as "forced exegesis," p. 250). A debatable passage is Ezekiel 45:3. Contrast the renderings of the AV, In it [the holy postionl shall be the sanctuary and the most holy place"; ASV, ''In it shall be the sanctuary, which is most holy"; Smith-Goodspeed, "as the most sacred portion of the land." In the light of Ezekiel's usage elsewhere (43 : 12, 48: 12), where qddes qcdZsinz refers to sacred areas of Innd, it would seem best at this point to relate it to ham-n?iddC, "the area" (NAS) of the priestly allotment (48: 12), rather than to 1lam-nziqdfis, "the sanctuary"; cf. Keil, "This domain, in the midst of which is the temple, is to belong to the priests, as the sanctified portion of the land" 13ihlicul Cort?n-lerltczry on [lie Prop1zccie.r of Ezekiel (Grand Rapids: Eerd- mans, 1950), 11: p. 322, and 1B, VI:3 15. Daniel rznd tl~e Latter Ilrty.v, p. 157. Pl~oplrccy, p. 20 1. Per note 4. above. Lnttc!~ Days, p. 158. For even in those versions marked by confated readings-Chigi Greek, hnsileir~ etlrrifit~ plrtliel~i tc'n polin metu tozc christorl, and Vulgate "the Prince" is still object and not the destroying subject. Reading the vesb, either niphal, yis~C!lFt, "will be destroyed," or retaining the hiphil points, yns[lit, but seading impersonally, "one will destroy," with the same passive efl'ect. Montgomet~y's objection that, if the lzdgid were that of verse 25, it should have the article, ICC, p. 384, is answered by the fact that it has now come to be tseated as a proper noun, "Prince"; cf. its modification by the arrhrous participle, IraD-bG, and the identical syntax with Messiah in verse 25, 17?d.rinl1 Iron-ri.Cgid. To assume the 1.atte1- intel-pretation, however, involves another major difficulty, namely, that the people's (i.e., the Romans') prince (who can only be their leader at that time, i.e., Titus; cf. Young, Prophecy, pp. 21 1- 212) had not yet in Daniel's day become the subject of a prediction (Zech. I 1 : 15- I6 is later) so as to be styled, "the coming one," nor did he ever, as far as is known, confirm a covenant with Zsrnel, as stated next (Dan. 9:27). Wood, p. 250. Laftcr Dcrys, p. 158, quoting Keil's Y'lre Book of tlre Yi~oplret Dalziel (Edinbusgh: 7'. & T. Clark. 1872), p. 349. ICC, llrrniel, p. 375. Ex-positiorz oj Dccnic~l, p. 4 14. COI?~IIICI~~(II~V oil D(r11ie1, p. 250. Culver, p. 149. He pal~ticuIar.ly stresses the waw-consecutive plus perfect with which verse 27 commences; yet he seems to overlook the similar construction of the waw-conjunctive plus imperfect which introduces verse 25 and which he does ]rot treat as subsequent to verse 24. Whether liberal, ICC, pp. 381, 385 (titles), or conservative, Leupold, p. 43 1. One might refer 26c to the Prince of 26b reaching "his end" (NAS mg) rather than to the sanctuary and "its end." But then 27a could obviously not be subsequent to 26c, and one is back to the principle of repetition. 60. Dan. 9:27 adds, "for one week," which confirms the initially stated appli- cation of the seventy weeks to Daniel's people and city, i.e., Israel and Jerusalern. It was to them that Christ's three and a half years of earthly ministsy was directed (Mt. 10:5-6, 15:24), A.D. 26-30, the first half of the seventieth week. And it continued to be to them that the everlasting gospel was first sent (Acts 2:14), until they drove the early church from Jerusalem (Acts 8:l) after an additional three and a half years in what appears to have been A.D. 33; see Payne, E~zcyclopedia of Prophecy, p. 388 (cf. Rev. 12:6, 14), or Charles Boutflower-, In and Arorind rlre Book of Duniel (London: S.P.C.K., 1923 ), pp. 195-1 99. 61. Wood, p. 259, argues for the renderings, "make a firm covenant," but without lexigraphical support; contrast BDB, hiphil of gcbur, p. 149, "confirm a covenant"; KB, p. 168, "prevail"; cf. Young, p. 209. Mont- gomery, lCC, p. 385, sounds less than compelling when, though acknowl- edninr the meaning "confirm, maintain," he surmises, "There is no in6insic objection to the translation of the verb, 'make strong'." 62. lB, VI :494. 63. A Comnzantcil-y on Daniel, p. 249 64. 111 ulzd At.o~nd Llrrniel. D. 183. , A 65. Loc. cit. 66. Cf. vv. 37-38, "0 Jerusalem, who kills the prophets . . . behold your house is being left to you desolate"; or Lk. 21 :20-22, 23:28-31, 1 Thess. 2115-16. 67. Daniel, pp. 140-141. 68. The AV rendering, "but not for Himself," has rich connotations of vicarious sacrifice and would accord well with the purpose-phrase, "to atone for iniquity"; but from the viewpoint of language, it appears "highly unlikely," ihid., p. 143. Young does, however, develop to some degree the implications of the RV reading by concluding, "He had nothing, nothing but the guilt of the sin of all those for whom He died," p. 207. 69. LOC. cii. 70. In urzd Arorrnd Dunicl, p. 195. 71. P. 988. 72. An abbreviated form of the pole1 participle, 1?7c..sdmP1?1, KB Lexicon, p. 989. 73. Though critics here regularly enlend mes617iFm into sfii?~Pm, "desolator," as well, ICC, p. 388; see note 75 below. 74. Cf. the interchange of these two nouns in 8: 13 and 12: IS. 75. ICC, pp. 386-388. 76. Cambridge Bible, D(11iie1, p. 142. Liberal wr-iters think of Antiochr~s IV's Baal Shamern, "which is commonly pictured on monunients as an eagle," IB, VI:499. Conservatives think naturally of Titus and his troops under their idolatrous standards. Indeed, since our Lord's allusion to Dan. 9:27 in Mk. 13:14 (Mt. 24:15) is paralleled and explained by His words in Lk. 2 1 : 20-"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recog- nize that her desolation is at hand"-"this seems to make it plain that 'the abomination of desolation' refers to the forces gathering for the war that would destroy Jerusalem," Osrin Root, ed., Srrrrrdui.d Bible Corni?~en- terry, Mutthew* (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard, 1967), p. 197. In this case the "holy place" (Mt. 24: 15) occupied by the aboniination wor~ld be the environs of Jerusalem. 77. The point is elaborated by Montgomery, ICC, p. 387. No historical sup- port, however, exists for his attempt then to combine this architectural meaning with the "desolator-approach" to the abominations. The most he can assert is that "We n~uy suppose [italics mine] a heathen image . . . set up by Antiochus upon the gable of the porch of the temple." Such an attempt also fails to meet the conditions of Mk. 13:14, something which Christians could observe, so as to flee Jerusalem before A.D. 70. 78. The word is plural and, therefore, is not necessarily to be identified with one particular item of sacriIege, like Antiochus's profanation in 11 :3 1 and 12:11. 79. Wars, IV, 2, I; 3, 10; cf. Boutflower's discussion and listing of references, In arrd Ai.ound Duniel, pp. 199-202. 80. John F. Walvoord, "Posttsibulationisrn Today," Bibliotl?cca Sacra, 133 (1975), p. 119.