Okay, I'm hoping that I can find someone on this forum who has some degree of biblical/historical insight, and who can help me to understand something without getting into an argument over biblical interpretation.
Over the past few years, I've been visiting a local synagogue to better understand the bible from a different perspective than I got growing up in a Christian household. It's been very educational, and many times I've learned things that I would never have been exposed to otherwise. Typically, a synagogue will have a yearly reading program that goes through the five books of Moses, Genesis through Deuteronomy, only this particular synagogue didn't stop with Deuteronomy one year. They kept going, and read through the entire Old Testament.
When we got to the book of Daniel, the rabbi shared a view on the four beasts of Daniel 7 that I'd never heard before. I'm sure most biblical scholars among you are familiar with equating the four beasts with Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, right? Well, according to this rabbi, the typical Jewish interpretation is to equate them with Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.
See the Wikipedia entry for Daniel 7 for more on this.
Now, their reasoning is that the book of Daniel was written during the time of the Maccabees, around the time that the events foretold in chapter 11 would have happened. From their vantage point, I suppose that makes sense, since as a Reform synagogue they don't believe in the "miracle" of actual prophecy (and having Daniel actually written when it claimed to have been written). However, as I thought about it, I wondered if there were something more to the idea, even if Daniel *was* written during the Babylonian captivity.
In looking at the structure of Daniel, Daniel 2 gives a broad overview of history leading up to the establishment of the kingdom of God. Daniel 7 does the same, except it gets a bit more specific on the preceding kingdoms. Daniel 8 narrows the focus down to two of those kingdoms and names them. Daniel 9 gives the famous 70 weeks' prophecy (which I'll come back to in a moment). Then Daniel 11 narrows the focus even further and digs down into the kings of Greece.
When I first studied this many years ago, I made the assumption along with most Christians that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 was Rome, and that although the focus eventually narrowed down to a preceding kingdom, Rome was mentioned since it was in control over Jerusalem up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. However, thinking about this alternate arrangement, it seems to make more sense since the gradual emphasis, as one progresses through Daniel, seems to focus in on the very last kingdom in the series, immediately prior to the establishment of the kingdom of God. That very last kingdom would consistently be *Greece* instead of being Rome once in Daniel 7.
By the way, I don't see any issue with Daniel 12:1 skipping to the end of history and the resurrection of the dead. It's simply the style of how Daniel was written.
But, I still saw a couple of issues with the interpretation of every prophetic chapter highlighting a time period during the kingdom of Greece in some fashion. Although Daniel 9's 70 weeks prophecy could make sense as referring to the establishment and then the later death of a ruler over Judea (with the high priest being the most likely ruler in question), the count doesn't seem to start or end up anywhere meaningful. The rabbi said that's because Daniel was written in the time of the Maccabees and it didn't *have* to end up anywhere meaningful, because it was written before that count of years ended.
Basically, this was the time sequence, according to his explanation:
Dan 9:2 - Daniel studies and understands Jeremiah's 70 years prophecy concerning the Babylonian exile. This period of 70 years would end that year, the first year of Darius the Mede, or 538 BC. (The 70 years began in 607 BCE, with the beginning of the destruction of the nations, plural, surrounding Jerusalem. See Jer. 25:9-12.)
Dan 9:24 - the angel reinterprets the 70 years to be seventy weeks of years, by changing just a few letters in the term. (The rabbi explained this pretty well, but I'm not that good with Hebrew.) He does this because Judah hasn't been restored back to the land yet. Remember, Daniel is praying *while the Jews are still in Babylon*.
Dan 9:25 - "Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem until the coming of the anointed ruler shall be seven weeks. For sixty-two weeks, the city will be rebuilt, street and moat, in troubled times." This reads a little differently than it does in most translations because the Jews put the comma in a different place.
Anyone have an idea on how to count this properly? I'm assuming that it does NOT point to Jesus' death and crucifixion, at least not directly, as the entire context of Daniel seems to point to the time period of the Maccabees as when things were fulfilled.
Things I've tried so far:
489 BC + (62 * 7) years = about 55 BC. Rome invaded Judea in 63 BC, so this doesn't quite fit with that. In 55 BC, John Hyrcanus II was high priest.
Yes, I know I'm glossing over the difference between the Hebrew lunar calendar and the Julian/Gregorian solar calendar, but after a 19 year time cycle, generally the two calendars are still in sync to a very high degree of accuracy. So the counts may be off by a year or so, but not off by much more than that. (I actually read up on how the Hebrew calendar is calculated, so trust me on this one.)
Is there anyone on this forum who is open-minded enough NOT to insist that Daniel 9 *only* be referring to Jesus' crucifixion, and who might have insight into the original meaning of this 70 weeks count? The way it's worded, it begins with a decree to restore Jerusalem, goes 49 years and reaches an "anointed ruler," and goes another (62 * 7) years and then has the legitimate ruler over Jerusalem "cut off," after which the city and sanctuary are destroyed.
I suppose the count could simply be symbolic, or applicable to the end time instead. Thoughts?
Damon
Over the past few years, I've been visiting a local synagogue to better understand the bible from a different perspective than I got growing up in a Christian household. It's been very educational, and many times I've learned things that I would never have been exposed to otherwise. Typically, a synagogue will have a yearly reading program that goes through the five books of Moses, Genesis through Deuteronomy, only this particular synagogue didn't stop with Deuteronomy one year. They kept going, and read through the entire Old Testament.
When we got to the book of Daniel, the rabbi shared a view on the four beasts of Daniel 7 that I'd never heard before. I'm sure most biblical scholars among you are familiar with equating the four beasts with Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, right? Well, according to this rabbi, the typical Jewish interpretation is to equate them with Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece.
See the Wikipedia entry for Daniel 7 for more on this.
Now, their reasoning is that the book of Daniel was written during the time of the Maccabees, around the time that the events foretold in chapter 11 would have happened. From their vantage point, I suppose that makes sense, since as a Reform synagogue they don't believe in the "miracle" of actual prophecy (and having Daniel actually written when it claimed to have been written). However, as I thought about it, I wondered if there were something more to the idea, even if Daniel *was* written during the Babylonian captivity.
In looking at the structure of Daniel, Daniel 2 gives a broad overview of history leading up to the establishment of the kingdom of God. Daniel 7 does the same, except it gets a bit more specific on the preceding kingdoms. Daniel 8 narrows the focus down to two of those kingdoms and names them. Daniel 9 gives the famous 70 weeks' prophecy (which I'll come back to in a moment). Then Daniel 11 narrows the focus even further and digs down into the kings of Greece.
When I first studied this many years ago, I made the assumption along with most Christians that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 was Rome, and that although the focus eventually narrowed down to a preceding kingdom, Rome was mentioned since it was in control over Jerusalem up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. However, thinking about this alternate arrangement, it seems to make more sense since the gradual emphasis, as one progresses through Daniel, seems to focus in on the very last kingdom in the series, immediately prior to the establishment of the kingdom of God. That very last kingdom would consistently be *Greece* instead of being Rome once in Daniel 7.
By the way, I don't see any issue with Daniel 12:1 skipping to the end of history and the resurrection of the dead. It's simply the style of how Daniel was written.
But, I still saw a couple of issues with the interpretation of every prophetic chapter highlighting a time period during the kingdom of Greece in some fashion. Although Daniel 9's 70 weeks prophecy could make sense as referring to the establishment and then the later death of a ruler over Judea (with the high priest being the most likely ruler in question), the count doesn't seem to start or end up anywhere meaningful. The rabbi said that's because Daniel was written in the time of the Maccabees and it didn't *have* to end up anywhere meaningful, because it was written before that count of years ended.
Basically, this was the time sequence, according to his explanation:
Dan 9:2 - Daniel studies and understands Jeremiah's 70 years prophecy concerning the Babylonian exile. This period of 70 years would end that year, the first year of Darius the Mede, or 538 BC. (The 70 years began in 607 BCE, with the beginning of the destruction of the nations, plural, surrounding Jerusalem. See Jer. 25:9-12.)
Dan 9:24 - the angel reinterprets the 70 years to be seventy weeks of years, by changing just a few letters in the term. (The rabbi explained this pretty well, but I'm not that good with Hebrew.) He does this because Judah hasn't been restored back to the land yet. Remember, Daniel is praying *while the Jews are still in Babylon*.
Dan 9:25 - "Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem until the coming of the anointed ruler shall be seven weeks. For sixty-two weeks, the city will be rebuilt, street and moat, in troubled times." This reads a little differently than it does in most translations because the Jews put the comma in a different place.
Anyone have an idea on how to count this properly? I'm assuming that it does NOT point to Jesus' death and crucifixion, at least not directly, as the entire context of Daniel seems to point to the time period of the Maccabees as when things were fulfilled.
Things I've tried so far:
- 586 BC + 49 years = about 537 BC, which wouldn't exactly fit the beginning of Joshua's term as high priest. Technically it *would* fit Cyrus as the "anointed ruler" (see Isa. 44:28-45:1). On the other hand, does 586 BC really count as beginning the "decree to restore and build Jerusalem"? It seems like Cyrus is the one who utters the decree, rather than being the "anointed ruler" who fulfills it 49 years later.
- 607 + 49 years = 558 BC, still in the middle of the Babylonian exile. Could this be referring to the year Joshua the high priest was born? But here again, does 607 BC really count as beginning the "decree to restore and build Jerusalem"?
- 515 BC - 49 years = 564 BC. Backtracking 49 years from when Joshua's term as high priest really did start brings us to 564 BC, once again in the middle of the Babylonian captivity. This has the same issue as above.
- 538 BC + 49 years = about 489 BC, when Joshua's term as high priest *ended* and Joiakim's began. Hrmm...doesn't exactly make sense, but of all of these rather poor fits, this one seems to have the least problems. I suppose it could also be a king of Persia who fulfills this instead, but the reigns don't match up. Darius the Great ruled from 522 BC to 486 BC, according to Wikipedia, and he was the one who authorized the rebuilding of the temple. So the count should've ended in 522 BC, or perhaps a year later when Darius decreed the restoration of the Temple. Or four years after that, when the Temple was finally finished and "anointed". But no matter which way it's counted, the count doesn't quite match up.
489 BC + (62 * 7) years = about 55 BC. Rome invaded Judea in 63 BC, so this doesn't quite fit with that. In 55 BC, John Hyrcanus II was high priest.
Yes, I know I'm glossing over the difference between the Hebrew lunar calendar and the Julian/Gregorian solar calendar, but after a 19 year time cycle, generally the two calendars are still in sync to a very high degree of accuracy. So the counts may be off by a year or so, but not off by much more than that. (I actually read up on how the Hebrew calendar is calculated, so trust me on this one.)
Is there anyone on this forum who is open-minded enough NOT to insist that Daniel 9 *only* be referring to Jesus' crucifixion, and who might have insight into the original meaning of this 70 weeks count? The way it's worded, it begins with a decree to restore Jerusalem, goes 49 years and reaches an "anointed ruler," and goes another (62 * 7) years and then has the legitimate ruler over Jerusalem "cut off," after which the city and sanctuary are destroyed.
I suppose the count could simply be symbolic, or applicable to the end time instead. Thoughts?
Damon
