Eschatology Q & A -- What About the Remaining 3 1/2 Years in Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks?
Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 11:53AM 
Joel Asks (Sept 2006):
“What is the most logical method of interpreting the final 3 1/2 days of Daniel's prophecy of 70 weeks. I see the messianic fulfillment and how the one who confirms a covenant is Christ, not an anti-Christ figure, but still have difficulty with the last 3 1/2 `days.’ While the previous 69.5 weeks can reasonably interpreted as years, it seems like most interpretations end up extending the time period indefinitely or imposing a gap between the first and second halves of the `week.’”
Joel:
This is a question that troubled me for some time as I was working my way from premillennialism toward amillennialism. When I read Meredith Kline’s essay (“The Covenant of the Seventy Weeks”-- Click here: Covenant_70th_Week) all of a sudden the answer hit me--and it had been right in front of me the whole time. In the ninth chapter of Daniel's prophecy, not only was Daniel talking about the Messiah and not an Antichrist (based upon the glorious things that are to be accomplished by the Messiah before end of the 70 weeks–see Daniel 9:24), but in the Book of Revelation, John actually tells us what happens during the last 3 ½ years of Daniel’s 70th week! It is a time of tribulation for the people of God.
In Revelation 12:14, John speaks of a “time, and times, and half a time.” The same time reference also appears in Revelation 11:1-2 and 13:5-6 (forty-two months). Obviously, this is figurative language depicting the fulfillment of that eschatological time of tribulation predicted by Daniel and left open-ended in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks. Kline argues that this is the period of time of the church in the wilderness (“The Covenant of the Seventy Weeks,” 469). Likewise, Beale holds that these references are based upon the eschatological period of tribulation foretold by Daniel not only in Daniel 9:27, but throughout his entire prophecy (Beale, The Book of Revelation, 565).
In Revelation 11, the forty-two months are connected to Elijah’s ministry of judgment, and to Israel’s time in the wilderness (which included forty-two campsites), and which may have entailed forty-two years in the wilderness-- if Israel came under God’s judgment after spending an initial two years in the wilderness before coming under curse.
Therefore, Daniel is predicting a time of tribulation for the people of God after the Messiah comes, but before the last Jubilee (since the seventy-sevens of Daniel’s prophecy are ten Jubilee eras–see Kline’s essay, where he argue for this point). As we see in Revelation 12:5-6, John tells us that this three and a half “years” of tribulation are inaugurated at Christ’s resurrection and will be consummated at his second coming (Beale, Revelation, 567). When we notice that Christ’s own public ministry lasted three and one-half years, the image should be pretty clear--it applies to the entire church age.
While dispensationalists have a fit with this "non-literal" interpretation, it is John himself who tells us that the final 3 ½ years of Daniel’s prophecy anticipates the entire period of time between Christ’s first advent (his death and resurrection) and his second advent (in which the final trumpet announces that the earth is redeemed and all of God’s people are forever freed from the guilt and power of sin).
The way we interpret this 3 1/2 weeks is a great example of the hermeneutical difference between Reformed amillennialism and dispensationalism. As we Reformed amillennarians see it, the New Testament (especially in a vision given by John in which he proclaims to the church the contents of the scroll which Daniel was told to seal until the time of the end), ultimately interprets for us what Daniel was prophesying. In other words, the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. The bottom line is that in Revelation 11-13, John tells us what those remaining three and a half years of Daniel's prophecy really mean. Thus, we are not left in the dark about what this means, and we have in Daniel 9:24-27 a glorious messianic prophecy centering upon the active and passive obedience of Christ (v. 24).
Reader Comments (9)
the "strong covenant with many" is for the whole final week, isn't it? And isn't the Messiah "cut off" (crucified) before the week starts?
I didn't re-read Kline on this but I thought that he argued that the first three-and-a-half took us up to the destruction of the temple and was the period of "overlap" while the second three-and-a-half was from the destruction of the temple to the consummation.
I have more - but it will have to wait. Good answer though.
BUT
The idea of the cessation of sacrifices in Daniel appears 5 times. In 4 out of 5 cases the references seems to be to Antiochus or the Antichrist.
(Daniel 7:25) "He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times [of sacrifices] and the laws [of temple observances]. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time."
(Daniel 8:11-14) "It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. … "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled--the vision concerning the [removal of the] daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
(Daniel 11:31-32) ""His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him."
(Daniel 12:11) ""From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
In these 4 passages above the reference is always to sacrifices ceasing due to the sinful action of Antiochus/Antichrist.
Within the context of Daniel doesn't it make more sense to interpret Daniel 9:27 as also describing the cessation of sacrifice to the same negative cause i.e. an Antiochus/Antichrist figure rather than to the positive action of Jesus?
I've maintained for a while now that the whole final "week" is the time period between the cross and the consummation. I believe that the final three-and-a-half frame of Daniel's final week corresponds to Satan's short season of Revelation 20 (a time where Satan will be allowed to deceive the nations). I also believe that this corresponds to the time in Revelation 11 where the two witnesses lie dead in the streets. Remember, the two witnesses carry out their ministry for a three-and-a-half frame before they were silenced and appeared dead for a three-and-a-half frame.
So the "end of sacrifice and offering" in the middle of the final week, in my opinion, is the loosing of Satan and the silencing of the two witnesses (the Church).
Adam's question is one that I've had also. The 70th week seems to be a messianic prophecy at first, but when compared to the rest of Daniel, it seems inconsistant. What are your thoughts on that?
Can anyone show that Daniel was not talking about that Roman empire that followed the third beast (Greece)?
I DO think Beale and Kim get it right on John taking up Second Temple apocalyptic expectations, framing Christ as the solution for the lack of resolution at the close of Daniel's weeks prophecy.
Key to Daniel 9 is seeing it's Antiochene and Second Temple context. Seeing Daniel 9 divorced from chapters 7,8, and 10-12 is an enduring "scandal of the evangelical mind", and the classic arguments for its Christ-centric fulfillemnt (assumed by Kline) of the likes of Young and Hengstenberg fall short.
Collin's commentary remains unrivaled, in my opinion. I've no objection to the Kim's interpretation of John.
James