|
Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks (Dan. 9:24-27) is part of
the division of his book (chapters 7-12) that records visions of
future earthly kingdoms (both human and divine). In the context of
chapter 7, the archangel Gabriel explains to Daniel that seventy
weeks are required to fulfill the petition Daniel has made
concerning the restoration of Israel (vss. 3-19). Daniel's prayer
had been based on his observation (vs. 2) of the seventy years
prophecy in Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10.
Daniel is told of six restoration goals that will be
accomplished during the seventy weeks (vs. 24), which the remainder
of the chapter outlines in events to unfold in Israel's subsequent
history. Dispensationalism joins with most Christian scholarship in
holding that the seventy weeks are to be interpreted as seventy
weeks of years. This resulting period of 490 years (70 x7) is
divided according to the text (vss. 25-27) as periods of seven
weeks (49 years), sixty-two weeks (434 years), and one week (7
years). Dispensationalism is also in agreement with most
evangelical scholarship in interpreting the context of this passage
as messianic, with the coming of Messiah taking place after the
sixty-two weeks (i.e., after the 7 weeks + the 62 weeks = 483
years).
However, Dispensationalism (classical) is distinct in its
interpretation of Daniel's seventieth week (vs. 27) as future.
With Israel's rejection of the Messiah and His death taking place
after the sixty-ninth week (vs. 26), the completion of the six
restoration goals for Israel (vs. 24) are left for the seventieth
week. If the seventieth week immediately succeeds the sixty-ninth
week historically, then the expected restoration must be applied
spiritually to the Church as a new Israel. Because
Dispensationalism adheres to the principle of literal
interpretation and recognizes the scriptural distinction between
God's program for Israel and the Church, it understands the
historical completion of Israel's restoration must take place in a
future week. During this time (as described in vs. 27), there is a
resumption of the messianic program for Israel with the overthrow
of the Antichrist (the apocalyptic prerequisite to the
establishment of the messianic kingdom).
This interpretation requires a prophetic postponement (older
writers referred to this as a "gap" or "parenthesis") between the
events of verses 26 and 27. The revelation of a prophetic
postponement in the fulfillment of the eschatological aspect of the
messianic program is in harmony with numerous passages in the Old
Testament that reveal the two advents of Christ (e.g.. Gen.
49:10-12; Deut. 18:16; 2 Samuel 7:13-16; Isa. 9:1-7; 11:1-2, 11;
52:13-59:17-21; 61:1-11, cf. Lk. 4:16-19; cf. 7:22; Zeph.
2:13-3:20; Zech. 9:9-10; Joel 2:28; cf. Acts 2:17; Mic. 5:2-15;
Psalm 2:7-8, cf. Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; Psalm 22:1-32; Psalm
34:14, 16; Mal. 3:1-3; 4:5-6; 53:10a, 11). Daniel's concern is
with his People (vss. 20, 24; cf. 12:1) and the restoration that
Jeremiah predicted would come after the seventy year exile (Jer.
25:11-12; cf. 2 Chron. 36:21).
Jeremiah's prophecy of restoration (Jer. 30-33), like the
prophecies of Isaiah (Isa. 40-66) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 33-48)
included predictions of both immediate (post-exilic) restoration
and future (eschatological) restoration. The post-exilic prophets
understood this distinction, realizing that though they were
enjoying a restoration under Ezra/Zerubbabel, the complete
national/spiritual restoration had been delayed for the future.
This is seen, for example, in one of the signal events of
restoration - the rebuilding of the Temple (Hag. 2:3-9).
The six restoration goals of Daniel's seventy weeks prophecy
(vs. 24) may have a near fulfillment in the experience of the
Nation (Messiah's redemptive advent), but must wait for its
complete fulfillment in the future (Messiah's restorative advent).
The postponement understood between vss. 26 and 27 is the
consequence of partial and complete fulfillment in the messianic
program. The first phase of the messianic program accomplished
spiritual redemption for ethnic Israel in the first advent of
Christ (Matthew 1:21; cf. Luke 2:11). National rejection of Messiah
(Matt. 23:37, cf. Acts 3:13-15, 17; 4:25-27), while fulfilling the
promise of Gentile inclusion (Acts 15:14-18; Rom. 11:11, 25, 30),
necessitated a second phase of the messianic program to apply
spiritual redemption to Israel nationally (Acts 3:18-21; Rom.
11:26-29, 31) and complete the promise of national restoration
(Matt. 23:39; Acts 1:6-7; 3:22-26; 15:16) which will be fulfilled
at the second advent of Christ (Zech. 12:10-13:2; 14:3-11).
The Dispensational interpretation depends upon the validity of
interpreting the seventieth week eschatologically. This is
justified by the presence of numerous eschatological time markers,
such as qetz (“end”), yashebitim (“cause to
cease”), and kalah (“end”),’ad
(“until”), and necheratzah tittak (“an appointed
end”). These terms indicate that this section belongs to the
same eschatological period, qualified later in Daniel as “the
end-time” (cf. Daniel 12:4, 9, 13). This identification is
enhanced by the presence parallel concepts between the two chapters
(e.g., prayer for understanding, 9:2/ 12:8; desolation of Jewish
people, 9:27/12:7; three and one-half year period, 9:27/12:7, 11;
the abolition of sacrifice, 9:27/12:11; and the abomination of
desolation, 9:27/12:11). Thus, Daniel’s prayer for an end to
exile will be fulfilled in the eschatological age when all of the
elements of his petition will be realized. Further confirmation of
the postponement of the seventieth week and of a parenthetical
period of history involving further exile and persecution for the
Jewish people, is supported by the New Testament's use of the
seventy weeks prophecy. John McLean has demonstrated that the
sequence of events of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew/Mark) and the
judgment section of the Book of Revelation (chs. 4-19) reveal a
structural dependence upon the seventy weeks prophecy.
Bibliography
H. A. Ironsides, The Great Parenthesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1943), Alva J. McClain, “The Parenthesis of Time between the
Sixty-Ninth and Seventieth Weeks,” Daniel’s Prophecy of
the Seventy Weeks (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960),
23-40, William Kelly, Daniel's Seventy Weeks (Colorado: Wilson
Foundation, n.d.), J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in
Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co.,
1971), pp. 239-250, Robert D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days.
Revised ed.(Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 144-169, "Daniel," The
Bible Knowledge Commentary. eds. John Walvoord, Roy Zuck (Wheaton,
Illinois: Victor Books, 1985) 1:1323-1375, John F. Walvoord,
Daniel: The key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press,
1971), pp. 403-440, Frederick Holtzman, "A Re-examination of the
Seventy Weeks of Daniel" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Teheological
Seminary, 1974), Paul D. Feinberg, "An Exegetical and Theological
Study of Daniel 9:24-27," Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor
of Charles Lee Feinberg. eds. John S. and Paul D. Feinberg
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), pp. 189-222, John A. McLean, "The
Seventieth Week of Daniel 9:27 as a Literary Key for Understanding
the Structure of the Apocalypse of John" (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1990), J. Randall Price, "Prophetic
Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts," Issues in
Dispensationalism. eds. W. R. Willis, John R. Master (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1994), pp.132-165
SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL, RABBINIC INTERPRETATION The seventy
weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 was originally regarded by the
rabbis as one of the most important predictive texts in the Bible.
This significance was testified to by the first-century Jewish
historian Flavius Josephus: “He [Daniel] not only predicted
the future, like the other prophets, but specified when the events
would happen” (Antiquities x. 268). The belief that
Daniel’s prophecy provided information as to the precise time
of prediction was no doubt a significant factor in the timing of
the war with Rome in AD 66, since the 70 years of wrath in Daniel
9:3, which figured prominently in the Qumran War Scroll (1QM),
could have been interpreted as the period between the first
outbreak of revolutionary activity in 4 BC (the time of
Herod’s death, and possibly also of Jesus’ birth) and
the final uprising in AD 66.
However, in the earliest versions of the present Hebrew Bible
the Book of Daniel was placed later rabbis in the division known as
the "Writings." This placement removed Daniel from the ranks of the
prophets and reduced his prophecies to the status of pedagogical
stories. Yet, undisputed evidence for Daniel's location within the
Hebrew canon appears to be limited to later Hebrew manuscripts and
to statements that may be traced no further back than the early
rabbinic period. Two of the oldest available manuscripts of the
Hebrew Bible which attest to the present canonical order are Codex
Leningradensis and the Aleppo-Codex which are dated only to the
ninth and tenth-century A.D. The two of the most explicit rabbinic
statements are in the Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra
14b (where Daniel appears before Esther and Ezra), and Megilla 3a
(where Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are called prophets, but are
distinguished from Daniel), are within material composed in the
fifth to eighth centuries A.D.
Earlier Jewish tradition reveals a different rabbinic concept of
Daniel with prophetic status. The oldest manuscript of the Hebrew
Bible, Codex Cairensis (895 A.D..) includes Daniel in its list of
the prophets and a Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek canon list dated
tentatively to the second-century A.D. also list Daniel following
the three major prophets. Furthermore, in all the Jewish sources of
the first century A.D. - the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Josephus, Jesus, and the New Testament writers - Daniel is reckoned
among the prophets. Why, then, did the later rabbis exclude Daniel
from the prophetic corpus?
The evidence of Daniel's prophetic influence upon the religious
and political events of earlier periods indicates that the Book
could have dangerous effects. The Zealots considered Daniel an
important prophetic voice, whose visions held the key to the
interpretation of world events, especially concerning the Romans.
Josephus referred to one such prediction (probably the seventy
weeks prophecy) in Jewish War (VI) which the Zealots relied upon to
instigate and support the first (and possibly second) revolt(s)
against Rome. This trend was also followed by first and
second-century rabbis. The fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.., and the
events subsequent to it, had confirmed to these rabbis (as it had
to the early Jewish-Christians and Church Fathers), that the
interpretation of the fourth monarchy in Daniel 2 and 7 as the
Roman empire was correct. Therefore, Daniel's prophetic timetable
was accurate as his book alone contained the key for the
destruction of the Second Temple and of Israel's future
restoration after a further exile (the seventy weeks prophecy). So
influential was Daniel in this regard that Targum Jonathan on the
Prophets (c. 50-1 B.C.), reveals that all of the prophets were
interpreted along the lines set out in Daniel to calculate the
end-time.
This use and influence of Daniel as predictive prophecy led the
rabbis to regard Daniel as a dangerous book, since the application
of an apocalyptic timetable to contemporary events had brought both
disappointment and decline to the Nation. By separating it from
classical prophecy and grouping it with other narratives of the
Exile (e.g., Esther and Ezra), it was removed from exerting a
paradigmatic influence on the prophetic corpus. Once it was
incorporated among the heroes of the Exile, the accent of the book
from was shifted from prophecy to pedagogy. Perhaps fear of
Daniel's eschatological influence also led the rabbis to allow an
allegorical interpretation of the Prophets and the Writings; an
allowance never permitted for the Torah. By permitting the
prophecies to be allegorized, the problems of literal
interpretation (and application) could be avoided.
With regards the interpretation of the seventy weeks prophecy,
the rabbis interpreted the weeks as "weeks of years" and saw it as
having prophesied the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. The
seventieth week is not entirely included in that event. Because it
predicts the destruction of the Romans, its final statement is
retained as a future event. The Jewish chronological record of
Rabbi Jose known as the Seder Olam Rabbah preserves the oldest
rabbinic tradition for interpreting the seventy weeks. In chapter
28 of this work the first seven weeks are related to the exile and
return, the next sixty-two weeks are in the Land, and the final
week predicts a period partially spent in the Land and partially
spent in exile. In this case, the seventieth week could include
events that occurred after A.D. 70.
According to Abarbanel, the condition of Israelite punishment in
exile required the 490 years of this prophecy to complete the sins
committed in addition to the violation of the sabbatical law (cf. 2
Chron. 36:21). Other Jewish commentators such as Rashi and
Metzudos, held that this referred to a period following the 490
years (which they believed ended with the destruction of the Second
Temple), “the last exile whose purpose it will be to
terminate [i.e., to atone for] transgression of the Jewish Nation.
Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm summarizing their views observes: "Thus,
seventy weeks have been decreed upon your people and your city [for
relative well-being] after which the Jews will receive the
remainder of their punishment in the last exile whose purpose will
be to terminate [i.e., atone for] transgression. One reason for
this interpretation is because these commentators believed that
Jewish suffering would atone for their transgression. Abarbanel
noted that the return to Jerusalem and even the rebuilding of the
Second Temple did not bring the expected redemption nor atone for
past sins, since it was itself a part of the exile and atonement.
He held that the real and complete redemption was still far off in
history, awaiting fulfillment according to Daniel’s
prophecy.
The seventieth week (vs. 27) was not included in the sixty-two
of vs. 26, according to Ibn Ezra. He thought it was not counted
because of the turmoil and unrest preceding the destruction during
which an anointed was killed. He arrived at seventy weeks by adding
the seven weeks of verse 25 to the sixty-two of verse 26. This may
indicate his difficulty in reconciling verse 27 with verse 26.
Rashi has no difficulty identifying the "the people of the Prince
that shall come" as the Romans (i.e., the legions of Vespasian and
Titus). Both Rashi and Rambam are examples of those who ascribe the
breaking of the covenant (with the Jewish rulers ["great ones"]
rather than "many") to a broken promise of the Romans. However,
none of the Sages who hold this opinion provide any historical
source in support. The Jerusalem Talmud (Taanis 4:5) apparently
attempts to connects this with the Romans substituting a pigs for
the agreed lambs for the daily sacrifice. It states that at that
very hour the sacrifices were stopped and the Temple was destroyed
immediately after. Some rabbis believed that the abomination that
makes desolate (vs. 27) referred to Hadrian's erection of a pagan
temple on the site of the Jewish Temple after the Bar-Kokbha war
(Rashi). As regards the Temple, some rabbinic interpreters (cf.
Malbim) referred the last of the restoration goals of Dan. 9:24:
"to anoint the most Holy [Place]" to the Third Temple, sinceTosefta
Sotah 13:2 records that the Second Temple had not been anointed.
The Sages also considered this anointing of the Holy Place to take
place in relation to the restoration of the Shekinah and the Temple
vessels. Mishnah tractate Yoma 21b recorded that the Ark of the
Covenant with the Tablets of the Law, the altars, and the holy
vessels were not in the Second Temple. These were to be revealed
through the Messianic King at the time He would build and anoint
the Third Temple (cf. Zech. 6:12-13).
Earlier rabbis apparently had understood the term mashiach in
verse 25 literally as the Messiah. However, later rabbis (Rashi,
Yossipon, ch. 47) interpreted the term figuratively as "one who is
anointed" [with oil], "an anointed ruler." Thus, no historical
figure could be precisely determined and the rabbis offered various
candidates: Cyrus, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, a High Priest (e.g.
Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak) or a descendant of Herod (Agrippa II).
Nevertheless, it was Rashi's opinion that the destruction of the
desolator at the end of the seventieth week was expected to be the
promised "King Messiah," who would wage the final wars and the war
of Gog and Magog. This accords with the futurist perspective of
almost all of the rabbinic commentators that the redemption
depicted for the seventy weeks was yet to be realized.
Bibliography
Jerusalem Talmud 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Kol Hazuyot Semurot mephali
Yitzur vehutzah l'or, n.d.) [Hebrew], Babylonian Talmud 2 vols.
(Brooklyn, New York: Vaad Hotzuas Sifrei Zupnik, 1976), [Hebrew],
Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Trans. H. St. J. Thackery
andJewish Wars. Trans. H. St. J. Thackery, Ralph Marcus, Allen
Wilgren, L.H. Feldman. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1930-65), Philip Blackman, Mishnayot 6
vols. (New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1964), Pinkhos Churgin,
Targum Jonathan to the Prophets . The Library of Biblical Studies.
ed. Harry M. Orlinsky (New York and Baltimore: KTAV Publishing
House, Inc., 1983), R' Sh'muel Masnuth, Midrash Daniel
(Jerusalem: I. S. Lange & S. Schwartz, 1968) [Hebrew], R'
Avraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra, Perush HaKatzer (Commentary on Daniel),
London: 1887 [Hebrew], R' Solomon ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary
to the Bible (Jerusalem, 1956) [Hebrew], R' Yitzchak Abarbanel,
Mayenei HaYeshuah (Commentary on Daniel) [Hebrew], K.J. Cathcart
and R.P. Gordom, The Targum of the Minor Prophets. The Aramaic
Bible 14 (Liturgical Press, 1989), R' Saadiah ben Nachmani
(compiler), R' Saadiah (ben Yosef) Gaon's Commentary on the Bible
[Hebrew], for the English reader: Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm, Daniel: A
New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic,
Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. The Artscroll Tanach Series. eds.
R. Nosson Scherman, Meir Zlotowitz (New York: Mesorah Publications,
Ltd., 1989), George W. Buchanan, Revelation and Redemption: Jewish
Documents of Deliverance from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Death of
Nachmanides (Dillsboro, North Carolina: Western North Carolina
Press, 1978).
DANIEL'S SEVENTY WEEKS, AMILLENNIAL INTERPRETATION The
historical and theological developments which produced the
amillennial interpretation of Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy
(Dan. 9:24-27) were the result of direct opposition to
premillennialism which was considered Judaistic. The New Testament,
early Jewish-Christian, and Patristic evidence supports
premillennialism as the dominant eschatological view up until the
third-century A.D. In the controversy over chiasm, the hermeneutic
of the Alexandrian school (followed by Augustine and consequently
the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformed churches, and
modern amillennialism), which was a non-literal, allegorical
hermeneutic, was applied to the Seventy Weeks prophecy to prove the
political and spiritual program for the Jewish People had ended
with the first advent of Christ and had been replaced by the
Church. While adopting an historicist approach, the
amillennialists' spiritual hermeneutic permits only a subjective
application of events which in turn invites a broad spectrum of
interpretation. This is particularly problematic for their
interpretation of the seventieth week where the events do not fit
with any known history (see traditional versus symbolic schools,
below).
For the amillennialist, the focus of the Seventy Weeks passage
is wholly christological. The six infinitives of verse 24 that form
the purpose of the prophecy and establish its terminus ad quem
(conclusion), are viewed as completed by Christ. The traditional
school of amillennialism sees this completion having taken place in
the seventieth week, which followed consecutively (and
historically) after the sixty-nine weeks. Christological
fulfillment occurred within the ministry of Christ or, at the
latest, the time of the first preaching of the Gospel to the
Gentiles (i.e., Pentecost). The symbolic school, however, extends
final fulfillment to an indefinite period, which includes the
Second Advent and eternal state. In this case, the six statements
represent the successive stages in the history of Christ's
Kingdom. In like manner, the last of the six prophetic goals: "to
anoint the most holy [one]," is taken either as Christ's own
anointing by the Spirit (traditional school), or of the
eschatological anointing of the new holy of holies (= Christ) in
the New [heavenly] Jerusalem (symbolic school). While some
amillennialists follow premillennialists in attempting to determine
historical dates for the terminus a quo (commencement) and terminus
ad quem (conclusion) of the 490 years (vs. 25), other
amillennialists have concluded that the figure of 490 is only
symbolic (7x7).
Amillennialists and premillennialists agree on the messianic
interpretation of the "anointed prince" (vs. 25) as Jesus the
Messiah, however, the reference to his being "cut off and having
nothing" (vs. 26) is variously interpreted to apply to Jesus'
death (traditional school) or Jesus' influence and prestige as
Messiah (symbolic school). Most in the traditional school support
their interpretation that Messiah was "cut off" in the middle of
the seventieth week, by identifying "the prince who is to come"
(vs. 26) with the one whose activity is described (the "he" of vs.
27) as occurring in "the middle of the week," with Christ. On this
basis, the "firm covenant" that this "prince" makes with "the many"
is interpreted as the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-37) which Christ
made with the Church. In this view the "the city" and "the
sanctuary" are interpreted literally as Jerusalem and the Temple,
while the destruction wrought by "the prince" is applied
non-literally to Christ's "pronouncements of destruction."
However, while E.J. Young agrees that the "he" of verse 27 refers
to Christ, he identifies the "prince that shall come" with Titus,
the commander of the Roman forces in A.D. 68-70 who destroyed
Jerusalem. In a drammatic departure from the traditional school,
the symbolic school approximates the view of premillennialism and
identifies "the prince that shall come" with the Antichrist and the
"firm covenant" as one made in imitation of Christ and imposed on
the masses (H.C. Leupold), or made to deceive people to follow him
as God (C.F. Keil), but in any case is a covenant of terror and
violence.
The difficulty with interpreting Christ's being "cut off' in
the middle of the seventieth week again is present in the problem
of resolving the statement of cessation of sacrifice and oblation
as having occurred at this time. Recognizing that these sacrifices
did not immediately stop with the death of Christ, but continued
another forty years, amillennialists apply the meaning spiritually
to either the "rending of the veil" in the Temple or the beginning
of the preaching of the Gospel, both of which (in their view)
delegitimized the sacrificial system. Thus, according to Young, at
Christ's death Jerusalem "ceased to be a holy city" and its Temple
was "no longer the house of God, but an abomination," while the
actual destruction of both was "but the outward manifestation of
what had already been put into effect by our Lord's death"
(Daniel, 217-218). The New Testament, however, depicts a continued
reverence for Jerusalem during the apostolic period as the center
for the mother church (Acts 1:8; 15; Gal. 1:18-2:2) and the Temple
as a place for Christian meeting (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:12-13), ritual
festival observance (Acts 2:1; 20:6), and even worship (Acts 18:18;
21:23-26; 22:17; 24:11, 17-18). Amillennialists generally conclude
that while the terminus ad quem of the sixty-nine weeks is Christ,
the terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks is unstated in the text.
However, the destruction of the desolator at the conclusion of
verse 27 is stated as the event that terminates the desolations of
the last half of the seventieth week, apparently concluding the
week itself. Again, the amillennial interpretation has difficulty
reconcilling this event with historical events, For this reason,
Young (traditional school) advises against an emphasis on dates,
while Leupold (symbolic school) abandons any historic fulfillment
to the sevenieth week.
Bibliography
Michael Kalafian, The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of the Book
of Daniel: A Critical Review of the Prophecy as Viewed by Three
Major Theological Interpretations and the Impact of the Book of
Daniel on Christology (New York: University of America Press, Inc.,
1991), pp. 107-136, J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical
Prophecy (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973), pp.
383-388, Charles L. Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism?
(Wheaton, Illinois: Van Kampen Press, 1954), John F. Walvoord, The
Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1959), Abraham Kuyper,
Chiliasm or the Doctrine of Premillennialism (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1934), C.F. Keil, Biblical Commentary
on the Book of Daniel. Trans. M.G. Easton in A Commentary on the
Old Testament 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1973), 9:336-402, Edward J. Young, The Prophecies of Daniel: A
Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949), pp. 191-222, The
Messianic Prophecies of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1954), Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the
great Tribulation. Revised ed. (Swengel, Pennsylvania: Reiner
Publications, n.d.), H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), pp. 403-440, Oswalt T. Allis,
Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1949).
|
