3

How does one understand the 70 week prophecy in Daniel 9? When does the decree to rebuild Jerusalem take place, and how do you interpret the "seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks" from that time until the coming of the "anointed one; a prince"? Is the anointed one/prince the Messiah? If so, does that mean the Messiah is to die (be cut off; and be no more)? And how does one interpret the 70th week in this chapter?

I know it's a lot of questions, but hopefully it can be treated like one big question hehe. If it must be broken down into several smaller questions, please let me know and I can do so.

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
Nick Rolando
  • 375
  • 2
  • 10
  • 2
    Just realized that no one's welcomed you here yet. So welcome to judaism.SE and thank you for this very important question. I hope you gain the insight your looking for and stick around to ask/answer more questions. – jake Jan 13 '12 at 02:29
  • It would good if no one removed their answers once posted. All views, whether right or wrong, will be beneficial for everyone, and I think that's important :) Thx! Also I think it would help with reiterations of answers. – Nick Rolando Jan 13 '12 at 18:52
  • A more specific question (about verse 26 only): http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/40888. A very similar question: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/13392. – msh210 Jul 01 '14 at 05:35
  • Hint : When exactly did Daniel receive the prophecy in question (9:1) ? Could we find out more about the person mentioned there (11:1-4) ? Can we use this information to identify him ? Could we then use his identity to pinpoint the exact year for the prophecy ? What happens when we add seventy weeks of years to that number ? And why are we allowed to do that ? Doesn't that contradict 9:25 ? Hint : see chapters 5 and 6; notice that the name mentioned does not fit the deeds of the one being described. –  Sep 28 '18 at 05:55

4 Answers4

7

I suggest you read the end of this article by R' Yisroel Blumenthal. The content is intended to be anti-missionary, but nonetheless gives the interpretation of Jewish commentators. (Note that rarely is there actual consensus among Jewish commentators to the Bible, especially with interpretations of vague visions such as this one, but in this case the one that is offered is, I think, a common one, and one that has not been proven wrong by the Messiah not arriving at a predicted year.)

Instead of posting the entire thing here, I will respond to your specific questions in light of the interpretation presented there:

  • All "weeks" are periods of seven years. The seventy weeks are divided into the first seven and then the following sixty-two weeks. (Numbers are rounded by week.) Thus, the sixty-two weeks in 9:25 is actually part of the seventy mentioned immediately before it. The first seven "weeks" are from the "going out of the word" of Jeremiah, when he prophecied about the rebuilding of Jerusalem until the reign of Cyrus, when said prophecy was able to be realized. The remaining sixty-two week period is from that point until the second Temple was destroyed, during which the city of Jerusalem was rebuilt (although not to the point of its former glory).
  • The "anointed one" in 9:25 is different from the one in 9:26. The former refers to Cyrus and the latter to the last kohen gadol (high priest) to serve in the second Temple.
  • The last week referred to in 9:27 is the last week of the sixty-two week period mentioned above. The verse describes the events of those seven years.
jake
  • 28,533
  • 2
  • 72
  • 159
  • Note that the word for "week" in Hebrew is not as arbitrary as it is in English. The word shavua relates to a set of seven and is commonly used to refer to a week, but is not limited to such. – YDK Jan 13 '12 at 00:25
  • That can't be right. A prophecy to rebuild the temple is different that an actual decree to rebuild Jerusalem. – Nick Rolando Jan 13 '12 at 00:57
  • @Shredder, Where do you see "decree"? Are you referring to "מֹצָא דָבָר"? If so, it translates something like "going out of the word", which could refer to prophecy just as much (and in my mind more so) than a decree. – jake Jan 13 '12 at 01:44
  • Well, I was referring to this. But then being unsure of its originality/accuracy, I asked this question. Either way, that prophecy is for the rebuilding of the Temple and not the entire city of Jerusalem. – Nick Rolando Jan 13 '12 at 01:50
  • (A) I'm afraid that the translation in your link is biased. This is what I meant when I wrote that translation is a form of interpretation. "Davar" usually means "spoken word" or "thing". The Hebrew word for "command" is more likely "tzivui". (B) I apologize for the confusion. IIRC, Jeremiah's prophecy does indeed refer to the rebuilding of Jerusalem (as it mentions in the article). I will fix that. Either way, often "rebuilding Jerusalem" is a phrase used to mean reconstructing the Temple. – jake Jan 13 '12 at 02:11
  • I agree with you about the link. That's why (in my other question) I'm trying to find an accurate English translation of texts that were written before 1 CE. I feel that translations after 1 CE would be biased. Aside from that, I disagree about rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem. When the Temple was rebuilt, Jerusalem remained desolate and was for a long time. In fact, the Jews didn't return to the temple because of the state the city was in. And since Gabriel says "it shall be built with plaza and moat", he must have been referring to the city. – Nick Rolando Jan 13 '12 at 18:06
  • Ah.. Hmm, seems like the going forth of the word to rebuilt the city can be found in Nehemiah 2:5-8 – Nick Rolando Jan 13 '12 at 19:34
  • Would you agree with my last comment jake? – Nick Rolando Jan 14 '12 at 16:08
  • @Shredder, I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The verses you refer to in Nehemiah are about the "decree" (as you called it earlier) for Jerusalem to be rebuilt, as you noted. But the "going forth of the word" as interpreted in the article I linked you to, is unrelated to that decree. It refers to the prophecy of Jeremiah I mentioned above. Is that unclear? – jake Jan 15 '12 at 02:40
  • @jake No, I got you. I was just saying that it seems like Nehemiah 2:5-8 is the event that Gabriel is referring to. And actually, now that you mention it, those verses do seem more like a going forth of the word rather than a decree. He granted Nehemiah's request to allow him to go to the city and rebuild it, and even wrote letters for him to get past Judah, and for timber to build. It makes a lot more sense than the prophecy of Jeremiah, does it not? – Nick Rolando Jan 16 '12 at 00:00
  • @Shredder, The phrase in question, "the going forth of the word" could mean the allowance to build the Temple like you seem to think, or the prophecy of Jeremiah as in the interpretation I linked to, or it could be referring to something else entirely. As to which "makes the most sense", that is something that relies on context. What events are the verses referring to? This is something over which Jews and Christians differ (and probably even different commentators among both denominations). Therefore, they will read that phrase differently depending on how they understand the context. – jake Jan 16 '12 at 00:53
  • @jake Hi, the link in your answer is leading to a 404 page. Has the article been moved? Is it possible to update? Thank you. – Nick Rolando Jun 19 '17 at 22:31
1

In HeiKhalot Rabbati, R. Ishmael says that the 70 weeks refers to 700 years.

[137] Said Rabbi Ishmael: And even as Daniel explained I found written [Daniel 9.24] “Seventy weeks are decreed upon Thy people and upon Thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Holy of Holies.” And these seventy weeks be a sign for seven hundred years, and when these do come to their end they shall end at even{ing}, and straightway shall come the light, for it is said [Zachariah 14.7] “And it shall come to pass that at evening time there shall be light.”

avi
  • 18,985
  • 1
  • 52
  • 81
1

A very good summary of the Jewish interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 can be found online in 'A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Daniel' pages 396-398: https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic22montuoft. Among the commentators mentioned are Ibn Ezra, Rashi, and Abarbanel. In a nutshell, the seventy weeks are viewed as 490 years and terminate with the destruction of Jerusalem in the last seven years of that period. The 'anointed one' of v. 26 is Agrippa, according to Ibn Ezra and Rashi. (Rashi's commentary is accessible in English translation at 'Tanakh with Rashi' [chabad.org]). Also excellent is the online recent essay by Zalman Kravitz, 'Daniel 9 - A True Biblical Interpretation.' Ditto the YouTube lecture by Rabbi Tovia Singer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzZurwyQHVA, and the one by Rabbi Michael Skobac of Jews for Judaism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAVvbB1Zgeo.

Clifford Durousseau
  • 1,804
  • 10
  • 26
0

A few notes about the Book of Daniel.

  1. In the Jewish tradition, the book of Daniel is in the category known as "writings" and not in the section of "prophets". There are many possible reasons for this, but one of them is that the prophecy of Daniel is not always meant to be understood by every generation.

  2. There is a statement in Jewish thought that when it comes to prophecy of the end times only the generation in which the events happen will know what they truly mean.

  3. It is warned that one should never try to calculate the end times. It's been done many times before, and so far everyone has been proven wrong. Each generation has the potential to be the generation of the Moshiach. Therefore the book of Daniel is a great book for each generation and person to speculate about. Nobody will know what the true meaning of Daniel is until the events pass and become clear to all.

avi
  • 18,985
  • 1
  • 52
  • 81
  • 1
    While it's true that no one can know for sure what the prophecies of Daniel refer to until they are realized, that should not deter anyone from studying and striving to understand all of the Tanach. – jake Jan 13 '12 at 16:57
  • Jewish categorization of God's word has no importance, neither does Jewish thoughts on God's word. Jews are men, and God's word is to be taken for what it is, not what men think it is. I believe the book of Daniel has many amazing prophecies, including what happened to King Neb. and also the hand writing on the wall. You can't deny that those are amazing prophecies, not simple words and writings. Also, I believe all of God's words are meant for the understanding of any given generation. – Nick Rolando Jan 13 '12 at 18:27
  • By King Neb. I mean the one where he is driven to the wilderness. These are prophecies that were fulfilled within the book itself. – Nick Rolando Jan 13 '12 at 18:40
  • @Shredder what makes you think that anything in the book of Daniel is 'God's word'? – avi Jan 14 '12 at 15:48
  • @Jake Yes, I said as much in the third bullet point. – avi Jan 14 '12 at 15:48
  • @avi Anything in the bible is God's word; every chapter of every book. How could you think otherwise? Especially in the book of Daniel, given the prophecies I mentioned that came to pass within the book itself (and there are more than those 2), and all of the other prophecies/visions. Regardless, all scripture is of divine inspiration. – Nick Rolando Jan 14 '12 at 16:06
  • @Shredder Shir Hashirim was almost not put into the Tanach! The Book of Tehilim is clearly not G-d's word either, as they are mostly the poetry of King David to Gd. If the division of the Tanach did not matter, then there would be no divisions! The idea of all the bible being "Gd's word" sounds more like a Christian idea to me. If all of the prophecies were "Gd's word" there would be no need for the Torah to say "Vayomer Hashem", or for the prophecies themselves to say "Ko Amar Hashem". Divine inspiration is a whole other ball of wax. – avi Jan 14 '12 at 16:16
  • Sorry, I don't know what those words mean. Could you explain? And why do you say "G-d", and not "God"? The compilation of the bible in its original form was even a work of God in itself. I'm sure the divisions weren't set in their original compiled forms, and were divided by man. Even poetry (or prayers) to God can be of the Holy Spirit. – Nick Rolando Jan 14 '12 at 16:35
  • Do you think God would allow anything in his bible to not be from him? I don't think so.. – Nick Rolando Jan 14 '12 at 16:43
  • @Shredder You don't know what which words mean? I'll assume you don't know what "Vayomer Hashem" and Ko Amar Hashem mean. The first phrase means "And Gd said", and the second phrase means "Thus said the Gd". I don't write the full name out of my own method of showing respect, and so I can distinguish between Gd which is real, and gods which are imaginary, or a concept of a God which does not exist. – avi Jan 14 '12 at 17:22
  • As to your last question, Do you think Gd would allow anything to happen in the universe which not from Him? As Gd said to Koresh, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." – avi Jan 14 '12 at 17:22
  • Gotchya. I said specifically God's bible. And yes, there is a difference from words God actually said to these people and God using his Holy Spirit to put the words into the author's own writing. – Nick Rolando Jan 15 '12 at 02:36
  • @Shredder Rashi is said to have written with "Ruach Hakodesh", which translates as the Holy Spirit. But you seem to not be concerned with what Rashi says here. – avi Jan 15 '12 at 07:06
  • @avi I don't think what Rashi said made it in the bible. I'm just talking about the bible here friend. – Nick Rolando Jan 16 '12 at 00:07