Premillennialism is a popular framework of biblical interpretation that some believe correctly predicts key events of the last days. It incorporates a lot of bible passages and to the mind wrongly, or insufficiently trained in the bible, can sound very learned, exciting, and correct. I spent my early Christian years in such theology, took college level classes, and did extensive reading in this system. As I grew in the Scriptures, I found the system to be misleading in its claims and erroneous in its interpretation of the Bible. Some years back, I identified four main pillars, if you will, that support the overall prophetic framework of Premillennialism. These four faulty claims fail to provide adequate Scriptural support for the belief system established upon them. One of the four pillars is the claim that Daniel 9:27 predicts a secular treaty, perhaps to establish peace in the region, to allow the Jewish Temple to be rebuilt, likely amid Islamic opposition. Other predictions are built upon this. But how strong is the biblical basis for this secular treaty?
First, the verses, here in the English Standard Version. Other versions may be used with the same essential results.
Daniel 9:24-27 [Note: “Seventy weeks in Hebrew is literally “seventy sevens”]
24Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and a moat, but in troubled time. 26And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put and end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.
Daniel 9:27 does not specify the nature of the “covenant with many.” Popular prophecy proponents loudly insist that the “Antichrist” of the last days must make a 7-year secular treaty with Israel and her neighboring enemies. It is also integral to their comprehensive claims about the last days. This treaty, which begins in close connection to a “rapture” of Christians, also a “pillar” of highly questionable strength, purportedly allows a future Jewish temple to be rebuilt, is to be broken in the middle of the 7 years and then begin the most terrible times of the “tribulation” period. Might another, more important “covenant with many” better fit into the Bible’s central theme of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen? And how does the Bible language itself speak of human treaties?
A few questions to clarify the matter.
- In addition to arbitrarily inserting a huge time “gap” between the 69th and 70th “week” above, popular prophecy requires that the “covenant with many” be a secular treaty negotiated by the end time “Antichrist” world leader, which transports v. 27 far into the future. Does the passage itself establish a “secular” treaty? The answer is no. This information must be imposed upon the verse.
- Does the text actually say anything whatsoever about a rebuilt Jewish temple? No. This information must be imposed upon the verse. That the temple exists at the time of the fulfillment is a reasonable conclusion, but nothing about a rebuilt one is found in the verses themselves. Assumptions provide the need for a rebuilt temple, not the text.
- Does the text tell us that there will be a long (2000+ years now) time period (a.k.a. “prophetic parenthesis”) between the 69th and 70th week of verses 26 and 27? Answer: No. While the weeks are defined by events, no time between the divisions is actually indicated in the text itself. That belief must be inserted into the words of the passage.
- How often in human history have “peace treaties” established only a 7-year time span? Or any other short-term time limitation? Answer: Rare, at the best. I cannot find any example in history of a major treaty having such time limitation. If we were expected to understand, that is, to interpret these words to mean what they do not say, that a limited, secular peace treaty is predicted, it seems that, without clear words to establish it, such a concept should be familiar to men, not a unique event in secular governance.
- Is there any textual reason in this passage that the “he” of verse 27 must refer to an antichrist of the far future? Might it not refer to the prince who is “cut off”? Answer: In Hebrew, and especially in the often non-linear realm of prophetic verses, it can.
Now for the really vital question. How is “covenant” (berith) used in the Old Testament and elsewhere in Daniel? Consider the following:
As mentioned before, any honorable version or concordance may be consulted since the Hebrew Masorete text is the primary source for most translations. The Greek Septuagint stands in agreement. Some variation in the following tallies may be found or argued, but the final result will still confirm the same conclusion regarding the biblical use of berith.
According to Young’s Analytical Concordance, King James Version:
There are 252 occurrences of berith aside from Daniel 9:27
230 times it is used of God’s unilateral covenant or a covenant with God (About 91.3% of the time.)
Berith is used 18 times for non-treaty agreements as follows:
6 times regarding a “commission” of officers in Israel’s army
4 times for agreements between individuals
3 times in comparing human agreement with God’s covenant
2 times in reference to a King of Israel decreeing the freedom of slaves
1 time regarding a trade agreement
1 time for human marriage covenant
1 time with Job making covenant with his eyes to not look lustfully
1 time with Zedekiah making a covenant with the people to set their slaves free
In the above 18 times berith is used for a treaty not established by God, the nature of the treaty and the parties affected are clearly recorded in the context. In other words, in every Scriptural occurrence of human or civic treaties/covenants recorded outside Daniel 9:27, the involved parties are specifically identified.
Further: There are only five times that berith concerns nation-like treaties (usually translated as “league” in the KJV).
Once, in regard to a mutual non-aggression pact (Ge. 26:28).
In 1 Ki. 20:34, berith is used twice regarding the same treaty-like agreement between kings.
Once regarding a foreign nation in brotherly agreement with Israel. (1 Kings 5:12)
A wicked covenant of the northern kingdom with Assyria (Hosea 12:1)
In the four above occasions berith is used for a peace/alliance treaty, the identity of both parties are clearly recorded. No identities are given in Daniel 9:27. In addition, all other references in Daniel to a berith are references to God’s covenant and not to a secular one. The New Testament speaks only of God’s covenants (diatheke).
Clearly, to claim this a secular treaty is without Biblical support. An overwhelming burden of proof is rightly required from anyone who holds that Daniel 9:27 prophesies a secular treaty established by a coming Antichrist! And to date, it has not been provided. In essence, proponents of a treaty must say, “Despite the fact that berith is never used in this way anywhere else in the Bible, it means it here even though there is zero textual reason to think so.” This is at best, an inadequate base for a major doctrine, at worst, theological malpractice with feet firmly planted in mid-air.
Also consider the Messianic promises of a New Covenant (berith) such as…
Isaiah 42:6 “..I will give thee (Messiah) as a covenant for the people.”
Isaiah 49:8 “I will keep (guard) you and give you (Messiah) as a covenant for the people.”
Jeremiah 31:31 “…I will make a new covenant with them…”
Add to this many promises God makes in the Old Testament for an “everlasting” covenant (berith) he would one day make. The prophets frequently referred to the covenant God “will make”. The New Testament clearly identifies this Covenant as Jesus Christ, crucified for the sins of the world. Add to this the New Testament record speaking of Jesus’ sacrifice for the “many” which established the New Covenant (Testament) such as in: Mt. 20:28, 26:28; Mk. 10:45, 14:24, Lk. 2:34; Ro. 5:15, 5:19; He. 9:28. A wealth of biblical passages point to Jesus as the covenant, not any human activity.
Closely related and of great importance, since Jesus fulfilled, ended, and replaced the Old Covenant with the New, how can the “prophetical parenthesis” of Premillennial belief even exist? It requires that the Old Covenant exist simultaneously, albeit in partial suspension until the proposed 7-year tribulation, with the New. However, this dual covenant situation is in direct conflict with the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus’ own words.
And really, it is Jesus, only Jesus who accomplishes all of Daniel 9:24 and is the primary subject of 9:24-27. It is his sacrifice that ended the Jewish system, destroying the power of sin by atoning for iniquity. As the incarnate God, by his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus brought in everlasting righteousness. Jesus is the seal, the authority, the content of all prophecy and vision. His blood anointed the most holy place for our salvation. And further operation of the Old Covenant system would not be commendable before God, but an act of unbelief. After all, once the Savior’s blood was offered for sin, about 3-1/2 years after his baptism, any further sacrifice on a Jewish altar was sinful, idolatrous, faithless, and truly an abomination before God. Also so for any rebuilt Temple sacrifice to be done in the proposed Tribulation period. They would not be pleasing to God. By the way, for the first 3-1/2 years after the resurrection, the gospel was entirely centered among the Jews. In summary, there are better ways to understand the prophecies of Daniel and others. But a deeper looks at these subjects are for another day.
2 Comments
Karl Randolph
Yes, a secular treaty is meant. Though I’d hardly call it a peace treaty. You need to take it in context.
Daniel 9:26b–27 is a unit referring to one event, namely the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD. The people of the leader to come is the Roman army, the general who started the suppression and the general who completed that suppression both later became emperor. It took seven years for the Romans to put down that revolt, “to impose their treaty to many”. Half-way through, Jerusalem was captured and the temple destroyed, ending sacrifices and offerings. The Roman battle standards were crowned with wings and treated as gods, and as such were detestable to Jews.
The “he will impose…” in verse 27 refers to the people, not an individual. Hebrew grammar has masculine and feminine, “people” is masculine singular in Hebrew. English treats “people” as plural, hence the correct translation into English is “they will impose…”
This prophesy is done and over with. The 490 year period that started with Nehemiah being told to rebuild Jerusalem until the end of the Jewish revolt lasted 490 years, and is completed.
Pastor Author
Thanks. Your observations are well stated and historically correct. My post addresses the popularized Pre-millennial interpretations based upon faulty exegesis and abounding with eisegesis. They tend to call their expected future fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 a “peace treaty” established by a future antichrist. Hence, my use of the term. BTW I may later do a post on Pre-millennialism’s 490 years computations. There may be another interpretation worth considering that at the least, is much more Scriptural than theirs. It is in full accordance with the use of the term “b’rith” in the Bible and in Daniel, arrives at the time when God did all the things predicted in Daniel 9:24-27 through Jesus Christ, who established the new b’rith (Covenant) of God. This New Covenant ends the divine role of the Jewish people, finishes transgressions, puts an end to sin, atones for iniquity, seals vision and prophet, and anoints the most holy place. It also makes Jesus the center of prophecy and fulfillment, a rather basic reality of all Holy Scripture. And more. But that will be another post(s) someday.