The Interpretation Of The Seventy Weeks Of Daniel In The Early Fathers

By Louis E. Knowles

Volga, South Dakota.

MORE than one writer has observed that the outstanding morass of Old Testament interpretation is to be found in the history of the multitudinous and equally various expositions of Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. This is certainly as true of the state of affairs in the early patristic writers as in any other period. Moreover, the confusion is often increased here due to two factors. First, the early fathers had a very corrupt text of Daniel upon which to work. None of them manifests any knowledge of the Hebrew of this passage although some of the later writers were acquainted with the language. The second factor lies in the lack of scientific chronology. Few of the fathers had any idea of when the first year of Cyrus took place. It must be stated, however, that the later we follow the development the more accurate becomes the knowledge of the historical dates.

Our attempt here shall be first to formulate the expositions to be found in the writings of the early fathers. This is not always an easy task in view of the large volume of material that came from their pens, material that must be searched for incidental references to our subject. Our second task will be to classify these expositions with a view to distinguishing trends and dependencies. In our survey which will carry us through Augustine, we shall be able to mark the progress of two main schools of interpretation, the eschatological and the historical. The former we can trace through Irenaeus and Hippolytus who are undoubtedly the forerunners of the modern dispensational interpreters of the Seventy Weeks. To the latter school belong most of the other writers of this period. The significance of the terms, eschatological school and historical school, will become apparent, I trust, as we proceed in our examination of the views of the fathers.

I. The Epistle Of Barnabas

The earliest reference to the prophecy of Daniel ix that we find in the writings of the fathers is in the words of the Epistle of Barnabas: γέγραπται γάρ· Καὶ ἔσται, τῆς ἑβδομάδος συντελουμένης οἰκοδομηθήσεται ναὸς θεοῦ ἐνδόξως ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι κυρίου (16:6). The reference to Daniel ix:24–27 is quite clear, although it is certainly a very free quotation. The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas has used words that occur in the Greek version of Daniel, but without any attempt to reproduce any actual sentence of Daniel. It is unlikely that this quotation represents a variant reading. It is most like the latter part of Daniel ix:25, but even here the verbal resemblance is remote. We must take this passage as an interpretatation rather than as a genuine quotation.

The interpretation that is offered is in no wise full or detailed. It is the most general sort of statement. All we can determine is that the passage is taken in a Messianic sense. Even this is not stated explicitly, but is quite plainly implied. The writer takes the prophecy as referring to the establishment of the Christian church. The temple to be built is the believer in Christ as he is built in the name of the Lord. The whole thrust of this work seems to be toward a spiritual fulfilling of the Old Testament ordinances. Apparently, the unknown author of the work considered the erection of the temple of the Old Testament a mistake. In this his views coincide with those ascribed to the prophetical writers by the modern Higher Criticism. With this bias it would be impossible for him to envision a literal rebuilding of the temple; so he applied the prophecy to the church.

We cannot tell what ideas the writer may have entertained about the reference of the specific details of the last week, or how the seventy weeks are to be computed. On this subject he is entirely silent. It is very likely, however, that he envisioned the completion of all the weeks before the development of the church. This likelihood arises from the use of the word, ἑβδομάδος, in the singular, “when the week has been completed”. The singular points to Daniel’s last week since in the text of Daniel, it is the seventieth week only that is mentioned in the singular. If this is correct, it would indicate that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas found the completion of the entire Seventy Weeks at the advent of Christ. We cannot press this interpretation, however, for the language is also reminiscent of Daniel ix:25, and the argument is possible that it is the completion of the first seven weeks that is in view here.

The fact of the matter is that all such close reasoning on the meaning of the Epistle of Barnabas is useless. It is quite evident that the writer did not have the text of Daniel before him, and merely quotes from a rather sketchy memory. This earliest patristic reference can only serve as a witness to a Messianic interpretation of Daniel ix, with a strong likelihood that it viewed the entire seventy weeks as being fulfilled in the manifestation of Christ, and his work in the church. The thrust of the passage is decidedly counter to the futuristic interpretation of the seventieth week, which first appears in patristic literature about 100 years later.

II. Irenaeus And Hippolytus

The Epistle of Barnabas with which we have just dealt was written about 100 A.D., and is an anonymous work. The next discussions of the seventy weeks of Daniel appear about 100 years later in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus. These two fathers sustained the relationship of teacher and pupil, and, as is often the case, the pupil represents an expansion and development of the views of his teacher. Of course we have no way of knowing how much Hippolytus may have drawn on extra-literary intercourse between himself and his mentor, but, judging on the basis of the documentary remains, we may say that Irenaeus presented the seed of an idea that found its full growth in the writings of Hippolytus. In the works of these fathers, we can find most of the basic concepts of the modern futuristic view of the seventieth week of Daniel ix. That they were dependent to some extent upon earlier material is no doubt true. Certainly we can see the influence of pre-Christian Jewish exegesis at times, but, by and large, we must regard them as the founders of a school of interpretation, and in this lies their significance for the history of exegesis.

In V:25 of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies[1] we find his comments on the Antichrist, and it is in this regard that Daniel ix is brought in. The Antichrist is definitely identified as coming in the middle of the last week, and causing the sacrifice and the libation to be taken away, and introducing the abomination of desolation (V:25:4). All this is presented as leading up to the final consummation and the last judgment. Thus we have the basic concept for a futuristic construction of the Seventy Weeks, viz., the position of the last week at the end of the age. How this basic notion is elaborated we shall discover in our examination of Irenaeus’ pupil.

Hippolytus, who will now concern us, is of great significance as the first to present the detailed futuristic view of the seventieth week. His commentary on Daniel[2] is extant only in a fragmentary form, and is described by Cayré in his Manual of Patrology as “the earliest known commentary on Holy Scripture”.[3] It was written about the year 202, and probably in Rome where Hippolytus was later a priest. When it is seen how heavily the modern futurist view of the seventy weeks draws upon Hippolytus, his historical importance is plain. Whether these futuristic ideas were original with him and Irenaeus, we cannot say. Zöckler, the author of the commentary on Daniel in the Lange series, in his brief sketch of the history of interpretation, makes no mention of such views among the pre-Christian exegetes. Thus it would seem, in the absence of earlier testimony, that in Irenaeus and Hippolytus we have the originators of that method of interpretation that places the seventieth week of Daniel at the time of the consummation.

Sections XII-XLIV of the Commentary contain the pertinent material for our study. His general chronology is quite clear. The starting point for the computation of the weeks is the year in which Daniel saw the vision, that is, the first year of Darius. Now Hippolytus says that this was also the twenty-first year of the captivity, and that the first seven weeks of forty-nine years when added to twenty-one make seventy years, the total years of the captivity. The return to Jerusalem from Babylon, then, he makes the point of termination of the first seven weeks. He quotes the phrase, Ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου ἑβδομάδες ἑπτά, from the LXX apart from the words, καὶ ἑβδομάδες ἑξήκοντα δύο which follow immediately; and says that Jesus, son of Josedec, the high priest who returned with the people, is the Χριστός referred to. The high priest was Χριστός by virtue of his anointing to the holy office. The practice of identifying the Χριστός or מָשִׁיחַ of vs. 25 with a particular high priest or the entire line of high priests is found all through the patristic writers. It is not at all original with Hippolytus, but was a common Jewish interpretation.

The first seven weeks, then, are reckoned from the first year of Darius, when Daniel received the prophecy, to the return of the people and Jesus the high priest. The sixty-two weeks take up at this point and extend to Christ. Hippolytus’ quotation is this: καὶ μετὰ ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδας, ἄλλαι ξβ’ ἑβδομάδες. This is really a very free paraphrase or interpretation since the words of Daniel are simply, καὶ ἑβδομάδες ἑξήκοντα δύο. This is the interpretation of Hippolytus, however. Four hundred and thirty-four years are consumed between Jesus son of Josedec and Christ. Jerome has pointed out the chronological difficulty with this method of reckoning. Jerome puts 560 years between the first year of Cyrus and the coming of Christ. Since Darius the Mede, during whose reign Daniel received the prophecy, was before Cyrus, Jerome cannot see how 483 years cover the period. Modern chronology has put Cyrus at about 536 B.C. instead of Jerome’s earlier date, but the difficulty still remains. Indeed this matter of chronology has always been an obstacle to reckoning the seventy weeks from Cyrus’ decree, and most later interpreters identify the decree mentioned in Daniel ix with a later command to return and build the city.

Hippolytus does not give any conclusive reasons for holding that Christ appeared after the sixty-two weeks. He cites a number of expressions from the context, such as, τοῦ ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀδικίας καὶ τοῦ ἑξιλασάσθαι κ.τ.λ., which describes what Christ did at his manifestation. He also draws a parallel from the earlier history of Israel, maintaining that Israel waited 434 years for the first covenant, just as they waited the 434 years of the sixty-two weeks for the manifestation of Christ. While it may be very possible to hold that Daniel ix teaches the manifestation of Christ after the sixty-two weeks, Hippolytus has not demonstrated it. It must be noted, however, that connected argument is not characteristic of the early patristic writings, and Hippolytus is no exception to this generality.

We have now seen how Hippolytus deals with the sixty-nine weeks, and we come now to the treatment of the seventieth week. As has been noted above, it is here that Hippolytus is significant for the history of interpretation. In Section XXII are these words:

τῶν γὰρ ἑξήκοντα δύο ἑβδομάδων πληρωθεισῶν, καὶ χριστοῦ παραγενομένου, καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ κηρυχθέντος, ἐκκενωθέντων τῶν καιρῶν, μία ἑβδομὰς περιλειψθήσεται ἡ ἐσχάτη, ἐν ᾖ παρέσται ᾿Ηλίας, καὶ ᾿Ενώχ, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει αὐτῆς ἀναψανήσεται τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, ἕωςa ὁ ᾿Αντίχριστος ἐρήμωσιν τῷ κόσμῳ καταγγέλων. οὗ παραγινομένου ἀρθήσεται θυσία, καὶ σπονδὴ, ἡ νῦν κατὰ πάντα τόπον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν προσφερομένη τῷ θεῷ.

The scheme is very plain. The seventieth week does not take place until the end of the gospel age. The phrase, εὐαγγελίου ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ κηρυχθέντος, would seem to cover the era of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles; and after this is said to take place, the last week yet remains (περιλειψθήσεται). It is plain that Hippolytus posits a period of time between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks, a period that sees the gospel preached and that comes to an end with the events of the last week. The debt which the modern “parenthesis” view owes to this construction is obvious. Certainly Hippolytus’ interpretation does not have the refinements of the later development, but it is the direct ancestor of it. He may also be the first writer to connect the events of the seventieth week with the two witnesses of Revelation xi:3, to whom he is evidently referring in the mention of Elias and Enoch. R. H. Charles says that this identification was a regular part of the apocalyptic tradition. It may find its origin in I Enoch xc:31.[4] Charles cites Cyprian and Tertullian as witnesses to this tradition, and quotes from Tertullian’s De Anima. Since Hippolytus’ work is probably earlier than either of these, it is very possible that he is the originator of the tradition. In a similar fashion we may view his construction of the whole week. The two witnesses are represented as “confirming the covenant” for half of the week through their activity of preaching τὴν ἔνδοξον αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿ οὐρανῶν βασιλείαν as we read in Sec. XXXIX of Hippolytus’ commentary. The appearance of Antichrist in the middle of the week is the explanation for the cessation of the sacrifice and the oblation which the nations have been making to God. The Antichrist also causes the two witnesses to be put to death and introduces the abomination of desolation, which consists of his making war upon the saints for the last three and one-half weeks.

Thus does Hippolytus give us the first attempt at detailed interpretation of the Seventy Weeks. He is dependent, no doubt, upon Irenaeus for the foundational proposition that the last half-week of the seventy is to be connected with the Antichrist, but the detailed development is not found in Irenaeus.

III. Clement Of Alexandria

In Clement of Alexandria[5] , who was a contemporary of Hippolytus, we encounter the beginnings of another type of interpretation. Whereas Hippolytus and Irenaeus envisioned the completion of the Seventy Weeks as yet future, Clement, and others, saw it as already past. The key to this point of view is the way in which vs. 24 is understood. Clement evidently takes it as putting a limit upon the existence of the nation, Israel. Hence, he finds the completion of the Seventy Weeks in the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian, “and Vespasian rose to the supreme power and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place” (Sec. 143).

Again we will have difficulty with Clement’s chronology. He dates the beginning of the Seventy Weeks from the carrying away into captivity under Nebuchadnezzar. From this date to Vespasian would certainly amount to many more years than the 490 of the Seventy Weeks. Jerome says that Clement “lightly esteemed the counting of years”, which seems to be an entirely just judgment. It must be noted, however, that the details of Clement’s construction are somewhat obscure. It is not at all clear that he carries through his original ascription of the beginning of the Seventy Weeks to the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar; for a few lines further on he speaks of the first seven weeks as that period of forty-nine years in which the temple was built. It is obvious that there was some confusion in the mind of Clement about the exact time of the beginning of the Weeks.

Clement also seems to identify the line of high priests with the Χριστός of Daniel for he also says: καὶ οὕτως ἐγένετο Χριστὸς βασιλεὺς ᾿Ιουδαίων ἡγούμενος, πληρουμένων τῶν ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδων, ἐν ῾Ιερουσαλήμ (ibid.). This does not prevent him from introducing a reference to Christ, however. The holy of holies is identified as “Christ our Lord”. Clement’s picture is this. The Temple is completed in the seven weeks, and the Χριστός or high-priest once more becomes the leader of Israel. Then “in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet and without wars”. Within these sixty-two weeks (I presume Clement means toward their close) the holy of holies, i.e., Christ, is anointed in the flesh and fulfills the vision and prophecy. There is no clear definition of when the sixty-two weeks end and the last begins. In fact, the last week on Clement’s construction is a very irregular period of time. It stretches from Nero to Vespasian. Nero is said to have held sway in the first half of the week, and to have placed the abomination in Jerusalem. Then at the half of the week Nero was taken away. Then follows the phrase, “and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius”, which apparently indicates that these emperors lived during the second half of the last week.

Then the week ends when “Vespasian rose to the supreme power.. .. and desolated the holy place”.

As we have mentioned already, there are a number of inaccuracies and unanswered questions in the interpretation presented by Clement. For example, how can it be said that Judaea was quiet and free from war from the completion of the temple until Christ was anointed? This era certainly witnessed some of the fiercest battles and most dire persecution in the history of the Jews. Then it would be interesting to know just why the last week is made to start with Nero; and, if so, what disposition is to be made of the twenty-four years that intervened between Christ’s passion and Nero’s rise to the throne? Are they to be reckoned as part of the sixty-two weeks; and if so, what does Clement think of the statement in vs. 26 that “after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off”?

These questions and others find no answer in Clement’s treatment. His exposition of the passage is far from complete, and does not purport to exegete every phrase or word since it is not part of a commentary, but is incidental to a treatment of chronology. There is one puzzling statement in Clement, however, that we may well wish he had explained further. In plain reference to Christ he says: “In those sixty and two weeks, as the prophet said, and in the one week was He Lord”. It is exceedingly difficult to understand this statement. In what special way was Christ Lord during these weeks? The difficulty lies in the joining together of the sixty-two and the one week. It may be that the reference to Christ’s Lordship in the one week is an interpretation of the phrase, “and he shall make a covenant with many for one week”. This would be, however, to read a great deal into Clement’s words, and is further obstructed by the reference to the same Lordship over the sixty-two weeks. It is probably best to conclude that this statement of Clement does not admit of any specific understanding in the light of the other things that he has to say.

In summation, it can be said that Clement is the first to introduce into the patristic literature the concept of the Seventy Weeks as a limit placed upon the national existence of Israel. He was also the first to place the end of the Weeks at the destruction of Jerusalem by the emperor Vespasian. We shall next examine a similar interpretation by a Western father, an interpretation which is basically the same, but more coherent in its details.

IV. Tertullian

In his work Against the Jews,[6] Tertullian has occasion to treat of this passage in the course of his argument to establish the fact of Christ’s coming, as over against the Jewish contention that the Messiah had not yet appeared. His purpose is to show that the prophecy of Daniel ix has been fulfilled, that Christ came at the proper time, and that the full seventy weeks were fulfilled at the time of the storming of Jerusalem by Vespasian. In doing this he gives a rather detailed interpretation of the Seventy Weeks. The text which he used must have differed very widely from even the LXX text, which is itself markedly different from the Hebrew. In the main, his construction of the weeks is into two periods, the first of sixty-two and one-half weeks which covers the period from Darius to the birth of Christ, and the second of seven and one-half weeks which defines the period from the birth of Christ to the fall of Jerusalem in the first year of Vespasian. He seems to know nothing of the threefold division of the weeks. Concerning the existence of a period of one week at the end of the whole period, we find only these enigmatic words, “In one hebdomad and the half of the hebdomad shall be taken away my sacrifice and libation”. These words are part of Tertullian’s quotation of Daniel, and it is this quotation that is the source for Tertullian’s twofold division of the weeks. It would be interesting to know Tertullian’s source for this reading. It differs materially from any of the extant texts. I shall give it in Thelwall’s literal translation:[7]

Seventy hebdomads have been abridged upon thy commonalty, and upon the holy city, until delinquency be made inveterate, and sins sealed, and righteousness obtained by entreaty, and righteousness eternal introduced; and in order that vision and prophet may be sealed, and an holy one of holy ones anointed. And thou shalt know, and thoroughly see, and understand, from the going forth of a word for restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem unto the Christ, the Leader, hebdomads (seven and an half, and) lxii and a half: and it shall convert, and shall be built into height and entrenchment, and the times shall be renewed: and after these lxii hebdomads shall the anointing be exterminated, and shall not be; and the city and the holy place shall he exterminate together with the Leader, who is making His advent; and they shall be cut short as in a deluge, until (the) end of a war, which shall be cut short unto ruin. And he shall confirm a testament in many. In one hebdomad and the half of the hebdomad shall be taken away my sacrifice and libation, and in the holy place the execration of devastation, (and) until the end of (the) time consummation shall be given with regard to this devastation.

With this text before us, we shall be able better to understand Tertullian’s formulations.

We shall examine first the construction of the sixty-two and one-half weeks. This period Tertullian places before the seven and one-half weeks, an arrangement which is peculiar to him. He computes 437 years and six months between the first year of Darius and the forty-first year of Augustus when Christ was born. Thus exactly sixty-two and one-half weeks of years are completed. What part of the prophecy does Tertullian conceive of as referring to this period, i.e., to the internal events of this period? The answer is that he refers none of it to the time within the era covered by the sixty-two and one-half weeks. It is interesting to observe how he deals with the reference to the rebuilding of the city which is placed in the first seven weeks in the ordinary way of taking the prophecy. Tertullian, however, makes it a conditional promise. It would have been fulfilled at the coming of Christ if he had been received by the Jews instead of rejected and slain. Then Tertullian goes on to explain that since God foresaw that Christ would be rejected, and the promise thus fail of fulfillment, the prophecy goes on to predict the final outcome in the destruction of the city.

The rest of the events mentioned in the prophecy find their fulfillment during the second and last period, viz., the seven and one-half weeks. The exception to this statement should be noticed, however, that several things are regarded as being brought to completion at the moment of the birth of Christ. At least, Tertullian mentions them in that connection although the effect of his words is that all these things were fulfilled in the advent of Christ into this world, the term, advent, covering all Christ’s earthly activity. In this category of events, then, he places the anointing of the holy of holies. He obviously understands this term as referring to Christ. Here also is the manifestation of eternal righteousness, the sealing of vision and prophecy, and the remitting of sins. Tertullian connects the sealing of prophecy and vision in a special way with Christ’s baptism, “For, on Christ’s being baptized, that is, on His sanctifying the waters in His own baptism, all the plenitude of bygone spiritual grace-gifts ceased in Christ, sealing as He did all vision and prophecies, which by His advent He fulfilled” (idem, p. 160).

There is a second class of events which also falls in this second period. The events mentioned in the preceding paragraph may be regarded as positive results of the coming of Christ; but in addition to these, we have the more dire events in the prophecy. These Tertullian seems to connect largely with the passion of Christ, although on some points there is uncertainty as between the passion of Christ and the destruction by Vespasian. In the last paragraph of Chapter VIII, Tertullian discusses these events, and an examination of this paragraph will illustrate the difficulty. He says at the start, “When these times also were completed.. .. there afterwards ceased in that place ‘libations and sacrifices’” (ibid.). The background is probably the cessation of the temple worship after Vespasian’s victory over the Jews. He then goes on to mention the extermination of the unction at the same time, and by unction, he evidently means the priesthood. These two things are connected, by rather plain implication, with Vespasian, but they are also related to the death of Christ by a specific reference. The “suffering of this extermination” is said to be perfected at the time of the suffering of Christ. It may very well be Tertullian’s thought that the events which took place in principle at the moment of Christ’s death found their completion in the final destruction of the holy city of the Jews.

We now have before us the outline of Tertullian’s interpretation. While it is of the same general type as Clement’s construction, it is doubtful if there is dependency involved. Tertullian’s Adversus Judaeos dates from ca. 203, and Clement’s work from ca. 200. If these dates are correct, it is thus entirely possible that Tertullian may not have known Clement’s work at the time he was writing his Adversus Judaeos. This view is rendered more plausible still by the fact that Tertullian evidences no acquaintance with the text of Daniel that Clement apparently used. The fact that both writers fixed upon Vespasian as a terminus ad quem for the Seventy Weeks is no doubt due to the current interpretation of the Jewish scholars who followed Josephus. Moreover, the disposition of the internal chronology of the prophecy is so different in the two fathers as to preclude dependency.

Tertullian, like Clement, leaves us with several unanswered questions. This is due in part to the very corrupt text which he used, and in part to the fact that he, like Clement, was not primarily writing a commentary, but that his treatment of the passage is incidental to other concerns. For example, he does not give us any clue to his thought on the covenant that was to be confirmed with many, or on the last week and one-half that is mentioned in his quotation. Some of his identifications we can divine with a fair degree of certainty. He probably understands the “Prince who shall come” of vs. 26 as a reference to Christ, and the war, mentioned in the same verse, he no doubt takes as the war of Vespasian against Jerusalem. These, however, are only guesses on the basis of Tertullian’s general outline, for he does not specifically mention them in his exposition.

Many of the details of Tertullian’s interpretation of this prophecy are of interest only as an oddity. He and Clement are important to the history of the matter as the first Christian writers to introduce the Jewish interpretation of the matter. This placing of the terminus ad quem at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is thought to be original with Josephus. J. A. Montgomery quotes this passage from AJ X, 11, 7:[8]

And these things, it happened, our nation suffered under Ant. Epiph., and many years in advance he [Dan.] wrote up what was to take place. And in the same manner also he wrote about the empire of the Romans and that it. .. would be desolated. .. by them.

There are several other passages in Josephus that bear on this matter, but this is the clearest reference. This concept was perpetuated by succeeding Jewish writers, and it was from this source that Clement and Tertullian imported the idea into Christian literature.

V. Origen

We come now to the celebrated pupil of Clement of Alexandria, Origen. We have only some unhelpful fragments preserved of his work on Daniel, but fortunately for our purpose Jerome has given us a Latin translation of Origen’s extensive work on Matthew; and in the comments on Matthew xxiv:15,[9] we find an exposition of the Seventy Weeks. As we should expect, Origen’s interpretation falls in the same general class as Clement’s, in that he seems to consider the full number of weeks as already completed by his day. We also may find in Origen’s method of reckoning the weeks a clue to Clement’s long seventieth week. This method of computing the weeks is no doubt the most distinctive feature of Origen’s formulation. Up to this point, all who commented on the problem had agreed in assuming that the prophecy referred to weeks of years. Origen, however, takes them as weeks of decades. Thus the total number of years represented by seventy weeks is not 490, but 4900. Origen’s seventieth week on this basis consists of seventy years, and is in all probability the explanation of Clement’s long seventieth week. In fact it is a reasonable supposition that Origen is dependent upon Clement for the system of computing by decades.

Whether this supposition is true or not, we must note that Origen extends this computation to the entire number of the weeks, a thing which Clement does not do. He states that there were 4900 years from Adam to the end of the last week. The question naturally arises as to how Origen obtains the creation for the starting point of the weeks. It is to be remembered that Origen is the great exponent in the ancient church of an allegorical and fanciful exegesis, and that trait is very apparent in his treatment of this passage. Let us observe his construction of these words of Daniel, “From the going forth of the word to return and to build Jerusalem”. His approach can best be described as atomistic. First, the phrase, “From the going forth of the word” is taken separately and is explained as referring to the moment when, “by the word of the Lord the heavens were established”. Thus the starting point for the weeks is placed at the beginning of history by an utterly unwarranted assumption. It is easy to see that in this way Origen could read almost any conceivable meaning into a text. The phrase, “to return and to build Jerusalem”, he refers to Christ’s coming. An allegorical interpretation is placed upon the street and the wall that are mentioned in Daniel. The street was the way of righteousness in which Christ moved, and the wall which he erected is the wall “from the top of which he is preached”. Just what Origen meant by this last phrase is difficult to tell. It may be that he intends to point out Jesus’ life of obedience under the figure of a wall, or perhaps his entire work which serves as a basis for the preaching of the gospel message. But whatever he may intend in detail, it is clear that he does not make any reference whatsoever to the historical event of the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity and the rebuilding of the city that took place at that time. This event which is so prominent a feature in most expositions of the prophecy, Origen omits altogether. While he recognizes that the first sixty-nine weeks are composed of two periods of seven and sixty-two weeks each, he does not offer any explanation of the fact, but takes them together as representing the era from the creation to the advent of Christ.

In this manner, then, does Origen account for the first sixty-nine weeks or 4830 years. Let us now outline the events of this period. Jesus is the “Christ the leader” who returns and builds the city in a spiritual sense, as we have already seen. The sealing of vision and prophecy is connected with the work of John the Baptist since he was the last to enjoy these gifts. The anointing of the holy of holies is also taken as a reference to Christ. It is not clear what event Origen has in mind in connection with the anointing. The most probable identification is with the baptism of Jesus, for Origen mentions the anointing immediately after, and in connection with, the remarks about John the Baptist and the sealing of vision and prophecy: “Then when vision and the prophecy were sealed, Christ, the only begotten holy of holies was anointed”. All this it should be remembered is still within the last part of the sixty-two weeks. So also are the ending of sin, the canceling of unrighteousness, and the introduction of eternal justice. These things were all accomplished at the death and resurrection of Christ, for Origen says: “For the sin of the people was done away, because he was also abandoned by God. And truly their sin was sealed, for the unrighteousness of the believers was canceled and after its cancellation, eternal life was introduced in Christ” (idem, p.80). The word, “abandoned (derelictus)”, is definitely reminiscent of the cry of Jesus upon the cross, and is certain evidence that Origen was pointing to the crucifixion. The cutting off of the unction is also placed in this period in a rather strange sentence of Origen in which he explains also the reason for the troublous times mentioned in Daniel. He also preserves the Jewish identification of the unction as a reference to the office of high-priest. His words are, “The times of the people are emptied, because during the sixty-two weeks.. .. there is removed from the people the anointing which was in the temple, that there should not be judgment now among them” (idem, p. 81). In about 40 B.C. the last of the Asmonaean line of high-priests was overthrown as the real ruling power in Jerusalem, and the Herodian dynasty of kings was placed on the throne by the Roman empire which in 63 B.C. had subjugated Judaea. After this event the office of the high-priest never recovered its political preeminence. It is this fact that Origen identifies as the removal of the unction, and the “emptied” times are due to the Roman domination and its consequent evils. This is not unusual in patristic literature, but the combination with the identification of the מָשִׁיחַ in vs. 25 as Christ is unique. We find in the Hebrew text the word מָשִׁיחַ occurring twice. Vs. 25 speaks of מָשִׁיחַ the leader, and vs. 26 of the cutting off of מָשִׁיחַ. As a rule the one identification covers both the cases. Eusebius, writing later, understands it as a reference to the establishment and the overthrow of the post-exilic high-priesthood. Others interpret it as the appearance and death of Christ. But Origen interprets the word as Christ in vs. 25, and as the high-priesthood in vs. 26. There is, however, a reason for this in the text that he used. There two different words are used for the translation of מָשִׁיחַ. In the Latin of Jerome’s translation of Origen, we have Christus used in vs. 25, and unctio in vs. 26. Undoubtedly back of these words lie Χριστός and χρίσμα in the original of the lost Greek text of Origen.

We have now brought the development of Origen’s thought through the events of the first sixty-nine weeks although we have not shown why these events are to be placed in this period rather than in the last week. That this is so, however, is plain from the fact that Origen views the seventieth week as having its beginning at Pentecost and extending seventy years from that point. We may know that this is Origen’s construction from several different lines of argument. In the first place, he specifically identifies the confirming of the covenant with the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. He also construes “week” as the subject of “confirmed”. This fact renders likely the supposition that the confirming covers the entire week, and thus argues for Pentecost as the beginning of the seventieth week. Secondly, Origen views the middle of the week as the time of the destruction of the temple and the city. This is the removal of the sacrifice and the libation and the introduction of desolation that shall last until the end of the world. He means, of course, the destruction accomplished by Vespasian. We have already seen that Clement and Tertullian posited this event as the terminus ad quem of the last week, but Origen is the first to place it at the middle of the week. Now a half-week in Origen’s system is thirty-five years, and the proof of our interpretation of Origen is in his endeavor to show that the destruction of Jerusalem took place thirty-five years after Pentecost, or the Ascension which amounts to practically the same thing. He quotes Phlegon, a chronicler, to the effect that the destruction of Jerusalem took place forty years after the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the year of Jesus’ baptism according to Luke iii. He then goes on to explain, “Deduct, then, about three years of the preaching of the Lord and the time of his resurrection. .. and you will discover that about half the week. .. is completed” (idem, p. 79). The significant thing is the subtracting from the week of all the time up to the Ascension in order to obtain the thirty-five years of the half-week. This absolutely excludes the possibility of our placing the beginning of the week earlier than the Ascension. If we consider this in the light of his remarks concerning the day of Pentecost, we must conclude that for Origen the seventieth week in all likelihood began with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the gathered church.

Regarding the events of the seventieth week, we have seen that the destruction of the city occurs in the middle of the week, approximately thirty-five years after the week begins. This is the removal of libation and sacrifice that is predicted in Daniel. Origen connects the “prince that shall come” with this destruction. He does not, as many do, identify him with the destroying agent, but with the Jewish king who was on the throne when the destruction came. He gives the names of Herod and Agrippa, but he is not certain which is the proper name of the king. Origen is, however, very careful to distinguish this prince from Christ. His last paragraph is devoted to establishing this.

Thus in Origen we find the most detailed construction of the Seventy Weeks so far to appear in the writings of the fathers. There is, however, one point that is not made clear. Origen has little to say about the end of the seventieth week. If the destruction of Jerusalem marks the middle of the week, the end of the week must come about 105 A.D. There is no startling event at this date to mark the close of an epoch. As a matter of fact, Origen has very little to say about events after the middle of the week. The middle of the week introduces desolation upon the temple that is to remain until the end of the world, but there is no indication that the status of this desolation undergoes any change, after thirty-five years, that could be construed as marking the end of the week. It is possible that Origen conceived of the last half week as extending until the end of the world. Certainly his failure to mention any specific end for the week, and his discussion of the end of the world might point to such a conclusion. There is, however, a strong objection to this interpretation of Origen’s words. This lies in the fact that Origen speaks of the last week as specifically seventy years, and of the entire period as 4900 years. If he intended the last half-week to be construed as an indefinite period of time, it would be highly unlikely that these specific figures would be used. The most that can be said is that a certain amount of confusion exists at this point. It may very well reflect a parallel confusion in Origen’s thought on the matter beyond which we cannot hope to go in our pursuit of Origen’s meaning.

By way of appendix to our discussion, we should note a reference in Jerome to Origen’s Stromata.[10] These words are quoted, “The times from the first year of Darius, son of Assuerus, to the advent of Christ ought to be carefully examined as to how many years there are, and as to what things are said to have occurred in them, and it ought to be seen whether we can adjust them to the advent of the Lord.” The tenth volume of the Stromata to which this quotation is assigned is not extant so we may not know how this statement was developed. From Jerome’s comments, however, it appears likely that no more was said in the Stromata on this matter. This sentence is enough, however, for us to see that it represents an alternative construction to the one we have outlined above. The Seventy Weeks are not designated, but the reference to the first year of Darius points to Daniel ix. The difficulty here is that Origen seems to be positing this first year of Darius when Daniel received the vision as the terminus a quo of the reckoning. This is hardly in agreement with what he has developed in the Commentary on Matthew. What we have is probably an illustration of a change of opinion or of the fact that a prolific writer like Origen cannot always remember what he has written earlier. For our purposes, however, we may regard the remarks on Matthew as representative of Origen’s views since they were produced in his later years and are obviously the result of more careful attention on his part.

VI. Developments After Origen

After the comments of Origen, we find no new discoveries of any great magnitude on the subject of the interpretation of the Seventy Weeks. The two schools of thought on the subject have found rather distinct expression, the eschatological interpretation in Hippolytus, and the historical school in the formulation of Origen. By the latter term, I mean to indicate the method which finds the full completion of the weeks at or near the first advent of Christ. The patristic expressions from Origen on, by and large, fall into this category. Some find the terminus ad quem in the birth, others at the crucifixion or ascension, and still others at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The most significant exception to this rule is found in the writings of Julius Hilarianus about the year 397 A.D. He is the first patristic writer to adopt a non-Messianic interpretation of the Seventy Weeks. By virtue of this, Hilarianus is usually reckoned as the forerunner of the modern critical attitude toward the prophecy of Daniel ix. We shall say more about him later, however.

Julius Africanus seems to be the next father after Origen to touch on the subject of the Seventy Weeks. His work on chronology is but imperfectly preserved, and we are indebted to Eusebius for the fragment that deals with our subject.[11] Africanus is chiefly taken up with a discussion of the terminus a quo of the weeks and the method of reckoning so that exactly 490 years are obtained. It is clear, however, that he placed a decidedly Messianic interpretation upon the passage: “That the passage speaks then of the advent of Christ, who was to manifest Himself after seventy weeks, is evident”. Further, it is difficult to make out any specific identifications on Africanus’ part of the events mentioned in the prophecy. He merely says that “from the Saviour’s time are transgressions abrogated, and sins brought to an end. And through remission, moreover, are iniquities, along with offences, blotted out by expiation; and an everlasting righteousness is preached, different from that which is by the law, and visions and prophecies are until John, and the Most Holy is anointed.” It is plain from this that the holy of holies is taken as Christ, and that there is a general reference to Christ’s work of redemption, but on more specific details he is silent. He does not mention the last week as distinct from the others, nor can we gather anything as to the unction or the prince that shall come, or the covenant that was confirmed with many. What is clear, however, are the two termini of the weeks. The starting point he makes the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia when Nehemiah received permission to rebuild the city. From this point to the sixteenth year of Tiberius Caesar he calculates as 475 years. The sixteenth year of Tiberius is assumed to be the year of Jesus’ baptism by John, and this is the terminus of the weeks. How he obtains seventy weeks of years from 475 years is the question which arises at this point, and Africanus’ solution of this problem constitutes the distinguishing feature of his treatment. He points out that the Hebrews reckoned years on the basis of true lunar months, and hence their year was exceeded by a solar year to the extent of 11¼ days. From these figures it can be calculated that 475 solar years would be equal to 490 years according to the Hebrew calendar. Thus he very neatly makes the years come out perfectly according to his calculations.

Eusebius, a little over 100 years after the Chronography of Africanus, is the next father to take up the matter of the Seventy Weeks. He treats the subject rather fully in his Demonstratio Evangelica, Book VIII. His purpose there is apologetic, and he uses the fulfillment of the prophecy to establish the authenticity of the gospel story. His termini are the first year of Cyrus king of Persia and a point three and one-half years after the crucifixion of Christ. At least this is the system of reckoning that he develops in the body of his discussion. There is a passing reference to an alternate method but it was apparently discarded. This alternate reckoning is from the second year of Darius to the reign of Herod. The first seven weeks of the prophecy he takes as extending from Cyrus to Darius. In this period of forty-nine years the temple is rebuilt and the priesthood is restored. He follows the earlier custom of identifying the מָשִׁיחַ with the office of the high-priest. Thus he is able to place the entire fulfillment of vs. 25 after the first seven weeks. Then the sixty-two weeks extend from Darius to Pompey, the Roman general who subjugated Judaea in 63 B.C. This Pompey is “the prince that shall come”. He and his people destroyed Jerusalem and constituted the fulfillment of vs. 26. Eusebius puts all the fulfillment of vs. 26 in “an indeterminate space of time” between the end of the sixty-nine weeks and the beginning of the last week. In this period the unction is cast out. Here Eusebius continues the identification of מָשִׁיחַ as the priesthood, and finds the fulfillment of the words, “And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing”, in the murder of Hyrcanus, the last of the Hasmonaean priests. As to the phrase, “and shall have nothing”, he reads it from the Greek text, καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ. This is understood to refer to the lack of judgment and justice with which the priesthood was thereafter administered.

In regard to the last week, we have some rather distinct views in Eusebius. We must recall that the last week does not follow immediately upon the sixty-ninth, but comes after the “indeterminate space of time” in which the events of vs. 26 are being fulfilled. This last week, then, covers a period of seven years that extend from three and one-half years before the crucifixion to three and one-half years after it. During this period of seven years Christ is confirming a covenant with many through his personal ministrations. The seven years are obtained by counting three and one-half years of the public ministry and a similar length of time for the ministry of the risen Christ. This calculation is arrived at by a rather peculiar exegesis of the New Testament expression, “being seen of them forty days”. Eusebius holds that three and one-half years intervened between the resurrection and the ascension, but that the Lord appeared to the disciples on only forty different days of that three and one-half year period. This reckoning puts the suffering of Christ in the middle of the week. It is this event which causes the sacrifice and the libation to cease, and the rending of the veil introduces the abomination of desolation upon the temple which is to remain until the end of time.

Thus we have briefly sketched Eusebius’ interpretation of the Seventy Weeks. In some ways it is an admirable construction. The prophecy is taken in strict order, and the interpretation is exceedingly easy to follow. The fulfillment of vss. 25, 26, and 27 of the prophecy are taken in order and matched with the three divisions of the weeks. Thus vs. 25 is complete at the end of seven weeks, vs. 26 at the end of sixty-two, and vs. 27 at the end of one week. The most obvious flaw is, of course, the forced construction of the post-resurrection period, but among the many extremes we find in the patristic writings such a mild aberration does not loom large. This also can be said for Eusebius. His is the first interpretation to be encountered that clearly identifies all the elements in the prophecy and assigns them to a specific place. It is really the first complete and wholly self-consistent interpretation to be found in patristic literature.

After Eusebius we encounter, among others, Apollinaris of Laodicaea and Julius Hilarianus before we arrive at St. Augustine who will serve as the terminus for our discussion. Apollinaris whose work dates from about 360 A.D. is chiefly of interest as a curiosity. He really belongs in the eschatological classification, although his construction is quite far removed from that of Hippolytus. He held that the Seventy Weeks define the time between the two advents of Christ, and are to be counted from the birth of Jesus. Thus it can be seen that Apollinaris expected Christ to return in a little more than one hundred years from the time in which he was writing. In this way Apollinaris has placed himself in the position of being the only father that we can be sure was wrong.

As Jerome writing in 407 sagely remarked, “Now if those of succeeding generations happen not to see these fulfilled at the stated time, they will be compelled to seek another solution, and will charge the elder with error”.[12]

Julius Hilarianus whom we have mentioned already as the forerunner of the modern critical position wrote about 397 A.D. He is the first literary source for the non-Messianic type of interpretation. In his Chronologia, sections X and XI, we find his formulation which can be put very briefly. He takes the first year of Darius, when Daniel received the vision, as the starting point of the reckoning and finds the end in the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes. This is rather accurate chronology since the years between these two rulers were just about 490, and this is no doubt the reason for the adoption of this view by the critics. Of course it means an abandonment of all Messianic implications and is usually accompanied by a late dating for Daniel. As to the internal events, Hilarianus has but a few passing references. The end of the first seven years is marked by the return of the people from captivity and the anointing of the holy of holies in the temple. Apparently, Hilarianus takes the term, holy of holies, quite literally as referring to the portion of the temple that was so designated. The reference in vs. 25 to “the anointed one the prince” is interpreted as a reference to Zerubbabel who was the leader of the first return of the Jews. The last week covers the seven years from the 141st to the 148th year of the Greek rule in Judaea. The event that marks the middle of the week is the pollution of the temple by Antiochus which introduced the abomination of desolation in the form of heathen images in the temple. In this fashion, then, does Hilarianus set the example for the non-Messianic construction of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel.

After Hilarianus, we find Jerome treating this passage in his lengthy commentaries on the Scriptures. Since, however, Jerome does not develop an interpretation of his own, but contents himself with giving a history of the interpretation, we shall not enter into a discussion of him here.

We shall close our survey with an examination of the views of that illustrious father, Augustine. These views find expression in his 199th epistle.[13] This letter is a part of Augustine’s correspondence with one Hesychius. Hesychius has questioned Augustine about the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks, and seems to be an adherent of the futurist school of interpretation. With this interpretation, Augustine differs sharply. His argument is not elaborate. It is merely this: All of the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks was fulfilled at Christ’s first advent; therefore, it is not to be expected that the events will occur again at the second advent. He rather shrewdly points out that the description of events in the prophecy is much more applicable to Christ’s first coming when he came to suffer than it is to his second coming in triumph. In this I think Augustine scores a very true point against the futurist school. This, however, constitutes about all of Augustine’s contribution to the matter. He is not concerned with expounding the passage at any great length to Hesychius. We can infer from certain statements that he takes the events of the last week as finding their fulfillment in the activity of Christ at his first advent, “For at the end of the age Christ will not need to be anointed or put to death, in order that this prophecy of Daniel may then be expected to be fulfilled” (col. 912). But this is the nearest that we can come to making specific identifications in Augustine.

We have now seen the development of thought on this matter from the beginning down through Augustine. We have seen the formation of two definite schools of interpretation and the first stirrings of a third. All the later developments in Christian literature will be found to fit into one of these categories. The later developments are, by and large, adaptations of earlier views, and are worthy of study for the picture that they present of the growth of ideas. The later period, however, can scarcely match in interest this earlier era in which we see the foundations being laid of that which is to follow. The study of the early fathers will always remain highly interesting, as well as rewarding, labor.

Notes

1. Migne’s Patrologiae Graecae, tom. VII, coll. 1188ff.
2. MPG, tom. X, coll. 633ff.
3. English Translation, Vol. I, p. 221. Migne notes: “Vocula ἔως expungenda”.
4. Commentary on the Revelation, Vol. I, p. 281.
5. See in MPG, tom. VIII, Stromata, cap. XXI, sec. 142, col. 853.
6. Adversus Judaeos, cap. VIII. See Migne’s Patrologiae Latinae, tom. II, col. 651.
7. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 159.
8. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 396.
9. E. Klostermann, Origenes Werke, Leipzig, 1933, Elfter Band, pp. 78ff.
10. Commentaria in Danielem, MPL, tom. XXV, col. 574.
11. MPG, tom. X, col. 80.
12. Commentaria in Danielem. MPL. tom. XXV, col. 573.
13. MPL, tom. XXXIII, coll. 911ff.