Appendix 1: Dispensational Interpretations compared

Appendix 1: The two Dispensational Interpretations compared.

The (dispensational) interpretation of Daniel’s 70 Weeks proposed in this book (which derive from the insights of Sir Edward Denney), differs from the better known calculation done by Sir Robert Anderson, which is the basis for most dispensational writings on the 70 Weeks. It is unfortunate that Denney’s work has been ignored, in favour of Anderson-Hoehner’s work, when Denney’s solution is in fact far superior.

First of all, it actually ‘works’ to the very day, unlike the Anderson solution which fails to work, despite claims to the contrary (as we conclusively demonstrate in Appendix 2). Secondly, it does not have the weaknesses and flaws that are inherent in the Anderson solution, which discredit it in the eyes of non-dispensationalists. These flaws are brushed aside by dispensationalists, because it seems to provide a literal interpretation, with an impressive fulfilment to the very day of Christ’s Triumphal Entry, and because they assume there can be no other literal (dispensational) solution and so they are necessarily committed to the Anderson-Hoehner solution.

Therefore, dispensational writers generally just repeat what Anderson claimed (or Hoehner’s variation), without even checking the calculation (being somewhat blinded by the numbers!). However, when you do this, you find it does not work, as both variations contain errors, which I demonstrate in Appendix 2. Therefore, its main attraction of providing an exact fulfilment is just an illusion. Anderson not only confused the Julian and Gregorian Calendars in his calculation, but also made a major blunder in trying to make AD 32 the year of the Cross. Although Hoehner corrected this to AD 33, he maintained the Julian/Gregorian confusion and introduced another error, making the start of the year impossibly early. Moreover, in order to make it ‘almost’ work, the calculation had to be based on an ancient 360-day year (called ‘a Time’), which was not the year used by Israel at that time or ever since.

Thus as well as actually working, the Denney solution revealed in this book has many other advantages over the Anderson-Hoehner solution. It is time for it to be known!

*Anderson took 445 BC (the royal release to Nehemiah in the 20th year of Artaxerxes), as the starting point and uses years of 360 days. He viewed the 69 Weeks as ending at Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem in 32 AD, and the 70th Week as postponed because of Israel’s rejection of Christ. Therefore the 70th Week has not run yet, and is separated from the 69th Week by about 2000 years (despite v24, which says that the 490 years form a single unit of time). The effective differences with the (Denney) interpretation that I propose are subtle, but important.

*Denney (see the Chart on the next page) took the earlier Ezra Decree in 458 BC in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7) as the starting point. He naturally used the standard Jewish luni-solar years. He viewed the 70 Weeks as a single unit of time (according to v24) running until Christ’s Death and Resurrection in AD 33.

"Daniel's 70 Weeks" chart

But what about v27 which describes a yet future 70th Week? Since Israel rejected Jesus as her Messiah, God chronologically cancelled the 70th Week of Messianic Ministry (AD 26-33), in order to RERUN it as the 7-year Tribulation, after the Church-Age, thus giving Israel a second chance to repent and believe. Thus in one sense the 70th Week has happened already, and in other way it is yet to be fulfilled. As with Anderson’s interpretation, Israel’s clock (which measures the progress of the 70 Weeks) has been stopped during the Church-Age, causing the future 70th Week

(Tribulation) to be postponed until then. Whereas Anderson saw that God had stopped Israel’s clock and postponed the 70th Week until after the Church Age, this revelation by itself did not resolve all the issues of the Prophecy. It is this revelation of unreckoned time combined with Denney’s revelation that God did not just stop Israel’s Clock, but also rewound it after the 70 Weeks had run, so that the 70th Week could run again, which fully opens up the Prophecy, revealing its perfect accuracy, and solving its paradoxes. Only when this second revelation is also applied are certain other messy inconsistencies removed. Although the differences between these 2 dispensational interpretations are subtle, I believe important revelation is concealed to those holding onto the inferior ‘Anderson-Hoehner’ solution.