I was sitting calmly in Dan-Rev class a few weeks ago when my most recent thrilling discovery hit me. We were talking about (well, rather, the professor was lecturing about) the 70 weeks in Daniel, and as I was following along in my Bible, I began to find myself quite in a fluster. I just couldn’t seem to match what the professor said the passage said with what the passage said. It really bugged me, and I was quite confused, so at the end of class, I turned to Calvin and asked him if he was confused as well, and explained my dilemma. To my surprise, he didn’t seem to have any trouble at all following along. “Well, what does your Bible say?” I asked. And so we compared translations. To my utter shock, the way my Bible (the ESV) worded verses 25 and 26, in particular, completely changed the nice little timeline that the professor drew on the board. Naturally, this aroused my curiosity. Even more so after realizing that the way my Bible translated it messed up the premillenial view of this passage. And even more so after realizing that my translation is one of the only (1 out of 2, in fact, that I have found as of yet) that translates it this way. A challenge to the status quo? I was delighted. How could I resist? And so I began to investigate.

Here’s the problem:

First, let’s look at the NASB, one of the best out there, in my opinion. I’ve bolded the most pertinent part.

25″So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
26″Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

And just as another sample, let’s review the NKJV (again, I’ve bolded the pertinent part):

25″Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.
26″And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Let’s do one more, just for good measure, how about the NIV:

25 “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ’sevens,’ and sixty-two ’sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ’sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

Basically, here’s the picture these, and almost any translation will offer you:

>From the command to rebuild until the coming of Messiah, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (totaling 69 weeks). Then, the Messiah is cut off. Let’s see if I can actually draw a picture.

………… 7 wks ………………………. 62 wks ………………………………1 wk
Command ——–|———————– Coming of M ( M Cut off ) —|—

I hope that made sense (sorry about the periods, I had to put them there to make it space over, and I didn’ feel like using the Unicode for a space, too long. Just ignore them). Anyways, as you can see, this is a nice premillenial picture, because whatever means they use to calculate it, here we have a command (starting with Artexerxes, so they say) to rebuild, until the coming of the Messiah, which obviously, refers to Jesus (so they say) and his being “cut off” (crucifixion). The dates work out nicely…well…some people play with them a little…but that’s neither here nor there. The issue at hand is the text, and the translation. So this is all fine and good, according to every translation out there…save 2. (There may be more, but I haven’t found them). Drum roll please, here is the moment we’ve all been waiting for: the ESV’s translation (the excitment is just overwhelming!).

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 moat, but in a 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.

Do you see? Do you see the difference? It’s subtle, but important. Here’s it is: the ESV (along with the JPS, Jewish Publication Society) make the time frame between the Command and the Coming 7 weeks, not 7 and 62 (hence, 69). Then, after this time frame, the 62 weeks happens, and so on, and so forth. Here’s the revised picture, according to the ESV:

……….7 wks………………………62 wks……………………………1 wk
Command ——– Coming of M ———————– M Cut off —|—

Oh dear, we do have a problem here, don’t we? Not only do we now have two Messiah’s (let’s just call him an anointed one - it is indefinite in the text, after all, and that’s all Messiah means - yet another reason the ESV is wonderful), but the first A.O. can’t possibly refer to Jesus, if we take the weeks to mean years, and literally.

Do you see my delight now? How exciting! A translational variant, and one that changes the interpretation of the text! It just keep getting better and better. But wait! I know you can’t believe it, but there’s more!

Obviously, I couldn’t just let this rest. Which is it, after all? The way the ESV translates it, or the way every other translation translates it? One of them has got to be right. Why did the ESV go against the grain of everyone else? Of course, the most logical place to check is in the original language. There it was that I hoped to find my answer, and there I found it.

The answer lay in a little mark, so small, so unassuming, yet it’s placement so important. Yes, it was…an atnach. What is an atnach, you say? Well, it’s a Hebrew punctuation that is the modern equivelant of a semi-colon. In other words, it makes a division. The suspense is building, I can hardly stand it. Where was the atnach?

Right were the ESV said it should be. Between the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks, thus dividing them into two parts. They should not be read together, not as 69 weeks. Not with that atnach there, and my Hebrew professor confirmed that. The ESV translation is correct, and there is no doubt about it. True, it was the Masorites that put those pointings there, along with all the vowel pointings, and they are not inspired. However, we never go against what they put. Those pointings decide whether it’s a Qal or Hif’il, past or future, period or comma. We never go against them. Why, and this question is still bugging me, did all the translations do it then? The only answer I’ve been able to find is that the KJV did it, and sometimes the KJV sets a precedent that all other translations follow, regardless of its accuracy. It does make sense, as well. Why on earth would the author separate the time period into 7 and 62 weeks when nothing important happens to justify it? Why not just say 69 weeks? That’s the point - in the original, it is separated. It really, really is.

So what does this do to my theology? I’m still working on that one, and let me tell you, I’ve thrown a bunch of crazy things into the pot, and nothing adds up, nothing like the premillenialists would have you believe. I think I’m missing something. But that little atnach makes all the difference.

(When I figure out how to put this on here in readable Hebrew, I will)

Has anyone ever considered that maybe the reason only 10% (if not less) of the student body shows up to its”student retreats” is because no one thinks that they are worth their time? It’s a nice idea, student retreats, sure. Lots of colleges do them. Only they go to ski resorts. Or the beach. And have fun activities for a week. Now I know that we don’t have the money to do something like that, and though I’m not personally a camper, there’s nothing particuraly wrong with having a student retreat at a nice camp. But let’s be reasonable here: we’re going to drive anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours to…play capture the flag, have a mudslide, listen to a speaker who’s probably just like the majority of our chapel speakers, and then come home? And this is supposed to "motivate" us spiritually? Come on. I mean, I could do that at home. I could do that behind our church. Is behind the church a beautiful landscape away from everything else? No, but exactly how much time do we have to enjoy the wilderness landscape in less than 24 hours? I think perhaps we have too high of expectations of these student retreats. I’m sorry, but if only 10% of the student body shows up, it’s hardly a student retreat. Unless I’m mistaken, student retreats generally involve…students?

Apparently most of the student body is not impressed with our feeble attempts at student retreats. And come on…so we change the name. IT’S THE SAME THING! Do we really think the students are that dumb? And I absolutly agree that if we’re going to do one it needs to be done right. But 2 months is not enough time to “do it right”. We should have started planning back at the beginning of the school year if we wanted to do it right. Can we throw something together? Probably, but it’ll end up being just like every other one in the past however many years they’ve done this particular one. And what, may I ask, is the point of that? Maybe the students don’t want to have a student retreat at a camp. Maybe they don’t have time. Maybe they like camp, but don’t think it’s worth just one night. Maybe they think the speakers are dumb. Maybe they think the activities are dumb. But perhaps…just maybe…we should ask them? Obviously if most of them don’t go, there’s a problem with the current way we’re doing it. I.e…change it? And more than the name, please.

And…here’s the kicker…those who go to student retreats are the “spiritual” ones. I wanted to either laugh, cry, or hit someone. Oh boy, I go to this retreat. That must mean I’m a “good” Christian. And those who don’t, well obviously they’re all just apathetic. Because they don’t want to go to something “spiritual” in nature. Or maybe they just…think it stinks?

I had a great time at a student retreat I went to in 8th grade. It cost a bit more than I think anyone at college could afford, but it was a blast. We went rock climbing, canoeing, caving (in a real cave, not a tourist attraction)…all that fun wilderness stuff. And we stayed at a nice lodge with a dining hall…it was fun. I enjoyed myself. We also took a week. That’s alot to ask of college students. Even if we did that, I’m not sure I could go now. A week off of work is alot when your bills are depending on it. But many students could do it, over spring break, or something. Have speakers or worship or prayer or whatever in the evenings. Have fun during the day. Build some community. We’d have to fund-raise to pull it off, and start planning way in advance, but I think we’d see more turn-out.

And those who go to the one night camp thing may have fun. That’s fine. But don’t call it a student retreat. And please.

Don’t waste 30 minutes of student government time talking about it. Join a commitee or something.