The Missing Week

The Missing Week

Brian Culliton

Many people believe that the missing week is alluded to in the 27th verse of Daniel 9. In order to understand whether it is or isn't, we need to grasp the meaning of this verse by being careful to consider it in context and in parallel with the Hebrew text. Some modern translations of verse 27, where the week is alluded to, are very loosely translated from the original Hebrew enough to completely change the meaning of the verse. The following reference of Daniel chapter 9, verses 24 - 27, is from the New King James Version Bible.

24 "'Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.

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.

27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.'"

It is believed by many that the week mentioned in verse 27 is the final week of Daniel's prophecy. Dispensationalists believe the missing week is yet future; others believe the week was fulfilled during Christ's ministry, crucifixion, and perhaps the 31/2 years following; and still others believe the missing week was actually the first week of the 70-weeks prophecy and was fulfilled in Daniel's time.

The last of these three scenarios, though supporting the idea that Daniel's 70-weeks prophecy was fulfilled in Christ's first advent, says nothing of the week mentioned in verse 27. Therefore, the verse 27 week must refer to something else all together.

The theory is interesting; however, most Christians who believe Christ fulfilled the prophecy at His first advent are not inclined to believe it because it says nothing of the week in verse 27, which appears to allude to the 70th week.

The Prince, The People, Or Messiah?

Dispensationalist theology assumes that the word he in verse 27 refers to the "prince who is to come" in verse 26. But a close examination of verse 26 reveals that there are two subjects in that verse, Messiah, and the people of the prince who is to come. Prince is part of a prepositional phrase and is not a subject in verse 26; the subject is the people. Therefore, the he in verse 27 cannot be referring to the prince, but rather it must be one of the two subjects, Messiah or the people. Since it would not be proper to say he when referring to people, the he must therefore refer to Messiah. When understood this way, verse 27 reads, "Then Messiah shall confirm a [the] covenant with many for one week."

If this is indeed referring to Messiah, what is meant by, "he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week?" First, let's pose the question, what is meant by "confirm a covenant?" The Hebrew phrase used here is "gabar bariyth." In the intended tense, the word gabar means to strengthen, confirm, or guarantee. The Hebrew Lexicon defines the word as: to be strong, to prevail (The primary power is that of binding). The word bariyth means treaty, covenant, promise, etc.

When put in its proper Hebrew context, confirming a covenant strongly implies that the covenant being referred to already exists. If so, we can confidently conclude that the covenant refers to the covenant God made with Abraham.

It is a bit of a stretch to translate the text as making a covenant rather than confirming a covenant. But under the influence of dispensationalist theology, a few modern Bible translations have done just that. If the Hebrew text was saying he will make a covenant, it would read, "karath bariyth." Karath in the proper tense for this usage means to cut or make, as in make a covenant. This is the word used in Genesis 31:44 when God said to Jacob," Now therefore, come, let us make a covenant [karath bariyth], you and I, and let it be a witness between you and me."

Supposing Verse 27 Refers To Antichrist

If we were to say that the he in verse 27 refers to antichrist, we would have to interpret gabar bariyth as making a covenant for one week. But these verses don't say that; they say he will confirm the covenant for one week. And in the middle of the week, he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. If we then assume that the he in verse 27 refers to antichrist and we understand the proper translation of gabar, then we have to understand the Bible as telling us he will both guarantee the covenant and break the covenant half way through. If antichrist is going to break a covenant he supposedly guaranteed, it's hardly a guarantee - at least from a biblical perspective.

If we interpret the he in verse 27 as being antichrist, doesn't that make the Bible seem deceptive? Why would the Bible tell us that he is going to guarantee a covenant and then break it? If the prophecy is telling us that this is referring to antichrist, why doesn't it say he will make a covenant then break it? Antichrist may be deceptive; but the Bible is not.

Supposing Verse 27 Refers To Christ

If we now say that the he in verse 27 refers to Christ, we have to test the theory under the same strict translation criteria used above. How could Christ confirm the covenant with many for one week? As stated before, the only standing covenant between God and His people was the everlasting covenant He made with Abraham. So the first question is how could Christ confirm this covenant?

Going back to the Hebrew Lexicon definition: to be strong, to prevail (The primary power is that of binding), it should be apparent that this definition supports the finished work of Christ at the cross. It is particularly apparent in Revelation, chapter 5 where the Apostle John saw in a vision, the scroll in Heaven.

"And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, or to look at it. So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. But one of the elders said to me, 'Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.'" (Rev. 5:3-5)

It is quite clear from what John saw and heard that the covenant between God and man had no strength until Christ prevailed. Only then could the scroll be opened and opened only by He who prevailed. The covenant God made with Abraham was indeed confirmed (received its strength) by the sacrifice of Christ at the cross.

The next question is did Christ's sacrifice bring an end to sacrifice and offering? From a carnal perspective, no, the Jews continued to offer sacrifices at the temple until it was destroyed in 70 A.D. But from a spiritual and biblical perspective, Christ's sacrifice did bring an end to sacrifice and offering. Since all animal sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice, there could be no other sacrifice accepted by God. He made that abundantly clear when He tore the partition separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place at the moment Christ gave up the ghost.

Based on biblical evidence, it was Christ not antichrist who confirmed the covenant with many for one week. Even the language identifies with Christ's words at the last supper as recorded by His disciple Mathew: "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Mat. 26:28) (See also Gal 3:17)

Back to Top