Seventy Weeks of Daniel
BIBL 450 Liberty University On-Line
Dean Jaynes
02/08/2015

Daniel 9: 24-28 contains what many consider to be the most important prophetic scriptures in the entire bible. This passage details the prophetic chronology of Israel from the time of Daniel until the second coming of Christ. Much of Daniel’s vision of the seventy weeks can be seen in both historical and biblical events such as the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem by decree of Artaxerxes I in 445 B. C. (Miller 1994). the triumphant entry of Jesus on the 8th of Nisan (Strong 1995), and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD. It is interesting to note there is a gap in Daniel’s prophecy between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. When Jesus read from the scroll in Luke 4 he only read part of the scripture “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lords favor” (Isaiah 61: 1-2a NASB) and he stopped. The remainder of that scripture declares a day of vengeance of God. By not completing the scripture Jesus was saying part of the prophecy is fulfilled in your presence today and part is yet to come. The seventieth week will resume with the revealing of the Antichrist and continue until the return of Christ at his second coming.
Daniel 9:24 gives us the complete prophecy. Verse 25 describes the first sixty-nine weeks. The events that occur between the sixty-nine and seventieth weeks are detailed in verse 26. Finally in verse 27 we see the final time of the seventieth seven. There are many interpretations to explain these prophecies but there are two main categories, Christological and non- Christological. (Milner 1877). The prevailing view in the non-Christological view is that this entire passage and verse 27 in particular refers to weeks or months instead of years. The higher criticism view within this viewpoint believes that Daniel is a forgery written in the second century B.C. to embellish the Jewish faith (Athos 2009). According to this viewpoint the pseudo-Daniel confuses the seventy years of Israel’s captivity with the seventy sevens of Gabriel’s vision. While this view is popular with some theological scholars it fails to take into account the Hebrew word shane, the context of Daniel’s writings, the nature of the captivity itself, the account given in Jerimiah, even the translations of the Mishna, all of which indicate the time frame is years, not weeks or months (Davies 1980).
In the second part of Daniel 9:24 the angel Gabriel declares a time had been set aside for the Jews and their holy city Jerusalem. This revelation is a direct response to Daniel’s prayer of concern for the Jewish people. Many scholars disagree with this claiming it refers to “spiritual Israel” or the church. However a careful reading of the text makes it clear Daniel’s prayer was for the nation of Israel and that the view of a “spiritual Israel” is not supported by the remainder of the text (III 1994). It is clear that both Gabriel and Daniel are talking about literal Israel in this passage.
Six goals yet to be fulfilled are listed in the last part of verse 24. These goals have to do with the sin of Israel as well as the restoration of Israel. There are two main views here concerning the fulfillment of these goals. The first view is that the first three goals were fulfilled with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The second view is that all of the prophecy in verse 24 will be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ (Miller 1994). Athos makes a compelling argument on this point. He believes none of the prophecy of verse 24 will be fulfilled until the full 490 years is accomplished. He has translated the word transgression as rebellion, recognizing the nation of Israel will not repent of this rebellion until the very end as prophesied by Zechariah (Zechariah 12:10-13:1) (Athos 2009). Further in support of this Milner believes the “end of sin” relates to daily transgressions while the “the atonement for iniquity” occurred at Calvary but will not be extended to Israel until they recognize Jesus as Messiah (Milner 1877).
Others believe these goals were fulfilled by Christ at his first and second coming. The belief here is that the first three goals were fulfilled by Christ on the cross while the final three, the promise to bring everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision, and to anoint the most holy are yet to be fulfilled. Christians believe, and rightly so, that everlasting righteousness was accomplished on the cross when Christ made a way for sinners to be justified and sanctified with God. However the many messianic passages in scripture that view righteousness as being applied at Christ’s second coming may be the ultimate and final explanation (III 1994). For example Jeremiah said that the Lord will raise up for David a righteous branch, a king who will reign wisely. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety and he will be called the Lord our Righteous Savior (Jeremiah 23:5-6 NASB).
Reading Daniel 9:24 we can see both views. I believe both views are intended. Christ did bring salvation to a lost and dying world by his sacrifice on the cross but the nation of Israel will not receive this salvation until they repent and believe on Jesus as Messiah at the completion of the 490 years.
Moving on to verse 25 we find the beginning point of the seventy sevens and the prophecy of the end of the seventieth week. This begins with a decree to rebuild and restore Jerusalem and concludes with the reign of Messiah. The first point of dissension here is when the decree was given. Throughout the Medo-Persian reign several decrees were issued to rebuild various parts of Jerusalem. Some of the more notable were the decree of Cyrus around 538 B.C., the decree of Darius I in 519 B. C. and finally Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 445 B.C.
Most Biblical scholars point to this last decree, Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 445 B. C. as the most likely one mentioned in the prophecy of the seventy weeks. The most compelling reason for this is an earlier negative decree issued by Artaxerxes. Even though it was law no king could reverse an earlier decree Artaxerxes gave himself an out in his decree that the Jews stop working. This was recorded in the book of Ezra (Ezra 4:17-22). This made it possible to issue a later decree that allowed the rebuilding of the walls. There is an apparent problem with the date of 445 B.C. however. Many scholars argue the date does work with the timeline given. The first theory given against the date of 445 B.C. is that the ancients used a 360 day year. McClain supports this theory by saying the prophetical year is made up of twelve 30 day months (McClain 2007). It is true the 365 day year has not always been in use by all cultures at all times. However the 360 day year theory is just as unlikely because there has been no solid evidence to support it in reference to the seventy week prophecy. In addition to this the crucifixion of Christ is general believed by historians to have occurred in 30 AD. The 360 day year theory would have put it at 33AD instead (McClain 2007).
In Miller’s commentary on Daniel he presents the view that the decree to Ezra in 458 B.C. is the correct starting point. By his calculations the completion of the fortification of Jerusalem would have been 409 B.C. This would have marked the end of the first seven sevens, or 49 years. Evidence has been uncovered that points to another man being governor of Judah in 407 B.C. This means that Nehemiah was gone by this time making the date of 409 B.C. possible as the end of this work. If this view is correct it eliminates much of the speculation concerning the year length as well as the date of the crucifixion (Miller 1994).
The KJV translates the words streets and walls regarding this prophecy, fueling yet another debate about Daniel’s prophecy. Most Bible scholars agree however the most accurate translation of these words is plaza rather than streets or walls. This would have been the area where business and commerce took place. Later translations more accurately render this passage as plaza and either moat or trench. Davies maintains the word translated wall is not the word normally used for wall. The root word used means to cut, sharpen, or divide. Most modern translators render it as ditch or moat. Though Miller uses “plazas” he also feels the concept of a conduit or other system for water is viable given the fact that Jerusalem is a dry area with an arid climate. He maintains that a trench or ditch makes more sense than digging a moat (Miller 1994).
Verse 26 has probably the most perplexing message in Daniel 9. If we take the Christological view after the rebuilding of Jerusalem would occur in the first 49 years, and another 434 years would pass before the onset of the next two prophetic events. The first of these events is that Messiah, Jesus Christ will come. After the end of the 69th seven he shall be cut off. There are several viewpoints as to what this means. The KJV adds the words “but not for himself”. This translation is somewhat misleading and can be better rendered as “cut off and have nothing”. The meaning here could be “without inheriting the messianic kingdom" (Davies 1980). Yet another view is that the Messiah would have no royal crown, only a crown of thorns. On earth he would have nothing properly belonging to the Messiah and instead would be rejected by the people (Athos 2009). In either case it is clear the Messiah would be left destitute at his death. It would appear to all that witnessed his death that evil had triumphed and to those who believed in him as Messiah all hope was gone.
McClain writes that those who take a non-Christological view argue that the words for Messiah and prince are ambiguous and that their combination here does not clarify identification. They offer three other possible solutions. The first is Cyrus the ‘anointed’ of Isaiah 45, Zerubbabel, called the Messiah of the Restoration and his high priest Josedek (McClain 2007). None of these men have any spiritual backing.
Continuing in scripture we next see Gabriel telling Daniel that at a future time the rebuilt temple would be destroyed by “the prince that shall come”. This prince “shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”. This occurred in AD 70 under the Emperor Tiberius, less than 40 years after Christ’s prophetic statement recorded in Luke when the Romans destroyed the temple, leaving not one stone in place. Then Gabriel identifies the coming prince as one that will come out of the peoples and nations of the ancient Roman Empire. This prince would be the little horn in Daniel chapter seven (III 1994).
The verse then goes to say that the end shall be with a flood. Most scholars believe this is not a reference to a literal flood. They point out the word used here is the same one used in Nahum representing God’s wrath being poured out (Nahum 1:8 NASB). Miller states this flood is a symbolic representation of the immense magnitude of destruction (Miller 1994). It is well documented that during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Romans crucified as many as 500 Jewish soldiers and citizens a day (Strong 1995). This flood of destruction and veritable sea of dying humanity is clearly a picture of the wrath of God being poured out against the Jewish people.
Next we find the words “unto the end of war desolations are determined (decreed). War here is most likely the subject of a decree and not of desolations. In other words, “until the end, war has been decreed with desolations” (Miller 1994). Because the phrase “the end” occurs twice in verse 26 it is contextually possible that it refers to both the end of the age and to a future destruction of Jerusalem. It is probably better to consider all of verse 26 to be historically fulfilled (III 1994).
Verse 27 continues with the actions of the “prince” and the completions of God’s purpose. Athos states that “Here one has a choice. We can choose literal fulfillment, which must include a futuristic interpretation with a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks, or consider several other options that lack a clear, concise fulfillment of verse 27 (Athos 2009). It is not uncommon for biblical prophecies to contain what biblical scholars call a prophetic perspective gap. Such gaps occur in passages such as Isaiah 9 and Zechariah 9. Generally this is occurs when the gap between the first and second advent is not perceived (Davies 1980). An example of this is found in Matthew 24 when Jesus refers to the “abomination of desolation” as a sign to the nation that the great tribulation is approaching (Matthew 24:29-30 NASB).
Those who oppose a futuristic interpretation of Daniel have offered four alternate views. The first view is that the seventieth seven was fulfilled following the Maccabean persecution just as the first sixty nine were. The second view is the traditional view of Orthodox Jewish scholars who believe the seventieth week was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The third view is called the amillennialist view. This view states the seventieth week of Daniel is an indefinite period beginning with Christ but continuing to the end. Finally, the fourth view, that the seventieth seven is seven literal years starting with the public ministry of Christ and being completed about three and a half years after his death (Davies 1980). The problem is that every single one of these views has the same flaw, which is that none of them can provide a literal fulfillment of the prophecy. The Maccabean view is built on the premise that Daniel is a forgery and therefore prophecy is impossible. Both the second and third views explain problems by spiritualizing the text and provide no specific timeline. The fourth view shows a literal fulfillment of the first sixty nine and a half sevens but no fulfillment of the end (Davies 1980).
The seventieth seven needs to be examined by itself because it deals entirely with future events.
Verse 27 begins by saying, “And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate” (Daniel 9:27 NASB). The ruler identified here in verse 26 as well as in the context of the book is the coming Antichrist, who makes a seven year agreement with Israel. The terms confirm and covenants are indicative of a firm agreement. The phrase with many or with the many is understood to be the representatives of the Jewish people. This covenant could include the rebuilding of the third temple because the covenant will be broken in the middle of the seven years when the restored sacrificial system is interrupted by the “abomination of desolation”. We see in 2nd Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 that this ruler will become drunk on his own power, take his seat in the temple of God and declare he be worshipped and honored as God himself. This will be the “abomination of desolation” (McClain 2007). Once seated as God the Antichrist will commit terrible atrocities and begin a defilement and desolation of the temple that will usher in the judgments mentioned later in this verse. Many point to Antiochus in the second century B.C. as this antichrist. The Bible tells us plainly that during the latter part of the reign of Antichrist persecution of the Jews will be worldwide. This ruler will not only assume absolute political power but demand the entire world worship him. Clearly this is not Antiochus but a ruler yet to come. The rule of this Antichrist will continue until the completion of the final seventy weeks, culminating with the second coming of Christ ushering in judgment and beginning a glorious time of peace. (Milner 1877).
In conclusion I believe it is safe to believe in a literal interpretation of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9, and that Daniel is in fact the historical author of the book that bears his name. The seventy weeks are clearly seen as years and each has within them factual prophecies for Israel. Further I believe that both scriptural and historical evidence prove the prophecies relating the first sixty nine years have been fulfilled, that there is a time gap between the sixty ninth and seventieth weeks, and the final seven years will commence with the rise to power of the Antichrist and end with the triumphant return of Jesus Christ. On that day time will end and eternity begins.

.

Works Cited
a. n.d.
Athos, George. "In Search of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel." Journal of Hebrew Scriptures vol. 19, 2009: 134-142.
Davies, Philip. "Eschatology in the Book of Daniel." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1980: 33-53.
Holy Bible NASB 3rd edition. 2006.
III, Kenneth Barker and John Kohlenberger. The Expositors Bible Commentary: The Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.
McClain, Alva J. Daniel's Prophecy of the 70 Weeks. Winona Lake: BMH Books, 2007.
Miller, Stephen R. The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Daniel. Nashville, Tn.: B&H Publishing, 1994.
Milner, John. "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel." Journal of the Royal Historic Society vol. 6, 1877: 298-303.
Strong, James. The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville. Tn: Thomas Nelson Publishing, 1995.