One of the more challenging passages of the Hebrew Scriptures to interpret and understand is Daniel 9:24-27, the prophecy of the ‘seventy weeks’ or ‘seventy sevens’. Sam Storms writes,

“One might well argue that Daniel 9:24-27 is both the most complex and the most crucial text in either testament bearing on the subject of biblical prophecy. Its complexity is questioned only by those who have not studied it, or perhaps by those whose conclusions concerning its meaning were predetermined by unspoken theological commitments.” [1]

There have been many different explanations of what it means. Montgomery, in his commentary on Daniel, referred to the history of the exegesis of the passage as “the dismal swamp of O.T. criticism”![2] The present article explains some of the issues and suggests a credible interpretation the passage.

Daniel had been taken as a hostage to Babylon in 605 BC as a young man. Then, many years later (538 BC), following the fall of Babylon, he was reflecting on a prophecy given by Jeremiah nearly 70 years previously which indicated that “the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years” (Daniel 9:2).

There are two references in Jeremiah which speak of a seventy year period.

The first was given in the fourth year of king Jehoiakim of Judah (604 BC), a year after Daniel had been taken captive (see Daniel 1:1) and speaks of God’s judgment on Babylon.

“‘This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt,’ declares the Lord, ‘and will make it desolate forever.’”  (Jeremiah 25:11-12).

The Babylonian captivity had taken place in three phases, each involving the deportation of Jewish hostages or captives.

1. 605 BC. First deportation (3^rd year of Jehoiakim) under king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. See 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chron. 36:6; Dan. 1:1.        
2. 597 BC. Second deportation (1^st year of Jehoiakin, 8^th year of Nebuchadnezzar). See 2 Kings 24:10-17; 2 Chron 36:6, 10.
3. 587 BC. Third deportation and fall of Jerusalem (9^th year of Zedekiah), again under Nebuchadnezzar. See 2 Kings 25:8-21; 2 Chron. 36:17-20.

The second reference to a seventy year period is in a letter Jeremiah wrote to the exiles in Babylon, following the second deportation, and promises the Jews a return from exile after seventy years of Babylonian captivity.

“For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfil to you my promise and bring you back to this place.” (Jeremiah 29:10).

This message would be dated from 597 BC (about eight years after the former prophecy).

Nearly seventy years after the first deportation (66 years to be exact), the Babylonian Empire fell to king Cyrus of Persia in 539 BC. Reflecting on the words of Jeremiah, Daniel understood that the “desolation of Jerusalem” was nearly over and turned to God in prayer (Daniel 9:1-3).[3]

In response to Daniel’s prayer, the angel Gabriel came to Daniel to give him “insight and understanding” (Daniel 9:22). Daniel is then told to “consider and understand the vision” (Daniel 7:23) which follows.

The Prophecy

²⁴ “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

²⁵ Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out 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 put to death 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. 

²⁷ He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” (NIV).

The words ‘seven’ or ‘sevens’ (NIV) are sometimes referred to as ‘week’ or ‘weeks’ (ESV). The Hebrew word is really a participle meaning ‘besevened’ or ‘computed by sevens’.[4] Thus, it means ‘divided into sevens’, that is, a multiple of seven. Hence, some commentators argue that it would be wrong to assume each ‘seven’ necessarily means a single ‘seven’.

Interpreting the passage

Any interpretation of these verses should address certain questions.[5]

1. What are the ‘units of seven’?
2. When do the various periods begin (and end)? Are the time lengths to be taken literally or figuratively?
3. What does the ‘word’ of verse 25 refer to?
4. What is the goal or purpose of the seventy ‘sevens’ or ‘weeks’? When are they fulfilled?
5. Who are the ‘Anointed Ones’ of verses 25 and 26? Are they the same person? Since the Hebrew word can refer to leaders other than the Messiah, are the references messianic or not?
6. What is the distinction between the seven and sixty-two ‘sevens’ or ‘weeks’? Does the Hebrew of verse 25 contain a strong break, as indicated by the ESV, and separating the seven and sixty ‘sevens’, thereby changing the meaning of the whole verse?
7. Who is ‘the prince’ of verse 26 and who are his people? Who is the covenant maker of verse 27? And where does the ‘one who makes desolate’ of verse 27 fit in?
8. What is the ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ in verse 27?
9. What and when is the 70^th ‘unit of seven’ or 70^th ‘week’?
10. How does all this relate to the book of Daniel as a whole?
11. Do verses 26 and 27 provide us with an example of Hebrew parallelism in which verse 27 recapitulates the previous verse? Alternatively, are the two verses to be read sequentially?
12. What do the phrases ‘wing of the temple’ and ‘abomination that causes desolation’ refer to? And how does the latter phrase relate to Jesus’ words in Matt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14?

Analysis of Daniel 9:24-27

In seeking to address the above questions, we consider each verse in turn, looking at the issues as they arise in the context of the passage. A summary is then presented of the suggested interpretation the passage. Various alternative interpretations are then briefly discussed.

Daniel 9:24 introduces the ‘seventy weeks’ and states their purpose. Then verses 25-27 give an account of what will happen during this time to fulfil this purpose.

Daniel 9:24

“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.^” (NIV).

Daniel is informed that God’s purposes are greater than simply a return from exile. They cover a much longer time span than Jeremiah’s seventy years. Rather, a period designated ‘seventy sevens’ has been ‘decreed’ by God for the full restoration of his people. In his sovereignty, God’s purposes are sometimes outworked over long periods of time.

Although, linguistically, the ‘sevens’ could refer to any group of seven units (days, weeks, year), the Hebrew phrase translated ‘seventy sevens’ (NIV) or ‘seventy weeks’ (ESV) is commonly taken to be seventy weeks of years, i.e. 490 years, a period which spans ten Jubilee cycles.

In Leviticus 25, the Jubilee year is defined as the year following ‘seven times seven years’.

“Count off seven sabbath years — seven times seven years — so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years.” (Lev. 25:8).

‘Seventy sevens’ or ten Jubilees would thus represent the time taken to fulfil God’s complete restoration of his people. This is important and can be missed in the detailed discussion of the nature of the time spans involved. 

The 490 year time period has been taken both literally or symbolically. However, as House writes, “Since seven and ten are symbols of full and complete amounts in the Bible, multiplying them together and multiplying by seventy simply means a very long and complete time”.[6] Even if we find fulfilment in the exact number of years, we must not miss the purpose of the prophecy.

The purpose of the ‘seventy sevens’ is given in terms of six separate clauses, three negative and three positive. These purposes are viewed differently by different schools of interpretation.[7] The interpretation presented here largely follows the traditional ‘messianic’ or ‘Roman’ viewpoint.

1. To finish transgression. The word ‘transgression’ combines the idea of rebellion and self-assertion, and thus refers to sin in general and in its many forms.[8] The verb can be translated ‘complete’ or ‘restrain’.[9] Young supports the idea that sin is “shut in. sealed up and hidden by the God of mercy, so that it may no longer be regarded as existing”.[10]
2. To put an end to sin. ‘Sin’ is a general term for all wrong, a missing of the mark.[11] The verb may be read “to seal up” in the sense of ‘taking away’ or ‘removal out of sight’.[12]
3. To atone for wickedness. Iniquity is intentional wrongdoing and results in guilt worthy of punishment. The act of atonement explains “how sin becomes sealed up”.[13] Baldwin writes, “The verb is regularly used in the Old Testament for making atonement, especially by blood sacrifices. If God is regarded as the subject, it is announcing that God has found a way of forgiving sin without being untrue to his own righteousness.”[14] This would be the result of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.
4. To bring in everlasting righteousness. On a more traditional view, it means the sinner’s restored relationship with God.
5. To seal up vision and prophecy. God will authenticate Jeremiah’s prophecy or Daniel’s vision by accomplishing all that had been predicted.
6. To anoint the most holy place (literally a most holy”). This can be translated “Most Holy One”, referring to a person. The traditional conservative view sees a reference to the anointing of Jesus at his baptism.

It is clear that the overall purpose of the ‘seventy sevens’ is far more comprehensive than simply a return to the land (although they will certainly include this). The ‘seventy sevens’ are fulfilled neither by the return from exile, nor the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple, nor the rededication of the temple after Antiochus IV. They will only be fulfilled after the coming of Jesus the Messiah.

E.J. Young writes, “The termination of the 70 sevens coincides with … the first advent of our Lord.” [15] For Culver, however, “The scope of verse 24’s prophecy requires that the last week terminates no earlier than the coming of Christ at the second advent.” [16]

These two differing views may be reconciled through a now and not yet view of the kingdom of God. The coming of Jesus Christ in the first century AD inaugurates the new messianic age and therefore fulfils the six purposes outlined by Gabriel in Daniel 9:24. The full consummation of these purposes, however, awaits Jesus’ return.

The next three verses, Daniel 9:25-25, show how these purposes are outworked.

Daniel 9:25

“Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out 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. (NIV).

The ‘seventy sevens’ are broken down into three separate subdivisions, of seven, sixty two, and one ‘seven’ respectively.

There are a number of questions that need to be addressed in interpreting this verse.

The first question relates to which ‘word’ (dabar) is being referred to. There are several possibilities.

1. The prophecy of Jeremiah (597 BC; Jer. 29:10, 14; cf. Jer. 25:1-12).
2. The words of Gabriel (538 BC)
3. The decree of Cyrus (538 BC; Ezra 1:1-4).
4. The decree of Darius (515 BC; Ezra 6:1-12).
5. The decree of Artaxerxes (457 BC; Ezra 7:12-26).
6. The decree of Artaxerxes (445/444 BC; Neh. 2:7-9).

As the Hebrew (dabar) normally applies to divine decrees, this favours options (1) or (2). However, a decree might originate with God and be communicated through prophetic, angelic, or even royal intermediaries. In the context of the passage, the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC appears to be the most reasonable as it was issued very shortly after Gabriel visited Daniel. Certainly, it was this decree “in which the effects of the going forth of a word began to appear in history.”[17]

It is argued that the decree cannot be that of Cyrus because the wording in Ezra 1:2-4 refers to the rebuilding of the temple and not the city.  Rather, we should take the decree as one of those from the time of Artaxerxes.

The argument that the earlier decree of Cyrus was only concerned with the rebuilding of the Temple and not the city, however, is found to contradict with Isaiah 44:28, in which Yahweh “says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, “Let it be rebuilt,” and of the temple, “Let its foundations be laid.”’”  The Jewish historian Josephus supports the view that Cyrus’ decree also included the permission to rebuild the city.

Although the decree of Cyrus, appears to be in mind, Ezra 6:14 speaks of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes as though they issued a single decree.

“And the elders of the Jews built and prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by decree of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” (Ezra 6:14).

Gentry writes,

“Darius’ decree (Ezra 6) was based upon the fact that Cyrus had already issued the decree to permit the return and rebuilding of Jerusalem (see Ezra 5:17-6:7). Darius’s decree was therefore a renewal (6:6-7) and an expansion (6:8-12) of Cyrus’s original decree (6:3-5). Exra 6:14 shows that Artaxerxes’s decree to Ezra (in Ezra 7) is also an extension of Cyrus’s original decree. So the decree of Cyrus which was drafted in 537 to restore the temple is not completed until 457 BC under Artaxerxes , which is therefore the date of the “word to rebuild Jerusalem” starting with the sanctuary.”[18]

This gives the basis for starting the “seventy sevens” in 458/7 BC. Gentry continues,

“457 B, then, is the correct date to begin marking off the seventy sabbaticals because this “word” to rebuild the city is associated with the return of Ezra and the re-establishing of the judiciary, central to the concept of a city (Ezra 7:25, 26).”[19]

The second question relates to translation and whether the 62 sevens and the 7 sevens are distinct or joined together.

The ESV translation differs significantly from that of the NIV and reads,

“Know 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.”

The (Hebrew) Masoretic Text has an accent called an atnah which indicates a strong break and thus favours the ESV reading. However, the original Hebrew text contained no vowels or accentuation. Further, the LXX or Greek translation of the Old Testament (and which predates the accentuation of the text) has no indicator of the break. This implies that the NIV captures the meaning of the text better than the ESV.

This still leaves us asking why the separation of the seven and sixty-two. The answer is simple. The seven sabbaticals cover the period roughly 457-407 BC and include the efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah. During this period the city is fully rebuilt with “plaza and town-moat” (a reference to the completeness or security of the rebuilding). The walls are restored, houses rebuilt, and the city repopulated (See Neh. 7). The difficulties of this period reflect opposition to rebuilding.

In the following sixty-two ‘sevens’, or 62 x 7 = 434 years, there is little of significance to report as far as God’s plan for Jerusalem or salvation is concerned. The time of Antiochus IV and the Maccabean revolt, although distressing and a prophetic pointer to things to come (cf. Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14), are not primarily in view.

At the end of the sixty-nine ‘sevens’, i.e. 483 years, an ‘anointed one’ will come. The word can be used generally of priests and leaders. Although there have been several suggestions as to the identity of this first ‘anointed one’ in verse 25 (including Cyrus, Zerubabbel, and Joshua), the period takes us to 27/28 AD, around the time when the Holy Spirit came on Jesus at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32).

Daniel 9:26

“After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death (lit. 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. (NIV).

This verse covers a time when the city had already been rebuilt and the scene is set for the fulfilment of God’s greater purposes.

If there is a strong break in verse 25 and the seven and sixty two ‘sevens’ are distinct, there are two different “Anointed Ones”. If, however, there is no strong break and the NIV translation is correct (as we have argued), the “Anointed One” in both cases is Jesus.

On this traditional Messianic view, the reference is to the Messiah being put to death speaks of the crucifixion. The verb ‘cut off’ is also found in Isaiah 53:8, where it refers to the death of the Suffering Servant of the Lord, i.e. Jesus. This happens in the seventieth week (i.e. following the sixty ninth week), and is integral to the fulfilling God’s purposes of spiritual restoration.

There will follow a devastating war. Readers of the New Testament will readily identify this as the time referred to in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21. It is the time that the Romans destroyed the temple and carried the Jews once more into exile.

The question arises as to whether the events of AD 66-70 follow the seventieth week or are a part of it. E.J. young writes, “The destruction of the city takes place after the expiry of the 70 sevens.” Peter Gentry sees the seventh sabbatical as running from 27-34 AD,

Following the crucifixion of Jesus, there are still three and a half years of the seventieth week left unaccounted for. If taken literally, they take us up to the time of Stephen’s martyrdom and the beginning of the early church’s mission to the nations.

Some see the seventieth week as an extended period of time that culminates with Jesus’ return. However, it could be that here we have an example of the “now and the not yet” of the kingdom of God? By the end of the seventieth week, Christ had inaugurated the kingdom of God, but its consummation and final fulfilment await his return.

The ‘ruler is to come’ probably refers to Titus whose armies destroyed the temple. Some, however, believe it refers to Jesus as it was renegade Jews (his people) who desecrated the temple and by their rebellion brought the Roman destruction upon the city. On balance, Titus is to be preferred. However, it makes little difference to the overall picture as the activities of both renegade Jews and Roman legions contribute together to the destruction of the city and temple.

The words ‘flood’ (an allusion to Noah’s time) and ‘desolations’ emphasize the totality of the destruction. Judgment had fallen on the city that rejected her Messiah.

Daniel 9:27

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”  (NIV).

Although the final ‘seven’ is not mentioned until verse 27, verses 26-27 taken together form an example of Hebrew parallelism. This supports the traditional messianic view of Jesus inaugurating the New Covenant.

A (26a)            Jesus the crucified Messiah

B (26b)            Titus destroying Jerusalem and the Temple

A’ (27a)           Jesus inaugurating the New Covenant

B’ (27b)           Titus defiling the temple

As a result of the crucifixion, Jesus  inaugurated the New Covenant. The sacrifices and offerings of the Old Covenant are no longer required. Their actual cessation, however, awaits the events of AD 66-70.

The ‘abomination that causes desolation’ recalls the other passages in Daniel where the reference is to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Here, however, the reference is to the events of AD 66-70, as supported by Jesus’ use of the term in Matt. 24 and Mark 13.

The verse ends with an indication that the destroyer of Jerusalem (I.e. Titus) will himself eventually face God’s judgment.

In the Hebrew, there is no ‘for’ before the ‘one seven’. The verse is not talking about a covenant that lasts for seven years, but one that is inaugurated during the period of the seventieth week, yet lasts till Christ returns.

Summary of proposed interpretation

The view presented here is sometimes referred to as the traditional ‘Roman’ view to distinguish it from the critical ‘Antiochene’ or ‘Greek’ view (see below). The former sees the completion of the seventy weeks in the 1^st century AD, while the latter view sees completion in the 2^nd century BC. Although other prophecies in the book of Daniel might find their fulfilment in the earlier date, they dealt with world powers rather than the completion of God’s plan of salvation. There is no obligation for different prophecies to find their primary fulfilment at the same time.

The ‘seventy sevens’ are a reference to ten Jubilees, the time taken for the outworking of God’s perfect and complete liberation of his people. The starting point of the ‘seven sevens’ is the divine word, mirrored by the decree of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes. Ezra 6:14 indicates that there is, in fact, a single multi-staged decree, which was initially given in 538 BC but not finally completed until 457 BC.

The next 49 years or ‘seven sevens’ saw the completion of Jerusalem’s rebuilding under Ezra and Nehemiah. The sixty-two sevens or 434 years takes us up to the time of Jesus’ baptism and anointing by the Holy Spirit. Then in the final ‘seven’, Jesus’ crucifixion inaugurates the New Covenant, which remains in force till he returns. As a result sacrificial offerings are no longer needed although it would be 40 years before the temple was destroyed and the animal sacrifices ceased.

Judgment would fall on a city that rejected her Messiah and, within a space of forty years, there would be a devastating war which resulted in ‘great tribulation’ (Matt. 24:21; cf. Mark 13:19). The Jerusalem temple would be desecrated by ‘an abomination that causes desolation’. This would be followed by the destruction of both city and its temple by Titus’ soldiers.

The purposes of the ‘seventy sevens’ are fulfilled, the kingdom of God is inaugurated although the final consummation is still future. God’s Jubilee purposes are thus complete.

On this understanding, the ‘seventy sevens’ give no support to Dispensationalism and a 70^th week in the future.

Jesus had pointed to the prophecies of Daniel 7 and 11 about the ‘abomination of desolation’ as being types or patterns of things to come with a deeper fulfilment in mind. Daniel 9, however, points directly to the fulfilment in the first century AD.

The ‘Critical’ Maccabean-Antiochene view as a partial fulfilment

An alternative interpretation may provide an inexact and partial (or incomplete) fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

This critical-historic view sees the fulfilment of the prophecy in the past history of Israel. It has been labelled a ‘liberal’ view because many who accept it see the Book of Daniel as being written in the second rather than the sixth century. If this were the case, the author could not be Daniel. However, this interpretation need not be tied to late date of authorship and is held by some evangelical scholars.

According to this view:

1. The ‘decree’ of Daniel 9:25 is either Jeremiah’s prophecy or the edict of Cyrus.
2. The first ‘anointed one’ (verse 25) is either Cyrus, or Zerubbabel, or Joshua. The latter two are in fact called ‘sons of oil’ (Zech. 4:14). Another suggestion is Ezra or Nehemiah.
3. The ‘62 weeks’ spans 605-171 BC (434 years) or 538-171 BC (367 years). In the former case, the time is exact; in the latter case the 2^nd century author of Daniel made a mistake!
4. The ‘second anointed one’ is a reference to Onias III (the last legitimate high priest) who was assassinated in 171 BC, 62 x 7 years after the first deportation.
5. The covenant-maker of verse 27 is Antiochus IV Epiphanes who made a covenant with apostate Jews for a ‘week’ of seven years. This 70^th week spans (171-164 BC) and is characterised by persecution initiated by Antiochus. It ended with the Maccabean revolt when Israel finally gained independence from foreign overlords.
6. Supposedly in line with the other prophecies in Daniel, ‘the prince’ of verse 26 is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, he destroyed neither city nor temple, but did point forward to the one who did both (Titus). The reference to war in Daniel 9:26 refers to the Maccabean revolt, pointing forward to the Jewish revolt of AD 66-70.

On this view the purposes of verse 24 are seen as:

1. To finish transgression. This is the ending of the profanation of the temple in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
   1. To put an end to sin.  Antiochus stopped the sin offering.
   1. To atone for wickedness. On the Antiochene view, this refers to Israel being absolved of hellenizing failures.
   1. To bring in everlasting righteousness. This means Jewish prosperity.
   1. To seal up vision and prophecy. As with the traditional view, God will authenticate Jeremiah’s prophecy or Daniel’s vision by accomplishing all that had been predicted.
   1. To anoint the most holy place. This refers to the re-consecration of the altar in 165 BC following its desecration in the time of Antiochus IV.

This view does not necessarily preclude the prophetic nature of Daniel’s prophecy, with the historical events described being patterns for and pointing forward to later events and people, particularly Jesus Christ and the Roman Emperor Titus.

The advantage of this view is that it aligns with the other visions/prophecies in the book of Daniel which are fulfilled in the 2^nd century BC and yet allows for the expectation of a deeper fulfilment to come.

On this view, it is challenging to match the numbers unless we follow Behrmann who sees 606 BC as the starting point of both the 7 sevens and the 62 sevens. But, as Young points out, the natural reading of the passage is that “the 62 sevens are seen as following, not coinciding with or overlapping with the 7 sevens.”[20]

Although aspects of the prophecy were fulfilled, there is a sense that the resulting situation is far short of the glorious purposes expressed in 9:24. The reference to ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ alerts us to a further fulfilment that takes place in the New Testament era (cf. Matt. 24:1`5; Mark 13:14; cf. Luke 21:20). However, as terrible as the Antiochene period was, the city and sanctuary had not been destroyed (verse 26). The trials of the time of Antiochus IV pointed forward to something greater at an unspecified later time.

It is possible, therefore, to see in the events of 171-164 BC a preliminary, albeit incomplete and inexact, fulfilment of Daniel’s vision. In this case, the assassination of Onias III in 171 BC points to the ‘cutting off’ of Jesus and the independence gained seven years following the Maccabean revolt in 164 AD points forward to the greater liberation gained by Jesus the Messiah. Thus, the prophecy finds its full fulfilment in the coming of the Messiah Jesus.

Such a partial fulfilment is not unlike the preliminary fulfilment of ‘virgin’ prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 and Daniel 9:24-27 is more nuanced than first meets the eye.

The Dispensational or Interval view.

An alternative view, which is irreconcilable with the view presented here one which introduces a gap of indeterminate length between the end of the sixty ninth week and the beginning of the seventieth week. God’s ‘prophetic clock’ has stopped during the church age and will only be reset following a pre-tribulation ‘rapture.

In this view, the first sixty-nine weeks are interpreted similarly to the traditional Roman view, although the use of ‘prophetic years’ of 360 days places the fulfilment of the sixty ninth week at the time of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The events of the 70^th are then radically different from the view proposed here.

1. The ‘word’ of verse 25 is one of the decrees of the Persian king Artaxerxes (458 or 445) which are recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
2. Both the ‘anointed ones’ are Jesus. The 7 and 62 ‘weeks’ are taken together. This 69 ‘week’ period ends with the Triumphal Entry.
3. The cutting off of the second ‘anointed one’ is taken as the crucifixion of Messiah Jesus. There is then a gap, which has already spanned nearly 2000 years, throughout the entire church age until the Tribulation, which is the 70^th week.
4. The covenant-maker is seen as the Antichrist some time in the future.
5. The purpose, to bring in everlasting righteousness, involves a turning to God by Israel; on a more traditional view, it means the sinner’s restored relationship with God; and from the Antiochene perspective it means Jewish prosperity.
6. To anoint the most holy place (literally a most holy”) is seen as a reference to the restored millennial temple.

On linguistic grounds, Gerhard Hasel has argued that the ‘seventy weeks’ is “a complete uninterrupted span of time”. On the basis of this, any interval between the weeks is eliminated. Thus, the dispensational view is not a viable interpretation as it introduces an alien concept (a gap of nearly 2000 years). Apart from the holding of a preconceived theological position, it is difficult to see how this interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 would arise from the study of the passage.

Alternative Interpretations

There are a number of alternative ways in which Daniel 9:24-27 has been interpreted. Generally, they are minority interpretations and are not covered here. They may be grouped into various categories, although each category has several variants. [21]

Conclusion

An interpretation of Daniel’s seventy weeks has been given which fulfils the twelve criteria given at the start of this article. This places the complete fulfilment of the prophecy during the life of Jesus the Messiah which, prior to the advent of Dispensationalism in the 1830s, was the majority evangelical position.

Different views on Daniel 9:24-27
	Historic		Eschatological
	Antiochene Maccabean Critical (Held by Widder[1])	Roman Traditional Messianic (Held by Baldwin, Young)	Symbolic Ends with Jesus’ Return		Interval Literal-Futuristic Dispensational (Held by Stephen Miller[2])
			I  Messianic	II             Non-Messianic (Held by Thomas McComiskey[3])
“Decree/word” Verse 25	Jeremiah (605) Cyrus (586)	One of 4 Persian decrees	Decree of Cyrus	Jeremiah’s prophetic word	Artaxerxes 458/445 BC
First “anointed one”	Cyrus Zerubbabel Joshua	Jesus	Jesus	Cyrus	Jesus
62 ‘weeks’	Cyrus – Antiochus IV (538-170)	62+7	62 + 7 Church Age	Indefinite period Cyrus – End	62+7 Triumphal Entry
Second “anointed one”	Onias III	Jesus	Jesus @ Tribulation	AntiChrist	Jesus @ Crucifixion
Covenant-maker	Antiochus IV	Jesus	AntiChrist	AntiChrist	AntiChrist
70th week	Persecution under Antiochus IV (171-164)	Culminates with Roman destruction of Temple	Tribulation	Tribulation	Tribulation

---

[1] Widder, Wendy, Daniel: Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament, Zondervan, 2023.

[2] Stephen Miller, NAC series on Daniel.

[3] Thomas Edward McComiskey, The Seventy ‘Weeks’ of Daniel against the Background of Ancient Middle Eastern Literature, Westminster Theological Journal, Spring 1985, Vol, 47:1.

Bibliography

Baldwin, Joyce G., Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, Inter-Varsity Press, 1978.

Culver, D., Daniel and the Latter Days, Revell, 1954.

Gentry, Peter J., “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the New Exodus”, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Vol. 14.1, 2010, 24-44.

Hasel, Gerhard F., The Hebrew Masculine Plural for “Weeks” in the Expression “Seventy Weeks” in Daniel 9:24, Andrews University Studies, Vol. 2, Summer 1993, 105-118.

House, Paul R., Daniel: An Introduction And Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, IVP. Kindle Edition,

Lucas, Ernest, Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary, Inter-Varsity Press, 2002.

McComiskey, Thomas Edward, The Seventy “Weeks” of Daniel against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Literature, Westminster Theological Journal, Spring 1985, 18-15.

Montgomery, James A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, International Critical Commentary, T & T Clark, 1979.

Payne, J. Barton, The Goal of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 21.2, June 1978, 97-119.

Storms, Sam, Kingdom Come (The Amillennial Alternative), 2013, Christian Focus Publications.

Young, E. J., A Commentary on Daniel (The Geneva Series of Commentaries), Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1949.

---

[1] Storms, page 71.

[2] Montgomery, page 400.

[3] Robert Anderson makes a distinction between “the desolation of Jerusalem” and “the captivity of Judah”.

[4] E. J. Young, page 195.

[5] Some of these questions have been addressed by Storms, pages 71-91.

[6] House, page 157.

[7] See Payne for an useful table.

[8] Baldwin, page 168.

[9] Lucas, page 229.

[10] Young, page 198.

[11] Baldwin, page 169.

[12] Young, page 198.

[13] House, page 158.

[14] Baldwin, page 169.

[15] Young, page 201.

[16] Culver, pages, 136, 155.

[17] Young, page 203.

[18] Gentry, page 35.

[19] Gentry, pages 35-36.

[20] Young, page 205.

[21] See talk given by Wendy Widder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06JB-cygPVo. Accessed 21/02/2024.