Of all the Bible, the seventy weeks of Daniel has attracted perhaps more Christians, Bible scholars, and curious people than any other piece or pieces of scripture. Whether it is the end time prophecy or trying to disprove the facts in the Bible, many go in unprepared. Before beginning a journey of this magnitude, careful prayer, patience, and study is needed because God honors such things. Psalm 25:5 reminds us to “Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.”

Daniel 9:24-27 begins with Gabriel bringing Daniel the answer to his prayer helping Daniel comprehend how long until his people are restored. With any prophecy comes different views and applications, which leads to what “Montgomery calls ‘the dismal swamp of Old Testament criticism.’ Leupold called it ‘an exegetical crux.’ Young regarded it as ‘one of the most difficult in all the Old Testament.’”[1]

With careful prayer and study, it will be shown that Daniel’s Seventieth weeks is interpreted as years, Jesus is the Anointed One, verifies Jesus’ death, the restoration and destruction of Jerusalem, and verifies the antichrist, his heritage, and his doom.

Daniel 9:24

“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place” (Daniel 9:24).

Special attention is given to the “seventy weeks,” or “seventy sevens,” that Daniel mentions in verse 24. Much like today, we compare decades in ten’s and centuries in multitudes of one hundreds, weeks should be understood as years. Viewing “weeks” as literal months or days is not suitable with the rest of the book as Dr. Miller suggests in the New American Commentary.[2] The Israelites celebrated the seventh day as the Lord’s Day and every seventh year as the year to allow the land to repose. Some view weeks as an indefinite period of time, and even though this view clearly identifies the relation to the prophecy in Jeremiah, this view is unlikely as Daniel would not have went through the trouble of breaking down the weeks into seventy, sixty-two, and then one, week. Therefore, viewing “weeks” as anything other than years will confuse and misguide the reader.

Daniel is given the promise of redemption. Gabriel uses the terms “your people and your city” and his people are the Israelites and his Holy city is Jerusalem. Furthermore, there are several things that are mentioned that are only descriptive of a finale. “Finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for iniquity, bring everlasting righteousness, seal both the vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy place,” are all season ending. As René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington mentions in their book, A Handbook on the Book of Daniel, to finish transgression and to put an end to sin can be interpreted as being one in the same, but it should be noted that the original text reads to “seal” transgression and the New Jerusalem Bible translates as “putting a seal on sin.” The idea is to put an end to sin once and for all, but one needs to be careful not to believe that people can continue to habitually sin until it is put to rest.[3]

To atone for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness are related to each other as well. The latter is precedent and the former being the closing act. Atoning for iniquity can be traced as far back as to Genesis 3:21 as sin was being atoned for through the innocent blood of an animal. In the New Testament however Jesus became our perfect sacrifice and at Jesus’ second coming, He will shed and bury Israel’s sin once and for all (Ezekiel 37:23; Romans 11:20-27). To bring in everlasting righteousness is God bringing in a state of preeminence and this is in reference to the Millennial kingdom (Isaiah 60:21; Jeremiah 23:5-6).

René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington gives two options to the interpretation of sealing up vision and prophet. If it is taken to mean to hide away or secure, then interpreting this verse is nothing short of impossible. However, if to seal up is interpreted as to authenticate and confirm then this passage becomes reasonable and logical.[4] To anoint the most holy can be interpreted as place or person. Some believe this to be Aaron, the high priest, mentioned in 1 Chronicles 23:13 or

“Daniel Young takes this phrase to speak of the most holy person, Jesus Christ (Messiah), and believes that his anointing for ministry is intended (Isa 61:1).”[5] This does not fit with the context to the beginning of this verse as Daniel is told that this prophecy is about your holy city; this most likely refers to the temple depicted in Ezekiel 41-46.

Daniel 9:25

“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” (Daniel 9:25).

The seventy weeks is begun with a command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Some hold to the belief that the decree issued by the Persian king started the seventy weeks. Both James Smith and Stephen Miller agree that those who believe the seventy weeks are indefinite periods of time, believe that the decrees of Cyrus in 538 B.C., Isaiah 43:13 and Isaiah 44:28 supports the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Archer believes that the decree of Artaxerxes in 458 B.C. was the time frame for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The latter mentions the rebuilding of the temple but neglects the city where the former mentions the rebuilding of the city, and both neglect the rebuilding of the city walls.[6] James Smith states, that Artaxerxes second decree in 445 B.C. is another view taken by some, and even though it meets the requirements of the message or word going out, this was never a formal decree, rather it granted permission for Nehemiah to visit Palestine. He goes on and suggests the only viable option left would be that the decree came from God Himself as the Hebrew word decree in verse 25 matches the Hebrew word command in verse 23 where the subject is God. Even though the second decree from Artaxerxes was the effort of Nehemiah which led to a successful rebuild of Jerusalem’s walls in 445 B.C. the letter to the king in Ezra 4:7-16 suggests an earlier attempt was made to rebuild the walls. There was a group of Jews that returned to Persia on August 4, 458 B.C. which was led by Ezra during the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:8). Ezra was rectifying marriage abuses until New Year ’s Day (Ezra 10:17). This allows for an approximate date of 457 B.C. when Ezra received word from God to restore Jerusalem. Even though this attempt failed, in no way does this contradict when the first “word” went out to rebuild Jerusalem.[7]

The next great event that Daniel is told of is the coming of the Anointed one. This section is highly debatable as some persist that this is a human king/priest not Jesus Christ. René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington insist that it was Jeshua the son of Jehozadak, who was the priest at this time (Ezra 2:2, 36; Nehemiah 7:7, 39) and others suggest Zerubbabel because of his messianic titles, or Cyrus the Great who is mentioned as the Lord’s anointed one.[8] They gave no other scripture references or proof to solidify their interpretation. They may argue the point that Daniel was to look for the Anointed One, but remember that the book of Daniel was written for everyone, not only Daniel. In fact the proper interpretation of “Anointed One” is indeed Jesus Christ himself. He is qualified as Priest and King throughout the Bible (Zechariah 6:13; Psalm 110:4; Matthew 27:11; Hebrews 4:14-15; 5:6) and Jesus is also a Ruler as he will rule from His throne one day and if this was not enough this fits within the time table. The beginning of the seventy weeks at 458/457 B.C. and 483 years (seven weeks plus 62 weeks) after would be 25/26 A.D. which is around the time Jesus was baptized into the ministry becoming anointed.[9]

Daniel 9:26

“And 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” (Daniel 9:26).

After determining Jesus to be the “Anointed One,” there is no specific time period given after the sixty-two weeks where Jesus was baptized to when Jesus would be cut off. One may associate Jesus being “cut off” happening when He died on the cross, and even though this is true, there is much more to being “cut off.” In Warren Wiersbe’s book, Expository Outlines of the Old Testament, he explains it was Christ’s death on the cross that fulfilled the requirements set forth in Daniel 9:24. After Christ’s death Israel continued to reject Him and His message, lied about Him, and continued to persecute and kill his messengers.[10] During Christ’s crucifixion His disciples, except for a few, perhaps five, would forsake Him and even His clothing would be taken from Him. Certainly, this would intensify being “cut off” and having nothing.

It is documented that the Romans led by Titus Vespasianus were massive, like a flood, and annihilated Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 10.11.7. Lacocque notes that this is also the interpretation found in the ancient rabbinic texts and medieval Jewish commentators such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ps. Saadia, and Abarbanel (Daniel, 191–92)).[11] Many stop there and fail to recognize the importance of the scripture that says, “The prince who is to come.” Logic concludes that this prince is not Jesus Christ because the Anointed Prince had been cut off prior to the coming of this prince. Some interpret the prince to be Titus since he was the leader and as Robert Jamison proves that Titus was the “representative of the world power, ultimately to be transferred to Messiah, and so called by Messiah’s title, “the Prince”; as also because sent by Him, as His instrument of judgment”[12] (Matthew 22:7). Even though this may be fact, there are a couple problems. First, as J. Pentecost states, the incursion in 70 A.D. did not end Israel’s sufferings where Gabriel said that it would continue until the end. Israel will continue to suffer until the seventy weeks were fulfilled which would be at Jesus Christ’s second coming.[13] The second issue is taking context with Daniel 9:27, when the “prince” will make a covenant with many for a week (seven years) where he will withdraw half way through this week and stop all sacrifices and offerings. Furthermore, Daniel gives us insight in chapter seven that the antichrist will be from the fourth empire, Rome.

Daniel 9:27

“And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator” (Daniel 9:27).

Here begins the seventieth week of Daniel’s seventy weeks. When Jesus Christ was crucified God’s clock stopped for an unspecified amount of time. God’s clock will not start again until the covenant is signed by the antichrist. It seems proper that Daniel’s seventy weeks stop at Jesus’ death and it will start again seven years prior to His return to reign as King. John Calvin and Thomas Myers firmly state that “The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week.”[14] They interpret the prince to be Christ, and the major issue with this interpretation is found back in verse 26 where Daniel states, “prince who is to come.” One could try and prove this thesis by claiming Christ’s second coming, but Daniel firmly states “who is to come,” meaning that the prince had not come yet, and most importantly, this contradicts the prince being of the Roman decent.

James Smith is another supporter of “Christ making the covenant with many”. He gives four pieces of evidence to support his view concerning the covenant that is made for one week. His view begins with the “many” that the covenant will be made with. He claims that the “many” are the thousands of the Jews that responded to the works and words of Jesus and his disciples. There are approximately seven years between the start of Christ’s ministry to Paul’s conversion. Within that time more Gentiles than Jews were brought into the church. This would be the covenant made for one week. The three and a half years Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice, putting an end to the Old Testament sacrificial system. “On the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate,” he regards as Titus the leader who led the destruction of the Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. “Until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator,” is simply interpreted as God will destroy the one who leaves Jerusalem deserted.[15]

James Smith’s view is simply not supported by the context as to his view of Christ being the fomenter of this covenant. As Stephen Miller refutes Young’s belief that Christ was the fomenter of this covenant, the same can be used against James Smith’s view. First, Jesus Christ’s covenant is not only for seven years as His covenants last for eternity. Secondly, the last week will forego the second coming of Christ, therefore, “he” in the beginning of verse 27 cannot refer to Jesus’ first coming.[16] Furthermore, even though Jesus did become our propitiation for sin, sacrifices continued long after His death upon the cross, Jesus did not set up “abominations of desolations” (Matthew 24:15) and nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned that Christ fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant in His first coming.

Keeping with the context, the antichrist will make a covenant for one week (seven years) which is referred to as the Tribulation (Revelations 6-19). Several views are held to as who is the “many” that is mentioned. Some believe it is the unbelieving Jews or the “many” are the believing Jews, but perhaps the best interpretation is the “many” referring to the Jewish nation as a whole. Since Israel has been in turmoil since 70 A.D. perhaps it will be a peace covenant to keep Israel safe. In the middle of this week (three and a half years) the antichrist will break his covenant and stop all sacrifice and offerings, and J. Dwight Pentecost makes a valid point that it can be assumed that the Levitical system would be restored during the first half of the week.[17]

Next would be the abomination of desolations, in which Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:15, “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place.” John in the book of Revelations speaks of this abomination when he stated that the false prophet will place an image of this ruler and the world will be compelled to worship this image (Revelations 13:14-15). This abomination will make the temple desolate in Jerusalem. The decreed end is poured out when the false prophet and the antichrist will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20).


The seventieth week of Daniel is perhaps the most predominate prophesy in the Bible and needs to be approached with prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit. One must be careful not to stray from logic and the Bible when studying this book. Regardless of the different interpretations, it always needs to be verified with the Word of God. Certain non-negotiable items are present with in this text. Dates aside, these things cannot be argued or debated. They are promises of sin coming to an end, an anointing of the most Holy place, as well as everlasting righteousness. History and the Bible mesh together to prove Jerusalem was destroyed. There is a prediction of events that are parallel to Jesus Christ’s life and death. One day a falsifier will rise from the Roman Empire to deceive the nations and pretend to make peace with Israel. Half way through this seven year promise, he will show his true colors and demand worship. The same falsifier will desolate the temple and persecute and kill God’s people. Soon thereafter, Christ will come and defeat the antichrist and his prophet, ultimately throwing them into the lake of fire.


Calvin, John, and Thomas Myers. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. Vol. 2. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.

Contesse, Rene Peter, and John Ellington. A Handbook on the Book of Daniel. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Jamieson, R, A. R Fausset, and D Brown. Commentary: Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, 1997.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel: The New American Commentary. Vol. 18. Nashville , TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

Pentecost, Dwight J. Daniel. Edited by J.F. Zuck, R. B. Walvoord. Wheaton , IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Smith, James E. The Major Prophets: Old Testament Survey Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament. Wheaton , IL: Victor Books, 1993.

[1] James E. Smith, The Major Prophets, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992).

[2] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 257.

[3] René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on the Book of Daniel, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 252.

[4] René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on the Book of Daniel, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 253.

[5] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 261.

[6] James E. Smith, The Major Prophets, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992).

[7] Ibid.

[8] René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on the Book of Daniel, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 254.

[9] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 266.

[10] Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993).

[11] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994).

[12] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

[13] J. Dwight Pentecost, “Daniel,” ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1364.

[14] John Calvin and Thomas Myers, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 224.

[15] James E. Smith, The Major Prophets, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992).

[16] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994).

[17] J. Dwight Pentecost, “Daniel,” ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1365.


About Ohm Punisher

Vaping saved my life. It can save yours too. I'm here to educate and review products. #notblowingsmoke #Micah 6:8 #vapefam #vape4life #VapeAct
This entry was posted in Papers and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. David says:

    Thank you for the interesting study on the 70th Week of Daniel.

    The Lord has had me do in-depth research on its fulfillment and I would kindly offer a different perspective on a few points.

    The Bible says “And the people of the prince who is to come”, not “The prince who is to come.”

    So it’s saying that people would come in the future to destroy the city and sanctuary, not the prince.

    The prince is Jesus, as the word prince (nagiyd) in verse 26 is the same as in verse 25 which declares the arrival of Jesus the Messiah.

    Jesus declared in the Parable of the Wedding Feast, that the armies (people) would come to destroy the Jews.

    “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son” That son would be a prince.

    That parable is speaking about the Jews who rejected Him as their Messiah. “And He sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.”

    Jesus declared it during the 70th week, and it was fulfilled when He sent the people of the Roman army against the Jews.

    The second point I would make is that since the prince is Jesus, we know that the covenant in verse 27 is His New Covenant.

    He confirmed this in Matthew 26:28.

    ‘And He(Jesus) said to them, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

    In these words we find four things which agree with the prophecy of Daniel 9:27.

    1. “the One” who was to confirm the covenant, Jesus the Messiah;

    2. “the covenant” itself;

    3. that which “confirmed” the covenant, the blood of Christ;

    4. those who receive the benefits of the covenant, the “many” who believe in Him as their Messiah.

    Jesus New Covenant was ratified by His blood, and it fulfilled all of the requirements of Daniel 9:24, which the Jews could never fulfill.

    Isn’t that the point of offering the New Covenant to the Jews? So that they could stop trying to earn salvation through the Sinai Covenant (by works), and could simply believe by faith in Jesus atoning work and be saved.

    When Jesus died, the temple curtain was torn in two, and the need for the sacrifices and offerings ended, as He fulfilled the Sinai Covenant.

    The third point is that the 70th Week of Daniel started when He was anointed during His baptism, not when He was crucified.

    Verse 25 declared that the Messiah would appear after the 69 weeks.

    He ministered for 3.5 years, then His life was ‘cut off” in the middle of the week just like Daniel foretold.

    Before He was killed, Jesus commanded the disciples to preach to the Jews first, as to complete His promise to offer them a New Covenant.

    So during the 3.5 years after Jesus death, His disciples preached to the Jews that Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies about the coming Messiah.

    And many accepted Him as their Messiah and were saved, but most rejected Him as were destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D.

    You can read more information by clicking on the website links and clicking on the following studies that are listed on the right side of the page.

    The Covenant In The 70th Week Of Daniel Is Jesus New Covenant

    The 70th Week Of Daniel Prince is NOT an End Times Antichrist

    The 70th Week Of Daniel is Fulfilled

    Grace and peace to you in Jesus name,

    • pastorrobbm says:

      I am so sorry it took forever to reply as I have been swamped this time of year. Thank you for your reply and thoughts.

      You are correct, the Bible does say in verse 26, “The people of the prince who is to come.” I do disagree with that prince, in verse 26 being Jesus. In verse 25, the prince that is described as the “Anointed One.” That is a description of Jesus and flowing with the context that Prince is cut off in verse 26. The following prince (prince of the people who is to come) is not described as an anointed prince, but is described as a prince of people who will destroy a city and sanctuary. This is not descriptive of Jesus or something that His people would do. Fitting the time line, the destruction was in 70 A.D. led by the Titus Vespasianus and the Romans. Flowing with the context in verse 27, this prince will make a covenant and then end up persecuting Israel, again descriptive of the Antichrist not Jesus as this would be a contradiction of Jesus and His character.

      Concerning verse 27,
      “Daniel here described “the completion of God’s purpose.” As previously explained, a “seven” represents seven years, and the seventy sevens are terminated by the second advent of Christ. Therefore the events of the seventieth seven transpire over a seven-year period immediately prior to the Lord’s return.
      If the sixty-nine sevens (483 years) conclude with Christ’s first coming and the final seven (seven years) is terminated by Christ’s return, there must be an interval of time between the end of the sixty-ninth and the beginning of the seventieth seven. The text also indicates that the seventieth seven would not follow the sixty-ninth immediately. For example, Christ’s crucifixion (“Anointed One … cut off,” v. 26) and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 (v. 26) would occur after the sixty-ninth seven, but not during the seventieth seven (v. 27), revealing a gap between these sevens. R. Gundry observes: “The possibility of a gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks is established by the well-accepted OT phenomenon of prophetic perspective, in which gaps such as that between the first and second advents were not perceived.”
      Not only are gaps between first and second coming events common, but the two thousand year span (at least) found here may also be explained by the nature of this revelation. God was answering Daniel’s prayer, which specifically concerned the future of the nation Israel. Shortly after Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah (after the sixty-nine sevens), Jerusalem was destroyed, the Jewish people were dispersed throughout the earth, and for p 270 almost two thousand years Israel as a nation did not exist. Therefore this period was omitted from the prophecy. Israel has now been reestablished as a nation (1948), suggesting that the seventieth seven may soon begin.
      The events of the last seven will begin with a covenant. Young argues that the one making the covenant will be the “Anointed One” (Jesus Christ) of v. 26 and that the clause should be translated as, He “will cause to prevail” a covenant. By this Young means that Christ “fulfilled the terms of this Covenant of Grace, that upon the basis of His finished work, life and salvation might be freely offered to sinners.” Young also believes that the “end to sacrifice and offering” spoken of as occurring in the middle of the final seven was brought about by Christ’s death. The Old Testament sacrificial system came to an end since the sacrifice they typified, that of Jesus Christ, had been offered. Christ’s death, it is agreed, did end the need for the sacrificial system, but the question is whether that truth is taught in this verse. Most scholars believe it is not.
      As for the end of the seventieth seven, Young declares that it will “run out” at least by a.d. 70, but he does not know exactly when. “It would seem, therefore, that the terminus ad quem was not regarded as possessing particular importance or significance.” In reality the end of this final seven is one of the most significant events in history, the second coming of Christ.
      Young’s identification of Jesus Christ as the perpetrator of this covenant is not supported by the context. The text indicates that this covenant is confirmed (even Young’s translation “prevailed,” which is almost certainly incorrect here, would not relieve this problem) for one seven. Most naturally this is taken to mean that the person in question makes a covenant that “lasts” for seven years. Christ did not institute a covenant that continued merely for seven years, for even Young holds that this final period ended sometime not too many years after the Lord’s death. Christ’s covenant with believers endures forever. Finally, if this seven immediately precedes the end of the age, as most scholars hold, the pronoun “he” cannot refer to Christ’s appearance at his first coming but must speak of someone living in the last days.”

      Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 269–270.

      Again thank you for your insights, May God continue to bless you richly!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s