Rectifying Daniel’s Seventieth Seven with the New Creation

At this point it is appropriate to pause and consider the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy sevens in light of the the proposal that our age is comprised of seven eschatological “days” that end with Christ’s Parousia. Daniel’s prophecy is as follows:

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.”

It would be best if a way can be found that integrates Daniel’s prophecy with the seven days of new creation. However, the difficulties of Daniel’s prophecy of seventy weeks are numerous with no emergent consensus among scholars. It testifies to the exegetical and interpretive difficulties. Nor is it appropriate to deep-dive this passage. Yet this passage serves as a cornerstone prophecy for many Christians. Further, it has been a topic of historical interest throughout the church age.

Much has been said of this prophecy and much of the dialogue can leave the impression that the meaning of the prophecy is far clearer than reality. Critically, a large part of the church has advanced a literal interpretation of this prophecy – particularly regarding the seventieth week.

Those who hold that the seventy weeks of Daniel’s prophecy represent seventy Sabbatical weeks of years (490 years in total) will find a direct conflict with the creation-centric interpretation of our age as seven eschatological feast-days. This conflict presses for explanation. Yet examination of Daniel’s prophecy against a new creation-background may offer some insights into this difficult passage. For these reasons, some brief insights will be offered after an examination of some common positions held by the church over the ages.

 An Overview of Commonly Held Positions on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

Throughout church history, a large number of positions have been advanced. The details of the prophecy provide an almost unlimited number of permutations adding to its challenges. Yet despite near endless interpretations, one can generally categorize the various positions, limiting the variants. It is appropriate to examine these main positions if only to show the difficulties of resolving the prophecy as a cautionary note.

Jewish Positions

Those among the Qumran community interpreted Daniel’s seventy weeks as weeks of years, for a total of 490 literal years beginning with the return of the exiles (Anno Mundi 3430). It placed the end of the seventy weeks at roughly 3 B.C. and 2 A.D. They expected the Messiah to enter history during the seventieth week, making the starting point of their expectation of the Messiah seven years earlier. [1]

There was also an ancient belief that Daniel’s prophecy saw fulfillment in the coming of Antiochus IV based upon the LXX reading of Daniel. Jewish exegesis however, was permanently modified by the destruction of Herod’s temple by Titus in 70 A.D. After this point, predominant Jewish interpretation shifted, with the prophecy beginning and ending with the destruction of the first and second temple. This likely resulted from unmet messianic expectations preceding the destruction of the temple by Titus. This seems to be the position of Josephus. It would be natural to adopt an interpretative position centered upon the temple’s destruction. Both views (the temple view and the Antiochian view) introduce significant problems with a literal 490 year position.

The mainstream Jewish position is well documented by Rabbi Goldwurm (following Rashi). On the seventy weeks, he states that all sages consider the prophecy as seventy weeks of years. [2] He holds that the 490 years begins with the destruction of the first temple 3338 from creation, with the restoration beginning in second year of Darius the Persian (Haggai 1:1-8) seventy years later. He then states that the second temple stood 420 years (see Yoma 9a, Avoda Zara 9a, Arachim 12b), for the total of 490 years with destruction of second temple happening in 3828 from creation (Avoda Zara 9b; Tosafos s.v.sss).

Sages claim the start of the 490 years was the giving of the word to Daniel. From the destruction of the temple to accession of Cyrus was 51 years which is seven sevens as the additional 2 years do not constitute a week. Cyrus is the anointed one of the prophecy following the seven weeks. While it is clear the seventy weeks of Jeremiah and the first seven weeks of the prophecy are taken literally, the remaining claimed years prove problematic. Goldwurm claims a covenant was made by Jewish leaders (great ones) with the Romans who broke the covenant and abolished sacrifice. The anointed one that is cut off is either King Agrippa II or the high priest. “His end shall come like a flood” is the Romans.

With the exception of the Qumran position, the Jewish interpretations reveal attempts made by interpreters to fit the prophecy to important historical events. Manifest difficulties follow when one interprets the seventy “sevens” as literal weeks of years. In this regard, the Qumran position seems unique, revealing their rejection of traditional Jerusalem temple-cult and their hope of a coming Messiah to vindicate their community as true Judaism. Other messianic views were supplanted by the destruction of Herod’s temple.

Early Church Fathers

Extant writings of early church fathers begin late second century and reveal a wide diversity of views. Yet near unanimous among them was the belief that Daniel’s prophecies were messianic. [3] Most also saw the seventy sevens as seventy literal weeks of years (490 years), though Origen took the last seven as seventy years. Virtually all saw Daniel’s prophecy fulfilled by Christ (as “the most holy”) in the first sixty-nine, if not all seventy weeks (save Hilarianus and Apollinaris, the latter seeing the 490 years spanning between Christ’s advents). Few held a messianic eschatological viewpoint (Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Apollinaris).

Despite these general points of agreement, substantial variation is seen in the details including the terminus a quo (Darius, Cyrus’ accession, the fall of Babylon or Artaxerxes twentieth year). Few saw both occurrences of “the Anointed One” of Daniel 9:25, 26 to be Christ. Their views of the end of the sixty-ninth week varied with some seeing the birth of Christ and others the start of his ministry. Similarly some viewed the sacrifices that would cease as literal Old Testament sacrifices, yet Hippolytus saw them as spiritual. 

Some envisioned a time-gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week, others not. Many viewed the one making the covenant as the Antichrist, though some believed it was Christ and His covenant with the church.  For those holding to literal Old Testament sacrifice, there was an accompanying view that the Antichrist would appear in a rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Some also held to a view that secular history would be completed in six thousand years with a seventh millennium of Christ’s earthly reign.

With such a wide diversity of views so early in church history, one might commend Jerome for not advancing a further view of his own. He rightly recognized the great interpretive difficulties of this prophecy. Yet views expanded with the reformers, who typically saw the Antichrist as the Catholic church. Variants of that view persist even today where Catholicism has been reframed as the great harlot Babylon, teamed with the Antichrist.

What can be said however, is that a number of these views serve as basis for more recent positions to be categorized next. Importantly, the views can be organized first as non-messianic and messianic, after which the messianic views can be further subdivided.

Recent Non-messianic Views (Antiochan)

One of the commonly held positions sees the fulfillment of Daniel’s seventy weeks in the events of Antiochus IV during the Maccabean revolt, a position advanced by some early Jewish writers as well as Hilarianus. What is important in this view is that its adherents do not see Daniel’s prophecy as messianic. [4] Though variants are regularly promoted, this view holds to a historical fulfillment during the Maccabean period with the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Various suggestions have been made for the starting point of Jeremiah’s prophecy (609, 605/604, 597, 594 and 586 B.C.) with the termination 539 B.C. Each of these dates attempts to address historical dates that allow close to seventy years of Jeremiah’s prophecy and/or forty-nine years for building the temple/Jerusalem. Much depends upon each expositor’s view of the best way to also fulfill Daniel’s words, which brings the variant dates.

Typically the seventy year period of Jeremiah’s prophecy is taken as an approximate number. While generally agreeing that Daniel’s seventy sevens represent seventy weeks of years (490 years), proponents of this view hold to a symbolic rather than literal understanding of the time periods. Thus, they acknowledge the Sabbatical year as a basis but opt for an apocalyptic symbolism.

The significance of numbers such as 10, 49, 70 and 490 are considered, including occurrences in other apocalyptic works such as The Book of the Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Pesher on the Periods (4Q180/181), Testament of Levi, Apocalypse of weeks, Animal Apocalypse.  The symbolism of the Jubilee (49 years) is often seen as important given that in the Jubilee year, the land was returned to its owner and indentured slaves were freed.

Typically Onias is the Anointed One cut down though variants are proffered. The end of the seventy weeks typically is 164 B.C. and Antiochus’ desolation of the temple is seen as the predicted destruction of the temple. Antiochus is seen as the maker and breaker of the covenant though it is recognized that Antiochus stopped sacrifice only for a bit over three years. The anointing of “a most holy place” is seen as the re-dedication of the temple following the successful campaign against Antiochus.

While an Antiochan explanation offers some attractive features of historical fulfillment, it is not without its problems, chiefest of which is the forced adoption of non-literal 490 years. It may not be so difficult to accept a symbolic meaning to the seventy sevens, yet there is a delicate dance that seems to be performed by its proponents who too often seek to rectify Jeremiah’s seventy years with history while similarly applying historical dates to the first seven “sevens” and the seventieth seven.

With the beginning and ending weeks established either exactly or approximately in history, the malignment of the sixty-two weeks becomes amplified, particularly given their acknowledgement that the “sevens” are Sabbatical years. If Daniel understood Jeremiah’s prophecy literally and had the Sabbatical year in mind, it is not unreasonable for him to assume the seventy sevens would also be literal, particularly given the Levitical warning of sevenfold visitation of judgment upon the unrepentant (Leviticus 26:18).

Other criticisms include that Antiochus did not destroy the temple or city, merely desolating the temple. Nor is there evidence of an anointed most holy place or even the temple. Neither Maccabees or Josephus indicate an anointing. The anointing must be taken symbolically as temple re-dedication. With the re-dedicated temple, the promises given to Daniel to seal up transgression and put an end to sin,seem unfulfilled or at minimum largely depreciated in meaning. For those authors who argue that Daniel was written after the Maccabean revolt, one must ask why Daniel would make such inflated claims?

In closing, some expositors note the Christian belief of Christ as the fulfillment of Daniel’s seventy sevens. Anderson notes that the announcer to Zechariah and Mary was Gabriel, whom he calls the mentor and guardian of Daniel. It suggests at minimum, a recognition of possible later reinterpretation. Goldingay, while holding to an Antiochan position, notes a possible typological reinterpretation to Christ. Their views support that church views on Daniel 9 were not static nor fixed, revealing the interpretive difficulties of the passage.

Messianic Symbolic Views

Among the proponents of messianic interpretation, two views are prevalent: the view that the seventy sevens are symbolic and not literal, and the view that the seventy sevens represent 490 literal years. Proponents of the symbolic view generally recognize the problems associated with attempting to affix historical dates to both Jeremiah’s and Daniel’s prophecies. [5] Typically, the terminus a quo is considered to be Cyrus’ destruction of Babylon in 539 B.C. which marks the time of the return of the exiles, signaling the start of the restoration of Jerusalem. Scriptures from 2 Chronicles 36:22-23, Ezra 1:1, Isaiah 45:13, Zechariah 1-8 and Haggai 1-2 are often given as supporting rationale. The adoption of symbolic dates solves the problem of aligning the seventy sevens with historical dates but can result in more variants of wider interpretive view.

MIchelson’s View

Michelson sees the dates as epochal, and thus feels the first seven “sevens” represent from the time of Cyrus to the end of the era of Nehemiah. The sixty-two weeks represents the rebuilding of Jerusalem through Herod the Great. Christ is the one cut off.

He is quite vague about the seventieth seven, noting that the prince who comes likely is a composite of Antiochus and Titus without giving any further indication, nor clarifying if he was a historical figure or yet to come. Yet he acknowledges the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple after her rebuilding as a key point in Daniel’s prophecy, attributing it to Titus. The temple and city will be destroyed, and desolations and war will continue to the end. Key for Michelson is that neither the temple, nor the city of Jerusalem will be needed for the balance of the age.

Leupold’s View

Leupold correctly notes that the world שָׁבוּעַ shabuwa` can mean “week of years” (see Strong’s Concordance), yet it is not used anywhere in Scripture to denote a week of years. He is adamant that it is a heptad with seven and ten showing the period in which the divine work of greatest moment is brought to perfection 7 x 7 x 10. He views the seventy weeks as messianic, centering on the completion of God’s plan for his people and his city. His terminus a quo is Cyrus’ decree to allow the exiles to return, signaling the start of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. He dismisses Artaxerxes’ command to rebuild the city in 444 B.C. as lacking relevance, arguing it gave permission only for the materials, not its building.

He sees Christ’s coming after seven “sevens” and oddly rejects Cyrus as “the anointed one” based upon historical dates. The sixty-two sevens is the age of the church, building spiritual new Jerusalem in the midst of trouble and distress. At the end of the sixty-two weeks the church is destroyed and thus Christ losing influence in the world, cut off, having nothing. The Antichrist makes the covenant falsely to model Christ’s covenant making it with force and violence. [6] His dominance is short (1 heptad) but in the midst of it he causes all worship of Christ to end.

Badwin’s View

Baldwin sees the seventy weeks as 490 years but sees symbolism of seventy and seven. She sees the prophecy as Messianic with Christ the fulfillment in part with His first coming. God promises here to fulfill all history in seventy sevens. She favors Cyrus’ decree of 539 B.C. while noting the possibility to separate temple and city references. “The anointed One” was Cyrus.

The first seven brings to mind the year of the Jubilee when every man returned to his land with the first “seven” concluding with Nehemiah’s work. To “cut off” means cutting a covenant and the people of prince to come are the Romans who destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Mention of war to the end implies continuing conflict between a powerful enemy and God’s cause till the end of seventy weeks.

With some uncertainty, she notes that the Antichrist makes a covenant for the last “seven” and breaks it. [7] She sees the primary fulfillment in Antiochus but argues that the meaning should not be confined to that period but include witness of Jesus and New Testament writers. This belief seems based in Christ’s reference to the abomination of desolations, suggestive that the meaning was not exhausted in Antiochus. New Testament writers saw Jesus as beginning the fulfillment of the coming kingdom announced in Daniel and end of the age.

Young’s View

Young sees the seventy “sevens” as weeks of years but again with symbolic rather than literal meaning. The seventy weeks span till what is promised is accomplished in Christ, though only initially. The terminus a quo is the fall of Babylon to Cyrus in 538/537 B.C. There are seven “sevens” from announcement to completion of the city and temple (the end of period of Ezra & Nehemiah) with sixty-two sevens till the anointed one, Christ, is cut off in the middle of the seventieth week with destruction of the temple at the end of the seventieth week.

Christ is the one that makes the covenant to prevail (i.e. He fulfills the Abrahamic covenant). He sees Christ’s death as ending sacrifice and oblation per Hebrews 7:11; 8:13; 9:25-26; 10:8-9 with the later destruction of the temple confirming what was prior accomplished in Christ. A desolator is placed over the pinnacle of the temple to mark it as an abomination after which wars will continue to the end. Interestingly, he notes no terminus ad quem to the seventieth week given in Daniel.

Summary of Messianic Symbolic Views

With the Antiochan interpretation, differences were minor, reflecting differences in dates and identification of the high priest. With the symbolic interpretations, though all agree on a messianic interpretation, significant differences in interpretation exist, depending upon the perceived symbolism of the numbers. The differences in interpretation reflect the uncertainty in the symbolism of the numbers as applied in the prophecy. While numerical symbolism is undeniable, the uncertainty in meaning brings added uncertainty in interpretation.

Messianic Literal Views

The messianic literal view holds that the seventy “sevens” are literal weeks of years, comprising a total of 490 years. Like the Antiochan view, there is a higher degree of convergence in the views of those who hold to messianic literal. Most commonly, expositors follow the outline of events as proposed by Sir Robert Anderson. [8] With this basic method, the terminus a quo is taken as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (445 B.C.) in which the Bible definitively speaks of authorization to rebuild the city. [9]

Wood, while noting Anderson’s work, chooses Artaxerxes first command as the terminus a quo, bringing the terminus ad quem as Jesus’ baptism which he sees as 26 A.D. [10] Those who follow Anderson come to a terminus a quem of 32 A.D. using a twelve month 360 day/year prophetic calendar. Using this approach results in a date six days before the Passover when Christ triumphantly rode into Jerusalem. The exactitude has been argued as testimony to the miraculous fulfillment of the prophecy.

Yet some have argued that 32 A.D. could not have been the correct date and an alternative rendering has been offered by Hoehner with terminus a quo 444 B.C. and terminus ad quem 33 A.D. again claimed the day of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. [11]  At the end of the sixty-ninth week, Christ is cut off, having not received the kingdom and subsequently the temple and city are destroyed by Titus in 70 A.D. The events of Christ’s being cut off, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem occur between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week.

The seventieth week is delayed indeterminately due to the rejection of the Messiah by the Jewish community. Though not explicitly stated, the seventieth week begins with the making of a covenant between the Antichrist and “the many” who are consistently interpreted as the Jews. This covenant is broken three and a half years later, sacrifices and oblations cease and the tribulation begins.

While Daniel nowhere states or infers the temple will be rebuilt as the end of the age approaches, it is ubiquitously believed that the Jews will rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This is required by the exegesis. The Antichrist needs a temple to desolate and the literal view requires a literal temple for the Jews to offer literal sacrifices and oblations.

Analysis and Criticisms

Given its popularity among North American evangelicals, some analysis is helpful. A number of expositors have argued that the adoption of a 360 day year is arbitrary, while others have argued in favor of a lunar year. Proponents note that the 360 day year is supported by the story of Noah and also Revelation. Some have also claimed a widespread use of a 360 day calendar in ancient cultures.

While arguments continue over this point, both Jaubert and VanderKam have argued that the Jews used a 360 day Zadokite calendar until it was replaced by a lunar calendar by Antiochus. [12] If true, it adds support to the argument of a 360 day/year calendar adopted by Anderson and others. [13]

A further criticism is in the selection of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Some would argue that the completion of Jeremiah’s seventy years should begin the seventy sevens. Why would God insert a delay before the initiation of the final seventy sevens? Arguments and counterarguments continue without consensus.

Proponents of this view argue that the “sevens” are best understood as a week of years in light of Jeremiah’s prophecy. While this view appears reasonable, both Tatford and Tregelles acknowledge that shabuwa` is not used in Scripture to describe a week of years. Nevertheless, the requirement for literal interpretation drives the conclusion that the sevens must represent weeks of years.

The literal view also requires one to either insert a gap of indeterminant length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week and argue that the seven, sixty-two and seventieth weeks are not continuous. Given that there is no gap between the seven and sixty-two weeks according to their rendereing, insertion of a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week requires justification. Literalists claim it was the rejection of Christ by the Jews that “delayed” the full realization of the kingdom. It is commonly called “kingdom abeyance”. It is an attempt to justify the inconsistency.

This is not the only inconsistency however. The first “seven” is assumed to span from Artaxerxes command to the completion of the temple though this cannot be confirmed. Forty nine years after Artaxerxes command places one beyond the period of Nehemiah. Nor can it be confirmed with certainty what of prophetic significance happened in 396 B.C.

Literalism requires placing the cutting off of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem outside of the timetable of the seventy sevens (during kingdom abeyance), which makes little sense. Both events are critical to Judaism. The first fulfills the promise of Abraham (and the Protevangelium), the foundation of Judaism and the second, in ending sacrifice, oblation and temple worship brought the end of the Jewish nation – ground zero for Judaism.

If seventy sevens are appointed upon Daniel’s people (who are ubiquitously interpreted as the Jewish people in this schema), how can these two critically important events be argued outside the scope of Daniel’s seventy sevens? Why would God be so determinant of the timing of the Messiah yet leave His crucifixion and the destruction of the temple indeterminant?

There is a further problem that the requirement for a gap needs a justification. The justification that is offered is artificial and arbitrary, indiscriminately separating Jew from Gentile. This approach contradicts Scripture, failing to recognize the prophetic promise of the Messiah to bring together Jews and Gentiles in worship, and the promise of a universal temple, both of which were fulfilled in Christ.

It also contests that the final eschatological temple is a temple of living stones indwelt by the Spirit of Christ. By arguing the focus of the seventieth week is upon the Jewish people, a rebuilt Jewish temple with Old Testament sacrifices must be envisioned that contradicts the author of Hebrews. [14]

The requirement of literal interpretation also forces the result that the covenant with “the many” cannot be cut by the Messiah as the Messiah never made a seven year covenant. The requirement that the last “seven” be seven years disqualifies consideration of Christ’s covenant as part of the prophecy. That forces one to then search for another covenant and another covenant-maker.

This is found in the Antichrist, likely the result of other Danielian passages as well as Thessalonians, the Olivet discourses, Revelation and Antiochan history. While this is certainly possible, it is striking that the seventy sevens which restore Israel and usher in righteousness would make no mention of the one covenant critical to the attainment of God’s objective with Israel, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant!

It is also odd that Daniel is taken on a prophetic journey in which the temple and city are rebuilt, then subsequently desolated and destroyed, yet proponents of the messianic literal view have determined that both the temple and city will be rebuilt again, despite a total lack of supporting evidence in Daniel’s prophecy.

If the temple and Jerusalem are to again be rebuilt in the future, why would this information be kept from Daniel? Why wouldn’t this information be considered part of the seventy “sevens” decreed upon Israel? While there is no support for a future rebuilding (rather a clear indication of continuing desolation of the temple and city), proponents of this view have little choice but to imagine one and read it into the text. In doing so, the obvious cessation of oblation and sacrifice that resulted from the temple’s destruction in 70 A.D. must be discounted and disqualified to preserve the cogency of their proposed solution.

It should also be noted that the proponents of this view must presume that the cessation of sacrifice and oblation results from a breaking the firm or prevailing covenant, an action not present in Daniel’s prophecy. This must be read into the text as Daniel does not tie breaking the covenant to cessation of sacrifice.

Further, “the many” must be interpreted to be the Jews in order to maintain cogency with the artificial construct that separates Jew from Gentile. That artificial construct, together with the dismissal of the possibility that the covenant is cut by Christ, disqualifies the possibility that “the many” are Gentile converts, part of the universal new temple and new temple worship promised through Christ’s coming (see Isaiah 2:3 and especially 53:11; Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Romans 5:15). [15] Proponents of messianic literalism argue strongly that Daniel’s prophecy is restricted to ethnic Jews and Jerusalem given the reference to “your people” and “your holy city”. Yet they fail to see the inconsistency in presuming “the many” are the Jews. If so, why wouldn’t Gabriel simply say that he will make a covenant with “your people”?

One sees from the messianic literal view that it is intended to provide improved certainty in the interpretation of the passage. While it cannot provide any better insight upon the first seven “sevens”, some have argued that it has placed a high degree of certainty upon the sixty-nine “sevens”. [16] Yet even this assertion is not without issues. If additional certainty is achieved, it is done at a high cost of uncertainty in the seventieth week, in which there must be artificial constructs and many details read into the text that are plainly absent.

Potentially important events must be disqualified or discounted in importance by relegating them outside the schema of seventy “sevens”. As well, one must accept that the One who ordered the timing of Israel’s affairs with exceptional accuracy for sixty nine “sevens” of years then chose to insert a long epoch of timing uncertainty without prophetic mention.

Laying the Foundation for an Alternate View of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

It is at this point that one begins to see the wisdom of Jerome. With all the uncertainty, difficulties and lack of consensus, one might ask why we would wade in with another possible explanation that likely is at least as flawed as the existing ones. While it is true that any additional explanation offered is incapable of resolving the present prophetic difficulties, it seems appropriate to at least include some thoughts and insights from a creation perspective in the hope to integrate the creation theme with Daniel, though recognizing that it may well introduce more difficulties than clarities. Even if some insights can be realized, it seems clear that most proponents of their present views are unlikely to be swayed by new and additional arguments. That said, we will posit a variant regarding the seventieth week and its possible relevance to new creation and the timing of its consummation.

Daniel’s Prophecy is Messianic

Our proposal has at its base a messianic view of Daniel 9. For the proponents of the Antiochan view, we have little to offer unless there is willingness to consider the possibility proffered by Baldwin that the meaning of Daniel 9 is not exhausted in the Antiochan episode.

For those of a messianic view, we would begin the analysis on the basis that the end of the sixty-ninth week marks the coming of the Messiah, whether one considers it His birth, start of public ministry, triumphant entry into Jerusalem or some other historically significant time predating crucifixion. Whether this date is reached through the application of symbolic dates or by applying literal weeks of years is secondary. Our schema can be sensibly applied to either. [17]

The Jeremian Background of Daniel’s Prophecy

The background of Daniel 9 is the imminent fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of Israel’s captivity and exile of seventy years. Daniel, in studying Jeremiah’s words, realized the prophecy is nearing fulfillment, and out of concern for his people, their holy city and temple, he begins to intercede in prayer, confessing the sins of Israel in the hope that Yahweh will be merciful and allow their return to their land.

It is striking that Daniel does not seem to presume its fulfillment but seeks forgiveness as an enabler of Israel’s return. This position is consistent with the terms of the covenant which requires repentance (Deuteronomy 30:1-3; cf. Leviticus 26:14-17). It would seem that Daniel deeply desires, if not believes that Israel, with her return from Babylon, should be on the cusp of her golden age in which she turns to Yahweh with all her heart and the Abrahamic promise is fulfilled.

That Daniel seeks forgiveness for Israel’s corporate sins may portend that the fruit of repentance has not yet emerged from the exiled nation, jeopardizing entrance into these blessings. That Gabriel proclaims that “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”, affirms it was not achieved in the seventy years of Israel’s exile but happens after seventy “sevens”. It enhances Daniel’s view that Israel has not yet fully repented.

If so, it adds support to what many scholars have noted concerning Gabriel’s words that seventy sevens are appointed upon Israel in echo of Leviticus 26:18. It seems that Yahweh has already recognized Israel corporately has not fully repented, confirmed in the small number of Israelites who chose to obey Him, leave Babylon and return to the land.

If Israel corporately had not repented, it would set an expectation of being revisited with seven times seventy years of additional judgment. And there seems to be some indication in Gabriel’s answer that the impact to Daniel’s people, their city and temple is a seven-fold punishment (see Leviticus 26:18-35; particularly vss 31-35). The references to destroying your cities and sanctuaries, while a reference to idolatry, portends the fate of Jerusalem and the temple that Gabriel is about to unfold. [18]

Yet Gabriel’s words are not quite decisive. He chooses to speak of seventy “sevens” or seventy heptads rather than speaking of sabbatical weeks of years, leaving a measure of uncertainty. Though one could easily see sabbatical years (weeks of years) and/or see seven times judgment (seven times seventy years), the use of “sevens”, together with shabuwa`, a word not used in Scripture to describe a week of sabbatical years, may provide justification for symbolic understanding.

The Seven “Days” of the new Creation as Daniel’s Seventieth Week

If Christ’s birth, death and resurrection ushered in a new creation that has been ordered into seven “days” or phases (the cultic feast days), then one could envision that the seventieth week begins with Christ’s being “cut off” and continuing until His Parousia, in which the final “seven” of Daniel is the “seven days” of the new creation.

In other words, the final “seven” of Daniel could represent the new creation in its totality. For literalists, this represents a radical reinterpretation of the last week from seven years to a heptad. Such a reinterpretation requires justification.

The Covenant “Cut” is the New Covenant in Christ

Before proceeding to justification, some important outcomes of this interpretation should be noted. First, it reopens the possibility that the covenant that is cut is the covenant initiated in Christ’s death. [19] This outcome is sensible given Daniel’s expectation of Israel’s restoration and hope that with restoration comes the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. He likely would have known of Jeremiah’s promise of a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31).

Central to realizing the Abrahamic promise however, is the coming new covenant that requires a messianic appearance. The achievement of the covenant is critical to Israel’s future blessing and it seems highly unlikely that Gabriel would set the expectation that transgression would be finished, sin ended, atonement for wickedness made, everlasting righteousness ushered in, vision and prophecy sealed and a new temple anointed without mention of the cutting of the covenant upon which these promises were requisite. [20] Without this covenant and its guarantor, Israel had no future, with or without her city or temple. Daniel, as a man of wisdom and insight, would certainly have realized this truth.

Critical Events of Christ’s Sacrifice and Jerusalem’s Destruction are Integrated into Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

A second outcome is an integration of the events literalists have placed during “kingdom abeyance” into week sixty-nine/seventy. There is no longer any reason to argue that the Messiah’s being cut off occurs after the sixty-ninth week but before the seventieth week, nor a reason to place the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. straddling these weeks (generally literalists fail to acknowledge any significance in Jerusalem’s destruction). Rather, Christ’s sacrifice begins the new creation, having occurred on the first “day”, Passover, the first of Daniel’s final “seven”.

Jerusalem’s destruction is also easily accommodated post Pentecost, the fourth “day” (i.e. after the completion of three days and half way through the fourth day – i.e. after three and a half days) or in the midst of Daniel’s seventieth “seven”. With the destruction of Jerusalem comes the cessation of sacrifice and oblation, again in the midst of the last “seven”. [21]

This point proves important as New Testament eschatological prophecies never speak of Daniel’s seventieth week. John, who provides the most comprehensive prophetic vista of the New Testament age speaks only of time, times, and a half time (three and a half), “forty two months” and 1260 days.

With the proposed New Testament age envisioned according to Israel’s feast days, the destruction of Jerusalem marks the point where the “time, times and half a time (forty-two months/1260 days) begins, rectifying Daniel’s seventy sevens with John’s Revelation of the times of our age.

The cutting of the covenant, the destruction of the temple and the cessation of sacrifice can all be credibly and meaningfully placed within the seventieth week without reading into the text another (false) covenant with another (false) covenanter who then violates the covenant as the explanation of the cessation of sacrifices. Rather, the cessation of sacrifice is best explained and quite credibly so by the destruction of Herod’s temple.

It also follows that the prevailing or strong covenant is language that would best apply to the covenant cut by Christ (so Young, Allis). In contrast to the present Sinaic covenant, the new covenant will be strong to save. It will not be temporary but permanent and thus it will prevail.

The “Many” are the Inclusion of Gentiles with Christ’s Covenant

Consistent with the words of Isaiah, there is also no need to strain exegetically with the claim that “the many” are the Jews. The many are the many nations and many Gentiles who will finally be blessed through the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise with the new covenant that brings universal salvation. This certainly seems to be the expectation of Christ and His disciples where Jesus described His covenant “for many” (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24). [22] The temple will now be the place where all nations stream and where worship of God is finally universal with all nations able to approach. 

Implications of this Proposal

If our proposal is accepted, then Daniel certainly didn’t get the answer he had been praying for. It would seem that while Gabriel announced the coming of the Messiah, his cryptic words cut off and “have nothing” suggest Israel’s golden era will not be fulfilled even after sixty-nine sevens. It portends a messianic rejection that then explains the later destruction of the city and temple.

Daniel, who had lived through seventy years of desolation of temple and city is now being told that though the temple and city will be rebuilt, Jerusalem and the temple will again fall victim to another desolation, and this, despite the coming of the Messiah. In fact, desolations will continue to the end.

It is startling that there seems to be no mention of the new temple inaugurated in Christ, unless one concludes that the anointing of the most holy refers to Christ and His church. Rather, what is emphasized is that seventy sevens have been decreed upon Daniel’s people and city, and desolations are similarly decreed until the end.

It would be understandable if Gabriel’s words were a disappointment to Daniel, unless given wisdom and understanding of these cryptic and nuanced words. Daniel had prayed to God for “your city” and “your people” “because your city and your people bear your Name” (vs 19). Yet Tregelles has noted that Gabriel spoke to Daniel of “your people and your holy city”, perhaps nuancing that they were not God’s people due to their disobedience.

While Gabriel spoke to Daniel about his “holy city” in vs 24, after the anointing a most holy place (vs 24), Gabriel speaks only of the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” without describing either as holy. Jerusalem represented God’s holy city throughout Israel’s Old Testament history. Could Gabriel be nuancing its replacement with a new Jerusalem? Would Daniel, like the patriarchs have realized that Yahweh’s promise was for a heavenly city (Hebrews 11:10, 16; cf. 12:22) and heavenly country (Hebrews  11:16)?

And what of the prince to come? What of the wing of abominations and the one who makes desolate? What of the decreed end that is poured out on the desolator? Messianic literalists are quick to conclude that the desolator is the Antichrist who desolates the temple. That conclusion however, requires one to read a rebuilt temple into the text.

There seems to be some irony in Gabriel’s words. Desolation has been decreed until the end and destruction has been decreed upon the temple and city. If this is not enough, one comes who makes desolate until there is a complete decreed destruction that is poured out upon him, the one who makes desolate. This character may well be the Antichrist. If so, he comes on the wing of abominations and makes desolate. It is difficult to say if the wing of abomination is a temple reference given that כָּנָף kanaph typically means wing or extremity. One sees uncertainty remains even within the framework of the proposed interpretation.

The implications of this interpretation drive a radical rethinking of the narrative, at least for Messianic literals. The latter half of the “seven” is no longer viewed as three and a half years but as a symbol of the inter-advent age. Literalists particularly have argued that the latter half of the seventieth seven is synonymous with all references to “time, times and a half a time” and references to forty two months and 1260 days.

While “time, times and a half a time”, forty two months and 1260 days seem to all signify three and a half years, each may have a more nuanced meaning. This may represent a significant exegetical barrier for some as our schema is no longer constrained to view the latter half of the seventieth seven as three and a half years.

Because the messianic literal view requires that the last seven be a period of seven years, for them to allow the first sixty-nine to be literal sabbatical weeks of years yet change the timeframe of the seventieth seven would seem to breach sound exegetical rules. A Justification is thus offered.

Justification for Claiming the Seventieth Seven of Daniel is not Seven Literal Years But the Inter-advent Age

Justification for this reinterpretation is based in new creation. It has already been argued that with the advent of Christ, a new heaven and new earth has come, a new meaning for light and darkness, a new meaning of creation days, a new meaning of subdue and take dominion, a new image (of Christ vs God), a new mandate and meaning to fruitfulness and increasing in number, a new covenant, a new eschatological temple and new spiritual sacrifices. We will soon argue that there is a new Adam (Christ), a new wife for the new Adam, a new Eden, a new temptation of the new Adam, a new tree of life, a new Israel, a new covenant law, a new Moses, a new eschatological flood, a new serpent (dragon) and a new eschatological Babylon, to name a few.

In short, it can be argued that Paul was literally correct when he claimed “all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17AV; cf. Revelation 21:5). If all things are new (including us as a new creation), shouldn’t the timeframe of the new creation would also be new? In arguing that the seven “days” of the new creation follow the cultic festivals, the timeframe of the new creation has already been radically redefined. Reinterpreting Daniel’s seventieth week consistent with the seven days of the new creation naturally follows. [23]

Relevance to Christians Today

Our survey of various interpretive positions on Daniel emphasizes its complexity. The passage is plagued with exegetical difficulties and obscurities that make understanding challenging. It begs the question where one should begin. Yet it is a passage that has inspired enormous study and captivated the imaginations of countless Christians. It is for this reason that we attempt to provide some insights for modern Christians.

But it is not our purpose here to provide an exegetical analysis of this Danielic passage. Rather, to see if we can lend some insights into this difficult passage when the new creation inaugurated in Christ is envisioned following a seven “day” or phase schema.

The cornerstone of our approach was to suggest that the seventieth seven of Daniel should be equated with the seven “days” of the new creation. We have provided what we see as reasonable justification for this non-literal interpretation. Inherent in this approach is the presumption that Daniel’s prophecy is messianic and redemptive in purpose.

We would argue that the introduction to the prophecy which defines its purpose (vs 24) provides confirmation. The descriptors “finish transgression”, “end to sin”, “atone for wickedness”, “to bring in everlasting righteousness” and “to seal up vision and prophecy” points to the consummation of God’s redemptive program.

Viewing Daniel’s prophecy as redemptive and messianic gives it high relevance to Christians today (something an Antiochan perspective lacks). The one who confirms a strong covenant is then Christ, inaugurating the new covenant that will prevail as it is strong to save (i.e. redemptive).

This is generally agreed by all who see the prophecy as messianic. But the rectification to the seven days of creation means that the city and sanctuary are destroyed “in the middle of the ‘seven’ putting an end to sacrifice and offering. Thus, the rectification to the seven creation days places this event not in the future (as messianic literalists insist), but in the historical past. The proposed rectification of Daniel’s seventieth week to the seven days of creation means that “the people of the ruler who will come” are the Romans and their destruction of city and sanctuary occurred by the armies of Titus in 70 A.D.

Thus, there is no longer reason to posit a future literal temple built upon Mount Zion in Jerusalem nor future Sinaic sacrifices and oblations. But critically, the destruction of the city and temple signal an important event, the formal end of the Sinaic covenant and temple and city with which it was associated. It suggests that “he” who put an end to sacrifices was in fact Christ, first through his sacrifice and subsequently and formally through the agency of the Romans.

It paves the way for the new covenant, a new temple (the church) and a new Jerusalem that is heavenly. That the former temple and city were destroyed at the end of the first half of the seven may also portend destruction of the new temple/city at the end of the second half of the week.

It brings us to the most cryptic part of the prophecy where the meaning is least understood. But it is possible that it is Christ who sets up the abomination, desolating the temple location to prevent a future temple building “until the end that is decreed is poured out on it” (the city).

But it is also possible that “the one who causes desolation” is to the Antichrist given the prior reference to “the people of the ruler to come”. That Daniel includes a ruler to come, may portend that he will cause the desolation, coming “upon the wing of the abominable temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city”.

If so, then Daniel would be signaling a parallel between the desolation and destruction of the temple and city for rejecting God’s appointed ruler, and a coming abomination of temple and desolated city. It would again hint that the historical desolation and destruction of temple and city portends or models a future temple/city desolation and destruction.

That parallel may also be seen in the Day of Atonement/Fast of Atonement, the day God’s people afflicted themselves, seeking repentance for their corporate sins. That this day was celebrated near the end of the harvest season possibly links to Jerusalem’s destruction by Titus, with the latter occurring at the end of the first half of the seven and the former occurring at the end of the second half of the seven.

If the Day of Atonement signals the end-time martyrdom of the church (Revelation 11:7; 13:7), that event could certainly be viewed as the destruction of God’s new temple and city. It would provide another insightful link between Daniel’s seventieth seven and the seven days of the new creation.

These possibilities show the relevance to prophetic studies of both Daniel’s seventy sevens and the seven new days of creation. While the prophecy is riddled with difficulties, there is a final observation worth consideration. The Jewish messianist Alfred Edersheim said “unquestionably, the number seven marks in Scripture the sacred measurement of time”. If he is correct, then one can imagine that the prophecy of seventy sevens lays out the sacred timing of God’s redemptive plan for Israel and creation. It makes its continuing study of great value.

---

[1] The views found here concerning both the Jewish and early church fathers reflect the findings of Tanner. Tanner, J. Paul, Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1, Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (April-June 2009), p. 181-200, available @ https://www.dts.edu/download/publications/bibliotheca/DTS-Is%20Daniel’s%20Seventy-Weeks%20Prophecy%20Messianic.pdf

[2] Goldwurm, Hersh, Daniel, A New Translation with a Commentary anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources, Brooklyn NY, Mesorah Publications, 1979, p. 259-266

[3] With the exception of Julius Hilarianus, who espoused an Antiochan position regarding its fulfillment.

[4] So Anderson, Robert A., Signs and Wonders, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Grand Rapids MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1984, p. 110-118, Collins, John J., A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Minneapolis MN, Fortress Press, 1993, p. 352-358, Goldingay, John E., Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 30, Dallas TX, Word Books, 1989, p. 231-268, Hartman, Louis F., Di Lella, Alexander A., The Book of Daniel, New York NY, Doubleday, 1978, p. 250-254,

[5] Baldwin, Joyce G., Daniel, An Introduction and Commentary, Downers Grove IL, Inter-Varsity Press, 1978, p. 162-178, Leupold, H. C., Exposition of Daniel, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Book House, 1969, p. 403-440, Michelson, A. Berkley, Daniel & Revelation: Riddles or Realities, Nashville TN, Thompson Nelson Inc, 1984, p. 198-203 and Young, Edward J., The Prophecy of Daniel, A Commentary, Grand Rapids MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1949, p. 183-221

[6] It is odd to claim a covenant instituted by the Antichrist falsely models Christ’s covenant in a prophecy that does not mention Christ’s covenant! Further, to see a contrast with Christ’s covenant in a passage in which he does not envision Christ also seems strange. That the reader would conceive the contrast seems unlikely. It is a major shortcoming in this interpretation.

[7] For her, the wording “strong covenant” favors the Antichrist, though she seems open to the possibility it may be Christ’s covenant.

[8] Miller, Stephen R., Daniel, The New American Commentary, Volume 18, Nashville TN, Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994, p. 239-273, Newell, Philip, R., Daniel, The Man Greatly Beloved and His Prophecies, Chicago IL, Moody Press, 1962, p. 132-158, Tatford, Frederick A., The Climax of the Ages, Studies in the Prophecy of Daniel, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan Publishing, 1953, p. 151-168, Whitcomb, John C., Daniel, Chicago IL, Moody Press, 1985, p. 126-135. Though Tregelles’ work predates Sir Robert Anderson, overall his approach follows a similar tact though coming to slightly different conclusions. Tregelles, S. P. Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel, Great Britain, Billing and Sons, seventh Edition, 1965, p. 96-110

[9] All the earlier proclamations do not speak to the rebuilding of the city directly but to the temple. Those who argue for earlier proclamations (most commonly Cyrus) argue that his authorization to return and rebuild the temple implied the start of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It is further noted that Isaiah 45:13; cf. 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 refer to Cyrus as the one the Lord called to rebuild Jerusalem.

[10] Wood, Leon, A Commentary on Daniel, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1973 p. 243-263. Wood, Leon, Daniel, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1975, p. 115, 124

[11] Hoehner, Harold W., Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Part VI: Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology, BSac-V132 #525-Jan 75-48

[12] For a discussion of this point and its impact on Daniel and Enoch, see Boccaccini, Gabriele, The Solar Calendars of Daniel and Enoch, The Book of Daniel, Composition and Reception, Boston, Brill Academic Publishers, 2002, p. 311-327

[13] A caution that must be offered however per Boccaccini, is that it is not known how this calendar was intercalated to account for the extra 5.25 days per solar year. Though not stated, it is interesting that 70 years near resets the calendar (one full year plus two days must be added due as intercalation), realigning the calendar with the seasons. Whether this is significant relative to the oft referenced seventy years is unclear.

[14] While it is not explicitly stated, the bulk of messianic literalists (Tregelles is an exception), envision that the Gentile church will be raptured just before the start of the seventieth week. This belief drives a return to Judaic cultic practices and a rebuilt temple though prior abolished by Christ. What is often forgotten however, is this pre-tribulational belief is based in the presumption that the Gentile church and ethnic Israel are two completely separate and distinct biblical entities, a belief contradicted by Scripture. For a thorough discussion of this point see Allis, Oswald, Prophecy and the Church, USA, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1974

[15] It makes much better sense to understand “the many” of Daniel consistent with Isaiah 53. The Matthean, Markan and Romans passages all use the same Greek word of Isaiah 53 LXX.

[16] One cannot overlook however, that there would be no reason to believe that the first seven “sevens” would have equally accurate fulfillment in days, which raises another problem. Daniel’s prophecy and other scriptures do not allow a confirmation. For those who embrace Sir Robert Anderson’s basic approach, they must accept this inconsistency.

[17] As will be seen, our proposal allows for either a symbolic or literal understanding for the first sixty-nine weeks where the end of the sixty-ninth week signals the Messiah being cut off. For those who prefer a literal view, our method supports this reading in the sense that the basis of the method takes the Old Testament as a physical model of spiritual realities to be achieved in the new world order. Thus, one could envision a literal, physical reading and fulfillment of the first sixty-nine weeks of years, then moving to a spiritually reinterpreted last “seven”, resulting from Christ’s sacrifice. It should also be noted that we can provide no assistance on the meaning of the first seven “sevens” other than to posit like others, that it seems to bring to the mind of an ancient Jew the Jubilee, the time when captives are freed and each family was allowed to return to his land. If true, the challenge is to align it with a historical date or a time when one could conclude that the exile from Babylon was, for all intents and purposes, completed in God’s eyes, the ending point of His invitation to return from Babylon.

[18] While the primary subject is idolatry, the closing statements “then the land will enjoy its sabbath years all the time that it lies desolate and you are in the country of your enemies; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths  All the time that it lies desolate, the land will have the rest it did not have during the sabbaths you lived in it” suggests that cultic celebration of the Sabbatical years was of no avail when the sin of idolatry was present. The land was incapable of rest when sin reigned. It is noteworthy that Jerusalem and the temple suffer the exact fate prophesied of idolatrous cities and temples. The punishment fits the crime as Jerusalem and the temple had become idolatrous (Ezekiel 8-9).

[19] For literalists, the main problem with consideration of Christ’s covenant is the literal requirement that the seventh seven be a period of seven years, disqualifying Christ’s eternal covenant based upon the supposition that the literal length of the final seven must be seven years.

[20] Further, the idea that Gabriel would speak of a false covenant and false covenanter as critical to Israel’s restoration without mention of the true covenant, strains credulity.

[21] It is recognized that some feel sacrifice and oblation ceased with Christ’s death. Certainly sacrifice and oblation were made obsolete, but visible sacrifices and oblations persisted until the destruction of the temple. The apostles also seemed to respect temple practice even after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 3:1; 21:26; 24:17-18). It thus seems fair to claim that sacrifice became obsolete with the death of Christ and cessation of the visible sacrifices confirmed their obsolescence with the destruction of the temple by Titus.

[22] If Christ had wanted to create a link to Isaiah 2:3; 53:11 in the minds of the disciples, one would expect that He would be careful to use the same word for “many” as the LXX. That he did suggests He saw Himself and His covenant as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies.

[23] For those who might take exception to the argument, we offer Hebrews 7:12, “For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.” The author then applies his logic in defense of Christ’s High Priesthood as from the tribe of Judah rather than Levi, further demonstrating that comprehensive change is inevitable with a new covenant. While this statement hardly proves our point, it is scriptural and logically consistent with our premise.