Daniel chapter nine: This chapter lays down an extremely important timeline: the seventy ‘sevens’ in Daniel 9:24-27. The first verse is examined in detail in chapter four of this book as it delves into God’s purpose in having the seventy ‘sevens.’ Through word study of the verbs in the first verse of Gabriel’s announcement, Daniel 9:24 reflects the centrality of Christ in prophecy. Thus as a foundation for the Heavenly role in the end-times, this verse reveals God’s unfolding plan for salvation. The key concept here though involves the seventy ‘sevens.’
LEV 26:18
“If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over.”
The seventy ‘sevens’ fulfills God’s Law. Israel disobeyed God’s laws in not letting the land lay fallow for seventy Sabbath years. God then imposed the resting of the land by taking Israel out of the land for the seventy years in Babylonian captivity. As Daniel is reflecting on Jeremiah’s prophecies which spoke of Israel’s transgression and their coming captivity, Gabriel reveals the consequence for their sin in accordance with this Law. In doing so though, Gabriel gives a preliminary summation and then launches into the detailed account of the one ‘seven.’ This repetition of the end suggests a parallel construction within these three verses. At the end of Daniel 9:26, Gabriel says:
The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
In the next verse, Gabriel "backs up" so to speak and covers the end which comes like a flood in more detail:
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 on wing, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
Notice the repetition of end in verse 26 and the end that is decreed in verse 27. This indicates a verse that is in parallel to the previous one because of repeated events. Stating a conclusion which reveals the end before getting there in detail is a convention of that time and culture. Jesus does this as well right around the same junction in time with the Olivet Discourse. He states the end will come in Mt 24:14, then "backs up" so to speak in linear time and gives a more detailed account of the end-time events. Verse 26 and verse 27 are connected by their respective ends. Both then convey different information about the end-time laid on top of the other. Verse 26 is general, while verse 27 is specific. Thus within chapter nine, Gabriel uses parallel construction to lay out the end of God’s plan.
The three verses of Daniel 9:25-27 are important to any eschatology and as an invaluable support to the sequence-of-events model; several issues of exegesis require examination. Depending on how the words are interpreted can lead to wildly different conclusions so some word study is required as well. Issues addressed here concern:
- the coming of the Messiah,
- the cutting off of the Anointed One,
- evidence within the Scripture for separating the one ‘seven’ from the sixty-two ‘sevens’ with a gap in time between the two, and
- the nature of “confirming” the covenant with many
DA 9:25
"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two sevens.'
(1.) The seven and the sixty-two ‘sevens’ describe the first part of the timeline. The start is revealed as the issuing of the decree to restore Jerusalem. Unfortunately this extremely important date is not totally clear. There are then three instances which Jesus could be said to have arrived:
- The first is his birth which the Magi observed.
- The second instance would be the start of Jesus’ Ministry.
- The third would be the Triumphal Entry which Jesus stressed as important:
LK 19:40
"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."
- The first possibility might be found in the first decree of Cyrus the Great.
- The second possible date may be in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I around 457 B.C. This would put the coming of the Messiah as his baptism in A.D. 27 counting in straight solar years and would conform to Jesus being crucified around A.D. 31.
- The third possibility might be the commission of King Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 446 B.C. The third seems too recent because that would push the coming of the Messiah to A.D. 38. However, if one counts in prophetic years (360 days per year as is used in Revelation) then the coming of the Messiah happens in early A.D. 31 which would coincide with Jesus' arrival on Palm Sunday.
So the problem is two-fold, finding the actual start date and then correctly calculating the years.
So far, none of the methods yields a date close to Christ’s birth, however, some Jewish and Christian scholars have set a terminus a quo, or beginning point in the reign of Cyrus which align with the Savior’s birth. (
Know Therefore and Understand: A Biblical Explication of the First 69 Weeks of Daniel 9, by T. T. Schlegel.) The interesting fact that the Magi had determined His birth leaves one to wonder if they hadn’t used some method to arrive at Christ’s birth between 6 and 4 B.C. (Herod the Great, who ordered the infants in Bethlehem killed, has had his death corrected to having died in 4 B.C. which then necessitates that Jesus be born before A.D. 1 as initially set by Dionysius Exiguus.) One could allow that the Magi may have had some other prophecies of Daniel in Babylon that might explain their arrival being timed correctly. They may have used an additional celestial test such as conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn or eclipses of the moon, and Jupiter. Several such astrological signs occurred in this time period, but which one may have been interpreted as determining the Savior’s birth is not known. Despite how they came to determine Jesus’ birth, however, the sign they followed was in the heavens (sky) and the Gospel accounts testify that they did arrive.
While the fixing of dates is important in understanding the literal nature of prophecy’s fulfillment, however, from a sequence of events standpoint: any of the end dates rendered by the three possible starting points or which ever counting method is employed brings the timeline of Gabriel’s prophecy of the seven and sixty-two ‘sevens’ into the lifetime of Christ. The important aspect is after the sixty-two ‘sevens’ the Messiah is cut off. The word: after,
'ahar, a simple adverb, starting the quoted verse means sets the sequence for the Anointed One’s “cutting off” after Christ’s arrival. So no matter which date or method is used, the sequence of events is correctly set.
DAN 9:26a
After the sixty-two `sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing…
(2.) The second matter requiring address concerns the verb “
be cut off” because of the nature of how Christ’s ministry and crucifixion are interpreted in this verse and the next. The nominal usage of this verb,
karat, can be as in to cut down with a woodcutter (Isa. 14:8). It also contains a “
metaphorical meaning to root out, eliminate, remove, excommunicate or destroy by a violent act of man or nature” ―Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament p. 457. This certainly would include a description of a crucifixion. However,
karat, can also be used in Daniel as it is in Genesis 15:18 to cut or make a covenant because of the slaughter of animals was a part of the covenant ritual ― (
Speiser, Genesis, in AB, p. 112; BA 34:18) ibid. While the Hebrew language allows enough some latitude in the normal sense when applied to a person, seeing Christ’s crucifixion on the Cross in the literal sense of a violent act, the metaphorical sense of being destroyed by a violent act of man, and even in the theological sense of making a new Covenant with His shed Blood becomes an overwhelming fulfillment reality in all aspects of karat.
DAN 9:26b ...
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.
(3.) The nature of gaps in prophecy does not manifest itself in this passage. There is no readily apparent mirror image between the sixty-two and the one ‘seven’ which make up the respective parts to the gap as covered in chapter two. However, as the third concern to be addressed, the evidence in Gabriel’s message to Daniel reflects an insertion of a number of years between the sixty-two ‘sevens’ and the one ‘seven’ because of the three items listed.
The first was the cutting off of the Messiah. Whether it happened 30 some years after He came as in being born, more than three years after being baptized, or less than a week after the Triumphal Entry, some time goes by. In the last case, allowing for a few days would preserve the sense of consecutive ‘sevens’ and were it not for the mention of the next two events, disallowing a gap in Gabriel’s ‘sevens’ could legitimately be made. However, that is not the case.
The second event gives evidence within Gabriel’s prophecy for the insertion of a longer gap in time between the sixty-two and the one ‘seven’ than just a week. Gabriel correctly lists the destruction of the Temple in the sequence of events as occurring after the crucifixion. History confirms the fulfillment of this prophecy. The Temple was destroyed first by being set on fire by the zealots and then it was pulled down by the Romans under Titus in A.D. 70. This portion of the prophecy demonstrates a gap in time: The one ‘seven’ does not run currently with the sixty-two ‘sevens’ because there is no formula or multiple that allows anyone to stretch one ‘seven’ over the nearly four decades between the crucifixion Christ’s figurative temple and the destruction of the literal Temple in A.D. 70.
While this verse contains fulfilled prophecy which confounds the critic and also gives a definite time marker which shows the one ‘seven’ does not run concurrently to the sixty-two sevens; that is not the point in mentioning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. The reason for the inclusion of this prophetic fact and the significance here is that this statement points to the future anti-Christ: He is of Roman descent. The verse doesn’t say Titus or any other ruler will destroy the city and the sanctuary, but the people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. In turn, the ruler who will come is identified as coming from these people. As the people were Roman soldiers, they were not necessarily Italian, but would be from the entire Roman Empire which included conquered Europe. Thus, this ruler, ‘who will come,’ will be out of this Roman kingdom in its larger extent.
A critic might suggest a Preterist solution in that Jesus said; “
this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” Thus they relegate much of God’s Wrath listed in the book of Revelation to the Roman’s conquest of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. While some would argue this fulfilled Jesus’ prophetic statement within the Olivet Discourse for “this generation,” taken within the context of His words, the counter argument would be that the events Jesus lists in His Olivet Discourse as to when He would return would be fulfilled within the generation that sees “these things.” Those things Jesus lists were not fulfilled in A.D. 70. However, two facts in Daniel 9:26 serve to disprove any stretching of the one ‘seven’ over nearly forty years. First of all, the conquest of the city is listed here as a precursor to the end, not the end itself. Secondly, because war continues after A.D.70, it refutes any notion that the first Jewish rebellion was in any sense the final conflict envisioned in prophecy, which is the third event.
The third event is not a single action as the first two, but shows the lengthening of time
because wars continue. Were some confusion allowed with Jesus’ statement and the Preterist eschatological position so that prophecy was neatly concluded in the first century, the next sentence in Gabriel’s prophetic announcement cements the gap and extends it well past the first century. While Gabriel uses a then-common convention of giving a preliminary summation before going into greater detail as is the nature of parallel accounts, an important fact of his testimony is that “wars will continue until the end.” It is the continuation which stretches the gap past the first century and through every century since including the twenty-first. War will be a state of man’s existence until God puts an end to war at the end of the one ‘seven’ by waging war Himself and overcoming the world in the most literal sense at Armageddon.
Despite any assertion that God’s Kingdom has been ushered in with the Pentecost, Rome as a nation went on without missing a beat. The end of Nebuchadnezzar’s stature has not been realized yet. Wars have continued between nations just as Gabriel said yet the end will come quickly. Reading a continuation here is consistent with Jesus’ Olivet Discourse which speaks of wars and rumors of wars, nations rising up against nations, and kingdoms against kingdoms as being part of the birth pains but the end comes later. As a birth pain, this comes before the labor of the end which comes quickly. So even if God’s Kingdom began in a figurative sense with the spring festival of Pentecost and the first fruits of the Church there, it will be made literally complete at the fall festival of Harvest still to come at the end of the Church age.
Gabriel’s sequence of events which happen after the sixty-two ‘sevens;’ Christ’s crucifixion, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, and the two millennium of war which has followed -all point to a separation of time between the sixty-two ‘sevens’ and the one ‘seven.’ This can be portrayed graphically as presented below:
The gap in the sevens spans the time of the Church. While some commentators say this period is overlooked by the prophets, a discernible reference for it can be found within the task of the Messiah in Daniel 9:24 and prophecy relating to the outpouring of God’s Spirit. This gap in time follows the very same gap identified in Isaiah 61:2. The gap in Daniel traverses the Messiah coming and then being cut off and then shifting to a time of desolations follows Isaiah 61:2 in parallel:
ISA 61:2 t
o proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
Another parallel in the gap is found in the person of Jesus. The arrival of the Messiah starting at the end of the sixty-ninth week is not to be repeated until some point in the one week with his return to start the millennium period at the end of it as the rock that grows into a mountain and fills the whole land out of Daniel chapter two. The jump, from the first century to some time in the future in Daniel 9:26, is consistent with the last theme of the Messiah’s involvement and certainly inline with one of the subjects of Gabriel’s proclamation, being Christ.
Considering the aspect of “to bring in everlasting righteous” as also describing the time between the sixty-ninth and one week, there is no gap in Christ’s work for the entire order of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24 in one sense. But as to His physical presence, there certainly is a nearly two millennium span. To focus on the time when Christ is active on Earth, then Gabriel would naturally skip the interim period between the first and second coming of the Lord, and the detail listing in verses 9:25-27 certainly qualify from an earthbound perspective. The placement of the one ‘seven’ apart from the preceding two named periods follows the pattern of the people, the city and Christ as well.
Dan 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 on wing, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
(4.) While there is an obsolete definition to “
confirm” which fits with the meaning of the underlying Hebrew word
gabar, (Strong’s 1396) the modern connotation is largely positive and lends readers to assume because of the linkage of “covenant,” that the actor confirming (a positive action) the covenant is Jesus. This is sometime buttressed with the theological argument from the book of Hebrews that ritual, legal sacrifice is no longer required for the Christian.
However, the Hebrew verb, while used for God’s strength as an adjective, misses the mark for Jesus’ New Covenant He made by laying His Life down. Gone in Jesus’ first Advent are all overtones of military might or strength in His Sacrifice. Furthermore, there is no theological basis for saying Jesus ever initiated a covenant which ran out of time in just seven years, prophetic, solar, or based on the Hebrew lunar calendar.
The Hebrew verb conjugation of
gabar is in the third person singular. The person who does the action then reverts to the last person mentioned. That is found in the prince who will come. This future reference is the direct linkage to this future actor. This prince can be identified by the people who destroy the city and the sanctuary, which was a prophetic utterance from the oldest Daniel manuscript of the second century B.C. This was accomplished in A.D. 70 by the Romans in the first Jewish Revolt. This then aligns with the King of the North being the last of a long line of Roman rulers as Daniel 2 dictates. Some critics maintain the antecedent to the pronoun within
gabar’s conjugation reverts back only to a subject of a sentence, which is the Messiah, but no such rule can be found in Hebrew grammar.
To reiterate the issues within Daniel chapter nine in closing, the coming of the Messiah occurred with Jesus’ first Advent. The cutting off of the Anointed One was fulfilled on the Cross after Christ came. Evidence within the Scripture separates the one ‘seven’ from the sixty-two ‘sevens’ with a gap in time between the two. This gap is ongoing as long as war continues. Finally the nature of “confirming” the covenant with many relegates it not to Jesus’ sacrifice, but to the other ruler who will come as identified by the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.
