The seven and the sixty-two ‘sevens’ describe the first part of the timeline. They are connected by a conjunction in the Hebrew, so can be thought to run concurrently. The first seven ‘sevens’ represents the rebuilding timeframe for Jerusalem and the second set of ‘sevens’ represents the waiting period until the Messiah comes. In accounting for the prophecy three problem areas arise: the start date; the time itself; and the final point when the Messiah can be said to have come.
The start is revealed as the issuing of the decree to restore Jerusalem. Unfortunately this extremely important date is not totally clear. There are three times which can be used as a ‘starting’ point, and there is some fog in saying exactly which year between scholars.
• The first decree of Cyrus the Great around 537/6.
• The seventh year of Artaxerxes I around 458/7 B.C.
• The commission of King Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444/5/6 B.C.
The second problem is the manner of counting years. The typical manner Western man would use is totally foreign to Daniel and the Jewish culture; solar years. If one uses the Hebrew system of lunar years, the time is variable because of the inclusion of leap year months so it does not advance the months ahead of the solar cycle of seasons. Lastly, because it is prophecy, is the idea of using “prophetic” years by including a simplified time keeping method derived from the book of Revelation. These counting methods are as follows.
• Solar years, which is the Roman calendar of 28, (29,) 30, and 31 days per month, years of 365 days, with a leap year of 366 every four years (except on century years that are not divisible by 400).
• Lunar years, which is the Semantic calendar of 29.5 days per month and variable days in a year, usually 354, with leap years of 384 +/- 1, by which the addition of, marries with the solar calendar every 19 years.
• Prophetic years, which are based on a 30 day month and 360 days per year.
Then if that were not enough complexity, 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."
One more layer of complexity comes in the Western system of year keeping. Eschewing the humanistic, secular cultural mores of “common period”, the basic division of years in the West hinges on Jesus’ domination as King. The European method of counting actually reflects an older method shared by the ancients in Biblical times: the year of a King. However, while the Roman Calendar, as modified by Julius Caesar was the basis for months and days, the numbering of years by Christ’s dominion was not universally recognized for several centuries. The modern system of counting years owes its invention to Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the short) in early in the sixth century, but it was not fully accepted throughout Europe until about the twelfth century, and the Julian calendar was modified for leap years by Pope Gregory in the sixteenth century.
In the ‘Year of our Lord’, or Anno Domino system, there is no year zero. This has less to do with the fact that “0” was not included in the Roman numbering system, but because of the manner of keeping track of the year of the king. Thus when a king took office, it was his first year, even though its anniversary had not yet been reached. Years prior would be stated as the nth year of the prior king. To state prior years by the current king, like the entire first year is year 1, counting backwards is also the first year before the king became king.
In calculating the first Year of our Lord, Dennis the Short came up short. Modern scholars, using the Anno Domino system, date the death of Herod the Great, who ordered the infants in Bethlehem killed, as having died in the spring of the 4th year before Christ was born. Thus, the discrepancy: Jesus’ first year, 1 A.D., would have to be fixed between 6 B.C. and 4 B.C., since Herod’s decree was to eliminate the future King who had already been born: Jesus. Counting backwards on limited resources, Dionysius was off by about 1% considering his calculations were 500 years after Jesus’ first Advent.
• The first possibility might be found in the first decree of Cyrus the Great. However, this decree was only for the Temple, not the city.
• The second possible date may be in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I around 457 B.C. This established the Temple and its practices.
• The third possibility might be the commission of King Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 446 B.C. This decree specifically calls for building the walls of Jerusalem.
Starting with Cyrus, none of the counting 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.) Going by the second listed decree, Artaxerxes' first, can yield a date using solar or lunar years to align with Jesus' Baptism. Using the third decree with the first two counting methods overshoots the accepted range of dates for Jesus' first Advent using either solar or lunar year counting systems, but it can, when prophetic years are used, yield a reasonable date for the Messiah’s “coming” with Palm Sunday.
Concerning Jesus' birth, none of the possible methods point to it using Daniel 9:25. The interesting fact that the Magi had determined His birth leaves one to wonder if they hadn’t used some other method to arrive at Christ’s birth between 6 and 4 B.C. One could allow that the Magi may have had some other prophecies of Daniel in Babylon that might explain their arrival being timed correctly. Or, alternately, they may have used an additional celestial test such as the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn or eclipses of the moon, and Jupiter. Jupiter, being the “kingly” planet, had such overtones in astrology that its appearance out from behind a conjunction may have signaled the arrival of the “King”. Several such astronomical signs occurred in this time period, but which one may have been interpreted as determining the Savior’s birth is not known. However, 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.
So the problem is three-fold, finding the actual start date, correctly calculating the intervening years, and finally, establishing the proper end date. It is important to note that because of the error in the start of the Year of our Lord counting system, that any date rendering of Jesus’ “coming” being fixated with His Baptism with this prophecy being the basis around 26/7 A.D.; would not conflict the Gospel account that He was around 30 at the time.
Depending on actual birth year, even in 26 A.D., Jesus would have been 30 to 32 at the time.
• Using the first decree of Cyrus has a problem in that its date is too “early” to have any alignment with the Messiah’s first Advent no matter in which manner you count the years. Furthermore, it does not comport with the prophecy in Daniel because it did not address the city.
• Using the second decree, Artaxerxes’ first, counting in straight solar years, would put the coming of the Messiah as his baptism in A.D. 26/7 and would conform to Jesus being crucified around A.D. 30/1. However, this decree too, does not address the rebuilding of the city, which must include its defenses to be complete.
• The third seems too recent because that would push the coming of the Messiah to A.D. 38 when counting in straight solar years. It is, however, the only decree to comport with the language of Daniel 9:25 to rebuild the city, and that fact is confirmed by the actions written in the book of Nehemiah. The problem of the late date is rectified, however, if one counts in prophetic years. This method then renders the “coming” of the Messiah as happening in early A.D. 31 which would coincide with Jesus' arrival on Palm Sunday rather than His Baptism.
It is important to note that the Western fascination with dates was not shared by the culture of the Jews in Biblical times. They were not so preoccupied by anniversaries as a way to mark the calendar, but by the fact that an event had transpired. Thus, there is no celebration of Jesus’ birthdate, only His Birth. Nor do we have any hard date evidence for Jesus’ birth other than a reference to a census in Luke which scholars tie to Quirinius, the Governor of Syria. He is the only known Roman ruler who ordered a taxation census of non-Roman citizens. The funny aspect to this is that the only known census he performed is dated 6-7 A.D., ten years after Herod the Great died. Thus, a clue in translation may be with protos whereby Luke describes the census which calls David to Bethlehem Quirinius’ first, because why would Luke say his first if there was only one? This then points to an early census than the only one recognized.
In conclusion, while other methods can yield similar results which approximate a reasonable time frame for Jesus’ first Advent, key factors must be weighed. In that regard, one method among the twenty seven (3 times 3 times 3) ways of ordering start dates, intervening years, and end dates has the strongest Biblical backing and also yields a reasonable time frame pointing to Jesus’ first Advent:
• The third decree because it rebuilds the city
• The use of prophetic years as revealed in Revelation
• The “coming” of the Lord on Palm Sunday as emphasized by Jesus.