06The Seventy Weeks

CHAPTER SIX

The Seventy Weeks

We come now to the ninth chapter of Daniel — the chapter which contains perhaps the most
wonderful and dramatic prophecy of the book. I believe that we are told the actual year of the
Messiah’s arrival, together with many details about His work of salvation. We are also given
details about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The chapter begins with the following
words:
‘In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the
realm of the Chaldeans — in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the
number of years which, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must
pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Then I turned my
face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth
and ashes.’ (Daniel 9:1-3)
Daniel’s prayer
At this point Daniel begins to pray. He confesses the sins of his people and he confesses that
they deserve their sufferings — the very sufferings of which God has warned them through
Moses. He then prays,
‘And now, O Lord our God, who didst bring thy people out of the land of Egypt with a
mighty hand, and hast made thee a name, as at this day, we have sinned, we have done
wickedly. O Lord, according to all thy righteous acts, let thy anger and thy wrath turn away
from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy hill; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our
fathers, Jerusalem and thy people have become a byword among all who are round about
us. Now therefore, O our God, hearken to the prayer of thy servant and to his supplications,
and for thy own sake, O Lord, cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary, which is desolate.
O my God, incline thy ear and hear; open thy eyes and behold our desolations, and the city
which is called by thy name; for we do not present our supplications before thee on the
ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of thy great mercy. O Lord, hear; O Lord,
forgive; O Lord, give heed and act; delay not, for thy own sake, O my God, because thy city
and thy people are called by thy name.’ (Daniel 9:15-19)
We must now look at the prophecy of which Daniel is speaking, and understand why it
provokes this impassioned prayer.
‘Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words, behold, I
will send for all the tribes of the north, says the Lord, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of
Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against
all these nations round about; I will utterly destroy them, and make them a horror, a hissing,
and an everlasting reproach … This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these
nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are
completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for
their iniquity, says the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste.’ (Jeremiah 25:8-12)
‘For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you,
and I will fulfil to you my promise and bring you back to this place.’ (Jeremiah 29:10)
Let us make a list of the points we find in these prophecies:
The Seventy Weeks 2
1. Nebuchadnezzar and his people shall come against Judah and the surrounding nations and
destroy them and make them a desolation.
2. These nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years.
3. At the end of seventy years the king of Babylon and his people shall be punished. Their
land shall become desolate for ever.
4. After the completion of Babylon’s seventy years of supremacy, God shall cause the Jews
to return to their own land.
Let us now see how these prophecies were fulfilled:
1. In the same year that the prophecy was uttered (605 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar came against
Jerusalem, besieged it and took a number of hostages, including Daniel himself (Daniel 1:1, 2;
II Kings 24:1). Jerusalem was again besieged in 597 B.C. and more Jews were exiled (II
Kings 24:8-17). Finally Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 587 or 586 B.C. and more
Jews were exiled (II Kings 25:1-22). The surrounding nations received similar treatment.
2, 3. Although Judah came under the Babylonian heel in 605 B.C., Babylon’s ruling of nations
actually dated from the overthrow of Assyria a few years earlier. After the fall of Ninevah in
612 B.C. (to the allied Medes and Babylonians), Ashur-uballit established his government at
Harran. This city fell to the Babylonians in 610 B.C., and Assyria was finally obliterated
when Ashur-uballit failed to recapture it in 609 B.C. Seventy years after she had finally
conquered and destroyed Assyria, Babylon herself was conquered by Cyrus in 539 B.C. Since
then Babylon has fallen into decay, and for many centuries it has been a desolate waste.
In Jeremiah 29:10 we are told that seventy years would be ‘completed for Babylon’. This
suggests that the full period of seventy years is to be identified with Babylon’s period of
power. The nations bordering Judah did not serve Babylon for quite the full period of seventy
years, but there were other peoples who did. Babylon’s supremacy lasted a little more than
seventy years in the eastern part of her empire and a little less in the western part. The interval
between her final defeat of Assyria and her own defeat by Persia was just about exactly
seventy years. It can be seen, therefore, that there are good grounds for maintaining that
Jeremiah’s prophecy of the ‘seventy years’ was fulfilled both literally and accurately. But
even if we regard the number seventy as an approximate or ‘round’ figure, we should note
that it is still a literal seventy — not merely a symbolical seventy.
4. This (the fourth point which we noted concerning Jeremiah’s prophecies) is the reason why
Daniel made his great prayer to God. God had promised that He would cause the Jews to
return to their land after the seventy years ended. Daniel had ‘perceived in the books the
number of years … namely, seventy years’ in the first year of Darius the Mede. That is, in 538
B.C., shortly after the completion of the seventy years. Daniel was pleading with God to
remember His promise and to fulfil it. He was pleading with God to let the Jews return to their
land and rebuild it.
God’s response to Daniel’s prayer
This is what we read next:
‘While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and
presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy hill of my God; while I was
speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me
in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. He came and he said to me, “O Daniel, I
have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding. At the beginning of your supplications
a word went forth, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly beloved;
The Seventy Weeks 3
therefore consider the word and understand the vision …”’ (Daniel 9:20-23)
The R.V. translates verse 23 slightly differently: ‘At the beginning of thy supplications the
commandment went forth, and I am come to tell thee; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore
consider the matter, and understand the vision.’ This translation gives a sense slightly
different from that of the R.S.V. It seems to suggest that we have here an answer to Daniel’s
prayer — his prayer for the restoration of the temple and city of Jerusalem.
The ‘commandment which went forth’ may well be God’s commandment that the Jews be
allowed to return to their land and begin rebuilding. It can be seen that if this is the true
meaning, God answered Daniel’s request even before he made it. His action was as good as
His word, for that very same year Cyrus issued his edict permitting the Jews to return to their
land and rebuild the temple.
The seventy weeks
Gabriel continues,
‘Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning 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)
Daniel has been assured (if our interpretation of verse 23 is correct) that Jeremiah’s
prophecy has been fulfilled; but God now reveals another prophecy which yet again involves
the number seventy — and again the prophecy concerns Jerusalem and the Jews.
Now critical scholars deny that this prophecy has anything (except in the vaguest sense) to
do with Christ. They believe, quite simply, that it concerns the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. I
will consider this view further on in the chapter; but for the time being I will proceed with my
own, more orthodox interpretation.
Daniel is told that within ‘seventy weeks’ (‘of years’ is not in the original) sin will be atoned
for and true righteousness will be brought in. This surely refers to the wonderful fact of
Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross, through which man may receive full forgiveness of
sins and may be clothed with the righteousness of Christ. See Hebrews 9:15, 26; II
Corinthians 5:19; Romans 3:21, 22.
Daniel is told also that within seventy weeks ‘vision and prophet’ will be sealed —
indicating the end of the Old Testament form of divine revelation together with the institution
of the prophets, and the coming to pass of the main event for which they were preparing. John
the Baptist was the last of the prophets, and the event for which they were preparing was the
coming of the Messianic kingdom of Heaven.
‘The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God
is preached …’ (Luke 16:16)
‘Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish
them but to fulfil them …’ (Matthew 5:17)
Daniel learns also that within seventy weeks ‘the most holy’ (R.V.) will he anointed. This
surely refers to the anointing of the divine Messiah (‘the anointed one’). Centuries later
Gabriel (the messenger who is speaking to Daniel) tells Mary that ‘the child to be born will be
called holy, the Son of God’ (Luke 1:35) and Jesus is later hailed as ‘the Holy One of God’
(Mark 1:24; John 6:69), this being one of the titles of the Messiah (Psalm 16:10; Acts 13:35-
37). The early church spoke to God of ‘thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint’ (Acts
4:27). On one occasion Jesus opened the book of Isaiah and read, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is
The Seventy Weeks 4
upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor’. After He had finished
reading He closed the book and said, ‘Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing’
(Luke 4:18-21). We know also that Christ, the divine Messiah, has been anointed prophet,
priest and king (Acts 3:20-24; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 5:4, 5, 10).
‘Anoint the most holy’ can also be understood to mean ‘anoint a most holy place’ (as in the
R.S.V.), referring to the Holy of holies, the innermost sanctum of the tabernacle and temple,
the place of meeting with God and itself therefore typical of Christ. Christ called His own
body a temple (John 2:19-21) and John wrote, ‘the Word became flesh, and tabernacled
among us’ (John 1:14, R.V. mg.). God came down and dwelt among men in a ‘tabernacle’ or
‘temple’ of flesh. As the old tabernacle was anointed at the beginning (Exodus 40:9), so
Christ was anointed as the new Tabernacle and Temple which superseded the tabernacle and
temples of the Old Covenant. Now that He is no longer living among us in the flesh, we (those
who have accepted Him as Saviour and Lord) are His temple and He dwells in us by His Holy
Spirit (I Corinthians 3:16).
Daniel is told that all these things will be accomplished within ‘seventy weeks’. Now the
word translated ‘week’ literally means ‘seven’ and can, in the Bible, mean a seven of days or
a seven of years (see Genesis 29:27, 28). In this case it is likely, as the R.S.V. assumes, that
weeks of years are meant. If this is so, we are told that 490 years (70 x 7) are decreed upon the
Jews and upon Jerusalem. Within this time sin will be atoned for, everlasting righteousness
will be brought in, vision and prophet will be sealed and the Most Holy will be anointed. We
have seen that in fact all these things had been done by the time Christ finished His work on
earth some two thousand years ago.
I take the ‘seventy weeks’ to mean a literal period of 490 years, and there are at least three
good reasons why we should do so. First, Daniel 9 is of a generally literal, straightforward
nature — it does not contain the symbolism and imagery of the earlier visions. Second, if
Jeremiah’s prophecy of the ‘seventy years’ was fulfilled literally, it is extremely likely that
Daniel’s prophecy of the ‘seventy weeks’ was also fulfilled literally. And third, it can be
shown that the prophecy of the seventy weeks was fulfilled literally!
The commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem
Gabriel continues,
‘Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and
to build Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore
and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.’
(Daniel 9:25, R.V.)1
We learn now that the seventy weeks are dated from ‘the going forth of the commandment
to restore and to build Jerusalem’. The immediate question is, ‘When did this commandment
go forth?’ To answer this question we shall have to consider just how the Jews returned and
how they rebuilt Jerusalem.
These events took place in two main stages. In the first stage a large group of Jews returned
under the leadership of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, probably in 537 B.C. They had specific
permission from Cyrus to build the temple in Jerusalem; but more than this, we read that those
who returned were those ‘whose spirit God had stirred to go up to rebuild the house of the
Lord which is in Jerusalem’ (Ezra 1:5). It was God’s desire and command that they should
rebuild the temple. They commenced building the temple the year after their return and finally
completed it twenty years later, just over seventy years after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the
first temple. There is no evidence that they tried to rebuild the city itself.
The Seventy Weeks 5
In the second stage, another group of Jews returned to Jerusalem some eighty years later, led
by Ezra. The return took place in 458 B.C., the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, the exiles arriving in Jerusalem towards the end of July. There is considerable
controversy over the date of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem, and this controversy will be referred
to later. But for the time being, we shall assume that as the Bible says, he returned in the
seventh year of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:7). Ezra carried with him a letter from Artaxerxes which
gave him authority to organize the colony in Judah according to Hebrew law and to obtain and
carry money and material for the beautification and service of the temple. He did not carry
any specific permission to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, but it is apparent from Ezra 4:7-23
that he did in fact begin to do this. In this passage2 we learn that the enemies of the Jews sent
a letter to Artaxerxes, saying,
‘… be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from you to us have gone to
Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city; they are finishing the walls
and repairing the foundations. Now be it known to the king that, if this city is rebuilt and the
walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be
impaired.’ (Ezra 4:12, 13)
Who were these ‘Jews who came up from Artaxerxes’? It is clear that they must have come
to Jerusalem before the coming of Nehemiah — and the only such group we know of is the
group led by Ezra in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes. It would appear therefore
that the rebuilding of Jerusalem was initiated by Ezra.
The writers of the letter (Samaritans and others) went on to claim that Jerusalem had been a
rebellious city in the past and therefore it was not safe to allow the Jews to rebuild it.
Artaxerxes was convinced by the argument and gave orders that the building should cease.
We read that the Samaritans & Co. ‘went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and
power made them cease’. The Samaritans did not have much difficulty in getting Artaxerxes
to forbid the rebuilding; and this supports the idea that Ezra’s group of Jews were the builders,
because even though they had ‘come up from’ Artaxerxes, they did not have any specific
permission to rebuild the city.
We have further evidence that Ezra began to rebuild Jerusalem in a prayer he made to God
about four months after his arrival:
‘… God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight
of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the
ruins thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.’ (Ezra 9:9, R.V.)
The immediate question is, what did Ezra mean by ‘a wall in Jerusalem’? He did not mean
just the city wall, as he would have used a different word for that. In this case ‘wall’ translates
gader, which is also translated elsewhere as ‘fence’. It refers primarily to the sort of protective
wall which, for example, surrounds a vineyard. The idea, as indicated in the R.S.V.
translation, is that of protection. When God ‘gave a wall in Jerusalem’ He made Jerusalem
capable of protecting the Jews. Ezra was obviously speaking of the literal city of Jerusalem, as
in the same verse he had just spoken of the literal temple. A Jerusalem capable of protecting
the Jews was a Jerusalem which had been rebuilt. And Ezra was not talking just about the city
wall; he was talking about the entire city. We understand the actual word ‘wall’ in a
metaphorical sense, but it implies the literal rebuilding of Jerusalem. This indicates that Ezra
was at least planning to rebuild Jerusalem. The passage quoted earlier from Ezra 4 seems to
show that in fact he did begin this task.
The Jews with Ezra probably began by building within the city, and they started on the wall
only at a later stage, nearer the time of Nehemiah. It was then that the Samaritans began to
The Seventy Weeks 6
cause trouble. They caused the rebuilding to cease ‘by force and power’ — and this would
obviously include the breaking down of the offending wall. It is probable that this was the
news that distressed Nehemiah so much in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, thirteen years
after Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem. He was at Susa, in Persia, when he met some Jews from
Judah and asked them how Jerusalem and the people of Judah were faring. They replied that
the people were in great trouble and that ‘the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates
are destroyed by fire’ (Nehemiah 1:1-4). Nehemiah quickly obtained permission from
Artaxerxes to rebuild the wall, and so came to Jerusalem.
When he arrived there, he found there were only a few people living in the city, and that
‘the houses were not builded’ (7:4, R.V.). Nehemiah 7:3, however, states clearly that there
were people living in Jerusalem in their own houses — which does indicate that some houses
had been built. The rebuilding of the whole city was a task which must have taken many years
to complete; so it is not surprising that much work remained to be done. It is likely,
furthermore, that the Jews with Ezra had been slow to begin their task — just as a previous
generation had been slow to begin work on the temple. They needed a man like Nehemiah to
come and chivvy them on, and this is precisely what he did. He exhorted them to rebuild the
wall, and despite intense opposition from neighbouring enemies, it was repaired in fifty-two
days. Ezra was then called upon to read the Law and the people pledged themselves to
observe its commands.
The temple or the city?
Having said all this, we are in a better position to answer our question, ‘When did the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem go forth?’
The first point we need to consider is this. Did the commandment go forth during the reign
of Cyrus, when the Jews began rebuilding the temple? Or was it during the reign of
Artaxerxes I, when they began rebuilding the city? Does the rebuilding of ‘Jerusalem’ include
the rebuilding of the temple, or does it mean the later rebuilding of the city?
We can answer that the commandment of verse 25 could refer to Cyrus’ edict (or rather the
commandment of God which caused it) — but not necessarily. The revelation of Daniel 9 was
given in response to a prayer made by Daniel. He had prayed, ‘Cause thy face to shine upon
thy sanctuary, which is desolate … behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy
name’ (vv. 17, 18). Daniel first asked for the restoration of the temple, and then he asked for
the restoration of the city. As Daniel made two requests, so God may have given two answers.
The first was, I suggest, the commandment of verse 23 — given in immediate response to
Daniel’s prayer — the commandment to build the temple. The second was the commandment
of verse 25, then future, the commandment to build the city. As God gave two commandments,
so the temple and city were rebuilt in two stages. A group of Jews returned during the
reign of Cyrus and rebuilt the temple. A second group returned during the reign of Artaxerxes
and began rebuilding the city.
Daniel does draw a distinction between the temple and the city of Jerusalem, so it is
certainly possible, if not probable, that the rebuilding of ‘Jerusalem’ refers to the rebuilding of
the city which began during the reign of Artaxerxes. It is significant that the seventy weeks
are decreed concerning the people and the city (9:24) — powerful evidence that the seventy
weeks are indeed to be dated from the commandment to rebuild the city.
Ezra or Nehemiah?
So much for the ‘temple’ versus the ‘city’. I shall try now to show that the commandment to
restore and build Jerusalem is to be associated with the coming of Ezra, rather than that of
The Seventy Weeks 7
Nehemiah. I have shown already that the Jews began rebuilding the city of Jerusalem before
Nehemiah’s arrival, and that there is good reason to believe that Nehemiah’s work was simply
a continuation of Ezra’s work.
It should be noted that right from the beginning, Nehemiah was in absolutely no doubt that
the wall of Jerusalem should be rebuilt immediately. In fact it seems that he was shocked and
distressed to hear that it had not been built already. This suggests that as far as Nehemiah was
concerned, God’s commandment had gone forth already.
Now the seventy weeks are decreed concerning the people and the city (9:24). This suggests
that they are to be dated from the reorganization of the people and the rebuilding of the city by
Ezra when he returned in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. We can say truthfully that the
spiritual and physical rebuilding of the nation began with the return of Ezra. Apart from the
building of the temple, very little seems to have been achieved by the first group of returned
exiles — Jerusalem continued to lie in ruins, and both spiritually and physically the people
remained at an extremely low ebb. As John Bright says in his book, A History of Israel, Ezra
emerged as a figure of ‘towering importance’ who came to be regarded as ‘no less than a
second Moses’. ‘If Moses was Israel’s founder, it was Ezra who reconstituted Israel and gave
her faith a form in which it could survive through the centuries.’3 The post-exilic theocracy
was a new phase in the history of Israel. It began with the work of Ezra and ended (as far as
God was concerned) with the work of Christ. We shall see shortly that this phase of Israel’s
history lasted precisely 490 years (seventy weeks).
As I have shown, the Bible implies very strongly indeed that Ezra not only reconstituted the
religious life of the people, but also he initiated the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. It is
the only solution which fits all the facts we are given. The very earliest work of rebuilding the
city (as opposed to the temple) that the Old Testament speaks of is the work of rebuilding
recorded in Ezra 4:7-23. The Old Testament clearly indicates that the purposeful rebuilding
of the city was initiated by a group of Jews that ‘came up from Artaxerxes’ before Nehemiah.
The only such group that the Old Testament knows of is the band of Jews led by Ezra in the
seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes I.
It is in fact almost universally accepted by both conservative and critical scholars that the
Jews began rebuilding the city of Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus,
before the arrival of Nehemiah, as described in Ezra 4:7-23. Critical scholars actually consider
this section to be particularly authentic and reliable. I even remember reading in one critical
commentary that the author or editor of the book of Ezra may have ‘confused’ Ezra’s return
with that of the Jews mentioned in Ezra 4:12. Many critical scholars believe the Biblical date
of Ezra’s return to be erroneous (they believe that he came to Jerusalem after Nehemiah); but
the aforesaid commentary does at least imply that some Jews did return to Jerusalem around
458 B.C., and began rebuilding the city. As for conservative opinion, suffice it to quote a
sample from The New Bible Commentary Revised, Inter-Varsity Press (p. 401). Ezra 4:12 ‘is
highly important evidence for a migration of Jews in the reign of Artaxerxes. If the traditional
dating of Ezra’s return (c. 458 B.C.) be accepted, the verse could well indicate the group
which returned with him. The cessation of the building, which was unauthorized, may have
been that reported to Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:1 ff.). Ezra may have realized that no effective
reform could be achieved without the security of a wall, but he had no commission for this,
hence the appeal to Nehemiah. Apart from this reconstruction, there is no historically-attested
connection for this group.’
It should be mentioned again that certain scholars do not accept that Ezra returned in the
seventh year of Artaxerxes I. In fact a very good case can be made out for the Biblical
chronology; but as it happens, this controversy is largely irrelevant to our discussion. I am
The Seventy Weeks 8
trying to show that the Bible predicted the date of Christ’s arrival. I am concerned therefore
with the Biblical date of Ezra’s return. However, it is worth quoting here a point made by The
New Bible Commentary Revised (p. 397). ‘… the Chronicler was so close to Ezra and
Nehemiah, even allowing a date as late as c. 350 B.C., that a major chronological blunder is
unlikely. Indeed, the view that Ezra himself was the Chronicler is maintained by W. F.
Albright and other leading scholars.’
To say that the Chronicler could have got such an important historical fact wrong is rather
like saying that a modern historian could be confused over whether Queen Victoria reigned
before or after Edward VII. The ingenious but inconclusive arguments against Ezra coming to
Jerusalem before Nehemiah are all completely overshadowed by the simple fact that an
authority who was actually there at the time (or at least very soon afterwards) says that Ezra
did come first.
But I am digressing. The question we need to ask is not ‘When did the Jews begin to rebuild
Jerusalem?’ It is ‘When did the commandment to rebuild go forth?’ We read in Ezra 7:6 that
Artaxerxes ‘granted Ezra all that he asked, for the hand of the Lord his God was upon him’.
Since Ezra was not given specific permission to rebuild Jerusalem and cannot therefore have
asked for it, we can take it that when Ezra left for Jerusalem, the commandment for its
restoration had not yet ‘gone forth’ from God. We are told that in the days immediately
following the exiles’ arrival in late July, they ‘aided the people and the house of God’ (Ezra
8:36). As there is no mention of the city here, we can take it that the commandment must have
‘gone forth’ some time after July, 458 B.C.
Now the aforementioned prayer of Ezra is the only indication we have as to when the
commandment did go forth. In the prayer he says that God has extended mercy to the Jews in
the sight of the kings of Persia in order ‘to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God,
and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem’. Ezra clearly
believed that it was God’s will that Jerusalem should be rebuilt. Furthermore, he did not
speak of the rebuilding as something to come in the future — he spoke of it as something
which was, or could be, just as much a present reality as the restoration of the temple.
This is the first time since Daniel that such a statement occurs. Hitherto it has always been
the restoration of the temple only. Zechariah 1:16 (written in 520 B.C.) does mention
Jerusalem together with the temple, but only in such a way as to confirm that the
commandment to rebuild Jerusalem had not yet gone forth.4 The command to rebuild the
temple was, at that time, very emphatic. By contrast, the clearest reference to the building of
the city (Zechariah 1:16) was guarded and somewhat vague — a promise of something to
come in the future. Something to look forward to. Ezra’s words were much more definite. He
clearly believed that God had brought the Jews back to build both the temple and the city of
Jerusalem.
It is probable, therefore, that when Ezra prayed this prayer, he had already received the ‘goahead’
from God to rebuild Jerusalem. Doubtless this ‘go-ahead’ took the form of a deep
conviction laid on his heart. It is not difficult to imagine this happening soon after his arrival
in Jerusalem — still in ruins eighty years after Cyrus’ edict. In fact it is quite possible that
when Ezra prayed this prayer, he had already exhorted the Jews to begin rebuilding.
The New Bible Commentary Revised doubts if the building of the wall could have begun so
soon after his return. But as explained already, Ezra was not just speaking of the wall — he
was speaking of the whole city. There is no reason why some building work within the city
(as opposed to the wall) could not have begun at that time. Ezra 4:12, 13 does indicate that the
Jews began building both the city and its wall. As mentioned earlier, they probably began by
building within the city, and started on the walls only at a later stage, nearer the time of
The Seventy Weeks 9
Nehemiah. It was then that the Samaritans began to cause trouble.
However, whether or not the Jews had begun the actual work of rebuilding when Ezra
prayed his prayer, there is good reason to believe that the commandment to build had gone
forth (from God). And this is what really matters. It need not worry us that only a few houses
were built and that the work came to a temporary halt. It was a fulfilment of Daniel’s
prophecy that the city would be built in ‘a troubled time’ (9:25), and the Bible compares it
with the way in which the building of the temple was delayed also (Ezra 4-6). We need to
remember that very little was done about the building of the temple until about eighteen years
after Cyrus’ edict. In both cases, it would appear, there was a considerable lapse of time
between the ‘going forth’ of God’s commandment and an effective response to that
commandment. Just as the building of the temple needed the impetus given by Haggai and
Zechariah, so the building of the city needed the impetus given by Nehemiah.
Ezra’s prayer was made in early December or late November (see Ezra 10); so we can take
it that the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem went forth sometime during the
months August to November, 458 B.C. This, I believe, is the answer the Old Testament
supplies to the question ‘When did the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem go
forth?’ The answer has to be sought, but it is there. ‘Seek, and you will find; knock, and it will
be opened to you’.
The Messiah
Daniel is told that ‘unto the anointed one [Messiah], the prince’ shall be 69 weeks (7 weeks
plus 62 weeks). That is, the Messiah will appear 483 years (7 x 69) from the latter part of the
year 458 B.C. Remembering that there was no year 0, this brings us to the latter part of the
year 26 A.D. It was about this very time that Jesus Christ began His public ministry.
Astronomical calculations have shown that 7th April, 30 A.D. is one of the two most likely
dates for Christ’s crucifixion.5
It is apparent that His public ministry extended over a period of two to four years, three and
a half years being one of the calculated possibilities. We shall see in a few moments that the
prophecy of Daniel 9 indicates that it did last exactly three and a half years — and this is in
fact the traditional span. (In our final chapter we shall see that evidence for this can be found
in the eleventh chapter of Revelation.) If we count back three and a half years from 7th April,
30 A.D., we come to the month of October, 26 A.D. This month is in the latter part (August—
November) of the year 26 A.D., the very time predicted by Daniel’s prophecy. It has been calculated
from other evidence too that 26 A.D. is one of the most likely dates for the beginning
of Jesus’ public ministry (see chapter 7 of New Testament Times, by Merrill C. Tenney).
Now it is true that the date of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem is not immediately
obvious. Reasons can be found for identifying it with the year 458 B.C., and other reasons can
be found for 538 or 445 B.C. The picture is further obscured by uncertainty over the correct
punctuation in verse 25 (we have used the punctuation of A.V., R.V. margin and N.I.V.). The
answer is not laid on a plate before us. It is partially hidden, and we have to search for it. But
as I wrote in the introductory chapter, all Daniel’s prophecies are something of a riddle, and
one gets the impression that God made it this way deliberately. The ambiguity may well be
intentional.
Because the correct answer to our problem is not crystal clear at the first glance, and
because there has been so much disagreement and confusion over this prediction, there are
many who declare that it is wrong to look for an exact interpretation. The New Testament
plainly indicates, however, that the Old Testament Messianic prophecies were not crystal
clear in meaning. Jesus often had to explain them before the disciples understood them. Note
The Seventy Weeks 10
also that although Jesus specifically told His disciples that we cannot know the date of the
second advent, He said no such thing with regard to the first advent. Rather, He repeatedly
showed them that His first advent had been predicted in great detail by the Old Testament
scriptures.
With regard to Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks, we are plainly told that there were
to be sixty-nine weeks (if we follow the A.V., R.V. mg. and N.I.V. punctuation in verse 25)
from the going forth of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of ‘an anointed
one, a prince’. We are told also that after the sixty-nine weeks (whichever punctuation we
use), ‘an anointed one’ would be cut off. Ezra 4:7-23 and 7:7 and 9:9 imply very strongly
indeed that the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem was initiated by Ezra. And it is an
irrefutable fact that there were exactly 483 years (69 weeks) between the Biblical date of
Ezra’s coming to Jerusalem and 26 A.D., the very year in which Jesus Christ, the Messiah,
may well have begun His public ministry. Some prefer to think that this is pure coincidence.
To me, a ‘coincidence’ of this magnitude is most unlikely. It is more reasonable to accept it,
partially hidden though it is, as a prediction of the date of Christ’s coming.
It is true that there is some uncertainty about the exact dates of Christ’s life; but we know
that the crucifixion was around 30 A.D., the most likely dates being 7th April, 30 A.D. and
3rd April, 33 A.D. I suggest that Daniel’s prophecy confirms that it was in fact the 30 A.D.
date. However, whether we regard the ‘seventy’ as a round number or an exact number, and
whether we date it from Ezra’s work of rebuilding or Nehemiah’s (see below), it brings us to
the time of Christ, not the time of Antiochus.
There are some who maintain that if the date of Christ’s coming had really been predicted in
this remarkable way, it would have been mentioned in the New Testament. It is true that the
‘seventy weeks’ are not specifically mentioned, but there can be no doubt that as far as the
New Testament is concerned, the prophecy as a whole applies to the time of Christ. This is
particularly true of verse 24. Also, on the occasion when Jesus mentioned Daniel by name
(Matthew 24:15-21; Mark 13:14-19; Luke 21:20-24), He appeared to link Daniel 9:27 with
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. — indicating in a very specific way that 9:24-27 does
look beyond Antiochus to the time of Christ.
Maybe Christ said a lot more about Daniel after His resurrection, when He showed His
disciples ‘the things concerning himself in all the scriptures’. Maybe Paul and others did point
to this prophecy when they ‘argued from the scriptures’ to prove that Jesus was the Christ.
But perhaps this particular gem of prophecy was left for people of a later age to discover —
people who would possess fuller historical information, and for whom exact dates and lengths
of time might therefore be more meaningful. But whatever the reason for its not being
mentioned in the New Testament, the prediction is there in the book of Daniel, and it brings
us to the time of Christ. It should be born in mind also that there is much which could have
been written in the New Testament, but was not (Luke 24:27; John 21:25).
Other conservative views
What about the other explanations of the ‘seventy weeks’ which one finds in conservative
commentaries?
Some conservative scholars believe that the seventy weeks should be dated from the edict of
Cyrus. They believe that the prophecy points to Christ; but they have to maintain that the
seventy weeks are only symbolical. This is because 490 years from 538 B.C. brings us up to
only 48 B.C. But as explained already, there are strong reasons for believing that the seventy
weeks are meant to be taken literally.
The Seventy Weeks 11
Other conservatives date the seventy weeks from Nehemiah’s commission in 445 B.C. This
brings us up to 46 A.D. for the end of the seventy weeks, and 39 A.D. for the appearance of
the ‘anointed one’. This is certainly much closer to the time of Christ, but it is still not an
exact fulfilment. One way of solving this problem is to calculate in ‘prophetic’ years of 360
days each — and this does bring us to a date which could be the correct one. Other
conservatives believe that the seventy weeks date from 445 B.C., but that the ‘seventy’ is only
an approximate or round figure, albeit a literal one.
Perhaps the right way to view the problem is to accept that the ‘symbolical’ interpretation is
correct as far as it goes. But beneath the surface there is ‘hidden treasure’ — namely, the
prediction that Christ would appear in 26 A.D.
The fact that there are 483 years between 458 B.C. and 26 A.D. has been noticed before;6
but strangely enough, very little has been made of this fact (so far as I am aware). It provides
a fulfilment which is both accurate and literal — not only satisfying and convincing in itself,
but also consistent with the accurate, literal fulfilment of the prophecy of the ‘seventy years’.
Babylon was given literally seventy years, and Jerusalem was given literally seven times
seventy years!
The first seven weeks
It remains to be asked, ‘Why are the first sixty-nine weeks divided into a period of seven
weeks, followed by a period of sixty-two weeks?’
The most likely answer — and this is not difficult to see if we follow the A.V. and R.V.
margin punctuation — is that it took forty-nine years (seven weeks) to build the city of
Jerusalem.
‘… from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the
anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be
built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.’ (Daniel 9:25)
An apt description of the difficulties Ezra and Nehemiah had to contend with!
The seventieth week
‘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. And he shall
make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week7 he shall cause
sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who
makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.’ (Daniel 9:26, 27)
We have learned that the Messiah will appear sixty-nine weeks (seven weeks plus sixty-two
weeks) after the going forth of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem. We are told now, in
verse 26, that some time after His appearance the Messiah will be ‘cut off’ and will ‘have
nothing’, indicating that He will be killed, perhaps in the prime of His life, and that He will be
utterly forsaken and desolate, certainly not having the earthly kingdom expected by the Jews.
In verse 27 we are told that following His manifestation, the Messiah will ‘make a strong
covenant with many’ for the space of seven years (one week). In the middle of this period He
will bring to an end the Old Covenant system of sacrifices.
Daniel does not specify directly whether the one who makes the covenant is the ‘anointed
one’ or the destroying ‘prince who is to come’. Nevertheless, it is highly probable that the ‘he’
of verse 27 refers back to the ‘anointed one’, since He is the principal character in verse 26.
The Seventy Weeks 12
(The word ‘prince’ takes a subordinate position in the verse). Also, Daniel goes on in verse 27
to speak of a desolating ‘one who shall come’, who seems to be a different person from the
one who makes the covenant. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the one who makes
the covenant is the ‘anointed one’, and the ‘one who shall come’ is the ‘prince who is to
come’.
So let us now try to identify this period of seven years during which the Messiah ‘shall
make a strong covenant with many’ — better translated, ‘establish a covenant’ or ‘cause a
covenant to prevail’.
The beginning of the period is marked by His appearance — ‘unto Messiah, the prince, shall
be sixty-nine weeks’ (see R.V. margin). This, surely, is the time of Christ’s baptism by John,
when He was recognized to be both Messiah and King of Israel, and His public life began
(John 1:29-49; Luke 3:23; 16:16; Acts 10:36, 37). When Jesus came to be baptized, He was
‘anointed’ with the Holy Spirit. This event marked the beginning of His public life. It was
entirely appropriate that the appearance of the Messiah (‘the anointed one’) should be marked
by His actual anointing. Moreover, at the very moment of anointing God revealed Jesus’
Messiahship with these words spoken out of Heaven: ‘Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I
am well pleased’ (Mark 1:11; cf. Psalms 2:7; Isaiah 42:1).
In his book Baptism in the Holy Spirit, James Dunn shows that the anointing of Jesus by the
Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism was an event of enormous importance (see chapter 3,
‘The Experience of Jesus at Jordan’). Dunn shows that for Jesus it marked the actual point in
time at which the Old Covenant age ended and the new, Messianic age began.
From the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus preached about the kingdom of God
— ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand’ (Mark 1:15). And the outcome of
His ministry was the establishing of a ‘New Covenant’ (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Luke 22:20).
Compare ‘he shall make a strong covenant with many’ (Daniel 9:27) with ‘this is my blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many’ (Matthew 26:28).
The event marking the end of this seven-year period during which Christ ‘established the
covenant’ is rather more difficult to identify; but the following solution meets every requirement.
Paul, the last chosen of the apostles, wrote,
‘Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.’ (I Corinthians 15:8)
‘For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not
man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a
revelation of Jesus Christ.’ (Galatians 1:11, 12)
Paul was apparently the last individual to whom Christ appeared in person, and it was to
Paul that the gospel of the New Covenant was revealed in its most complete form. Paul was
the last of the apostles to be commissioned by Jesus — the apostles being a select band of
disciples to whom Christ specially entrusted His message of the New Covenant. In a very
striking way, therefore, Paul’s commissioning marked the end of Christ’s work of
‘establishing’ the New Covenant. It is very possible that Paul received his revelation and
commission from Christ three and a half years after His crucifixion and seven years after the
commencement of His ministry on earth; so this event could well mark the end of the
seventieth ‘week’ during which He ‘made a strong covenant with many’.
This is particularly appropriate, because Daniel is told, ‘Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy
people and upon thy holy city’ (R.V.). The idea conveyed is one of judgment — the Jews and
their city have only seventy weeks to go! After the seventy weeks, the Jews will no longer be
the special chosen people of God, and Jerusalem will no longer be the special place for the
1
The Seventy Weeks 13
worship of God. It was to Paul that Christ finally made it clear that ‘there is no distinction
between Jew and Greek’ (Romans 10:12). Paul was the apostle specially commissioned by
Christ to take the gospel to the Gentiles after it had been rejected by the Jews.8
In spite of all this, however, I believe that God has not finished with the Jews. In another
sense, they are still very special, and God has a plan and purpose for them. See Romans 11.
Jews who receive Jesus as their Messiah are ‘natural’ members of the true Israel, whereas
Gentile Christians have been ‘grafted in’ to the true Israel. A translation which conveys the
true meaning of Romans 11:11-12 is the NRSV:
‘So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling
salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their stumbling
means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more
will their full inclusion mean!’ (Romans 11:11-12)
In the following pages I refer quite often to the changed status of the Jewish people. But my
comments, together with the scriptural passages, need to be read in the light of the words
above.
Let us look at one of Jesus’ parables:
‘And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came
seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vine-dresser, ‘Lo, these
three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down; why
should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig
about it and put on manure. And if it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can
cut it down.’”’ (Luke 13:6-9)
The context, together with Hosea 9:10 and Joel 1:7, makes it quite certain that the fig tree
represents the Jewish nation. Now this nation was the chosen people of God from the time of
the covenant made with Abraham until around the time of Paul’s commissioning as apostle to
the Gentiles. According to the parable, this period of time was divided into two parts. The
first part was three times as long as the second, and this latter part was a time during which
God gave the Jews ‘one more chance’. It might be thought that to take these relative lengths
of time literally is to read more into the parable than Christ intended. The fact remains,
however, that the period during which the Jews were God’s chosen people was divided in just
this way. The parable indicates that God looked in vain for fruit during the first period. At the
end of it He was almost prepared to cast the Jews off, but He relented and gave them one
more chance. At the end of this second period He looked again for fruit, but finding none, He
had to reject the Jews from being His chosen people.
Let us suppose that the ‘seventy weeks’ of the post-exilic theocracy was the ‘one more
chance’ that God gave the Jews. This would make each of the ‘years’ of Jesus’ parable to
represent a period of 490 years, and would mean that the ‘four years’ started in 1928 B.C. It
was at about this very time that Abraham lived. Abraham was the first member of the race
which God singled out to be His chosen nation. It was from the time of Abraham that the Jews
were God’s peculiar people. But always they failed to produce the fruit He was looking for.
About 1470 years (490 x 3) after the covenant with Abraham, God gave the Jews ‘one more
chance’ when He re-made the nation under Ezra. But still they failed to produce the fruit lie
was looking for. And so it was that 490 years later, in 33 A.D., He had to cut down His fig
tree — as predicted by Jesus.
‘… the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the
fruits of it.’ (Matthew 21: 43)
The Seventy Weeks 14
I have said that Paul’s commissioning as apostle to the Gentiles marked the end of the
period during which the Jews were God’s chosen people. This is appropriate also because
Paul typified this great change from one dispensation to another in his own life. He was a
Pharisee of the Pharisees, a particularly fanatical believer in the Old Covenant and the
privileges of the Jews. However, following his experience with Christ (an event which is
given tremendous prominence in the New Testament),9 the change was total and complete.
Although retaining a great love for his people, he became the most vigorous preacher of the
news that the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New, that there is now no distinction
between Jew and Gentile. He sternly opposed all attempts to ‘Judaize’ Christianity. He was
the first Christian really to understand that Gentiles do not have to become Jews in order to be
members of God’s family and that it is possible and desirable for Christians to abandon many
of the observances which God required of the Jews under the Old Covenant.
Closely bound up with Paul’s conversion and subsequent theology was the martyrdom of
Stephen, an event which dramatically demonstrated the Jews’ rejection of their Messiah. He
had been brought before the Sanhedrin on charges of blasphemy and after surveying the
history of Israel, he had attacked the Jews for continuing in the tradition of their fathers by
killing the Messiah. This goaded the Jews to fury and when Stephen claimed to see Jesus
standing at the right hand of God, they seized him and stoned him to death. Stephen’s death
resulted in a Jewish persecution, led by Paul, which scattered the Christians abroad. They
preached the gospel wherever they went, but only to the Jews. It was not until after the time of
Paul’s conversion that it was preached to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19). Paul had been present at
Stephen’s martyrdom, and it was not so very long afterwards that Jesus met him and changed
the course of his life and the role of the Jewish people in His dealings with mankind.
The first eight chapters of the book of Acts record the early preaching of the gospel to the
Jewish nation. The narrative does not speak of any preaching to pure Gentiles. All were
Jewish or partially Jewish by religion — including those converted at Pentecost, the
Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch. Many individual Jews were converted, but the greater
part of the nation rejected Christ. In the ninth chapter we read about Paul’s conversion and his
activities during the years immediately following that event. After this the narrative probably
goes back a few years to tell the story of how Peter arrived at Joppa, where he was found by
messengers from the Roman centurion Cornelius. We then read a long account of how
Cornelius and his household were converted and how this event showed the church that
Gentiles as well as Jews could become Christians. The narrative then goes on to describe the
founding of a church of both Jews and Gentiles in Antioch. Because of his experience with
Gentiles, Paul was eventually called upon to minister to this church. Up to the time of Paul’s
conversion, the book of Acts concentrates on the preaching of the gospel to the Jews.
Following his conversion, the emphasis switches to the Gentiles.
Now Christ must have given Paul his teaching (with its special emphasis on the new
relationship between Jew and Gentile) during the period following his conversion, possibly
when he was in Arabia. The seventy weeks may therefore have ended some time after Paul’s
actual conversion. It could be that the exact point of time was marked by Cornelius’ conversion.
It was specially revealed to Peter at that time that the Gentiles were no longer
‘unclean’. They and the Jews were now equal. The book of Acts represents this event as the
opening of the door to the Gentiles. It is possible that Paul’s basic theology was fully formed
by this time (through special revelation); so it could be that he started preaching to the
Gentiles at just about the same time as Peter. According to our calculations, the seventy weeks
ended in October, 33 A.D. It is very possible that the doors were opened to the Gentiles at just
this time.
Merrill C. Tenney deals very well with New Testament chronology in his book New
The Seventy Weeks 15
Testament Times, and I recommend it to the reader if he or she wishes to know how the
various dates are worked out. In the chronological table at the end of Tenney’s book, the
following dates are given as the most probable in the light of the evidence we have at present.
Opening of Jesus’ ministry, 26 A.D. Crucifixion of Jesus, 30 A.D. Death of Stephen;
conversion of Paul, 32/33 A.D. These dates agree precisely with the predictions of Daniel 9:
24-27.
To summarize, therefore, I suggest that the end of the seventy weeks was marked by 1) the
completion of Christ’s seven-year work of ‘establishing’ the New Covenant, and 2) the
‘taking away of the kingdom of God’ from the Jewish nation and the opening of the door to
the Gentiles.
The Crucifixion
As noted already, we are told that ‘for half of [or ‘in the middle of’] the week he [the
Messiah] shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease’. ‘Half’ translates the Hebrew word
chatsi, which does mean exactly a half. In other words, the Messiah will cause the sacrifice
and the offering to cease three and a half years after the commencement of His ministry and
halfway through the seven-year period during which He ‘establishes the covenant’. We are
also told, in the preceding verse, that some time after His appearance, the Messiah will be ‘cut
off’ and will ‘have nothing’. Christ’s death on the cross is foretold here in the most dramatic
and amazing way. We are told when He was to die, how He was to die and why He was to
die.
Assuming He commenced His ministry in the latter part of the year 26 A.D., we are now
told that He was to die three and a half years later in the early part of the year 30 A.D. As
already stated, it is very probable that He did die in early 30 A.D., on 7th April. The Jews
would have liked their Messiah to conquer all their earthly enemies and rule the world in
omnipotent power from Jerusalem. His reign, they hoped and expected, would be both earthly
and everlasting. This prophecy predicted not only that He would die, but that His death would
be both abrupt and violent. And in His death He would apparently have nothing — certainly
not the kingdom they hoped for. Indeed, while He was on the cross, Jesus did have nothing.
Even His Father in Heaven ‘forsook’ Him.
And now, the reason for and the meaning of His death. The writer of the epistle to the
Hebrews explains (Hebrews 9:1 — 10: 22) that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were, in
themselves, quite ineffective. They were merely pictures or types of Christ’s sacrifice on the
cross. By His own sacrifice, ‘once offered’, Christ abolished and brought to an end the whole
Old Covenant system of sacrifices and offerings. They had served their purpose as a
temporary substitute and preparation for Christ’s perfect and all-sufficient sacrifice; but there
was now no further need for them, as signified by the curtain or ‘veil’ of the temple being
‘torn in two, from top to bottom’ (Matthew 27:51). Christ’s atoning work on the cross is
absolutely central to the message of the New Covenant — and this, perhaps, is why He
arranged for His crucifixion to occur in the exact middle of the period during which He
established the New Covenant.
The wording of Daniel 9:24-27 echoes Isaiah 53, suggesting that the suffering Servant of
that chapter is indeed the Messiah, the Anointed One:
‘He was despised and rejected by men … he was cut off out of the land of the living … he
makes himself an offering for sin … by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous.’
The destruction of Jerusalem
The Seventy Weeks 16
‘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. And he shall
make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause
sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who
makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.’10 (Daniel 9:26, 27)
Although in God’s eyes the Old Covenant system of sacrifices came to an end on the day
that Christ was crucified, the outward ritual of sacrifice was not finally discontinued until 70
A.D., when the Roman general Titus terminated the Jewish War with the siege and
destruction of Jerusalem. It would seem that by this event God was visibly demonstrating the
fact that the Old Covenant had come to an end — the Jews were no longer His special, chosen
people and the temple at Jerusalem was no longer the special centre of worship:
‘… the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the
Father … the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father
in spirit and truth.’ (John 4:21-23)
Christ taught that the Jewish War was a fulfilment of prophecy (particularly Daniel’s) and
was God’s punishment on the Jews for rejecting and murdering their divine Messiah, the Son
of God.
‘… he sent his son to them … And they took him … and killed him … When therefore the
owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? … He will put those
wretches to a miserable death, and let out the vineyard to other tenants … The very stone
which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner … the kingdom of God will
be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.’ (Matthew 21:37-
43)
‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage feast for his son,
and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast; but they would not
come … But they made light of it … The king was angry, and he sent his troops and
destroyed those murderers and burned their city …’ (Matthew 22:2-7)
‘… you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your
fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
… all this will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and
stoning those who are sent to you … Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate …’
(Matthew 23:31-38)
‘And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it, saying, “Would that even today
you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes. For the days
shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you,
and hem you in on every side, and dash you to the ground, you and your children within
you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the
time of your visitation.”’ (Luke 19:41-44)
‘But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come
near. Then let those who are in Judaea flee to the mountains and let those who are inside the
city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it; for these are days of
vengeance, to fulfil all that is written … For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath
upon this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all
nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles
are fulfilled.’ (Luke 21:20-24)
The Seventy Weeks 17
‘When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the
prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are
in Judaea flee unto the mountains … for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not
been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.’ (Matthew 24:15-21,
R.V.)
In Daniel 9:26, 27 it is prophesied that following the work of the Messiah, the people of a
prince (the Roman soldiers under the command of Titus) will come and destroy the city and
temple of Jerusalem. Its end shall come through a war characterized by a flood of blood,
slaughter and desolation. The desolating Roman army will come ‘upon the wing of
abominations’. Thus up until the final pre-determined conclusion, God will pour out His
wrath upon the desolated Jews and Jerusalem.
This is indeed a graphic description of the Jewish War and siege of Jerusalem. In addition to
the terrible slaughter and destruction wrought by the Romans, the Jews themselves were
slaughtering each other and perpetrating the most appalling abominations within Jerusalem
and the temple itself. And unlike Antiochus, the Romans utterly destroyed both the city and the
temple of Jerusalem.
Warning His disciples of the coming Jewish War and siege of Jerusalem, Jesus said, ‘When
therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet,
standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand)’ and ‘when ye see Jerusalem
compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand. Then let them that are in
Judaea flee unto the mountains’ (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20, 21, R.V.). ‘Let him that readeth
understand’, probably inserted by the writer of the gospel, suggests that the fulfilment of
Daniel’s prophecy was something within the experience and understanding of the early
Christians. They escaped the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem, because they fled from Judaea
before it took place, finding refuge in Pella, on the edge of the Arabian deserts. This strongly
suggests that they took Christ’s words as a warning of this event. The Jewish War was the
pouring out of God’s wrath on the Jews for their rejection of Christ; therefore it would have
been entirely inappropriate for the Christians to have suffered with them.
It may be objected that the Jewish War does not fall within the seventy weeks. But then
Daniel does not specifically say that it does. He says that Christ was crucified after the sixtyninth
week (verse 26a), in the middle of the seventieth week (verse 27a). This event was
followed by the Jewish War (verses 26b and 27b) and it seems to be implied that the Jewish
War was a direct result of the crucifixion. The Jewish War was, however, merely the outward
and visible evidence of something which had already taken place several years before — the
rejection of the Jews as God’s special, chosen people. This final rejection took place at the
end of the seventieth week (‘seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy
city’). Christ witnessed to the Jews during His lifetime; but they rejected Him and crucified
Him. He continued to witness after His crucifixion and resurrection; but still they rejected
Him. As Christ had predicted, their punishment was the loss of their privileged status.
‘Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The very stone which the
builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is
marvellous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from
you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.”’ (Matthew 21:42, 43)
Christ’s herald, John the Baptist, had also warned the Jews that their punishment and the
end of their privileges was near (Luke 3:7-9).
Thus Christ ‘established the covenant’ for seven years (one week). Half-way through this
period he was ‘cut off’, causing ‘the sacrifice and the offering to cease’. Throughout this
The Seventy Weeks 18
period the Jews rejected Him as the Messiah and so finally the Jews themselves were rejected
from being God’s special, chosen people.
The reader has probably noted that this interpretation indicates that verse 27 goes over much
the same ground as verse 26. He may question why there should be this repetition. The reason
is that verse 26 is a statement about a logical series of historical events. That is, the Messiah
will be cut off and this will be followed by the destruction of Jerusalem. In verse 27, however,
we are given the meaning of these historical events — i.e. the death of the Messiah is an
essential part of the establishing of the New Covenant and results in the cessation of the Old
Covenant system of sacrifices.
The translation of the second part of the verse has caused a great deal of difficulty and
speculation. It indicates fairly clearly that the resulting destruction of Jerusalem is God’s
punishment (note the words ‘decreed end’ and read ‘desolate’ rather than ‘desolator’, as in
R.V. margin); but there is much confusion over the meaning of ‘upon the wing of
abominations shall come one who makes desolate’. The R.S.V. accurately translates kanaph
as ‘wing’. In fact here the word probably means ‘summit’ or ‘climax’ but there may be some
very good reason for the choice of the particular word kanaph, primarily meaning ‘wing’. We
must ask ourselves what picture it brings to mind. Surely it suggests some great bird of prey
coming from afar and swooping down on its victim and tearing it to pieces. This is precisely
what the Roman army did — moreover, its emblem was the eagle! We shall see that the
‘abominations’ probably included the standards or ensigns of the Roman armies. The ‘one
who makes desolate’ must again be Titus, ‘the prince who is to come’.
A piece of evidence in favour of this interpretation comes from Deuteronomy 28, where
God tells the people of Israel, before they even enter the promised land and some 1200 years
before Christ, that He will bless them if they keep His commandments, but curse them if they
do not keep them. Daniel has already referred to this curse in his prayer (9:11). In anticipation
of the fact that they failed to keep His commandments, the curses occupy a good deal more
space than the blessings. Verses 49 to 68 are nothing less than a vivid and accurate account of
the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. and the subsequent scattering and sufferings
of the Jewish people. The prophecy had a partial fulfilment in the first siege and exile in the
time of Nebuchadnezzar. But this fulfilment was only partial. It was a warning which was disregarded;
so God had no alternative but to inflict His punishment to the full.
‘The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the
eagle flies, a nation whose language you do not understand, a nation of stern countenance,
who shall not regard the person of the old or show favour to the young … They shall
besiege you in all your towns, until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted,
come down throughout all your land … and you shall eat the offspring of your own body,
the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege
and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you … and you shall be plucked
off the land which you are entering to take possession of it. And the Lord will scatter you
among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other … And among these nations you
shall find no ease, and there shall be no rest for the sole of your foot; but the Lord will give
you there a trembling heart, and failing eyes, and a languishing soul; your life shall hang in
doubt before you; night and day you shall be in dread, and have no assurance, of your life.’
(Deuteronomy 28:49-66)
Here again we have the picture of a great bird of prey11 coming from afar and tearing its
victim to pieces. No wonder Christ wept over Jerusalem and told its people to weep for themselves
rather than for Him!
Speaking of judgment and destruction falling upon ungodly people, Jesus said, ‘Where the
The Seventy Weeks 19
body is, there the eagles will be gathered together’ (Luke 17:37). In Matthew’s gospel (24:
28) these words are inserted at the end of a passage predicting the Jewish War of 70 A.D. (cf.
Luke 21:20-24).
It seems clear, therefore, that the ‘wing of abominations’ has something to do with the
Roman armies. However, this is probably not the full explanation, because ‘wing’ is in the
singular — not the plural. Kanaph is elsewhere translated as ‘uttermost part’, ‘end’, or
‘corner’ (of the earth) — also ‘skirt’ and ‘border’. It gives the idea of some sort of extremity.
This would give the phrase the meaning of ‘climax, summit or pinnacle of abominations’ — it
suggests the absolute last word in abominations. This is exactly what the Jews and their
religion represented after their rejection of Christ. On top of all the abominations they had
committed in the past (stoning the prophets, etc.) they killed the Son of God. The religion they
then continued to practise became nothing less than a mockery and an abomination to God.
Further, Josephus tells us that during the Jewish War and siege of Jerusalem, the most
appalling acts of horror and sacrilege were committed by the Jews within the temple itself.
The Roman armies descended upon this pinnacle of abominations and punished it. It has also
been suggested that the phrase refers to the pinnacle of the temple in which the Jews were
practising their abominations and which the Romans destroyed.
The abomination of desolation
At this point let us see if we can identify ‘the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of
by Daniel the prophet’ referred to by Jesus (Matthew 24:15, R.V.). The term ‘abomination of
desolation’ is strongly reminiscent of Daniel 9:26, 27, but actually it comes from 11:31 and
12:11, where the primary reference is to Antiochus’ desecration of the temple in 167 B.C. (cf.
I Maccabees 1:54). Jesus was indicating that there would be a repetition of this desecration;
but He must surely have been thinking of Daniel 9:26, 27 also. The same word shamem is
used in all four verses, and 9:26, 27 accurately describe the Jewish War. (Note that 9:24-27
was not fulfilled in the time of Antiochus.)
There can be little doubt that Jesus was thinking primarily of the Jewish War which
culminated in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. — as predicted in Daniel 9:
26, 27. He warns those of His disciples who are in Judaea to flee to the mountains when they
see the abomination ‘standing in the holy place’. In Mark 13:14, R.V., He says, ‘standing
where he ought not’. In Luke 21:20, 21 He says, ‘when you see Jerusalem surrounded by
armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judaea flee to
the mountains … for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written’.
It seems that when Jesus spoke of the ‘abomination of desolation’, He was referring either
to the desecration of the temple by the Jews, or to the presence on holy soil of the Roman
armies — or possibly to both. The desecration of the temple by the Zealots in the winter of
67/68 A.D. was reminiscent of Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration of the temple in 167 B.C.,
and also it gave the Christians early warning of the coming catastrophe. On the other hand, the
alien Romans were reminiscent of the alien Greeks, and the Christians could have guessed
that they would desecrate the temple when they saw them approaching the city. Also, Luke
21:20, 21 seems to associate the abomination with Jerusalem being ‘surrounded by armies’.
‘Standing in the holy place’ need not necessarily imply the temple. The R.V. marginal
rendering is ‘a holy place’. The words could apply generally to the holy city of Jerusalem and
its environs. It is quite possible, therefore, that ‘the abomination of desolation standing in the
holy place’ refers to the Roman armies encircling Jerusalem.
The Hebrew shiqquts, translated ‘abomination’, refers in the Old Testament to idols or to
customs derived from idolatry. Regarding this it has often been noted that the Roman soldiers
The Seventy Weeks 20
carried standards or ensigns consisting of images of the emperor, eagles and various symbols
drawn from paganism. These objects received special reverence from the army and were an
‘abomination’ to the Jews. Their objection to them was so strong that regiments stationed in
Jerusalem normally left them behind at Caesarea. However, they were of course carried by the
armies that laid siege to Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Moreover, Josephus records that when the city
fell, the Romans ‘brought their ensigns to the temple, and set them over against its eastern
gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them’.
Now I mentioned in the introductory chapter that there are superficial similarities between
the events of Antiochus’ reign and the events described in 9:26, 27. I suggested that part of
the explanation is that although these verses refer primarily to the events of 70 A.D., there is
some sort of secondary reference to the ‘tribulations’ which precede the first and second
comings of Christ. The reason for my suggestion is this. When Jesus spoke about Daniel’s
prophecy and the events of 70 A.D., He used a term, ‘the abomination of desolation’, which is
closely connected with Antiochus Epiphanes; and at the same time he seemed to be looking
forward to the time of His second advent. Thus Antiochus’ persecution, the Jewish War of 67-
70 A.D. and the tribulation preceding the second advent seem to be connected with each other
in some way — and I suggest the following link-up.
Antiochus desecrated the temple in 167 B.C., and this desecration was repeated in 67-70
A.D. The persecution and blasphemy which preceded the first advent typifies that which will
precede the second advent. Antiochus’ persecution and the Jewish War of 67-70 A.D. both
lasted about three and a half years, and both typify (in the book of Revelation) the suffering of
God’s people during the present age, particularly during the period preceding the second
event. In Daniel 9:26b, 27b (together with 12:7) these different events seem to be
superimposed on each other, or telescoped together, in a way that is typical of Biblical
prophecy — as explained in the introduction. This will become clearer as we proceed,
especially when we come to consider the book of Revelation in the final chapter.
The critical view
Now the critics, of course, believe that Daniel 9:24-27 refers to the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes. And as we have said, the events described do resemble certain events in the reign
of Antiochus. But it is only a superficial resemblance — there are important discrepancies.
The critics put these down to ignorance or over-optimism on the part of the author, and they
refuse to notice that they (the discrepancies) disappear when the prophecy is applied to the
time of Christ. These ‘errors’ are not errors at all. The prophecy appears to be erroneous only
when applied to the time of Antiochus. When it is applied to the time of Christ, it fits
perfectly.
In what ways, therefore, did the events of Antiochus’ reign appear to fulfil the predictions?
The ‘anointed one’ who was ‘cut off’, it is said, was the murdered high priest, Onias III. The
‘prince who is to come’ was Antiochus Epiphanes, whose armies partially destroyed
Jerusalem and massacred many of its inhabitants. He made a ‘covenant’ with the Hellenizing
Jews and for ‘half a week’ (three and a half years) he abolished the ‘sacrifice and offering’.
His crowning ‘abomination’ was the erection of a heathen altar on the great altar of burnt
sacrifice.
And what are the discrepancies? First, there is no way in which seventy weeks of years can
be squeezed into the period of time between the rebuilding of Jerusalem and Antiochus
Epiphanes. The events of 170-164 B.C. occurred far too early. Second, most of the predictions
of verse 24 were not fulfilled around the time of Antiochus. By no stretch of the imagination
can it be said that the Maccabees brought in everlasting righteousness or sealed up both vision
The Seventy Weeks 21
and prophet. Nor can it be said (in any adequate sense) that they put an end to sins and atoned
for iniquity. Third, verse 26 indicates that the city and temple of Jerusalem were to be
destroyed, whereas Antiochus destroyed only part of the city and he did not destroy the
temple at all. Fourth, in verse 27 a distinction seems to be made between the one who ‘makes
a strong covenant’ and the one who ‘makes desolate’.
The critics deal with the first of these discrepancies by dismissing the seventy weeks as ‘an
error of calculation’. As for the unfulfilled predictions in verse 24, these are merely aspects of
a noble, but rather over-optimistic, hope. The prediction that the temple would be destroyed is
more difficult to explain away, however, and is therefore quietly ignored! (A second century
author would have seen with his own eyes that Antiochus did not destroy the temple.)
Of course, if we believe the prophecies were faked and are full of errors, a few
discrepancies here and there do not worry us. But if, in the process, we shut our eyes to a
perfectly good fulfilment which has no discrepancies, are we not being rather unwise?
Especially when Jesus Christ repeatedly endorsed the reliability of the Scriptures, and
repeatedly emphasized that they had prophesied all about Him.
I stated in the introductory chapter that there are certain predictions about Christ which
appear to refer also to the time of Antiochus — and this is one of them. I emphasized
however, that Antiochus fulfilled these predictions imperfectly, whereas Christ fulfilled them
perfectly. I said that a possible (but highly unlikely) explanation is that a second century
author thought he was writing about his own time only, but guided by the Holy Spirit, he was
actually pointing to Christ.
If the book is a work of the sixth century, on the other hand, it may be that God introduced
these ambiguities deliberately — partly to allow for a secondary fulfilment (as explained in
the preceding section), and partly for much the same reason that Christ taught in parables.
This amazing prediction of the date of Christ’s coming has, in a sense, been disguised. But it
is there for those who are willing to believe what the New Testament plainly teaches —
namely, that His coming was foretold in great detail in the Old Testament.
Summary
To summarize, there can be no doubt, in my mind, that Daniel 9:24-27 looks forward to the
time of Christ and that it is one of the most remarkable pieces of predictive prophecy in the
Old Testament.
Daniel 9:24-27 was perfectly fulfilled in every detail by the coming of Christ and the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The time of Antiochus, on the other hand, indisputably
failed to provide accurate and complete fulfilment. Furthermore, Christ Himself indicated
very clearly that verses 26 and 27 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (even
though the term ‘abomination of desolation’ was taken from Daniel 11:31 and 12:11). Less
specifically, but equally clearly, the New Testament indicates that verse 24 was fully fulfilled
by Christ, and Christ alone.
Note that when Christ gave His discourse on the Mount of Olives (Matthew 24), He referred
to Daniel’s ‘abomination of desolation’ and to his vision of the ‘one like a son of man’. Also,
when He referred to the ‘stone’ which broke the image, He was clearly thinking of God’s
judgment which was soon to fall upon the Jews (Luke 20:9-18). Thus there is a close
connection between the visions of chapters 2 and 7 and the prediction of chapter 9 — with
regard to Christ’s work of salvation and His work of judgment. ‘The coming of the Son of
man’ spells salvation to those who receive Him, but judgment to those who reject Him. The
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was an early manifestation of ‘the coming of the Son of
The Seventy Weeks 22
man’ in judgment. It was a clear and unmistakable warning that God will punish those who
reject His Son.
Daniel prayed, ‘… cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary, which is desolate … behold
our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name’ (9:17, 18). God’s answer was that
Jerusalem would indeed be rebuilt — and that the Messiah would accomplish His work of
salvation — but that ‘the city and the sanctuary’ (v. 26) would be destroyed yet again.
1. Various punctuation arrangements are possible in 9:25. We have followed that of A.V.,
R.V. margin and N.I.V., as this seems to fit the historical facts best.
2. It should be noted that chronologically verses 7-23 do not belong to the fourth chapter of
Ezra. They should come later in the book, but are included in this chapter as an example of
opposition to the Jews from neighbouring enemies. They are in Aramaic from verse 8, and
are regarded as particularly reliable by critical scholars.
3. John Bright, A History of Israel, (S.C.M. Press, 1960), p. 374.
4. Zechariah 2:1-5 is even less specific than 1:16. It should be mentioned that some critical
scholars believe that passages in Isaiah which refer to the rebuilding of Jerusalem were
written as late as about 520 B.C. Likewise, passages involving Cyrus are thought by many
to have been written around 545 B.C. The Biblical view (as in John 12:38) seems to be
that the whole book was written by Isaiah — who lived long before the time of Daniel.
5. The other date is 3rd April, 33 A.D. Tenney is one of those who favour the 30 A.D. date.
See Merrill C. Tenney, New Testament Times (Inter-Varsity Press, 1965), chapter 7.
6. See The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (1944), p.128.
7. Or ‘in the middle of the week’, as in R.V. margin.
8. Matthew 21:42, 43; Acts 13:44–48; 22:21; 26:17; 28:23-28; Romans 11:7-15; Galatians
1:16; 2:8; Ephesians 3:8; 1 Timothy 2:7; II Timothy 4:17.
9. Acts 9:1-30; 22:3-21; 26:2-23; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:3-10; Galatians 1:11-2:9.
10. Or ‘the desolate’, as in R.V. margin.
11. The Biblical ‘eagle’ is sometimes clearly the vulture.
© 1980, 2006 R.J.M. Gurney.
Revised and updated for the Web by the author.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/book_god-in-control_gurney.html