The 70th Week of
Daniel
The prophet Daniel said more specific
things about the end times than any other Old Testament prophet. One
of the most profound prophecies in all of scripture must be his “70
weeks” prophecy in Daniel chapter 9. In this article, we’ll review
this prophecy, explain why its 70th week pertains to the end times,
and how it relates to Revelation.
The
Context of the “70 Weeks” Prophecy
Daniel was one of the several thousand
Jews taken captive to Babylon after Babylon had sacked Jerusalem and
destroyed the temple. While in Babylon, Daniel read
Jeremiah’s earlier prophecy that the captivity would last 70 years (Jer
25:11-12). This prompted the prayer of confession and
supplication on behalf of Israel and Jerusalem that we see at the
beginning of chapter 9 in the book of Daniel.
During his prayer, Daniel was visited by
the angel Gabriel, who said “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give
you insight with understanding” (Daniel
9:20-23). Daniel
would have been grateful had the angel merely confirmed that
Jerusalem would be rebuilt. Indeed, the angel did confirm that, and
yet he said much more as he gave Daniel the remarkable “70 weeks”
prophecy found in
Dan 9:24-27.
There is no small amount of disagreement
over how this prophecy should be understood. It is written in a very
terse manner which is by no means simple, so it must be parsed with
great care. However, I believe that there is an understanding of
this prophecy that succeeds in: (1) doing justice to the text, (2)
fitting well with history as it has unfolded, and (3) working in
harmony with the overall prophecy of the end times presented in
scripture, as well as the understanding of Revelation as presented
here (described in
Revelation Overview).
24“Seventy weeks have been decreed for
your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make
an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in
everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to
anoint the most holy place”.
The prophecy begins with
this introduction that summarizes all of the things that God will
accomplish as this prophecy is fulfilled. This prophecy (like most
Old Testament prophecies) speaks about things that concern Jewish
people and Jerusalem (your people and your holy city), although
(again, like most prophecies) it is highly impactful to all people.
We see the word “weeks” in this passage,
but we must remember that this is an English translation from
Hebrew, and that meanings don’t alway translate perfectly. While the
English word “week” always means “a period of seven days”, the
Hebrew word is actually less specific because it only means “a
period of seven”. Some translations (e.g. NIV, NLT, GWT) address
this difference in meaning by using the word “sevens” instead of
“weeks”.
I agree with the majority of theologians
who believe that the word “weeks” (or “sevens“) used here should be
understood as “periods of seven years“. While this may seem odd to
most English speakers, it isn’t unusual in the Biblical context
because Israel observed cycles of seven years as well as cycles of
seven days (e.g.
Gen 29:20,
Gen 41:27,
Lev 25:8,
Deut 15:12,
Deut 31:10,
Judg 6:1,
2 Chron
36:21).
Furthermore, in this particular prophetic
context, I believe these “years” are best understood as Biblical
years. As discussed in
Biblical Years, this refers to a “year” that has exactly 360
days, and (equivalently) twelve “Biblical months” that each have
exactly 30 days. The 360 day year is preferred in order to be
consistent with other related prophecies that refer to a specific
number of days, months, or years (Dan
12:11, Rev
11:2, 3,
Rev 12:6,
14,
Dan 7:25).
The list of things to be accomplished in
these 70 “weeks of years” include the following:
to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sin,
to make atonement for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy and
to anoint the most holy place
A Christian should recognize that these
are all things Christ would accomplish — in part at his first
coming, and in fullness at his second coming.
25So you are to know and discern that
from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until
Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it
will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.
To summarize, this prophecy foretells
three things:
There will be first event, which is a
decree issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, including the plaza
and moat even in times of distress. Different translations seem to
differ regarding what will be rebuilt (e.g. street, wall, moat,
rampart, broad place, and plaza). This event alone is a direct and
positive answer to Daniel’s prayer (Dan
9:16,
17-18, 19).
There will be a second event, which
is the arrival of Messiah the Prince.
The time between these two events will be
69 “weeks” (i.e. seven weeks and sixty-two weeks). As mentioned
above, this is best understood is 69 cycles of seven
Biblical years. The total number of Biblical years is calculated
simply as 69 (weeks of years) x 7 (years per “week”), which is 483
Biblical years. To express this in terms of days, we multiply 483
(Biblical years) x 360 (days per Biblical year), which is 173,880
days. To convert this to our more familiar solar years, we just
divide the 173,880 days by 365.2422 (the average number of days per
solar year). The result is approximately 476 years.
How did this prophecy work out? Many
years after this prophecy was made, there were some different
decrees issued by Persian kings to rebuild parts of Jerusalem.
However, the one decree that stands out as a referencing the city
and its defenses (e.g. wall, moat, rampart) is the decree of
Artaxerxes(1)
described in
Nehemiah 2:1-8. This decree given by king Artaxerxes is dated
(by our modern calendar) in 444 BC.
Therefore, according to Daniel’s
prophecy, the appearance of the Messiah would occur about 476 years
after this decree, which (accounting for the absence of a “year
zero”) indicates a date in the year 33 AD. Amazingly, the year 33
AD may be well-argued(2)
as the final year in the life of Jesus Christ, the true Messiah the
Prince according to Christian doctrine.
Side note #1: That the prophecy divides
the 69 weeks into seven weeks plus sixty-two weeks is interesting.
Possibly, it is broken up this way because the first seven weeks
(which would be 49 Biblical years) would easily encompass the
prophesied rebuilding of Jerusalem, perhaps even to include the
conclusion of the Old Testament. Thus, at the end of those 49 years,
everything was in place for the first coming of the Messiah. In any
case, the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks are presented in an
additive way, which indicates that they form a contiguous series of
sixty-nine weeks.
Side note #2: Some commentators argue
that regular solar years (based on the Jewish calendar) are to be
preferred over the 360-day years. They also point out that if solar
years are used in conjunction with an earlier decree by king
Artaxerxes dated 457 BC, then the prophecy still identifies a time
in the life of Jesus Christ (around 27 AD). My point in mentioning
this alternative view is that (1) it is plausible, and (2) it really
doesn’t change much in terms of eschatology.
This portion of the prophecy is
astounding by itself because (1) it foretold the decree of
Artaxerxes, and (2) it foretold a specific time centuries later that
confirms Jesus as the Messiah. And yet, the prophecy becomes more
astounding still, as we’ll see in the following verses.
The next two verses (Dan
9:26 and
Dan 9:27) are so lengthy and detailed that, for the sake of
discussion, I shall divide each of them into three segments
labeled a, b, and c.
(9:26a) Then after the sixty-two
weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing,
Parsing this segment of the prophecy, we
find the following:
It says that the Messiah will be cut off,
which is a Jewish euphemism for being killed (e.g.
Gen 9:11,
Gen 17:14,
Ex 12:15,
Lev 7:20-27,
Num 15:30).
Thus, Daniel prophesied that the Jewish Messiah would be killed.
This was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified.
Note that the prophecy says he will be
cut off after the sixty-two weeks. The “sixty-two weeks” will
(according to verse 25) identify a time when the Messiah is on the
earth. The word “after” tells us that the killing of the Messiah is
a separate event subsequent to the completion of the sixty-two
weeks. This is an important detail.
The phrase shown here as and have
nothing is translated and argued different ways. The Hebrew word
from which it comes conveys the idea of “nothingness”, and so I
think the translation used here is good.
What does it mean when it says the
Messiah will “have nothing“?
I believe the answer comes simply by
remembering who Jesus was: The promised Messiah, the Son of God, and
the heir to David’s throne. The statement that he was cut off with
nothing appropriately emphasizes all that he gave up as his life
ended on the cross. He willingly postponed all of the glory that
was due to him on earth for the sake of saving sinners. Paul wrote
about this in
Phil 2:5-8, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in
Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not
regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself,
taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of
men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by
becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Prophecy: The Prince Who is to Come
(9:26b) and the people of the
prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And
its end will come with a flood;
There are some important terms here that
must be identified in context.
What is the “city and the sanctuary“?
The city could only be Jerusalem (the city referred to at the start
of this prophecy in verse 24). The sanctuary must then be the
temple in Jerusalem. However, in Daniel’s day, Jerusalem and the
temple had already been destroyed by Babylon. This prophecy must be
referring to a later rebuilt Jerusalem and the second temple. That
is, it refers to the destruction of the city and temple that will
have been rebuilt as a result of the decrees issued by Persian
kings, including the decree of Artaxerxes referenced by verse 25.
Who is the “prince who is to come“?
Is this the same “prince” mentioned in verse 25 (that is, the
Messiah himself) or is this some other ruler/prince? This question
will be addressed
later, after we have gathered more context.
Who are the “people” of the prince who is
to come?
This question is also best answered later when we discuss the
identity of the prince, but it is important to notice that it will
be the people of the prince who destroy Jerusalem and the temple —
and not necessarily the prince himself. In fact, it’s not even
necessary for this prince to be directly involved with the
destruction of the temple at all. This is also discussed
later.
The phrase “its end” refers back to the
destruction of the city and the sanctuary just mentioned, that is,
Jerusalem and the second temple.
The phrase “come with (or preferably come
like) a flood” thus describes the destruction of the city and
sanctuary as sudden and devastating, resulting from a massive
invading force. This certainly agrees with the fulfillment of the
prophecy, which occurred when Jerusalem was sacked and the second
temple was destroyed by Rome in 70 AD. Possibly, the flood metaphor
is intended as an allusion to the flood of Noah’s day, which came as
an act of God’s judgment.
(9:26c) even to the end there will be
war; desolations are determined
We have more phrases that need
clarification:
The phrase “even to the end there will be
war” seems to extend way beyond the destruction of Jerusalem in 70
AD.
The final phrase is “desolations are
determined” (several other translations say desolations are
decreed). This also seems to be part of what extends “to the end”.
It’s unlikely that this refers only to the destruction of Jerusalem
in 70 AD. Since desolations is plural and they are qualified as
something decreed, it’s best to understand that they include at
least one more future desolation which must take place. Indeed, such
a future desolation is mentioned in the following verse.
In this final verse, we finally come to
the 70th week, which is the primary topic of this article. Again, I
divide it into three segments, and the first segment of verse 27 is
as follows:
(9:27a) And he will make a firm
covenant with the many for one week
Parsing this segment, we have:
The pronoun “he” should be taken as a
reference to the nearest preceding male mentioned. In this case,
it specifies the prince who is to come stated in verse 26. Again,
the identity of this prince will be discussed below.
Since we have already seen the first 69
weeks, this reference to “one week” must be the 70th and final week
of the prophecy which began in verse 24. As explained earlier, this
“week” is best understood to be a seven-year period. It’s worth
noting that it is introduced bluntly as “one week“, with no specific
wording (such as after or and) to relate it to the prior 69 (or
7+62) weeks.
It appears that this seven-year period
begins with a “firm covenant with the many“. Given the broader
context that this a prophecy to the Jewish people, this is best
understood as some sort of promise (e.g. treaty) involving Israel,
either with or arranged by the prince who is to come. As such, it
would likely involve (1) potential adversaries who agree to a
mutually beneficial peace, or (2) a strong ally who agrees to
provide protection. In either case, this firm covenant will be
agreed to and welcomed by Israel.
(9:27b) but in the middle of the
week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the
wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate
There are several clarifications to be
parsed from this text:
The word “he” again refers back to the
prince who is to come mentioned in verse 26 who will make a covenant
with the many (per verse 27a).
Here the text mentions “the middle of
week“, which is the midpoint of the 70th week. This midpoint divides
this seven-year period into two consecutive periods, each lasting 3
1/2 Biblical years. Since the covenant was for seven years, this
event after only 3 1/2 years appears to be a breaking of that
covenant, indicating a deception or betrayal perpetrated by the
prince who is to come.
At this midpoint, the prince who is to
come shall “stop the sacrifice and grain offering“. The mention of
the sacrifice and grain offering refers to activities within the
Jewish temple. This hints that there will be a temple in Jerusalem
at the time this prophecy is fulfilled. Also, this action certainly
should be seen as an aggression against Israel. In fact, this action
is very similar to the aggression carried out by Antiochus Epiphanes
IV in 167 BC, which was also foretold in detail by Daniel (e.g. Dan
11:31). This similarity is no accident.
Besides stopping the temple activities,
it says this: “on the wing of abominations will come one who makes
desolate“. The phrase “on the wing” is sometimes translated as an
“overspreading” (KJV) or “climax” (NLT), which I believe correctly
conveys the idea that this event will stand out as extreme. This
extreme action shall be a decreed desolation, which will in some
sense bring about ruin. The association between abominations and
(its resulting) desolation is seen elsewhere in scripture, and
sometimes such events are called an “abomination of desolation” (Ezek
33:29, Dan
11:31, Dan
12:11,
Matt 24:15). The identity of the one who makes desolate is
discussed in the next verse segment (9:27c) below.
In his
Olivet Discourse, Jesus taught that there would be an
“abomination of desolation” event that will take place in the end
times (Matt
24:15-16). I’ll explain shortly why I believe that verse 27b
above is the first mention of this future abomination. Daniel also
mentioned this same future abomination of desolation in Dan
12:11, “From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished
and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290
days.”
(9:27c) even until a complete
destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes
desolate.
Now we parse the final part of Daniel’s
prophecy:
This tells us that “the one who makes
desolate” shall himself face a “complete destruction“.
Although the passage doesn’t identify the “one who makes desolate“,
the immediate context, the related scriptures, and the parallel with
Antiochus Epiphanes IV indicates that is the same ruler who stops
the temple activities. From this, we can conclude that the prince
who is to come is the one who makes desolate, and it is he who shall
face complete destruction. This understanding works in harmony with
all other prophecies concerning the end times.
The destruction of this person has “been
decreed“. The implication is that this is no ordinary event in the
course of human history. It is an event that shapes the fulfillment
of God’s revealed plans on the earth.
There are a number of sticky questions
related to the timing of the 70th week.
Why is this final 70th week presented
separately from the first 69 weeks?
If the first 69 weeks pertain to prophecy
fulfilled about 2000 years ago, why does this 70th week describe
things that were not fulfilled back then — and in fact have not yet
been fulfilled at all (such as the seven-year covenant, the breaking
of that covenant after 3 1/2 years, the subsequent stopping of
sacrifices, the abomination of desolation, and the significant
“decreed” destruction of that ruler)?
The death of the Messiah occurs after the
completion of the first 69 weeks (see verse 26b above), which
implies that his death must have taken place during (or after) the
70th week. But if that is the case, why is his death mentioned
before the 70th week?
If we add the full 70 weeks (i.e. 490
Biblical years) to the date of the decree of Artaxerxes, we arrive
at a date near 40 AD. However, the destruction of Jerusalem and its
Temple didn’t happen until 70 AD — about 30 years later. So why is
the destruction of Jerusalem included in this “70 Weeks” prophecy at
all? And why is it specifically mentioned before the discussion of
the 70th week?
The list of things to be accomplished by
the 70 weeks included “to make an end of sin” and “to bring in
everlasting righteousness” (Dan
9:24). However, the world is still a sinful place. The end of
sin and the everlasting righteousness doesn’t happen until Christ
begins His reign on earth in the end times (2
Pet 3:13,
Rev
21:26-27). How then can these things be part of the 70 weeks?
I believe that there is one fairly simple
explanation that answers all of these sticky questions in a
scripturally defensible way: Specifically, that the first 69 weeks
are contiguous (uninterrupted) — but the 70th week itself is not
part of the contiguous sequence. Rather, there is a “time gap”
between the 69th and 70th weeks. In fact, the 70th week is prophecy
that has not yet been fulfilled, which means that we are currently
still in that “time gap”.
Now, the very reasonable objection to
this explanation is that normally, if someone says “70 weeks are
given to accomplish something”, we should naturally understand this
to be 70 contiguous weeks. Sound interpretation calls for us to
adopt the most natural understanding, unless the context indicates
otherwise.
In this case, I believe that the context
actually does indicate otherwise, for the following reasons:
First, we shall soon see that time
following the midpoint of the 70th week is the “time, times, and
half a time” referenced in Daniel 7. However, scripture makes it
clear that this time, times and half a time period includes the
great tribulation, which is immediately followed by the return of
Christ and the setting up of His kingdom on earth (Dan
7:13,14,
Rev 12:14).
This means that the latter part of the 70th week is in the end
times, and therefore the entire 70th week must also be in the end
times. Below,
I will discuss the association between the 70th week and the future
“time, times, and half a time”.
Second, as the sticky questions above
demonstrate, interpreting the 70 weeks as contiguous simply doesn’t
make sense. As such, we should not settle for that interpretation,
but rather seek another justifiable interpretation. The proposed
time gap may be justified by observing the difference in how the 70
weeks of this prophecy are expressed as three periods. The first two
periods (7 weeks and 62 weeks) are combined with “and“, indicating
that they are to be summed into 69 consecutive weeks. However the
third period is simply introduced (in verse 27) as “one week“,
without wording that would require continuity with the first 69
weeks. This “one week” may thus be the 70th week for which prophesy
is given without being the 70th in series. Below, we’ll see how
the proposed time gap resolves all the sticky questions above.
Third, if we insist that the 70 weeks
must be contiguous, then the prophecy concerning the 70th week must
have been fulfilled during the seven years following the crucifixion
of Christ. However, there is no clear historical fulfillment that
fits that prophecy. We would have to conclude that while this
amazing prophecy accurately foretold the decree to rebuild the city,
when the Messiah would come, his death, and the destruction of the
temple, it would still prove to be failed prophecy because the major
climactic events of the 70th week didn’t happen.
Answering the sticky questions: Please notice that this
proposed “time gap model” provides simple and complete answers for
each of those otherwise unanswerable sticky questions above:
Why is this final 70th week
presented separately from the first 69 weeks?
Answer: Because they are very separate. There is a large time gap
between them.
If the first 69 weeks pertain to prophecy
fulfilled about 2000 years ago, why does this 70th week describe
things that were not fulfilled back then — and in fact have not yet
been fulfilled at all (such as the seven-year covenant, the breaking
of that covenant after 3 1/2 years, the subsequent stopping of
sacrifices, the abomination of desolation, and the significant
“decreed” destruction of that ruler)?
Answer: The 70th week prophecy describes things that are still in
the future. We are currently in that time gap, awaiting the
fulfillment of those things.
The death of the Messiah occurs after the
completion of the first 69 weeks (see verse 26b above), which
implies that his death must have taken place during (or after) the
70th week. But if that is the case, why is his death mentioned
before the 70th week?
Answer: The death of the Messiah can be after the first 69 weeks and
yet before the 70th week, because it occurred during the time gap
between the 69th and 70th weeks.
If we add the full 70 weeks (i.e. 490
Biblical years) to the date of the decree of Artaxerxes, we arrive
at a date near 40 AD. However, the destruction of Jerusalem didn’t
happen until 70 AD — about 30 years later. So why is the destruction
of Jerusalem included in this “70 Weeks” prophecy at all? And why is
it specifically mentioned before the discussion of the 70th week?
Answer: The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple can fit exactly
where it is in this prophecy because 70 AD is within this time gap,
which is before the 70th week.
The list of things to be accomplished by
the 70 weeks included “to make an end of sin” and “to bring in
everlasting righteousness” (Dan
9:24). However, the world is still a sinful place. The end of
sin and the everlasting righteousness doesn’t happen until Christ
beings His reign on earth in the end times (2
Pet 3:13,
Rev
21:26-27). How then can these things be part of the 70 weeks?
Answer: The 70th week will begin after the time gap, and it will
encompass the end times up to the beginning of Christ’s reign
on earth. At that time he will destroy sin and set up His eternal
kingdom of righteousness, just as the prophecy states.
The diagram below illustrates how the
prophecy is interpreted, including the implied time gap between the
69th and 70th weeks.
With this approach, all of the key
components of Daniel’s “70 Weeks” prophecy are consistent with (1)
the known historical record, (2) the observation that the events and
wicked king described by the 70th week have not happened yet, and
(3) all other prophetic scripture pertaining to the end times.
Daniel’s “70 Weeks” Prophecy (Dan
9:24-27)
Side note: Regarding the proposed “gap”
between the 69th and 70th weeks, some commentators who hold to a
certain dispensational theological view explain the gap as the
initiation of the “church age”. In this view, the church has
replaced Israel as God’s people, and this event causes the 70 weeks
prophecy for Israel to be “suspended” until the end times.
I personally don’t hold to this view,
because I don’t believe that Israel has lost its distinction among
nations as “God’s chosen”, nor do I see the “suspension” as a
defensible concept. I do accept the proposed gap simply because it’s
clear to me that the 70th week must be in the end times, and I do
believe that the prophecy is worded such that it allows the 70th
week to be non-contiguous with the first 69 weeks.
Who is
the Prince to Come and Who are His People?
In verse 26b we read this: “and the
people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the
sanctuary“.
This mentions a “prince who is to come“,
although it is rather indirect because the verse is not actually
talking about the prince, but rather the people of the prince. As
mentioned earlier, this indirectness allows that the prince himself
was not necessarily involved with the destruction of the city and
sanctuary — only his people were. To take this point further, it is
entirely possible that this prince was not even alive when the city
and sanctuary were destroyed!
The only thing that is really required by
verse 26b is that this prince and these people share a common
descent. This can be seen most easily seen by observing the
similarity to the opening of Daniel’s prophecy in verse 24, where
the angel said to Daniel “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your
people“. This is equivalent to saying, “Seventy weeks have been
decreed for the people of Daniel“. Either way, it refers to
Israelites, the people with whom Daniel shares a common descent, and
it does not require that Daniel must be alive when the prophecy is
fulfilled (and indeed, he wasn’t). The same can be said for the
people of the prince in verse 26b: those people and that prince must
have a common descent, but they don’t need to be alive on earth at
the same time.
So, who are “the people” of the prince
who is to come? We know the answer to this because we know from
history that Jerusalem and the second temple were destroyed by the
Romans in 70 AD. So, since it says the people destroyed the
city and sanctuary, those people must be the Romans.
Since we know that those people and the
prince have a common descent, we may conclude that the prince who is
to come is also of Roman descent.
Side note: Some commentators believe that
the prince who is to come refers back to the same prince mentioned
in the previous verse, namely, Messiah the Prince. At first glance,
this seems like a natural reading of the text. They argue that the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was ultimately directed by
Jesus the Messiah in order to punish Israel for having rejected Him
as their Messiah. However, there are serious problems with this
thinking:
If this were the case, why does the
prophecy emphasize the “people of the prince“? Are the Romans
somehow distinguished as Christ’s people?
The first prince (Messiah) was “cut off”
(killed). This itself makes it natural to see this second prince as
someone different from the first.
The other prophecies concerning this
prince who is to come are incongruent with Christ.
Specifically:
– Christ would not make a seven-year covenant with Israel and then
break it at the midpoint.
– Christ would not set up an abomination of desolation.
– There is certainly no decree that Christ will completely
destroyed!
Clearly this prince cannot be Messiah the
Prince.
Knowing that the “people of the prince
who is to come” refers to the Romans, we can now work on the
identify of the prince himself.
Side note: Some commentators conclude
that this prince to come is Titus, the Roman commander who led the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, this again fails to
notice the deliberate distinction made between the people and the
prince. If the prince to come was intended to be Titus, it would be
unnecessary to mention “the people” at all. It could simply say “and
the prince who is to come will destroy the city…“.
Throughout scripture, when a ruler
commands his people (e.g. armies) do take some action, that action
is generally ascribed to that ruler himself. There are many examples
of this, e.g.
Gen 14:5,
Ex 14:8,
1 Sam 13:4,
2 Sam 8:1,
Ezra 1:7,
2 Kings
18:9,
2
Kings 23:19,
Ezra 5:12,
Jer 21:2,
Dan 1:1,
Dan 7:25.
In fact, we see a good example of this in
the very next verse (Dan
9:27), where it says that this same ruler will stop the
sacrifices and grain offerings. We should understand this to mean
that he will command the forces under his control to take this
action, rather than insist that he will do this action himself.
Therefore, it’s very unlikely that verse 26 would bother to specify
that the destruction of the city and sanctuary was carried out by
“the people” of the prince if it were not absolutely necessary and
meaningful to do so.
Titus also does not fit the full
prophecy, e.g. the seven-year covenant or the breaking of that
covenant at the midpoint. Finally, the death of Titus (due to fever
in 81 AD) simply made his brother Domitian the next emperor, and he
continued to persecute Jews and Christians. The death of Titus could
hardly constitute the decreed complete destruction poured out upon
him, as prophesied in
Dan 9:27.
So Titus cannot be the prince who is to
come (although he may be a foreshadowing of this prince in the same
sense the Antiochus Epiphanes IV foreshadows that prince).
We are looking for a prince who is to
come who satisfies all of the qualities that this prophecy ascribes
to him, which actually gives us a rather detailed list of
requirements. Specifically:
This prince must be some earthly king
(i.e. ruler) who is of Roman descent (according to verse 26b, as
discussed above).
This prince will make a seven-year
covenant with Israel but break it. This implies that the prince will
be deceptive.
This prince will turn against Israel at
the midpoint of the seven-year period. This means that the prince
will oppose God’s people for 3 1/2 years following the midpoint.
This prince will defile the temple with
an abomination of desolation. This makes it clear that the prince
will stand in opposition to God.
There is a decree that this prince shall
be completely destroyed. This indicates this prince is a wicked
person of great significance to God’s revealed plans on earth.
If we search the scriptures for a ruler
who fits these descriptions, we will find exactly one person who
satisfies all of these requirements, and we don’t have to search
very far. Daniel had already described him just two chapters
earlier. In chapter 7, the prophet described an epic vision
involving four beasts that symbolized consecutive kingdoms that
would arise on the earth. It is not difficult to see that those four
kingdoms are (1) Babylon, (2) Persia, (3) Greece, and (4) Rome. But
then chapter 7 goes on to prophesy concerning a powerful and wicked
king in the end times.
Below, we see that this wicked king
mentioned in chapter 7 satisfies all of the requirements stated
above, in order for him to be the prince who is to come mentioned
here in chapter 9.
The king who descends from Rome — In
Daniel 7, the prophecy concerning the fourth beast (which is Rome)
mentions “ten horns“, and they are explained in
Dan 7:23-24:
“Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the
earth [Rome], which will be different from all the other kingdoms
and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.
‘As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and
another [king] will arise after them, and he will be different from
the previous ones and will subdue three kings.” — Notice that
we see ten kings who descend from Rome, and one king is singled out
from among them. (Dan
7:8 makes it clear that this one king came up from among the
ten.)
The deceptive king — This attribute is
not explicitly stated in Daniel 7. However, the proof that
this king is deceptive comes from the fact that Daniel makes a
strong parallel between this king and another king described in
chapter 11, as follows:
– “a despicable person will arise, on whom the honor of kingship has
not been conferred, but he will come in a time of tranquility and
seize the kingdom by intrigue” (Dan
11:21).
– “After an alliance is made with him he will practice deception” (Dan
11:23).
– “he will devise his schemes against strongholds, but only for a
time” (Dan
11:24)
– “Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and
do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the
abomination of desolation” (Dan
11:31)
– “By smooth words he will turn to godlessness those who act
wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will
display strength and take action” (Dan
11:32)
– “Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and
magnify himself above every god and will speak monstrous things
against the God of gods; and he will prosper until the indignation
is finished, for that which is decreed will be done” (Dan
11:36)
Note that this chapter 11 prophecy of the despicable king was
accurately fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes IV. Also, the
phrase “exalt and magnify himself” corresponds to this king found in
chapter 7 who “utters great boasts” (Dan
7:8).
The king who opposes God’s people for 3
1/2 years following the midpoint —
Dan 7:25
says that this king shall: “wear down the saints of the Highest One,
… and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a
time” — This phrase “time, times, and half a time” refers exactly to
the 3 1/2 year period following the midpoint(3).
The king who stands in opposition to God
— Dan 7:25
also adds this about that king: “He will speak out against the Most
High” — The “Most High“, of course, refers to God.
The king whose destruction is decreed —
Dan 7:26
shows how this king comes to an end: “But the court will sit for
judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and
destroyed forever” — Thus this wicked king’s destruction is decreed,
and the decree (judgment) comes from God (Dan
7:9,22).
Then, Dan 7:27
goes on to say that the destruction of this wicked ruler will be
followed by the eternal righteous kingdom of God on earth, making it
clear that this wicked ruler will appear in the end times.
There can be no doubt that the prince who
is to come, mentioned in the 70th week of Daniel, is the very same
person as the king who emerged as the “little horn” among the
ten horns discussed in chapter 7 of Daniel.
Relation to New Testament Prophecy
It should be rather plain that the things
spoken of in the 70th week of Daniel have not been fulfilled yet. As
future prophecy, it stands to reason that there would be
corresponding prophecy in the New Testament. That is, we should
expect to see that the New Testament prophecies concerning the end
times describe the same events and that same wicked king that Daniel
described in the 70th week.
Indeed, the New Testament does include
such prophecy. Some New Testament prophecies match so closely to
Daniel’s prophecy that there can be no doubt that they are speaking
about the exact same things. For example:
Dan 9:27b
and Dan 7:25
speak about the wicked king who reigns for 3 1/2 years, during which
time he boasts, speaks out against the Most High, and persecutes the
saints.
In the New Testament, we see this in
Rev 13:5-7,
“5The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies
and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6It opened its
mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling
place and those who live in heaven. 7It was given power to wage war
against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given
authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.” (Note that
“42 months” is 3 1/2 years.)
Interestingly,
Rev 12:14
even uses the same “time, times, and half a time” expression that
Daniel used to describe the period when the saints are conquered (Dan
7:25): “But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the
woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where
she was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the
presence of the serpent“. This makes it obvious that Daniel and
Revelation are discussing the exact same period of the end times.
However, in Revelation, this “time,
times, and half a time” represents the protection of Israel (the
woman). As discussed in
The Final Restoration of Israel, the Old Testament prophets
foretold that God would protect Israel in the end times. What we see
then, is that in the end times, there will be two groups who stand
for God:
(1) Israel, who will have a remnant
protected by God for the period following the midpoint of the 70th
week, and
(2) The “saints” who will be conquered for holding to the Word of
God for 42 months following the midpoint (Rev
13:5). This second group called “saints” will be Christians (Rev
12:11).
Dan 9:27b
and Dan 12:4
speak about an event called the abomination of desolation being
carried out in the temple by that wicked king in the middle of the
70th week, which starts the persecutions.
In the New Testament, we see this in
Matt
24:15-21, “15“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF
DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing
in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16then those who are
in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17“Whoever is on the housetop
must not go down to get the things out that are in his house.
18“Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.
19“But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing
babies in those days! 20“But pray that your flight will not be in
the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21“For then there will be a great
tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the
world until now, nor ever will.“.
Also,
2 Thes 2:4,
“He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is
called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s
temple, proclaiming himself to be God.“.
Dan 9:27c
and 7:26
tell us that the wicked king will meet his decreed destruction.
In the New Testament, we see this in
Rev 17:11,
“The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is
one of the seven, and he goes to destruction“.
We also have
2 Thes 2:3,
“Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come
until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
the man doomed to destruction“.
Dan 7:9-11
and 7:27
tells us that as the wicked king is destroyed, a court of judges on
thrones will sit and judge the dead, and God will set up his eternal
and righteous kingdom upon the earth and the saints will reign with
Him.
In the New Testament, we see this in
Rev 19:20,
“But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had
performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded
those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its
image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of
burning sulfur“.
The above passage is followed shortly by
Rev 20:4 “I
saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority
to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because
of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They
had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its
mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and
reigned with Christ a thousand years“.
The fact that these prophecies match up
so well confirms that they are describing the very same things. Not
surprisingly, most of the matching prophecies are found in the book
of Revelation, which is the Bible’s most detailed account of the end
times.
Knowing that Revelation is describing the
same things, we can proceed confidently through Revelation, using
Daniel’s prophecy as a guide to interpret what it says. Furthermore,
our understanding of Revelation helps to confirm our understanding
of Daniel. Specifically, we see that the wicked ruler described in
the 70th week of Daniel must be the wicked ruler of the end times,
who we call
the Antichrist.
As mentioned in
Revelation Overview, the 70th week of Daniel matches up very
well with the seven-sealed scroll of
Rev 5:1, and
its associated seal events starting in
chapter 6. The persecution in the second half of the 70th week
matches with the martyrdom in the fifth seal event, and the decreed
destruction of the wicked ruler matches with the coming wrath
described in the sixth seal event.
(1) The Decree
Referenced by Daniel
Several commentators argue that the
“decree” mentioned in verse 25 refers one of the other decrees
issued by a Persian king. Overall, there were four such decrees:
(1) Cyrus’ decree in 538 BC (2
Chron. 36:22-23;
Ezra 1:1-4;
5:13)
(2) Darius I (522-486) in 520 BC (Ezra
6:1,
6-12)
(3) Artaxerxes Longimanus (464-424) in 457 BC (Ezra
7:11-26)
(4) Artaxerxes Longimanus (464-424) in 444 BC (Neh.
2:1-8)
For example, if using the earlier decree
from Artaxerxes dated in 457 BC, one would calculate the time of the
Messiah’s appearing by adding the 483 years (either Biblical or
solar years) to 457 BC. This would indicate that the Messiah would
be on earth in either 20 AD (if using Biblical years) or 27 AD (if
using solar years). Of course, Jesus was on earth for both of these
dates.
I tend to prefer the using the 444 BC
decree, because:
(1) It best fits the emphasis on
rebuilding the city’s defenses, and the book of Nehemiah explains
that the rebuilding authorized by by this decree was carried out
during times of distress, as the prophecy states (Neh
2:19, Neh
4:7,8,16-18,
Neh 5:1,
Neh 6:16).
(2) It was the final such decree (completing the set of decrees to
restore Jerusalem).
(3) It requires the use of Biblical years, which make much more
sense in this context.
(4) The terminal date in 33 AD is known to agree with the account of
Christ’s crucifixion occurring on a Friday at the time of the
Jewish Passover.
(5) The fact that it appears to reference the year of His death
seems appropriate, since His death was the sacrifice that
accomplished some of the things Daniel said would be accomplished
within these 70 weeks (Dan
9:24).
However, it is noteworthy that either
decree succeeds in pointing to the lifetime of Jesus, which is a
remarkable feat regardless of which decree you prefer.
(2) The Accuracy
of the 69 weeks prophecy
Some commentators have calculated
that Daniel’s prophecy of 69 weeks is accurate down to a specific
day in the life of Christ. Some say it points to the day of His
triumphal entry into Jerusalem, some say it’s the day He was
baptized, and others say it was the day of His transfiguration. Some
have even carried out this calculation by counting seconds!
It’s possible that some of these claims
have merit, but it’s also possible such efforts are examples of
over-reaching. That is, these commentators may be trying to force
the Bible to say a bit more than what can really be solidly
supported scripturally. They may feel that if this prophecy can be
shown to be super-accurate, then it would be much more convincing.
The problem is that over-reaching
actually makes the prophecy less convincing. These efforts to be
super-accurate (1) make the prophecy more difficult to explain, and
(2) worse, it invites some credible rebuttals, giving the impression
that the whole prophecy is disputable.
I believe it’s best to settle for an
interpretation that is relatively simple and completely
indisputable:
The prophet Daniel wrote a prophecy that
identified a period of time when the Messiah would be on the earth.
The period he identified was centuries after his own lifetime, and
it indeed coincided with the relatively short lifetime of Jesus
Christ, our Messiah. This prophecy is easily accurate to the nearest
seven-year cycle, which is the unit of measurement that Daniel used.
Daniel also foretold that the Messiah would be killed, which is true
of Jesus. He also happened to foretell that there would be a decree
to rebuild the defenses of Jerusalem, which was fulfilled in 444 BC.
He also happened to foretell the destruction of that rebuilt
Jerusalem and its second temple, which was fulfilled in 70 AD.
This clear prophecy, stated without extra
embellishments, is entirely remarkable enough to be impactful to
anyone who is seriously looking for evidence that the Bible is God’s
word.
(3) Time, Times,
and Half a Time
This curious expression is a somewhat
wordy way of referring to the period of time following the
abomination of desolation, which at the middle of the seven-year
period that we call the 70th week of Daniel. As such, we may
understand that its name expresses 3 1/2 years (“time” is 1, “times”
is 2, and “half a time” is 1/2, and they all add up to 3 1/2).
But it’s only natural to wonder why God
chose to express it this way. Below are some reasons:
God is giving this period of time a
unique title which distinguishes it as a special time unto the Lord.
This isn’t just any 3 1/2 year period and it isn’t simply the second
part of Daniel’s 70th week. Rather, by virtue of receiving this
title, it becomes one of three apocalyptic time periods defined by
the Bible, namely: (1) The 70th week of Daniel, (2) the Time, Times,
and Half a Time, and (3) the Day of the LORD.
It establishes a unique reference to this
time period. This means that if we see this same “time, times and
half a time” reference elsewhere in the Bible, we can be sure that
it is speaking about this exact same period of time (which might not
be true if the was merely called 1,260 days or 42 months). For
example, we see this phrase used in
Rev 12:14,
so we know that Revelation is describing the same period that Daniel
described.
It’s actual duration must be defined by
its context. The title is intended to convey the numerical value of
3 1/2, which in turn should be understood as half of seven.
Dan 12:11
informs us that this “time, times, and half a time” period
(identified in
Dan 12:7) is the second half of the final seven year period
because it follows the stopping of sacrifices at the midpoint.
Dan 12:11
also states that it’s precise duration will be 1290 days (or 3 1/2
Biblical years plus one additional Biblical month). This time is
uniquely related to Israel’s experience in the end times.
Note carefully: No teaching anywhere on this web site is intended or should ever be construed to justify or to in any way incite or encourage personal vengeance or physical violence against any person.