The Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9:24—27: A Schematic-Chronologic Perspective

In the history of its interpretation the vision of the “seventy sevens,” reported in Daniel 9:24—27, has been a perennial locus of divergent and contradictory conclusions.  This passage, however, has generated at least one consensus among scholars: these four verses represent the most difficult in the book of Daniel and perhaps the entire Old Testament.[1] Calvin lamented this fact, complaining that “This passage has been variously treated, and so distracted, and almost torn to pieces by various opinions of interpreters, that it might be considered nearly useless on account of its obscurity.”[2]  Calvin continued, however, “But, in the assurance that no prediction is really in vain, we may hope to understand this prophecy…delivered by the Spirit of God.”[3]  At very least the collective consensus from the past to the present, regarding the difficulty of Daniel 9:24—27, precludes polemical dogmatism, and engenders a sense of humility and tractability toward the text and its hermeneutical history.  Although a final solution cannot be promised, contributions to the conversation are possible.  One possibility is that the “seventy sevens” of Daniel 9:24—27 are at once schematic and chronologic, serving schematically through the sabbatical-jubilee pattern and chronologically by means of understanding the “sevens” (or traditionally “weeks”) as multiple integers of seven, and so taking the 538 B.C. decree of Cyrus as the terminus a quo and the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as the terminus ad quem of the seventieth seven. 

A Brief Summary of the Two Primary Views of the Passage

Among Daniel scholars there are two basic views, liberal and orthodox.  Of the latter, several distinctions and qualifications follow.  Of the former, liberal scholarship, apart from ascribing a late date and provenance (second century B.C.)^[4] to the vision, the more particular question relates to the terminus ad quem of the vision. 

The Liberal View of the Passage

Liberal scholars typically see the purpose of the book as being intended “to encourage Jewish believers in their struggle against the tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175—163 B.C.) during the Maccabean period.”^[5]  Indeed, the liberal perspective posits that “The visions [of Daniel] presuppose a setting in Jerusalem in the 160s B.C.”^[6]  Liberal scholarship, then, assumes a mid-second century date of writing and that the book was intended to encourage the struggling Jews, which were allegedly contemporaries with the author(s) of the book. 

One problem of several that face this view is that the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees reports a speech by the Jewish resistance leader Mattathias Maccabee, wherein he invokes the faithful patriarchs of the historic Hebrew faith, hoping to stir enough assurance in his contemporary Jewish brethren necessary to rally and revolt against the oppressive Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms surrounding Judaea (1 Macc. 2:51—61).   After presenting the faithfulness of Abraham, Joseph, Phineas, Joshua, Caleb, David, and Elijah, the writer includes the four Jewish characters of the book of Daniel, saying, “Hannaniah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame.  Daniel because of his innocence was delivered from the mouth of the lions.  And so observe, from generation to generation, that none who put their trust in him will lack strength” (1 Macc. 2:60—61 RSV).  Liberal scholars attribute the date of authorship for the book of 1 Maccabees to be precisely that of Daniel, the mid-second century.^[7]  Mattathias’ speech, however, rested on a shared understanding with his audience that Daniel and the three Jewish boys of his book were bona fide historic figures from the annals of the Hebraic faith, being as genuine as Abraham and King David.  So, it is true that Daniel’s prophecy encouraged the Judeans of the mid-second century in their resistance to sacrilege and oppression; however, it was because Daniel was the real sixth century hero of the Hebraic faith, not the construct of second century pseudonymous authors, that Jews found their confidence. 

Wenham raises a couple of other points that count against the liberal view of the passage.  First, in a recent study, Leiman set forth convincing evidences that point to the conclusion that the Old Testament canon was closed by the time of the Maccabean period rather than the typically assumed date of late A.D. first century.  “Should this view win scholarly acceptance, it will become the more difficult to explain how Daniel was ever accepted into the canon if it was written in the second century B.C.”^[8]  Second, despite the symbol-laden nature of the 490 years of the seventy sevens, and even granting the earliest decree of Cyrus (538 B.C.) as the terminus a quo, there is simply no way to squeeze the timeframe of Daniel’s vision into the time from 538 B.C. to the Maccabean period of the mid-second century.^[9]  Third, Baldwin exposed a glaring flaw with the liberal view, having noted that “Commentators who argue that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled this prophecy are at a loss to account for the fact that he destroyed neither the Temple nor the city of Jerusalem.”[10]

The Orthodox View of the Passage

The primary characteristic of the demarcation between liberal and orthodox interpretations of Daniel’s vision, therefore, is whether or not the vision has a messianic trajectory or fulfillment in Christ.  Goldingay is representative of the liberal perspective, which denies any messianic prediction.  He argues that, concerning the vision of the “seventy sevens” in Daniel 9:24ff, “it looks forward from the time of Daniel himself to the Antiochene crisis…There is no reason to refer it exegetically to the first or second coming of Christ.”^[11]  That, however, is the working premise of all orthodox interpreters of Daniel, namely that the seventieth seven refers to either the first^[12] or second advent of Christ.^[13]  The eschatological-messianic understanding of the passage is therefore the hallmark of the orthodoxy in the interpretive tradition of Daniel 9:24ff.  This has been the case since Jesus and the patristics.

Jesus and the New Testament

Whatever strengths the liberal view may have, understanding the Antiochene crisis may have fulfilled the prophecy in some manner (see, e.g., 1 Macc. 1:54), Baldwin was surely right to have qualified that “to confine its meaning to that period is to close one’s eyes to the witness of Jesus and of the New Testament writers in general that it also had a future significance.”[14]  Jesus was clearly not satisfied with the liberal notion that the Antiochene crisis exhausted Daniel’s prophecy.  As Blomberg noted, “The ‘desolating sacrilege’ in [Matt.] 24:15 clearly alludes to the horror prophesied in Dan. 9:27…with Jesus explicitly mentioning the prophet’s name.”[15] Blomberg follows this comment by showing that Jesus and his disciples understood that the events of A.D. 70 marked the fulfillment of Daniel’s seventy sevens, adding that “nothing in the context [of Matt. 24] supports the notion that a temple rebuilt centuries later, only to be destroyed again, is in view.”[16]  Additionally, the Revelation took up Daniel’s symbolism of “time, times, and half a time” (Dan. 7:25; 12:7), and variously phrased it as “forty-two months” (Rev. 11:2) and “1,260 days” (11:3; 12:2).[17]  Granting the foregoing, therefore, we may safely and soundly conclude with Baldwin, “the New Testament writers were convinced that the ministry of Jesus marked the beginning of the fulfillment of the coming kingdom announced in the book of Daniel (cf. Mk. 1:15) and of the end of the age (1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:2; 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:5).”^[18]  Surely Daniel 9:24ff. was resident in Jesus’ mind when he pronounced the woes on apostate Israel, warning, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate (Gk. erēmos; cf. erēmōsis 2x in Dan. 9:27 LXX; Matt. 24:15).

Therefore, any interpreter who confesses fidelity to Christ and his self-attesting Word revealed in scripture must presuppositionally preclude the full-orbed liberal interpretation out of hand.  To do otherwise would be to ascribe to oneself (or another) a better grasp on the text of scripture than Jesus himself possessed, which is neither right nor safe.[19]

The early church fathers

The early church fathers were unanimous that the vision met its fulfillment in relation to Jesus the Messiah.  Chapter sixteen of the Epistle of Barnabas, for instance, cited Daniel 9:24ff. and Haggai 2:10 to demonstrate that the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 and the expansive growth of the church (a mere 30 years after the temple’s destruction) had fulfilled the prophecies cited.[20]  Similarly, after quoting the entire passage of Daniel 9:24ff., Clement of Alexandria concluded,

And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks.  And in sixty and two weeks the whole of Judea was quiet, and without wars.  And Christ our Lord, “the Holy of the Holies,” having come and fulfilled the vision and prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father…The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away…And Vespasian rose to supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place.  And such are the facts of the case.[21]

Likewise, the great Latin father, Tertullian, remarked, “In such wise, therefore, did Daniel predict concerning Him, as to show both when and in what time He was to set the nations free; and how, after the passion of the Christ, that city had to be exterminated.”[22]  In conjunction with the idea that these fathers understood Christ as having fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel is the observation that each cited understood this to have happened in Christ’s first advent.  Josephus, the Jewish historian to the Romans and contemporary of Jesus, applied the passage in the same manner.  “Daniel wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.”[23]  In fact, Baldwin understood Josephus’ application as the standard second temple Jewish perspective on Daniel’s seventy sevens, and that as such it “passed into Christian exegesis.”[24]  Even at the time of the Reformation Calvin could say, “There is no difference between us and the Jews in numbering the years; they confess the number of years to be 490, but disagree with us entirely as to the close of the prophecy.”[25]  The messianic interpretation has from the inception of the church been the dominant view, the orthodox view, and it will be the operating premise of the following observations.

The Immediate Context: The Todah Prayer of 9:1—19

            The first three verses of Daniel nine present the reader with both the historical setting and the context of Daniel’s prayer. 

The Historical Setting of the Prayer (9:1—3)

            The historical setting was “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus,” which would have been 539 B.C., the first year of the Persian empire (Dan. 9:1; cf. Ezra 1:1).[26]  The passive phrase, “which was made king” (Dan. 9:1) in reference to Darius-Cyrus, intimates God’s sovereignty over the gentile nations, which highlights the fulfillment of YHWH’s word to Jeremiah, regarding the accomplishment of “seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem” (v. 2).  The facts serve as grounds for Daniel’s prayer, which depends on Israel’s God, who keeps his word and covenant.  The context of Daniel’s prayer, therefore, is God’s fulfilling his word to the prophet Jeremiah that (in some sense) the exile to Babylon was over and restoration and return to the land of Judea would follow (Jer. 25:12 // 29:10). 

The Context of the Prayer: The Scope of Jeremiah’s Seventy Years (9:1—3)

            The seventy years of desolations are parallel, then, to the seventy years that “are completed for Babylon” (Jer. 29:10 ESV; cf. Zech. 1:12).  Thus, the seventy years that Daniel mentioned in 9:2 marked “Babylon’s period of power.”[27]  There is much speculation as to exactly when this ‘period of power’ began.[28]  Judah came under the heel of Babylon is 605 B.C., which would put only sixty-six years between this and the time of Daniel’s prayer.  However, the language of Jeremiah 29:10 seems to look past Babylon’s immediate involvement in Judea, and protracts to include a broader scope of power exercised Babylon.  Therefore, the most logical point of departure for Babylon’s period of power would have been her conquering of Assyria.  Although Nineveh, the then Assyrian capital, fell to Babylon in 610 B.C., the capital was moved to Harran, and there Assyria’s power was destroyed in 609 B.C.[29]  This being the case, it follows that in the year of Daniel’s prayer, when Cyrus had conquered Babylon, exactly seventy years had passed.[30]

The Form of the Prayer (9:4—19)

            Goldingay recognized the repetitio patterns in Daniel’s prayer as indicative of its liturgical nature.[31]  Several other features point to the same conclusion.[32]  Goldingay further noted that “Practically every phrase in vv. 4—20 can be paralleled in Ezra 9; Neh. 1; 9, or of Deuteronomy, 1 Kg. 8, and Jeremiah, or the more cultically oriented traditions of Leviticus, Chronicles, and the Psalter…The communal prayer of confession is a postexilic phenomenon.”[33]

The Todah-prayer genre and Levitical background of the prayer

            Kline, following Harvey and Kerr, identifies these postexilic confessions as belonging to the Todah genre.[34] The Todah prayer had for its foci Israel’s sins against her covenant God, YHWH, and the acknowledgement of God’s righteous judgments.[35]  Moreover, “Todah-prayers performed a special judicial function in the process of rib, the covenant lawsuit, which the Lord prosecuted through His prophets against His people when they broke His covenant.”[36]  As Miller remarked, “Daniel’s mind was filled with the Word of God, and this fact is reflected in his prayer.”[37]  Both the rib-covenant lawsuit and the Todah-prayer motifs in Daniel’s prayer are stipulated in the covenant sanctions of Leviticus 26, which serves as the prayer’s biblical and theological background.[38]  Kline summarized the Levitical context and its relevance to Daniel’s prayer as follows.

There [Lev. 26], following a description of the breaking of the covenant (vss. 14f.) and of the infliction of the covenant curses on Israel, climactically the curse of exile (vss. 16—39), it is stated that the Todah-confession by the exiles (vss. 40f.) would be prerequisite to God’s renewing of the covenant and restoring its blessings (vss. 42ff.)…Here then in this tradition of Todah-prayers is where Daniel 9:4—19 clearly fits, with its acknowledgement of Yahweh’s righteousness and Israel’s guilt, and with its plea for deliverance from the justly inflicted curses of the ancient covenant oath.[39]

From these observations, Kline is correct to conclude, “Daniel’s prayer corresponds to, we might say fulfills, the Todah requirement stipulated in the pattern of covenant lawsuit administration in Leviticus 26:40, 41.”[40] 

            It is also interesting to note the numeric correspondence between Leviticus 26 (vv. 14, 18, 21, and 27), Jeremiah 25 (vv. 3, 4, 7, and 8), and Daniel 9 (vv. 6, 10, 11, 14).  All three of these related passages contain a fourfold indictment against Israel’s auditory failures, despite YHWH having sent her prophet after prophet, calling her to “turn from [her] iniquities” (Dan. 9:13).  All three of these passages reference Israel’s failure to “harken” and “obey” the “voice of YHWH.”  This further confirmed the intertextual relations between Daniel 9 and these pertinent background passages. 

Finally, Jordan would point out that Daniel’s prayer was a “confession” (Heb. yâdâh), and that “This relatively rare word is used significantly in Leviticus 26:40.”[41]  To this observation could be added that this same term is used in relevantly related Todah passages such as Nehemiah 1:6; 9:1—3 (3x).  For Daniel, this term served as an inclusio, which hedged both ends of the prayer (Dan. 9:4, 20).  These observations will become increasingly relevant in the exegesis of Gabriel’s prophecy of 9:24ff.

The structure of the prayer

            Miller induces a tripartite structure from the text; it contains 1. adoration (9:4), 2. confession (vv. 5—14), and 3. petition (vv. 15—19).[42]  Jordan has recognized three additional divisions apparent in the prayer.  Granting the sabbatical motif of Daniel 9, the sevenfold division seems quite appropriate.  The prayer contains 1. God’s faithfulness and our sin (vv. 4—6), 2. God’s righteousness and our sin (vv. 7—8), 3. God’s mercies and our sin (vv. 9—11a), 4. God’s inspection and our adultery (vv. 11b—14), 5. God’s deliverances and our sin (v. 15), 6. God’s righteousness and our need (v. 16), and finally 7. Conclusion: Let God vindicate himself by saving his people (vv. 17—19).[43] 

The Theme of the Prayer

            The theme of Daniel’s prayer is clearly that of covenant, the covenant that YHWH entered into with his vassal-people Israel by means of God graciously delivering them from their Egyptian bondage.  Kline has persuasively argued this perspective, and his summary of the prayer evidences it.

Having begun his prayer with the acknowledgment of God as the one who keeps the covenant (vs. 4), Daniel continued with this theme, interpreting Israel’s present desolate condition and the entire history leading to it by explicit reference to the realities of the covenant. Israel’s history had been a long course of continual violation of the written stipulations of God’s covenant (vs. 5) and repudiation of God’s emissaries, the prophets, as they had come administering the covenant lawsuit (vss. 6, 10). The inevitable result of this covenant breaking had been that the curse invoked by Israel in their oath of covenant ratification had overtaken the nation (vss. 11 ff.). God had carried out His threats, bringing on His disobedient vassal- people the very evils delineated in the curse sanctions of the original treaties (vss. 12 ff.). Daniel’s appeal for mercy and restoration had in view the honor of God’s name, which was bound up with the fate of Israel since He had become identified as the covenantal Protector of this vassal-nation (vss. 15-19).[44]

      

            The covenantal orientation of the prayer is further demonstrated by its peculiar vocabulary.  First, Miller pointed to the fact that it is only Daniel 9 that the covenant name of Israel’s God, YHWH, is used, and that a perfect seven times (see vv. 2, 4, 10, 14, and 20).[45]  This is significant and highlights the fact that the context of the chapter is concentrated on Israel, her God YHWH, and their ratified relationship in covenant.  “This striking use of the peculiarly covenantal name of God in this chapter is a plain index to its major theme.”[46]  Additionally, it is also important to notice Daniel’s use of “Lord” (Heb. 'ădônây); it is the “characteristic designation of the dominant part in the covenant.”[47]  Second, the prayer is replete with treaty-covenant technical language.  “Other words found here in their specialized treaty meanings are ‘ahab, ‘love’ (vs. 4), hesed, ‘covenant loyalty’ (vs. 4), sub, ‘turn’ (vss. 13, 16), and hata, ‘sin’ (vss. 5, 8, 11, 15). The prayer is indeed saturated with formulaic expressions drawn from the Mosaic treaties, particularly from the Deuteronomic treaty.”[48] 

            Therefore, Daniel’s prayer is looking first to YHWH, the one who keeps covenant and hesed, who is righteous in his judgment, yet remembers mercy (9:4).  It looks backward toward YHWH’s covenant with Israel and the covenantal sanctions for those in exile, particularly found in Leviticus 26.  Again, it looks backward to the promise of Jeremiah 25:12 // 29:10, which then looks forward to the jubilee return and restoration to the land, once the seventy years were complete.  Daniel bowed, believing YHWH when he said, “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:13).  Daniel’s prayer was precisely that.  As Daniel prayed, God heard (9:21—23).   

An Exegetical Analysis of Daniel 9:24--27

            In response to the prayer, Daniel learned that, indeed, God was faithfully actualizing his promise to end Israel’s captivity in Babylon; however, while the initial restoration was on the proximate horizon, another seventy awaited consummation, the seventy sevens set forth in the prophecy of 9:24ff.  “It was in the very year Cyrus issued his decree of restoration that Gabriel declared to Daniel that the decree of Cyrus terminating the period of Jeremiah’s seventy sabbatical years also signalized the beginning of a new seventy weeks.”[49]

Verse Twenty-Four and the Six Accomplishments of YHWH in the Seventy Sevens

            Daniel is of the apocalyptic genre, and as such “there is much use of symbolism and numerology.”[50] This fact must control the interpretation of the prophecy. 

The seventy sevens

            Perhaps the main assumption of all orthodox Daniel scholars is the seventy sevens or weeks are to be understood in terms of regular calendric years, that is, “seventy weeks of years.”[51]  Price and Ice stated it plainly: “The 70 ‘weeks’ are actually 70 weeks of years, or 490 years.”[52]  Generally speaking, these numerological facts are understood as being either symbolic referents of indefinite length or literal periods of time that may be tested against historical facts for chronological fitness. 

            The symbolic view

            The symbolic view is to be commended for its recognition and focus on the schematic nature of the seven/seventy numerology, granting the Leviticus and Jeremiah background of the passage.  Moreover, it rightly posits the terminus a quo as the 538 B.C. decree of Cyrus.[53]  Two variations of the symbolic view exist, which are demarcated by the terminus ad quem, whether that is marked by the events surrounding the first advent[54] or the second advent of Christ.[55]      There are a couple of criticisms that undermine the symbolic view.  Gurney, arguing from the fact that Jeremiah’s seventy years, which were fulfilled literally, chronologically, and accurately, underlie the prophecy of the seventy sevens; therefore, there the interpreter should likewise expect that the seventy sevens would be intended to offer literal, chronological, and accurate information, not indefiniteness.[56]  Furthermore, if, as the symbolic view contends, the stated period of time are indefinite, it follows that the periods could signify any period of time; and, if they can signify any period of time, then they do not actually signify any particular period of time.  The symbolic view is both arbitrary and vague, and ultimately renders the seventy sevens as meaningless.

            The literal view

            Miller explicated the literal view as follows.

[The seventy sevens] are literal years ending with Christ’s second coming…The first seven sevens (forty-nine years) commence with a command to rebuild Jerusalem (either the decree to Ezra in 458 B.C. or the decree to Nehemiah in 445 B.C.) and terminate with the completion of the work of Ezra and Nehemiah about forty-nine years later (either ca. 409 B.C. or ca. 396 B.C.).  The next sixty-two sevens (434 years) extend from the end of the first group of sevens to Christ’s first coming (either his baptism in A.D. 26 or Christ’s presentation of himself to the people as Messiah on Palm Sunday in A.D. 32/33).

After the coming of the Messiah, he was rejected by Israel; and the time of the Gentiles began, which is not counted in the “seventy sevens”…At the end of the present age, God will again deal with Israel in a special manner, and the final seven will begin.

During the last seven, which immediately precedes Christ’s second advent, there will be a terrible time of tribulation for Israel and the world…The final seven (seven years) will be terminated by Christ’s second coming and the establishment of his earthly kingdom, which will last a thousand years.[57]

           

This is the classical dispensational interpretation of the passage.  After this brief explanation, Miller boldly stated, “This…approach seems to be the most exegetically viable alternative.”[58]  Is it, though?

            There are a number of underlying and superficial problems with this view.  First, this view patently marginalizes the rich symbol-ladenness of the numbers, the seventy, the sevens, and even their inferred total of 490.  This is to completely miss the biblical-theological point.  As Baldwin recognized, “Seventy years [of Jeremiah’s prophecy] had symbolic significance and so the new term may be expected to have an element of symbolism.”[59]  Remembering the biblical background, indeed it does.  As Goldingay explained, “’Seventy sevens’ presumably denotes ‘seventy times seven years,’ as the original ‘seventy’ of Jeremiah was explicitly a period of years.  The period suggests that the seventy years of punishment due according to Jer. 25:11 // 29:10 is being exacted sevenfold in accordance with Lev. 26.”[60]  Most ironic is the fact that Miller recognized Daniel as apocalyptic and so containing “much use of symbolism and numerology.”[61]  Nevertheless, it is here, amid the rich symbolism and numerologically laden passage of Daniel, that Miller reads things literally and chronologically. 

            Second, “there is no Biblical foundation for the notion of a decree in the reign of Artaxerxes.”[62]  It may be granted that Nehemiah 2:8—9 reported letters sent from Atraxerxes, containing his support for rebuilding Jerusalem.  However, this hardly fits the nature of a decree.  Baldwin presented that the decree came from either Cyrus or Artaxerxes; that “No other option seems possible.”[63]  If that is so, and Artaxerxes fails to fit the criteria, then the terminus a quo of the literal view is left wanting. 

            Third, although Miller understood the literal view to be the most “exegetically viable alternative,”[64] the notion of a parenthetical gap of indefinite length is no more viable than the indefiniteness posited by the symbolic view, which he staunchly criticizes.  There is nothing within the text of the prophecy to suggest a gargantuan gap of 2000 plus years. 

            Finally, and this objection pertains to both views above, the idea that the “sevens” or “weeks” represent ordinary years has become so deeply entrenched in the orthodox interpretive tradition that it has become a presupposition upon which most exegetes operate almost unthinkingly.  However, Lurie presented a daunting indirect argument against the presumption of the ordinary years foundation.  The problem for the ordinary years view is that

the recognized term for Sabbath of years in the Hebrew Bible is šabbětȏt šānȋm (Lev. 25:8—9).  If indeed the reference in Daniel 9 is to Sabbaths of years, then it may justifiably be asked why the prophecy uses the peculiar word šābu^cȋm, a word that has the “wrong” plural form and appears almost nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible [the exception being Dan. 10:2—3 (2x)], when there already existed at the time of Daniel a perfectly well understood term whose use was consecrated by the Torah.[65]

           

From this, Lurie concluded, “There is no reason to restrict the ‘sevens’ to just seven years as is usually done.”[66] 

            Therefore, none of the views above offers a wholly satisfying treatment of the prophecy’s seventy sevens.  Perhaps there is a tertium quid, a third way.

A tertium quid: another possibility for the seventy sevens

            The symbolic, schematic relevance of the seventy sevens cannot be underestimated.  As Goldingay remarked above, this opening line of the prophecy signifies that YHWH is exacting a sevenfold punishment on Jeremiah’s seventy years.[67]  The schematic significance of the term is supported by the analogia Scriptura, allowing scripture to interpret scripture.  In 2 Chronicles 33:21, the Chronicler understood Jeremiah’s seventy years in terms of the sabbatical schema, interpreting it in terms of the Leviticus background, saying, “To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.”  The Chronicler understood the exile both schematically and chronologically, which gives the modern interpreter of Daniel good grounds for doing the same.   

            Building on Young’s observation that “the word šābu^cȋm is really a participial form denoting something that is ‘sevened’ or ‘besevened,’” Lurie has suggested that the sevens actually represent multiple integers of seven, i.e., seven, fourteen, twenty-one, twenty-eight, and so on.[68]  Further, Lurie contended that this view best explains the distinctions between the three periods of sevens, as each period represents a different multiple of seven, or, as the NASB margin has it “units of seven.”[69]  This perspective allows the exegete to take a literary reading of the text, and granting Daniel’s genre, therefore a literal reading of it.  Therefore, if the first “seven sevens” are understood as fourteens (i.e., 7 x 14) and the “sixty-two sevens” are taken as ordinary sevens (i.e., 62 x 7), then the chronological sum is 532 years.[70]  The chronological relevance of this deduction will be transparent in the treatment of 9:25.

            The seventy sevens are “determined upon thy [Daniel’s] people and upon thy holy city,” that is, the Jews and Jerusalem, which is clear from the context.[71]  It is therefore concerned with salvation, not secular, history.[72]  It is also significant to note that “’Seven’ occurs in [Leviticus 26] in connection with punishment for spurning God’s commands…(Lev. 26:18, cf. v. 21).[73]  Thus the reference to the object of the seventy sevens, Israel and Jerusalem, carries with it negative connotations.

            The six verb-accomplishments

            The six verb-accomplishments are as follows:

                        to finish the transgression,

                           and to make an end of sins,

                              and to make reconciliation for iniquity,

                              and to bring in everlasting righteousness,

                           and to seal up the vision and prophecy,

                        and to anoint the most Holy.

Baldwin’s opinion is well recognized; “These are the ends to which God is working; stages in achieving them are outlines in verses 25—27.”[74]  What, though, is that which God is working through and toward?  From the foregoing, it seems apparent that it is YHWH’s older covenant with Israel and its consummation to which he is working.  Nothing in the context suggests that “the end of human history” is in view, as Baldwin opined.[75]  The ultimate purpose of the seventy weeks program was that the divine covenant keeper should not merely restore but consummate the covenant order He had established with Israel through Moses.[76]  YHWH’s covenant with Israel is the theme that pervades the entire ninth chapter.  In fact, the three terms used to describe Israel’s wickedness—“transgression…sins…iniquity”—are paralleled in Daniel’s prayer of verses 4—19, [77] thus reinforcing the unity between the theme of the prayer, YHWH’s covenant with Israel, and the object of the prophecy, namely that same covenant.

            The three terms of the negative accomplishments are near synonyms.[78] The term “transgressions” translates the same Hebrew word used in the plainly messianic text of Isaiah 53:5, “he [the Messiah, the suffering Servant] was wounded for [Israel’s] transgressions (Heb. pesha‛, cf. vv. 8, 12 [2x] were it occurs again).”  In the same verse Isaiah uses the term for “iniquities” that Daniel uses here in verse 24 (Heb. ‛âvôn, Is. 53:5; cf. v. 11), saying, “he was bruised for [Israel’s] iniquities.”  All evangelical scholars understand Isaiah 53 as a text clearly predicting the Messiah and his cross-work and resurrection.  It follows, then, that “to finish the transgression” points forward to the crucifixion.  Archer objects, however, “Certainly the crucifixion of Christ in A.D. 30 did not put an end to human iniquity or rebellion on earth.”[79]  It has been seen, though, that the content of both Daniel’s prayer and Gabriel’s prophecy is YHWH’s covenant with Israel.  It is the consummation of the older covenant, not the new covenant, that is in the purview.  This fact makes Archer’s objection somewhat of a moot point. 

            The phrase “to make an end of sins” begins with the Hebrew verb tāmam, if the qere reading is taken, in which case it means “be complete, come to an end, finish.”[80]  This is the preferred reading in the context.  In the Christian mind, again the cross-work of Jesus reverberates.  Yet, again, the dispensational perspective declines the intuitive, Christocentric reading, stating, “this prophecy cannot be fulfilled in any real sense until Christ personally returns to earth.”[81]  Surely, though, Barnabas, as he expounded Jesus’ ratification of the new covenant by his death, was cognizant of this passage when he wrote, “The Son of God therefore came in the flesh with this view, that He might bring to a head the sum of [Israel’s] sins who had persecuted His [or their] prophets to death.”[82]  Barnabas not doubt learned this from the Master, who in the context of the ‘seven woes,’ said,

Fill up then the measure of your ancestors!  You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?  For this reason I am sending you prophets and wise men and experts in the law, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.  I tell you the truth, this generation will be held responsible for all these things! (Matt. 23:32—36 NET, italics added).

The arrest, trial, and murder of Jesus by the Sanhedrin was the crowning sin of Israel.  Carson detected a chiastic structure to Jesus’ speech in Matthew 23, which neatly links Israel’s failure to recognize Jesus as Messiah and their being the heirs of those who failed to recognize the prophets.[83]  The death of Jesus was the climactic end or completion, the sealing up of Israel’s sin against their covenant God, YHWH.[84]

            The third verb-accomplishment is “to make reconciliation for iniquity.”  The Hebrew term for “reconciliation” here is kipper (i.e., to atone, or to make a covering [for sin]).[85]  It is at this third accomplishment that Archer finally recognized as pointing to Jesus’ crucifixion.[86] Miller made the point that “In the first two acts sin was to be ended and transgression finished.  This would be accomplished through the atonement spoken of here…by Jesus Christ upon the cross…His blood is the covering for sin.”[87]  To cherry-pick this third accomplishment, however, as the only of the three to have been fulfilled in the crucifixion is perfectly arbitrary; it is eisegetical rather than exegetical.  If, as reckoned above, the three negative phrases are near synonyms,[88] and, as Miller stated, the third is the necessary condition of the former two, then good and necessary deduction would lead to the conclusion that all three were accomplished at the cross of Jesus and so fulfilled.  It is proper at this point to ask the rhetorical question: If not the crucifixion of Christ, then what is it that will finish transgression and end sin?  Orthodoxy historically has said, ‘Nothing!’  Indeed, apart from the devaluation of Jesus’ cross-work, those who look beyond it for the fulfillment of the first two accomplishments, again, hold their position in the teeth of evidence that YHWH’s covenant with Israel was the object in view concerning both the prayer and prophecy of Daniel 9. 

            “To bring in everlasting righteousness” flows out of the third accomplishment.  The context of this chapter suffices to inform one’s understanding of what Daniel intended with his use of the term “righteousness” (Heb. tsedeq).  As with the three negative nouns above, this too corresponds with Daniel’s Todah prayer, wherein this term or its cognates were used four times (see vv. 7, 14, 16, 18).  In the Todah confession of verses 4—19 the term is clearly referring to God’s right-ness, his justice in meeting out the covenant judgments upon apostate Israel.  What YHWH accomplishes in the seventy sevens is first a demonstration, a vindication of his own righteousness. 

           Baldwin wisely noted how close this phrase comes to the New Testament concept of justification by faith.[89]  At the crux of his argument in his epistle to the Romans, Paul took up this very issue.  “But now,” began Paul (Gk. nuni de, Rom. 3:21).  Paul is here speaking not as “now” in the course of his argument, in the logical sense, but “now” in the redemptive-historical sense.  From the fall until the Christ event, transgression, iniquity, and sin had conditioned the covenant.  ‘But now,’ through Jesus’ cross-work (vv. 21—26), God’s own righteousness is “manifest” apart from the old covenant law by the “faith of” (KJV) or “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” on the cross (vv. 21, 22 NET).  In this Israel’s God has shown himself to be “just’ (v. 26).  In addition to justifying those “which believeth in Jesus” (vv. 22, 26), the cross was also “to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past” (i.e., under the old covenant, v. 25).  When did God accomplish the bringing forth of his righteousness?  Paul said, “at the present time” (v. 26 ESV), that is, “when the fullness of the time was come” (Gal. 4:4), when God brought about his perpetual righteousness through the faithfulness of Jesus.  The third accomplishment was fulfilled in and when “God sent forth his Son” (v. 4). 

           To suggest, as Miller has, that “only at Christ’s return would such a state of universal righteousness be possible,” is to completely ignore the alleged wickedness and apostasy that is to occur at the end of the dispensational vision of the millennium. Clearly, righteousness in the millennium of dispensationalism cannot be said to be universal nor “everlasting,” because of the supposed apostasy that will come at the end. 

            The fifth accomplishment was meant to “to seal up the vision and prophecy.”  Jesus said, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (Matt. 11:13); and, John pointed to Christ (Jn. 1:29, 36).  Tertullian got it right, asking, “But what does he mean by saying that ‘vision and prophecy are sealed”?

That all the prophets ever announced of Him that He was to come, and had to suffer.  Therefore, since the prophecy was fulfilled through His advent, for that reason he said that “vision and prophecy were sealed;” inasmuch as He is the signet of all prophets, fulfilling all things which in days bygone they had announced of Him.  For after the advent of Christ and His passion there is no longer “vision or prophet” to announce Him as to come.[90]

According to this remark, this accomplishment was fulfilled at Christ’s first advent, which comports with earlier quoted pieces from the patristics.  This view, however, is not a bit of antiquity.  Baldwin made similar observations.  “To seal a document may involve closing it, but in law the meaning is rather to authenticate it with one’s seal and signature.  That is the meaning here.”[91]  Just as the exile had sealed or authenticated Jeremiah’s word concerning the seventy years, Christ’s advent authenticated all the words of the prophets of YHWH, of which Israel had failed to harken (Dan. 9:6, 10, etc.). 

            The sixth and final accomplishment of the seventy sevens is “to anoint the most Holy.”  This may refer to either a person or a holy thing, such as the architectural temple.[92]  Of course the dispensational view prefers the latter, especially with an eye on a yet-to-be built millennial temple in Jerusalem.[93]  Keil was likely correct, insisting that the phrase almost certainly means “a most holy place,” as the some translations have it.[94]  More than that, Woods argued, “The phrase ‘holy of holies’…occurs, either with or without the article, thirty-nine times in the Old Testament, always in reference to the Tabernacle or Temple or to the holy articles used in them.”[95]  Ultimately, then, it would seem that “There are no specific grounds for seeing a secondary reference to…a most sacred one or ‘messiah.’”[96]  It would seem that a messianic interpretation is out without the bounds of this final phrase, or is it?

            In saying that “in this place is one greater than the temple” (Matt. 12:6), Jesus clearly indicated that his advent marginalized the former temple, relegating it to former covenantal dispensation, as did the author to the Hebrews.  Many make the strong case that, along redemptive-historical lines of interpretation, the temple was a mere foreshadowing to the true Temple, Jesus Christ.[97] 

            As a case in point, in John 2:19 Jesus to the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”  Within the forty-six occurrences of the term naos, temple, in the New Testament, only a few instances point to something other than the Jerusalem temple (e.g., Acts 19:24 referring to the pagan shrines of Ephesus; several other references speak of God’s heavenly temple, see e.g., Rev. 7:15).  Clear enough was Jesus’ allusion that his audience immediately though he spoke of Herod’s Temple before them (Jn. 2:20), when in fact he was speaking of himself, his body (v. 21).  All gainsaying notwithstanding, Jesus’ advent provides a meaningful target for the sixth accomplishment.  Baldwin concluded, “In 539 B.C. was centered on the holy place in Jerusalem, and the rededication of the Temple was not excluded, but the Lord’s anointed was ultimately to be a man…who was the subject of ‘vision and the prophet.’”[98]

            There is therefore a viable case to be made that in every instance both the first three negative and the second three positive verb-accomplishments pointed forward to the coming Messiah, whom we now know to be Jesus, and that in his first advent.

Verse Twenty-Five and the Sixty-Nine Sevens

            Verse 25 begins with the restatement of the imperative to Daniel to “Know therefore and understand” (cf. 23).  In this case, it is the outworking of the seventy sevens, which serve as the means of fulfilling the six accomplishments set forth in verse 24.  Chronologically, then, verse 24 describes what will have been achieved by the end of verses 25—27.[99]

The Decree to rebuild

            The source of the “commandment” or “word” (ESV; NIV mg.) or “decree” (NIV) was treated to some extent above, concluding with Cyrus’ decree of 538 B.C.  This position has historically been the popular one;[100] however, it has a soft spot.  The primary weakness that detracts from the Cyrus decree is that it failed to explicitly mention the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, as the prophecy does here.[101]  Those taking the Cyrus decree as the terminus a quo of the seventy sevens does so on the grounds of 2 Chronicles 36:22—23, where it was reported,

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah.  Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.

It is fact that this does not explicitly mention building Jerusalem.  However, in Isaiah 44:28 it is, reading, “[YHWH] saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.”  Moreover, YHWH in Isaiah 45:13 spoke thus of Cyrus (see v. 1), “I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.”  With this literary background, Daniel was have been well justified to have presupposed the building of the city, if indeed it was Cyrus’ decree of which he spoke; and it likely was.

The sixty-nine sevens

            Between the decree of Cyrus and the coming Anointed One there is to be a period of “seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.”  Most can perceive the radical difference of denotation between the following two remarks: ‘Let’s eat, grandma’ and ‘Let’s eat grandma.’  The gross difference lies in the punctuation; so too here.  The comma in the phrase is not present in the Hebrew, which literally reads “seven sevens and sixty-two sevens,” as Baldwin noted.[102]  It was within the course of the first seven sevens that the second temple would be rebuilt.  Granting the thick Levitical background, especially of 25:8—24, this is signaling that YHWH was bringing about a long awaited jubilee, with restoration, redemption, and return to the land.[103]

            At the end of this sixty-nine sevens, “an anointed one” (ESV) was appear.  The title, though interpretively rendered “Messiah the Prince” in the KJV, is ambiguous in this verse. 

             The next clauses, “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times” properly begin a new sentence.[104]  Therefore, within the temporal confines of the sixty-nine sevens, the second temple and Jerusalem would be rebuilt, consummating with the revelation of an anointed one.  However, this interim period would be markedly “troublous times.”  Both Nehemiah (for the earlier period) 4:1ff; 9:36—37 and he apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees provides a striking chronicle and commentary on this intertestamental period and the sufferings of the Jews. 

Verse Twenty-Six: The Messiah and the People of the Prince to Come

            The Messiah being cut off clearly refers to the death of Jesus (cf. Is. 53:8, “cut off”).  Based on the Hebrew idiom, the KJV rendering “but not for himself,” though it reflects well the vicarious nature of Christ’s sacrificial work, is not best; rather it refers to the fact that he will be deprived of all in his death.[105]  This reinforces earlier conclusions.  If verses 25—27 detail the means of accomplishing the results enumerated in verse 24, and here the crucifixion is in plain view, then the six verb-accomplishment were likely fulfilled in Christ’s first advent. 

            As for the “people of the price who is to come,” this has historically been understood as referring to the Romans and the events just prior and up to A.D. 70.[106]  Although some look forward to the persecution of the eschatological antichrist, this view is speculative and stands against the flood of evidence and hermeneutical tradition that the first century Romans, under Vespasian and Titus, fulfilled the prophecy perfectly, razing the temple and the city to the ground.[107]

Verse Twenty-Seven and the Covenant and Terminus ad Quem of the Seventieth Seven

            Orthodox exegesis has been terribly exercised over the subject of the covenant of verse 27.  Baldwin, for example, based on the grammar, suggested that “If ‘he’ refers to the last-named person…the subject is the enemy of God’s cause.”[108]  Similarly, Archer pointed out that the last antecedent is to be taken to be the subject of the following verb.[109]  This much must be conceded.  However, the grammatical argument stands against the overwhelming contextual evidence that the “prince of the people” is not the subject.

The subject of the verb

            The object of the verb, the “covenant” must also be taken into consideration.  “When, therefore, we find a covenant mentioned in verse 27, there should be no doubt as to its identity.  The whole context speaks against the supposition that an altogether different covenant from the divine covenant which is the central theme throughout Daniel 9 is abruptly introduced here at the climax of it all.”[110] 

            Kline points to the connection between the Messiah of verse 26 and the covenant.  In verse 26 the Messiah’s death is described by the Hebrew verb karat, which is “the verb regularly employed for the act of ratifying a covenant by a cutting ritual which portrayed the curse of the covenant oath.”[111] In verse 27, however, the verb is higbar, meaning “make strong, cause to prevail.”[112]  With respect to this, both Kline[113] and Goldingay[114] point to the extraordinary connection between verse 27 and the prophecy of Isaiah 10.  “Isaiah 10:22—23 declares that…‘justice is in full flood.  Yes, an end which has been decreed [is the Lord…brining about…].’  Each word occurs in Dan. 9:24—27; the second phrase appears in the identical form in v. 27, apparently indicating that the consummation which is now effected is that of which Isaiah spoke.  The allusive ‘prevail’ might also have its background in the ‘God the champion’ of Isaiah 10:21.”[115]  Kline followed up, remarking “The unmistakable dependence of Daniel 9:27 on Isaiah 10:21ff. points directly to the ’el gibbor of Isaiah 10:21 as the inspiration for the higbir of Daniel 9:27.”[116]  From these data, one may comfortably conclude that, despite the grammatical facts of the pronoun, the subject of the verb is YHWH, and its object the covenant between he and Israel, consummating in the ratification of the new covenant by the death of the coming Messiah. 

The terminus ad quem of the seventieth seven

            Lurie’s paradigm for understanding the seventy sevens as multiple integers of seven was presented above.[117]  From this premise, Lurie continued to protract the applicability to include the seventieth seven, and argued, “There is no a priori reason to suppose [the seventieth seven] to be just seven years long as is normally assumed.”[118]  Rather, if, in accord with the forgoing arguments, the seventieth seven began with the first advent of Christ (beginning at his birth ~ 6 B.C.), and it was the Messiah who made a made the covenant prevail for the many in fulfillment of verse 27, then “one obvious possibility is that the seventieth ‘seven’ lasted seventy years and ended in A.D. 65, one year before the start of the Jewish war against Rome.”[119]  Some do not find Lurie’s argument convincing.[120] 

            However, it appears as viable an option as the competing alternative, and it allows the numerology to retain its schematic sabbatical-jubilee significance, yet provides a chronological pattern that arises from the nature of the term ‘units of seven’ or ‘besevened.’  These together point to consummation of the old covenant and the ratification of the new in Jesus’ death and resurrection, who arrived to announce the final, eschatological Jubilee (see Lk. 4:17—18), thus sealing vision and prophet; and provides the terminus ad quem of the seventieth seven in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70.

           

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason L. Jr., “Daniel.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Old Testament, Abridged Edition, edited by Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III, 1366—1405. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel, vol. 21, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Barnabas, “Epistle of Barnabas.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 133—149. Grand Rapids, MI: T & T Clark, 1996.

Beale, Gregory K., The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2004.

Blomberg, Craig L., “Matthew.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, 1—109. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Callaway, Mary Chilton, “1 Maccabees.” In The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Edition, 3^rd ed., edited by Michael D. Coogan, 201—244 Apocrypha. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Calvin, John, Daniel 7 – 12, Hosea, vol. 13, Calvin’s Commentaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker’s Books, 2009.

Carson, D. A., “Matthew.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: New Testament, Abridged Edition, edited by Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III, 1—135. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Clement of Alexandria. “Stromata.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 299—568. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994.

Goldingay, John E. Daniel, vol. 30, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1989.

Gurney, Robert J. M. “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24—27.” Evangelical Quarterly 53.1 (January/March, 1981): 29—36.

Jordan, James B. The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2007.

Kline, Meredith G. “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week.” Monergism. http://www.monergism.com/Kline,%20Meredith%20-%20The%20Covenant%20of%20the%20Seventieth%20Week%20%28Daniel%209%29.pdf (accessed October 18, 2012).

Lahaye, Tim, and Ed Hindson, eds. The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004.

Lurie, David H. “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s ‘Sevens’ and the Chronology of the Seventy ‘Sevens.’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33.3 (September, 1990): 303—309.

Miller, Stephen R., Daniel, vol. 2, The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 1994.

Tertullian, “An Answer to the Jews.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, edited by A. Cleveland Coxe, 151—180. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994.  

Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, eds. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Wenham, Gordon J., “Daniel: the Basic Issues.” Themelois 2.2 (January, 1977): 49—52.

---

[1] See, e.g., Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, vol. 21, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 163.

[2] John Calvin, Daniel 7 – 12, Hosea, vol. 13, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker’s Books, 2009), 195.

[3] Ibid., 195—196.

[4] John E. Goldingay, Daniel, vol. 30, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1989), 326—327. For the same assessment of chapter 9 in particular see 237—239.

[5] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 1994), 23.

[6] Goldingay, Daniel, 326. 

[7] That is, 175—143 B.C. See Mary Chilton Callaway, “1 Maccabees” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Edition, 3^rd ed., ed. Michael D. Coogan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007), 201.

[8] Gordon J. Wenham, “Daniel: the Basic Issues,” Themelois 2.2 (January, 1977): 51.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Baldwin, Daniel, 171.

[11] Goldingay, Daniel, 260, italics added.

[12] See Miller’s summary of views, Daniel,  view 2, 254.

[13] Ibid. See views 3 and 4, 255—257. (Notice here that view 4, which is plainly Miller’s position, does not receive the “there are a number of problems with this view” critique that each of the other views receive.  It seems that Miller is either (1) not being perfectly honest in his approach to and appraisals of the differing views, is (2) patently biased and seeking to influence the reader, or (3) is ignorant of the inherent problems with his own view.  In any case, none of the above options is becoming of a scholar of Miller’s caliber. 

[14] Baldwin, Daniel, 173. For other treatments of book of Daniel by Jesus and the NT authors, see Miller, Daniel, 34—36.

[15] Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 86, brackets added.

[16] Ibid., brackets added.

[17] Whether these time references in Revelation speak of the events of A.D. 70 or the events of the yet-future is of course largely contingent on the proper dating of the writing.  For a comprehensive survey of this subject and a convincing argument for an early date, which suggest a fulfillment in the events of A.D. 70, see Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.’s Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (San Francisco, CA: Christian University Press, 1997).

[18] Baldwin, Daniel, 175. For a list of the thirteen Danielic passages that the NT makes use of see Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Old Testament, Abridged Edition, ed. Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 1405.

[19] On these grounds, and the three points of critique raised against the liberal interpretation, and the witness of historic Christian orthodoxy, only the divergent streams of the orthodox, messianic view of Dan. 9:24ff. will be critically interacted with in the remaining sections of the thesis, especially in the exegetical exposition of the passage proper when they are in conflict with the arguments herein presented.

[20] Barnabas, “Epistle of Barnabas,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids, MI: T & T Clark, 1996), 147, fn. 15.

[21] Clement of Alexandria. “Stromata,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 329.

[22] Tertullian, “An Answer to the Jews,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. A. Cleveland Coxe (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 158. 

[23] Jewish Antiquities 10.276 as cited in Baldwin, Daniel, 175.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Calvin, Daniel 7—12, 196—197.

[26] Baldwin, Daniel, 163—164. For arguments suggesting the Darius and Cyrus were one and the same see ibid., 23—28; Miller, Daniel, 171—177, who concluded, Darius the Mede is likely an alternative title for Cyrus, 240.

[27]Robert J. M. Gurney, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24—27,” Evangelical Quarterly 53.1 (January/March, 1981): 30.

[28] See, e.g., Goldingay, Daniel, 231.

[29] Gurney, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24—27,” 30.

[30] Gurney made the point that “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.  And in between was an area where it lasted just about exactly seventy years.” Ibid.

[31] Goldingay, Daniel, 233.

[32] Ibid., 233—234.

[33] Ibid., 234—235.  See also Miller, Daniel, 243.

[34] Meredith G. Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” Monergism. http://www.monergism.com/Kline,%20Meredith%20-%20The%20Covenant%20of%20the%20Seventieth%20Week%20%28Daniel%209%29.pdf (accessed October 18, 2012): 3.

[35] Ibid., 4.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Miller, Daniel, 243. Strangely, however, Miller enumerated several passages from the OT yet failed to mention the most obvious background to the prayer, namely Leviticus 25 – 26; however, see his later citation on p. 248.

[38] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” 4; Goldingay, Daniel, 231—232; Baldwin, Daniel, 166, 168.

[39] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” 4.

[40] Ibid.

[41] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2007), 451.

[42] Miller, Daniel, 239.

[43] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall, 452—455. For an even more elaborate division of the text, see Goldingay, Daniel, 235.

[44] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” 3.

[45] Miller, Daniel, 234. 

[46] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” 3.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” 6.

[50] Miller, Daniel, 46.

[51] Baldwin, Daniel, 168;

[52] Randall Price and Thomas Ice, “Seventy Weeks of Daniel,” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, ed. Tim Lahaye and Ed Hindson (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004), 357.

[53] See Miller, Daniel, 255, views 2, 3.

[54] As expounded by Young, Rushdoony. See Miller, Daniel, 254—255, fn. 34. Some, however, hold this view while maintaining that the seventy sevens are literal, chronological periods, yet having a gap(s).  See below for problems with a gap theory.

[55] As expounded by Keil, Leupold, and Baldwin. Ibid., 255—256.

[56] Gurney, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24—27,” 29.

[57] Miller, Daniel, 257.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Baldwin, Daniel, 168.

[60] Goldingay, Daniel, 257.

[61] See fn. 50.

[62] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall, 469.

[63] Baldwin, Daniel, 169—170.  However, see Archer, Daniel, 1389, for a persuasive case for Artaxerxes I decree issued to Ezra (7:12—26), meaning the terminus a quo would have been 457 B.C.

[64] See fn. 58.

[65] David H. Lurie, “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s ‘Sevens’ and the Chronology of the Seventy ‘Sevens,’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33.3 (September, 1990): 305.

[66] Ibid., 306.

[67] See fn. 60. For a more thorough explanation, see Goldingay, Daniel, 232.

[68] David H. Lurie, “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s ‘Sevens’ and the Chronology of the Seventy ‘Sevens,’” 306.

[69] Ibid., 308.

[70] Ibid.

[71] Miller, Daniel, 258.

[72] Goldingay, Daniel, 258.

[73] Baldwin, Daniel, 168.

[74] Ibid. Also see Miller, Daniel, 259. 

[75] Baldwin, Daniel, 168. 

[76] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” 2, op cit.

[77] Goldingay, Daniel, 258.

[78] Ibid.

[79] Archer, Daniel, 1388.

[80] Miller, Daniel, 260, fn. 57.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Barnabas, “Epistle of Barnabas,” 140.

[83] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: New Testament, Abridged Edition, ed. Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 104.

[84] Matt. 20:18—19; 23:37—38; 27:11—25; Mk. 10:33; 15:1; Lk. 18:32; 23:1—2; Jn. 18:28—31; 19:12, 15; Acts 2:22—23; 3:13—15a; 4:26—27; 5:30.

[85] Miller, Daniel, 260.

[86] Archer, Daniel, 1388.

[87] Miller, Daniel, 260.

[88] See fn. 78.

[89] Baldwin, Daniel, 169.

[90] Tertullian, “An Answer to the Jews,” 160.

[91]Baldwin, Daniel, 169.  

[92] Miller, Daniel, 261. 

[93] Ibid., 262; Archer, Daniel, 1388.

[94] As cited by Miller, Daniel, 261.

[95] Ibid.

[96] Goldingay, Daniel, 260.

[97] See, e.g., Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2004), especially 169ff.

[98] Baldwin, Daneil, 169. 

[99] Goldingay, Daniel, 260. 

[100] Lurie, “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s ‘Seven,’” 303; Baldwin, Daniel, 169—170. 

[101] See, e.g., Miller, Daniel, 262; Gurney, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24—27,” 32.

[102] Baldwin, Daniel, 170.

[103] Ibid.

[104] Ibid.

[105] Miller, Daniel, 267—268.

[106] Ibid.; see also Archer, Daniel, 1389.

[107] Archer, Daniel, 1389; for the NT and early Jewish and Christian perspective see Baldwin, Daniel, 175—176. 

[108] Baldwin, Daniel, 171.

[109] Archer, Daniel, 1389

[110] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” 7.

[111] Ibid.

[112] Ibid.

[113] Ibid., 8—9.

[114] Goldingay, Daniel, 232—233.

[115] Ibid.

[116] Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” 9. See also 8 for a comprehensive section on the use of this title for both YHWH and the Messiah is pertinent background passages such as other Todah confessions, the Deuteronomic covenant, and the messianic texts of Isaiah.  

[117] See fn. 67.

[118] Lurie, “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s ‘Sevens,’” 309. 

[119] Ibid.

[120] See Miller, Daniel, 255, fn. 34, e.g.