Purpose
In the traditional historic-messianic interpretation, Daniel 9 was fully fulfilled in Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago. In contrast, in Dispensationalism, the final seven years of the 490-year prophecy are the seven last years before Christ returns. This article evaluates the Dispensational interpretation.
A series of articles on Daniel 9 is available on this site (🔗). The current article is largely a summary of those articles, and might be easier to follow if those other articles have already been read.
The Dispensational View
In the Dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9:
-
- The 70 weeks (490 years) began with Artaxerxes’ second decree in 445/4 BC.
- The first 483 years ended with Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, a few days before His death.
- However, a huge gap separates the final seven years from the first 483 years. The last seven years commence with the rapture of the church, seven years before Christ returns. During those last seven years, the Antichrist – a prince of a revived Roman Empire – will oppress the Jews. During the second half of the seven years, this Roman prince will bring upon the world a 3½ year tribulation.
The Traditional and Dispensational interpretations of the first 483 years differ only by a decade or so. The main difference, and the focus of this article, relates to the last seven years.
Arguments against Dispensationalism
Artaxerxes’ Second Decree
In the prophecy, the 490 years begin with “a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25). In Dispensationalism, as stated, that was Artaxerxes’ second decree of 445/4 BC. However, as discussed (🔗), this decree:
(a) Did not ‘restore’ Jerusalem.
The Hebrew word that is translated as “restore” does NOT mean ‘rebuild.’ Rather, it means to return ownership to a previous owner. To return Jerusalem to Israel means that Israel would once again own the city and rule it by their own laws. Artaxerxes’ second decree did not “restore” the city:
His first decree, 13 years earlier, already returned ownership of the city to Israel. That decree explicitly gave Israel the right to rule itself according to God’s law.
The second decree said nothing about Israel ruling itself. It only dealt with the physical reconstruction.
(b) Did not fit the time of Christ.
In the prophecy, the Messiah would appear 483 years after the decree. If we count 483 years from 445/4 BC, we come to about seven years after Jesus died. To make that decree fit the time of Christ, Dispensationalism interprets the 483 years as ‘prophetic years’ of 360 literal days each. This reduces the 483 years by about 7 years. However, the years in Daniel 9 are not ‘prophetic years’ of 360 literal days each. They are covenant years, which means they are literal years. This can be shown as follows:
Two Types of Weeks – In the Daniel-9 prophecy, God promised Israel “70 weeks.” Israel had two types of weeks: Weeks of days and weeks of years. In both types, every seventh was a Sabbath: The people had to rest every seventh day, and the land had to rest every seventh year.
The Covenant used Weeks of Years – God made the weeks of years part of His covenant with Israel. Namely, in His covenant, God decreed that Israel would be in exile one year for every Sabbath Year not observed. Israel was in exile for 70 years. That was the penalty for 70 Sabbath Years not observed. It was, therefore, the penalty for 70×7=490 years of disobedience.
The 70 weeks renewed the Covenant. – Daniel received the prophecy in Daniel 9 close to the end of the 70 years of exile. By promising Israel “seventy weeks,” God renewed and extended His covenant with Israel. Therefore, the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 are covenant weeks, which are weeks of literal years, not ‘prophetic years’ of 360 days.
(c) Was not the first to approve rebuilding.
Dispensationalism objects that Artaxerxes’s first decree did not approve rebuilding Jerusalem. That is a silly objection. Returning the city to Israel, to use and rule as their own, obviously included the authority to rebuild the city.
End of the 483 Years
Jesus’ triumphal entry did not begin His ministry.
In the Dispensational Interpretation, the 483 years ended with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, a few days before His death. In other words, that was the end of His ministry. However, according to Daniel 9:25, the Messiah’s ministry would begin at the end of the first 483 years. Jesus’ ministry already began about three years earlier when He was “anointed” at His baptism.
Chronological Sequence of Events
Daniel 9 first mentions the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (v26) and then the “firm covenant” of the 70th week (v27). If that is the true chronological sequence of events, it would support the Dispensational view, in which the 70th week is after AD 70. And since the 483 years ended about 40 years before AD 70, this reading requires a gap between the first 483 years and the last 7 years.
However, as discussed (🔗), Daniel 9 does not list events chronologically. For example, while verse 25 first mentions the appearance of the Messiah and then the rebuilding of the city, the city was rebuilt centuries before the Messiah appeared. To understand the sequence in which the events are listed, note that the prophecy alternates between two foci: Jerusalem and the Messiah:
| JERUSALEM | MESSIAH |
| 25 Decree to restore/rebuild Jerusalem | until Messiah the Prince |
| There will be seven weeks | and sixty-two weeks; |
| It will be built again … | 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off … |
| and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city … | 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week, he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; |
| … complete destruction |
The Jerusalem events are in chronological sequence, and the Messiah events are in chronological sequence, but the entire prophecy is not. Therefore, it is not valid to assume that verse 27 describes events after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, as mentioned in verse 26.
God’s Covenant continued after the Cross.
In Dispensationalism, God suspended His covenant with Israel at the Cross and postponed the last seven years to just before Christ returns. However, as discussed (🔗), the first chapters of Acts show that God’s covenant with Israel continued for a few years after the Cross. In those first years, God sent His Holy Spirit with great power, but ONLY to Israel (Acts 10:45, 47-11:3, 18, 19). In other words, Israel had one final opportunity to repent.
The end of the covenant came about 3½ years after the Cross when Israel, by killing God’s Spirit-filled disciples, rejected the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 6:8-13). Thereafter, for the first time, God allowed Gentiles to receive the Holy Spirit.
Specifically, Stephen’s death was the turning point. The 490 years of Daniel 9 were a renewal of God’s covenant with Israel. That period came to an end when Christ stood to announce, through Stephen, judgment on the Jewish nation.
The Messiah confirms the covenant.
According to verse 27, “he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.” The ‘one week’ refers to the last seven years. The “he” must refer to somebody mentioned in the previous verse. That verse refers to two people:
-
-
- The Messiah who is “cut off” and
- “The prince that shall come,” whose people will destroy the city, which predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
-
In Dispensationalism, the “he” is the “prince” of verse 26, an end-time Roman Antichrist, who will make a covenant with many during the last seven years before Christ returns. However, as discussed (🔗):
(1) The Main Character in the Messiah.
The “he” in verse 27 cannot be the prince of the people in verse 26 because the prince in verse 26 is not the main character in that verse. In that verse, “the people of the prince” will destroy the city. The “people” is the subject, not the prince.
The main character in verse 26, and in the entire prophecy, is the Messiah. For example:
-
- Verse 24 gives goals for the 490 years that can only be fulfilled by the Messiah.
- Verse 25 explains when the Messiah will appear.
- Verse 26 says the Messiah will be cut off (killed).
Since the Messiah is the main character, the “he” in verse 27, who confirms the covenant, must also be the Messiah (Jesus Christ).
(2) The “prince” is not human.
Daniel also refers to the princes of Medo-Persia, Greece, and Israel. But these are supernatural beings. It follows that the prince in verse 26, the prince of Rome, is also a supernatural being. Therefore, the “he” in verse 27, who makes a covenant with many, meaning He is a human being, cannot refer back to the prince of Rome in verse 26.
(3) The 490 years are God’s covenant.
By determining “seventy weeks” for Israel, God renewed His covenant with Israel for 490 years. Consequently, the covenant that is confirmed during the 70th week (verse 27) is the final seven years of God’s renewed covenant with Israel, not the covenant of an Antichrist.
(4) In the Poetic Pattern, “he” is the Messiah.
As shown above in a table, the prophecy has a poetic pattern that alternates between Jerusalem and the Messiah. In this pattern, the “he,” who confirms the covenant (v27), is the Messiah.
(5) The Prophecy is Messianic.
The purpose of the 490 years, as stated in verse 24, is to solve this world’s sin problem, including to atone for iniquity. In the prophecy, this would be attained through the appearance and killing of the messiah (Dan 9:26), while an end will be made to the sacrificial system (Dan 9:27). In the light of the New Testament, and given this Messianic context, the end made to sacrifices was a prophecy of Christ’s Cross. The animal sacrifices pointed forward to the Lamb of God. When He died, the Jewish sacrificial system ceased, not literally, but in terms of significance.
Since the prophecy is thoroughly Messianic, to interpret the “he” in the last verse as the Antichrist converts this prophecy about Christ into a prophecy about an Antichrist.
Conclusion
The “he” in verse 27, who “shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,” is the Messiah because:
-
-
- In the previous verses, the main character is the Messiah.
- The Prince in verse 26 is a supernatural being, while a human being will confirm the covenant.
- The covenant, which he confirms, is still God’s covenant.
- In the Poetic Pattern, the “he” is the Messiah.
- The context of the entire prophecy is Messianic.
-
Other Dispensational Anomalies
As discussed (🔗), the following are other inconsistencies in the Dispensational interpretation:
The temple is rebuilt twice.
The Daniel 9 prophecy explicitly promises that Jerusalem, including the temple, will be rebuilt. This was fulfilled a few hundred years before Christ. However, in Dispensationalism, the temple will be rebuilt a second time, namely in the end times. If the temple was to be rebuilt after the destruction of Daniel 9:26, would the prophecy not have explicitly stated that, given that it is so clear about the rebuilding in Daniel 9:25?
Sacrifices will resume.
In Dispensationalism, God promised that sacrifices will be resumed once the temple is rebuilt. However, after the Lamb of God had died, there can never be a valid return to the old covenant and its earthly temple worship.
The Antichrist will break his covenant.
According to Daniel 9:27, “he” will confirm the covenant for seven years. However, in Dispensationalism, the Antichrist breaks his covenant with Israel and “puts a stop to sacrifice” in the middle of the last seven years. He does not confirm the covenant for the full seven years.
Sacrifices cease within the 490 years.
According to the prophecy, 490 years have been determined for the city of Daniel’s people (Dan 9:24). Therefore, the temple services will not be disrupted during the 490 years. However, in Dispensationalism, the Antichrist puts a stop to sacrifices in the middle of the last seven years.
The Roman Empire will be revived.
Dispensationalism correctly identifies the 11th horn of Daniel 7 as of Roman origin. However, it then assumes that the “he” in 9:27 is the same as the 11th horn. It then proposes that the Roman Empire will be revived in some form in the end times. But how can the Roman Empire be revived 1500 years after it ceased to exist?
The 490 Years end with Christ’s Return.
Dispensationalism maintains that the last seven years end with Christ’s return, but there is no indication of His return in the prophecy. If the 490 years would end with Christ’s return, would verse 27 not end with a description of His glorious return, as the other prophecies in Daniel do?
A Gap destroys the Unity of the Prophecy.
A gap, which postpones the last seven years to the end of the age, as proposed by Dispensationalism, destroys the simple unity of the prophecy.
There is no indication of a gap in the prophecy. On the contrary, this prophecy is very concerned about specifying time precisely. The last seven years, which are explained in verse 27, are the core of the prophecy. The purpose of the first 69 weeks (483 years) is merely to inform readers WHEN the last week will begin. Hence, to insert an undefined period into the 490 years contradicts the spirit of the prophecy and defeats the purpose of the 69 weeks. It divides the prophecy into two completely separate and unrelated prophecies: one about Christ 2000 years ago, and one about some future Antichrist.
Anticipating Counterquestions
A Dispensationalist, reading this article, might offer some objections and questions. The following are responses in anticipation of such questions:
How did Jesus confirm the Covenant?
The question may be asked: If the “he” is Jesus Christ, how did He confirm a covenant for seven years? This can be explained as follows:
The final seven years began with Jesus’ baptism.
3½ years later, Jesus died, ending sacrifices.
After He died, God sent the Holy Spirit with power, but to Israel alone.
3½ years after the Cross, the last seven years, as well as the full 490 years, ended when Israel killed God’s people, beginning with Stephen.
Jesus confirmed God’s covenant with Israel during these seven years:
Firstly, before His death, He worked personally in Israel.
Secondly, after He died, He worked through the Holy Spirit, whom He sent to Israel only. Never before or after in human history has God appealed so strongly for the heart of any nation.
What is destroyed in Daniel 9:27?
Verse 26 ends with the destruction of Jerusalem. Verse 27 begins with the seven last years and ends with further destruction. What is that last destruction?
As discussed (🔗), in most translations of verse 27, a desolator will be destroyed (e.g., NASB). In that case, in the context of verse 26, where the Roman Empire destroys Jerusalem, this would be the destruction of the Roman Empire. It would then be possible to argue, as in Dispensationalism, that verse 27 describes the destruction of an end-time revived Roman Empire.
However, in certain more literal translations, the desolations are poured out on the desolated one, which, in the context of verse 26, would be Jerusalem.
Since different translations are possible, the context must explain the verse. For various reasons, the destruction in verse 27 is the same as the destruction mentioned in verse 26, namely the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. For example:
-
- In the poetic pattern of the vision, as shown in a table above, the destruction in verse 27 aligns with the destruction of Jerusalem.
- The destruction in verse 27 repeats key words and phrases from the destruction of Jerusalem in verse 26.
- In Matthew 24:15, Jesus possibly referred to the destruction of verse 27, and what Jesus described was the destruction in AD 70 (see Luke 21:20-23).
Since the previous section has shown that the “he” of verse 27 is the Messiah, and since the current section has shown that the destruction in verse 27 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, verse 27 does not follow chronologically after verse 26. Rather, it repeats verse 26. Both verses first describe Christ and then the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, the last week, described in the first part of verse 27, must be prior to AD 70.
In verse 27, a desolator will arrive on the wing of (shortly after) an abomination (some repulsive sin). In the context, the repulsive sin is Israel’s rejection and killing of its Messiah. The desolation is the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans 40 years later.
When will the goals be fulfilled?
Daniel 9:24 sets 6 goals for the 490 years. In the traditional interpretation, these goals were fulfilled through Jesus’ life and death. These goals will only become a visible reality when Christ returns. However, given the way in which the Bible speaks about redemption, reconciliation, and everlasting righteousness, these things are an existing reality.
In contrast, in Dispensationalism, these goals will only be fulfilled at the end of the 490 years, namely when Christ returns. However, as discussed (🔗), the following argues against this Dispensational interpretation:
• Verse 24 gave these goals to Israel and gave Israel 490 years to fulfill them. To propose that these goals will only be fulfilled when Christ returns is to deny Israel its responsibility and to deny the 490 years their purpose.
• Daniel did not pray for a messiah or for the goals in verse 24. He only prayed for Jerusalem and the temple. But the prophecy includes a Messiah because the goals were to be fulfilled through the Messiah.
Implications for Revelation
The Dispensational interpretation of the Book of Revelation is based on its interpretation of Daniel 9. The typical Dispensational interpretation puts everything in the last 19 chapters of Revelation in the final seven years of Daniel 9, which it interprets as the final seven years before Christ returns. Since this article has shown that those seven years do not describe end-time events, but the Messiah events 2000 years ago, the whole Dispensational interpretation of Revelation collapses.
Summary
In summary, this article rejects the Dispensational interpretation of Daniel 9 because:
Decree – The decree that restored Jerusalem was Artaxerxes’s first decree. Dispensationalism uses Artaxerxes’s second decree, but that decree did not “restore” Jerusalem, did not fit the time of Christ, and was not the first decree to authorize the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
End of the 483 Years – According to the prophecy, the Messiah’s ministry must begin at the end of the first 483 years. That cannot be Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The first 483 years ended and Jesus’s ministry began at His baptism.
Sequence of Events – Dispensationalism assumes that verse 27 follows verse 26 in time, but the prophecy does not describe events chronologically.
After the Cross – God did not suspend His covenant with Israel at the Cross, as Dispensationalism claims. The covenant continued after the Cross. Then God sent His Spirit with great power, but only to Israel.
Confirms the Covenant – Since the main character is the Messiah, and the entire prophecy is Messianic, the “he” in verse 27, who confirms the covenant, is Jesus, 2000 years ago. He confirmed God’s covenant with Israel. To argue that this is an end-time reincarnated Roman Antichrist is to convert this Messianic prophecy into a prophecy about the Antichrist.
The Gap – The last 7 years began exactly when the first 483 ended, at His baptism. To propose an undefined gap defies the numerical precision of the prophecy.
The last seven years are the period from Jesus’s baptism to Stephen’s stoning, not the seven last years before Christ returns.
The destruction in verse 27 is a repeat of the destruction in verse 26, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, not the destruction, at Christ’s return, of a revived Roman Antichrist.
Other Articles
🔗 All articles on Daniel 9
🔗 Summary of all articles on Daniel 9
Other Core Articles
🔗 The Mark of the Beast
🔗 All articles on this Site
🔗 Daniel’s Little Horn Identified
🔗 Daniel 9 – Verse-by-Verse
🔗 Daniel 9 – Four Alternative Interpretations
🔗 The Dragon of Revelation 13
🔗 The Beast of Revelation
🔗 The Trinity Doctrine
🔗 The True Origin of the Trinity Doctrine
🔗 The Sabbath was part of the Arian Controversy.
🔗 Christ’s Return
Other Article Series
🔗 The Antichrist in Daniel
🔗 The 490 years of Daniel 9
🔗 Book of Revelation
🔗 Christology – Who is Jesus?
🔗 Why does evil exist?
🔗 Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment
For general theology, I recommend Graham Maxwell.
Hi Andries,
I’ve read some of your articles on the book of Daniel. I must say that you have done a very thorough study of the book and especially of the important Daniel 9:27.
My remarks and questions on this article are as follows:
1. I agree with your view on the start of the 70 weeks. I don’t believe in ‘prophetic years’ of 360 days for even with a lunar calendar, there were means to correct the year toward the solar calendar of ca 365 days per year. I therefore also think that the 69th week ended with the baptism of our Lord, either in the fall of 26AD or in the fall of 27AD. Your site does a good job in pointing out the start of the 70 weeks, which is at least as important as the ending of it.
I have one question on the starting point. Was it at the beginning of 458/7 BC of more toward the end or is there no way to no know this?
2. I don’t agree with the idea that the message of Daniel 9:25-27 would not be chronological. The angel first informs Daniel about the number of weeks that would pass till the coming of Messiah and then adds some specifics on the circumstances under which the city would be rebuilt, that would apply during the first 7 of those 62 weeks. But also the 62 weeks that followed were troublous times (Antioch Epiphanes). The angel specifically mentions the rebuilding and the existance of the city, for that was the main subject of Daniel’s supplication. To me, it does not imply an achronological order. And if it does, it only concerns the city, not Messiah.
3. I agree with you that during the first years after the cross there was a specific gospel message to Israel and that there is not a sharp division between the age of the people of Israel and the age of the church, that started to get shape after the stoning of Stephan. There indeed is an overlap in the beginning of the church era, when the church only consisted of Jews and when the Jews had the opportunity to repent as a nation and to witness the coming of the kingdom of God under the direct rule of Messiah, which now is still future.
4. I strongly and fundamentally disagree with the notion of a continuation of the old covenant after the cross. The gospel message to Israel after the cross was based on the cross and on the new covenant that Jesus had established in the presence of his disciples in the evening before the cross, at the last supper, and for which he laid the foundation with his work on the cross. It was on the basis of the blood of the new covenant that the gospel was preached on the day of Pentecost, not on the basis of the blood of goats and calves (Heb.9, 10). That is a reason why the disciples had to postpone preaching until the testimony of the Spirit about the glorified Christ in the heavens, bringing his blood into the real tabernacle, above. (Heb.9:12) The sending of the Spirit was in no way the ‘strengthening’ of the covenant that had already been in place for many centuries. It was the power that went along with the new covenant, as foretold in Jeremiah 31 and retold in Hebrews 8. Indeed if Israel had accepted the greatness that was offered to them, they would have enjoyed the complete fulfillment of the new covenant. They didn’t. Therefore the full splendor of the new covenant for ‘judah and Israel’ I still future, like the 70th week of Daniel is.
There is a difference between the exclusive preaching to the Jews and the covenant on which it is based. Even though the message was exclusive for the Jews, it was on the basis of the new covenant. As Peter said: ‘11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.’ (Acts 15:11) – we being the Jews, they being the Gentiles.
Therefore, at the midst of the seven years that started with Jesus’ baptism, there was a complete change in covenant. This is one of many reasons why those 7 years were in no way a fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week, during which a covenant would be ‘confirmed’. The covenant that is meant in four other places in Daniel, consisting of a temple-service with sacrifices, was set aside at the cross, not 3.5 years later. That was clearly demonstrated by God through the tearing of the curtain in the temple from top to bottom (Mt.27). This was an outward sign of the new and living way into God’s house (Heb.10:20) to which we enter through the blood of Jesus (Heb.10:19). That is the blood of the new covenant. If the ‘cessation of sacrifice and oblation is the cross, then the old covenant came to an end at that very moment, which means that ‘the covenant’ was not confirmed for one week. The interpretations of the first two actions of ‘he’ as ‘Christ in his redemptive work’ are mutually exclusive.
5. I agree that all six goals, stated in verse 24 will be fulfilled by Messiah. But this will all have to wait till a future end of the 70th week, when the true Israel will be brought into total submission to Christ, through the fire of ‘Jacob’s trouble’ (Jer.30:7, Zech.13:8,9, Mal.3:3)
6. I disagree with the notion that Daniel 9:24-27 is about Messiah, though Messiah is the great Savriour in the background. The message is about the people of Daniel and about the holy city, as we read in verse 24. Therefore the ‘mysterious he’ of verse 27, that for a short time will have enormous sway over the people, could very well refer to ‘the prince to come’ of verse 26.
7. I agree with the statement that the ‘prince to come’ is not the acting subject and not the ‘prince to come’.
8. I disagree with the notion that the ‘prince to come’ not being the subject in verse 26, therefore would exlude him from being the one referred to in Daniel 9:27. On the contrary. For the reader to understand Daniel 9:26 (and that is the goal of the message, ‘to give skill and understanding’ (Dan.9:22), the ‘prince to come’ could have been left out. Gabriel could have called them a ‘mighty people’, without naming a mysterious future prince. That would only make his message unnecessarily complicated. So, why does Gabriel mention this ‘prince to come’. Well, because this ‘prince to come’ would play an enormous important role in the events concerning the people of Daniel, the descendants of Israel. That role is being laid out in Daniel 9:27 – a role that will be played during the 70th and last week of the prophecy.
9. I disagree with the interpretation of Messiah being the ‘he’ of Daniel 9:27. That Messiah has already been mentioned twice is no argument why Messiah would be the one acting in verse 27. On the contrary, even though Messiah has just been mentioned in verse 25, the message of Gabriel could in verse 26 have sufficed with a reference ‘he’ to the preceding verse. Messiah is the only one mentioned before. However, Gabriel in verse 26 again uses the title ‘Messiah’ instead of a simple ‘he’. So if Gabriel wanted to give a clear skill and understanding of his message, especially on the one acting in the last, most important week, he would certainly have used the term ‘Messiah’ again in verse 27 if Messiah would have been the actor, for a simple ‘he’ would – according to the rules of referencing – have led many to the interpretation of ‘the prince to come’ as the one acting, for he is the last one that was mentioned.
10. I do not agree with the interpretation of ‘the prince to come’ as a non-human being. The Hebrew word that is used for ‘prince’ in Daniel 9:26 is in the book of Daniel only applied to human beings, not to angelic princes.
Prince in 9:26: ‘Nagid’ – https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5057/kjv/wlc/27-1/#lexResults
Prince in Daniel 10: ‘Sar’ – https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h8269/kjv/wlc/27-1/#lexResults
11. I disagree on the notion of a 490-year ‘renewed covenant’. I don’t see any indication for a 490-year renewal of God’s covenant with his people. The notion is based on a specific interpretation of verse 27 and therefore cannot be used in support of this interpretation. The 483 years that followed was under the reign of the same old covenant (Math.5:17-19). The ‘renewal of covenant’ had to wait till the cross (Math.11:13). The enormous change in covenant at the cross makes it impossible to interpret the first action in Daniel 9:27 as one executed by Messiah.
12. I disagree with any notion of poetry in the text of Daniel 9:24-27. It is a very plain, factual account of things that would happen during a total of 490 years. Poetry is not in line with the purpose of the text: ‘to give skill and understanding’ (verse 22)
13. I disagree with the characterization of the text as ‘Messianic’. Though Messiah is mentioned twice, He is nowhere seen as ‘actor’ or ‘subject’. Only the interpretation of verse 27 as Messianic could give the vision a Messianic character but that woud be circular reasoning. For the rest of the vision: In verse 25, his appearance is given as the endpoint of a time-period. In verse 26 he is the passive, direct object, the one ‘cut off’. That this ‘cut off’ implies Him being the Lamb of God, the foundation of all reconciliation and of all righteousness, which would be visible in ‘the confirming of the covenant’ and the ‘cessation of the offerings’ is New Testamen truth but it cannot be read into the text of Daniel 9:27. One then reads more into it than what it actually says. To overlay the text of Daniel 9:27 with the complete teachings of the book of Hebrews goes way beyond the scope of the book of Daniel. The book of Daniel is political in nature, about empires, kings and armies an not about God’s ways of salvation.
14. I agree that the temple won’t be rebuilt in order for Daniel 9:27 to be fulfilled. There won’t be a temple in the 70th week of Daniel. I believe that the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation’ will be fulfilled in the Al Aqsa and that it will be followed with blasphemous acts agains the most High, as was the case under Antiochus Epiphanes. This will provoke Iran into overstretching by invading Israel so that it can be taken out by the US-empire, as stated in Daniel 11:39-45.
15. I believe that there will again be a rebuilt temple in the millennial kingdom of Christ, as prophesied in Ezekiel 40-48 and in Revelation 11:1, which will however be preceded by the ‘great tribulation’, the last half of Daniel’s 70th week. According to the descriptions in Ezekiel 40-48 there will again be sacrifices in the future temple. These will be in retrospect of the work of Christ.
16. I agree with you that there won’t be an endtime covenant with the true descendants of Israel. There however exists a covenant between those calling themselves ‘Jews’ and the forces of empire which since WWII has gone over from the UK to the US, the ‘Balfour declaration’. Those calling themselves Jews, but that are lying (Rev.3:10), are those that control the world’s monetary system. I believe this covenant is mentioned in Isaiah 28:19-24, where it is called a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, which will end in total destruction, like Daniel 9:27 does. This covenant has for almost a century become an unbearable yoke to the true descendants of old Israel, the Palestinians. The last 7 years would become so heavy that it would endanger their presence in the holy land. I now believe October 7, 2023 to have been the start of the 70th week of Daniel. Within a few months I will know whether I have to reassess my view.
17. I agree with you that there won’t be a ‘breaking’ of any covenant at the midst of the 70th and last week of Daniel. That would be contradictory to the first action of ‘mysterious he’, which is the confirming of a covenant for the many. That first action assumes that the covenant will not be broken but that its consequences would weigh heavy upon the ‘many’.
18. I don’t agree with the argument that the determination of 490 years with the six specific goals would mean that the temple services would not be disrupted. The acts of Antioch Epiphnes of Daniel 11:31, that happened around 168 BC, meant 3 years of the halting of the temple services. To my understanding, something alike will again happen in the 70th and last week of Daniel, be it the interruption of the ceremonial system of Islam in the Al Aqsa.The Al Aqsa has for years been under fierce attack of far right religious zionists and the situation had become unsustainable since October 7, 2023.
19. You ask the question: ‘But how can the Roman Empire be revived 1500 years after it ceased to exist?’. This is indeed rather miraculous, yet the scriptures clearly tell us this would happen. In Daniel 7, the last phase of the fourth beast, the Roman empire, is presented as the 11th horn. That the Endtime beast-system is not just the horn of Daniel 7 is seen in Daniel 7:11:’I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.’ The complete beast, the whole empire will be thrown in the fire, not just the 11th horn. Revelation 17 shows how that is possible. Revelation 17:8 states:’and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is’: ‘See my website: https://www.endtimesoon.com/usa/revelation-17
20. I don’t agree with your assertion that ‘other prophecies of Daniel’ end with the return of Jesus. The only two chapters ending in the return of Jesus are Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. Daniel 7 shows the complete layout of Daniel’s prophecy.From Daniel 8 onward we get extra information on certain parts of this prophetic panorama. Daniel 8: the empires 2 and 3 and the role of their Endtime descendants. Daniel 9: the timeline from empire 2 till important events under empire 4 and the role of the Endtime heir of empire 4. Daniel 10-12, the tale of empires 2 and 3 and their confrontation with empire 4, in the Endtime resulting in ‘the great tribulation’ for the people of Daniel (and much of the rest of the world).
21. I don’t agree with the notion that there are no indications of a gap in this prophecy and that the only purpose of the first 69 weeks would be to inform the reader when the 70th week would start. The indications of a gap are:
(1) The way in which the 70 weeks are communicated: ‘seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city’. The Hebrew word for ‘determined’ is ‘hatak’. This word only appears once in the bible: in this text. It means: to divide, to cut. This could already show the division that exists between the first 69 weeks and the last, 70th week. There also exists a division between the first 7 weeks and the following 62 weeks, a division in character, probably the time for rebuilding and the time of existence in a rebuilt state.
(2) The message states that ‘after 69 weeks’ Messiah woul be cut off. If the purpose was just to indicate the time that would expire until week 70, then the message would have statet: ‘in the 70th week Messiah shall be cut off’, or even ‘at the midst of the 70th week, Messiah shall be cut off.
(3) The complete verse 26 is filled with events that would unfold in the gap between the first 69 weeks and week 70. Verse 26 is ‘the gap’. Messiah would be cut off, the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed (70 AD) and this would be followed with even more war and destruction (132-136 AD)
22. I agree with you tthat the object of destruction both in verse 26 and in verse 27 is the holy city of Daniel, Jerusalem and its surroundings and not the Roman army or empire. The prophecy is not about the empires, like Daniel 7, but about the people and city of Daniel.
23. I agree with you that there is quite some resemblance between the endings of verses 26 and verse 27.
24. I disagree with you that the indentical endings of verses 26 and 27 would mean that they are about on and the same event, the 70AD – destruction of Jerusalem. As I said in anather reaction: history often rhymes.
(1) I believe that the end of verse 26 is not about 70 AD but about 136 AD, the second Jewish war (the Bar Kokhba Revolt).
(2) I believe that the end of verse 27 is about the end of the still future last half of Daniel’s 70th week.
25. I disagree with you that verse 27 is a repetition of verse 26. There is no indication for any repetition as is the case in the description of the vision in Daniel 7 (repetition because of questions asked to a heavenly being) and in the description of the vision in Daniel 8 (repetition because of explanation by the angel Gabriel).
26. I disagree with you that Jesus in Mathew 24:15 possibly referred to Daniel 9:27. Jesus spoke of ‘the abomination of desolation’ while Daniel 9:27 speaks of a wing or overspreading of abominiations upon which a destroyer will come. It is more probable that Jesus referred to Daniel 12:11.
27. I strongly disagree with you that Jesus prophesied about Jerusalem’s destruction of 70 AD. There is no way to fit the ‘flee to the mountains when you see the abomination of desolation … stand in the holy place’ into the events of 70 AD. An interpretation, that claims historical fulfillment of prophecy, should align with history and this one clearly doesn’t. The prophecy of Jesus about 70 AD is found in Luke 21:20-22. What Jesus foretold in Mathew 24:15 has never happened yet. Mathew 24:15 and the second half of Daniel’s 70th week are stilll future and so is Daniel 12:11, which describes the same event from a different perspective.
28. I strongly and utterly disagree with the atrocious thought that the rejection of Jesus by the Jews was ‘the abomination that caused desolation’. It indeed caused desolation but in no way can it ever be called an abomination.
(1) Daniel 9:27 speaks of ‘abominations’, plural. So what were the other abominations?
(2) Daniel 9:27 speaks of ‘a wing’ of abominations, So what was ‘the wing’?
(3) The cross of Christ was the one sacrifice to which all OT sacrifices pointed foreward, which glorified God as He had never been glorified. Even the rejection by his people was an integral part of that sacrifice, as we read in Hebrews 13:12. The rejection by Israel was a sin. It was a reproach. It was horrible injustice. But never does the Bible call it ‘an abomination’, a term that often refers to idolatry or to detestable offerings.
29. I strongly disagree with the impression that the six goals of Daniel 9:24 ‘are an existing reality’. They are not. These goals all pertain to the people and the city of Daniel. On October 7, 2026 we are exactly in a three year long lifestreamed genocide of God’s people by an evil apartheid state that has taken possession of the land through the most brutal forms of terrorism one can think of and that claims to be ‘Israel’. Therefore none of the six goals have been reached. With his work on the cross, Jesus laid the foundation for reaching them. But they will only become an ‘existing reality’ at his return, which will be at the end of the 70th week, at which Jesus will unleash the most destructive judgment imaginable upon idolatrous Jerusalem. The ‘spiritual Sodom and Egypt’ will already have been completely destroyed by the king of the North (Is.28:14-19, Dan.11:40-45, Zech.13:8, Rev.11:2 – the first ‘desolation’ in Dan.9:27) but it will have been rebuilt with the structures necessary for ‘the image of the beast’ (central data centers for the digital copy of the empire). The judgment from above will be the second cause of desolation of Daniel 9:27.
30. After studying many of your pages, in which you do everything possible to argue for Daniel 9:27 being the 70th week of Daniel, I have to conclude that I am more convinced than ever that Daniel’s 70th week has been part of the future for about 2500 years and that we might be experiencing the first 3 years of it. Therefore our continuous prayer should be:
‘Amen, come Lord Jesus’.
Hi Peter
Thanks for the substantial comment. I tried to send you an email. I would like to respond to your comment in detail, but I just don’t have time right now. I think we can develop it into a new article.
Regards