Purpose
In the traditional historic-messianic interpretation, Daniel 9 was fulfilled in Christ 2000 years ago. In contrast, in Dispensationalism, the final verse of the prophecy describes the seven last years before Christ returns. This article argues against the Dispensational interpretation.
A series of articles on Daniel 9 has been posted on this site. The current article is effectively a summary of those articles. This article would be easier if those other articles are read first.
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 Messiah is Jesus Christ.
The first 483 years ended with His 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 are the final seven years before Christ returns, commencing with the rapture of the church. During the last seven years, the Antichrist – a prince of a revived Roman Empire – will oppress the Jews. During the latter half of the seven years, he will bring upon the world a 3½ year tribulation.
The traditional and Dispensational interpretations of the first 483 years differ only by a few years. The main difference, and the focus of this article, relates to the last seven years.
Artaxerxes’ Second Decree
In the prophecy, the 490 years begin with “a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Dan 9:25). In Dispensationalism, that was Artaxerxes’ second decree of 445/4 BC. As discussed, we object as follows to this proposal:
Did not ‘restore’ Jerusalem.
However, firstly, that decree did not “restore” Jerusalem. The Hebrew word that is translated as “restore” does NOT mean ‘rebuild.’ It merely 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. Furthermore, since Jerusalem is the capital of Jerusalem, it also means that Israel would govern the entire nation from Jerusalem. With ‘restore’ understood in that way, Artaxerxes’ second decree did not “restore” the city because:
His first decree, 13 years earlier, already returned the city to Israel. It 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 construction of the walls of the city.
Did not fit the time of Christ.
In the prophecy, the Messiah would appear after 483 years. 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 “weeks” in Daniel 9 are literal years, argued as follows:
Israel had two types of weeks: Weeks of days and weeks of years. In both, every seventh was a Sabbath. The people had to rest every seventh day, and the land had to rest every seventh year.
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 annual sabbath not observed. Israel was in exile for 70 years. That was the penalty for 70 annual sabbaths not observed. It was, therefore, the penalty for 70×7=490 years of disobedience.
Daniel received the Daniel 9 prophecy while Israel was in exile. With the 70-week prophecy, God renewed and extended His covenant with Israel. Therefore, the 70 weeks are covenant weeks, which are weeks of years, not weeks of days. No year-for-a-day principle is required to convert days into years. It follows that the 70 weeks are equal to 490 LITERAL years, not ‘prophetic years.’
Did not end with the Messiah.
Thirdly, even interpreting the 483 years as ‘prophetic years’ brings us to Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, but that was only a few days before His death. In other words, that was the END of His ministry. In contrast, 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.
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.
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 follows after AD 70. And since the 483 years ended 40 years before AD 70, it would require 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 … from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem | until Messiah the Prince |
| There will be seven weeks | and sixty-two weeks; |
| It will be built again … | 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, one that is decreed … |
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.
Did the Cross suspend the Covenant?
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. This period came to an end when Christ stood to announce, through Stephen, judgment on the Jewish nation.
Will an Antichrist confirm 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.
-
As stated, in Dispensationalism, the first 69 weeks (483 years) ended when Jesus died, but the 70th week will be the last seven years before He returns. The “he” is then interpreted as the “prince” of verse 26, but as an end-time Roman Antichrist, who will make a covenant with “many.” 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 (Michael). But these are supernatural beings. It follows that the prince in verse 26, the prince of Rome, is another supernatural being. Therefore, the “he” in verse 27, who 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, 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 ceases sacrifices, is the Messiah because:
-
-
- In the previous verses, the main character is the Messiah.
- The Prince in verse 26 is a supernatural being.
- The covenant which “he” confirms is still God’s covenant.
- The Poetic Pattern identifies “he” as the Messiah.
- The context of the entire prophecy is Messianic.
-
How did Jesus confirm the Covenant?
The question may be asked: If the “he” is Jesus Christ, the Messiah, how did He confirm a covenant for seven years? The traditional interpretation explains this 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 Dispensationalism does, 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.
Other 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 be resumed.
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 are ceased 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.
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 for various reasons:
The decree that restored Jerusalem was Artaxerxes’s first decree, not His second decree, as in Dispensationalism. (Read)
The 70 weeks are years of literal years, not symbolic years of 360 days each.
The first 483 years ended at Jesus’s baptism, which was the inauguration of His work. The 483 years did not end at His death, 3½ years later.
The 7 last years began exactly when the first 483 ended, at His baptism. To propose an undefined gap defies the numerical precision of the prophecy.
After the Cross, God sent His Spirit with great power, but only to Israel. God did not suspend His covenant with Israel at the Cross, as Dispensationalism claims.
The “he” in verse 27 is Jesus, 2000 years ago, not an end-time reincarnated Roman Antichrist.
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
Other Core Articles