70 x 7 YEARS! ???
Almost all literature written concerning the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy views
the prophecy as a period of 70 groups of 7 years, ie 490 years.
Question - Have the scholars seen what they wanted to see?
Looking at the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy, what is it highlighting?
- A span of 70 time periods allowed for repentance.
- A span of 69 time periods (included within the
70 time periods) for the development of a city
identified as Jerusalem.
- An 'anointed' cut-off prior to the impending
destruction of the city.
(Initial portion of verse 26).
- An anointed ruler (prince) sent to destroy the city.
(Verse 25 and latter portions of verses 26 & 27).
- The destruction of the city for non-repentance.
Thereby ceasing its sacrifice and offering.
What is the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy really about?
Well it is NOT really about Jesus Christ!
It is actually about: 'The building and destruction of a city'!
*** A city to be destroyed upon the expiry of the 70 weeks! ***
Will the city be destroyed in the future?
Some say 'YES'. Some say 'NO'.
A) Those that say 'YES', try to stretch the prophecy to the future.
Most commentators add a 2,000 year time gap between the 69th
and 70th periods.
(Or, between the end of 69.5 weeks and the start of the final
Is such a 2,000 year time extension implied in the prophecy? NO!
The 2,000 year extension theory is merely an attempt to
strengthen a weak theory!
B) Those that say 'NO', commonly terminate the 70 weeks with the
stoning of Stephen and the going forth of the gospel to non-Jews.
Those with this view try to teach that a 3.5 year period
existed between the death of Jesus Christ and the going
forth of the gospel to non-Jews.
(What is missing? The biblical proof. No separate chronological
proof is given to support the reality of such a 3.5 year period.)
This perspective tends to ignore the end-time relevance of the
And in keeping with this outlook - that Jerusalem is not judged
in the end-time - some try to place all other 'fall of Jerusalem'
prophetic references into the past also.
Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, did this fulfil the prophecy?
Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, but scholars do not end the 490
years at 70 AD. Why? 490 years is not enough time to reach to 70 AD!
Did prior destructions fulfil this Daniel chapter nine prophecy?
Scripture implies a prior destruction. In the time of Jesus Christ,
when the Pharisees mentioned the temple, they said it was 46 years old.
Refer John 2:20.
Although Jewish theologians may prefer such a solution, it does not
appeal to Christian commentators.
What about the starting point of the 70 time periods?
Few scholars opt for when Cyrus issued the decree to release the Jews.
The time when the Jews returned to Judah and began to rebuild Jerusalem.
(Refer Ezra 1:2-4.) At this time 42,360 (Ezra 2:64) of the congregation
left Babylon. Although by far the most obvious starting point, few
scholars choose it. Why? Because they accept commonly used archaeological
dating and as a result they can not bridge the gap between Cyrus and the
arrival of Christ.
Are scholars playing the game of picking a biblical event which will agree
with commonly 'accepted' dating?
What about the division of the 69 time periods into two portions -
a span of 7 periods followed by 62 periods.
Surely this must be important!
Relatively little exhaustive discussion is encountered detailing what
happened upon the expiry of the 7 weeks time period. Views may make
references to various events, eg completion of the building of Jerusalem.
However, no biblical proof is ever presented to prove the accuracy of
What about the appearance of Jesus Christ?
NB: Many translations incorrectly render the Hebrew word for 'anointed'
In verse 26 there is 'an anointed one' cut off (presumably from the city)
and in this verse there is also mentioned a 'ruler', who destroys the
city. Two different functions, two different entities!
Verse 26, 'Anointed shall be cut off, but not for Himself'. Sounds like
Jesus Christ, but is it?
- For those who favour a future destruction of a rebuilt Jerusalem
this 'person' could be referring to an end time witness (one
announcing the final warning). Not Jesus Christ!
- For those who consider the 70 weeks ended in the early New Testament
era, who make Jesus Christ this anointed, these find themselves out
of step with the timing of the fall of the literal city of Jerusalem.
What about support and duplication of message?
If the prophetic periods, 1) 490 years (70 weeks),
2) 483 years (69 weeks), and
3) 434 years (62 weeks)
were indeed correct, why are these periods not referenced elsewhere?
(Should they not be referenced in other prophecies.)
Has God concealed another explanation?