The Seventy Weeks: How One Prophecy Became Three Interpretations
An exploration of Daniel 9:24–27
Hello brothers and sisters,
Daniel 9:24-27, the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, has shaped Jewish-Christian debate, sparked denominational divisions, and continues to ignite passionate disagreement among scholars today.
Why? Because the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint tell different versions of this story. And depending on which text you read— and how you interpret it —you’ll arrive at radically different conclusions about when the Messiah came, whether He’s already completed His work, and what’s still to come.
I love the book of Daniel. It’s so rich with history, prophecy, and theological meaning that continues to echo through the centuries. We’re about to see why this single passage has captivated (and divided) readers for over two millennia.
Buckle up. This is going to be a ride.
This exposition is quite long, so I suggest getting yourself a nice mug of something hot before you settle in.
The Text Itself
Before we can discuss what Daniel 9:24-27 means, we need to establish what it actually says. And this is our first point of fascination. You see, the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint don’t quite agree.
The Prayer and the Promise
Daniel is in Babylon. It’s the first year of Darius the Mede’s reign (around 539 B.C.), and Daniel has been reading Jeremiah’s prophecy about the seventy years of exile (Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10). He realizes the time is almost up. So he prays— one of the most beautiful, penitential prayers in Scripture —confessing Israel’s sins and pleading for God’s mercy on Jerusalem.
While he’s still praying (before he’s finished, really), the angel Gabriel arrives with an answer. But it’s not the answer Daniel expected.
Instead of “yes, the seventy years are ending and you’re going home,” Gabriel says: “Actually, Daniel, there are seventy weeks decreed for your people and your holy city.”
Seventy weeks. Not seventy years.
This is where it begins.
One textual note before we go any further. It has been well established and documented by scholars that, although it is unfamiliar to most modern understandings, biblically, a week didn’t always refer to seven days. There is a Hebrew expression that refers to a week of months, but what matter for our purposes is the week of years.
In the Hebrew, it becomes very clear that what is in sight here are seventy weeks of years. So if we assume seventy contiguous weeks, that gives us a timeframe of 490 years.
But remember that in the Bible years are a measurement of 360 days, so what we’re really talking about is 176,400 days, which by our modern calendar is 482 years, 11 months, and 16 days.
The Masoretic Text: Daniel 9:24-27
Here’s the passage as it appears in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (the basis for most English translations):
Daniel 9:24 (MT)
“Seventy weeks (שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים, shavu’im shiv’im) are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, 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.”
Daniel 9:25 (MT)
“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment (דָּבָר, davar - word/decree) to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince (מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד, mashiach nagid) shall be seven weeks (שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעָה, shavu’im shiv’ah), and threescore and two weeks (שָׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, shavu’im shishshim ush’nayim): the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”
Daniel 9:26 (MT)
“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ, yikkaret mashiach), but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”
Daniel 9:27 (MT)
“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week (וַחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ, va-chatzi ha-shavu’a - and the half of the week) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”
The Septuagint Text: Daniel 9:24-27 (Old Greek)
As I alluded to earlier, the Greek Septuagint— translated by Jewish scholars more than a century before Christ —reads differently in several key places. There are actually two Greek versions of Daniel: the “Old Greek” (OG) and “Theodotion.” We’ll focus primarily on the Old Greek, which is earlier and more divergent from the MT.
Daniel 9:24 (LXX - Old Greek)
“Seventy weeks (ἑβδομήκοντα ἑβδομάδες, hebdomēkonta hebdomades) were rendered concise (συνετμήθησαν, synetmēthēsan - literally ‘shortened’ or ‘cut short’) upon your people and upon the holy city, to finish off sin, and to set a seal upon sins, and to wipe out the lawless deeds, and to atone for iniquities, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to set a seal upon vision and prophecy, and to anoint a holy of holies.”
Daniel 9:25 (LXX - Old Greek)
“And you shall know and understand: from the going forth of the word (λόγος, logos) to respond and to build Jerusalem until an anointed one, a leader (χριστὸν ἡγούμενον, christon hēgoumenon) - seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. And it will return and be built, street and wall, in the distress of the times.”
Daniel 9:26 (LXX - Old Greek)
“And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be removed (ἐξολεθρευθήσεται χρῖσμα, exolethreuthēsetai chrisma - literally ‘the anointing will be utterly destroyed’), and there is no judgment in him. And the city and the sanctuary, a people of a leader who is coming will destroy. And they will be cut off in a flood, and until the end of war, which will be cut short in desolations.”
Daniel 9:27 (LXX - Old Greek)
“And the covenant will be made strong for many, and it will recover again, and it will be built up in breadth and length. And at the end of the appointed times, and after seven periods of seventy appointed times and sixty-two years during the set time of the consummation of war, then the desolation will be taken away when the covenant prevails for many weeks. And at the completion of the period of seven (ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει τῆς ἑβδομάδος, en tō hēmisei tēs hebdomados - in half of the week), offering and drink-offering will be taken away, and upon the holy place there will be an abomination of desolation until the end. And a determined final destruction will be rendered upon the one making desolate.”
Key Textual Differences to Note
Before we dive into interpretation, let’s identify the major textual variants between MT and LXX:
1. “Determined” vs. “Rendered Concise” (v. 24)
MT: שָׁבֻעִים (shavu’im) - “determined” or “decreed”
LXX: συνετμήθησαν (synetmēthēsan) - “shortened” or “cut short”
The Septuagint’s choice of “shortened” suggests the seventy weeks are less time than expected, perhaps implying urgency or mercy.
2. Punctuation and Division of the Weeks (v. 25)
MT: Places a disjunctive accent (atnach) after “seven weeks,” separating the 7 from the 62
LXX: Does not separate them; reads as one continuous period of 69 weeks
This is huge. The MT’s punctuation suggests two distinct periods: 7 weeks (49 years) followed by 62 weeks (434 years). The LXX reads it as one period: 69 weeks (483 years) total. This is a significant change in how you calculate the timeline.
3. “Cut Off” vs. “The Anointing Will Be Destroyed” (v. 26)
MT: יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ (yikkaret mashiach) - “Messiah will be cut off”
LXX: ἐξολεθρευθήσεται χρῖσμα (exolethreuthēsetai chrisma) - “the anointing will be utterly destroyed”
The Hebrew clearly refers to a person (Messiah). The Greek could refer to the anointing itself (eg: the priesthood, the temple cult, or the sacred office). Some scholars argue the LXX reading points to the abolition of the entire sacrificial system, not just the death of an individual.
4. “In the Midst of the Week” vs. “In Half of the Week” (v. 27)
MT: וַחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ (va-chatzi ha-shavu’a) - “in the midst/middle of the week”
LXX: ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει τῆς ἑβδομάδος (en tō hēmisei tēs hebdomados) - “in half of the week”
Both say essentially the same thing, but some interpreters use the MT’s “midst” to argue for flexibility (could mean anytime during the week), while the LXX’s “half” is more precise.
5. Additional “Seventy” in LXX (v. 27)
The Old Greek version includes an additional reference to “seven periods of seventy appointed times” in verse 27, which does not appear in the MT. This has led some scholars to suggest the LXX translator added seventy years on top of the seventy weeks, pushing the fulfillment further into the future.
Why These Differences Matter
You might be thinking: “Okay, there are some textual variants. So what?”
Here’s why it matters: depending on which text you use and how you interpret it, you will arrive at completely different conclusions about:
When does the seventy weeks begin? (Which decree? Cyrus in 538 B.C.? Artaxerxes in 457 B.C.? Or 444 B.C.?)
When does it end? (Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C.? Jesus’ crucifixion in 30-33 A.D.? The destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.? Or a future tribulation?)
Who is the “Messiah” who is cut off? (Jesus? A high priest like Onias III? A symbolic figure?)
Who is the “he” in verse 27 who confirms a covenant? (Is it the Messiah? Or is it the “prince who is to come,” typically interpreted to be a future antichrist?)
Is there a “gap” between the 69th and 70th week? (The MT’s punctuation suggests maybe. The LXX’s reading suggests no.)
When does the Messiah die? (In the middle of the 70th week? Or at the end of the 69th week?)
These aren’t minor questions. These are the questions that determine your entire eschatological framework.
And the text itself doesn’t give us easy answers.
Historical Context.
What Was Daniel Even Talking About?
Before we get into competing interpretations, let’s establish what Daniel himself likely understood when Gabriel gave him this prophecy. Context matters.
Daniel’s Situation
It’s 539 B.C. Daniel is an old man, very likely in his eighties. He’s been in Babylon since he was a teenager, carried away in Nebuchadnezzar’s first deportation around 605 B.C. He’s lived through the entirety (or sixty-seven years of it, at least—once we account for the Bible measuring time in 360-day years) of the seventy-year exile that Jeremiah prophesied.
And now, reading Jeremiah 25 and 29, Daniel realizes: the time is almost up.
Jeremiah had said:
“This whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity.” (Jeremiah 25:11-12)
Daniel knows Babylon has fallen. Cyrus the Persian now rules. The seventy years are ending. So Daniel prays— fervently, desperately —for God to restore Jerusalem.
Gabriel’s Answer
Gabriel shows up and says, essentially: “Daniel, you’re thinking too small.”
The seventy years are indeed ending. But God’s plan for Israel involves seventy weeks of years (490 years total). This isn’t just about the exile ending. This is about God finishing what He started with Israel: dealing with sin, bringing in everlasting righteousness, and anointing the Most Holy.
This is bigger than Babylon. This is cosmic.
The Six Goals of the Seventy Weeks (v. 24)
Gabriel outlines six things that will be accomplished in these seventy weeks:
To finish the transgression (לְכַלֵּא הַפֶּשַׁע, le-khalle ha-pesha) - Bring rebellion to an end
To make an end of sins (וּלְהָתֵם חַטָּאת, ul-hatem chattat) - Seal up or put an end to sin offerings (or sins themselves)
To make reconciliation for iniquity (וּלְכַפֵּר עָוֺן, ul-khapper avon) - Atone for guilt
To bring in everlasting righteousness (וּלְהָבִיא צֶדֶק עֹלָמִים, ul-havi tzedek olamim) - Establish permanent righteousness
To seal up vision and prophet (וְלַחְתֹּם חָזוֹן וְנָבִיא, ve-lakhtom chazon ve-navi) - Complete or confirm prophetic revelation
To anoint the Most Holy (וְלִמְשֹׁחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים, ve-limshoch kodesh kodashim) - Anoint the Holy of Holies (or the Most Holy One)
These six goals are enormous. They’re not just about rebuilding a city. They’re about ending sin itself, establishing eternal righteousness, and inaugurating a new order.
This is why Christians have always read this passage as messianic. These goals can’t be accomplished by Cyrus, Ezra, Nehemiah, or any human leader. They require divine intervention.
The Decree to Restore Jerusalem
Gabriel says the seventy weeks begin “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” (v. 25).
But which decree?
There are several candidates:
Cyrus’ Decree (538 B.C.) - Ezra 1:1-4. Cyrus allows the Jews to return and rebuild the temple.
However, since this decree doesn’t involve rebuilding the city we have to engage in mental gymnastics to make this date work.
Darius’ Decree (520 B.C.) - Ezra 6:1-12. Darius confirms Cyrus’ decree and allows temple rebuilding to continue.
Again, this is not a decree to rebuild the city, which is specifically mentioned in the prophecy.
Artaxerxes’ Decree to Ezra (457 B.C.) - Ezra 7:11-26. Artaxerxes gives Ezra authority to appoint magistrates and judges and to teach the law. Some see this as the beginning of spiritual restoration.
Still, this is not rebuilding the city.
Artaxerxes’ Decree to Nehemiah (444 B.C.) - Nehemiah 2:1-8. Artaxerxes specifically grants Nehemiah permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, the city itself, not just the temple.
This one. This is the point where we can see a real confirmation of the prophecy “when the commandment/word goes out to restore/respond and build Jerusalem. Regardless of whether we’re looking at Masoretic or Septuagint, this, in my opinion, is the only valid starting point.
However, I recognize that there are different views on this and your choice of starting point dramatically affects your calculation of the seventy weeks. We’ll explore this more in the next section.
The Historical Window: What Happened Between Daniel and Jesus?
Let’s fast-forward through the major events between Daniel’s prophecy (539 B.C.) and the time of Christ:
538 B.C.: Cyrus allows Jews to return; Zerubbabel leads first wave
520-516 B.C.: Temple rebuilt under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest
457 B.C.: Ezra returns with Artaxerxes’ decree
444 B.C.: Nehemiah rebuilds city walls
332 B.C.: Alexander the Great conquers Persia; Judea comes under Greek rule
323 B.C.: Alexander dies; his empire divides among his generals (the Diadochi)
198 B.C.: Seleucids (Syria) take control of Judea from Ptolemies (Egypt)
175-164 B.C.: Antiochus IV Epiphanes rules; in 167 B.C., he desecrates the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar and erecting a statue of Zeus (the “abomination of desolation”)
167-160 B.C.: Maccabean Revolt; Jews reclaim and rededicate the temple (Hanukkah commemorates this)
63 B.C.: Rome conquers Judea under Pompey
37-4 B.C.: Herod the Great reigns as client king under Rome
4 B.C.: Jesus born (most scholars place His birth between 6-4 B.C.)
26-30/33 A.D.: Jesus’ public ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection
70 A.D.: Romans destroy Jerusalem and the temple under Titus
This timeline is critical. Depending on where you place the fulfillment of Daniel 9, you’ll emphasize different events.
Three Major Candidates for Fulfillment
As we look at this history, three major interpretive streams emerge:
1. The Antiochene View (168-167 B.C.)
Daniel 9 was fulfilled during the Maccabean crisis under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The “anointed one cut off” refers to the high priest Onias III, murdered in 171 B.C. The “abomination of desolation” is Antiochus’ desecration of the temple in 167 B.C.
2. The Messianic/Christological View (33 A.D.)
Daniel 9 points to Jesus Christ. The “anointed one cut off” is Jesus crucified. The seventy weeks culminate in His death and resurrection, which atone for sin and bring in everlasting righteousness. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is the final desolation mentioned.
3. The Futurist View (Still Future)
Daniel 9 has been partially fulfilled, but the 70th week is still future. There is a “gap” of 2,000+ years between the 69th and 70th weeks. The final week will occur during a seven-year period when a future antichrist will confirm/enforce (note that the prophecy does not say he will create) a covenant with Israel, break it after 3.5 years, setting off the period Jesus called the Great Tribulation, and set up an abomination in a rebuilt temple.
Each of these views has strong arguments. Each has weaknesses. And each depends heavily on which textual tradition (MT or LXX) you privilege.
The Antiochene Interpretation:
Was Daniel Talking About the Maccabees?
Let’s start with the earliest major interpretation of Daniel 9: the view that it refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean crisis of the second century B.C.
This is the view held by most modern critical scholars. From a certain point of view, this is suggested by the structure and context of the book of Daniel itself.
Why This View Makes Sense
1. The Structure of Daniel
The book of Daniel is organized around a clear pattern:
Daniel 1-6: Court tales during the Babylonian and Persian periods
Daniel 7-8: Visions of four beasts and a little horn who desecrates the sanctuary
Daniel 9: The seventy weeks prophecy
Daniel 10-12: A detailed vision of conflicts between “the king of the north” (Seleucids) and “the king of the south” (Ptolemies), culminating in a tyrant who exalts himself above every god
The trajectory is clear: Daniel’s visions move from Babylon (chs. 1-6) through Persia (chs. 8-9) to Greece (chs. 10-12). The climax of the book is the Antiochene crisis.
2. The Little Horn in Daniel 7-8
In Daniel 7, four beasts represent four kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and... something else (either Rome or a divided Greek kingdom). A “little horn” arises who speaks blasphemies, makes war on the saints, and tries to change times and laws (Daniel 7:8, 24-25).
In Daniel 8, the vision is more explicit. A “little horn” comes out of one of the four divisions of Alexander’s empire (the Seleucid kingdom). This horn:
Grows exceedingly great toward the south, east, and “the beautiful land” (Judea)
Magnifies itself against the Prince of the host (God)
Takes away the daily sacrifice
Casts down the sanctuary
Prospers in everything he does
Then an angelic voice asks: “How long until the sanctuary is restored?” The answer: “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored” (Daniel 8:14).
This is unmistakably Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He:
Came from the Seleucid dynasty (one of the four divisions of Alexander’s empire)
Invaded Egypt (”the south”) and Judea (”the beautiful land”)
Outlawed Jewish worship, including daily sacrifices
Desecrated the temple in 167 B.C. by erecting an altar to Zeus and sacrificing a pig
Was defeated by the Maccabean revolt, and the temple was rededicated in 164 B.C. (approximately 2,300 days or 3 years later)
If Daniel 7-8 are about Antiochus, it makes sense that Daniel 9 is also about Antiochus.
3. The Anointed One Cut Off
Daniel 9:26 says, “After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off.”
In 171 B.C., the legitimate high priest Onias III was deposed and later murdered. Onias was the anointed high priest. He was anointed with sacred oil according to the Mosaic law. His removal and death marked the beginning of the temple’s corruption.
After Onias, illegitimate high priests were installed by bribery and political maneuvering. Jason bought the office, then Menelaus outbid him. The priesthood became a political tool rather than a sacred office.
This fits the language: “an anointed one shall be cut off, but not for himself” (i.e., not for his own sin, but unjustly).
4. The Abomination of Desolation
Daniel 9:27 says, “And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate.”
In December 167 B.C., Antiochus IV set up a pagan altar in the Jerusalem temple, sacrificed a pig, and erected an image; either of Zeus or of himself. This act is explicitly called “the abomination of desolation” in 1 Maccabees 1:54.
Daniel 11:31 uses the same phrase: “Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.”
This is the same event. The Antiochene interpretation argues that Daniel 9 is simply another angle on the same crisis.
5. The Timeline Fits (Sort Of)
If you count seventy “weeks of years” (490 years) from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, you get:
Starting Point: Jeremiah’s prophecy or the decree of Cyrus (538 B.C.)
Endpoint: 490 years later = 48 B.C.
That overshoots Antiochus (167 B.C.) by about 120 years. But...
If you understand “seventy weeks” symbolically (ie: you are prone to allegorizing Scripture)— as the Septuagint’s “shortened” (συνετμήθησαν) can be seen to suggest —then the number isn’t meant to be exact. It’s a theological statement: God has decreed a specific period for Israel’s restoration, and it will culminate in the temple crisis under Antiochus.
I personally find this a bit of a stretch that forces you to be quite loose with your hermeneutics. Not to mention that it utterly fails to take into account the fact that the Bible deals in 360-day years.
Alternatively, if you use the 2,300 days from Daniel 8:14 (about 6.3 years) and work backward from the temple’s rededication in 164 B.C., you land right around the beginning of Antiochus’ persecution in 170-167 B.C.
Strengths of the Antiochene View
It fits the overall narrative arc of Daniel. The book builds toward the Antiochene crisis, and Daniel 9 fits naturally into that progression.
It explains the specific details. The “anointed one cut off” = Onias III. The “abomination of desolation” = Antiochus’ desecration. The cessation of sacrifice = his ban on Jewish worship.
It makes sense of the 2,300 days in Daniel 8. The Antiochene interpretation sees Daniel 8 and 9 as complementary prophecies about the same events.
It was the view of early Jewish interpreters. 1 Maccabees and early Jewish writings understood Daniel as referring to their own time.
It doesn’t require a “gap” between the 69th and 70th weeks. The prophecy flows continuously from start to finish.
Weaknesses of the Antiochene View
The timeline doesn’t quite work. No matter how you calculate it, 490 years from any plausible decree doesn’t land precisely on 167 B.C. You have to either fudge the numbers or treat them symbolically/allegorically.
The six goals of verse 24 weren’t accomplished. Antiochus didn’t “finish transgression,” “make an end of sins,” or “bring in everlasting righteousness.” The Maccabees won a temporary victory, but sin continued, the temple was destroyed again in 70 A.D., and Israel remained under foreign domination.
You could arguably make a case for one of them (anointing the Holy of Holies could be construed as referring to the rededication of the Temple), but the other five? No. You can’t even allegorize that. They failed to be accomplished.
The text says “Messiah the Prince,” not “a high priest.” The Hebrew mashiach nagid seems to refer to a royal, messianic figure, not just a priest.
Why would Gabriel call this a “shortened” period if it’s actually longer than Jeremiah’s seventy years? The LXX’s use of συνετμήθησαν (”cut short”) suggests less time, not more.
Jesus and the apostles didn’t think it was fulfilled by Antiochus. Jesus quotes Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” as still future (Matthew 24:15). The New Testament consistently reads Daniel 9 as messianic, not Maccabean.
This, to my mind, calls into question the whole story that Jews in the first and second centuries B.C. thought Daniel 9 was a reference to the Maccabean Revolt. You would think that if that was how they understood it then someone would have questioned Jesus about it when he stated clearly that it was a future event.
So Was Daniel Writing About Antiochus?
Maybe. Partially.
Many scholars adopt a “dual fulfillment” approach: Daniel 9 referred initially to the Maccabean crisis, but it also pointed typologically forward to Jesus and beyond. Antiochus was a “type” of the ultimate antichrist figure; the temple desecration of 167 B.C. was a preview of the temple destruction in 70 A.D. (and perhaps a future desecration).
This is how Jesus read it. He saw Antiochus as a pattern— a foreshadowing —but not the ultimate fulfillment.
Which brings us to the next interpretation.
The Messianic Interpretation:
Was Daniel Talking About Jesus?
This is the traditional Christian reading of Daniel 9. From the earliest church fathers to the Reformers to modern evangelicals, the overwhelming majority of Christians have believed that Daniel 9:24-27 prophesies the coming, death, and work of Jesus Christ.
And it’s not hard to see why. When you read the six goals in verse 24— to finish transgression, end sin, atone for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness —it sounds like the Gospel.
The Christian Case for Messiah Jesus
1. The Six Goals Point to Jesus (v. 24)
Look again at what the seventy weeks are meant to accomplish:
To finish the transgression - Jesus dealt with humanity’s rebellion against God
To make an end of sins - Jesus’ sacrifice ended the need for ongoing sin offerings
To make reconciliation for iniquity - Jesus atoned for our guilt
To bring in everlasting righteousness - Jesus inaugurated the new covenant and the age of righteousness
To seal up vision and prophet - Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies; He is the culmination of revelation
Minor aside here, this isn’t actually true. Although Jesus did fulfill hundreds of messianic prophecies during His incarnate life, there are still more than 1,000 prophecies of the messiah coming in Power and to Rule that have not been fulfilled.
To anoint the Most Holy - Jesus, the true Temple, was anointed by the Holy Spirit; or the heavenly sanctuary was inaugurated by His ascension
These goals weren’t accomplished by Onias III, Antiochus, or the Maccabees. They were accomplished by Jesus.
2. The Timeline Points to Jesus (vv. 25-26)
Here’s where the math gets interesting. Gabriel says:
“From the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.”
That’s 69 weeks of years: 69 × 7 = 483 years.
Now, if you start from Artaxerxes’ decree to Nehemiah in 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1-8), and you count forward 483 prophetic years (using 360-day years, as many ancient calendars did), you arrive at... March 30, 33 A.D.—the date of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, just days before His crucifixion.
Let me show you the calculation:
Start Date: Nisan 1, 444 B.C. (March 4, 444 B.C.)
483 prophetic years = 483 × 360 days = 173,880 days
End Date: 173,880 days later = Nisan 10, 33 A.D. (March 30, 33 A.D.)
March 30, 33 A.D. was Palm Sunday, the day Jesus entered Jerusalem as King, fulfilling Zechariah 9:9:
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey.”
This is the day Jesus publicly presented Himself as Messiah the Prince. And then, just days later, He was “cut off” when he was crucified.
3. “Messiah Shall Be Cut Off” (v. 26)
Daniel 9:26 says:
“And after the sixty-two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself.”
The Hebrew word כָּרַת (karat) means “to cut off” or “to be killed.” It’s used throughout the Old Testament to describe violent death or execution.
“But not for himself,” meaning He wasn’t executed for His own crimes. He died for others. This is the heart of substitutionary atonement: Christ died “not for Himself” but for us.
The passage continues: “And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
In 70 A.D., the Romans (led by Titus, son of Emperor Vespasian) destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. The “people” are the Romans; the “prince who is to come” could refer to Titus, or to a future antichrist figure, or both (dual fulfillment again).
4. “In the Midst of the Week” (v. 27)
This is where interpretations diverge even within the messianic camp. Verse 27 says:
“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”
Who is “he”?
Two main Christian views:
View A: “He” is Jesus
Jesus confirmed the new covenant. In the middle of the 70th week (3.5 years into His ministry), He died on the cross, causing the sacrificial system to cease; not physically (the temple continued until 70 A.D.), but theologically. His death rendered animal sacrifices obsolete.
Hebrews 10:8-10 says:
“When He said, ‘Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me’ (a quote from Psalm 40:6 in the LXX)... then He said, ‘Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.’ He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
The tearing of the temple veil at Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:51) symbolized the end of the old covenant sacrificial system.
View B: “He” is the Antichrist
This is the futurist/dispensationalist view. They argue that “he” in verse 27 refers back to “the prince who is to come” in verse 26, which is a future antichrist figure who will confirm or enforce a seven-year covenant with Israel, break it after 3.5 years, and set up an “abomination of desolation” in a rebuilt temple during the Great Tribulation.
We’ll explore this view in the next section.
5. The Septuagint Reading Supports Jesus
Remember, the LXX reads verse 26 as “the anointing will be utterly destroyed” (ἐξολεθρευθήσεται χρῖσμα). This could refer not just to Jesus’ death, but to the abolition of the entire anointed priestly order, which would mean the end of the Levitical system.
That’s exactly what happened. When Jesus died and rose, the old covenant priesthood became obsolete. Hebrews 7-10 argues this extensively.
Moreover, the LXX’s reading of verse 24— “seventy weeks were rendered concise/shortened” —suggests that God accelerated His plan. He didn’t leave Israel in subjugation for the full 490 years. He sent the Messiah earlier, shortening the time of waiting in His mercy.
6. Jesus Himself Points to This Prophecy
In Matthew 24:15, Jesus says:
“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”
Jesus quotes Daniel 9:27 and applies it to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. He saw the Roman siege and desecration as the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy.
Strengths of the Messianic View
It fits the six goals perfectly. Only Jesus accomplished what verse 24 describes.
But again, this is not entirely accurate.
The timeline works. 483 years from Artaxerxes’ decree lands on Jesus’ triumphal entry and crucifixion with stunning precision.
It explains the New Testament’s use of Daniel. Jesus, Matthew, and the author of Hebrews all read Daniel 9 as messianic.
It accounts for the destruction of Jerusalem. The Romans destroying the city in 70 A.D. fits verse 26.
It makes theological sense. The seventy weeks as a redemptive program culminating in Christ’s atonement is profoundly satisfying.
Weaknesses of the Messianic View
What about the 70th week? If Jesus’ ministry was 3-3.5 years, that’s only half the final week. What happened to the other half? Some say it extended to Paul’s conversion or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but that’s debated.
However, if we look at the text and the dates, what we actually see is that Jesus made the triumphal entry at the end of the 69th week, which means we have a whole additional week just gets kind of ignored.
Did Jesus “confirm a covenant for one week”? His ministry was 3.5 years, not 7. Stretching it to include the apostolic period (up to Stephen’s martyrdom around 34 A.D.) is possible, but requires some exegetical flexibility (read: mental gymnastics).
Perhaps it’s a flaw in my interpretation, but I don’t see any evidence of Jesus having ever confirmed any covenant.
The MT’s punctuation separates the 7 and the 62. If you follow the Masoretic accents, there’s a break after “seven weeks,” suggesting two periods. How does that fit the Christian timeline? (The LXX solves this by reading them together.)
The best interpretation of this that I’ve seen is that the first seven weeks (49 years) was how long it took after the initial decree to rebuild the Jerusalem before the city was fully rebuilt.
Not all the goals were fully accomplished. Everlasting righteousness hasn’t fully come yet. Vision and prophecy haven’t been sealed up (we’re still waiting for Christ’s return). The “already but not yet” tension of the kingdom requires reading verse 24 as inaugurated but not consummated.
What about the Jewish objections? Jewish scholars argue that Christians are reading their theology back into the text, and that Daniel was clearly talking about the Second Temple period, not a future Messiah.
So Was Daniel Talking About Jesus?
Yes, if you believe the New Testament’s interpretive framework. The apostles read the Old Testament through the lens of Christ’s death and resurrection, and they saw Daniel 9 as a roadmap to Calvary.
But there’s still a third view to consider: the one that says Daniel 9 is still waiting for its final fulfillment.
The Futurist Interpretation:
Is the 70th Week Still to Come?
Now we arrive at the most controversial interpretation, and the one that has dominated popular evangelical eschatology for the past century and a half: the idea that there is a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy, and that the final “week” is still future.
This is the view taught by dispensationalism, popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible, Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth, and the Left Behind series. It’s the view behind “the seven-year end times” theology that many Christians believe.
But is it biblical?
The Futurist Argument
The futurist interpretation goes like this:
1. The 69 Weeks Are Fulfilled; The 70th Week Is Future
Daniel 9:25-26 describes 69 weeks (7 + 62 = 69) from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until “Messiah the Prince” is “cut off.” Futurists agree with the messianic view: this refers to Jesus’ death around 30-33 A.D.
But then, they argue, there is a gap— an indeterminate period of time —between the 69th and 70th weeks. The 70th week won’t begin until the rapture of the church, after which a seven-year period will unfold.
2. “He” in Verse 27 Is the Antichrist, Not Jesus
Futurists argue that the “he” who “confirms a covenant with many for one week” in verse 27 refers back to “the prince who is to come” in verse 26. Not to the Messiah, but to a future antichrist.
This antichrist will:
Confirm/enforce a seven-year treaty with Israel
Allow the Jews to rebuild the temple and restart sacrifices
Break the treaty after 3.5 years (”in the midst of the week”)
Set up an “abomination of desolation” in the temple (a statue of himself or a pagan image)
Persecute believers during the final 3.5 years (the “Great Tribulation”)
Be destroyed at Christ’s second coming
3. The “Church Age” Is a Parenthesis
Dispensationalists believe God’s plan has two distinct programs: one for Israel and one for the church. When Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah, God’s prophetic “clock” stopped. The church age— from Pentecost to the rapture —is a parenthetical period not foreseen by the Old Testament prophets.
(this view is supported by Paul. In Ephesians 3:2-11 he talks about the “mystery” that was revealed to him and the other apostles. Although many take this to mean that gentiles will be saved with Jews, that’s not entirely correct. Gentiles being saved had been discussed by Amos and Isaiah before. No, this was about the church. The church was the mystery that was kept hidden from the Old Testament prophets and was revealed to Paul.)
Once the church is raptured, God’s focus returns to Israel, and the 70th week begins. This is why many dispensationalists see no overlap between the church and the 70th week: the church must be removed before the tribulation starts.
(This is only part of the story there, but I’ll save that discussion for another day.)
4. The Abomination of Desolation Is Still Future
Jesus said, “When you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place... then let those who are in Judea flee” (Matthew 24:15-16).
Futurists argue that while the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was a partial fulfillment, Jesus was pointing to a future event. They expect:
A rebuilt third temple in Jerusalem
A future antichrist who desecrates that temple
A literal fulfillment during the tribulation
5. The 70th Week Aligns With Revelation
Revelation 11-13 describes a 42-month period (3.5 years) during which:
Two witnesses prophesy in Jerusalem (Revelation 11:3)
The beast (antichrist) makes war on the saints (Revelation 13:5-7)
The abomination is set up (Revelation 13:14-15)
Futurists see this as the second half of Daniel’s 70th week.
Where This View Came From: A Brief History
Early Church Perspectives
The early church fathers— Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine —generally read Daniel 9 as referring to events fulfilled in Jesus’ first coming and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., though their interpretations varied in details.
However, the question of when and how believers would escape end-times tribulation has been discussed since the early church:
The Didache (late 1st century) emphasizes Christ’s imminent return and the need for readiness
The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140-150 A.D.) discusses believers escaping coming tribulation, though the nature of this escape is debated
Pseudo-Ephraem sermon (possibly 4th-7th century) contains what appears to be a clear statement about the church being gathered to the Lord before tribulation, though the dating and authorship are uncertain
These early sources show that ideas about believers being protected from or removed before end-times tribulation existed in various forms, though they did not articulate the systematic dispensational framework that would emerge later.
The Jesuit Counter-Reformation (16th-17th Centuries)
During the Protestant Reformation, Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin identified the Roman Catholic papacy as the “antichrist” and the “little horn” of Daniel 7. This was based on historical-critical readings of Daniel and Revelation.
To counter this, two Jesuit scholars proposed alternative interpretations:
Francisco Ribera (1590s) - Argued that most of Daniel and Revelation refer to a future antichrist, not the papacy. This helped systematize futurism as an interpretive framework.
Luis de Alcázar (1614) - Argued that Daniel and Revelation were fulfilled in the early church period (the preterist view).
Both were attempts to deflect Protestant accusations away from Rome.
John Nelson Darby and Dispensationalism (1830s-1840s)
While various ideas about escaping tribulation existed earlier, John Nelson Darby, a British preacher, systematized and popularized dispensational pre-tribulation rapture theology in the 1830s-1840s. Building on Ribera’s futurist framework, Darby developed a comprehensive system known as dispensationalism, which taught:
A sharp distinction between Israel and the church
A secret pre-tribulation rapture (as a distinct event from the Second Coming)
A seven-year tribulation period based on the “gap theory” interpretation of Daniel’s 70th week
A literal millennial reign of Christ
The combination of these elements into a systematic theology was Darby’s distinctive contribution. While earlier Christians discussed escaping tribulation and Christ’s imminent return, the specific framework of a secret rapture occurring before a seven-year tribulation period, with a strict Israel/church distinction, was developed and systematized by Darby.
Darby’s views were popularized in America by:
C.I. Scofield (Scofield Reference Bible, 1909) - Embedded dispensational notes in the margins of the King James Bible
Lewis Sperry Chafer (founder of Dallas Theological Seminary)
Hal Lindsey (The Late Great Planet Earth, 1970)
Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (Left Behind series, 1990s-2000s)
Today, millions of Christians view the “gap theory” and pre-tribulation rapture as orthodox Christian teaching. As a systematic doctrine, it must be acknowledged, this interpretation is a relatively modern development. It only became widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The question of whether earlier, less systematic expressions of similar ideas constitute “the same doctrine” or represent different theological concepts remains a matter of scholarly debate.
Strengths of the Futurist View
It takes “the prince who is to come” seriously. Verse 26 mentions a coming prince whose people destroy Jerusalem. Futurists identify this as the antichrist who will come out of what was historically the Roman Empire.
It explains why Jesus said the abomination was still future. If it was fulfilled in 70 A.D., why does Revelation describe it again?
It fits with other apocalyptic texts. Revelation, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Matthew 24 all describe a future tribulation and antichrist. Futurists see Daniel 9:27 as the key to this timeline.
It allows for a literal fulfillment of all six goals in verse 24. If the 70th week is still future, then “everlasting righteousness” and the sealing of vision and prophecy will be fully realized at Christ’s return.
It makes sense of Israel’s ongoing role in prophecy. Dispensationalists believe God’s promises to Israel are still unfulfilled and will be realized during the millennium.
Weaknesses of the Futurist View
1. The Text Doesn’t Mention a Gap
Daniel 9 presents the seventy weeks as a continuous, uninterrupted period: 7 + 62 + 1 = 70. There is no hint of a 2,000+ year pause between week 69 and week 70.
If Gabriel meant to say, “Sixty-nine weeks will pass, then a long indeterminate period, then one final week,” why didn’t he say that? Instead, he says, “Seventy weeks are determined for your people.”
Here I have to point, once again, the Ephesians 3 where Paul tells us explicitly that the Church was hidden from the Old Testament prophets.
2. “He” in Verse 27 Most Naturally Refers to the Messiah
The nearest antecedent to “he” in verse 27 is “Messiah” in verse 26, not “the prince who is to come.” Grammatically, it makes more sense for Jesus to be the one who “confirms a covenant for one week.”
But again, this ignores the fact that Jesus did not confirm any covenant during his ministry.
Moreover, verse 27 says “he shall confirm the covenant.” The definite article “the” suggests an already-known covenant. The usual interpretation here is that this refers to the new covenant Jesus established at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20).
However, again, there was no one-week (7-year) covenant during His life. and the definite article “the” could just as easily be referring to a covenant that will exist at the time that it happens. There’s not anything here to specify that it must be a covenant that exists before the Messiah is cut off.
3. The New Testament Doesn’t Explicitly Support a Gap
Nowhere in the New Testament do the apostles say, “The 70th week of Daniel is still future.” Instead:
Jesus applies it to 70 A.D. (Matthew 24:15)
This is the usual interpretation, but I don’t agree with it. Nowhere in that verse does he give any detail that explicitly ties it to 70 A.D.
The author of Hebrews speaks of the new covenant as already inaugurated (Hebrews 8-10)
Paul describes Christ’s work as finished (Colossians 2:14-15)
I personally don’t see any way that the Futurist view invalidates the completeness of Christ’s work.
The idea of a gap requires paying close attention to nuance in the New Testament and accepting details only given through inference.
4. The “Church Age Parenthesis” Contradicts Paul
Paul explicitly says the Gentiles are grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17-24), not separate from it. He calls the church “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) and says there is “neither Jew nor Greek” in Christ (Galatians 3:28).
The dispensational idea that God has two separate programs—one for Israel, one for the church—doesn’t fit Paul’s theology of the “one new man” in Christ (Ephesians 2:15).
5. It Requires a Rebuilt Temple
For the futurist view to work, there must be a third temple in Jerusalem where the antichrist can set up his abomination. But:
Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and not rebuilt in His generation (Matthew 24:2)
The New Testament presents Jesus as the true temple (John 2:19-21)
Hebrews says the old covenant and its temple are “obsolete” and “ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13)
Expecting a rebuilt temple goes against the New Testament’s teaching that the temple system has been fulfilled and surpassed in Christ.
This is all sound theology, except for one problem. While Christians see the temple and the sacrifices as “obsolete,” that is not true of the Jewish Orthodoxy. From what I’ve seen, I think the Jewish community would be ecstatic to see their Temple being rebuilt.
6. The LXX Doesn’t Support It
The Septuagint’s reading— “the anointing will be utterly destroyed” —suggests the end of the temple system, not its future restoration. The LXX doesn’t envision a gap or a future antichrist; it sees the prophecy as moving toward completion in the first century.
7. It’s a Modern Understanding
No church father, no medieval theologian, no Reformer taught the gap theory. It didn’t exist until the 19th century. The common interpretation is that while that doesn’t automatically make it wrong, it should give us pause. Why would God hide the “correct” interpretation of Daniel 9 for 1,800 years?
But actually, Daniel himself answered this. First, he was told to “seal up” the words of his prophecy until the time of the end. And, he said that in the latter days “the” knowledge would increase, which is interpreted by many as knowledge of God’s Word.
So Is the 70th Week Still Future?
If you take the text seriously and are able to infer things from the text that aren’t explicit, then yes, you’ll probably view it that way. But if you’re prone to allegorizing or taking the text symbolically or if you’ll only take literally the things that are explicit, then you probably won’t.
The futurist view has a certain appeal; it offers a clear end-times roadmap and emphasizes God’s faithfulness to Israel. But it requires inserting a gap into the text that many interpreters insist isn’t there, and many claim that it violates the New Testament’s consistent teaching that Jesus fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy.
It should come as no surprise that I don’t entirely agree with that view. I’ll be the first to admit that there are valid points to be made, but I don’t see anything in the New Testament that explicitly states there was any understanding that Jesus 100% fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy.
Before going into what I think, why don’t you hit that comment button and tell me where you fall in all this. Do you believe one of these three interpretations or something else that I haven’t covered? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Which View Is Correct?
(And Why the LXX Matters)
So which interpretation is the right one?
I have no doubt it’s pretty obvious at this point which way I lean, but in spite of that I’m going to give you an answer you’re probably not going to like:
All three interpretations contain truth, yet none of them is perfectly satisfying.
Allow me to explain.
The Problem With Dogmatism
Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most contested passages in the Bible because it’s genuinely difficult. The text is cryptic. The numbers could be symbolic. The Hebrew is ambiguous in places. The Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Text in significant ways that fail to shed much light on the issues.
Any interpretation that claims to be the only correct reading is overconfident and maybe even a little misleading.
That said, some interpretations are more faithful to the text and the overall biblical narrative than others. Let me offer some observations.
What We Can Say With Confidence
1. The Six Goals in Verse 24 Point Ultimately to Jesus
Antiochus didn’t accomplish any of these. Neither did the Maccabees.
That doesn’t mean Antiochus wasn’t a partial, typological fulfillment.
But no matter which starting date you choose, no matter how you divide the weeks, the six goals Gabriel lists can only be fully accomplished by one person.
Only Jesus Christ did any of it, though I would contend that it is, as yet, incomplete:
To finish the transgression - Jesus dealt with rebellion, and will finish this work at His second coming.
To truly finish the transgression suggests it has ended. This hasn’t happened yet, clearly, but it will.
To make an end of sins - Jesus’ sacrifice ended the need for continual atonement.
But paying the price for sin is not the same as making an end to it. The text says “for sin to be ended” (LXX) or “to put an end to sin” (NRSV). While you can certainly interpret that to mean he paid the price, I would argue that the text says what is to happen is to literally end sinfulness.To make reconciliation for iniquity - Jesus atoned for our guilt/sin.
“To blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities” (LXX) or “to atone for iniquity” (NRSV) has certainly been completed, as Christ’s atonement absolutely paid for our iniquities. But the presence of this statement in the text says to me that the allegorical reading of ending sin is a fallacy.To bring in everlasting righteousness - Jesus inaugurated the new covenant, and will truly bring righteousness to the world when He comes again.
However, both the MT and the LXX agree that the phrase is “bring in everlasting righteousness,” and again I have to say, not so you’d notice. Suggesting that inaugurating the New Covenant is equivalent to bringing in everlasting righteousness seems to me the height of allegorizing and wishful thinking. Look at the last 2 centuries; the sinfulness and unrighteousness of man is just getting worse and worse.To seal up vision and prophet - Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy, yes, but not all prophecy.
Whether “seal both prophet and vision” is meant to suggest a total fulfillment of prophecy or an end to prophets and visions, either way this clearly has not happened in any real sense. There are still more than a thousand Old Testament prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled, and believers with the gift of prophecy are still very real in the church today. So claiming this to have been fulfilled by the first coming of Jesus requires a huge degree or allegorizing or completely ignoring some very real facts.To anoint the Most Holy - We, the believers, have become both the temple and the priests, and were anointed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But when he returns Jesus will be our true High Priest and Temple in the flesh.
“To anoint a most holy one/place” or “to anoint the most holy” has absolutely been fulfilled, as we learn in 1 Corinthians 6:19, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and 1 John 2:20, 27, which state that, “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you” and “it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us.”
Basically, we are the holy ones who have been anointed. However, I view this as a matter of dual fulfillment, as Christ is our High Priest and our Temple, and will be our “anointed Most Holy” in a real, physical sense when he returns.
2. The “Anointed One Cut Off” Is Most Naturally Jesus
Yes, Onias III was unjustly killed. But he wasn’t “the Messiah the Prince.” He didn’t anoint the Most Holy or atone for iniquity.
Jesus, however, perfectly fits the description: the Anointed One who was cut off, not for Himself, but for us.
3. The Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Fits Verse 26
“The people (troops in the NRSV) of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
This happened. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Whether “the prince who is to come” refers to Titus, a future antichrist, or both (dual fulfillment) is debatable (though the context of Revelation and the unfulfilled portions of the seventy week prophecy cause me to lean toward dual fulfillment). But the thing that we know for certain is the historical event of 70 A.D. clearly fits.
4. The Gap Theory Is Not Exegetically Necessary
You can read Daniel 9 as a fulfilled prophecy without inserting a 2,000-year gap. The seventy weeks flow continuously from the decree to Jesus’ death and the destruction of Jerusalem.
The futurist view requires:
Adding a gap that is not specifically mentioned in the text, though I would contend that it is strongly implied.
The grammar in at least the Masoretic implies it, but also the dates not lining up (the destruction of the Temple and the city was at least 37 years after the crucifixion, yet Daniel says the Mashiach Nagid (מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד) would be karat (כָּרַת) after the 69th week and also in that period after the 69th week would be the Abomination of Desolation. Both of those details being said to happen after the 69th week but being, at least grammatically and structurally, before the 70th week) and the events spoken of in the 70th week having not been completed yet are strong evidence for the gap.
Interpreting the “he” in verse 27 to mean the antichrist, not the Messiah.
But I don’t see a problem with that. It looks quite natural even in the Brenton translation of the LXX
(“26And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint the city to desolations. 27And one week shall establish the covenant with many…”).
All the more so in the NRSV
(“26After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week…”).
And still more so in the NETS translation of the Septuagint
(“26And after seven and seventy and sixty-two weeks, an anointing will be removed and will not be. And a king of nations will demolish the city and the sanctuary along with the anointed one, and his consummation will come with wrath even until the time of consummation. He will be attacked through war. 27And the covenant will prevail for many, and it will return again and be rebuilt broad and long…”)Expecting a rebuilt temple that the New Testament says is obsolete.
Again, this is not a problem. Although Christianity sees the Temple as obsolete, this is not the case for the modern Jew. However, if you are prone to allegory, there is another interpretation of these temple passages. If we follow John and Paul’s symbolism in 1 Corinthians 6:19, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and 1 John 2:20, 27, then we can view the bodies of believers as the Temple. Following that line of thought, the “Abomination of Desolation” could be seen as any of the following possibilities:
Idolatry or Apostasy within the Church: The “abomination” would not be a physical idol in a rebuilt temple, but rather a profound spiritual corruption or false teaching that effectively desecrates the “temple” of the human heart or the collective body of believers. This could involve worshipping something or someone in place of the true God (e.g., power, worldly ideologies, or an antichrist figure).
The Antichrist Figure: The “one who makes desolate” (Daniel 9:27, ESV) could be the ultimate antichrist figure, who spiritually “stands in the holy place” by successfully deceiving many believers or by establishing a system of worship that is a direct affront to God within the Christian community itself. Paul speaks of the “man of lawlessness” who will “sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4), which, in this interpretation, would refer to this coming leader as being a fixture in the hearts (in place of God) of the body of Christ (the collective church).
False Teaching and the Absence of True Worship: The “stopping of the daily sacrifice” (Daniel 9:27) might be interpreted as the cessation of genuine spiritual worship and devotion among believers, replaced by dead rituals or false doctrines (the “abominations”) that lead to spiritual barrenness and separation from God’s presence (”desolation”).
5. The LXX Reading Enriches (And Complicates) Our Understanding
The Septuagint’s differences from the Masoretic Text are significant:
“Rendered concise/shortened” (v. 24) - This interpretation requires reading into the text that God accelerated His plan; He didn’t make Israel wait the full 490 years. Although this fits a messianic reading (Jesus came sooner than expected, in mercy), it comes dangerously close to suggesting God told a mistruth.
No separation between 7 and 62 weeks (v. 25) - The LXX reads them as one continuous period (69 weeks). Some scholars interpret this as fitting the Christian calculation better than the MT’s punctuation, yet it ignores the separation in the MT that perfectly matches the time it took the Israelites to rebuild Jerusalem.
“The anointing will be utterly destroyed” (v. 26) - This points not just to Jesus’ death, but to the abolition of the entire Levitical system. The old covenant priesthood ended when Christ died and rose.
Additional “seventy” in verse 27 (Old Greek) - Some LXX manuscripts add an extra seventy, pushing the fulfillment further into the future. This might explain why the prophecy has both a near fulfillment (Antiochus? Jesus?) and an ongoing eschatological dimension.
The LXX doesn’t give us a simpler reading. If anything, it makes things more complex. But it does show that ancient Jewish interpreters— translating at least a century before Christ —understood this passage as fluid, symbolic, and multivalent. They didn’t expect a one-dimensional reading.
If you’ve found this exploration helpful, insightful, or even challenging, please share it with someone who loves Scripture as much as you do and needs to hear it.
My Take: A Both/And Reading
Here’s what I believe:
Daniel 9 was written in the context of the Babylonian exile and pointed initially toward the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. It spoke into Daniel’s historical moment.
It found a partial, typological fulfillment in the Maccabean crisis under Antiochus Epiphanes. The 2,300 days, the abomination of desolation, the cutting off of an anointed one (Onias III), all of this fits the 167-164 B.C. timeframe. But it wasn’t the ultimate fulfillment. The timeline not fitting and the details not fully supporting this reading are evidences that there is more to it.
It found its majority fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The timeline from Artaxerxes’ decree to Jesus’ triumphal entry fits perfectly. Jesus’ death atoned for sin, ended the sacrificial system, and inaugurated believers of The Way as the human Temple. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. completed the destruction of the city and the sanctuary prophesied in verse 26.
It has an ongoing eschatological dimension. Prophecy in the Hebrew sense is almost always multivalent.
While we are used to the Greek model of prophecy (prediction and fulfillment), the Hebrew model is different. The Hebrew model of prophecy is about patterns that recapitulate over time. Events inevitably come again that revisit established, recurrent patterns, often with a conditional aspect (eg: obey the the admonition to repent to avert disaster).
This model has the side-effect of building dual fulfillment into almost every prophecy.
Just as Isaiah’s “virgin shall conceive” had a near fulfillment (a young woman in Isaiah’s day) and an ultimate fulfillment (Mary), Daniel’s seventy weeks had a near fulfillment (Antiochus/Maccabees), a primary fulfillment (Jesus), and will have a final, consummate fulfillment when Christ returns.
As controversial as it may be, I can’t help but read a gap into verse 26. It seems blatantly obvious to me that the language suggests at least two major events (separated by at least 37 years) occur in the space between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy.
I do believe that the first 69 weeks were absolutely fulfilled in and by Jesus, with his death and resurrection coupled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. fulfilling all that was explicitly mentioned about the space between weeks 69 and 70.
I also happen to agree with Chuck Missler’s interpretation that the entire Church Age takes place within that gap (the fact that the church was hidden from the Old Testament prophets says something, in my opinion), although I do disagree with a great number of his assertions.
Why This Matters for Your Walk With God
Daniel 9 isn’t just an academic puzzle. It’s a promise.
God told Daniel: “I’m not done with your people. I’m going to send your Messiah as the Suffering Servant, deal with iniquity, and anoint the Most Holy.”
And He did. Through Jesus.
When you read Daniel 9 through the lens of the cross, you see God’s faithfulness. He didn’t abandon Israel. He didn’t forget His promises. He sent the Messiah exactly when He said He would, and that Messiah accomplished everything he came to do.
While I do see the 70 weeks as a roadmap to a future tribulation, you don’t have to agree with me. You can see Daniel’s prophecy as a testimony to a completed work. And that’s fine. We don’t have to agree. I’m much more interested in you doing your own study of scripture and coming to your own conclusions about what it means. The Holy Spirit will guide you to the understanding He wants you to have.
Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). The portion of the goals of Daniel 9:24 that were meant to were accomplished at Calvary. Iniquity was dealt with, atonement made. A great deal of prophecy was fulfilled. The Most Holy was anointed.
You don’t need to wait for a future antichrist to make sense of Daniel 9 though. Through the fulfillment we’ve already seen, you can rest assured that God keeps his promises and he’s in control.
As John Oakes says in his book, “Daniel: Prophet to the Nations,” God rules the nations. Do not fear.
Have friends who would enjoy what I do? Please share my publication with them!
Final Thoughts:
The Beauty of Comparing Texts
This is why I love comparing the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. They don’t always agree, but their differences always enrich our understanding.
The MT’s punctuation raises questions. The LXX’s “shortened” adds nuance. The MT emphasizes the Messiah as a person; the LXX emphasizes the abolition of the anointing. Both are true.
When you read them side by side, you get a fuller picture. You see the text from multiple angles. You wrestle with the ambiguities. And in that wrestling, you encounter the living God who reveals Himself through His Word. Even (or perhaps especially) when that Word is complex, layered, and mysterious.
That’s the beauty of Scripture. It’s not a simple answer key. It’s a profound, multifaceted revelation of God’s redemptive plan. And sometimes, the best way to understand it is to sit with the tension, compare the traditions, and let the text speak in all its richness.
Daniel 9 isn’t easy. But it’s worth the effort.
COMING NEXT:
An exploration of the “woman in travail” metaphor for the end times
If you thought Daniel 9 was provocative, wait until we dive into this one.
The next deep dive exploration will be a series of posts, as this turned out to be a much bigger topic than I was anticipating. The idiom of the woman in childbirth as a reference for the end times goes deep. It’s all through Scripture, and I promise you’re going to find some interesting tidbits here that you never considered.
Stay tuned. The end times are coming.
The LXX Scrolls is free to read and always will be. If this work has been worth something to you, there are a few ways to say so:
Buy the ebooks. Completed teaching series are available as polished ebooks under the Two Witnesses, One Truth series. Buying through Curios will support this work most directly but they’re also available on Amazon (and elsewhere) if you’re loyal to a particular ereader.
Become a supporter. A monthly or annual pledge through Substack helps me to bring the Septuagint to those who never knew they needed it.
Send a one-time tip. If this post has blessed you and you want to express that directly, you can Buy Me a Coffee.
Thank you for being part of this journey, your support makes this work possible.
© 2025 LXX Scrolls. All rights reserved.