18
The Seventy Sets of ‘Seven’ Years
VISION 4 - Daniel 9:24-27
The Seventy Sets of ‘Seven’ Years
VISION 4 - Daniel 9:24-27
Because Daniel recognized that Jeremiah’s foretold seventy years of Babylonian rule had reached completion, he offered the following prayer in recognition of Israel’s position before God:
“And all Israel transgressed your law and turned aside so as not to listen to your voice, and so the curse and the oath which was written in the law of Moses, the servant of God, has been poured out upon us, because we have sinned against him. And so he has carried out his words which he spoke against us and against our rulers who ruled us, to bring upon us a great calamity which was not done under all of heaven as it was done in Jerusalem. Just as it is written in the law of Moses, all of this calamity has come upon us, and we have not implored the face of Yahweh our God so as to turn from our iniquities and to attend closely to your faithfulness. So Yahweh has kept watch over the calamity, and now he has brought it upon us. Indeed, Yahweh our God is righteous concerning all his works that he has done, but we have not listened to his voice” (Dan. 9:11-14).
This “oath which was written in the law of Moses” and “has been poured out upon” Israel is recorded in Leviticus 26:14-34 which shows their punishment “seven times for their sins.” This leads us to the seventy “sevens” of years—a period of 490 years—after which there will be a full restoration of Israel.
Translation Issues Concerning
Messiah and Jerusalem in Daniel 9:24-27
Messiah and Jerusalem in Daniel 9:24-27
There are notable but different issues with all translations of this passage. So, after considerable research and analysis I have decided to present the passage largely from the NLT and NET Bibles but with the provably valid changes by Keil and others along with interpretive details. So this passage will read as:
“A period of seventy sets of seven [490 years] has been decreed for your people and your holy city:
to finish their rebellion,
to put an end to their sin,
to atone for their guilt,
to bring in perpetual righteousness,
to confirm the prophetic vision,
and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
25 Now listen and understand! From the issuing of the command [in 444 B.C.] to rebuild Jerusalem until the prince—the Messiah—comes, there will be seven sets of seven [49 years] plus sixty-two sets of seven [434 years]. The city will be rebuilt with plaza and strong defences.
But in perilous times 26 and after this period of sixty-two sets of seven [Therefore after a total of 483 years], the Messiah will be put to death [A.D. 33], so that he does not have the Kingdom which belongs to him. Also, the people of a prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. His end will come in a flood; but war shall continue right up to the end since devastations are irrevocably decreed.
27 He will impose a strong covenant on the mass of people for a period of one set of seven [7 years], but in the middle of this time, he will stop the sacrifices and offerings. In their place there will be a sacrilegious object that causes desecration which will continue until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desecrator.”
The main issues here are the phrases in most or many translations of, “have nothing,” and “its end,” and the positioning of the phrase “but in perilous times.
“NOT HAVE THE KINGDOM WHICH BELONGS TO HIM”
This phrase is usually rendered “have nothing” and is literally: “and there is not to him,” according to the Hebrew, and so is an incomplete thought i.e., it has no subject. So, the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament completes the thought as: “After the sixty-two “sevens” Messiah will be cut off (Killed), so that he does not have the Kingdom which belongs to him.” This completes the thought of this difficult Hebrew phrase.
“HIS END”
This concerns “the prince who is to come” with the rendering “his end” rather than ‘its end’ as if this were applicable to “the city and the sanctuary” to which it cannot apply grammatically. So, with reference to Daniel 9:26 the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon gives the meaning of kitzo as “his end” (not ‘their end’). Also, the Hebrew interlinear gives kitzo as “end of him.” Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the God’s Word Bible, the NAB, the NET Bible, Tregelles, Newton, Pember, and the Jewish Publication translation all give “his end” in the main text. The NJB main text gives “and the end of that prince.” Keil demonstrates that grammatically “his end” is correct and contextually this refers to the singular subject of “the ruler/prince who is to come” and does not refer to “the city and the sanctuary,” in which case it would say ‘their end.’ The Hebrew word kitzo has a masculine singular suffix and cannot agree with ‘the city’ which is grammatically feminine. kitzo never refers to the destruction of a thing i.e., a city or sanctuary.
So, it is Antichrist’s end that is spoken of when verse 26b says: “His end will come in a flood.” This is repeated in verse 27 as “until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desecrator” i.e., a divine judgment on him (Isa. 8:8, Nahum 1:8). So “the prince who is to come” in Daniel’s prophecy is the future Antichrist. This is proven by the fact that neither General Titus nor any first century historic leader imposed “a strong covenant on the mass of people for a period of one set of seven” of years or had been destroyed at that time. This is further proven by a comparison of the historic events of A.D. 70 with the Bible’s prophetic statements.
“The People of the Prince Who Is to Come”
As shown near the end of Chapter 5 the statement in Daniel 9:26 that: “the people of a prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” concerns the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by people who are not ethnically Romans, but were predominantly Syrians, Arabs, Turks, and Egyptians conscripted into the Roman army as shown by several of the ancient historians. These were nationalities who generally hated Israel. So, this means that “the prince who is to come”—the Antichrist—would be of one of those ethnicities and not an ethnic Italian.
Messiah Does Not “Causes Sacrifice
and Offering to Cease”
It is thought by some that it was Messiah who was the one who caused “sacrifice and offering to cease” as referred to in Daniel 9:27. However, this cannot be the case for the following reasons:
“The prince who is to come”—the Antichrist—and “his end” in verse 26 is the nearest antecedent of the later phrases: “he will impose a strong covenant” and “he will cause gift offering and sacrifice to cease.” Therefore, this ruler must be someone other than the Messiah.
The “firm covenant” cannot be the New Covenant, as taught in Historicism, because this was not a covenant made “for one ‘seven” i.e., seven years, but forever. There was never any covenant made by the Messiah for only seven years.
If Messiah were to be identified as this “ruler” it would require us to identify him as the one who sets up the sacrilege i.e., the desolator /defiler as the Antichrist.
If Messiah were to be identified as the one who will cause “sacrifice and gift offering to cease” he must also be the “desolator” i.e., the unholy leader, rather than the Messiah. Yet the cognate prophecy in Daniel 11:31 NIV says:
“His [the King of the North-verse 25] armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress, and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.”
So rather than Messiah it is the armies of the King of the North that remove the daily sacrifice.
Antichrist Breaks a Treaty with Future Jews
As the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament p. 373 renders verse 27, “And he [the coming prince] will impose a covenant on the many for one “seven,” and during half of the “seven” he will cause the service of sacrifice to stop and, borne on the wings of idol abominations, he will carry on a desolating rule; and this will go on until the end when the firmly decreed judgment will be poured out on him as one desolated.” Indeed, the phrase “borne on the wings of idol abominations” indicates that perhaps either:
Antichrist places a winged idol in the most holy compartment of the temple where the winged cherubim stand on the Ark of the Covenant lid as representative of God’s presence (Ps. 18:10; 80:1; 99:1)). Or:
Antichrist enthrones himself as a god on the mercy seat of the Ark between the wings of the two cherubim in the temple sanctuary (Gk naos) (2 Thess. 2:4).
NOTE: “The sacrilege which causes desolation” is also described in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 (it lasts for 1,290 days). All three occurrences concern the stopping of “the daily sacrifices.”
The Six Promises
Leading to Restoration of God’s People
Leading to Restoration of God’s People
Verse 24 shows that the seventy “sevens” is decreed for Israel and their holy city Jerusalem. The events that will be accomplished during this period are itemised as:
- to finish their rebellion
- to put an end to their sin
- to atone for their guilt,
- to bring in everlasting righteousness (by means of the Kingdom)
- to confirm the prophetic vision, and
- to anoint the Most Holy Place.
The purpose of the 70 sevens of years was to finish off the disciplining of Israel in harmony with the warning: “And if in spite of this you will not listen to me, then I will discipline you again sevenfold for your sins, and I will break the pride of your power” (Lev. 26:18). This, therefore, results in seven times the seventy years of captivity that they had already experienced. After this final disciplining “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26) and receive the blessings described in Daniel 9:24. Although the basis was laid for these blessings at the death of Christ, the full effecting of all six promises comes only at the Second Advent. This is because, in Hebrew, this period of “seventy ‘sevens’ is (singular verb) determined” and so is a single unit. Therefore, the 490 years are not completed until all six promises are fulfilled so as to bring full restoration. This means that because the last three of the blessings await their fulfilment at the Second Advent then all six must also await this event. Although most quotations here are from the New Living Translation the International Children’s Bible makes these timings of “seventy sets of seven,” “seven sets of seven,” and “sixty-two sets of seven” in verses 24-26 clearer. It reads:
““God has ordered 490 years for your people and your holy city. These years are ordered for these reasons: to stop people from turning against God; to put an end to sin; to take away evil; to bring in goodness that continues forever; to make the vision and prophecy come true; and to appoint a most holy place. 25 Learn and understand these things. A command will come to rebuild Jerusalem. The time from this command until the appointed leader comes will be 49 years and 434 years. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and a trench around it. But it will be built in times of trouble. 26 After the 434 years the appointed leader will be killed.”
From the Decree to Rebuild Jerusalem
Until Messiah Comes as Ruler
Until Messiah Comes as Ruler
Verse 25 states that, “Seven sets of seven plus sixty-two sets of seven (7 + 434 = 483 years) will pass from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem until a prince—the Messiah—comes. Jerusalem will be rebuilt with streets and strong defenses.” The year when this “command to rebuild Jerusalem” is debated by scholars. While some favour the year 454 B.C.E., the majority calculate it to be 445 B.C. This will be explained in the next chapter of this book to show that a slightly refined calculation gives 444 B.C.E., as the most likely year for the giving of this command.
§
19
When Did the Seventy ‘Sevens’
of Years Begin?
19
When Did the Seventy ‘Sevens’
of Years Begin?
There are four main dates proposed regarding when “the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” began (Daniel 9:25) and thus beginning the seventy “sevens”:
The decree of Cyrus (when he became sole ruler in 536 B.C.) to rebuild the temple (under Zerubbabel) and issued in Cyrus’ “first year” (2 Chron. 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1-4; 6:1-5): “Cyrus the king issued a decree: Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house be rebuilt...” (Ezra 6:3).
The decree of Darius I Hystaspis (the Ahasuerus in the book of Esther) confirming Cyrus’ decree to rebuild the temple and issued in 519 B.C. (Ezra 6:6-12).
The decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus for Jews under Ezra to beautify the temple issued in 467 B.C. or 458 (Ezra 7:11-6).
The decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus to rebuild the city under Nehemiah issued in his twentieth year — 444 B.C. (Neh. 2:1-8).
Clearly #2 is simply a confirmation of Cyrus’ decree and #3 does not concerning building work. So, these two dates are not involved.
WHY #1 CYRUS’ DECREE IS NOT THE APPLICABLE DECREE?
Some have felt that this decree issued by Cyrus in 536 B.C. is the one that begins the seventy “sevens” because of the prophecies in Isaiah stating that Cyrus will rebuild the city of Jerusalem when Yahweh:
“…says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfil all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid’” (Isa. 44:28) and:
“I myself have stirred him [Cyrus] up in righteousness, and I will make all his paths smooth. He himself shall build my city, and he shall set my exiles free, not for price or a gift,” says Yahweh of hosts” (Isa. 45:13 LEB).
However, all the statements in the book of Ezra for the fulfilment of Cyrus’ decree show that it concerned only construction of “the house of God” (Ezra 1:2-5; 2; 3:6, 8-11; 5:2, 8, 9) and not the city. Indeed, the statements in Ezra 4:13, 16, reveal that the disruptive local Gentiles were accusing the Jews of doing the building of the city walls. But this proves to be an unauthorized work because these Gentiles knew that to criticize any authorized work decreed by the king would be to incur his wrath. So, in their letter to Cyrus these Gentiles say, “Furthermore, the king should know that if this city is built and its walls are restored, no more taxes, tribute or duty will be paid, and the royal revenues will suffer” (Ezra 4:13). This shows that the authorized work was only that which concerned the temple. In fact, later God Himself shows that it is, “The hands of Zerubbabel [that] have laid the foundation of this house [temple]...” (Zech. 4:9). So how are we to understand the statements in Isaiah 44 and 45?
- In examining the context of Isaiah 44:24-28 it becomes clear that it is God who says that the cities of Judah shall be rebuilt (vs. 26) and so the phrase: “saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built...’” may well be attributable to God’s speaking as the one causing Jerusalem to be rebuilt as per the LXX and Latin Vulgate readings. Furthermore, it is Nehemiah and not Cyrus who is used as the director of the building work.
- Regarding Isaiah 45:13 commentators understand this as a more likely reference to Messiah than to Cyrus or at least that Cyrus is a type of the Messiah. See Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testa-ment, p. 1267.
So, neither of these statements in Isaiah need constrain us to the decree issued by Cyrus in 536 as being the one prophesied in Daniel 9.
Why the Twentieth Year of Artaxerxes in 444 B.C.
Is the Applicable Decree
Is the Applicable Decree
This is the only time which concerns the rebuilding of Jerusalem rather than the temple. Nehemiah’s request was concerning “the city of my fathers’ graves to rebuild it” (vs. 5). The other decrees all concern “the house of God” only and do not therefore deal with the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem. Indeed, it was Sir Robert Anderson who first calculated the date for the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus as being 445 B.C. Later Dr. Harold Hoehner refined Anderson’s work to 444 B.C. These dates are based on:
The work of Herodotus, the father of historians, who shows that Artaxerxes Longimanus’ rule was from 464 B.C. after his father Xerxes died shortly after 17 December 465.
The work of historian Sextus Julius Africanus who shows that the twentieth year of Artaxerxes was the fourth year of the 83rd Olympiad, which would be Nisan of 444 BC.
The recognition that Artaxerxes year of accession was from December 465 to Nisan 464 and so starting his full regnal year from Nisan 464 (or Tishri 464 to Tishri 463 by the Jewish system) and so leading to 444 B.C. as his twentieth year when the command to rebuild Jerusalem was given.
So, we can be significantly confident that 444 B.C.E. was the date for, “the issuing of the command [by Artaxerxes Longimanus] to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem” (Dan. 9:25). From this date we can begin to understand several other important events and their timings.
In the next chapter we will begin to see how this amazing prophecy has been and will be fulfilled.
§
20
20
The Timings of the 69th and 70th
Sets of “Seven” Years
The Prophecy Involves Lunar Years
Sets of “Seven” Years
The Prophecy Involves Lunar Years
The months for Israel ran from “new moon to new moon” (Isa 66:23) a period of 29½ days. Also, the period of five consecutive months for Noah in the Ark is reported as 150 days (Gen 7:11, 24; 8:3, 4) and indicating that each month was 30 days long. Furthermore, the “time, times and half a time” of Daniel i.e., 3½ years combined with the details in the Book of Revelation where 1,260 days (Rev. 11:3, 12:6) is exactly 3½ multiplied by 360 and 42 months multiplied by 30, thereby showing that a “time” or year amounted to 360 days duration (Rev. 11:2, 13:5). So, Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy “sevens” involves lunar/prophetic years of 360 days.
GABRIEL USED PROPHETIC YEARS OF 360 DAYS
Because the length of the last half of the 70th “seven” can be ascertained from Daniel 12 and Revelation chapters 11, 12, and 13 as 1260 days, 42 months, and 3½ times, it can be seen that Daniel was working from prophetic years of 360 days each. So, if the 70th “seven” is based on a 360-day year this must also be the case for the earlier “sevens.”
Calculating the Year of Jesus’
Final Entry into Jerusalem
In Daniel 9:25b it reads as: “...until the Messiah, the prince [Heb. mashiach naghidh] comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens’ (= 483 years).” This coming of “the Messiah” did not refer to Jesus’ birth or his baptism or his crucifixion because none of these events were a public presentation of himself to Israel as the mashiach naghidh—“the ruler of Israel” in the capital city. The only event when Jesus was acclaimed as Messiah the ruler was when he made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:1-7; Zech. 9:9) on approximately Nisan 10. So, taking the date of 444 B.C. as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus and using the 360 days = 1 year scheme the calculation is:
69 “sevens” = 483 prophetic years of 360 days each = 173,880 days.
173,880 days ÷ 365.24219879 = 476 solar years and 25 days.
476 years from March 5. 444 B.C brings us to early March. 33 A.D.
+25 days = end of March 30/early April 33 A.D.
Therefore, Jesus must have made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 A.D. 33. This fulfilled the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! Look! Your king is coming to you: He is legitimate and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey—on a young donkey, the foal of a female donkey” (NET). This brought the 69 “sevens” to a close. Then Jesus died a few days after this on Friday, Nisan 15 A.D. 33 in fulfilment of Daniel 9:26 which shows that “after the sixty-two sevens the Messiah will be cut off...”
THE DATE FOR JESUS’ TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM
The year of Jesus’ crucifixion must be when Passover (14th Nisan) was on a Friday according to the gospel accounts (esp. Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54). Astronomically, the 14th of Nisan fell on Friday only in the years 27, 30, and 33 A.D. of that period and the specific year can be determined on the basis that Herod’s Temple (Gk naos) had taken 46 years to build up to the point of Christ’s cleansing of it on the first Passover of his public ministry (John 2:20). So, taking the date supplied by Josephus (18/17 BC), Hoehner concludes that the first Passover of Christ’s public ministry was A.D. 29 or 30. Hence, the triumphal entry of Christ was on the 10th of Nisan, A.D. 33 and Christ died several days later on Friday, 15th Nisan, A.D. 33 (April 3. 33 A.D.). This, of course, means that Messiah died before the 70th “seven” began as verse 26 also says that it was, “After the sixty-two ‘sevens’ Messiah will be cut off (i.e., executed on Nisan 15.), so that he does not have the Kingdom which belongs to him.” Certainly, this factor along with the detail concerning, “the people of a prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” as also being “After the sixty-two ‘sevens” and actually occurred in A.D. 70, some 37 years after Jesus died, is a further indicator that there is a gap between the end of the 69th and the beginning of the 70th “seven”.
The Seventieth Set of “Seven” Years
As part of the evidence for the futurist view of end-time prophecy Chapter 10 of this book provided a long list of factors to show that after the 69th set of sevens there is an interval of undetermined length which terminates when the 70th set of sevens i.e., the last seven years of Gentile domination begins.
THE PURPOSE OF THE INTERVAL
The purpose of this interval seems to be so that salvation is brought to the Gentiles as in Romans 11:25 and in fulfilment of the promise to Abraham so that “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). Indeed, the final “seven” years provides a time-line that anchors the many end-time prophecies in the rest of the Scriptures.
Summary
At the end of the 69th “seven” or 483 years Jesus as Messiah rode into Jerusalem and was proclaimed as King by the common people but was rejected by the religious leaders, likely in A.D. 33. There then began a gap of indefinite duration and during which time:
Messiah was executed (A.D. 33).
Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed (A.D. 70).
However, when the final “seven”—the 70th—begins, then the final Antichrist comes into prominence and after a short while he desecrates the newly built temple and causes intense persecution of both Jews and Christians for the last half of the “seven.” This corresponds with Jesus’ Olivet prophecy and Paul’s statements in his second letter to the Thessalonians.
Daniel’s prophecies dovetail with the book of Revelation and provide the basis for Jesus’ teachings in the Olivet discourse and Paul’s teaching concerning the “Man of Lawlessness” in the two letters to the Thessalonians. At the end of the 70 “sevens” the six requirements for the Jews, “to finish their rebellion” etc., And finally, the evil world ruler—Satan’s man—the Antichrist will have lost all power and then be destroyed by Jesus.
§
NOTE
“THE PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE WHO IS TO COME”
In Daniel 9:26 we read that, “after this period of sixty-two sets of seven…the people of a prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” This event also occurs before the seventieth set of seven years and fits with the actual destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Roman armies in A.D. 70. From this it has been supposed that the “prince who is to come” refers either to General Titus in A.D. 70 or to a future “prince who is to come” as Antichrist and that he must therefore be Roman. However, there are reasons why this assumption is not correct.
Firstly, the lexicons show that the phrase “the people of…” refers to their ethnicity and the text of Daniel 9:26 shows that they were the ancestors of “the prince who is to come” and were the ones who destroyed Jerusalem and the sanctuary in A.D. 70 and which occurred before the “seventieth sets of seven” years could begin. However, the prince who is to come” is shown to be yet future from A.D. 70 because he “is to come” and then it will concern “his end.” Also,
“He will impose a strong covenant on the mass of people for a period of one set of seven [7 years]. He is therefore not General Titus, the commander of the Roman legions at the time. He historically did not impose a covenant on the Jews.
Both Daniel 9:26b and 2 Thessalonians 2:8 show that “the prince who is to come” [“the man of lawlessness”] comes to “his end” at that time i.e., he dies. Yet General Titus did not die at that time, but went on to become emperor at Rome.
It is only, “the people of the prince who is to come” who destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Indeed, “the prince who is to come” is someone yet future rather than Titus.
Secondly, the important question of: doesn’t the Antichrist have to be Roman because, “the people of…” were all supposedly ethnic Romans (Italians)? Actually, this was not the case. In his book The Mideast Beast Joel Richardson shows from the ancient historians Tacitus, and Josephus that the ethnic make-up of the Roman armies was predominantly that of Syrians, Arabs, Turks, and Egyptians. Further-more, modern-day scholars of Roman history tell the same story. Indeed, as the Roman Empire expanded Emperor Augustus reformed the ethnic make-up of the Roman legions in A.D. 15 to provincialize them so that by A.D. 70 those legions in the East were made-up of 95% provincials i.e., Arabs, Egyptians, Syrians, and Turks—nationalities who generally hated Israel. So, this means that “the prince who is to come”—the future Antichrist—would be of one of those ethnicities and not an ethnic Italian. In fact, other biblical details show that he would be connected with modern-day Turkey and of a Middle-Eastern ethnicity. Please also note the following extra factors:
The destruction of the temple sacrificial system in A.D. 70 does not correspond to the abolition of the daily sacrifices in Daniel’s prophecies (Dan. 8:9-14) because this event is linked with other periods of 1,290 and 1,335 days (Dan. 12:11-12), after which Daniel “will rise again for [his] allotted portion at the end of the age.” This means that the resurrection should have occurred soon after the A.D. 70 destruction if this had been the correct event.
The city, the sanctuary, and the people were not restored at any time between A.D. 30-36 or A.D. 70 and are not yet restored. It would certainly be an anticlimax if the 70th ‘seven’ had ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 rather than with its restoration. It would also be an anticlimax for such a grand prophecy to terminate simply with the acceptance of Gentiles into the congregation in about A.D. 36 as some propose.
§