The Book of Daniel 9:20-27

Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.

Daniel 9:20-27

²⁰ While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the Lord my God for the holy hill of my God, ²¹ while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. ²² He made me understand, speaking with me and saying, “O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding. ²³ At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.

The Seventy Weeks

²⁴ “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. ²⁵ Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. ²⁶ And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people 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. ²⁷ And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.

_______________________________________

This passage is one of the most scrutinized prophetic texts in the entire Bible. I’ll try to give several of the various interpretations of the text in the study that follows. There are several end times beliefs wherein this text is heavily involved.

So we’ll jump in at verse 20 from the notes in The Pulpit Commentaries:

Daniel 9:20, Daniel 9:21

And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God; yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. All the versions are practically in agreement with the Massoretic text, save that none of them gives the hophal meaning, “caused to fly swiftly;” the nearest approach being in the Septuagint, in which we have τάχει φερόμενος. All, however, derive the word from יָעַף, “to fly;” another etymology is possible from יָעַף. As to the meaning of this word, there is a difference of opinion, Gesenius holding that it means “wearied out”—a meaning unsuited to the subject or to the context, though in accordance with the use of the word elsewhere. Meinbold would connect this word with the preceding clause, and refer it to Daniel, “when I was faint.” The main difficulty is the succeeding word. Furst suggests that it means “shining in splendour”—a meaning perfectly suited to the circumstances, but for which there seems little justification in etymology from cognate tongues. Furst suggests a transposal from יָפַע. Winer gives it, “celeriter ivit, cucurrit.” This view is taken by Hitzig, yon Lengerke, and Havernick. Verse 20 is largely an expansion of the first clause of verse 21. Whiles I was speaking, and praying. (comp. Genesis 24:15, “And it came to pass, before he had done speaking”). This shows the rapidity of the Divine answer to prayer; even before we ask, “our Father knows what things we have need of.“ The man Gabriel. The name Gabriel, as mentioned above, means “Hero of God;” and tile word here translated “man” is the ordinary word for “man,” ‘ish. It may be remarked that in Scripture angels are always “men;” never, as in modern art and poetry, “women.” Whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning. This really means “whom I had seen previously in vision,” the reference being to Daniel 8:16. Being caused to fly swiftly. As above mentioned, there is considerable difficulty in deciding which meaning is to be taken as the correct. Kliefoth’s and Meinhold’s view would be the simplest, if there were any certainty that יעף means “faintness.” Touched me about the time of the evening oblation. Daniel is so absorbed in his devotions that not till Gabriel touched him did he recognize the presence of an an gel-visitant. The time of the evening offering does not imply that those offerings were made in Babylon, but simply that, through the half-century that had intervened since the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar the sacred hour had been kept in remembrance, not impossibly as being one consecrated to prayer. Daniel had been using this season to make known his request and petition to God. “Oblation,” minhah, the bloodless meat offering (Le Daniel 2:1, Daniel 2:4, Daniel 2:14).

This note focuses primarily on translation and source material texts, but the underlying point of the note is that Gabriel came quickly in response to Daniel’s prayer. Verse 23 tells us the purpose of Gabriel’s arrival. (via Ellicott’s Bible Commentary)

(22) He informed me—i.e., gave me understanding (as Daniel 9:2, Daniel 8:16). The angel gave Daniel understanding in the perplexing words of Jeremiah, showing him that what affected his people was a period of seventy weeks that were yet to come, rather than seventy years which were already passed.

(23) The commandment.—The marginal version is to be preferred, which points to the revelation which follows Daniel 9:24-27. The title “greatly beloved” occurs again (Daniel 10:11; Daniel 10:19). It implies that Daniel was worthy of this proof of God’s love. St. Jerome compares (2 Samuel 12:25) Jedidiah.

Ellicott brings up a minor point, but I find it to be quite interesting. Daniel is struggling to understand the specifics, in the writings of the Prophet Jeremiah. As a result, we can see this visit as Gabriel arriving to interpret Scripture. Would Gabriel have come absent this Scripture? Possibly. However, it might be the case that Daniel would not have known to pray absent the earlier writing.

The text of Scripture is very interconnected.

Here’s the same graphic but with the individual books listed:

If you want to understand any one text, you can look at it alone, but you get a better understanding if you look at the whole collectively. After the earliest books, the text of Scripture is a lot of citing of other Scripture. That informs how the text’s author was thinking and thus how we should interpret.

So now let’s jump into the message from Gabriel, starting at verse 24 in TPC:

Daniel 9:24

Seventy weeks 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. The LXX. here differs from the above, “Seventy weeks are determined (ἐκρίθησαν) upon thy people and the city Zion, to make an end of sin, to make unrighteousnesses rare (σπανίσαι), and to wipe out the unrighteous-nesses, and to understand the vision, and to give (appoint) (δοθῆναι) everlasting righteousness, and to end the visions and the prophet, and to rejoice the holy of holies.” There seem here to be some instances of doublet: τὰς ἀδικίας σπανίσαι and ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀδιλίας are different renderings of לְחָתֵם (leḥathaym ḥaṭṭaoth), or as it is in the Q‘ri, leahthaym hattath (לְחָתֵם חַטָּאוח). Neither of these seems to be the original of the Greek. Schleusner suggests to read σφραγίσαι. Against this is the fact that Paulus Tellensis renders lemaz‛or, “to bring to nothing” (Jeremiah 10:24, Peshitta). How Wolf can say the LXX. confirms the Massoretic K’thib, is difficult to see. The author of the first rendering of this phrase seems to have read חתת (ḥathath) instead of ḥatham; the other translator must have read maḥah (מָחָה). The phrase, διανοηθῆναι, “to understand the vision,” seems a doublet of the clause, “to seal up the vision.” There seems to have been in one of the manuscripts used by the LXX. translator a transposition of words; for one of them must have read לְחֻתַן (lehoothan) instead of לְחָבִיא, since he renders δοθῆναι. This is an impossible change, but the mistaking of להחם for להתן is perfectly easy to imagine, if להתם had been written in place of להביא, and it transferred to the place in the Massoretic text occupied by להיי, then we can easily understand להבין. In the last clause the LXX. translator must have read שמח instead of משח, a clearly inferior reading. The impression conveyed to one is that the translators were able to put no intelligible meaning on the passage, and rendered the words successively as nearly as they could without attempting to make them sense. We must admit, however, that the phenomena that cause this impression may be due to corruption of the text. Theodotion renders, “Seventy weeks are determined (συνετμήθησαν) upon thy people and on the holy city, to seal sins and wipe away unrighteousness, and to atone for sin, and to bring the everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies.” Theodotion, it will be seen, as the LXX; has “prophet” instead of “prophecy,” which certainly is more verbally accurate than our version; he omits “to finish transgression,” having instead, “to seal sins.” The Peshitta has followed the K’thib and renders, “finish transgressions,” and instead of “prophecy” has the “prophets.” The text of the Vetus, as preserved to us by Tertullian, is, “Seventy weeks are shortened (breviatae) upon thy people, and upon the holy city, until sin shall grow old, and iniquities be marked (signentur), and righteousnesses rise up, and eternal righteousness be brought in, and that the vision and the prophet should be marked (signetur), and the holy of holies (sanctus sanctorum) be anointed.” Jerome renders, “Seventy weeks are shortened (abbreviate sunt) upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to end falsehood (prevarieatio), to end sin, to wipe out iniquity, to bring in the everlasting righteousness, to fulfil the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the holy of holies (sanctus sanctorum).“ The Hebrew here is peculiar; the word for “weeks” is in the masculine, which is unexampled elsewhere in the plural. The singular masculine is found, e.g Genesis 29:27; there is no case of feminine singular. Mr. Galloway would read שָׁבֻעִים שָׁבֻעִים, and would render, “by weeks it is determined.” There seems little evidence for this reading; against a few late manuscripts is the consensus of versions. “Determined” is also a word that occurs only Lore; it is Aramaic, but not common even in that language. It means “to cut off.” It may thus refer to these weeks being “cut off” from time generally; hence “determined.” It is singular, and its nominative is plural. “To finish” also causes difficulty; so translated, it implies that the word should be written כָלָה; but it is written כָּלָא, which means “to restrain,” “to enclose,” “to separate off” (Furst). Hence if we translate as it stands, it should be “restrain transgression.” “To make an end of” in also “cause transgression to cease” This in a rendering of the Massoretic Q’ri; if the K’thib had been taken, the translation should rather have been “to seal.” “Sins:” this word is plural in the K’thib, but singular in the Q’ri. A large number of manuscripts write the word plural; the Greek versions give the plural; the Pe-shista and Vulgate, Aquila and Paulus Tellensis, singular. “The prophecy,” it is clearly an it stands “the prophet.” Jerome is the only one of the versions that takes the word in the sense in which it is taken in our versions. Professor Bevan renders it “prophet” (so Hitzig and Hengstenberg). One is tempted to adopt the reading of Michaelis הזיי חנביא, “the vision of the prophet,” which has some manuscript authority. The overwhelming mass of evidence is in favour of the present consonantal text. Seventy weeks. “Week,” while generally a week of days (Daniel 10:2), was occasionally week of years, as Genesis 29:27, “fulfil the week of this,” i.e. the seven years of service. Among the later Jews this became a recognized mode of reckoning, as in the Book of Jubilees, each jubilee in divided into successive weeks. From what follows it is necessary that the weeks here are sevens of years. “Are determined,” as already indicated, means “cut off,” not “shortened,” which does not seem to be the meaning of the word in any case. “Upon thy people and upon thy holy city.” Daniel has been praying long and earnestly for his people; so there would be no inability to see what was meant by “his city and his people.” “To finish transgression” is equivalent to “to restrain transgression.” Transgression is apt to become bold and imperious; it is a great deal when it is even somewhat “restrained.” It is to be noted that, as Daniel’s prayer was greatly confession of the sins of the people and prayer for forgiveness, the promises here are largely moral; but still the Messianic period even was not to be expected to be one in which there will be no sin—it is to be restrained. “To make an end of sins”—though “to seal sins” seems the better reading diplomatically it is the K’thib, and that of some of the versions. It is difficult to give the phrase an intelligible meaning. Moreover, the occurrence of חתם so immediately after is against it. Something may be said for מחה, which occurs in a similar connection with תמם that this does in Lamentations 4:22. This is the reading of one of the translators in the LXX; ἀπαλεῖψαι—the spirit of lawlessness would be restrained and the past iniquities and their guilt wiped away. “To make reconciliation”—”to make an atonement.” The verb used is the technical word, “the offering of an atoning sacrifice.” In this sense it occurs some fifty times in Leviticus. This might apply to the renewal of sacrificial offerings in the temple after the fifty years’ cessation during the Babylonian captivity, or to the renewal after the shorter cessation under the oppression inflicted on the Jews under Epiphanes. The next clause implies a wider application and a loftier sacrifice. Professor Bevan is right in maintaining that, despite the accents, this clause is to be connected with the next. To bring in everlasting righteousness. This is more than merely the termination of the suit of God against his people (Isaiah 27:9). The phrase occurs in Psalms 119:142, and is applied to the righteousness of God. These two, “atonement for sin” and “the everlasting righteousness,” are found in Christ—his atoning death and the righteousness which he brings into the world. It is true that when Daniel heard these words spoken by Gabriel he might not put any very distinct meaning on them—in that he was but like other prophets; the prophets did not know the meaning of their own prophecies. To seal up the vision and prophecy; more correctly, to seal vision and prophet—to set to them the seal of fulfilment (von Lengerke, Hitzig, Bevan). This does not refer to Jeremiah, because his prophecy referred merely to the return from Babylon, and this refers to a period which is to continue long after that. Jeremiah’s prophecy was about to be verified. This new prophecy required four hundred and ninety years ere it received its verification. Some event to happen nearly half a millennium after Daniel is to prove the prophecy God has given him to be true. And to anoint the Most Holy. This phrase, קָדָשִׁים קֹרֶשׁ (qodesh qodasheem), is used some forty times in Scripture, but almost always of things, as the altar and the innermost sanctuary. Hengstenberg (‘Christ.,’ 3:119) points out that the phrase for “sanctuary” is “קֹדֶשׁ הַקּ, with the article. He appeals to 1 Chronicles 23:13 as a case where, without the article, the phrase applies to an individual, וַוִּבַּ דֵל אַחֲרֹן לְהִקְדִישׁוֹ קיי קיי (vayibbadayl Aḥeron leheqdeesho qodesh qadasheem), “And he separated Aaron to sanctify him as a holy of holies.” This seems almost the necessary translation, despite the versions; for the prenominal suffix must be the object, and “holy of holies” must be in apposition to it. The act of anointing as a sign of consecration, though applied to the tabernacle (Exodus 30:26; Exodus 40:9), to the altar (Exodus 40:10), the laver (Exodus 40:11), is never applied to the holy of holies. It is applied most frequently to persons; as to Aaron (Exodus 40:13), to Saul (1 Samuel 10:1), to David (1 Samuel 16:3). The words of Gabriel thus point forward to a time when all iniquity shall be restrained, sin atoned for, and a priest anointed.

The note here goes into a lot of detail about text and translation. I’ll kind of relay some big picture ideas of what’s going on here when we get to the end of the chapter. Suffice it to say though that Christians read this verse as a prophecy concerning Jesus.

This verse is of particular important, so I’ll also include the note for verse 24 from Ellicott as well:

(24) Seventy weeks.—Great difficulty is experienced in discovering what sort of weeks is intended. Daniel 9:25-27 are sufficient to show that ordinary weeks cannot be meant. Possibly, also, the language (Daniel 10:2, margin “weeks of days”) implies that “weeks of days” are not intended here. On the other hand, it is remarkable that in Leviticus 25:1-10 the word week should not have been used to signify a period of seven years, if year-weeks are implied in this passage. However, it is generally assumed that we must understand the weeks to consist of years and not of days (see Pusey’s Daniel, pp. 165, 166), the principle of year-weeks depending upon Numbers 14:34, Leviticus 26:34, Ezekiel 4:6. The word “week” in itself furnishes a clue to the meaning. It implies a “Heptad,” and is not necessarily more definite than the “time” mentioned in Daniel 7:25.

Are determined.—The word only occurs in this passage. Theod. translates συνετμήθησαν; LXX., ἐκρίθησαν; Jer. “abbreviatœ sunt.” In Chaldee the word means “to cut,” and in that sense “to determine.”

The object “determined” is twofold: (1) transgression and sin; (2) reconciliation and righteousness.

To finish.—The Hebrew margin gives an alternative rendering, “to restrain,” according to which the meaning is “to hold sin back” and to “prevent it from spreading.” If this reading is adopted it will be parallel to the second marginal alternative, “to seal up,” which also implies that the iniquity can no more increase. Although the alternative readings may be most in accordance with the Babylonian idea of “sealing sins,” the presence of the word “to seal” in the last clause of the verse makes it more probable that the marginal readings are due to the conjectures of some early critics, than that they once stood in the text. However, it must be observed that while St. Jerome translates the passage “ut consummetur prœvaricatio, et finem habeat peccatum,” Theodotion supports the marginal reading “to seal.”

To make reconciliation—i.e., atonement. (Comp. Proverbs 16:6; Isaiah 6:7; Isaiah 27:9; Psalms 78:38.) The two former clauses show that during the seventy weeks sin will cease. The prophet now brings out another side of the subject. There will be abundance of forgiveness in store for those who are willing to receive it.

Everlasting righteousness.—A phrase not occurring elsewhere. The prophet seems to be combining the notions of “righteousness” and “eternity,” which elsewhere are characteristics of Messianic prophecy. (Isaiah 46:13; Isaiah 51:5-8; Psalms 89:36; Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:27.)

To Seal Up.—σϕραγίσαι, Theod.; συντελεσθῆναι, LXX.; impleatur, Jer.; the impression of the translators being that all visions and prophecies were to receive their complete fulfilment in the course of these seventy weeks. It appears, however, to be more agreeable to the context to suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all prophecy. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 13:8.)

To anoint the most Holy.—The meaning of the sentence depends upon the interpretation of the words “Most Holy” or “Holy of Holies.” In Scripture they are used of (1) the altar (Exodus 29:37); (2) the atonement (Exodus 30:10); (3) the tabernacle and the sacred furniture (Exodus 30:29); (4) the sacred perfume (Exodus 30:36); (5) the remnant of the meat offering (Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 2:10); (6) all that touch the offerings made by fire (Leviticus 6:18); (7) the sin offering (Leviticus 10:17); (8) the trespass offering (Leviticus 14:13); (9) the shewbread (Leviticus 24:9); (10) things devoted (Leviticus 27:28); (11) various offerings (Numbers 18:9); (12) the temple service and articles connected with it, or perhaps Aaron (1 Chronicles 23:13); (13) the limits of the new temple (Ezekiel 43:12); (14) the sanctuary of the new temple (Ezekiel 45:3); (15) the territory set apart for the sons of Zadok (Ezekiel 48:2). Which of these significations is to be here adopted can only be discovered by the context. Now from the careful manner in which this and the following verse are connected by the words “Know therefore,” it appears that the words “most Holy” are parallel to “Messiah the Prince” (Daniel 9:25), and that they indicate a person. (See Leviticus 6:18; 1 Chronicles 23:13.) This was the opinion of the Syriac translator, who renders the words “Messiah the most Holy,” and of the LXX. εὐϕρᾶναι ἃγιον ἁγίων, on which it has been remarked that εὐϕρᾶναι would have no meaning if applied to a place, and the phrase employed in this version for the sanctuary is invariably τὸ ἃγιον τῶν ἁγίων. Any reference to Zerubbabel’s temple, or to the dedication of the temple by Judas Maccabæus, is opposed to the context.

An argument here emerges that Gabriel’s “weeks” represent “weeks of years.” So if one week equals seven years, then 70 weeks equals 490 years. Further, in addition to the debate over the meaning of weeks, there remains a debate about the number given, also. Seven and seventy are symbolic as well as literal numbers. It might be that 70 is representative of the idea of completion, moreso than a literal seventy.

Continuing on in Ellicott:

(25) Know therefore.—The difficulty of this verse is considerably increased by the principal accent in the Hebrew text being placed after the words “seven weeks.” According to the present punctuation, the translation is “Unto an Anointed one a prince shall be seven weeks, and during sixty and two weeks [Jerusalem] shall be built up” . . . This is opposed (1) to ancient translations except the LXX.; (2) to Daniel 9:26, which connects the sixty-two weeks with the Anointed, and not with the building of the city.

The commandment.—To be explained, as in Daniel 9:23, to mean revelation. But to what revelation is the allusion? Is it to the edict of Cyrus (Ezra 6:14), which Isaiah predicts (Isaiah 44:28)? Or are we to explain it of what happened in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes? (See Excursus G.) It is obvious that there is no reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy, for nothing is there stated which can be interpreted to be a command to rebuild Jerusalem.

Messiah the Prince.—Literally, an Anointed one, a prince, the two nouns being placed in apposition, and the article omitted before each, the person and the office of the person contemplated being sufficiently definite. He is to be “anointed,” that is, King and Priest at once (see 1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 13:14; 1 Samuel 25:30); in fact, He is to possess those attributes which in other passages are ascribed to the Messiah. It is needless to point out that Cyrus, though spoken of (Isaiah 45:1) as an “anointed of Jehovah,” cannot be indicated here. By no calculation can he be said to have come either seven weeks or, sixty-nine weeks from the time of the commencement of the Captivity.

The street . . . the wall.—By the street is meant the large square, which, according to Ezra 10:9, was in front of the Temple. With this the “wall” is contrasted, but what is meant cannot be ascertained. According to the etymology, it means “something cut off.” The English Version follows the ancient translations.

In troublous times.—The whole history of the rebuilding of Jerusalem tells us one long tale of protracted opposition. Zerubbabel was compelled to undergo the persecution of his adversaries, and to bear their misrepresentations (Ezra 4:1-6). Attempts to delay the works were made in the reign of Darius (Ezra 5:6). In later times (Ezra 4:12) complaints were made that the walls were being rebuilt. Probably on this occasion the works that had been executed were destroyed (Nehemiah 1:3), and it was not until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes that Nehemiah succeeded in completing the walls, and not even then without the most indefatigable labours.

We’ll get into the rebuilding of the temple timeline, in just a moment, but the general view here is that at the “anointed one” mentioned as arriving after seven weeks represents one of the figures who oversaw the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Continuing in Ellicott:

(26) After threescore and two weeks.—These words can only mean that in the seventieth week the Anointed one shall be cut off. Observe the care with which the seventy weeks are arranged in a series of the form 7 + 62 + 1. During the period of seven weeks Jerusalem is to be rebuilt. The “troublous times” are not to be restricted to this period, but may apply to the sixty-two weeks which follow. After the end of the sixty-nine weeks Messiah is to be cut off. By “Messiah” we must understand the same person who is spoken of in Daniel 9:25. It should also be observed that the word “prince,” which is applied to Messiah in Daniel 9:25, is here used of another person—some secular prince, who stands in opposition to the Messiah. The Greek versions render “unction” instead of “anointed,” whence Jacob of Edessa explains “the cutting off” to mean “the cessation of the unction by which judgment and sovereignty were established.” The word “to cut off,” however, applies to a person more appropriately than to a thing. It is frequently used of excommunication, e.g., Exodus 30:33; Exodus 30:38, Psalms 37:9, and must not be mistaken for the word “to cut off” (Isaiah 53:8).

But not for himself.—On the marginal rendering comp. John 14:30. Literally the words mean, and He has not, but what it is that He loses is left indefinite. Taking the sense according to the context, the meaning is either that He has no more a people, or that His office of Messiah amongst His people ceases.

That shall come.—These words imply coming with hostile intent, as Daniel 1:1; Daniel 11:10. Two such princes have been already mentioned (Daniel 7:23, &c., Daniel 8:23, &c.), the one being Antiochus, the other his great antitype, namely, Antichrist. Are we to identify this “prince” with either of these? Apparently not. Another typical prince is here introduced to our notice, who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary after the “cutting off” or rejection of the Messiah. But it must be noticed that the work of destruction is here attributed to the “people,” and not to the “prince.”

The end thereof.—It is not clear what end or whose end is signified. According to grammatical rules, the possessive pronoun may either refer to “sanctuary, the last substantive, or to “prince,” the chief nominative in the sentence. The use of the word “flood” (Daniel 11:22) (comp. “overflow,” Daniel 11:26) makes it, at first sight, more plausible to think of the end of a person than of a thing. (Comp. also Nahum 1:8.) But upon comparing this clause with the following, it appears that by “the end” is meant the whole issue of the invasion. This is stated to be desolation, such as is caused by a deluge.

Unto the end.—That is, until the end of the seventy weeks, desolations are decreed. The words recall Isaiah 10:22-23.

This verse implies the Second Temple will be destroyed after 62 weeks. So if we’re doing math, and embracing the “weeks = seven years” interpretation, then we should see the temple being rebuilt after a period of 49 years. It should stand for 62 weeks (i.3. 434 years) before we get to the final week, discussed in verse 27.

After a desolation at the 69 week mark, we get one more week later, discussed next. Continuing in Ellicott:

(27) And he shall confirm.—The subject of the sentence is ambiguous. Theod. makes it to be “one week.” LXX. “the covenant;” others take it to be the Antichristian prince spoken of in the last verse, an opinion which derives some support from Daniel 7:25. According to this interpretation, the covenant refers to the agreement which the prince makes with the large number of persons who become apostates. But (1) the word “covenant” does not apply to any such agreement, but rather to a covenant with God, and (2) in Daniel 9:26 it is the people of the prince, and not the prince, which is the subject of the sentence. It is therefore more appropriate to take Messiah as the subject. During the last closing week of the long period mentioned, Messiah, though cut off, shall confirm God’s covenant (comp. Daniel 11:22; Daniel 11:28; Daniel 11:30; Daniel 11:32) with many, that is, with those who receive Him.

In the midst of the week.—Or, during half the week (the latter half of the week, according to the LXX.), he will cause to cease all the Mosaic sacrifices (possibly those mentioned in Daniel 8:11), whether bloody or unbloody. The verb “cause to cease” is used here as in Jeremiah 36:29.

And for the overspreading . . .—The Greek versions agree in translating this as follows, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδελυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων, which St. Jerome follows, “et erit in templo abominatio desolationis. However, it is not possible to obtain any such meaning from our present Hebrew text without omitting the last letter and altering the last vowel of the word translated “abominations.” As the text stands it can be literally translated only as follows, “and upon the wing of abominations is a desolator.” The desolator, of course, is the person who causes the desolations mentioned in Daniel 9:26. But what is meant by the “wing of abominations?” The language is without parallel in the Old Testament, unless such passages as Psalms 18:10; Psalms 104:3 are adduced, where, however, the plural “wings,” and not the singular, is used. If the number is disregarded, the words before us are explained to mean that “the abomination” or idolatry is the power by which the desolator accomplishes his purposes. He comes riding on the wings of abominations, using them for his ministers as God does the winds or the cherubim. As it appears decisive against this interpretation that Daniel has written “wing,” and not “wings,” it is better to explain the words as referring to the “sanctuary” spoken of in the last verse. The sense is in that case, “and upon the wing—i.e., the pinnacle of the abominations (comp. the use of πτερύγιον, Matthew 4:5) is a desolator. The Temple is thus called on account of the extent to which it had been desecrated by Israel.

Until the consummation.—These words refer back to Daniel 9:26, and mean that these abominations will continue till the desolation which God has decreed shall be poured upon that which is desolated. Though the word “desolate” is active in Daniel 8:13; Daniel 12:11, it appears in this passage to be used in a passive sense, as also in Daniel 9:18. That which is foretold by Daniel is the complete and final destruction of the same city and temple which evoked the prophet’s prayer. There is no prophecy that the desolator himself is destined to destruction. Of his doom nothing is here stated. The “prince” appears merely as the instrument pre-ordained by God, by whose people both city and sanctuary are to be destroyed.

Here we have a figure who is often interpreted by Christians as an antiChrist figure. This person makes a covenant of one week with the Jewish people. He puts an end to sacrifices (presumably in a 3rd Temple.)

So… this is all very confusing. There is perhaps some great irony in the fact that a chapter wherein Daniel seeks help from God in interpreting a prophecy results in a prophecy that has proven even more confusing. I’ll provide some different interpretations of this text below:

For a written explanation, I’ll point you to wiki:

The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks (chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel) tells how Daniel prays to God to act on behalf of his people and city (Judeans and Jerusalem), and receives a detailed but cryptic prophecy of “seventy weeks” by the angel Gabriel. The prophecy has been the subject of “intense exegetical activity” since the Second Temple period. James Alan Montgomery referred to the history of this prophecy’s interpretation as the “dismal swamp” of critical exegesis.

[…]

Gabriel’s revelation

It has also been argued that there is a “pre-Maccabean core” to the prophetic revelation delivered by Gabriel in verses 24–27, and that certain linguistic inconsistencies between the seventy weeks prophecy and other Danielic passages suggest that the second century BCE author(s)/redactor(s) of the Book of Daniel took over and modified a preexisting oracle that was already in circulation at the time of composition. These ideas have been further developed to suggest that the different redactional layers represented in this text reflect different eschatological perspectives, with the earliest one going back to a priest named Daniel who accompanied Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem in the fifth century BCE and the latest one to an unnamed redactor who edited this prophecy in the second century BCE so that it would function (along with other parts of the Book of Daniel) as part of “a prophetic manifesto for world domination.” It is also argued that the prophecy exhibited a high degree of literary structure at an earlier stage of its development in such a way that the six infinitival clauses of verse 24 were chiastically linked to six divisions of verses 25–27 via an elaborate system of word counts, resulting in the following reconstruction of this earlier redactional stratum:

A     To withhold the rebellion.

B     To seal up sins.

C     To atone for iniquity.

D     To bring a righteous one for the ages.

E     To stop vision and prophecy.

F     To anoint the Holy One of holy ones.

F′     You will discern wisdom from the departure of a word to return and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed one is ruler.

E′     You will return for seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and by the distress of the times it will be rebuilt, square and moat.

D′     After the sixty-two weeks he will cut off an anointed one, and the coming ruler will not have the people.

C′     He will destroy the holy city and its end will be by a flood, and by the end of the determined warfare there will be desolations.

B′     He will take away the sacrificial offering in the other week, and confirm a covenant for many in the middle of the week.

A′     On your base will be eighty abominations, and you will pour out for desolation until a complete destruction is determined.

Genre and themes

The seventy weeks prophecy is an ex eventu prophecy in periodized form whose Sitz im Leben is the Antiochene crisis in the second century BCE, with content analogous to the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks as well as the Animal Apocalypse. In this way, the prophecy puts the Antiochene crisis in perspective by locating it within an overview of history; the specificity of the prediction is significant for the psychological effect of the revelation, which has long been recognized as a distinctive characteristic of Daniel’s prophecies (cf. Ant. 10.11.7 § 267). The prophecy is also an instance of Jewish apocalyptic literature, as it belongs to the genre of revelatory literature in which a revelation is mediated to a human recipient in Daniel by an otherworldly being in the angel Gabriel that envisages eschatological salvation. Within the macro-genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature, the prophecy further belongs to the subgenre known as the “historical apocalypse,” which is characterized by the use of ex eventu prophecy and the presence of an interpreting angel.

The lengthy prayer in verses 3–19 is strongly Deuteronomic in its theology—Daniel’s people are punished for their own sin and appeal to God for mercy. However, such theological overtones conflict with other aspects of the Book of Daniel, in which the primary sin is that of a gentile king and the course of history is arranged in advance. Consequently, scholars have variously argued that the angel ignores Daniel’s prayer and that the author(s) is making the point that “the calamity is decreed and will end at the appointed time, quite apart from prayers,” and/or that the prayer is not intended to influence God but is “an act of piety in itself.” As Collins observes, “[t]he deliverance promised by the angel is in no sense a response to Daniel’s prayer” since “[t]he word goes forth at the beginning of Daniel’s supplication.” In any case, the relationship between Daniel’s prayer and the context in which it is placed, is a central issue in the contemporary scholarly interpretation of chapter 9.

Historical-critical analysis

Historical background

Nebuchadnezzar II defeated the last vestiges of Assyria at Harran under Ashur-uballit II, who was unsuccessfully assisted by Necho of Egypt. It was this event that Josiah lost his life. Jehoahaz of Judah replaced him, but Necho replaced him with Jehoiakim and exacted three years of servitude and tribute. Four years later Necho returned and lost again at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE and Nebuchadnezzar II finally established the Neo-Babylonian Empire as the dominant regional power, with significant consequences for the southern kingdom of Judah. Following a revolt in 597 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar deposed Judah’s king Jehoiakim, installed Jehoiachin for three months, but his rebelliousness brought Nebuchadnezzar back. Jehoiachin surrendered and this saw the first round-up of captives including Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah2 Kings 24

12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. 13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD, as the LORD had said. 14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. 15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.

Nebuchadnezzar finally installed Zedekiah who lasted 11 years. After a second revolt in 586 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the city of Jerusalem along with the Temple of Solomon, carrying away much of the population to Babylon. Accordingly, the subsequent period from 586 BCE to 538 BCE is known as the Babylonian exile, which came to an end when Babylon was conquered by the Persian king Cyrus the Great, who allowed the Jewish exiles to return to Judah via his famous edict of restoration. The Persian period, in turn, came to an end in the first half of the fourth century BCE following the arrival of Alexander the Great, whose vast kingdom was divided upon his death among the Diadochi. The series of conflicts that ensued following Alexander’s death in the wars that erupted among the Diadochi mark the beginning of the Hellenistic period in 323/2 BCE. Two of the rival kingdoms produced out of this conflict—the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt and the Seleucid dynasty in Syria—fought for control of Palestine during the Hellenistic period.

At the start of the second century BCE, the Seleucids had the upper hand in their struggle with the Ptolemaic kingdom for regional dominance, but the earlier conflicts had left them nearly bankrupt. The Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV attempted to recoup some of his kingdom’s fortunes by selling the post of Jewish high priest to the highest bidder, and in 171/0 BCE the existing high priest (i.e. Onias III) was deposed and murdered. Palestine was subsequently divided between those who favored the Hellenistic culture of the Seleucids and those who remained loyal to the older Jewish traditions; however, for reasons that are still not understood, Antiochus IV banned key aspects of traditional Jewish religion in 168/7 BCE—including the twice-daily continual offering (cf. Daniel 8:13; 11:31; 12:11).

Context within chapter 9

The seventy weeks prophecy is internally dated to “the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede” (Daniel 9:1), later referred to in the Book of Daniel as “Darius the Mede” (e.g. Daniel 11:1); however, no such ruler is known to history and the widespread consensus among critical scholars is that he is a literary fiction. Nevertheless, within the biblical account, the first year of Darius the Mede corresponds to the first year after the Babylonian kingdom is overthrown, i.e., 538 BCE.

Chapter 9 can be distinguished from the other “visionary” chapters of the Book of Daniel by the fact that the point of departure for this chapter is another biblical text in Jeremiah’s seventy years prophecy and not a visionary episode. The longstanding consensus among critical scholars has been that verses 24–27 is a paradigmatic example of inner-biblical interpretation, in which the latter text reinterprets Jeremiah’s seventy years of exile as seventy weeks of years. On this view, Jeremiah’s prophecy that after seventy years God would punish the Babylonian kingdom (cf. Jeremiah 25:12) and once again pay special attention to his people in responding to their prayers and restoring them to the land (cf. Jeremiah 29:10–14) could not have been fulfilled by the disappointment that accompanied the return to the land in the Persian period, hence the necessity to extend the expiration date of the prophecy to the second century BCE. Just as various elements of Daniel’s visionary episodes are interpreted for him in chapters 7–8, so also Jeremiah’s prophecy is interpreted for him in a manner similar to the pesher exegesis evidenced at Qumran in chapter 9. However, this consensus has recently been challenged on the grounds that Daniel prays to God following the defeat of the Babylonian kingdom precisely because Jeremiah’s seventy years of exile have been completed and God promised through the prophet that he would respond to such prayers at this time, in which case the seventy weeks prophecy is not a reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy but a separate prophecy altogether. These considerations have been further refined along redactional lines to suggest that the latter holds relative to an earlier “pre-canonical” stage in the text, but that the seventy weeks prophecy is, in fact, a reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy relative to the final form of the text.

The seventy weeks prophecy

The seventy “weeks” of years are divided into three groups: a seven-week period spanning 49 years, a 62-week period spanning 434 years, and a final period of one week spanning seven years. The first seven weeks begin with the departure of a “word” to rebuild Jerusalem and ends with the arrival of an “anointed prince” (verse 25a); this “word” has generally been taken to refer to Jeremiah’s seventy years prophecy and dated to the fourth year of Jehoiakim (or the first year of Nebuchadnezzar) in 605/4 BCE, but Collins objects that “[t]he word to rebuild Jerusalem could scarcely have gone forth before it was destroyed,” and prefers the “word” that Gabriel came to give Daniel in verse 23; other candidates include the edict of Cyrus in 539/8 BCE, the decree of Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE, and the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445/4 BCE. Candidates for the “prince” in verse 25a include Cyrus (cf. Isaiah 45:1), Joshua the High Priest, Zerubbabel, Sheshbazzar, Ezra, Nehemiah, the angelic “prince” Michael (cf. Daniel 10:21b), and even the collective people of God in the Second Temple period.

In the subsequent period of 62 weeks, or what are actually 434 years, the city is rebuilt and settled (verse 25b), at the end of which time an “anointed one shall be cut off” (verse 26a); this “anointed one” is generally considered to refer to the High Priest Onias III, whose murder outside Jerusalem in 171/0 BCE is recorded in 2 Maccabees 4:23–28. Most critical scholars see another reference to Onias III’s murder in Daniel 11:22, though Ptolemy VI and the infant son of Seleucus IV have also been suggested. On the other hand, this raises the question of how 7 + 62 = 69 weeks of years (or 483 years) could have elapsed between the departure of the “word” in verse 25a, which cannot be earlier than 605/4 BCE, and the murder of Onias III in 171/170 BCE. Hence, some critical scholars follow Montgomery in thinking that there has been “a chronological miscalculation on [the] part of the writer” who has made “wrong-headed arithmetical calculations,” although others follow Goldingay‘s explanation that the 70 weeks are not literal chronology but the more inexact science of “chronography”; Collins opts for a middle-ground position in saying that “the figure should be considered a round number rather than a miscalculation.” Others who see the calculations as being at least approximately correct if the initial seven-week period of 49 years can overlap with the 62-week period of 434 years, with the latter period spanning the time between Jeremiah’s prophecy in 605/4 BCE and Onias III’s murder in 171/0 BCE. Saadia Gaon thinks that the “anointed one [that] shall be cut off” refers to a time of trouble immediately following the 434 years, where the “anointed ones” (plural), meaning, many of the anointed priests of Aaron’s lineage, as well the descendants of King David, will be cut off. Saadia goes on to explain such linguistic usage in the Hebrew language, where a word is written singularly, but is actually meant to be understood in the plural context. The Hebrew word for “cut off” is כרת, which has also the connotation of “extirpation,” either by dying before one’s time, or by not being able to bring forth offspring into the world.

The “prince who is to come” in verse 26b is typically seen by critical scholars as a reference to Antiochus IV, though Jason and Menelaus have also been suggested. Hence, the “troops of the prince” are thought to be either the Seleucid troops that settled in Jerusalem (cf. Daniel 11:31; 1 Maccabees 1:29–40) or the Jewish hellenizers. The reference to “troops” that will “destroy the city and the sanctuary” in verse 26b is somewhat problematic since neither Jerusalem nor the temple were actually destroyed, though the city was arguably rendered desolate and the temple defiled (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:46; 2 Maccabees 6:2), and Daniel’s language of destruction “seems excessive”.

Saadia, who takes a different approach, explains the “prince (nagīd) who is to come” as being Titus, who came against the city at the conclusion of the 490 year period, when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Imperial Roman army. This approach shows the 7 year week to include the Roman-Jewish War or Jewish Uprising from 66 AD which would conclude with the fall of Masada circa 73 AD. The covenant being confirmed would be the one that originated with Alexander the Great and the high priest of Israel recorded in the Maccabees, later upheld by the hellenizers into Roman rule. This confirmation with the Roman Senate would be the beginnings of the Roman-Jewish War or Jewish Uprising.

The “covenant” in verse 27a most likely refers to the covenant between the Jewish hellenizers and Antiochus IV reported in 1 Maccabees 1:11, with the ban on regular worship for a period that lasted approximately three and a half years alluded to in the subsequent clause (cf. Daniel 7:25; 8:14; 12:11). According to Saadia, the words: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week” (vs 27a), refers to that time shortly before the actual destruction of the Temple, a time which spanned seven years (“one week”), when God had extended to the people a chance to preserve their Temple, their laws and their polity, by acquiescing to Roman demands and leaving off their internecine strife. During this time of growing animosity against Rome, the Roman army sought to appease the Jewish nation and not to suffer their Temple to be destroyed. However, three and a half years before the Temple’s demise, the Romans, through trickery and spitefulness, caused the cessation of their daily whole burnt-offerings, which culminated in the destruction of the Holy House three and a half years later.

The “abomination that desolates” in verse 27b (cf. 1 Maccabees 1:54) is usually seen as a reference to either the pagan sacrifices that replaced the twice-daily Jewish offering, (cf. Daniel 11:31; 12:11; 2 Maccabees 6:5), or the pagan altar on which such offerings were made. Saadia wrote that this refers to a graven image that was erected in the Holy Place, where the Temple formerly stood.

Christological readings

There is a longstanding tradition within Christianity of reading Daniel 9 as a messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The various Christological readings that have been proposed share a number of features in common: either the “anointed prince” in verse 25a or the “anointed one” in verse 26a (or both) are understood to be references to Christ, who is also sometimes thought to be the “most holy” that is anointed in verse 24 (so the Peshitta and the Vulgate). Some of the early church fathers also saw another reference to Christ in the “prince who is to come” (verse 26b), but this figure is more often identified with either the Antichrist or one of the Roman officials that oversaw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (e.g. Titus or Vespasian).

The seven and 62-week “weeks” are most frequently understood for the purpose of Christological interpretation as consecutive, making up a period of 69 weeks (483 years) beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (the terminus a quo) and terminating with the baptism of Jesus. The reference to an anointed one being “cut off” in verse 26a is identified with the crucifixion of Jesus and has traditionally been thought to mark the midpoint of the 70th week, which is also when Jeremiah’s new “covenant” is “confirmed” (verse 27a) and atonement for “iniquity” (verse 24) is made. The “abomination that desolates” is typically read in the context of the New Testament references made to this expression in the Olivet Discourse and understood as belonging to a complex eschatological tableaux described therein, which may or may not remain to be fulfilled.

Another influential way of reading the prophecy follows Africanus in identifying the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445/4 BCE as the terminus a quo. 483 years from 445/4 BCE would extend somewhat beyond the lifetime of Christ to 39/40 CE, hence some Christological interpretations reduce the period to 476 years by viewing them as 360-day “Prophetic Years” (or “Chaldee years” ), so-called on the basis that various biblical passages—such as Revelation 12:6, 14 (cf. Daniel 7:25; 12:7)—appear to reckon time in this way in certain prophetic contexts. The sixty-nine weeks of “prophetic” years are then considered to terminate with the death of Christ in 32/3 CE. The seventieth week is then separated from the 69th week by a long period of time, known in dispensational speak as the church age; hence, the 70th week does not begin until the end of the church age, at which point the church will be removed from the earth in an event called the rapture. Finally, the future Antichrist is expected to oppress the Jewish people and bring upon the world a period of tribulation lasting three and a half years, constituting the second half of the delayed seventieth week. These readings were much inspired by J.N. Darby (known for both dispensationalism and the rapture idea) and later popularized through the expository notes written by C. I. Scofield in his Scofield Reference Bible and continue to enjoy support.