Table Of Contents

• One Of The Hardest OT Prophecies
  • Structure
• These Questions Will Determine Your View
• 1. What is the goal of the Passage
• 2. Are the time periods literal or symbolic?
  • 7+62 or 69 Weeks?
  • Why “Weeks” in Daniel is related to Sabbatical Cycles
  • What Calendar to Use
    • The Most Likely Calendar "Sabbatical year cycles"
    • Alternative View: The Lunisolar Hebrew Calendar
    • When would a week start?
• 3. Which Decree Should Be Used?
• 4. Who is the “anointed one” of Dan 9:25? Is it the same anointed one as in Dan 9:26?
  • Hebrew Definitions
    • Messiah/Annointed
    • The Prince
  • Why Is The Anointed One Cut Off?
• 5. Who makes the "strong covenant with the many" in Dan 9:27?
• 6. Who is "The People" and who is their "Prince"?
  • Is The City Destroyed Or Corrupted?
• 7. What is the nature of the covenant in Dan 9:27?
  • 7a. What covenant is being referred to?
  • 7b. When is this Covenant made?
  • 7c. Sacrifices Will Cease?
• What Should A View Align With?
  • What the Timeline Should Be?
  • The City: Rebuilding and Fate?
  • What the Prince Must Do?
  • The Goals That Must Happen (Daniel 9:24 Objectives)
• Objections To Christian Readings

Intro

Daniel’s prophecy of the 70 Weeks (Daniel 9:24–27) is widely recognized as one of the most detailed and debated time-based prophecies in the Bible. It presents a structured timeline related to the fate of Jerusalem, the people of Israel, and events that are described as completing God’s purposes for them. The text outlines a sequence of “weeks” (generally understood as symbolic time periods) during which certain major outcomes—such as the end of wrongdoing, the establishment of righteousness, and the anointing of something “most holy”—are to occur. Because the passage is densely packed with symbolic language, historical references, and future-oriented statements, it has been interpreted in different ways by Jewish and Christian traditions, as well as by secular scholars.

This prophecy is one of the best proofs for Jesus as the Messiah and for the reliability of the Bible. It stands as one of the most powerful demonstrations of God’s precision, sovereignty, and faithfulness.

Overview

One Of The Hardest OT Prophecies

Daniel 9:24–27 stands at the center of biblical prophecy and remains one of the most debated passages in the Old Testament. Any serious study of the book of Daniel must reckon with these verses, as they shape both our understanding of Second Temple history and the unfolding story of Israel’s redemption and the coming of the Messiah.

The Seventy Weeks is often regarded as one of the most challenging texts in Scripture. As scholars such as Young and Robert Culver have observed, interpretations of this prophecy are almost as numerous as the interpreters themselves. Even so, most views can be grouped into four major interpretive approaches, each placing the fulfillment of the prophecy within a different historical or theological setting.

• Historic Maccabean Fulfillment – This view locates the climax of the prophecy in the 2nd century BC, especially in 167 BC, with the murder of Onias III and the desecration of the Temple under Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
  • Academic/Secular scholarship: This approach typically views the Book of Daniel as a 2nd-century BC composition rather than a 6th-century prophecy. The seventy weeks are interpreted as a retrospective timeline, symbolically recounting events leading up to Antiochus IV. Instead of predicting a coming Messiah or end-times scenario, the prophecy is seen as a coded narrative meant to strengthen Jewish resolve during intense persecution.
• The destruction of Herod’s Temple in AD 70 – This interpretation centers the completion of the seventy weeks in the first century AD, particularly the Roman destruction of the Second Temple. It is often linked to the life and ministry of Jesus.
  • A fulfillment in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ – Many Christian interpreters connect the “anointed one cut off” with Jesus’ crucifixion, seeing His death and resurrection as the decisive act that brings an end to the sacrificial system and inaugurates the New Covenant. (5 For example, Doukhan, 251–76; Owusu-Antwi, 79–88, 173–78; Shea, “Poetic Relations,” 277–82; idem., “Prophecy of Daniel 9:24–27,” 75–118; idem., “Unity of Daniel,” 165–255.).
• A future eschatological fulfillment –This view projects the prophecy—especially the final week—into the future, emphasizing an ultimate period of tribulation, the rise of a final adversary, and the establishment of God’s kingdom.
  • Dispensational futurism – A prominent subset of this view sees Daniel’s prophecy as an end-time timeline. It emphasizes a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks to account for the Church Age. The final week is identified with the Antichrist, a period of tribulation, and the return of Christ.

Structure Of The Chapter

The Book of Daniel is arranged with a double chiastic structure, a literary design that highlights central themes such as God’s sovereignty, the rise and fall of earthly kingdoms, and the certainty of His redemptive purposes. Within this arrangement, Daniel 9 stands at the center of the book’s second half, functioning as a theological and structural hinge.

These Questions Will Determine Your View

Before we study this passage it is very important to clarify terms and phrases used throughout the verse using Exegesis. If this article wishes to present Daniel as evidence for Biblical fulfillment of prophecy we will need to establish the context and meaning of various terms without presenting a theological viewpoint. The following interrelated questions determine how one reads the prophecy:

1. What is the passage's primary purpose?
   • What overarching themes or goals are emphasized in Daniel 9?
   • How do these goals relate to Israel, the Messiah, and eschatology?
2. Are the time periods (seven weeks, 62 weeks, half a week, one week) literal or symbolic?
   • If not symbolic, which calendar system applies—solar, lunar, or prophetic?
   • Should the 7 and 62 weeks be read as one period or two distinct periods?
3. What decree starts the weeks?
   • The text mentions "from the going forth of the word" (Dan 9:25), but who issues this decree?
   • Is it God Himself? Cyrus (539 BC), Artaxerxes (457 BC or 444 BC), or another ruler?
   • How do different starting points affect the timeline's conclusion?
4. Who is the "anointed one" in Dan 9:25?
   • Is this the same figure as the anointed one in Dan 9:26?
   • Could this refer to a historical Jewish ruler, the Messiah, or another significant figure?
   • What are the implications of the anointed one being "cut off"?
5. Who makes the "strong covenant with the many" in Dan 9:27?
   • Is this the same as the "Prince of the covenant" in Daniel 11?
   • Is this covenant confirmed by Christ, a future ruler, or another key figure?
6. Who is "The People" and who is their "Prince"?
   • Is this the Romans?
   • Is the prince of the people a historical leader, the Antichrist or the Messiah
7. What is the nature of the covenant in Dan 9:27?
   • Does the covenant signify a religious agreement, a political treaty, or something else?
8. When does the 70th week begin and end?
   • Does it immediately follow the 69th week, or is there a gap?
   • What key events mark the beginning and end of the 70th week?
   • How do interpretations of the 70th week influence views on the tribulation and the end times?

Interpreters who agree on some aspects of Daniel 9 often disagree sharply on others, resulting in a wide range of views on the Seventy Weeks. The passage has even been called the “Dismal Swamp of O.T. criticism” (@Boice2021-ll). While this article cannot answer every interpretive difficulty, it aims to establish a careful and responsible starting point.

1. What is the goal of the Passage

We answer common objections by returning to Daniel 9:24 and asking a simple question: What are the seventy weeks actually about? The six objectives listed in the verse make it clear that the seventy weeks concern the ending of sin, the bringing of everlasting righteousness, and the accomplishment of final redemption. But we can’t miss the context: Gabriel’s message comes directly in response to Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 9:4–19 (vv. 20–23 explicitly say so).

Daniel had just realized—from reading Jeremiah—that the seventy-year captivity was nearing its end (Dan. 9:2). He responds by pleading with God for three things:

1. The forgiveness of Israel’s sins (Dan. 9:4–6, 9).
2. The restoration of the covenant relationship (Dan. 9:15).
3. The restoration of Jerusalem and the sanctuary (Dan. 9:16–19).

Gabriel’s message reveals that the “seventy weeks” have been decreed to accomplish exactly what Daniel prayed for. Each objective in Daniel 9:24 corresponds directly to Daniel’s burdens: the confession of national sin, the longing for Jerusalem’s restoration, and the appeal to God’s covenant mercy and righteousness.

In short: The prophecy of the seventy weeks is God’s comprehensive answer to Daniel’s prayer—His plan to resolve every burden Daniel laid before Him.

Gabriel’s response in Daniel 9:24 directly addresses Daniel’s prayer for Israel, presenting a plan to resolve Israel’s sin, fulfill the covenant, and restore righteousness. Daniel’s intercession emphasizes God’s people, God’s city, and God’s sanctuary. However in reply, God says, “Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and for your holy city”—not simply “Israel,” just like the way He spoke to Moses during the Golden Calf incident: “Hurry, descend; your people whom you led out of Egypt have sinned.”

The six objectives in Daniel 9:24 correspond to Daniel’s burdens: transgression will end, sin will be atoned for, and everlasting righteousness will be established.

1. "To finish the transgression"
   • The phrase “to finish the transgression” (לְכַלֵּא הַפֶּשַׁע) signals the culmination or restraint of Israel’s rebellion. The singular use of “the transgression” (הַפֶּשַׁע) may point to Israel’s collective rebellion, especially the breach of covenant that led to exile (Daniel 9:5, 9-11). The Hebrew verb kālā’ can mean “to bring to completion” or “to restrain,”.
   • This aligns with Daniel’s covenantal appeal (Lev 26:40-42) and echoes Isaiah 53: Many scholars believe Daniel was aware of Isaiah’s Servant figure and intentionally integrated its theology into his vision. Both Daniel and Isaiah view sin as covenant violation. The Servant of the Lord is described as one who suffering provided the means to end covenant unfaithfulness, fulfilling Israel’s need for restoration. The Servant is pierced “for our transgressions” (v.5), cut off “for the transgression of my people” (v.8), and ultimately bears “the sin of many” and “intercedes for the transgressors” (v.12).
2. "To make an end of sin"
   • The clause “to seal up sins” (לַחְתֵּם חַטָּאוֹת) literally means “to close the ledger.” It signals finality—like a scroll rolled tight and stamped shut, barring any further entries of guilt. This includes both unintentional and habitual sins (cf. Lev 4–5).
   • Daniel had already pleaded for forgiveness (Dan 9:16–19), but the blood sacrifices of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) only deferred judgment. Here, God promises a definitive atonement—justice fully resolved and sin ultimately finalized.
   • The prophets also spoke of a future cleansing achieved by a singular, anointed figure. Isaiah 53 describes a suffering servant who bears the sins of many. Zechariah 3:9 depicts God laying a Stone before Joshua, the promised “Branch,” through whom iniquity is removed in a single day. This Stone, engraved and watched by “seven eyes,” evokes the cornerstone—the foundational figure, rejected yet chosen (cf. Ps 118:22, see Jesus Is The Cornerstone)
   • The cleansing continues in Zechariah 13:1, with a fountain opened “for sin and impurity.” Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 describe the new covenant reality: God “remembers sins no more,” sprinkles clean water on His people, and replaces their stone hearts with living hearts. The result is internal obedience that flows naturally, no longer imposed externally by the law.
3. "To make atonement for iniquity"
   • The phrase “to make atonement for iniquity” (וּלְכַפֵּר עָוֹן) uses the verb kippēr, a Levitical term meaning “to cover, reconcile, or purge.” It refers to a blood-based atonement where guilt is figuratively hidden and the relationship between God and His people is restored. The noun ʿāwōn describes the deep moral distortion of sin. Gabriel is thus promising a complete removal of Israel’s covenant breach.
   • This directly addresses Daniel’s plea for reconciliation, asking God to turn away His wrath and forgive (Dan 9:16–17). The Day of Atonement (Lev 16:30) provides the Levitical precedent for such cleansing.
   • The promised servant will ultimately deal decisively with sin: “The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). His atoning work breaks sin’s power and delivers the justice Daniel sought: “By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11).
   • Zechariah 3 offers a vivid parallel: Joshua the high priest, clothed in filthy garments symbolizing iniquity, is promised that God will “remove the iniquity of that land in one day” (Zechariah 3:9).
4. "To bring in everlasting righteousness"
   • The noun sedeq (“righteousness”) is common in the Hebrew Bible, but the exact phrase “everlasting righteousness” is unique to Daniel. Still, the concept saturates Isaiah’s visions of Israel’s future: the Lord will one day “teach us concerning His ways” (Isaiah 2:3), and Jerusalem will become “the city of righteousness, a faithful city” (Isaiah 1:26). In Isaiah 11, the promised shoot from Jesse—the Branch—rules with perfect righteousness: “He will judge the poor with righteousness,” and “righteousness will be the belt about His loins.” This hope reaches its height in Isaiah 62:1, where God vows not to rest until Zion’s righteousness shines like the dawn.
   • Jeremiah echoes this expectation: a coming Davidic king will reign in justice and truth (Jeremiah 23:5–6). All of this directly answers Daniel’s longing for the restoration of covenant faithfulness and divine justice (Daniel 9:7, 18). Israel anticipated that the Messiah, the Son of David, would usher in a kingdom characterized by righteousness (Isaiah 16:5; cf. Isaiah 32:1).
5. "To seal up vision and prophecy"
   • This points to the arrival of the Messiah, the one who brings the prophetic storyline to its fulfillment. The servant of the Lord in Isaiah 42:6–7 embodies this mission—He establishes God’s covenant, brings light to the nations, and opens blind eyes.
   • Daniel prays with Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy in view (Daniel 9:2), longing for God’s word to come to pass. Gabriel’s promise assures him that God’s entire prophetic plan will reach completion—not merely the end of Babylonian exile, but the fulfillment of every covenant promise spoken through the prophets.
6. "To anoint the most holy place" (or "Holy of Holies")
   1. The Hebrew phrase welimshoaḥ qodesh qadashim (וְלִמְשֹׁחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים) is traditionally rendered “to anoint the most holy” or “the most holy place.” The expression qodesh qadashim (“holy of holies”) most often refers to the inner sanctuary of the tabernacle or temple—the innermost room where God’s presence dwelled (cf. Exodus 26:33–34; Leviticus 16:2). It can also refer to the entire temple complex (Exodus 29:37; Ezekiel 43:12). While the phrase can occasionally apply to people (like priests or kings), the absence of the article here supports understanding it chiefly as a place—the Holy of Holies or the whole sanctuary. Ezekiel’s visions of a future temple (Ezekiel 40–48) end with the declaration: “The Lord is there” (Ezekiel 48:35),
   • Anointing in the Torah consecrated sacred spaces and objects for God’s service. In Exodus 30:26–29, Moses is instructed to anoint the tent of meeting, the ark, and all its furnishings so that they become “most holy.”
   • Daniel 9:17–18, Daniel begs God to cause His face to shine once more on His desolated sanctuary, destroyed by Babylon. This final objective answers that plea directly: the “anointing of the most holy” promises not merely the restoration of the temple, but its re-consecration—set apart again for true worship and marked by the return of God’s presence among His people.

Read more details here at The Parallel Focus Of Daniel 9

2. Are the time periods literal or symbolic?

Daniel describes the prophecy as a span of 70 weeks, using the Hebrew term “šā·ḇū·a” (שָׁבוּעַ) and its plural “šā·ḇu·‘îm” (שָׁבֻעִ֨ים). These are grouped into three segments—7 weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week—collectively forming the 70 šā·ḇu·‘îm.

1. The first seven "weeks" (49 years)
   • These 7 šā·ḇu·‘îm mirror the Jubilee cycle of 49 years in Leviticus 25:1–5 (@Young-MAUnknown-rm). This period aligns with the rebuilding (banah — link) and restoration (shuwb — link) of Jerusalem’s physical structures—its walls, plazas (rĕchob), and moats/defenses (charuwts) as stated in Daniel 9:25.
2. The sixty-two "weeks" (434 years)
   • After the first 49 years, Daniel 9:25 says that 62 more šā·ḇu·‘îm will pass “until Messiah the Prince.”
   • This 434-year period stretches from the completion of Jerusalem’s reconstruction to the arrival of the Messiah, after which Daniel 9:26 foretells He will be “cut off” (karath—“to be killed”).
3. The final “week” (7 years)
   • The last 7-year segment involves a covenant and includes the period in which the Messiah is “cut off.”
4. Aftereffects:
   • Following the cutting off of the Messiah, the prophecy predicts severe consequences for Jerusalem: the sanctuary and the city will be destroyed.

There are two primary ways interpreters understand Daniel’s “70 weeks”:

Symbolic interpretation:

• This view understands the “seventy weeks” not as a strict calendar timeline but as a symbolic framework. The numbers reflect theological completeness and divine orchestration, similar to other symbolic number-patterns in Scripture (e.g., the seven lamps in Zechariah 4 or in the Days of Creation in Genesis 1). In this interpretation, the 70 weeks function as a literary device expressing God’s sovereign plan to accomplish the six covenant goals in Daniel 9:24, rather than a precise count of years. Proponents point out that ancient Hebrew often used numerical patterns for rhetorical and symbolic purposes.

The literal interpretation:

• This view treats the seventy weeks as actual chronological years—a total of 490 years. Early Jewish interpreters, both messianic and non-messianic, before A.D. 70 consistently took the seventy weeks literally. Josephus (Jewish War 6.312–313) and the Seder Olam Rabbah 30 also placed the conclusion of these “weeks” around A.D. 70, connecting the prophecy to the destruction of the Second Temple (Schäfer, 2003).

  Beckwith (1918) identifies three main literal schemes:

  1. Hellenistic — Found in the Old Greek Septuagint and in the historian Demetrius.
  2. Essene — Reflected in texts like the Book of Jubilees and other mid-second century B.C. writings.
  3. Pharisaic — First attested in the Assumption of Moses.

  Although these groups differed theologically, all three calculated the 490 years literally (VanderKam, 1998). The reasoning is straightforward: Daniel’s prayer (9:4–19) responds to a literal seventy-year exile, and God’s answer expands it to seventy times seven years. If the exile’s duration was literal, these interpreters argue the extended timeline should be too (Goldingay, 1989; Collins, 1993).

Conclusion, The Literal Interpretation

The term in Daniel 9 should be understood as “week” in its traditional, literal sense, based on its consistent usage throughout the Hebrew Bible. In every clear Old Testament occurrence, šā·ḇû·aˁ refers to a seven-day period (Genesis 29:27-28; Exodus 34:22; Leviticus 12:5; Numbers 28:26; Deuteronomy 16:9, 10, 16; 2 Chronicles 8:13; Jeremiah 5:24; Daniel 9:24, 25, 26, 27; Daniel 10:2-3.) This literal meaning is further reinforced by the Septuagint—the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible—where the term is consistently rendered with the Greek heptá, “week,” as well as by its usage in Qumran and Rabbinic Hebrew sources (@Laiu2024-dd).

7+62 or 69 Weeks?

However, many scholars note that the first two segments (seven + sixty-two weeks) are not truly separate periods in the original structure, but were likely divided in later interpretations. The prophecy was originally presented two main phases rather than three.

In ancient versions, the seven and sixty-two “weeks” are read as one continuous period, with the anointed one appearing only after the full sixty-nine weeks. This unified reading is reflected in the Septuagint (including Theodotion and related Greek witnesses) and the Syriac Peshitta, and is likewise attested in Aquila’s translations. Jerome’s Vulgate similarly shows no separation,

Together, these early textual witnesses support the view that the anointed one comes at the end of the combined period, rather than midway through it (LXX / Theodotion / Symmachus / Peshitta; Aquila; Jerome). (Blue Letter Bible, Digital Commons, Brill, vulgate.org)

Why “Weeks” in Daniel is related to Sabbatical Cycles

In Daniel 9, the term “weeks” (שָׁבוּעַ, šā·ḇû·aˁ) would have been understood as sabbatical year cycles, periods of seven years familiar in Jewish tradition(@WacholderUnknown-qg). Sabbatical years were central to Israel’s covenant with God, requiring the land to rest every seventh year, as commanded in Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:1-4.God promised blessings for obedience and exile for disobedience, as outlined in Leviticus 26:14-39,, with exile serving as punishment for covenant violations (Lev. 26:33). However, if they confessed their iniquity while in exile (Leviticus 26:40-41, 44), Confession and repentance during exile could restore God’s favor (Lev. 26:40-41,44; Lev. 26:42,45). Observing Sabbath years was critical; each unobserved year increased Israel’s penalty (Lev. 26:34-35,43), a principle fulfilled in the seventy-year Babylonian exile (2 Chron. 36:19-23).

Daniel 9 shows that the 70 weeks (490 years) extend God’s covenant with Israel. The exile resulted from covenant disobedience (Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chron. 36:21), which Daniel recognized as nearing completion (Daniel 9:2-3). He confessed Israel’s sins and pleaded for covenant renewal (Daniel 9:5-11,18-19) while repeatedly invoking God’s covenant faithfulness (Daniel 9:2,4,10,13,14,20) and repeatedly used the divine name (Daniel 9:2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 20).

The seventy "weeks" (490 years) serve as a redemptive counterpart to 490 years of prior disobedience, reflecting restoration following disobedience. Leviticus 25:8 links seven sabbatical cycles (49 years) to the Jubilee, corresponding to Daniel’s first “seven weeks” leading to Jerusalem’s restoration. The prophecy culminates in the final seven years, when “the covenant is confirmed” (Daniel 9:27).

What Calendar to Use

Each interpretation of the 70 Weeks prophecy in Daniel 9:24–27 draws upon various calendar systems.

The Most Likely Calendar "Sabbatical year cycles"

The most fitting system for Daniel 9 is the sabbatical year cycle, interpreted as a “week of years”. This aligns primarily with a 49-year Jubilee cycle measured in solar years. While Judah also used a lunisolar calendar for religious festivals and daily life, the sabbatical cycle provided a separate seven-year agricultural rhythm, counted in solar years.

Alternative View: The Lunisolar Hebrew Calendar

Ancient Israel used a lunisolar calendar, with months set by the moon (354 days) and an extra leap month added 7 times every 19 years to align with the solar year (365.2422 days average) . This kept festivals like Passover and Sukkot in their proper seasons. While months were lunar, the sabbatical and Jubilee cycles followed the solar agricultural year. Some scholars propose interpreting Daniel’s “weeks” according to this lunisolar system, reflecting the calendar actually in use.

When would a week start?

Sabbatical years were only observed while Israel was in the land, with each 7-year cycle ending in a rest year for the land. The agricultural year began on Tishri 1 (Rosh Hashanah), so a Sabbatical cycle would run from that date through the end of the seventh year. Jubilee years followed seven Sabbatical cycles. If Daniel’s seventy “weeks” align with actual Sabbatical cycles, it makes sense for the prophetic count to start on the first day of a Sabbatical year, regardless of the decree or event that triggered the timeline.

3. Which Decree Should Be Used?

4. Who is the “anointed one” of Dan 9:25? Is it the same anointed one as in Dan 9:26?

The term “anointed one” (māšîaḥ nāgîd, מָשִׁיחַ נָגִּיד) in Daniel 9:25 is unique in the Old Testament, appearing only in Daniel along with similar titles like śār śārîm (“Prince of princes,” Daniel 8:25). Its interpretation varies: traditional translations (NASB, NKJV, KJV, NIV) render it as “Messiah” or “The Anointed One”, highlighting a single, messianic figure. Some modern translations (NRSV) use “an anointed ruler,” leaving open the possibility of two distinct individuals in verses 25 and 26.

However, the close textual and thematic link between Daniel 9:25 (māšîaḥ nāgîd) and 9:26 (māšîaḥ) strongly suggests they refer to the same individual, with verse 26 using an abbreviated title. Most scholars agree this points to a single messianic figure rather than two separate anointed ones (paulTanner2009-ISDANIEL'SSEVENTY-WEEKSPROPHECYMESSIANIC-PART.pdf, laiu2024-TRANSLATIONISSUESINDANIEL9-24-27.pdf)

Hebrew Definitions

Messiah/Annointed

The Hebrew word māšîaḥ (“anointed”) appears 31 times in the Old Testament, describing someone or something set apart for God’s service(@Paul-Tanner2009-cp). This was not limited to just the Messiah, it can refer to:

1. Priests (Leviticus 8:12, 16:32)
   • The term מָשִׁיחַ (māšîaḥ, “anointed”) was only rarely used to designate a high priest and was not used of priests after Moses’ time (limited to Leviticus 4:3–5, 16; 6:15).
     • In the few cases where it referred to a high priest, it always occurred in the phrase הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ (ha-kohen ha-māšîaḥ), meaning “the anointed priest.”
2. Kings (1 Samuel 10:1, 16:1, 16:13)
   • In the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:12–16, Psalm 18:50; 20:6), the king of Israel was often called מְשִׁיחַ יְהוָה (māšîaḥ Yahweh, “the Lord’s anointed”).
     • More formal designations for the king of Israel include “the Lord’s anointed” or “My anointed” (1 Samuel 2:35), “Your anointed” (Psalm 132:10), and “His anointed” (1 Samuel 12:3).
     • Passages such as Psalm 2:2, Psalm 132:17–18, and Isaiah 61:1 describe this figure as a divinely appointed ruler with worldwide dominion. Hannah's prayer finds hope in this figure (1 Samuel 2:10)
       • Acts 4:25–28 explicitly connects this to Jesus, showing that NT writing also saw this connection.
   • Rarely used of foreign rulers—Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1 is the sole case, where his name is directly linked to the term. Far more often, the title is tied to Israel’s kings, especially those in David’s line, in connection with God’s covenant promise of an eternal throne (2 Samuel 7:12–16)
3. Prophets (1 Kings 19:16)
   • The term מָשִׁיחַ (māšîaḥ) is used of prophets as well.
4. Consecrated objects (Genesis 31:13)
   • Objects set apart for holy use could also be described as מְשֻׁחָה (məšûḥāh), meaning “anointed” or “consecrated.”
5. Patriarchs (1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15)
   • The plural מְשִׁיחִים (məšîḥîm) refers collectively to the patriarchs as “anointed ones,” emphasizing their special covenant status and God’s protection over them.

After the demise of the Davidic kingdom, māšîaḥ naturally evolved into an appellative or name for the future Messiah, often appearing without the definite article, a usage confirmed in post-Biblical Jewish literature (laiu2024-TRANSLATIONISSUESINDANIEL9-24-27.pdf, )

The Prince

Hebrew words commonly translated “prince” include נָשִׂיא (nāsîʾ, often “prince/chieftain”) and נָגִיד (nagîd, “leader, ruler, governor”); translators sometimes render either as “prince.”

1. Nagîd (נָגִיד, “leader, ruler, governor”) H5057
   • The noun נָגִיד (nāḡîḏ), which appears forty-three times throughout the Old Testament, has a broad semantic range meaning “leader, ruler, prince.” Typically applied to human rulers, especially kings of Israel.
     • 1 Samuel 9:16: “…you shall anoint him as ruler (nagîd) over My people Israel…” Also see- 1 Samuel 5:2, 10:1,13:14, 25:30; 2 Samuel 5:2;1 Chronicles 11:2
   • The term also appears for priests (1 Chronicles 9:20), foreign rulers (Psalm 76:12; Ezekiel 28:2), plural nobles (Job 29:10), military commanders (1 Chronicles 13:1), and tribal heads (1 Chronicles 27:16).]
   • Rarely used in prophetic literature, but notably in Isaiah 55:4 to describe the Messiah: “Behold, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader [נָגִיד] (nāḡîḏ) and commander for the peoples.”
2. Śar (שַׂר, “prince, commander, ruler”) Strong’s H8269
   • In Daniel, śar almost always refers to angelic or spiritual beings.
     • Daniel 10:13: “But the prince (śar) of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes (śarîm), came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.”
     • Daniel 10:21: “However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth. Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince (śar).”
     • Daniel 12:1: _“Now at that time Michael, the great prince (śar) who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.”
   • Gabriel and Daniel, use שַׂר (sar, ), when referring to a foreign power and its leadership, such as in the case of Greece. Thus, the word “prince” (נָגִיד; nāḡîḏ, Strong’s ) in Daniel 9, given its own context and surrounding, is not a reference to the Roman or foreign ruler, though the term שַׂר (sar) can be applied to such rulers grammatically.

The “Anointed Prince” of Daniel 9:25 is a human ruler, indicated by the term נָגִיד (nāḡîḏ). The phrase הַנָּגִיד הַבָּא (hab·bā nā·ḡîḏ, “the coming Prince”) occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament in this exact form. This language echoes John the Baptist’s question to Jesus’ disciples: “…Are You the one who is to come, or should we expect another?” (Matthew 11:3). It does not refer to a high priest, since the title ha-kohen ha-māšîaḥ was never used beyond the Mosaic period and always explicitly included “priest.” Nor is it a foreign or military ruler, which Daniel elsewhere designates with שַׂר (śar). Given its uniqueness and prophetic use (cf. Isaiah 55:4), the most logical referent for נָגִיד (nāḡîḏ) and מָשִׁיחַ (māšîaḥ) is the “Son of Man” of Daniel 7—a human figure representing God’s sovereign authority.

Why Is The Anointed One Cut Off?

The phrase in Daniel 9:26 is weʾaḥărê haššāvuʿîm šiššîm ûšənayim yikkārēt māšîaḥ wəʾên lô (וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ)

• Verb – cut off, yikkārēt (יִכָּרֵת)

  • Root: karat Strong’s H3772.
  • Meaning: “to be cut off, destroyed, killed, eliminated.”
  • The Hebrew word is used in the context of making a covenant involving the death of a sacrificial animal (Genesis 15:10, 18), is applied to the death penalty (Leviticus 7:20), and always refers to an unnatural violent death (cf. Isaiah 53:8) elsewhere often implies death or a death by the agency of others such as in Gen 9:11; Exod 31:14; Ps 37:9 (Feinberg) Translating it as “cut off/put to death” is strongly supported by lexical evidence. O Bohu

• Phrase – and he has nothing, wəʾên lô (וְאֵין לוֹ)

  • Literal sense: “and there is nothing to him” / “and he has nothing.”
  • Possible meanings:
    • “and he will have nothing” (loss of inheritance, possessions, success).
    • “and he will have no one” (interpreted as lack of followers or heirs).
  • The KJV says "but not for himself" Both the LXX and Latin Vulgate: renders the clause in a way that has been read as “and he will not have his people / there will not be his people”, so the idea not historically without precedence.
    • The Latin Vulgate is, "et non erit ejus populus, qui eum negaturus est" - "and they shall not be his people who shall deny him".

Some argue that the phrase “and have nothing” in Daniel 9:26 cannot describe the Son of Man, since Daniel 7:13–14 depicts him receiving universal dominion (McComiskey). However, the phrase may simply indicate that following his death, the figure did not immediately receive the promised kingdom, leaving its full realization for a later time (cf. Luke 21:27-31).
A similar nuance is found in the NT book John 14:30, where Jesus says, “for the prince of this world comes, and has nothing in me.” Literally, the words mean “and he has not,” but what is lost is left indefinite. In context, it may signify that he has no claim over Jesus’ people, or that his authority as ruler is temporarily limited (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers). The idea of being “cut off” yet bearing purpose is also reflected in Old Testament passages. In Isaiah 53:8 and Psalm 22:6 (Dr. Apthorp)

5. Who makes the "strong covenant with the many" in Dan 9:27?

Grammatically, the figure who “makes the strong covenant with the many” in Daniel 9:27 must align with the Anointed Prince introduced in Daniel 9:25 (see The Antecedent Of HE in Daniel 9). Therefore, based strictly on the properties of the Hebrew nouns and pronouns, the figure responsible for fortifying the covenant in verse 27 is the Anointed Prince, rather than the people or any other proximate subject. Also Daniel 11:22 mentions a “prince of the covenant,” generally identified by scholars with the “Messiah” cut off in Dan 9:26. This is reinforced by the use of the term nāḡîḏ (“prince”) in both passages.

6. Who is "The People" and who is their "Prince"?

The prophecy in Daniel 9:26 states, "the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary". Given everything we have talked about so far it seems logical to say:

1. The "prince" refers to the Anointed Messiah.

   • The “prince” is best identified with the Anointed Messiah, not a foreign or angelic ruler.
     • Daniel typically uses śar (שַׂר) for angelic or foreign powers (e.g., prince of Persia, Greece), while nāgîḏ (נָגִיד) refers to human rulers, often Israel’s leaders.
   • The unique phrase “the prince who is to come” (הַנָּגִיד הַבָּא) suggests expectation of God’s appointed leader from Isaiah 55:4. These would naturally be the same Son of Man from figure of Daniel 7, another vision of a leader to come.
     • the entire prophecy is forward-looking, counting out "Weeks" until the arrival of a figure who will appear, be cut off, and bring covenantal implications. A “coming” prince fits that literally what he is.
     • Given that we already have two earlier references to the same anointed prince, it is far more natural to read this as a continuation of that figure rather than the sudden introduction of a new, undefined prince.
   • Scholars note that the logical subject of the verbs “confirm” (wǝhiĝbîr) and “cause to cease” (yašbîṯ) in 9:27 is this same “Prince to Come,” the Messiah. (Laicu, Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, 2007, p. 198).

2. "The people" are the Jewish nation of that generation.
   the “people of the prince” most naturally refers to the Jewish nation—specifically the generation contemporary with the Messiah.

   • The word ʿam (עַם) often designates Israel and its tribes, conveying a personal or familial connection (HALOT 854–55; TWOT #1640).
   • In Daniel itself, ʿam overwhelmingly designates God’s covenant people (cf. 9:15, 9:19; 10:14; 11:14, 12:1). In contrast, when Daniel wants to speak of other nations, he typically uses gôy or ʿammîm. Reading it differently here would be an exception without strong contextual reason.
     • This aligns with covenantal patterns in the prophets: Israel’s rebellion brings about its own desolation (cf. Isa 1:7–8; Mic 3:12; Jer 26:18)
   • The city and sanctuary were rebuilt for the Messiah, then the very people of the coming prince are named as those through whom destruction comes.

3. How “the people” bring about the destruction
   The text assigns the destruction to the people, not directly to the prince. This raises the question: does this mean (a) the people are the immediate agents of destruction, or (b) their corruption and rebellion brought it upon them?

   Historical witnesses suggest both elements were in play:

   • Josephus : “I venture to affirm that the sedition destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition.” He may have even linked this destruction to Daniel 9:

     • _“There was a certain ancient oracle, that the city should then be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews, and their own hand should pollute the temple of God…they made themselves the instruments of its accomplishment.” _ Josephus Wars, 4.6.3:
     • *“I venture to affirm that the **sedition [Jews] destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition [Jews].” Josephus Wars, 5.6.1
     • You have not avoided so much as those sins that are usually done in secret; I mean thefts, and treacherous plots against men, and adulteries. You are quarreling about rapines and murders, and invent strange ways of wickedness. Nay, the temple itself is become the receptacle of all, and this Divine place is polluted by the hands of those of our own country;” Josephus Wars, 5.9.4:
     • *Isuppose, that had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, that the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people **came to be destroyed.” ** Josephus Wars, 5.13.6:
     • *“And who is there that does not know what the writings of the ancient prophets contain in them, and particularly that oracle which is just now going to be fulfilled upon this miserable city? For they foretold that this city should be then taken when somebody shall begin the slaughter of his own countrymen. And are not both the city and the entire temple now full of the dead bodies of your countrymen? It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to **purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions.” ** Josephus Wars 6.2.1:

   • Titus’ likewise accused the rebels of bringing destruction:

     • *I hope you, sirs, are now satiated with the miseries of your country, who have not had any just notions, either of our great power, or of your own great weakness, but have, like madmen, after a violent and inconsiderate manner, made such attempts, as have **brought your people, your city, and your holy house to destruction.” ** Titus:Wars
     • *“When I came near your temple, I again departed from the laws of war, and exhorted you to spare your own sanctuary, and to preserve your holy house to yourselves. I allowed you a quiet exit out of it, and security for your preservation; nay, if you had a mind, I gave you leave to fight in another place. Yet have you still despised every one of my proposals, and have set fire to your holy house with your own hands. And now, vile wretches, do you desire to treat with me by word of mouth? To what purpose is it that you would save such a holy house as this was, which is now destroyed? What preservation can you n**ow desire after the destruction of your temple? [[@Josephus1927-dh|Titus:Wars, 6.6.2
     • *And what do you do now, you pernicious villains? Why do you trample upon dead bodies in this temple? And why do you pollute this holy house with the blood of both foreigners and Jews themselves? I appeal to the gods of my own country, and to every god that ever had any regard to this place; (for I do not suppose it to be now regarded by any of them;) I also appeal to my own army, and to those Jews that are now with me, and even to yourselves, that I do not force you to defile this your sanctuary; and if you will but change the place whereon you will fight, no Roman shall either come near your sanctuary, or offer any affront to it; nay, I will endeavor to preserve you your holy house, whether you will or not. ** Titus Wars, 6.2.4]]

   • Larry Wishon proposes view, thinking the word the Hebrew verb yašḥîṯ should be translated as "to become corrupt" and see this as the Jews (from šāḥat, BDB 1007; HALOT 1475).

     • Stronger evidence favors “destruction,”(see more below) but either way the testimonies shows corruption directly leading to catastrophic military judgment (a “flood”).

Is The City Destroyed Or Corrupted?

In Daniel 9:26, the עַם נָגִיד הַבָּא (ʿam nāgîḏ habbāʾ – “the people of the coming prince”) are the subject, while עִיר (ʿîr – “city”) and קֹדֶשׁ (qōdeš – “sanctuary”) are the direct objects. In this verse, the verb translated “destroy” is יַשְׁחִית (yašḥîṯ)—a Hiphil imperfect form of שָׁחַת. Lexicons typically define the root as:

• To destroy, ruin, spoil
• To corrupt, pervert, act wickedly
• Alternative, less attested reading: Some interpreters note that יַּשְׁחִית (yašḥîṯ) can also function intransitively (“to act corruptly, to be corrupt”), as seen in passages such as Gen 6:12; Deut 4:16; Deut 31:29; Isa 1:4; Jer 6:28; 2 Chr 27:2. In these examples, the verb carries a moral sense with no external object. On this basis, a minority view takes Daniel 9:26 to mean “the people of the coming prince will become corrupt,” emphasizing moral downfall rather than physical destruction (see BDB, Hebrew and English Lexicon, p. 1007; HALOT, vol. 4, p. 1467). This reading is grammatically possible but far less commonly adopted.

This destruction aligns with the most common biblical use of שׁחת (shāḥat) in the Hiphil to denote outward destruction (e.g., Gen 6:13Gen 13:10; Gen 19:13–14; Exod 32:7, 10; Num 16:33; 2 Sam 1:14; 2 Sam 20:20), is reflected in nearly all ancient versions (Theodotion, Vulgate, Syriac; cf. Collins, Daniel, 1993; Goldingay, Daniel, 1989), and is carried into almost every major modern translation (KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, JPS). While שָׁחַת does at times refer to moral corruption (Genesis 6:11-12), in Daniel 9:26, it takes two direct objects: “the city and the sanctuary.” . Every time in the Hebrew Bible that שָׁחַת is used in the Hiphil with a city or sanctuary as its object, it refers to physical destruction—never just moral decline (Genesis 13:10; Lam 2:5; Ezekiel 26:4). Even though literal destruction is in view the two ideas are deeply connected and reinforce each other. First, Israel’s corruption is portrayed as the cause. The statement before this is that the “anointed one shall be cut off,”, then what follows is not arbitrary destruction, but divine judgment. Just as in Genesis 6, where the earth was physically judged with a flood because of human corruption, so too in Daniel 9, Israel’s spiritual rebellion and rejection of the Messiah bring about the destruction of the city and temple. The phrase, “its end shall come with a flood,” uses a metaphor frequently employed in Scripture to describe invading armies and overwhelming force (Isaiah 8:7–8; Daniel 11:22). The force of the verb here fits the context of Jerusalem and its temple being overtaken and ruined, a reading long supported by Jewish and Christian exegetical traditions.

This is not the first time this has happened in the bible, Israel has a repeated history of bringing judgment upon itself by rejecting God and breaking covenant with Him. In the days of Moses, though God had miraculously delivered them from Egypt, the people rebelled in the wilderness—worshiping the golden calf (Exodus 32). Their sin was so severe that God told Moses, “Let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and that I may consume them, and I will make of you a great nation” (32:10). This near-destruction was repeated in Numbers 14, after the people refused to enter the Promised Land due to fear, prompting God to again consider destroying them. These moments reveal how close Israel came to judgment—not from enemies, but directly from God—due to their disobedience and rejection of His leadership. The prophet Balaam even used this against Israel when advise their enemy's that if Israel could be tempted into sin—through idolatry and immorality with the Moabite women—God Himself would judge them (Numbers 25). It was not the enemy’s power, but Israel’s disobedience, that brought destruction. The Book of Judges continues this cycle: sin, divine withdrawal, enemy invasion. Later, during the time of the prophets, Israel’s continued idolatry, injustice, and refusal to heed God’s word led to even greater judgment. As foretold by Jeremiah, God sent Nebuchadnezzar—whom He called “My servant” (Jeremiah 25:9)—to destroy Jerusalem and the First Temple (See also The Coming and the Judgment of God).

7. What is the nature of the covenant in Dan 9:27?

Daniel 9 shows us the covenant must meet the following qualifications:

• This covenant is confirmed with many people (likely referring to Israel and possibly to a broader group, depending on interpretation), not just an individual. The promise is meant to involve a significant portion of humanity (Daniel 9:27).
• The covenant must be fulfilled/confirmed through the antecedent of "He" in Daniel 9:27.
  • Grammatically, the figure who “makes the strong covenant with the many” in Daniel 9:27 must align with the Anointed Prince introduced in Daniel 9:25 (see The Antecedent Of HE in Daniel 9). Therefore, based strictly on the properties of the Hebrew nouns and pronouns, the figure responsible for fortifying the covenant in verse 27 is the Anointed Prince, rather than the people or any other proximate subject.
  • A comparison of the Greek translations of Daniel 9:26–27 demonstrates that the figure making the covenant is naturally understood as the Anointed One (Messiah) rather than the “coming leader” or “prince of the people” introduced in verse 26. In the OG, the covenant-making action in verse 27 is not explicitly linked to the “kingdom from among the nations” or the “coming leader” mentioned in verse 26. Similarly, in TH, the “coming leader” is associated with the destruction of the city and sanctuary, but the covenant-making in verse 27 is grammatically tied to the singular masculine pronoun he, which aligns more naturally with the Anointed One introduced in verse 25.
• It involves the cessation of sacrifices and offerings, suggesting a transition in the sacrificial system.
• Ultimately, the 70 weeks prophecies goal is to bring about atonement for iniquity, everlasting righteousness, and the anointing of the Most Holy, the covenant's fulfillment should be aligned and related to this as this take place in the final week .

The Old Testament contains several covenants between God and humanity, each with distinct promises and conditions, including:

7a. What covenant is being referred to?

The term berith occurs seven times in Daniel, concentrated in chapters 9 and 11. The phrase in the 70 weeks is “and he will make a firm covenant with many for one week,”. In the same chapter Dan 9:4–14 emphasizes unfaithfulness to the covenant as the cause of exile to Babylon and Yahweh’s faithfulness to the covenant as the basis for Daniel’s petition (Dan 9:4, 15–16),
Of the six times that the word “covenant” appears in Daniel, four times it is explicitly God’s covenant with Israel (Dan 9:4; 11:28, 30, 32). The covenant in 9:27 is most naturally read in context to also be God’s covenant with Israel even using the same language as in Daniel 11:28, 30 and 32.

7b. When is this Covenant made?

In Daniel 9:27, the covenant is confirmed in the “middle” of the given time period. The Hebrew word חֲצִי (chatsi), rendered here as “middle,” literally means “half” or “part” and is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to describe a division of objects, time periods, or groups (Strong’s 2677). For example, chatsi is used in 1 Kings 16:21 to divide Israel into two groups and in Isaiah 44:19 to describe half of an object being burned. Over 100 occurrences show that chatsi typically denotes a division into two parts rather than a precise midpoint. For instance, in 1 Kings 16:21, chatsi is used to describe the division of Israel into two groups, each following a different leader. Similarly, in Isaiah 44:19, it describes "half" of an object being burned. The overwhelming context of these occurrences supports a translation of "half" rather than "middle," which tends to indicate a specific, central point rather than a mere division into two parts (Exodus 24:6; Deuteronomy 3:13; Joshua 13:31; 1 Kings 10:7; Nehemiah 4:16; Isaiah 44:19; Ezekiel 16:51;).

The argument here is that “half” is a more accurate translation than “middle.” If the intention were to communicate a precise central point, the Hebrew would likely use תַּוֶּך (tavek), which appears over 400 times in the Old Testament to mean “midst” or “center.” Its absence in Daniel 9:27 suggests a more general division rather than an exact midpoint. Consequently, the cessation of sacrifice and grain offering occurs in one half of the week, not necessarily at its exact center. Contextually, since Gabriel declares that “seventy weeks have been decreed,” this half of the week would fall within the latter portion of the 70th week of the prophecy.

7c. Sacrifices Will Cease?

Daniel 9:27 explicitly states that in one half of the week, sacrifice and grain offerings will cease (תַבָשׁ shabath). Most English translations of Daniel 9:27 describe a “he” who causes the sacrifice and oblation (זבח ומנחה) to cease. This specific phrase occurs only two other times in the Old Testament:

Related phrases appear in 1 Samuel 2:29, 15:22; Amos 5:25; Isaiah 56:7; 2 Chron 29:21-31In these contexts, “sacrifice and offering” functions as a hendiadys representing the entire ceremonial and ritual system of Israel. In this light, the reference to the cessation of sacrifices must relate to the period of the first Temple and the old covenants. This cessation signals a significant shift in the sacrificial system and is tied directly to the covenant confirmed by the Anointed Prince.

The verb shabath (“cease, rest”) emphasizes a deliberate action of bringing-to-an-end (cf. Gen 2:2–3). Moreover, while verse 26 speaks of the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary,” verse 27 distinguishes itself by focusing not on the Temple’s fate, but on the cessation of ritual efficacy itself.

Historical scholarship further indicates that this action is prophetic of the Messiah’s mission. As noted in sources such as The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Review and Herald, 1982, pp. 338–42) and M. C. Wilcox’s early 20th-century works (Questions and Answers, 1911; Questions Answered, 1938), the Messiah’s work included putting an end, in the middle of the week, to the Old Testament sacrificial system. This can be seen in places where God declares that He does not ultimately desire sacrifice and offering but obedience and a listening heart (cf. 1 Sam 15:22; Isa 1:11; Amos 5:25).

What Should A View Align With?

What the Timeline Should Be?

The chronology of the 70 weeks (490 years) must adhere to the following strictures:

• Starting Point (The Decree): The timeline must begin with an authoritative proclamation (dabar) to restore (shub) and rebuild (banah) Jerusalem.
  • The decree must be a public, royal edict or divine word that initiates the restoration process.
  • The restoration must involve granting Jerusalem the right to self-governance under Jewish law and the reestablishment of religious identity.
    • This includes appointing magistrates and judges to enforce the Torah.
    • The start date is logically expected to begin on Tishri 1 (the Jewish agricultural new year), regardless of the actual date the decree was issued, because the reckoning is based on Sabbatical cycles.
• Prophetic Measurement: The seventy "weeks" (šā·ḇu·‘îm) must be interpreted as sabbatical year cycles (seven years per week), grounded in the literal 70 years of exile that Daniel was addressing.
  • Calculating the timeline using the "prophetic" 360-day calendar or symbolic cycle units risks reading back external typology into Daniel, as the text itself does not define a year as 360 days or indicate that the unit of a "week" should change mid-prophecy.
• Structure: The seven weeks (49 years) and the sixty-two weeks (434 years) are best understood as one continuous period of 69 weeks (483 years) leading directly to the Anointed Prince.
  • Using the Masoretic athnach accent mark in Daniel 9:25 to justify reading the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks as two separate periods, implying a significant gap, is viewed as a later interpretive choice by the Masoretes, not supported by the original Hebrew syntax or early Greek translations (like Theodotion). The 49th year may carry symbolic emphasis, but the prophecy remains continuous.

The City: Rebuilding and Fate?

The prophecy of Daniel 9 emphasizes both the reconstruction and the destruction of Jerusalem and its sanctuary.

• Rebuilding: This physical reconstruction of infrastructure must take place.

  • The rebuilding process must occur "in troubled times" (amid opposition and difficulty).
  • Any interpretation that suggests the rebuilding of Jerusalem did not include walls, plazas, and defensive systems runs contrary to the specific terms (rĕchob and charuwts) used in Daniel 9:25
  • The restoration involves granting Jerusalem the right to self-governance under Jewish law, including appointing magistrates and judges to enforce the Torah.
  • The timeline may logically begin on Tishri 1 (the Jewish agricultural new year), aligning with sabbatical cycles.

• Destruction

  • Following the 69th week and the cutting off of the Anointed Prince, the destruction and desolation of the city and sanctuary are "determined"
  • This is carried out by "the people of the prince who is to come," likely referring to the Jewish nation of that generation.
  • This destruction is interpreted as God's judgment resulting from the people's corruption and rejection of the Messiah. As this takes place after the Anointed Prince is cut off.
  • The Hebrew term šāḥat in the Hiphil consistently denotes physical destruction, often represented metaphorically as a flood, indicating overwhelming military force or invading armies.
  • The destruction is linked to the people’s rejection of the Messiah and serves as divine judgment for corruption and rebellion.

What the Prince Must Do?

The Anointed Prince (Māšîaḥ Nāgîd), who is the center of the narrative, must perform the following actions:

• Appear after the 69th week: He must arrive after the initial period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks has elapsed.
• Be cut off: He must be violently killed or destroyed (yikkārēt). This term consistently refers to an unnatural, violent death in the Old Testament, such as the death penalty
• Have nothing: Following being cut off, he must "have nothing" (wəʾên lô), which may indicate a loss of followers, possessions, or a lack of immediate reception of the promised kingdom.
• Confirm a covenant: He is grammatically identified as the figure ("he") who confirms a firm covenant with the many for the duration of the final one week (seven years).
  • This covenant is confirmed with the many (rab).
  • The phrasing suggests the action is enforcing, strengthening, or controlling an existing covenant (berith)—most likely God's covenant with Israel—rather than inaugurating a brand-new one from nothing.
• Cause sacrifices to cease: He must put a stop to the sacrifice and grain offering in a half of that final week.
  • This phrase represents the entire ceremonial and ritual system of Israel
  • The Hebrew word chatsi literally means "half" or "part,", it denotes a division into two parts rather than a precise midpoint. Therefore, the cessation occurs in one half of the week, not necessarily at its exact center.
  • The Hebrew pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27 grammatically refers back to the Anointed One who was cut off in v. 26. This establishes that the cessation of sacrifices is directly tied to his death.
  • Given the goals of Daniel 9:24, it's logical to see Prince’s death accomplishes the covenantal purposes—ending sin, atoning for iniquity, and establishing righteousness—so the sacrificial system is no longer required, and its cessation reflects the fulfillment of those objectives.

The Goals That Must Happen (Daniel 9:24 Objectives)

The seventy weeks (490 years) have been decreed by God to accomplish six distinct objectives, resolving the issues Daniel raised in his prayer:

• To finish the transgression (Lekallē hap-peša‘): This requires bringing Israel’s collective rebellion (the breach of covenant that led to exile) to a definitive culmination or restraint, closing the period of rebellion and punishment.
• To make an end of sin (Laḥtōm ḥaṭṭā’ôt): This requires closing the ledger of sins (like a scroll rolled and stamped shut), finalizing guilt, and resolving justice for both unintentional offenses and habitual failure.
• To make atonement for iniquity (Ulekapper ‘āwōn): This must involve a full, definitive blood-based reconciliation (kippēr) between God and His people, removing the deep moral twisting of sin (ʿāwōn) and ensuring that sin’s power is broken.
• To bring in everlasting righteousness (Wlehaḇî’ ṣedeq ‘ōlāmîm): This requires ushering in a time of covenant faithfulness and divine justice, potentially realized by the coming king from David's line (the Messiah).
• To seal up vision and prophecy (Laḥtōm ḥāzôn wenāḇî’): This necessitates the full completion and authentication of divine revelation, fulfilling the visions and promises spoken through the prophets.
• To anoint the most holy place (Welimšoaḥ qodesh qadashim): This requires the re-consecration or purification of the sanctuary or Holy of Holies, reestablishing God’s presence among His people in response to Daniel’s plea for his desolate sanctuary.

Objections To Christian Readings

Other Views