The prophecy of seventy weeks given to Daneil in Dan. 9:20-27 is one of the most difficult passages in Scripture, yet it is also one of the most critical to the understanding of prophecies in general and eschatology in particular. Who is Gabriel referring to as the “anointed” in verse 25 and the “anointed” in verse 26? Who is the ruler of the people? What events are prophesized here? And what is the timeline of seventy weeks? Here we will briefly look at the history of interpreting the seventy weeks and assess the legitimacy and consistency of the various views.
Inter-testament Jewish writings:
1 Maccabee (Ch. 1) records the defilement of the temple by Antiochus and the apostasy of Jewish people in mass. This echoes some passages in Daniel (including 9:26-27), but the author of 1 Maccabee does not make a direct link either. Josephus identifies the desolation caused by both Antiochus and Rome as foreseen by Daniel (Ant. 10.11.7. ; 12.7.6), without talking about other details of Daniel’s prophecies. 1 Enoch tells history in a series of weeks with an eschatological vision, which resembles Daniel in certain ways. The book of Jubilees divides history before Exodus into 49 jubilee cycles, with the 50th jubilee as return to the Promised Land. This book also envisions a one-thousand-year Messianic Kingdom.
New Testament
The New Testament has two direct citations of this text (also Dan. 11:31, 12:11): in Mt. 24:15, our Lord speaks of “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place,…”; in 2 Th. 2:3-4, Apostle Paul speaks of “For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” Both of them are talking about a future event that was prophesied in the book of Daniel. The NT does not mention explicitly the seventy weeks, any calculation of days/years, or any direct fulfillment in the NT era related to this passage. This silence by itself does not prove or disapprove any link between seventy weeks and Jesus, but this is a silence noteworthy.
(Josephus understands the Roman sack of Jerusalem as fulfillment of Daniel[1])
Early Church Fathers
Now we look at the Early Church Fathers. Justin Martyr does not mention it. Clement of Alexandria calculates the seventy weeks as follows[2]: starting from Cyrus, first 7×7 of constructing the temple, following 62×7 to Christ, then the last 7 as Roman sack of Jerusalem (Nero the first half). He does not explain the dating of 62×7, nor the gap between 62×7 and the last 7.
Origen sees Christ as the fulfillment of the weeks[3] (differs from his interpretation on Matthew), but no details on the dating. Tertullia’s dating scheme is: 62.5×7+7.5×7. The 62.5×7 refers to the time from Darius to the birth of Christ; the rest from the birth of Christ to the destruction of the Second Temple[4].
Hippolytus has extensive commentaries[5] on Daniel. The main points on Daniel 9 are: 7×7 as before Joshua the High Priest, 62×7 as from Joshua/Zerubbabel/Ezra to Christ (Joshua/Zerubbabel and Era were decades apart), then a gap before the final 1×7 when Antichrist will come (Elijah and Enoch as two witnesses). The end of sacrifice is spiritual not literal.
Julius Africanus[6] starts the seventy weeks at the year of Artaxerxes’ second decree[7] (, 20th year of Artaxerxes, 444 BC), and ends at the year of Christ’s baptism. He uses a 354-day year to make 475 literal years (in his calculation) to fulfill the 490 years in the prophecy.
Athanasius[8] sees the withdrawal of prophecy and destruction of Jerusalem as the evidence of Christ fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel. He also thinks that “Daniel foretells the exact time”.
Eusebius discusses Dan. 9:20-27 extensively[9] and he presents two views. The first view is: 490 years begin with the completion of the temple in 2nd year of Darius (516-15, BC); 69×7 ends in the days of King Herod and Emperor Augustus (36-32, BC), the Anointed cutting off is the death of John Hyrcanus II (30, BC), destruction of the city/sanctuary fulfilled with Herod the Great and then by Romans in 70 AD; last 1×7 refers to the New Covenant, first half being Christ’s public ministry and second being post-resurrection. The second view is: first 1×7 from 1st year of Cyrus to the completion of the temple (6th year of Darius); the 62×7 from 6th year of Darius to the Roman occupation of Judea.
Jerome in his commentary on Daniel[10] discusses various views (including Eusebius, Hippolytus, Apollinaris of Laodicea, etc.) without stating his own. The view of Apollinaris cited by Jerome is: seventy weeks as between the first Advent and second Advent of Christ; the 70th week is the end of the world when Antichrist will emerge.
Julius Hilarianus thinks the seventy weeks start from the 1st year of Darius to the end of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, thus no connection with Christ.
Augustine[11] points out the key to the discussion, “Hence the whole question comes down to whether the prophecy about the weeks of Daniel was fulfilled at the first coming of the Lord or referred to the end of the world or refers to both.” He is of the view that it was fulfilled at Christ’s first coming[12].
The above survey shows that firstly, the diversity of interpretation is evident (as Jerome summarizes), although most agree that the Daniel prophecy points to Christ, they disagree on the exact manner of fulfillment, especially the timing of seventy weeks. Second, almost all the contemporary views can be traced back to one or multiple authors in the patristic era: pre-Christ fulfillment; first Advent fulfillment; 70 AD fulfillment; second Advent fulfillment; some also think there is a gap between the 69th week and the 70th (but place it in different times).
Current views
There is no need to continue the historical survey, and next we focus on several major views in the contemporary scholarship. Two camps emerge: those who treat seventy weeks as 490 literal years and those who treat it as a general idea of completion. The former attempt to develop a date matching historical events and the latter do not. Both agree that at least most of the prophecies in Dan. 9:24-27 have been fulfilled in the first Advent of Christ.
The non-literal interpreters generally hold amillennialism (although not all amillennialists hold a non-literal interpretation). They do not see Gabriel announcing an exact timeline of future events since seven does not always denote exact numbering in the Scripture (such as forgive others seventy times seven). They also see the inconsistency or failure of various schemes in explaining a historical timeline that fits Dainel’s texts[13]. To some extent, the non-literal interpretation is the result of the failure of literal interpretation (since it cannot be explained in a literal way, so it must be general and metaphorical).
The literal interpretation has several schemes, mostly from the advocates of premillennialism. They see that the 70×7 as literal just as the 70 years of exile prophesized by Jeremiah is literal (which Dan. 9 refers to). The breaking up of 70×7 and linking them with actual events also point to literal meaning (it would have been useless if all the timing is just general or for a meaning of completion). But there are problems.
First, the starting year. The first option is 538-37 BC (1st year of Cyrus) as found in 2 Ch. 36:23 and Ezr. 1:2-4. The biblical texts say “In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing:… Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel—he is the God who is in Jerusalem.” Dan. 9:2, “I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.” Isaiah also speaks of Cyrus being the one to build Jerusalem and the temple (Isa. 44:28). The starting of 70×7 is “from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem”. Some would argue that the decree of Cyrus was only for the temple, not for Jerusalem. The interconnectivity between Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezra seems to prevail against it.
The starting year of 538-37 BC is not used in most calculations because it does not square with major historical events after 49 years, 483 years, or 490 years. Christ did not arrive in the year 48-47 BC or anytime near it.
The second option is to move the starting year to 457 BC (7th year of Artaxerxes), as in Ezr. 7:12-26. In this decree, Artaxerxes’ emphasis was on the reinforcement of the temple and the enforcing of the Mosaic Law, although Ezra understood this also including the repair of the temple and Jerusalem (Ezr. 9:9). Starting at 457 BC, the end of 69×7 comes to 27 AD (suppose to be the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry). The last 7 years spans from 27 AD to 33 AD with the middle at Jesus’ crucifixion. However, the texts in Daniel say the “anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing” is after 62×7, not in the middle of the last 7. The ending year of 33 AD (assuming to be the end of large-scale gospel mission to the Jews) is arbitrary.
The third option is 445-44 BC (20th year of Artaxerxes) in Neh. 2:5-8. This points to 32-33 AD as the end of 69×7 based on a 360-day year (69×7×360/365=476, 444+33-1=476). Two major issues: first, the 360-day year is not supported by biblical evidence or historical records in Israel (360-day year means constant shifting of one month about every 6 years); second, the 32-33 AD is not widely accepted as the year of crucifixion. This view sees the last 7 in the eschatological future.
Conclusion
There are no solutions but noble attempts. The non-literal interpretation flattens the biblical prophecies and generalize too many details that are textually meaningful and historically significant (for example, to Daniel and Daniel’s immediate audience). The literal interpretation provides no honestly satisfactory explanation to the texts (not to say the last 7 years, no one explains the 483 years well enough). The chaos of the Early Church Fathers remains to this day. Each one should endeavor to study and articulate his view as best as possible, but should not be blind of the weakness of his own view.
Shall we also notice the silence of Apostles and the immediate followers of the Apostles concerning the seventy weeks? If the seventy weeks indeed provide the exact date of Christ’s public ministry or crucifixion, why were they silent about this? Especially to the Jewish audience? Of course, the apostles cited and alluded to this passage, but they did not explain or attempt to explain the timeline. As to why, we do not know. Should we be at least a bit more cautious and humble in presenting our views?
[1] Jewish Antiquities, x. 276.
[2] Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. … From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows [cites Dan. 7:24-27]…That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, “the Holy of Holies,” having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those “sixty and two weeks,” as the prophet said, and “in the one week,” was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said. (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 1, chapter 21).
[3]“The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled.” (De Principiis, IV:1:5)
[4] “Vespasian vanquished the Jews…and so by the date of his storming Jerusalem, the Jews had completed the seventy weeks foretold by Daniel” (Against the Jews, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3).
[5] Commentary on the Prophet Daniel; Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.
[6] The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus, in The Ante-
Nicene Fathers, vol. 6
[7] It [the city] remained in this position, accordingly, until Nehemiah and the reign of Artaxerxes, and the 115th year of the sovereignty of the Persians.… And reckoning from that point, we make up seventy weeks to the time of Christ. For if we begin to reckon from any other point, and not from this, the periods will not correspond, and very many odd results will meet us. For if we begin the calculation of the seventy weeks from Cyrus and the first restoration, there will be upwards of one hundred years too many, and there will be a larger number if we begin from the day on which the angel gave the prophecy to Daniel, and a much larger number still if we begin from the commencement of the captivity.
[8] The Incarnation of the Word, XXXIX:3-XV:8.
[9] Demonstratio evangelica (book 8, chap. 2)
[10] Commentary on Daniel. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm
[11] Letters to Hesychius. Letter 197, 199 (198).
[12] “If it was fulfilled at the time of the first coming, we do not have to understand that it will also be fulfilled regarding the end of the world. … For Christ is not going to be anointed or killed at the end of the world so that we should expect this prophecy of Daniel to be fulfilled then and believe that it has not already been fulfilled.”
[13]https://frame-poythress.org/hermeneutical-factors-in-determining-the-beginning-of-the-seventy-weeks-daniel-925/
