SEVENTY WEEKS of Daniel’s Prophecy (Dan. 9:25–27).

This is so important a link in sacred

prediction and chronology as to justify its somewhat extensive treatment here. We first give an exact
translation of the passage.
“Seventy heptads are decreed [to transpire] upon thy nation, and upon thy holy city, for [entirely]
closing the [punishment of] sin, and for sealing up [the retributive sentence against their] offences, and
for expiating guilt, and for bringing in [the state of] perpetual righteousness, and for sealing up [the
verification of] vision and prophet, and for anointing holy of holies. And thou shalt know and consider,
[that] from [the time of] a command occurring for returning and building [i. e. for rebuilding]
Jerusalem till [the coming of] Messiah Prince, [shall intervene] seven heptads, and sixty and two
heptads; [its] street shall return and be built [i. e. shall be rebuilt], and [its] fosse, and [that] in distress
of the times. And after the sixty and two heptads, Messiah shall be cut off, and nothing [shall be left] to
him; and people of the coming prince shall destroy the city and the holy [building] and his end [of
fighting shall come] with [or, like] a flood, and until the end of warring [shall occur the] decreed
desolations. And he shall establish a covenant towards many [persons during] one heptad, and [at the]
middle of the heptad he shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering; and upon [the topmost] corner [of
the Temple shall be reared] abominations [i. e. idolatrous images] of [the] desolator, and [that] till
completion, and a decreed [one] shall pour out upon [the] desolator.”
In ver. 24 we have a general view of the last great period of the Jewish Church (see the middle line in
the diagram). It was to embrace four hundred and ninety years, from their permanent release from
Babylonian bondage till the time when God would cast them finally off for their incorrigible unbelief.
See Week. Within this space Jehovah would fulfil what he had predicted, and accomplish all his
designs respecting them under their special relation. The particulars noted in this cursory survey are,
first, the conclusion of the then existing exile (expressed in three variations, of which the last phrase,
“expiating guilt,” explains the two former, “closing the sin” and “sealing up offences”); next, the
fulfilment of ancient prophecy by ushering in the religious prosperity of Gospel times; and, lastly, as
the essential feature, the consecration of the Messiah to his redeeming office.

The only “command” answering to that of ver. 25 is that of Artaxerxes Longimanus, issued in the
seventh yesar of his reign, and recorded in the seventh chapter of Ezra, as Prideaux has abundantly
shown (Connection, s. a. 409), and as most critics agree. At this time, also, more Jews returned to their
home than at any other, and the literal as well as spiritual “rebuilding of Jerusalem” was prosecuted
with unsurpassed vigor. The period here referred to extends “till the Messiah” (see the upper line of
above diagram); that is, as far as his public recognition as such by the voice at his baptism, the
“anointing” of the previous verse; and not to his death—as is commonly supposed, but which is
afterwards referred to in very differnet language—nor to his birth, which would make the entire
compass of the prophecy vary much from four hundred and ninety years. The period of this verse is
divided into two portions of “seven heptads” and “sixty-two heptads.” as if the “command” from which
it dates were renewed at the end of the first portion; and this we find was the case. Ezra, under whom
this reformation of the state and religion began, was succeeded in the work by Nehemiah, who, having
occasion to return to Persia in the twenty-fifth year after the commencement of the work (Neh. 13:6),
returned “after certain days,” and found that it had so far retrograded that he was obliged to institute it
anew. The length of his stay at court is not given, but it must have been considerable to allow so great a
backsliding among the lately reformed Jews. Prideaux contends that his return to Judæa was after an
absence of twenty-four years; and we have supposed the new reform then set on foot by him to have
occupied a little over three years, which is certainly none too much time for the task (see the lower line
of the diagram). The “rebuilding of the streets and intrenchments in times of distress” seems to refer, in
its literal sense, to the former part especially of the forty-nine years (comp. Neh. 4), very little having
been previously done towards rebuilding the city, although former decrees had been issued for
repairing the Temple; and in its spiritual import it applies to the whole time, and peculiarly to the three
years of the last reform.
The “sixty-two weeks” of ver. 26, be it observed, are not said to commence at the end of the “seven
weeks” of ver. 25, but, in more general terms, after the “distressing times” during which the reform was
going on; hence they properly date from the end of that reform, when things became permanently
settled. It is in consequence of a failure to notice this variation in the limits of the two periods of sixty-
two weeks referred to by the prophet (comp. the middle portions of the upper and of the lower line in
the diagram) that critics have thrown the whole scheme of this prophecy into disorder, in applying to
the same event such irreconcilable language as is used in describing some of its different elements. By
the ravaging invasion of foreigners here foretold is manifestly intended the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Roman troops, whose emperor’s son, Titus, is here styled a “prince” in command of them. The
same allusion is also clear from the latter part of the following verse. But this event must not be
included within the seventy weeks; because, in the first place, the accomplishment would not sustain
such a view—from the decree, B.C. 459, to the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70, being five hundred
and twenty-eight years; secondly, the language of ver. 24 does not require it—as it is not embraced in
the purposes for which the seventy weeks are there stated to be appointed to Jerusalem and its
inhabitants; and, lastly, the Jews then no longer formed a link in the chain of ecclesiastical history in
the divine sense—Christian believers having become the true descendants of Abraham. At the close of
the verse we have the judgments with which God would afflict the Jews for cutting off the Messiah:
these would be so severe that the prophet (or, rather, the angel instructing him) cannot refrain from
introducing them here in connection with that event, although he afterwards adverts to them in their
proper order. What these sufferings were, Josephus narrates with a minuteness that chills the blood,
affording a wonderful coincidence with the prediction of Moses in Deut. 28:15–68; they are here called
a “flood,” the well-known Scripture emblem of terrible political calamities (as in Isa. 8:7, 8; Dan.
11:10, 22; Nah. 1:8).
Ver. 27 has given greater trouble to critics than any other in the whole passage; and, indeed, the
common theory by which the seventy weeks are made to end with the crucifixion is flatly contradicted
by the cessation of the daily sacrificial offerings at the Temple “in the middle of the week.” All
attempts to crowd aside this point are in vain; for such an abolition could not be said to occur in any
pertinent sense before the offering of the great sacrifice, especially as Jesus himself, during his
ministry, always countenanced their celebration. Besides, the advocates of this scheme are obliged to
make this last “week” encroach upon the preceding “sixty-two weeks,” so as to include John the
Baptist’s ministry, in order to make out seven years for “confirming the covenant;” and when they have
done this, they run counter to the previous explicit direction, which makes the first sixty-nine weeks
come down “to the Messiah,” and not end at John. By means of the double line of dates exhibited in the
above diagram, all this is harmoniously adjusted; and, at the same time, the only satisfactory
interpretation is retained—that, after the true atonement, these typical oblations ceased to have any
meaning or efficacy, although before it they could not consistently be dispensed with, even by Christ
and his apostles.
The seventy weeks, therefore, were allotted to the Jews as their only season of favor or mercy as a
Church, and we know that they were not immediately cast off upon their murder of Christ (see Luke
24:27; Acts 3:12–26). The Gospel was specially directed to be first preached to them; and not only
during our Saviour’s personal ministry, but for several years afterwards, the invitations of grace were
confined to them. The first instance of a “turning to the Gentiles” proper was the baptism of the Roman
centurion Cornelius, during the fourth year after the resurrection of Christ. In this interval the Jewish
people had shown their determined opposition to the new “covenant” by imprisoning the apostles,
stoning Stephen to death, and officially proscribing Christianity through Sanhedrim. Soon after this
martyrdom occurred the conversion of Saul, who “was a chosen vessel to bear God’s name to the
Gentiles;” and about two years after this event the door was thrown wide open for their admission into
the covenant relation of the Church, instead of the Jews, by the vision of Peter and the conversion of
Cornelius. Here we find a marked epoch, fixed by the finger of God in all the miraculous circumstances
of the event, as well as by the formal apostolical decree ratifying it, and obviously forming the great
turning-point between the two dispensations. We find no evidence that “many” of the Jews embraced
Christianity after this period, although they had been converted in great numbers on several occasions
under the apostles’ preaching, not only in Judæa, but also in Galilee, and even among the semi-Jewish
inhabitants of Samaria. The Jews had now rejected Christ as a nation with a tested and incorrigible
hatred; and having thus disowned their God, they were forsaken by him, and devoted to destruction, as
the prophet intimates would be their retribution for that “decision” in which the four hundred and
ninety years of this their second and last probation in the promised land would result. It is thus strictly
true that Christ personally and by his apostles “established the covenant” which had formerly been
made, and was now renewed, with many of the chosen people for precisely seven years after his public
appearance as a teacher; in the very middle of which space he superseded forever the sacrificial
offerings of the Mosaic ritual by the one perfect and sufficient offering of his own body on the cross.
In the latter part of this verse we have a graphic outline of the terrible catastrophe that should fall upon
the Jews in consequence of their rejection of the Messiah—a desolation that should not cease to cover
them but by the extinction of the oppressing nation: it forms an appendix to the main prophecy. Our
Saviour’s language leaves no doubt as to the application of this passage, in his memorable warning to
his disciples that when they should be about to “see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel
the prophet, stand in the holy place,” they should then “flee into the mountains” (Matt. 24:15, 16;
comp. 23:36, 38).
In the scheme at the head of preceding page, several chronological points have been partially assumed
which entire satisfaction with the results obtained would require to be fully proved. A minute
investigation of the grounds on which all the dates involved rest would occupy too much space for the
present discussion; we therefore content ourselves with determining the two boundary dates of the
entire period, trusting the intermediate ones to such incidental evidences of their correctness as may
have been afforded in the foregoing elucidation, or may arise in connection with the settlement
proposed (see Browne, Ordo Sæclorum, p. 96–107, 202). If these widely distant points can be fixed by
definite data independently of each other, the correspondence of the interval will afford strong
presumption that it is the true one, which will be heightened as the subdivisions fall naturally into their
prescribed limits; and thus the above coincidence in the character of the events will receive all the
confirmation that the nature of the case admits.