Understanding Daniel’s Seventy “Weeks” Prophecy (pt. 4)

We continue our look at the great prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. Read the rest of the series.

We come now to the last verse of Daniel’s great prophecy. This has been a long journey. If it makes you feel better, many good teachers have struggled to rightly understand this passage. The most insane discussion of which I’m aware is from a British pastor named Andrew Willett in 1622—he devoted 96 pages to answering 89 questions about the mysterious 70 “sevens”![1]  

In Daniel 9:27, there are three key questions to consider:

1. Who is the mysterious “he” in Daniel 9:27?
2. With whom and for how long does this guy make a covenant?
3. How does the prophecy end?

We’ll discuss each, in turn, to wrap up this series. This article answers the first question

Who is the mysterious guy?

The bible says:

And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate (Daniel 9:27).

We need to figure out who this person is who will “confirm a covenant with the many for one week.” Because Gabriel doesn’t use a name in Daniel 9:27 but just says “he will put a stop …,” we must look back and identify the last notable person Gabriel mentioned in Daniel 9:26. Who is it?

It is “the people of the prince who is to come” whom Gabriel last mentioned. The guy mentioned in our verse here in Daniel 9:27 doesn’t seem very friendly. He (a) confirms a covenant of some sort for one “seven” or “week” (the 70^th in this vision), and (b) he stops the sacrifices and grain offering, (c) he ushers in some sinister abomination that destroys or desecrates, and eventually (d) he himself is destroyed.

So, who is this strange man who does all this? Many good bible teachers have suggested many options. We’ll focus on three common possibilities, one of which we can dismiss immediately:

• Option 1: The man in Daniel 9:27 is the Roman general Titus Vespasianus, whom we met in Daniel 9:26, who will destroy the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Daniel 9:27, the argument goes, is still about what happened in 70 A.D. at the end of the First Jewish War.[2]
• Option 2: The guy is Jesus.
• Option 3: The antichrist—the evil ruler who is to come (2 Thess 2; Rev 13).

We can dismiss Option 1 straightaway—the six-item summary of the entire prophecy at Daniel 9:24 ends with paradise regained. But Option 1 leaves us stranded at halftime with no resolution, no eternal righteousness, no removal of sin, no closure. This option is wrong.

Option 2 is more interesting. This is how the argument goes:

• Jesus establishes or (some say) re-affirms the covenant with his church—that is, the new covenant that the prophets said would one day arrive (Ezek 36:25; Jer 31). He would establish “true religion.”[3]
• So, they assume, Jesus “put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering” in the sense that he made the old covenant sacrifices obsolete (Heb 8:1-13; Mt 27:51).
• And, following on from that great event, they believe the “abominations” are the manner in which the Roman armies profaned the temple sanctuary by destroying it.

Further, these same Christians also believe the “he” in Daniel 9:27 cannot be the antichrist because:

• It is the “people of the prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 who will destroy the temple and its sanctuary—an event we now know happened in 70 A.D.
• In Daniel’s day this was all in the future. The people who did this (the Romans) belonged to a particular prince or leader (the Hebrew word can mean either one). And, that leader was the Roman general Titus Vespasianus.
• So, that whole discussion was over by the end of Daniel 9:26—that verse spoke about Titus Vespasianus, and that subject is finished.
• So, Daniel 9:27 must be about a different guy—a guy like Jesus the Messiah.

But this is not best way to understand the passage.[4] Option 3 is the way. There are a few good reasons why:

• First, the guy at Daniel 9:27 seems very unfriendly.
• Second, the length of this 70^th “seven” ought to match those of the other 69 “sevens.”
• Third, the last guy Gabriel mentioned was the coming leader whose people will destroy the temple (Dan 9:26)— the Roman general Titus Vespasianus foreshadows the antichrist to come.

First, this guy from Daniel 9:27 doesn’t seem nice. But Jesus is nice. Many (but not all) English bible versions agree and so they translate the conjunction after the covenant as adversative (וַחֲצִ֨י)—the guy does something sinister after he confirms the covenant.

The two emphases are very different. The NASB (et al) sees this leader take a dark turn sometime after he confirms the covenant. The ESV (et al) just sees another event following it. There is no “right way” to render the conjunction—context must decide. But, it’s enough for you to know that many solid bible translations understand Daniel 9:27 to be describing something very bad.

Second, the length of this 70^th “seven” ought to match those of the other 69 “sevens.”

• If this last and 70^th “seven” is only a symbolic number, then why does God specifically say this person will abolish the sacrificial system in the middle of the week? It is difficult to understand why God would give specifics if the time-period is symbolic.
• Christians who take this approach really struggle to make this last “seven” make any consistent sense. One bible teacher admitted this was “the most embarrassing portion of the prophecy” because he could not find a good solution.[5]
• There are no crazed beasts (Dan 2, 7), flying scrolls, women in pots, or storks carrying a wicked woman off to the far East here (Zech 5) that suggest this passage is figurative language. When we see that stuff elsewhere, we know it isn’t painting reality in “normal” hues. But that isn’t happening here—this is normal language. This suggests we ought to understand the language in a normal, straightforward way.
• Also, we ought to interpret the “sevens” consistently throughout this passage. We’ve already seen that the interpretation that understands “one seven = one set of seven years” makes the best sense of the evidence. So, this “70^th seven” ought also to be understood as a period of seven years. This suggests the evil leader (the antichrist) will establish a covenant that lasts seven years (i.e., the 70^th “seven”).
• John Gill, the great Baptist pastor, agreed. It cannot be the Messiah at Daniel 9:27, he argued, “for this is not for one week only, but for ever.”[6] Messiah rules forever, not for one “seven” only!

Third, the last guy Gabriel mentioned was the coming evil ruler whose people will destroy the temple (Dan 9:26), so the antichrist sounds like our guy.

• The way language works is that we identify unnamed people, like the mysterious “he” in Daniel 9:27, by two methods: (a) identifying the most recent name just mentioned, or (b) looking back at the most prominent name featured in the paragraph or text cluster which came immediately before.
• In this case, the most recent and prominent person is the “prince who is to come” whose people destroy Jerusalem and its sanctuary (Dan 9:26). This suggests the mysterious “he” is the Antichrist.[7]
• There are clear bible passages that tell us that a sinister, dark figure will emerge in the last days who will demand divine worship and persecute God’s people.[8] This man of lawlessness will only be destroyed when Jesus returns (see 2 Thess 2; Rev 13; cp. Mt 24:15-31, 1 Thess 4:13-17). Because we know to expect this evil man, it makes sense to see him foretold in our passage here—this is why Jesus explicitly references Daniel 9:27 (in Mt 24:15) and tells us to pay close attention to this very prophecy!

As I mentioned, some bible teachers object that “the prince/leader” in Daniel 9:26 is clearly Titus, so it cannot be the antichrist.[9] True, the most obvious historical referent is the Roman general Titus Vespasianus in 70 A.D., but it’s reasonable to believe he just foreshadows the true evil kingdom that will come in the last days. The prophecy of the crazed, fearsome beast in Daniel 7 suggests the fourth great pagan kingdom in God’s timetable, that of “Rome,” will exist in three phases.[10]

• Phase 1: The old Roman Empire under whose jurisdiction Jesus and Pontius Pilate lived (Dan 7:23).
• Phase 2: Sometime after Jesus’ day, a splintered remnant that has divided into various pieces (the “10 horns” of the scary fourth beast, Dan 7:23-24).
• Phase 3: A powerful king who will arise from among the splintered bits of Phase 2 (Dan 7:24-26).

It is this third phase which the antichrist represents. Jesus himself, in Matthew 24:15-28, seems to shade two calamitous events—the destruction of the city and temple in 70 A.D. and the antichrist’s reign of terror during the last days—together in the telling. Trustworthy bible scholars and teachers of every stripe recognize this—just look at any study bible you have lying about and see for yourself! Just as David’s life and standing is a shadowy reflection that points to Jesus, so too does Titus point to the antichrist in this sense.

If true, then (a) Titus does not exhaust the meaning of “the prince/leader who is to come” at Daniel 9:26, and (b) antichrist is just as much a leader of “Rome” as Titus—he just operates in a different phase of that pagan kingdom.

We tackle the remaining two questions about Daniel 9:27 in our next (and final) article.

---

[1] Andrew Willett, Hexapla in Danielem (Cambridge: Legge, 1622),264-360.

[2] This is John Gill’s argument (Exposition of the Old Testament, 6:346-47), and that of Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, 6 vols. (reprint; New York: Revell, n.d.), 1094-95.

[3] Albert Barnes, “Daniel,” in Barnes’ Notes, vol. 7 (reprint; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 182.

[4] “Ultimately, the question facing every expositor is what interpretation gives the most natural and intelligent exposition of the text” (John Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971; reprint, 1989), 234).

[5] Barnes, “Daniel,” 183. In desperation, Barnes suggests this last “seven” consists of (a) Jesus’ ≈ 3.5-year ministry, and (b) the apostle’s ministry of “about” 3.5 years (183-85). This is absurd. Does this mean that the new covenant ended 3.5 years after Jesus’ death!?

[6] Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament, 6:346 (emphasis added). I admit that Gill disagrees with my larger position, but everyone disagrees with everyone about how to interpret Daniel!

[7] Edward Young argues mightily that the true antecedent is not the prince but the people, because they are foremost in Gabriel’s mind as he relates the prophecy. This is not taken seriously by any commentator I’ve read, but it is the best attempt I’ve seen to evade the obvious in this passage and it is rhetorically persuasive.

[8] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.25.

[9] Young, Daniel, 208-13. His is the best argument of which I’m aware for the “he = Christ” perspective in Daniel 9:27.

[10] Young, Daniel, 147-50. He is excellent, here.