When Jeremiah was considering the fate of Judah at the hands of Babylon he learned from God that Babylonian supremacy would be for ‘seventy years’ (Jeremiah 25.11; 29.10). Given that Nebuchadnezzar first gained supremacy over Judah in 605 BC, and that Cyrus defeated Babylon and exiled Nabonidus in 539/8 BC, that gives sixty six or so years which was pretty close, especially if we take into account a period which would take place before the rule of Cyrus over Palestine was subsequently confirmed and the time that it would take for the initial returning exiles to actually start for home. But a number like ‘seventy years’ would only be a round number anyway, with the number seven (seventy is intensified seven) having special significance throughout the Ancient Near East and indicating a period of divine completeness. Besides in those days the length of a year was not fixed and would depend on the method of calculation. It could indicate twelve moon periods (roughly twelve times thirty days) or it could indicate a solar year of 365 days fairly close to the length of our own year.

But suppose that I was to suggest to you that we should also see a large gap between the sixty ninth and the seventieth year so that the period of seventy years was actually a good deal longer, with the result that Jeremiah was out by quite an amount, I suspect that you would (rightly) think that I was simply playing with figures and inventing an unsubstantiated theory.

But it was on these seventy years that Daniel was meditating when he burst into fervent prayer that God would finally restore Jerusalem and the Temple, and was interrupted by the presence of the angel Gabriel, who informed him that what he was asking for would not be accomplished in seventy years but in ‘seventy sevens’ (and he does not even put ‘years’ in brackets).

In other words just as there had been a fixed period of Babylonian supremacy lasting seventy years, so there would also be a fixed period of ‘seventy sevens’ before the final fulfilment of God’s purposes as described in Daniel 9.24, with the length of a ‘seven’ being left open. Now can anyone tell me what possible justification there is on this basis for suggesting that there was a gap between the sixty ninth seven and the seventieth seven? And if we were to quite arbitrarily demand such a gap, why not also between the seven sevens and the sixty two sevens? Would anyone before the time of Jesus have considered even the possibility of such a gap? The truth is that such manoeuvring completely destroys the parallel specifically stated in Scripture, especially as there are no grounds in the language of the narrative for doing it at all. Why then do people (who usually see themselves as literalists) invent such a gap and avoid the literal meaning? The answer is simple. When wanting to fit Scripture into a theory literalism can go out of the window.

So let us state our conclusion immediately, and that is that there is no suggestion of a gap between the sixty ninth seven and the seventieth seven in Daniel 9 and that any attempt to produce such a gap results not from exegesis, but from a determination to fit the narrative into a particular pattern. Perhaps then if we feel that we have to go to such lengths we should ask rather whether we ought to revise our theory. This gap was, of course, the invention of the early exclusive Brethren (e.g. Darby, Newton).

But there are other inconvenient facts that gap theorists ignore. For example there is the fact that in his book Daniel is careful to differentiate his terms. Thus the term sar is used of foreign kings, as is melech. But the term nagid is only used of Jewish rulers, because it was the long recognised term for such rulers. Initially Saul, David and Solomon were each declared to be a ‘nagid’ when they were appointed to rule over Israel, and the term is closely connected with anointing and appointment.

Daniel in fact uses the term nagid three times in the visions. In 11.22 it refers to the ‘prince of the covenant’, a Jewish ruler. In 9.25 it refers to ‘the anointed prince’ who is unquestionably Jewish. Why then in 9.26 should it suddenly refer to a foreign ruler who would normally have been called a sar (8.11, 25; 11.5) or a melech (six times in chapter 8, eighteen times in chapter 11)? And this is especially so as it speaks of ‘the people of the prince’ because the prince himself has been ‘cut off’. Furthermore the phrase ‘the people of --’ is only elsewhere used by Daniel (in 7.27) of the Jews, whilst it should also be noted that even the term ‘people’ (‘am) is only used by Daniel of the Jews. For foreign people he uses goy (11.23).

The same careful distinction applies to the term ‘covenant’ (berith). Daniel only ever uses it of the covenant with God (five times in chapter 11). Of foreign kings he usually does not speak of covenants or treaties or alliances ,with the exception of 11.6 where the word is mesharim. Why then suddenly introduce a foreign treaty as a ‘covenant’ in 9.27? And this is especially so as the covenant is ‘confirmed’ rather than made, indicating a covenant already known to the reader, that is, the covenant with God.

But what is usually done by many is to decide on the history and then fit Daniel 9 into it, which is totally bad exegesis. Indeed it is not exegesis at all.

Now it is perfectly true that if we treat the sevens as sevens of years we can run into problems when keeping in mind the above, but it must be underlined that there are no grounds anywhere in Daniel for suggesting that the sevens are sevens of years. Indeed Gabriel’s whole point is that they were not ‘years’ but ‘sevens’.

However, let us now all too briefly consider what the passage is actually saying using the criteria provided above. Initially it commences at the ‘going forth of the command to build Jerusalem’. Such a specific command is found in Scripture in Isaiah 44.28, where it is in the mouth of Cyrus in around 539 BC, also connected with a command to build the Temple. That is certainly difficult for any theory that treats the ‘sevens’ as ‘sevens of years’ (without justification). But there is also a problem in that we have no record of Cyrus’ command being fulfilled, and certainly later Jerusalem, while containing the new Temple, was still only a huddle of buildings and not a proud ruling city. On the other hand we could argue that the command must be the one made to Nehemiah when the city was actually built as an independent city. At that time it truly became the Jerusalem of old (at least in status). And that command was in 445 BC, which interestingly enough brings us reasonably close to the arrival of Messiah the Prince, our Lord Jesus Christ, especially if we see the 490 years as years of twelve months in duration and adjust for intercalary months.

What then would the prophecy be saying? The answer is that initially the seven sevens lead up to the time when Jerusalem was firmly established and fortified after an up and down period. Then the further sixty two sevens lead up to the coming of Messiah the prince who is cut off after the completion of the sixty two sevens. After that His people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. It is clear from this that rebellion is in process and the covenant has been broken But then the rebellion will be over, at least for some, and thus the covenant is confirmed ‘with many’. But in the middle of the final seven the covenant will again be broken and sacrifices and offerings will cease, and that will lead on to desolations which will not cease until the end.

That is in fact what happened. The king came, and after the covenant was confirmed with many He was cut off, causing the sacrifices and offerings to cease. Meanwhile by their act of cutting off the king the people had guaranteed the destruction of city and sanctuary, which they themselves set about destroying in the wars of 66-70 AD. The Romans arrived to find that the city had virtually destroyed itself. The final destruction of the Temple was probably caused by Jews who did not want the Romans to enter it (Titus the Roman general wanted to preserve the Temple). It is true that this then means that the last half of the final seven with all its desolations in the Middle East has lasted a considerable length of time, but that is no difficulty when we are talking about God’s timing. And it is surely far better to decide that than to twist all the facts to suit a theory. God did not want us to know how long the final period would be. As Jesus said, ‘it is not for you to know the times and the seasons which the Father has put in His own power’ (Acts 1.7).

Daniel, seven,sevens,seventieth,week,Prince,
Messiah,anointed,one,Jerusalem,city,sanctuary,
desolation,abomination,of,saints,coming,prince,
bible,Christian,Christianity,faith,facts,
trust,repent,Holy,Spirit,Creation