Daniel 9:25

There are four decrees concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem that Scripture records. The first was Cyrus’ decree to rebuild the temple in 538 B.C. (2 Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; Ezra 6:2-5). The second was Darius I’s decree in 512 B.C. confirming Cyrus’ earlier one (Ezra 6:1; Ezra 6:6-12). The third was Artaxerxes’ decree in 457 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-26). [Note: See William H. Shea, "Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):89-96.] The fourth was Artaxerxes’ decree authorizing Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1-8). Chisholm suggested a fifth possibility, namely, that the decree in view was Jeremiah’s prophecy, sometime between 597 and 586 B.C., that Jerusalem would be rebuilt (Jeremiah 30:18). He took the seventy weeks as symbolic of completeness. [Note: Chisholm, pp. 314-17.]

The first two of these decrees authorized the rebuilding of the temple, and the third provided for animal sacrifices in the temple. Only the fourth one gave the Jews permission to rebuild Jerusalem, and it seems to be the one in view here. The Jews encountered opposition as they sought to rebuild and refortify their ancient capital, as the Book of Nehemiah records. The date 444 B.C., then, probably marks the beginning of this 490-year period.

Seven sevens plus sixty-two sevens equals 483 years. Gabriel predicted that after 483 years, Messiah would be cut off. Detailed chronological studies have been done that show that Jesus Christ’s death occurred then. If one calculates 483 years from 444 B.C., one might conclude that the date for Messiah being cut off is A.D. 39. However, both the Jews and the Babylonians observed years of 360, rather than 365 days per year. If one calculates the number of days involved in the Jewish and Babylonian calendar year, the year Messiah would be cut off comes out to A.D. 33 with a 365-day year, the modern Julian calendar year. One scholar, Sir Robert Anderson, calculated that the day Jesus entered Jerusalem in his triumphal entry was the last day of this long period. [Note: Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, p. 128. McClain, p. 25-26; and H. W. Hoehner, "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology," Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):64; came to the same conclusion.] The Triumphal Entry was significant because it was the last public event during Jesus’ first advent that demonstrated a positive popular reaction to Him. After it, the nation of Israel rejected Him. Whether or not the chronology is that exact, almost all expositors agree that the death of Christ is in view and that it occurred at the end of the sixty-ninth week. J. Paul Tanner showed that there was a strong consensus among the early Church fathers that this passage is messianic, though they varied greatly in their understanding of the details. [Note: J. Paul Tanner, "Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic?" Bibliotheca Sacra 166:662 (April-June 2009):181-200.]

Even Young, a representative amillennialist, supported this basic chronology, though he held that the numbers (7 and 62) were symbolic, not literal numbers. [Note: Young, pp. 191-206, 220-21.] He believed the decree in Daniel 9:24 was Cyrus’ decree of 538 B.C., that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 occurred toward the end of the 70th week, and that the prince to come (Daniel 9:26) was Titus.

What happened after 49 years that justifies breaking this period of 69 weeks into two parts? Perhaps it was the end of the Old Testament revelation through the writing prophets. Another, more probable view, is that it took seven weeks (49 years) to clear out all the debris from Jerusalem, and to restore it fully as a thriving city with streets and moat. [Note: Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 227; Pentecost, "Daniel," p. 1363; Campbell, p. 110; Ironside, p. 165; J. Randall Price, "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts," in Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 151-52.]

"This perfectly describes the work of Nehemiah and under what difficult circumstances he performed his tasks." [Note: Feinberg, p. 130.]

The reference to Jerusalem being rebuilt "with plaza and moat" (NASB), or "with streets and a trench" (NIV), has confused some readers, since Jerusalem never had a typical moat or trench around it. However, the valleys of Hinnom and Kidron, on Jerusalem’s east, south and west sides, resemble a moat or trench around most of the city. In heavy rains they did and still do carry water and function as a moat or trench.