“24Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. 25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. 26And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. 27Then He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.” (Daniel 9:24-27, NKJV)
Daniel’s “seventy weeks” prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. Sadly, though, many today have failed to recognize this wonderful truth and insist that the final week of Daniel’s prophecy has not yet been fulfilled.
Here are 5 proofs that Daniel’s 70th week has been fulfilled.
There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests that the “seventy weeks” are to be split up.
|
1. Counting logically: There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests that the “seventy weeks” are to be split up. The angel, Gabriel, nowhere even hints at a two-thousand-year intermission between the 69th week and the 70th week. Insisting on such a gap is adding to Scripture and negates the very point of the prophecy. Gabriel was giving Daniel a clear timeline of events leading up to the coming of the Messiah and the subsequent destruction of earthly Jerusalem. This was in answer to Daniel’s lamentation over the sins of his people and the current state of the city (Dan. 9:1-19). Gabriel, while noting the ultimate fate of rebellious earthly Jerusalem, was giving Daniel hope; the angel was pointing Daniel to the coming of the promised Messiah – the hope of Israel.
Daniel 9:25 tells us that “from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.” Thus, a total of 69 prophetic weeks was to stretch from the command to restore Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah. This is equivalent to 483 literal years (69 prophetic weeks = 483 prophetic days = 483 literal years1). The decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given by Artaxerxes in 457 BC2, which places the coming of the Messiah in 27 AD. This is readily recognized by most Bible students, as it is generally accepted that Yahushua was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism in 27 AD.3
It’s from the point forward, though, that there has been much confusion. Futurists posit that the remaining events of the prophesy are still awaiting fulfillment. The fallacy of this suggestion is demonstrated below. All of the events prophesied to take place in the seventieth week have already transpired:
Those who insist on separating the 70th week from the rest of the prophecy are inadvertently denying the crucifixion of our lord, Messiah Yahushua.
|
2. Messiah’s Crucifixion: Verse 26 prophesied that the Messiah was to “be cut off, but not for himself4.” Yahushua was cut off (crucified) in the Spring of 31 AD, 3 ½ years after his baptism (27 AD) – in the middle of the 70th prophetic week. (Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint renders this phrase as, “the anointed one shall be destroyed.” Dan. 9:26) This is a very serious problem for the futurist because they place the final week of Daniel’s prophecy in the future. If the final week of Daniel’s prophecy is still future, then the Messiah has not yet been “cut off” for our sins. Even if one is contentious about the specific years of Yahushua’s baptism and crucifixion, the problem remains unsurmountable for the honest Bible student. The 69 prophetic weeks carried us forward to the time of Yahushua’s anointing (baptism); that being the case, his being “cut off” had to take place in the middle of the 70th prophetic week. Those who insist on separating the 70th week from the rest of the prophecy are inadvertently denying the crucifixion of our lord, Messiah Yahushua.
To insist that Daniel’s 70th week has not yet been fulfilled is to disaffirm the great prophetic judgment upon earthly Jerusalem – a judgment that Yahushua warned about throughout his earthly ministry.
|
3. Sanctuary Destroyed: In verse 26, we are told that “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” As Heaven’s final confirmation that the 70 prophetic weeks allotted for the Jewish nation and earthly Jerusalem had been fulfilled, the city and the temple were destroyed in 70 AD. This is history. The destruction of the earthly sanctuary happened right on time, in perfect agreement with Gabriel’s timeline. To insist that Daniel’s 70th week has not yet been fulfilled is to disaffirm the great prophetic judgment upon earthly Jerusalem – a judgment that Yahushua warned about throughout his earthly ministry.
Note: “The people of the prince that shall come” in verse 26 denotes that Rome was carrying out Heaven’s judgment in destroying the earthly city and temple. “The end of it shall be with a flood” denotes the swiftness with which the judgment fell. “And till the end of the war desolations are determined”: (1) foretold the swift destruction of Jerusalem, which was fulfilled in 70 AD; (2) foretells the fact that from the time of the destruction of the temple until the End of time, the land occupied by ancient Israel will never see peace and stability. This is confirmed today by the endless wars between Israel and its neighbors. This desolation is also alluded to in Daniel 9:27.
[T]here is absolutely no mention of an antichrist anywhere in the text.
|
4. Confirming the New Covenant: Verse 27 tells us that “he [Messiah] shall confirm a covenant with many for one week.” Yahushua, the Messiah, confirmed the New Covenant throughout his 3 ½ year ministry and ultimately sealed it with his own blood when he was crucified in the middle of the 70th prophetic week. Following Yahushua’s death, the apostles continued to proclaim the New Covenant for 3 ½ more years. The invitation to accept the covenant was extended to the Jewish nation until the autumn of 34 AD, when the Sanhedrin murdered Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Acts 7). Immediately following this final act of rebellion, the gospel went to the gentiles. Thus, the covenant was confirmed for the duration of the 70th prophetic week. Again, this has serious implications for those who teach that the 70th week is still future, as they are unwittingly denying Messiah Yahushua’s establishment of the New Covenant. Not only this, but they say that the “he” in verse 27 is “antichrist” when there is absolutely no mention of an antichrist anywhere in the text. The “he” in verse 27 is clearly a reference to the Messiah of verse 26. Yahuwah forbid that we refer to His anointed as antichrist!
Upon Yahushua’s death, “the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” by Yahuwah himself – signifying an end to sacrifices.
|
5. The Final Sacrifice: Reading on in verse 27, it says, “But in the middle of the [70th] week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.” Yahushua was crucified in the middle of the 70th prophetic week, bringing an end to sacrifice and offering. It was the promised Messiah who did this, not some future antichrist that is going to storm a rebuilt earthly temple. The author of Hebrews goes through great pains to stress the eternal value of Yahushua’s once and for all sacrifice for sin. It was Yahushua “with his own blood . . . [that] entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Heb. 9:12) “[W]e have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Messiah Yahushua once for all.” (Heb. 10:10) Upon Yahushua’s death, “the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” by Yahuwah himself – signifying an end to sacrifices5. To posit that this prophecy pertains to some future antichrist that will enter a rebuilt temple is to degrade the eternal value of Yahushua’s atoning sacrifice and to do violence to the text. Such interpretations are founded on sensationalism and imagination, not Biblical exegesis.
For a more in-depth examination of Daniel’s seventy-weeks prophecy:
- The Crucifixion: Disproving the Continuous Weekly Cycle
- Daniel 9: Prophecy of the Messiah (eCourse)
- Counter-Reformation Deceit: Futurism & Preterism Infiltrate Protestantism
1 In Scripture, one prophetic day = one literal year. See: Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6.
2 The accession year of Artaxerxes I was 465-464 BC; his first regnal year stretched from the autumn of 464 BC to the autumn of 463 BC. We know that the “going forth” of Artaxerxes’ decree was in 457 BC because Ezra tells us that he departed Babylon in the spring, in the first [Biblical] month, and arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth [Biblical] month of Artaxerxes’ seventh year. “And he [Ezra] came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king. For upon the first day of the first month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his Elohim was upon him.” (Ezra 7:8-9)
3 “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.” (Dan. 9:24)
4 He was “cut off, but not for Himself.” (Daniel 9:26) Isaiah 53 contains a remarkable prophesy of Yahushua’s atoning work on our behalf. It was for us that he was “cut off.”
5 See Matthew 27:51.
1. Daniel 9 presents the 70 weeks as one continuous timeline (no gaps)
Here’s the structure in Daniel 9:24–27:
7 weeks
62 weeks
1 final week (the 70th)
That’s a continuous sequence:
7 + 62 + 1 = 70
The text never hints at:
a pause
a parenthesis
a “church age”
a 40-year gap
a 2,000-year gap
or any interruption at all
Apocalyptic timelines in Jewish literature are continuous countdowns. The whole point is to say: history is moving toward resolution on God’s timetable. Stopping the clock with an invisible pause destroys the literary function of the prophecy.
👉 There is no 40-year gap implied anywhere in Daniel 9.
2. The “gap theory” is invented to save the Jesus interpretation
Here’s what happens in Christian prophecy charts:
69 weeks “end” at Jesus’ ministry or death
Then time mysteriously stops
Then the 70th week is pushed into:
either 70 CE (destruction of Jerusalem)
or the end-times / future Antichrist
But Daniel 9 does not say:
“After 69 weeks, the prophetic clock pauses for an unknown period.”
That idea appears nowhere in Jewish apocalyptic literature. It was created because:
The timeline doesn’t naturally reach 70 CE
The Maccabean interpretation fits the numbers better
The Jesus reading breaks the internal logic
So the timeline has to be bent to keep Jesus in view
In short:
👉 The “gap” is not exegesis. It’s damage control.
3. Daniel 9:26–27 places the destruction inside the 70th week, not decades later
Let’s look at the sequence:
After the 62 weeks, an anointed one is cut off
Then the city and sanctuary are destroyed
Then war and desolations follow
Then during the final week, sacrifices stop and abominations occur
All of that is described as a tight narrative chain, not events separated by generations.
The grammar implies:
Cut off → destruction → desolation → final crisis
Not: cut off → (40-year silence) → destruction
Daniel 9 is describing one historical crisis period, not two unrelated eras separated by decades.
4. The destruction Daniel 9 describes is not 70 CE — it matches Antiochus IV
This is key.
Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” and cessation of sacrifice:
happens during the 70th week
lasts half a week (3½ years)
That matches:
Antiochus IV’s persecution (167–164 BCE)
He:
outlawed Jewish sacrifices
desecrated the Temple
set up pagan worship
persecuted Jews for about 3 years
then the Temple was restored (Hanukkah)
The Roman destruction in 70 CE:
did not stop sacrifices for 3½ years and then restore them
permanently destroyed the Temple
did not lead to restoration of sacrifices
did not fit the “half-week” schema
So Daniel 9’s timeline fits the Maccabean crisis, not the Roman destruction decades after Jesus.
5. If the 70th week were 70 CE, the prophecy fails on its own terms
Daniel 9:24 says the 70 weeks will accomplish:
finish transgression
end sin
atone for iniquity
bring everlasting righteousness
seal vision and prophecy
anoint the holy of holies
None of that happened in 70 CE:
sin didn’t end
righteousness didn’t arrive
prophecy didn’t stop
the Temple wasn’t anointed — it was destroyed
the world didn’t change
So if Christians say the 70th week = 70 CE, then Daniel’s prophecy fails by its own stated goals.
That’s another reason the “gap” theory collapses.
6. The 40-year gap is not only unbiblical — it breaks the genre of Daniel
Daniel is apocalyptic literature. Apocalyptic timelines:
compress history
move rapidly toward climax
assume divine timetable is unfolding without human interruption
They do not pause for centuries with no textual signal.
A 40-year gap (or 2,000-year gap) is:
foreign to Jewish apocalyptic thinking
absent from Second Temple Jewish interpretations
absent from Daniel’s own structure
invented centuries later to retrofit Jesus into the timeline
No Jewish reader in the 2nd century BCE or 1st century CE would ever infer a hidden 40-year pause in the middle of the 70 weeks.
7. Why Christians ended up with this problem
The sequence goes like this:
Early Christians believed Jesus was the Messiah
They searched the Hebrew Bible for texts to explain his death
Daniel 9 looked promising because of “anointed one cut off”
But the timeline didn’t line up
So the timeline was stretched, split, and paused
A gap was invented
The Roman destruction was imported into the prophecy
The original Maccabean context was ignored
the core issue:
If Daniel 9 were really predicting Jesus,
it wouldn’t need invisible gaps and timeline gymnastics to work.
8. Bottom line (straight answer to your question)
Daniel 9 does not imply a 40-year gap
The 70 weeks are presented as continuous
The destruction described fits Antiochus IV, not Rome
The “gap theory” is a later Christian invention
Without the gap, the Jesus interpretation collapses
So historically and textually:
The 70th week is not the Roman destruction of Jerusalem after Jesus.
The timeline belongs to the Maccabean crisis, not the crucifixion.
Daniel 9 is one of the most important prooftexts Christians use to argue that Jesus’ crucifixion was predicted in advance — but when you slow down and read the chapter in its historical and literary context, the “prediction of Jesus” reading basically collapses. Let’s walk through it carefully and in detail.
I’ll go step-by-step, text → history → math → theology.
1. What Daniel 9 is actually about (historical setting)
Daniel 9 is framed as Daniel reading Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years of exile (Daniel 9:2). He prays for the restoration of Jerusalem. The angel Gabriel answers him with a reinterpretation:
Not 70 years — but 70 “weeks” (units of seven).
So the topic is explicitly:
The Babylonian exile
The restoration of Jerusalem
The fate of the Temple
The crisis of foreign oppression
This is 2nd-century BCE literature (written during the Maccabean period), reflecting on earlier events and projecting hope for national deliverance. Nothing in the chapter is about Rome, crucifixion, or a future messiah 600+ years later.
2. “70 weeks” = 490 years (not a mystical countdown to Jesus)
The Hebrew word shavuim just means “sevens.” It does not mean “weeks of days.” It’s a symbolic extension of Jeremiah’s 70 years into 70 x 7 = 490 years — a classic apocalyptic move.
This 490-year schema is built to cover:
From the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem
To the persecution of Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes
To the expected purification/rededication of the Temple (which historically happened in 164 BCE: Hanukkah)
This timeline fits the Maccabean crisis perfectly. It does not line up cleanly with Jesus unless you start massaging dates.
3. The “anointed one” in Daniel 9 is not “the Messiah” in the Christian sense
Daniel 9 mentions two “anointed ones” (mashiach):
“From the going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem
until an anointed one, a prince…” (9:25)
“After the 62 weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off…” (9:26)
Important points:
Mashiach in Hebrew just means “anointed one”
The Hebrew Bible uses this word for:
kings
priests
even Cyrus of Persia (Isaiah 45:1!)
So this does not automatically mean “the future divine messiah.”
Historically, the “anointed one” who is “cut off” fits extremely well with:
Onias III, the legitimate High Priest murdered in 171 BCE
during the crisis that led to Antiochus IV’s persecution of the Jews.
This interpretation is held by many critical scholars because:
Onias was literally an anointed priest
He was unjustly “cut off” (murdered)
His death marks the beginning of the catastrophe described in Daniel 9
Jesus does not fit nearly as cleanly into the narrative flow.
4. The math only points to Jesus if you fudge the starting date
Christians do this:
“Start the 483 years at Artaxerxes’ decree (444 BCE), count forward, and boom — Jesus!”
But this is a made-up starting point:
Daniel 9:25 says the countdown begins from:
“the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”
Which word?
There are multiple decrees in Persian history:
Cyrus (538 BCE)
Darius (520 BCE)
Artaxerxes (457 BCE or 444 BCE)
Christians pick whichever one makes the math land near Jesus.
That’s not prophecy — that’s target-fixing.
Also:
The timeline requires prophetic-year math (360-day years)
Requires rounding
Requires ignoring Daniel 9:26–27’s internal sequence
Requires skipping the Maccabean period entirely
That’s a red flag. Real predictions don’t need date gymnastics.
5. Daniel 9 explicitly describes Antiochus IV, not Jesus
Daniel 9:27:
“He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week,
and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate…”
This matches Antiochus IV Epiphanes perfectly:
He outlawed Jewish sacrifices
He desecrated the Temple
He set up pagan worship
He caused the “abomination of desolation” (referenced also in Daniel 11)
Jesus:
did not stop Temple sacrifices
did not desecrate the Temple
did not make a 7-year covenant
did not end Jewish ritual worship
The text is describing a foreign tyrant persecuting Judaism, not a Jewish teacher being executed by Rome.
6. The “anointed one being cut off” is not described as an atonement death
Daniel 9:26:
“An anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing.”
This is not sacrificial language.
It does not say:
he dies for sins
he atones
he is a redemptive offering
his death brings forgiveness
Instead, the focus is:
His removal triggers catastrophe
Jerusalem is destroyed again
War and desolation follow
That fits Onias III’s murder leading into chaos under Antiochus.
It does not fit Christian atonement theology, which reads far more into the text than is actually there.
7. Daniel 9 says the Temple will be destroyed again — not replaced by Jesus
Daniel 9:26:
“The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
In context:
This refers to another wave of destruction before final deliverance
In Daniel’s worldview, this is part of the Maccabean persecution
Christians reinterpret this as:
“This is about the Romans destroying Jerusalem in 70 CE.”
But that breaks the timeline:
Daniel 9 places the destruction within the 70 weeks
The Maccabean desecration fits perfectly
The Roman destruction is centuries later
So again: Christianity moves the goalposts forward to make Jesus fit.
8. Daniel 9 never mentions crucifixion, Rome, resurrection, or Jesus’ movement
For something supposedly predicting the most important event in Christian theology, Daniel 9 is strangely silent about:
crucifixion
Rome
Gentile salvation
resurrection
a divine son
forgiveness through blood
a new covenant replacing Torah
All of that is read into the text after the fact.
What Daniel 9 actually predicts:
oppression of Jews
defilement of the Temple
suspension of sacrifices
national suffering
eventual restoration
That is Maccabean apocalyptic literature, not Christian gospel prophecy.
9. Jews never read Daniel 9 as predicting Jesus (before or after Christianity)
Before Christianity:
Jews did not interpret Daniel 9 as a timeline to a dying messiah
After Christianity:
Jews rejected the Jesus reading precisely because:
it ignores the Antiochus context
it breaks the timeline
it imports foreign theology into the text
This isn’t “Jewish blindness” — it’s textual consistency.
10. Big-picture conclusion (no spin)
Daniel 9:
is about the Babylonian exile → Persian period → Antiochus IV
uses symbolic apocalyptic numbers
refers to real historical priests and tyrants
culminates in the Temple crisis of the 160s BCE
expects national restoration
The Jesus reading:
cherry-picks starting points
redefines “anointed one”
skips the Maccabean context
forces Roman events into a Greek-era text
imports later Christian theology
So historically and textually:
Daniel 9 is not predicting the crucifixion.
It is interpreting Jewish suffering under Antiochus IV and projecting hope for restoration.