Reformed Theological Seminary

Virtual Campus

THE NATURE OF THE TIME INDICATED

BY ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬IN DANIEL’S PROPHECY
OF THE ‘SEVENTY SEVENS’

A Research Paper

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

0OT516 Isaiah Through Malachi

by

Chuck R. Schussman

June 2010
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………… ii

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Chapter

1. THE ‘SEVENTY SEVENS’: SETTING AND CRITICAL ISSUES …………………………………………………………. 3

Setting ……………………………………………………........................................................................... 3
The First Critical Issue: ַ‫………… שָׁ בּוע‬..………………………………………………………………………………... 5
The Second Critical Issue: The Decree of v. 25 ………………………………………………………………….. 7
The Decree of Cyrus in 539 BC …………………………………………………………………………….. 8
The First Decree of Artaxerxes I in 458/57 BC ………………………………………………………. 9
The Second Decree of Artaxerxes I in 445/44 BC …………………………………………………. 12
Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13

2. THE MAIN WAYS THE NATURE OF ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬IS UNDERSTOOD IN DANIEL 9:24-27 ……………………..……… 15

The Sevens are Normal Years ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

The Sevens are Shortened or ‘Prophetic’ ‘Years’ of 360-days each ………………………..…………. 16
The Sevens together indicate an Indefinite Period of Time ………………………..……………………. 20

3. THE TESTIMONY OF THE LORD IN ISAIAH 44:23 – 45:13 ……………………………………………………………. 23

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25

The Decree of Cyrus and Fidelity to God’s Word ……………………………………………………………….. 25

Summary of Interpretive Issues, with Conclusions …………………………………………………………… 27

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: The Beginning and End Dates of the First 69 Weeks of Daniel’s Prophecy According to various
Dispensational Teachers …………………………………………………….……………………………………….………………………. 18
 INTRODUCTION

Daniel’s prophecy of the ‘Seventy Sevens’ (Dan. 9:24-27) has been called both “one of the most difficult

[to interpret] in all the Old Testament”,1 and “the indispensible key to [understanding] all prophecy”.2 Because

it is exceedingly difficult, and because it is perceived by many to be exceedingly important, this section of

Scripture continues to be a battleground upon which various interpreters from all schools wage war. This

paper focuses on what is perhaps the most critical issue addressed by all interpreters of the ‘Seventy Sevens’

prophecy: that is, the understanding of the term translated ‘sevens’ (Heb. ַ‫ )שָׁ בּוע‬in Dan. 9:24, and thus, the

nature of the time covered by the first sixty-nine such ‘sevens’.3 No interpretation of the prophecy as a whole

will be attempted.

The following discussion is limited to those interpretations considered to be “Messianic” or

“Christological”4 therefore there is no interaction with the interpretations of those who find fulfillment of this

1
Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), 191.

2
Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice, The Truth Behind 'Left Behind': A Biblical View of the End Times (Sisters, OR: Multnomah
Publishers, 2004), 90, emphasis added. Hitchcock and Ice merely condense and re-echo what John F. Walvoord wrote
many years before:

“… the study of Daniel, and especially this chapter [ch. 9], is the key to understanding the prophetic scriptures.…
In the concluding four verses of Daniel 9, one of the most important prophecies of the Old Testament is
contained. The prophecy as a whole is presented in verse 24.”

John F. Walvoord, Daniel - The Key to Prophetic Revelation: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971, 1989), 201, 216
.

3
All interpreters referred to in this paper agree that the end of the 69 th ‘seven’ corresponded with the appearance of
Christ in Israel. Most commonly this is thought to have happened at His baptism or at His Triumphal Entry.

4
A Messianic or Christological interpretation is one which finds the fulfillment in Christ. There is some question about
whether the classical Dispensational interpretation should be considered Christological/Messianic, as on that
interpretation the work of Christ occurs between the 69th and 70th week, and is applied after the conclusion of the
prophecy. It has also been noted by some (Ladd, see below) that the classic Dispensational interpretation focuses, not on
Christ, but on Anti-Christ. Nevertheless, the Dispensational view is included here because some leading Dispensationalists
passage without any reference to Christ. Further, since the interpretations of Dan. 9:24-27, to use E. J. Young’s

phrase, “are almost legion”,5 only a few representative explanations are dealt with. However, each of these

interpretations come from leading interpreters, and are currently considered to be viable explanations of the

passage. Consequently, this is not a historical survey.

This paper will proceed along the following lines: after providing a brief sketch of the setting of the

‘Seventy Sevens’ prophecy, the two main interpretive issues will be identified, the various interpretations will

be stated and evaluated, and conclusions offered. Emphasis will be given to the interpreters’ stated reasons

for accepting the view they do hold and for rejecting the views held by others. Throughout this process the

salient hermeneutical issues will be highlighted and direction for further study suggested. The final section of

the paper provides some reflections upon the reasons good Christians disagree over matters of interpretation.

(notably Walvoord) argue that their interpretation is Christological. In this regard, it is interesting to note how various
scholars characterize their own view and the view(s) of others. Consider the following: Walvoord (Classic
Dispensationalist) characterizes his own view as “Christological” and the view of E. J. Young as “non-Christological. Young
(Amillennialist) characterizes his own view as “the traditional Messianic interpretation” and Walvoord’s view as “the
parenthesis interpretation”. George Eldon Ladd (Historic Premillennialist) characterizes the classic Dispensational view
as finding its foci in “the Anti-Christ and his relations with Israel”, whereas his own view he understands as “messianic”.
Walvoord, Daniel, 218-19; Young, 192, 194; George Eldon Ladd, The Last Things (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1978), 60.

5
Young, 191, writes: “This passage… is one of the most difficult in all the OT, and the interpretations which have been
offered are almost legion.”

2
 CHAPTER 1

THE ‘SEVENTY SEVENS’: SETTING AND CRITICAL ISSUES

Setting

In the first year of Darius the Mede – generally agreed to be 539 BC – Daniel understood from reading

in the sacred books6 that the period of Jerusalem’s desolations – namely seventy years -- were coming to an

end (Dan. 9:1-2).7 Daniel’s response was to turn to the LORD in repentance for the continual sin of his people,

6
Note that the word rendered “books” (ESV) or “Scriptures” (NIV) is in the plural. Daniel mentions that he was reading
Jeremiah; Philip Mauro surmises that he was also reading Isaiah, specifically those passages about Cyrus, who would bring
God’s destruction upon that nation that held God’s people captive, and who would set God’s people free (Isaiah 44:28 –
45:14). “Daniel had not learned about the ending of the captivity by a direct revelation from God, but ‘by books’ --
evidently not the book of Jeremiah only, but that of Isaiah also” (Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great
Tribulation (Boston, MA: Hamilton Bros., 1923), 29.

7
Daniel was probably reading the following two passages from Jeremiah:

11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy
years. 12 But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the
Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the LORD, "and will make it desolate forever. “(25:11-12)

10 This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my
gracious promise to bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD,
"plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me
and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. (29:10-12)

Many interpreters suggest that Daniel simply did a mathematical calculation to figure out where he was on God’s “seventy
year” timeline, however, these passages suggest something more insightful on Daniel’s part. These passages, especially
25:11-12, indicate that one of the purposes of the “seventy years” was so that Babylon could fill up the full measure of
her sin. In this respect, the “seventy years” are the same as the “120 years” that preceded the flood (Gen. 6:3), or the
“400 years” that preceded the entrance into Canaan by the Israelites -- 400 years, by the way, that they were in bondage
in a foreign land, much as in Daniel’s case (Gen. 15:13-16). This implies that Daniel was not simply doing mathematics,
but that he was looking at the overall view of Babylonian history and seeing in it a descending and rapidly accelerating
pattern of both individual and national sin. In addition, being, as he was, an advisor in Darius’s court, it is not a stretch to
assume that he knew of Cyrus the Persian, and that Cyrus was even then subduing nations, just as God had said in Isaiah
45:1. Finally, Daniel, being a faithful student of the Scriptures would have been aware of the prophecies concerning Cyrus
and the role he would play in setting the Israelites free and allowing them to return to the land (Isaiah 44:23 – 45:14).
Taken together, these factors provide the reason for Daniel’s understanding that the “seventy years” were almost up.

3
Israel, and to seek the LORD’s favor (9:3-19). The period of desolation – so far sixty-seven years, if counted

from the first deportation under Nebuchadnezzar in 605 BC – had not yet had the intended effect of bringing

the Israelites to repentance. The background to Daniel’s prayer is his awareness of God’s gracious covenant

with His people,8 their continued violations of that covenant, and the resulting exile. The theological setting is

the covenant curses of Deut. 28 and Lev. 26, although it is most likely that the latter is the primary context.9

Daniel describes his prayer as a confession of sin and a passionate request of God to restore His people and

His sanctuary (Dan. 9:16-20). His prayer is based, not on the people’s holiness (they have none), but on God’s

righteousness (v. 16), mercy (v. 18), and zeal for His holy Name (vv. 17-19).

While Daniel was still praying, the angel Gabriel arrived with the following response:

8
It is significant that in the book of Daniel, God is addressed by His covenant name of YHWH only in this prayer: “Until this
point, and after the prayer, God is portrayed primarily as the absolute ruler of the universe, but here, in Daniel’s prayer,
He is continually given His name LORD i.e. Yahweh, peculiar to the covenant relation with Israel”. A. R. Millard, "Daniel",
in The New Layman's Bible Commentary in One Volume, ed. G. C. D. Howley, F. F. Bruce,and H. L. Ellison (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979) 918; also see Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatalogical Evil
(Texarkana, AR: Covenant Media Foundation, 1999), 13-14.

9
Like Deuteronomy 28:15-68, Leviticus 26 threatens judgments upon God’s people in response to their covenant breaking
wickedness. Unlike Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26 details the escalating nature of those judgments, specifying four times
that if the people do not repent God will punish them “seven times” for their sins (26:18, 21, 24, 28). Verse 21 in particular
indicates that what God means when He says He will punish them (or multiply upon them) “seven times” for their sins is
that He will give them “as their sins deserve”. The final wave of judgment (26:29-45), after the final appeal for repentance,
enumerates (among others) the following punishments: The destruction of cities and sanctuaries (v. 31); the desolation
of the land (v. 32); the scattering of the people among the nations (v. 33); the captivity of the people in the land of their
enemies while the land itself enjoys its Sabbaths (vv. 34-35); and the wasting away of the people in the land of their
captivity (vv. 38-39). Yet, there is hope. This section closes with the following words:

40 "'But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers — their treachery against me and their hostility
toward me, 41 which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies — then
when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, 42 I will remember my covenant with
Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 For the land
will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their
sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. 44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land
of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant
with them. I am the LORD their God. 45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors
whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the LORD.'"

Consequently, Leviticus 26 appears to me to be the framework for Daniel’s prayer of chapter 9. As I indicate later on page
20 of this paper, I believe that Leviticus 25 (‘the Year of Jubilee’) provides the backdrop for God’s answer in the prophecy
of the “Seventy Sevens”.

4
 24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an
end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and
prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until
the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt
with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One
will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and
the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have
been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he
will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the temple] he will set up an abomination
that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” (Dan. 9:24-27)10

It has previously been acknowledged that this passage is one of the most difficult to interpret in all the

Old Testament, if not the Bible. While its details are challenging, the broad outline is clear: From the going

forth of a decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the coming of an Anointed One (the Messiah) will be a certain

amount of time which is measured in terms of the word translated ‘sevens’. Toward the end of the ‘seventy

sevens’ the Messiah will accomplish the six things specified in v. 24. The Messiah’s work will be accomplished

prior to the destruction of the Temple, which in Daniel’s time was yet to be rebuilt.

The First Critical Issue: ַ‫שָׁ בּוע‬

The interpreter of the prophecy of the ‘Seventy Sevens’ is immediately confronted with a problem: What is the

time period indicated by the term ‘sevens’? The Hebrew word ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬simply means “a period of seven,”11 or as

Young explains, “divided into sevens”.12 In this passage it is in the masculine form, whereas ‫בּוע‬
ַ ָׁ‫ ש‬normally

appears in the feminine.13 The feminine form is almost exclusively translated “weeks” elsewhere,14 but that

10
Unless otherwise indicated all Bible references in this paper are to The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV)
(International Bible Society, 1973, 1978, 1984).

11
The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, (Ontario, Canada: Woodside Bible
ַ ָׁ‫ש‬.
Fellowship, 1993). Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research. s. v. ‫בּוע‬

12
Young, 195, emphasis in source.

13
Young, 195; Walvoord, Daniel, 217; Millard, 919.

14
Gen 29:27; 29:28; Ex 34:22; Lev 12:5; Num 28:26; Deut 16:9 (2x), 10, 16; 2 Chrn 8:13; Jer 5:24; Ezek 45:21.; Dan 10:2, 3.

5
cannot be the meaning here.15 Consequently, many interpreters (and some translators)16 understand ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬as

indicating a “week of years”, or a period of seven years, one year for each day of the week, making the total

period covered by the prophecy to be 490 years. However, caution is necessary. Young notes:

Most expositors find here a week of 7 years duration, a total of 490 years. To support this, various
expedients are adopted, but the most convincing is an appeal to the years of Jer[emiah]…. But this
appeal to the years of Jer. does not prove that weeks of years are intended, and in fact, there is no
satisfactory proof of this position.17

A. R. Millard’s summary is also helpful:

‘Seventy weeks of years’ is an interpretive translation; Heb. gives literally ‘in sevens, seventy’, the word
‘in sevens’ being a masculine form as in verse 26, whereas the feminine normally stands for ‘weeks’...
To understand ‘weeks’ here without reserve is unwarranted... Seventy literal weeks are unlikely to be
intended by the expression, and, with Jeremiah at the start of the chapter, seventy ‘sevens’ or weeks
of years are commonly understood. That this remains an interpretation bears repeating.18

Keil and Delitzsch are to the point: “The idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation”.19

Consequently, it is unjustified to assume that ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬refers to any pre-defined period of time.20 As a result, the

15
Young, 196; Millard, 919.

16
The following table shows how various Bible versions translate the first two words of Daniel 9:24.

Translation phrase Version

Seventy weeks KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, AMP, Darby, NRSV, YLT, ESV, NET
Seventy weeks of years RSV
Seventy weeks [of years, or 490 years] AMP
490 years The Living Bible
Seven times seventy years TEV
A period of seventy sets of seven The New Living Translation
Seventy ‘sevens’ NIV

17
Young, 196.

18
Millard, 919, emphasis added.

19
C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, “Daniel” in Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume 9, Ezekiel - Daniel (three volumes in one).
M. G. Easton, trans.. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989. Reprinted from the edition originally published by
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1986), 339.

20
Keil and Delitzsch correctly note that “shaabu`iym [i.e. ַ‫ ]שָׁ בּוע‬does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally
indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be
determined on other grounds.” Keil & Delitzsch, “Daniel”, 339.

6
pertinent question is not “What does this word mean?” but rather, “What is the nature of the ‘time’ indicated

by the word sevens?” For now, we will note that the meaning of the word cannot be determined from the

context. In light of this, Young asks, “How then are we to determine the length of that which is designated by

the present word sevens? We can determine this, not from the word itself, but only from other

considerations.”21 This leads us to our second critical issue.

The Second Critical Issue: The Decree of v. 25

Dan. 9:25, in part, reads: “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and

rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two

'sevens.'” This passage specifies two things: (1) there will be a “decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”, and

(2) sixty-nine sevens later, Messiah will come. John Walvoord highlights the fundamental importance of

correctly determining which decree is being referred to:

The key to the interpretation of the entire passage [9:24-27] is found in the phrase "from the going
forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." The question of the terminus a quo,
the date on which the seventy sevens began, is obviously most important both in interpreting the
prophecy and in finding suitable fulfillment.22

There are three decrees which have been suggested as the fulfillment of Dan. 9:25, and there are

competent interpreters who support each decree. In brief, the three options are:

1. The decree of Cyrus in 539 BC23 (2 Chrn. 36:22-23; Ezr. 1:1-4; 6:1-5).
2. The first decree of Artaxerxes I in 458 BC (Ezr. 7:11-26).
3. The second decree of Artaxerxes I in 445/45 BC (Neh. 2:1-8).

21
Young, 195-96.

22
Walvoord, Daniel, 224.

23
Young, 202, gives the date of Cyrus’ decree as “538-7 B.C.”; all others report the date as 539.

7
 The Decree of Cyrus in 539 BC

The following two considerations provide the main support for the view that the decree spoken of in

Dan. 9:25 is that of Cyrus in 539 BC: (1) v. 25 seems to indicate that Daniel would still be alive when the decree

was made.24 Daniel was alive when Cyrus made his decree, but he was already dead by the time of

Artaxerxes;25 (2) In Isaiah 44:24 - 45:13, the LORD26 names Cyrus by name – approx 150 years before he came

to the throne – and states that He appointed Cyrus to (a) set the captive Jews free, (b) rebuild the Temple, and

(c) rebuild Jerusalem. It would seem that all interpreters who begin with this decree are thereby committed

to viewing the nature of the time indicated by ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬as an indefinite period. Such appears to be the case with

Young and Baldwin. However, Calvin, Mauro, Cooper, and Jordan each argue for this decree yet without being

tied to the same view of time as Young and Baldwin. Jordan argues for what can only be called a hybrid

understanding of time, in which some ‘sevens’ are literally normal calendar years, and other ‘sevens’ are

intended to be normal but are in fact flexible!27 Calvin, Mauro, and Cooper argue for literal calendar years and

24
Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series, D. J. Wiseman,
ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), 169-70, “The assurance that rebuilding was about to be ordered (before
the edict of Cyrus have been made) would have been most important to Daniel.”

25
It will be remembered that Daniel received the “Seventy Sevens” prophecy in “the first year of Darius,” or 539/38 BC;
at this time, he would have been close to 90 years of age. Keil & Delitzsch, “Daniel”, 3.

26
Note the use of God’s covenant name of YHWH in this passage.

27
James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American
Vision, 2007), 473. Specifically, Jordan’s view is that the first seven sevens and the last one seven are normal solar years,
and that the 62 sevens in-between are normal but “symbolic” (his word). He takes the starting point to be the decree of
Cyrus in 539 B.C., and he argues that the 62 sevens are flexible according to what he calls “The Delay”:

The Delay is an important theme in the Bible, and an important aspect of how God deals with people. God
promises judgment for a sin, and then delays the judgment after we sin. He does this to give us time to repent,
but also time to harden in sin…. Hence my conclusion is that the coming of the 70th week, and its aftermath (the
destruction of Jerusalem) was delayed, and that the 62 weeks must be regarded as a symbolic ‘block’ of time.
(ibid.)

It should be noted that Jordan is not arguing in the same way as Richard Pratt Jr. does in his article “Historical
Contingencies and Biblical Predictions” (Pratt’s edited version of the inaugural address delivered to the Faculty of
Reformed Theological Seminary on November 23, 1993). Whereas Pratt argues that God sometimes delays judgment in
response to human repentance, Jordan argues that God delays judgment for the purpose of allowing time for repentance.

8
the decree of Cyrus. They are able to do this because they reject secular chronology for the Persian period, a

move which is no longer tenable. 28

The First Decree of Artaxerxes I in 458/57 BC

Among the interpreters surveyed, only Jay Adams & Milton Fisher,29 and Gleason Archer30 favor the

first decree of Artaxerxes in 458/57 BC, and only because it works so well. These men assume that the ‘sevens’

are normal calendar years. Consequently, this decree alone provides a beginning date that when added to 483

years (i.e. sixty-nine times seven years) brings the prophecy to a conclusion in the ministry of Christ, in this

case 26/27 A.D., usually viewed as the year of His baptism. Nevertheless, as attractive as this might be to

some, it is basically indefensible. The initial question was “What is the nature of the time indicated by ַ‫”?שָׁ בּוע‬

It was seen that this question is not answered in the text, but must be determined by other considerations, the

primary consideration being the date of the decree. Adams, Fisher and Archer argue in a circle; they assume

Regarding Jordan’s hybrid understanding, Joyce Baldwin (though speaking in another context) is correct: this arbitrary
switching between literal and figurative “calls into question one’s methodology” (Baldwin, 176).

28
John Calvin’s view, though no longer tenable, is nevertheless very interesting. Calvin’s view was that the ‘sevens are
normal years, starting with the decree of Cyrus, which was exactly 483 years prior to the baptism of Christ. To hold this
interpretation, one must reject the accepted dating for the Persian period -- a move that Calvin makes. Philip Mauro (an
amillennialist) and David L. Cooper (a Dispensationalist) argue the same way. What is particularly interesting in Calvin’s
case is that he opts for rejecting the dating for the Persian period in order to maintain a literal understanding of the sevens
(years), rather than understand the ‘sevens’ to be symbolic (as Joyce Baldwin) or indefinite (as does Young, and according
to him, Augustine, p. 192). Of course, whenever we believe our interpretations to be valid, and they are in apparent
conflict with the findings of science or archeology, then we must go with Scripture and dismiss the so-called findings of
science. See John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1987), 316; and Gleason
L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 16-17.

For Calvin’s view see: John Calvin, Daniel, Geneva Commentary Series, two volumes in one, (Edinburgh: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1986. First published in Latin 1561; First translated into English 1570. This edition reprinted from the Calvin
Translation Society Edition of 1852-3), 199, 211, 219. For Mauro, see: Mauro, 20-25. For Cooper, see: David L. Cooper,
What Men Must Believe (Los Angeles, CA: Biblical Research Society, 1943), 369-71. For the untenableness of rejecting
secular chronology for the Persian period see: Jordan, 473.For Baldwin, see: Baldwin, 164, 168-70, 176.

29
Jay E. Adams & Milton C. Fisher, The Time of the End: Daniel's Prophecy Reclaimed (Woodruff, SC: Timeless Texts, 2000).,
82-84.

30
Gleason L. Archer, "Daniel", in The Expositor's Bible Commentary 5.0. Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Interactive (The Pradis CD-ROM), u.d.).

9
the sevens are years and then look around for a decree to match.31 In addition, these interpreters unwillingly

undermine their own positions! Adams & Fisher acknowledge that the rebuilding of the temple is included in

the time period covered by the prophecy.32 Indeed, one of the reasons that they reject the decree of Cyrus is

31
Adams & Fisher provide the following four reasons justifying their understanding that the sevens are normal calendar
years:

1. It works (p. 82)

2. It would be analogous to the previous 490 period: “So, if we take this [2 Chronicles 36:20-21] to mean that Israel
had neglected observance of the sabbatical year requirements 70 times, that would extend over a period of 490
years – back to the reign of King Saul. That is quite likely. We are told in 2 Chronicles 35:18 that not since the
days of the prophet Samuel had Israel kept such a Passover as did King Josiah – as part of his reformation. The
terms of the Mosaic Law had been grossly ignored.” (74) The “Seventy-Weeks” is called “Another 490-year
period” (ibid.)
3. Jeremiah’s prophecy of Jer. 25:11-12 was in literal calendar years: “Precisely 70 years had been set as the term
of Jerusalem’s punitive desolation.” (73)
4. The specificity of the numbers seems to require literal calendar years: “Many have tried to figure it all out [i.e.
when the 70 weeks began], sometimes with conflicting results. (Others have dodged the problem of arithmetic
calculation altogether, suggesting the ‘weeks’ are only figurative, covering the entire sweep of history from
Daniel until the end of time.) There must be a more specific reason for such a precise set of numbers.” (84)

In response it should be observed that #1 is irrelevant; regarding #2, Adams & Fisher merely say that it is “quite likely”
that “Israel had neglected observance of the sabbatical years… for a period of 490 years.” As this is only likely (and
therefore not certain) it provides no real basis for drawing any conclusion. Regarding #3, Jeremiah’s “70 years” were not
“precisely” seventy years in length. John Walvoord (usually a strict literalist) calculates them at 67 years (Walvoord,
Daniel, 202, 204); and Joyce Baldwin flatly states “There are various ways of reckoning years of exile, none of which comes
exactly to seventy years” (Baldwin, 164). James Jordan attempts to salvage the situation by arguing that the exile began
with the death of Josiah in 609/08, making the captivity exactly seventy years long (i.e. 608 – 538, Cyrus’s decree). But
Jordan’s attempt likewise fails as no one was taken into Babylonian captivity in 609/08. In fact, Babylon would not invade
Judah until four years later after the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C. – a battle which opened the way for Babylon to
dominate Palestine. Finally, reason #4 does not really need refutation as all that Adams & Fisher assert is that according
to their subjective opinion the amount of detail in Dan. 9:24-27 calls for some sort of “more specific reason for such a
precise set of numbers”. Even if this were the case, it is an arbitrary leap of logic to jump from “there must be a specific
reason” to “the specific reason is that the years are calendar years.” In the final analysis, Adams & Fischer’s justification
for taking the sevens to represent normal calendar years cannot bear the weight of their conclusion.

32
Consider these statements from Adams & Fisher:

“He [Daniel] asked about the restoration of ‘the earthly tabernacle,’ the demolished temple of Solomon [Adams
is probably referring to 9:17]. God answers Daniel’s specific question, but adds far more. The answer takes us on
past that temporary restoration to full salvation in Christ and to the final end of the temple, as rebuilt by King
Herod.” (82)

“At first the most obvious possibility for the starting point seems to be the initial decree of Cyrus, cited in 2
Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This decree, issued in the first year of his reign over fallen Babylon, is dated
to 538 B.C. Subtracting our 483 years from that brings us to 55 BC – far too early for Christ’s birth, let alone the
start of His public ministry. Besides, Cyrus’ decree speaks about the temple, not the finished and fortified city.
Furthermore, starting from that decree, the first period of 49 years would take us to 489 BC, too late a date for
the construction of the second temple, which took place in 536-515 BC.” (84)

10
because “starting from that decree [in 538 BC], the first period of 49 years would take us to 489 BC, too late a

date for the construction of the second temple, which took place in 536-515 BC.”33 Clearly, if 489 BC is “too

late a date for the construction of the second temple,” then 408 BC is too! These authors’ preferred date is

457 BC. Substituting this date in the original quotation yields: “Starting from that decree [457 BC], the first

period of 49 years would take us to 408 BC, too late a date for the construction of the second temple, which

took place in 536-515 BC.” As a result of this very odd argument, Adams & Fisher end up rejecting their own

position.

Gleason Archer fares no better. He rejects the decree of Cyrus because neither Ezra 1 nor 2 Chronicles

36 say anything about the rebuilding of the city but only speak about the rebuilding of the temple. Archer then

declares that “of course the rebuilding of the temple itself would imply the building up of a community of

worshippers around it.” Nevertheless, he concludes, “it is most unlikely that this decree can fulfill the

specifications of v. 25.” One paragraph later, while arguing for the first decree of Artaxerxes he notes that the

Scriptural recounting of that decree says nothing whatsoever about the rebuilding of the city, but that the

implications of the decree were that the city could be rebuilt. He concludes that this is sufficient grounds to

accept Artaxerxes’s decree of 458/57 as the decree spoken of in Dan. 9:25. Hence, Archer offers the same

reason for accepting one decree and rejecting the other.34 Clearly, he is being arbitrary. His prior commitment

to the idea that ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬indicates normal calendar years makes it impossible for him to accept any other starting

point for the ‘seventy sevens’ than, as it turns out, the one for which there is no other support.

Note that in these quotations the authors are speaking about the second temple which was completed by Zerubbabel and
destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D.

33
Adams & Fisher, 84.

34
Gleason L. Archer, "Daniel", in The Expositor's Bible Commentary 5.0. Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Interactive (The Pradis CD-ROM), u.d.), emphasis added.

11
 The Second Decree of Artaxerxes I in 445/44 BC

The second decree of Artaxerxes in 445/44 BC is the favorite among Dispensational scholars.35 It is the

preferred decree of John Walvoord,36 Sir Robert Anderson,37 Mark Hitchcock & Thomas Ice,38 and the editors

of The Scofield Study Bible III.39 However, the date of the decree appears to create a predicament. Gleason

Archer, himself a Dispensationalist, explains: “The problem with this 445 date is that 483 solar years would

come out to A.D. 38 or 39, which is wrong for the ministry and death of Jesus Christ”.40 To overcome this

difficulty, Dispensational interpreters, following the lead of Sir Robert Anderson, posit a shortened “prophetic

year” of 360-days which they assert was used by the Jews throughout the OT period without any intercalation

of any kind.41 Again, Archer points out that if the Jews used such a calendar “they would be the only nation in

world history ever to do so”.42 D. F. Morgan, writing in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, notes

that “in the biblical texts there is no clear evidence of intercalation, though it must have been done in some

way at all times in Israel”.43 John Walvoord, in what he intends to be a statement in support of Robert

Anderson, agrees that the Jews regularly made adjustments to bring their calendar in line with the solar year:

35
It is safe to say that all interpreters who hold to this date/decree are Dispensationalists; but not all Dispensationalists
hold to this date/decree (for example, Gleason Archer and David Cooper).

36
John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (USA: Victor Books, 1990), 254.

37
Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics, 1957; reprint of the 10th edition; originally
published 1894), 127-28.

38
Hitchcock & Ice, 95.

39
The Scofield Study Bible III (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 1187.

40
Archer, “Daniel”.

41
An intercalation, in this context, refers to an insertion into the calendar of an extra day or days in order to bring the
solar and lunar years back into alignment. The extra day in a Leap Year is an example of an intercalation.

42
ibid.

43
D. F. Morgan, "Calendar" in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., (Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979) 1:577. Emphasis added.

12
 That Sir Robert Anderson is right in building upon a 360-day year seems to be attested by the
Scriptures. It is customary for the Jews to have twelve months of 360 days each and then to insert a
thirteenth month occasionally when necessary to correct the calendar.44

This statement by Walvoord successfully contradicts Anderson, and undercuts Walvoord’s own

position. This is because Walvoord believes that 445/44 is the correct date/decree, and that it is only correct

on the basis of a shortened (or “prophetic”) year. Yet, despite the problems, Walvoord maintains that the

445/44 date is the best option because the possibility of a literal interpretation makes it very attractive: “While

the details of Anderson's arguments may be debated, the possibility of a literal interpretation, which begins

the period 445 BC and culminates just before the death of Christ, makes this view very attractive”.45 As was

the case with Archer and Adams & Fisher, it is demonstrated once more that a prior commitment to an

unwarranted hermeneutical idea (in this case “literalism”) often leads to a position, which in its details, is self-

refuting.

Summary

This chapter has examined the three dates put forward as satisfying the specifications of Dan. 9:25.

Attention has been called to the reasons that main adherents support each date, and there has been special

focus on arguments that are self-refuting or no longer tenable at critical points. At the present time, it is hoped

that the reader will agree that the case for either decree of Artaxerxes has been refuted or seriously

undermined, while the case for the decree of Cyrus is essentially unscathed. We are now ready to return to

our first critical issue: the nature of the time indicated by the Hebrew word translated ‘sevens’ in Daniel’s

prophecy of the ‘Seventy Sevens.’

44
Walvoord, Daniel, 228. I have reproduced the quotation exactly as it appears in the original source. However, it seems
to be clear that Walvoord meant to say “twelve months of 30 days each…” instead of what he did say, which is “twelve
months of 360 days each.”

45
Walvoord, Daniel, 228.

13
 CHAPTER 2

THE MAIN WAYS THE NATURE OF ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬IN DANIEL 9:24-27

IS UNDERSTOOD

While there have been many suggestions regarding the nature of time indicated by the word ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬in

Daniel 9:24-27, these suggestions fall naturally into three categories. In this section, these categories are

stated, and significant variations within each category are noted. The three categories are:

1. The sevens are normal years, just like the years in our current calendar.

2. The sevens are ‘years’ of 360-days apiece, often called ‘prophetic years.’

3. The sevens taken together indicate an indefinite period of time.

The Sevens are Normal Years

John Calvin, Philip Mauro, David Cooper, Jay Adams & Milton Fisher,46 James Jordan, and Gleason

Archer,47 each understood the ‘sevens’ to be normal years. As already noted, this view cannot be sustained

unless the second decree of Artaxerxes in 458/7 is accepted as fulfilling Dan. 9:25. Only Adams & Fisher and

Archer accept this date. In an earlier section it was shown that the positions of these interpreters are either

incoherent (Adams & Fisher) or arbitrary (Archer). There is therefore no compelling reason to understand

‫בּוע‬
ַ ָׁ‫ ש‬as indicating normal years.

46
Adams & Fisher, 84-85.

47
It is interesting to note the range of eschatological persuasions represented by these commentators. Calvin, Adams,
and Mauro are Amillennial; Jordan is Postmillennial; and Archer and Cooper are both Classic Dispensationalists.
 The Sevens are Shortened or ‘Prophetic Years’
of 360-days each

That the ‘sevens’ are shortened ‘Prophetic years’ is the exclusive view of those interpreters who accept

the second decree of Artaxerxes in 455/44 BC. It is the view of the majority of classic Dispensationalists48 and

was first articulated by Sir Robert Anderson in the late 19th century.49 Anderson argued that there were exactly

483 ‘prophetic years,’ or 173,880 days between the issuing of the decree on March 14, 445 BC, and the

Triumphal Entry on April 6, AD 32.50 The precise accuracy of these figures is taken as proof, not only of the

correctness of the beginning decree, but also of the inspiration of Scripture. The enthusiasm of Mark Hitchcock

& Thomas Ice for this point is representative:

From the time the countdown began until the coming of the Messiah ("the Anointed One") will be 69
sets of seven (7 + 62) or 483 years. This exact period of time -- 173,880 days -- is the precise number
of days that elapsed from March 5, 444 B.C. until March 30, A.D 33, the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem
for the Triumphal Entry (Luke 19:27-44). The precision of this prophecy is staggering! This is
monumental proof of the inspiration of the Bible.51

Sir Robert himself concludes his discussion of this prophecy with a stirring challenge against unbelief:

Much there is in Holy Writ which unbelief may value and revere, while utterly refusing to accept it as
Divine; but prophecy admits of no half-faith. The prediction of the "seventy weeks" was either a gross
and impious imposture, or else it was in the fullest and strictest sense God-breathed. It may be that in
days to come, when Judah’s great home-bringing shall restore to Jerusalem the rightful owners of its
soil, the Jews themselves shall yet rake up from deep beneath its ruins the records of the great King's
degree and of the Nazarene’s rejection, and they for whom the prophecy was given will thus be
confronted with proofs of its fulfillment. Meanwhile what judgment shall be passed on it by fair and
thoughtful men? To believe that the facts and figures here detailed amount to nothing more than

48
Though not all Dispensationalists share the view that the ‘sevens are ‘prophetic years’ of 360-days each (for example,
Gleason Archer and David Cooper); to my knowledge all interpreters who do hold this view are also Dispensationalists. As
noted in ftn 36, all Dispensationalists who have this view of the ‘sevens’ also support 445/44 BC (the second decree of
Artaxerxes) as the fulfillment of Dan. 9:25. The two views are necessarily related, and they stand or fall together.

49
Anderson, 121-22.

50
ibid., 127-28. Anderson arrives at the 173,880 days by multiplying 483 prophetic years by 360 days each.

51
Hitchcock & Ice, 92-93. The careful reader will note that whereas Anderson said there were exactly 173,880 days
between March 14, 445 BC and March 30, AD 32, our authors state that there were the same amount of days between
March 5, 444 BC and March 30, AD 33.

15
 happy coincidences involves a greater exercise of faith than that of the Christian who accepts the book
of Daniel as Divine. There is a point beyond which unbelief is impossible, and the mind in refusing
truth must needs take refuge in the misbelief which is sheer credulity.52

Still, despite the stated apologetic value of his conclusion, Anderson’s methodology is dubious.

According to his own explanation, he arrived at his conclusion through the following steps: 53

1. Given: Artaxerxes issued a decree in 445 BC

2. Add 483 prophetic years [(360 x 7 x 69)/365.25] or approximately 476 solar years;
3. Add 1 year because there is no year “0” (Anderson was now at AD 32);
4. Consult a Jewish calendar and ascertain when the Passover was that year;
5. Given the above, locate the date of the Triumphal Entry (April 6, AD 32)
6. Subtract the exact number of days from Step 2 to get the precise date of Artaxerxes’s decree!
(173,880 days: March 14, 445 BC).

Thus, Anderson’s conclusions – like the calculations they are based on - are nothing more than smoke

and mirrors.

Furthermore, many who accept Anderson’s basic suppositions nevertheless feel the need to quietly

alter Sir Robert’s conclusions in order to make them better support the interpreter’s own understanding of the

chronology. As illustrated by Table 1, this produces the curious situation of mathematically identical equations

that yield significantly different results. (See the next page for Table 1).

52
Anderson, 128-29.

53
ibid., 121-29.

16
 TABLE 1

THE BEGINNING AND END DATES OF THE FIRST 69 WEEKS OF

DANIEL’S PROPHECY ACCORDING TO VARIOUS DISPENSATIONAL TEACHERS

Interpreter Beginning Date End Date

John MacArthur54 445 B.C. 30 A.D.
Tim LaHaye55 445 B.C. 30 A.D.
Charles Ryrie56 445 B.C. 32 A.D.
J. Dwight Pentecost57 445 B.C. 32 A.D.
Chuck Missler58 445 B.C. 32 A.D.
Robert Anderson59 445 B.C. 32 A.D.
Irving L. Jensen60 445 B.C. 33 A.D.
John Walvoord61 444 B.C. 33 A.D.
Mark Hitchcock & Thomas Ice62 444 B. C. 33 A.D.

In each case above, the interpreter uses 483 prophetic years of 360-days each (for a total of 173,880

days) to support his conclusion. This creates the following conundrum:

• 445 BC + (173,880 days) = 30 AD MacArthur, LaHaye

54
John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Thomas Nelson Bibles, 1997), 1243-44.

55
Tim LaHaye, Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible - New King James Version ([United States]: AMG Publishers, 2001), 1009.

56
Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953, third printing, 1986), 125.

57
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958) 245.

58
Chuck Missler, Learn the Bible in 24 Hours (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2002), 109-110.

59
Anderson, 127-28.

60
Irving L. Jensen, Jensen's Survey of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1978), 386.

61
Walvoord, Prophecy, 254.

62
Hitchcock & Ice, 95.

17
 • 445 BC + (173,880 days) = 32 AD Anderson, Ryrie, Pentecost, Missler

• 445 BC + (173,880 days) = 33 AD Jensen

• 444 BC + (173,880 days) = 33 AD Walvoord, Hitchcock & Ice

Any system of computation which yields such varied and custom-made answers is essentially

worthless.63, 64 As with “normal years”, these “prophetic years” are to be rejected as the correct way to

understand the character of the time indicated by ַ‫שָׁ בּוע‬.

63
Philip Mauro remarks that because the second decree of Artaxerxes will not work with any chronology in existence,
some expositors try to make the numbers work by inventing systems of reckoning that are not warranted. This, in turn,
leads to an increasing number of more serious errors:

…to force agreement in this case it is necessary to make the ‘seventy sevens’ a period shorter than 490 years.
The ingenuity of our expositors has been quite equal to this; for, to meet this difficulty, they have supposed that
the ‘sevens’ were not sevens of years, but of nondescript periods of 360 days each, which are not ‘years’ at all.
Thus, the acceptance of a false chronology (instead of basing conclusions on the Scriptures alone) leads even
able and learned men to adopt one false assumption after another, and thus to go further and further astray.
(Mauro, 37)

Note Mauro’s sarcasm: “the ‘sevens’ were not sevens of years, but of non-descript periods of 360 days each, which are
not ‘years’ at all.”

64
There are other considerations that may be necessary to keep in mind when evaluating the legitimacy of the 360-day
‘prophetic year’. Mention has already been made of the extreme unlikelihood that the Jews ever used a calendar for any
extended period without any form of intercalation. The reader should also be aware of the basis for the idea of the so-
called prophetic year. The Scofield Study Bible III gives the following summary:

These 490 prophetic years are each 360 days long. This is proved by the biblical references to the seventieth
week of seven years, which is divided into two halves (v. 27), the latter half being variously designated as "a time
and times, and half a time" (Dan. 7:25; compare Rev. 12:14); 42 months (Rev. 11:2; 13:5); or 1260 days (Rev.
11:3; 12:6). (Source: The Scofield Study Bible III, 1187; note at Daniel 9:24).

John Walvoord offers the same explanation: “The use of the 360-day year is confirmed by the 42 months of the great
tribulation (Revelation 11:2; 13:5) being equated with the 1260 days (Revelation 12:6; 11:3)” (Walvoord, Daniel, 228). As
does Sir Robert Anderson himself:

Now the seventieth week [of Daniel 9] is admittedly a period of seven years, and half of this period is three times
described as "a time, times, and half a time," or "the dividing of the time;"* *[Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 12:14]
twice as 42 months [Revelation 11:2; 13:5]; and twice as 1,260 days. [Revelation 11:3; 12:6]. But 1,260 days are
exactly equal to forty-two months of thirty days, or three and a half years of 360 days, whereas three and a half
Julian years contain 1,278 days. It follows therefore that the prophetic year is not the Julian year, but the ancient
year of 360 days. (Anderson, 74-75).

This is the only justification offered for the ‘prophetic year’; in fact, Anderson rejects any other foundation. And, he goes
as far as to say

18
 The Sevens together indicate an Indefinite Period of Time

E. J. Young,65 Joyce Baldwin,66 and George Eldon Ladd67 argue that the ‘sevens’ together refer to an

indefinite period of time. Young opts for a simple undefined period; Ladd simply states that the ‘Seventy

Sevens’ prophecy “cannot be interpreted by anyone’s calculation as an exact prognosis of time”;68 Joyce

Baldwin goes beyond each of these, suggesting that the ‘sevens’ have a significant theological or ritual

meaning:

Seventy years (cf. Je. 25:11; 29:10) were to pass before the end of the desolations. The writer implies
that the years of desolation were fulfilling some role, and had to take their course before any new

The only data which would warrant our deciding unreservedly that the prophetic year consists of 360 days, would
be to find some portion of the era subdivided into the days of which it is composed. No other proof can be wholly
satisfactory, but if this be forthcoming, it must be absolute and conclusive. And this is precisely what the book
of the Revelation gives us. (ibid., 72, emphasis added).

The point is that the entire rationale for the ‘prophetic year’ is a series of numbers found in an admittedly visionary section
of an apocalyptic book! To bear such a conclusion as Anderson’s, these numbers would have to be very obviously meant
to be taken with mathematical precision. However, one of the most common traits of apocalyptic literature is the
symbolic use of numbers (Kistemaker, 4). In this case the numbers refer to “a period of persecution of limited length”
(Poythress, 128); the entire interadvent period (Kistemaker, 359-60); or perhaps “the period of evil during which Satan
tries to frustrate the purposes of God, but particularly the last days of this period” (Ladd, Revelation, 170). As Berkeley
Mickelsen wrote: “Apocalyptic time measurements (highly symbolic) simply provide a framework for important truths…
and they are not meant to convey exact periods of time” (quoted in Longman & Dillard, 396). Classic Dispensationalists,
as noted, do not agree with the assessment of these non-Dispensational scholars. That’s fine. However, such
disagreement indicates that perhaps these texts are not at all as clear as the Dispensationalists would like to believe.
Certainly, they are not clear enough to build such an elaborate chronology, and entire system of biblical interpretation
upon.

For Kistemaker see: Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation (New Testament Commentary series), (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 2001), 4, 359-60; for Poythress see: Vern S. Poythress, The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation,
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000), 128; for Ladd see: George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of
John, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 170; for Longman & Dillard see:
Tremper Longman III and Raymond Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament, third ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1994, 2006), 396.

65
Young, 196, 220.

66
Baldwin, 168-70, 176.

67
Ladd, Revelation,153.

68
George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: William D. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1972), 153.

19
 building could take place. Seventy years was a fixed term of divine indignation (Zc. 1:12),69 described
in 2 Chronicles 36:21 as ‘the days… it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years’. This ritual understanding
of the term takes it beyond the merely numerical into the theological and ethical realm. There are
various ways of reckoning years of exile, none of which comes exactly to seventy years; but
theologically the important point was that restoration marked acceptance with the Lord, who, by
restoring His people to their land, demonstrated that He had forgiven and reinstated them (Is. 40:1ff).
70

And again: “Seventy years had a symbolic significance… and so the new term [i.e. seventy sevens] may

be expected to have an element of symbolism, to be taken into account in any attempt at interpretation”.71

Baldwin does not develop the possible theological significance. At minimum, it could be argued that just as

Lev. 26:21 equates multiplying “afflictions seven times over” with receiving full payment for sins,72 so

multiplying the seventy-year captivity73 seven times over indicates the complete payment for sins at the end of

the period. This, of course, would be the Jubilee Year – a concept also called to mind by the phrase ‘seven

sevens’ (cp. Lev. 25:8). Consequently, at the end of the period indicated by the phrase ‘seventy sevens’ the

Messiah would announce the LORD’s Jubilee Year, or “the acceptable year of the LORD” (Isaiah 61:1-2). This

Jesus did on the day He declared Himself to Israel in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:14-21; cp. Dan. 9:25).74

69
“There is some evidence that 70 years was the accepted period during which the gods decreed ruin upon a city which
had incurred divine displeasure. E. Lipinski (‘Recherches sur le Livre de Zacharie’, VT, XX, 1970, pp. 38f.) quotes an
inscription of the Esarhaddon, in which Martek had decreed seventy years as the time of Babylon’s ruin” (Baldwin, 164,
ftn).

70
Baldwin, 183, emphasis (bold) added.

71
Baldwin, 187.

72
i.e. “as your sins deserve” (NIV); “according to your sins” (NKJV; NASB).

73
“Seventy” here is a symbolic number. There is no calculation that will yield an exact seventy-year captivity.

74
Incidentally, this was the view of the writer of scroll 11Q13, col 2 (Dead Sea Scrolls).

This vi[sitation] is the Day of [Salvation] that he is decreed [through Isai]ah the prophet [concerning all the
captives,] inasmuch as Scripture sa[ys, ‘How] beautiful upon the mountains are the fee[t of] the messeng[er] who
[an]nounces peace, who brings [good] news, [who announces salvat]ion, who [sa]ys to Zion, ‘Your [di]vine being
[reigns’” (Isa. 52:17).] This Scripture’s interpretation: ‘the mounta[ins are the] prophet[s], they w[ho were sent
to proclaim God's truth and to] proph[esy] to all [Israel]. ‘The messenger’ is the [An]ointed of the spir[it] of whom
Dan[iel] spoke, [“After the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed one shall be cut off" (Daniel 9:26). The ‘messenger who
brings] good news, who an[nounces salvation] is the one of whom it is written, ["to proclaim the year of the
Lord's favor, the Day of vengeance of our God;] to comfo[rt all who mourn’ (Isaiah 61:2). This scripture’s

20
While the possible theological significance of the ‘seventy sevens’ is not the specific topic of this paper, it merits

further study. In the future, this author hopes to have the opportunity to pursue this subject in greater depth.

interpretation:] he is to inst[r]uct them about all the periods of history for eter[nity… and in the statutes of] [the]
truth. […] [… dominion] that passes from Belial and ret[urns to the Sons of Light…] […] by the judgment of God,
just as it is written concerning him, [“who says to Z]ion ‘Your divine being reigns’” (Isa. 52:7). “[Zi]on” is [the
congregation of all the sons of righteousness, who] uphold the covenant and turn from walking [in the way] of
the people. “Your di[vi[ne being” is [Melchizedek, who will del]iv[er them from the po]wer of Belial.
Concerning what Scripture says, “Then you shall have the trumpet [sounded loud; in] the [seventh
m]o[nth…”] (Lev. 25:9).

Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A new translation: Translated with Commentary
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999), 457.

21
 CHAPTER 3

THE TESTIMONY OF THE LORD IN ISAIAH 44:23 – 45:13

One very important fact remains. In Isaiah 44:23 – 45:13, the LORD Himself testifies that He has

appointed Cyrus, a ruler yet to be born, to release His people from captivity, rebuild His temple, and rebuild

the city of Jerusalem. This entire passage should be studied; however due to space requirements only a portion

of it can be quoted here:

I am the LORD…
who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd
and will accomplish all that I please;
he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt,"
and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid.’ …
This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus …
For the sake of Jacob my servant,
of Israel my chosen,
I summon you by name
and bestow on you a title of honor,
though you do not acknowledge me…
This is what the LORD says —
the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come…
I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness:
I will make all his ways straight.
He will rebuild my city
and set my exiles free,
but not for a price or reward,
says the LORD Almighty.75

Philip Mauro summarizes the supreme importance of this passage:

Here is God’s own testimony that King Cyrus, and not one of his successors, was to give the
‘commandment’ whereby Jerusalem was to be rebuilt and its inhabitants restored. Nothing could be
plainer than the word, ‘He, (Cyrus) shall perform all My pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt

75
Isaiah 44:24, 28; 45:1, 4, 11, 13.

22
 be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.’ This proof cannot be overthrown. Indeed
none who believe the Scriptures to be inspired will even question it. Having this to guide us we must
needs decline to follow those who, with a faulty heathen chronology as their only guide, grope for
some event, long after Cyrus was laid in his grave, which can be taken as ‘the commandment to restore
and to build Jerusalem.’

No further evidence is needed. But in this exceedingly important matter God has been pleased to give
proof upon proof. Thus, in Isaiah 45:13 we have this further word concerning Cyrus: ‘I have raised him
up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways; HE SHALL BUILD MY CITY, AND HE SHALL LET GO MY
CAPTIVES.’

No one who believes the Word of God will, with this Scripture before him, dispute for a moment that
it was by Cyrus that Jerusalem was rebuilt and its captives restored to it. Here are two things which
God distinctly foretold were to be done by Cyrus (and this was 200 years before he came to the throne);
first he was to rebuild the city, and second he was to restore the captive Jews to their home. These are
the very things mentioned by the angel to Daniel; for he said, ‘from the commandment to restore and
to build Jerusalem.’ And the Scriptures make it plain that Cyrus made haste to fulfill this word of God;
and moreover that he knew just what he was doing, and why.76

Certainly, Mauro is correct that this passage is determinative in favor of the decree of Cyrus as fulfilling

the requirements of Dan. 9:25. The answer then to our initial question is that word ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬does not refer to a

literal, measurable period of time (such as a week, a year, or a prophetic year), but rather, ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬indicates that

the period of time is by nature indefinite. Thus, as VanGemeren writes, “The emphasis is on the events and

the certainty of the progression of redemption rather than on the length of time.” 77 With this Young concurs:

“It appears that the principal emphasis is not upon the beginning and ending of this remarkable period but

upon the mighty events which were to transpire therein, events which have wrought our peace with God.”78

76
Mauro, 27-28, emphasis in source.

77
Willem VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 349.

78
Young, 221.

23
 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The Decree of Cyrus and Fidelity to God’s Word

In Philip Mauro’s otherwise excellent quote given above, he insists that “no one who believes the Word

of God will, with this Scripture [Isaiah 44:23 – 45:13] before him, dispute for a moment that it was by Cyrus

that Jerusalem was rebuilt and its captives restored to it”. Yet Mauro is incorrect. There are many who believe

the Word of God but who do not agree that it was Cyrus’s decree that Daniel wrote about. Each person cited

in this paper has a very high view of Scripture. How then can it be that they do not see the passages from

Isaiah as conclusive? This is a thorny question, and the answer has more to do with presuppositions about

interpretive method than it does about the actual exegesis of the actual text. Almost universally, interpreters

surveyed for this paper who reject the decree of Cyrus do so for two reasons: (1) they have a pre-commitment

to a particular, some might say “literal”, understanding of the ‘sevens’ which causes them to disallow Cyrus’s

decree as being too early; and (2) the two places in Scripture where Cyrus’s decree is recorded state only that

he authorized the rebuilding of the temple. These passages say nothing of rebuilding the city, as specified by

Dan. 9:25. For these two reasons, many interpreters who have a high a view of Scripture reject the decree of

Cyrus.

Still there are problems associated with this position. First, the assumption is made that 2 Chr. 36:22-

23 and Ezr. 1:1-4 record the decree in its entirety, but this is by no means certain. If one simply compares the

two passages it will become apparent that the latter passage is more complete than the former. The

supposition that either Scripture separately or even both of them together comprise the entire text of the

decree is unfounded. This is confirmed by Josephus, who records a letter from Cyrus to the governors of Syria

which begins with these words: “"I have given leave to as many of the Jews that dwell in my country as please

24
to return to their own country, and to rebuild their city…”.79 And then of course, there is the testimony of the

LORD in Isaiah.

So how do these interpreters handle the prophecies about Cyrus in the book of Isaiah? Basically, they

treat these passages as irrelevant, either by dismissing them or ignoring them altogether. John Walvoord gives

the most attention to the prophecies of Isaiah; yet he dismisses them in the end, concluding that they merely

signify that the decree of Cyrus to build the temple began a chain of events that would eventually result in the

second decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild the city.80 Walvoord is atypical: he attempts to grapple with the

passages. The majority of interpreters simply ignore them. John MacArthur is an example of those who choose

to overlook the Isaiah prophecies. In his verse-by-verse commentary of the entire Bible he does not write one

word in explanation of God’s prophecy that Cyrus would rebuild the city, although he does comment on the

relevant passages.81 In a similar manner, the majority of scholars who reject the decree of Cyrus also neglect

79
Flavius Josephus,The Works of Flavius Josephus: Containing Twenty Books of the Jewish Antiquities, Seven Books of the
Jewish War, and the Life of Josephus : Written by Himself : Translated from the Original Greek : Together with Explanatory
Notes and Observations, trans. William Whiston and Samuel Burder (New York: American Book Exchange, 1880)
Antiquities of the Jews, XI.1.3, emphasis added. The letter from Cyrus is addressed to “”, thought by many to be Tattenai
and Shetharbozenai of Ezr. 5:3. Also in this same chapter, Josephus twice summarizes Cyrus’s decree as including the
authorization to rebuild Jerusalem (XI.1.2, 3).

80
Walvoord, Daniel, 226.

81
John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2005), 814, 815.
Here are MacArthur’s complete comments on Isaiah 44:28 & 45:12-13, passages which specifically state that God will
raise up Cyrus to (among other things), rebuild Jerusalem.

44:28 Cyrus… My shepherd. The prophecy -- given a century and a half before Cyrus lived and became king of
Persia -- predicted God's use of the Persian king to gather the faithful remnant of Israel back to the land. In this
role, Cyrus prefigured the Lord’s Servant, who will shepherd the sheep of Israel in their final regathering (Mic.
5:4). The title shepherd applied to kings as leaders of God's people (2 Sam. 5:2; Jer. 3:15). And Acts 13:22, Paul
compares David to the standard of Cyrus’s obedience. Jerusalem... the temple. In 538 B.C., Cyrus decreed the
rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 1:1, 2; 6:3), thus fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. The returning Jews completed the
work in 516 B.C. (Ezra 6:15). (p. 814)

45:12, 13 I have made…He shall build My city. As the omnipotent Creator, God can save the nation through
Cyrus as he has promised. (p. 815)

25
mentioning the Isaiah prophecies in reference to Dan. 9:25. This is disappointing. The Isaiah passages are

clearly relevant. Mauro’s comments in this regard are apropos:

The entire passage concerning Cyrus (Isaiah 44:23-45:14) should be carefully read… In this remarkable
passage God calls attention again and again to the fact that He had called Cyrus by name, long before
he was born; yet this fact receives but scant attention, and its significance has been lost sight of by
many who have undertaken to expound the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. This must needs be the
case with all who reject the decree of Cyrus as the starting point of the seventy weeks.82

Summary of Interpretive Issues, with Conclusions

As indicated at the head of this paper, Daniel’s prophecy of the ‘Seventy Sevens’ is very difficult to

interpret. Oftentimes the difficulty does not lie with the text, but with the interpreter. Sometimes our

presuppositions regarding how the Bible should be read prevent us from considering passages which are

essential to its proper interpretation. This is an ironic and tragic result of Adam’s sin and our personal pride.

Frequently we let our preferred methodology define the text. This is the reverse of what should be the case.

The goal of all Bible study is to let the text shape and form our methodology, in hermeneutics and in life. This

demands persisting humility and openness to correction. In this, I speak as much to myself as I do to any other.

There are two critical issues that must be decided when attempting to understand the prophecy of

Dan. 9:24-27: (1) the significance of the word translated ‘sevens’, and (2) the date of the decree of v. 25. These

issues are interrelated. The interpreter must choose which has priority. Is the date of the decree determined

by the meaning of ַ‫שָׁ בּוע‬, or is the nature of ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬imposed upon the interpreter by the decree he chooses? It

would seem that those who reject 539 BC as the date of the decree do so primarily because they believe that

‫בּוע‬
ַ ָׁ‫ ש‬means years or something very close to it. Conversely, those who reject this definition of ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬appear

to do so because the decree of 539 BC seems to them to be so well established in Scripture. The case for Cyrus

is all but made by the passages in Isaiah. Consequently, great weight is placed upon them by those who affirm

82
Mauro, 31.

26
the decree of 539 BC. On the other hand, those who believe that the ‘sevens’ are approximately equivalent to

normal years must reject 539 BC and thus relegate the Isaiah passages to irrelevancy.

This author is among those who believe that the word ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬is not defined in the text and therefore its

meaning or significance must be ascertained on other grounds. Further, since the Scripture does in fact address

the question of the decree (while remaining silent on the nature of ַ‫)שָׁ בּוע‬, it is judged that ascertaining which

decree is meant must take priority over the question of the nature of time in Dan. 9:24-27. Finally, the date of

the decree, once known, answers the question as to the significance or meaning of ַ‫שָׁ בּוע‬. Accordingly, it is

the conclusion of this researcher that the decree of Dan. 9:25 is the decree of Cyrus in approximately 539 BC.

Since this is the case, ַ‫ שָׁ בּוע‬signifies that the ‘seventy sevens’ cover an indefinite period of time – a period

which began with Cyrus’s decree and ends with the accomplishment of the redemption of God’s people

through the work of the Messiah at His first advent. It is affirmed that good Christians who are competent

and respected interpreters disagree with the conclusions of this paper. It is believed that these disagreements

exist due to hermeneutical pre-commitments, and that all disagreements arise from Adam’s sin and our human

frailties. These factors are shared by all parties in the debate, including the present writer. Therefore, humility

is needed on all sides, and charity should be shown to all.

In conclusion, it must be emphasized that Dan. 9:24-27 is not about numbers and their calculation, but

about Christ and the salvation He has won for His people.

The passage is Messianic through and through. Well will it be for us, if we too, in our study of this
supremely important prophecy, place our emphasis, not upon dates and mathematical calculations,
but upon that central Figure who is both anointed and a prince, who by being cut off has made
reconciliation for iniquity and brought in the only righteousness that is acceptable with God, even His
own eternal righteousness.83

83
Young, 221.

27
 As Joyce Baldwin wisely cautions: “It is possible to be so preoccupied with numbers as to miss the

essential truth which those numbers declare”.84 Let us be preoccupied not with numbers, but only with Christ.

84
Baldwin, 164.

28
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Jay E. & Milton C. Fisher. The Time of the End: Daniel's Prophecy Reclaimed. Woodruff, SC: Timeless
Texts, 2000.

Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics, 1957 (reprint of the 10th edition)
Originally published in Great Britain, 1894.

*Anstey, Martin. The Romance of Bible Chronology: An Exposition of the Meaning, and a Demonstration of
the Truth, of Every Chronological Statement contained in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. Vol.
2. 2 vols. London: Marshall Brothers., Ltd., 1913.

Archer, Gleason L. "Daniel", in The Expositor's Bible Commentary 5.0. Frank E. Gaebelein, gen. ed. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Interactive (The Pradis CD-ROM).

—. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series).
Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978.

Calvin, John. Daniel (Geneva Commentary Series), two volumes in one. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,
1986. First published in Latin 1561; First translated into English 1570. This edition reprinted from the
Calvin Translation Society Edition of 1852-3.

Cooper, David L. What Men Must Believe. Los Angeles, CA: Biblical Research Society, 1943.

Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1987.

Gentry Jr., Kenneth L. Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil. Texarkana, AR: Covenant Media
Foundation, 1999.

Hitchcock, Mark & Thomas Ice. The Truth Behind 'Left Behind': A Biblical View of the End Times. Sisters, OR:
Multnomah Publishers, 2004.

Jensen, Irving L. Jensen's Survey of the Old Testament. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1978.

Jordan, James B. The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Powder Springs, GA:
American Vision, 2007.

Josephus, Flavius, William Whiston, and Samuel Burder. The Works of Flavius Josephus: Containing Twenty
Books of the Jewish Antiquities, Seven Books of the Jewish War, and the Life of Josephus : Written by
Himself : Translated from the Original Greek : Together with Explanatory Notes and Observations.
New York: American Book Exchange, 1880.

29
Keil, C. F. & F. Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume 9, Ezekiel - Daniel (three volumes in one).
Translated by M. G. Easton. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989. Reprinted from the edition
originally published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1986.

Kistemaker, Simon J. Revelation (New Testament Commentary series). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1972.

—. The Last Things. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

LaHaye, Tim. Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible - New King James Version. [United States]: AMG Publishers,
2001.

Longman, Tremper and Raymond Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Third edition. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1994, 2006.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, TN: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2005.

—. The MacArthur Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Bibles, 1997.

Mauro, Philip. The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. Boston, MA: Hamilton Bros., 1923.

Millard, A. R. "Daniel", in The New Layman's Bible Commentary in One Volume. Edited by G. C. D. Howley, F.
F. Bruce,and H. L. Ellison. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.

Missler, Chuck. Learn the Bible in 24 Hours. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2002.

Morgan, D. F. "Calendar" in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
Vol. one. Four vols. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.

Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, The. Ontario, Canada:
Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1993. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958.

Poythress, Vern S. The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing,
2000.

Pratt Jr., Richard L. "Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions." 1993.

Ryrie, Charles C. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953, Third Printing
1986.

The Scofield Study Bible III. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

VanGemeren, Willem. Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduciton to the Prophetic Literature of the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.

30
Walvoord, John F. Daniel - The Key to Prophetic Revelation: A Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971,
1989.

—. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. USA: Victor Books, 1990.

Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation: Translated with
Commentary. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.

Young, Edward J. The Prophecy of Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949.

31