Daniel 9:24

Seventy Weeks

            In other to arrive at the proper understanding of what the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks would entail, we have to carefully examine its key expressions.

The Expression "šābu^⊂îm šib^⊂îm"

            The first two expressions that are to be considered in the text of the Dan 9:24 are the expressions in the word pair šābu^⊂îm šib^⊂îm. They occur in the statement “Seventy weeks have been cut off for your people and your holy city.” Nearly all the major English versions of the Bible have translated this expression as “seventy weeks,” (so KJV, NKJV, NEB, JB, NJB, ASV, NASB^N1 and NRSV), but some versions have rendered it in a slightly different way. For example, the RSV has rendered it as “seventy weeks of years,” however this was changed to “seventy weeks” in the NRSV). The NIV has “seventy sevens.” These variances in translation for the term šābu^⊂îm are also found among interpreters. They have rendered the expression šābu^⊂îm šib^⊂îm as: “Seventy weeks,”^B2 “Seventy weeks of years/year-weeks,”^B3 “Seventy sabbath years,”^B4 ‘Sabbatical cycles,’^B5 “Seventy sevens,”^B6 but as the in-depth study of Dr. Owusu-Antwi has shown, all of these variant interpretations/meanings, except for the meaning “weeks,” have been proven to be linguistically and Biblically unfounded, unsupported and contextually inaccurate.^R7 As this study is quite detailed, documented and conclusive, it is here only quite summarily restated (See endnote references for more details).

            The term šābu^⊂îm is the masculine plural form of the singular šābua^⊂B8 Lexicographers^E9  have defined this term in their lexicons (wordbooks/dictionaries) with the basic meaning of  “unit (period) of seven,”^B10 or “a week.”^B11 However they have listed the first concrete meaning of šābu^⊂îm as: "a period of seven days, week"^B12 A second meaning of šābu^⊂îm listed is usually in reference only to the 6 occurrences in Dan 9:24-27 and is given as: "seven period of years."^B13 Now since these are actually the only occurrences in the Old Testament where šābu^⊂îm has been taken to mean anything other than simply "weeks" (see chart below) then this meaning of "seven period of years" is really an interpretation of šābu^⊂îm in Dan 9:24-27 rather than a literal translation.^N14 Furthermore, as Ouwus-Antwi says in conclusion to a preliminary section study: “the analysis of the various views with regard to the meaning of šābu^⊂îm has shown that the views that translate šābu^⊂îm with “sevens,” “year-weeks,” “weeks of years,” “heptads” or “hebdomads” have insurmountable problems.”^B15 Later in his general conclusion to the study of šābua^⊂ in the Old Testatment and in the book of Daniel, as well as interpretations in the Greek Versions (LXX), Owusu-Antwi says:

“The biblical usage is consistently in reference to the regular seven-day week, and never used for the numeral seven, neither is it used to refer to “weeks of years.” Therefore, based on the meaning attributed to šābua^⊂ by the biblical usage, comparative usage demands that the meaning of šābu^⊂îm in Dan 9:24-27 be "weeks" or "a period of seven days," and not "sevens," "besevened," "yearweaks," "week of years," "heptads" or "hebdomads."”^B16

            Indeed based on this clear, actual consistent use of šābu^⊂îm in the Old Testament to refer only to a literal period of seven consecutive days: i.e. a week, as the chart below demonstrates, the only meaning that the occurrences of this term in Dan 9:24-27 should be given is also to be in agreement with this consistent use in its Biblical context, and thus should also be “weeks.” Hence the full and proper expression “Seventy Weeks.”^F17

Occurrences & Meaning of šābûa^⊂ in the Old Testament

TERM	FORM	VERSE	MEANING
Masculine Occurrences
šebua⊂	Masc. sing. const.	Gen 29:27	[bridal] weekN18
		Gen 29:28	[bridal] week
šebu⊂ayim	Masc. dual	Lev 12:5	[two] weeks
šābu⊂îm	Masc. plural	Dan 10:2	[three whole] weeksN19
		Dan 10:3	[three whole] weeks
Feminine Occurrences
šābu⊂o	Fem. plural	Exod 34:22	[Feast of] Weeks
bešābu⊂oēem	Fem. const. with suffix	Num 28:26	[Feast of] Weeks
šābu⊂o	Fem. plural	Deut 16:9	[seven (feast)] weeks
		Deut 16:9	[seven (feast)] weeks
		Deut 16:10	[Feast of] Weeks
		Deut 16:16	[Feast of] Weeks
		2 Chr 8:13	[Feast of] Weeks
šebu⊂o	Fem. plural const.	Jer 5:24	[Harvest] weeks
		Ezek 45:21N20	[Feast of] Weeks

Occurrences & Meaning of šbûa^⊂ in Dan 9:24-27

(All Masculines)

TERM	FORM	VERSE	MEANING
šābu⊂îm	Masc. plural	Dan 9:24	[seventy] weeks
		Dan 9:25	[seven] weeks
		Dan 9:25	[sixty-two] weeks
		Dan 9:26	[sixty-two] weeks
šābûa⊂	Masc. singular	Dan 9:27	[one] week
haššābûa⊂	(def. art.) masc. sing.	Dan 9:27	[the] week

The Significance of the Double-Gender Occurrences of šābua^⊂

            As it can be see in the table above, the Hebrew expression šābua^⊂ like some other nouns in the Old Testament, occurs in both the masculine and feminine form and are thus known as double-gender nouns (a.k.a. doublets).^R21 While the use of either one of these two endings does not affect the basic meaning of šābûa^⊂ as: “a week,” it does affect how this time period that is indicated by this plural noun is to be viewed.

            Šābûa^⊂ occurs 16 times in the plural form in the Old Testament with 7 occurrences using the -îm ending^S22 and 9 using the -ôt ending.^S23  Three of the 7 occurrences with the masculine -îm endings are used to refer to directly to the two weeks of ceremonial “uncleanness” for an Israelite woman right who had just given birth to a female child (Lev 12:5) and to the three full weeks that the prophet Daniel had been mourning (Dan 10:2, 3). The other 4 occurrences are in reference to the “weeks” in the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Dan 9:24, 25 (2x), 26). On the other hand the 9 occurrences with the -ôt plural ending all refer to a cycle of weeks with 8 being references to the seven weeks that make up the cycle of sabbatical weeks -“The Feast of (7) Weeks”-(Exod 34:22;  Num 28:26; Deut 16:9 (2x), 10, 16; 2 Chr 8:13; Ezek 45:21) and one being the weeks that were appointed for harvest (Jer 5:24).

            What is interesting to see here with these 20 OT occurrences of šābua^⊂ as seen above is that it is used in the feminine to refer to “Festive or Special Weeks” while it is used in the masculine to refer to ‘a regular seven day period,’ i.e., a “week”. Indeed as Diethelm Michel and Gerhard Hasel have pointed out from their study of the use and meaning of double gender nouns in general, a plural with an -îm ending indicates a plural of quantity or a plural of groups, whereas a plural with an -ôt ending indicates an entity or grouping which is made up of individual parts.^B24 This can be seen in the example where whether one refers to a specific group of eggs as “12 eggs” or a “dozen”, the exact same thing is being referred to, but with the first having more of an emphasis on the cumulative quantity (= Heb. doublet masc..) and the second focusing more on the (thematic) group formed by these individual parts (= Heb. doublet fem.). In this way, “Feast Weeks,” which were made up of regular individual weeks are viewed in the (thematic) group that they came to form from individual weeks, while regular weeks, even if they are multiple weeks grouped together, focus more on the quantitative aspect of the group.     

 The Unity of the Seventy Weeks

            The significance of this double-gender contribution above in regards to the “Seventy Weeks” is that, as Hasel has concluded, it appears that the masculine usage of the noun šābu^⊂îm in Dan 9:24 was intentional, and places an emphasis on the totality and the sum total of the 'seventy weeks' as a whole time unit without wishing to stress the three individual group of weeks of which the whole time period is made up.^R25 Therefore the time element of the Seventy Weeks are to be understood as a single unit, i.e., one group of weeks,^R26 and not a group of weeks that is actually a combination of 3 groups of weeks, i.e., a group of 7 weeks, a group of 62 weeks, and then 1 week.

The Seventy Weeks and its Divisions

                                                           

            This united aspect in the time period of the Seventy Weeks is further supported by the use of a singular form of the verb, nehtak, (lit.:"cut off") that is used here in reference to the expression “seventy weeks.”^R27 If the Seventy Weeks were to be regarded as three distinct units which may be separated by gaps of various lengths or may overlap with each other, then the usage of a singular verb in reference to such a collection of units would be out of place.^R28 Therefore, as Owusu-Antwi points out, the singular form of this verb qualifying the plural "weeks" makes the expression "seventy weeks" a cohesive unit that therefore must not be separated.^B29

The Equivalence of "Seventy Weeks"

            Most commentators agree that in the prophetic context of Dan 9:24-27, the expression "seventy weeks" cannot be referring to 70 literal weeks because such a literal period would not, by far, leave sufficient time for the predicted events of the prophecy to take place,^R30 since seventy literal weeks work out to a total of 1 year, 4 months and 2 weeks. The unanimously accepted belief has then been that these 70 weeks equal, first of all, 490 prophetic days, which in turn, based on the prophetic day-year conversion principle, represent a period of 490 literal years. While this day-year principle has generally been accepted without question by almost all scholars and commentators (in both Christian and Jewish circles), it would still be worthwhile to briefly consider the Biblical reasons why this day-year conversion is to be used here, just for the sake of having some Biblical support.

One prophetic day symbolically represents one year

            There are two day-year principle precedents in the Bible that can be used to support the day-year conversion of the 70 weeks of Daniel. The first one is found in Ezekiel 4:1-6 where the prophet Ezekiel, who is typologically called a “Son of Man,”^S31 is asked by God in about 593 B.C. (see Ezek 1:2), during the Babylonian captivity, to “bear” the sins of Israel and Judah (Ezek 4:5, 6). Ezekiel was to symbolically bear the sins of Israel for 390 days (vs. 5) and then the sins of Judah for 40 days (vs. 6). As it turns out, these days were actually a symbolic representation of the literal years of Israel's and Judah’s respective past and near future (i.e., until the end of the 70 years of Jeremiah in 538 B.C.) outstanding. Since it was said that it was the rebel king of Israel Jeroboam I, “who made Israel sin” (1 Kgs 14:16),^S32 a little after he was made king over 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel at then end of Solomon’s reign, in about 931 B.C., as God had duly and justly willed (see 1 Kgs 11:9-13, 28-39; 12:15; 14:6-18) but soon led them astray, then the period of Israel's apostasy was reckoned from about that time on. Furthermore, the sequence of events in 1 Kgs 12:25 seems to suggest that Jeroboam first busied himself with upbuilding his capital city Shechem, as well as the outpost city of Penuel and then became concerned that a return could occur because of Judah’s “superiority” of religious economy. So he then seemed to have focused his efforts on establishing a completely independent and rival, though unbiblical, religious economy for the Northern Kingdom. So it then seems that he engaged in this path of idolatrous sin a little after he had begun to reign. So a period of ca. 3 years could have passed before this began to take place, thus beginning in ca. 928 B.C. All of this surely took place before the end of the ‘3 initial good years’ of Rehoboam’s reign, thus by 929/28 B.C., before Rehoboam’s own apostasy and rebellion which was punished by God in 927/26 B.C. (see 2 Chr 11:17; 12:1-2ff | 1Kgs 14:21-25ff); as after that time there would have not been a distinctness of “authorized” (genuine) worship between the two kingdoms. It also may have been Jeroboam’s apostasy in Israel that influenced Rehoboam into his own idolatrous course.

            The period of Judah's apostasy was reckoned from at least the time when all of Judah suffered the effects of the Babylonian siege following a fourth and final raid by the Babylonian armies in about 581 B.C. (see Jer 52:30), evidently still seeing a threat from Judah due probably to a surviving, emboldening, probably religious-based organization. As the temple and the religious community of Judah was by then most desolate, the people were probably then completely leaderless and thus left to do according to their own ways (cf. Jdg 17:6; 21:25; cf. Ezek 8), so a period of sinning, certainly unatoned for according to the law due to the absence of a religious order, began to “build up” among the remnant of Judah during that time. It may have degeneratively been gradually established after that “final nail” event of 581 B.C. thus perhaps in 3 years = 578 B.C. These two periods of Israel's and Judah’s apostasy would last until their joint return starting in 538 B.C., shortly after the fall of the Babylonian Empire. So Israel’s period of 390 years of outstanding sins, indeed also covering the entire period of the Northern kingdom as, as noted in the previous chapter,^R33 not one of their 20 kings was said to ever ‘done what was right before God,’ instead practically all following in the ‘sins of Jeroboam’ (see 1 Kgs 15:26, 34; 16:19, 31; 22:52; etc.) was thus from about 928-(722)^N34-538 B.C.; while that of Judah’s 40 years was from ca. 578-538 B.C.

            Concerning this future joint return, God had said through the prophet Jeremiah that:

  “In those days and in that time... The children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together; with continual weeping they shall come and seek the Lord their God. They shall ask the way to Zion... In those days and in that time ... the iniquity of Israel shall be sought, but there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, but they shall not be found. For I will pardon those whom I preserve.”   Jer 50:[1-3], 4, 20.

Number 14:34                                                                                                                 

            A second biblical precedent that helps to support the use of a day-year principle for the prophetic time period of “Seventy weeks” is found in the Biblical episode of the return of the twelve spies from the land of Canaan found in Num 13 &14. At that time when ten of the twelve spies brought some negative reports concerning Israel’s chances of conquering Canaan, the whole camp began to murmur and complain (Num 13:25-14:4). As a punishment for their lack of faith and rebellion, God declared that “according to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, for each day you shall bear your guilt one year, namely forty years.” (Num14:34). In this instance, a symbolic period expressed as 40 days was used to prophetically refer to a future period of 40 literal years. In a parallel way, this future symbolic representation can be seen in the period of the Seventy Weeks as 490 prophetic days were used to refer to a future period of 490 literal years. So based on these two precedents we can see that the use of the day-year conversion principle for the period of "seventy weeks" is indeed justifiable.^R35 Probably the best reasons why this day-year principle is to be applied to the Seventy Week prophecy is simply, because, as we will see, it works out so well chronologically!^N36 And as we will also see later on, Jesus himself would also make use of this prophetic/symbolic, day-year principle.^S37

            In recent years, some interpreters^R38 have followed the reasoning of Sir Robert Anderson^B39 to say that the year here should be considered as a "prophetic year of 360 days" each. This is based on the assumption that this year in question was a solar year instead of the naturally understood lunar year. In this case, the period of the seventy weeks would be interpreted as a 490 lunar days which would actually equal 483.14 solar days since a solar day is .986 of a lunar day [360/365.25]).^R40 This interpretation is really without any strong foundation,^R41 and as it will be seen, the chronological accuracy of the Seventy Week prophecy is based on each year being a whole lunar year and not a fractioned solar year. This solar year conversion theory that is used mainly by Futurist-Dispensationalist still does not fit the chronological calculations of their interpretation^R42 and has led to the arbitrary splicing off of the last prophetic week (the Seventieth Week) from the first 69 weeks which is then arbitrarily cast off into the future to await a future historical fulfillment. This indefinite "gap" in the time period of the prophecy is not only an arbitrary supposition, but, as we will see shortly, it also goes against the Hebraic syntax found in the expression šib^⊂îm šābu^⊂îm ("seventy weeks").

The Sixfold Purpose of the Seventy Weeks

            Now following the mention of the entire time period that the prophecy will cover, the angel Gabriel goes on to relate to Daniel in this verse the six requirements, expressed in infinitive forms, that God had stipulated that Daniel’s people, the Jews, would have to have accomplished during this period of 490 years.           

            The subsequent explanations of these requirements will show that they should literally read as:

           

            [“Seventy weeks have been cut off for your people and for your holy city...”]

            (1)  to put a restraint on the transgression/rebellion,

            (2)  to seal the sin,

            (3)  to make atonement for iniquity,

            (4)  to cause the everlasting righteousness to be brought in;

            (5)  and to seal vision and prophet,

            (6)  and to anoint a Most Holy Place.

            It will now be seen what these six requirements are referring to and then at the end of the interpretation of the prophecy they will be reexamined to see if, and/or how, they were or were not fulfilled by the Jewish Nation during this prophetic period of 490 years.

To Put a Restraint on the Transgression/Rebellion

            The main verb that is used in this first requirement is the infinitive expression, l^ekallē^⊃. This expression is repeatedly used in the Old Testament to indicate the "putting of a restraint" on an action that would otherwise naturally (continue to)happen or reoccur.^S43 So here, God was telling Israel that they would have to refrain from committing their natural and habitual 'transgression.'

            The Hebrew word that is translated here usually as ‘transgression’ is peša^⊂. It is an expression that  is usually used to refer generically to a transgression as “a sin,”^S44 but many times it is used to specifically refer to a “transgression of rebellion”^{N45, R46} since it is derived from the verbal expression paša^⊂ which is many times used as ‘to rebel.’^B47 Now based on the fact that peša^⊂ is often used to indicate an act of national rebellion;^S48 and also, based on the fact that when peša^⊂ appears in the OT in the same context with the natural Hebrew expression for sin, -ţa^⊃zt [‘sin’], as it does here in Dan 9:24 (with the expression ţa^⊃zt occurring in the next infinitive statement), then they refer to two different degrees of sins,^S49 with the expression peša^⊂ then specifically indicating a most serious act of a sin of ‘rebellion.’ It therefore appears that the expression pesa^⊂ here in Dan 9:24 was used here to indicate a "transgression of (national) rebellion."

            Now from some statements that the prophet Daniel had made in his intercessory prayer we can also have a better idea as to what this "transgression" or "act of rebellion," which had now caused Israel to come into a state of desolation was. In Dan 9:5, Daniel had said that Israel had “sinned and committed iniquity” and had done “wickedly and rebelled” by departing from the precepts and the judgements of God. He then added in verse 6 that they had also not heeded to the voice of God’s servants the prophets who had spoken in His name to ‘their kings and their princes, their fathers and all the people of the land. In verse 9 and 10, he repeated these two charges by saying: “We have rebelled against Him (God)”and “We have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His laws which he set before us by His servants the prophets.”^R50

            It is therefore clear from these statements that Israel’s major “transgressions” were that (1) they would repeatedly turn away from the ways that God had intended and do all kinds of evils against Him, and (2) that they would continually reject the prophets that He would send to them in an attempt to help them get back to His original ideals. So in a sense, as commentator D. L. Cooper points out, the expression "transgression" here “emphasizes the idea of rebellion against God and disobedience to His will.”^B51 But now since the word 'transgression' here in Dan 9:24 is in the singular form, and is also prefixed in the Hebrew with a definite article [hapeša^⊂], it would therefore seem that specifically one of these two "transgressions" (“wicked acts” or “rebellion against God’s prophets”) that was specifically being emphasized here. We will be able to determine which one of these two it is later on.

To Seal the Sin

            This second requirement is made up of the verb l^ehatēm (‘to seal’) and the definite, singular expression haţa^⊃zt (‘the sin’). The main verb hatem is often used to indicate the sealing of a contract/document so that it cannot be changed or so that nothing can be added to it.^S52 Based on this usual use, the meaning of this second requirement of: “to seal the sin,” seems to be indicating here that if Israel were able to ‘put a restraint’ to their habitual past ‘act of rebellion’ they would then cause their past sin to be sealed  This meaning of l^ehatēm in Dan 9:24 as a ‘sealing of the sin’ is best seen in a similar notion that is expressed in Job 14:17 where Job says:

“My transgression^E53 would be sealed up (l^ehatēm) in a bag, and you would cover over my  iniquity.”

            Many commentators are in agreement here that Job was here using symbolic language to refer to his past iniquities being stored up, to be dealt with at a later time of judgement.^R54 In the context of Dan 9:24, this action of sealing sins would also probably be for a later time of judgement, when they would either be discarded or imputed. This "sealing" of past sin would then naturally mean that no more sins would be added to them as Israel would have then finally managed to restrain themselves from committing their past habitual ‘transgression of rebellion.’

           

To Make Atonement For Iniquity

            The sealing of Israel’s past sins would then lead to this next action in Dan 9:24, which would be the ‘making of atonement’ (l^ekapēr) for these past iniquities that had kept Israel in a state of "inequality"^E55 in relation with their righteous God as Isa 59:2a indicates by literally saying:

                        “...your iniquities have caused a separation between you and your God...”

            Israel had a very important ceremonial day of judgement for past sins in their religious calender called in the Hebrew ‘Yom Kippur’ (Day of Atonement [see Lev16]). On that day, all the confessed and forsaken sins of the past year would be symbolically cast out of the sanctuary where they had been "stored up." The High Priest would enter into the presence of God in the Most Holy Place and present the ‘case’ of the repentant people to God in order to help bring them back into a state of atonement (at-one-ment) with God.^S56 This restored state of perfection of Israel would then allow God to continue to dwell in the midst of His chosen people as they would be in a non-rebellious, righteous state (cf. Exod 33:3- 5). Without this yearly service of judgement and sanctuary cleansing, the Israelites’ past sins and guilt of the past year would continue to remain in their midst and ‘on their heads,’ so-to-speak. They would therefore be unfit to usher in the Holy and undefiled presence of God.

            This Jewish understanding that Israel’s sins would be sealed until a future day of atonement is seen in the statement by the Psalmist David when he prayed to God in behalf of Israel and said:

“Oh, do not remember former iniquities of us!....and provide atonement [w^ekapēr] for our sins, For your name’s sake!” Psalms 79:8, 9.^S57

            In a similar way, God would eventually, achieve this necessary 'atonement' with Israel one day, through Jesus Christ, the ultimate High Priest,^S58 if they would repent from their past sin and forsake and keep themselves from continuing to commit it in the future. (Cf. Isa 59:20). This then would allow the nation of Israel to have fulfilled through them the next requirement in this prophecy.

To Cause the Everlasting Righteousness to be Brought In

            The exact meaning of this requirement is somewhat unclear here at this point in the interpretation of the prophecy, but it apparently was a reference to the everlasting (^⊂ōlamîm ) righteousness found in the promise of the New Everlasting (^⊂ôlām ) Covenant (Jer 32:40),^N59 through Jesus Christ (Jer 23:5, 6). [See Jer 31:31-34; cf. Heb 8:7-12]. This will be further established later on.

And To Seal Vision and Prophet

            What is important to remark about this requirement is that while the expression hazôn here refers to a “vision,” the expression nabî^⊃  refers literally to a "prophet." It cannot be interpreted as “prophecy” as the KJV, NKJV and NIV have done, since the actual Hebrew word for "prophecy" is n^ebû^⊃āh. This literal translation of nabî^⊃ as "a prophet" makes the meaning of this statement somewhat  ambiguous at this point, but we will later see what it is referring to.

And To Anoint a Most Holy Place

             The double Hebrew expression qōdeš qodāšîm is used about 40 times in the Old Testament in relation to the sanctuary process^R60 with references to: “most holy things;”^S61 “offerings;”^S62 or altars that had become “most holy” because they had been anointed,^S63 but the actual meaning of qōdeš qodāšîm  when it appears as it does in Dan 9:24, without a qualify word such as “things,” “offerings,” or an ‘altar,” is reference to the second apartment of the Jewish sanctuary, the “Holy of Holies” or “the Most Holy Place.”^S64 Since qōdeš qodāšîm is never applied to a person it cannot have the meaning of “a Most Holy One” or “a Most Holy Person.”^R65 Instead, since the complete phrase "to anoint a Holy of Holies" in Dan 9:24 actually seems to be pointing to the inauguration of services in a place that is already "Most Holy," then it should be understood to be a reference as such; i.e., to the anointing of the second apartment of the sanctuary- the “Most Holy Place.”^R66

The Syntactical Features in the Six Infinitive Requirements

            A surface reading of these six infinitive phrases in Dan 9:24 reveals that they are in an interrelated, dependent, and successive order with the "putting of a restraint on the transgression" being the main action that would lead to the achievement of the other five requirements is somewhat self-evident, this sequence was, in fact meant to be understood as such as indicated by a couple Hebraic syntactical features. All of these 6 requirements are in the infinitive construct form and they all are prefixed by a significant lamedh (l) preposition. While this combined construction has varying uses,^R67 but the two uses that the immediate context indicates that it is being used as here is the notion of: purpose (‘in order to/that’),^R68 and result or consequence (‘and so; so that’),^R69 as we will see in greater detail here.

            First of all, in reference to the first infinitive l^ekallē^⊃ (‘to put a restraint’), when such a lamedh (l) preposition is attached to an infinitive construct form, it then could also in rare occasions could make the infinitive construct be considered as a regular finite (conjugated) verb.^R70 Now since the complete infinitive clause here would also be

best understood as a purpose clause then it would more accurately be translated as:

[Seventy Weeks have been cut off for your people and your holy city]

                          For the purpose of putting a restraint on the transgression (of rebellion)....

            Now in relation to the other five infinitive clause, there is a syntactical feature that appears in late Biblical Hebrew,^N71 (of which the Hebrew in the book of Daniel qualifies^N72), especially in the succession of several acts,^R73 which says that when a verb in the infinitive form has a preposition lamedh and also a waw-conjunction [w or W]] (transliterated into English as w and û, respectively) attached to it to form a (basic)waw-lamedh+infinitive construct, it then represents an action that is successive to the main finite verb.^R74 So since the last five infinitives in Dan 9:24 -ûl^ehatēm (‘to seal’), ûl^ekapēr (‘and to make atonement’), ûl^ehabî^⊃ (‘and to cause to be brought in’), w^elahtōm (‘and to seal’) and w^elimšōh (‘and to anoint’)- are in this waw-lamedh+infinitive construct form, this then concretely would mean that they were indeed representing actions that were all successive to, and also dependent on, the first infinitive clause l^ekallē^⊃ ... ‘putting a restraint.’ With them having the lamedh preposition attached to them they could be translated as finite (conjugated) verbs. Also, based on the context here which shows that they each lead to a new attainment after the “putting a restraint” action, then they would best be understood as result clauses (‘and so...’) to ‘express the consequence of the main verb.’^R75

So then they would best be expressed in an English translation as:         

                        And thus then sealing the sin,

                        And thus then making atonement for iniquity,

                        And thus then causing the everlasting righteousness of to be brought in;

                        And thus then sealing the vision and prophet,

                        And thus then anointing a Most Holy Place.

            So in a way, as commentator Charles Boutflower succinctly summarized the sequence and result of the first four statements:

                        Sin would be “first held back, then bound and confined and lastly be done away with, wiped out, by atonement being made.”^B76

           

This then would result in everlasting righteousness to be brought in.

            This consequential function of the last five requirements depending upon the fulfillment of the first did not mean that they would automatically be also fulfilled. As we will now see, such a notion (along with other notions), would be indicated by the type of verb that is also used in describing the action in each clause.

The Meaning in the Verb Stems Used

            (1) A Piel stem was used to mention the two very important actions which said that Israel had to “put a restraint” on their habitual transgression and also to “make atonement for iniquity.”  Since these two verbs are transitive verbs as they govern a direct object in the simple Qal stem, they then are said to be resultative Piel and thus are emphasizing the bringing about of the outcome and state corresponding to the action of described by the verbs here, namely the "restraining of the transgression" and the "making of atonement."^R77 So the process of this requirement was not being emphasized here. Now since in the Piel stem the subject is only indirectly involved in the bringing about of the action and it effects the resulting state through a person or instrument,^R78 then this would mean here theologically, that God was not asking Israel to perform some "works" in order to refrain from their habitual transgression or to work their way back into a state of atonement with Him, but rather, it was being said here that these actions would be done for them by a total dependence on Him and by faith in His chosen “instrument(s),” which in the past had been His reformation prophets.

            (2) A Hiphîl stem was used to predict that Israel would come to cause the everlasting righteousness to be brought in and since the emphasis in this stem is on the causing of an event rather then the a resulting state from this action,^R79 then the use of this stem here was making this prediction focus on the initial stages of this everlasting righteousness being brought in, and would not be focusing on the final fulfillment of this new ‘righteous’ state. This prediction would therefore be saying that Israel would (through their fulfilling of the first 3 requirements) help to start to establish this state of new everlasting righteousness during the time of this 490-year period.

            (3) A Qal stem was used 3 times in this list of requirements to predict the "sealing of sin," the "sealing of vision and prophet," and the "anointing of a Most Holy Place." Since the Qal stem does not have any element of causation in its meaning, this then meant that these three actions would occur somewhat naturally, as the other predicted actions would be fulfilled. This natural notion in the Qal stem was repeatedly seen in the notes in Daniel’s prayer^N80 and it is also seen in the opening sentence in Dan 9:25 where the angel Gabriel used a Qal stem verb to say to Daniel concerning the prophecy that: “Thou shall know,” but then a Hiphîl stem to say: “Thou shall understand.” This was because Daniel would naturally “know” the upcoming stipulations of the prophecy because the angel was about to relate them to him, but on the other hand Daniel would have to cause himself to “understand” their interpretation as they would not be given to him, nor come naturally.

             So in a similar manner, this natural notion reflected in these three Qal requirements in Dan 9:24 would mean (a) that Israel’s past sins would be naturally sealed as they would then have managed to put a restraint on their habitual transgression and (b) after they would have fulfilled the first four requirements, then the next two requirements, the "sealing of vision and prophet" and the "anointing of a Most Holy Place," would then be naturally fulfilled by them.

The Thematic Separation

            Now, based on the meanings in these six requirements, there also appears to be a slight thematic separation between the theme of the first four infinitives and the last two. The first four requirements seem to be a reference to the process that would lead Israel back to a restored state, while the last two seem to be a reference to two additional actions that would be done after the completion of this righteous restoration.

            This thematic separation seems to have also been recognized by Jewish scholars as a Hebraic punctuation called an athnach (^) was placed in the fourth infinitive phrase under the expression “everlasting” (mym-il;[), and was here functioning as a semicolon to apparently emphasize the upcoming two (thematically different) requirements.^N81 This athnach would then cause the following distinction in the flow of the reading of the text:

           [Seventy Weeks have been cut off for your people and your holy city]

                        For the purpose of putting a restraint on the transgression (of rebellion);

                        And thus then sealing the sin,

                        And thus then making atonement for iniquity,

                        And thus then causing the everlasting righteousness of to be brought in; [athnach]

                        And thus then also sealing the vision and prophet,

                        And thus then also anointing a Most Holy Place.

            So now with this overall view of what we can expect by the historical fulfilment of the Seventy Week prophecy, we can now turn to Dan 9:25 to determine what the exact chronological starting point of the prophecy would be.

Notes to “Verse 24”  

1. The NASB makes a provision for the reading: “seventy sevens” in its margin.

2. William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretations, Daniel  and Revelation Committee Series, Vol. 1. (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982), 77; Gerhard F. Hasel, "Interpretations of the Chronology of the Seventy Weeks."  In The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, ed. Frank B. Holbrook. Daniel and Revelation Series. Vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 7; E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885), 186; E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. Translated by Theod. Meyer and James Martin. 4 vols (Grand Rapids, MI:  Kregel Publications, 1956, reprint of the British edition, 1872-78), 88; J. Cumming, Prophetic Studies ; or Lectures on the Book of Daniel (London: Virtue, Hall, and Virtue, 1851), 399-400.

3. Collins, 93-95; Montgomery, 372-373; A. A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Cambridge: The University Press, 1892), 141-147; Otto Zöckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, Translated by James Strong, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Vol. 13 (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1876), 194; L. F. Hartman, and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible. Vol. 23  (Garden City, NY Doubleday, 1978), 244; Towner, 141.

4. André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, Translated by David Pellauer (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1979), 178, 191.

5. Ben Zion Wacholder, "Chronomessianism: The Timing of Messianic Movements and the Calender of Sabbatical Cycles," HUCA 46 (1975): 201-209.

6. Otto Plöger, Das Buch Daniel,* Kommentar zum Alten Testament* (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1965), 140; S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel 6^th ed. (London: Samuel  Bagster & Sons, 1883), 97-98, Edward Dennet, Daniel the Prophet and the Times of the Gentiles (London: G. Morrish, 1919), 144-147; Glen Richard Goss, "The Chronological Problems of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel." (Th. D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966), 29; H. W. Hoehner, "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ.  Part VI. Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology." BSac 132 (1975): 48-50; John C. Whitcomb, "Daniel’s Great Seventy-Weeks Prophecy: An Exegetical Insight," GTJ 2 (1981): 259-263; Frederick Holtzman, "A Re-examination of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1974), 33, 34; David A. Harmon, "Problems of the Sixty-Nine Weeks of Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1959), 9; David L. Cooper, The 70 Weeks of Daniel (Los Angeles, CA: Biblical Research Society, 1941), 19-21; Wood, 247; Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1959), 13; F. W. Farrar, The Book of Daniel (Cincinnati: Jennings and Graham, 1900), 277; Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1850), 266, 267; Walvoord, 216-220; Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince.  10th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1977), 67.

7. See Owusu-Antwi, 89-101[@].

8. See HAL, 1288; KBL, 940; BDB, 988; CHAL, 358; AHCL, 717; HCL, 1331; Klein, 635.

9. Compilers of a language who arrange the words of the language according to their use and significance.

10. KBL, 940; BDB, 988; CHAL, 358.

11. HAL, 1287; KBL, 940; BDB, 988; CHAL, 358; HCL, 1331; Klein, 635, Gary G. Cohen, "sheba^⊂," TWOT, 2:899.

12. HAL, 1287, 1288; KBL, 940; BDB, 988; CHAL, 358; HCL, 1331; Klein, 635; Cohen, 2:899; GCHL, 800.

13. See HAL, 1287, 1288; HCL, 1331; BDB, 989; Klein, 635.

14. To consider/make such an interpretative meaning, especially from a usage in a prophetic passage, as an official linguistic definition would be as inaccurate as e.g., these lexicographers claiming that a possible (linguistic) meaning of the Hebrew 'aiyl ("ram") [Strong's #0352a] is "Media and Persia" because that is what it symbolically represents in Dan 8:20.

15. Owusu-Antwi, 93. Stated in conclusion on the study of the basic meaning of šbu^⊂a on pp. 90-93[@].

16. Owusu-Antwi, 101[@].

17. For a further in-depth and detailed exposition on the validity of the meaning and translation of šābu^⊂îm as “weeks,” in this prophecy see Owusu-Antwi, 89-101[@].

18. This occurrence of šābu^⊂a, along with the one in Gen 29:28 had been thought to refer to a seven year period, but has since been seen to have reference to the seven days of (Leah’s) bridal week. (See Owusu-Antwi, 93, 95, 96[@]).

19. This occurrence of šābu^⊂a, along with the one in Dan 10:3 which are accompanied by the term yāmîm (“days”) have been used as a proof that the lone use of šābu^⊂a in Dan 9:24-27 in contrast referred to “weeks of years,” but it has been shown that the use of the term  yāmîm with time periods in the Old Testament (see Gen 29:14; 41:1; Num 11:20; Deut 21:13; 2 Sam 13:23; 14:28; 2 Kgs 15:13; Jer 28: 3, 11) is a Hebrew idiom [mode of expression] that was used to specify the “fullness” of that time period (e.g., “two full years” or “ a full month”). (See Owusu-Antwi, 99, 100[@]).

20. In Owusu-Antwi’s listing of OT occurrences of šābu^⊂a this occurrence in Ezek 45:21 is  categorized as ‘too problematic to be determinatively useful in a study to establish the basic definition of šābu^⊂îm’, and has thus been omitted, also citing that the critical apparatus of the BHS that indicates that other MSS and all versions have the singular numerical reading of šib^⊂at “seven.” (p.98). The reading therefore would be “seven days” instead of “the Feast of Weeks days.” This ‘seven days’ conclusion is that of many commentators (see p.210n100), however further exegetical studies which also take into consideration the thematic context in which it occurs in Ezekiel have shown that it should indeed be translated as “the Feast of Weeks days” as the main MSS reading says. This is because of the fact that while this this may not seem as the correct understanding based on the fact that the Passover week was distinct from the Feast of Weeks, however in this “Second Temple” context in Ezekiel, which was to have been established prior to the advent of the Messiah and His New Covenant (see the discussion on pp.), had the prophetic ministry of Ezekiel been accepted, the feasts of Israel are being reorganized by God, with some even left out, and it appears that the Passover Week was indeed to be made a part of ‘the days of the Feast of Weeks.’ Therefore the feminine plural construct reading š^ebu^⊂o here is actually not considered erroneous in this study and is included in this listing.

21. Cf. Waltke, and O’Connor, IBHS, 106 [6.4.3a].

22. Lev 12:5; Dan 9:24, 25 (2), 26; 10:2, 3.

23. Exod. 34:33; Num 28:26; Duet 16:9 (2), 10, 16; Jer 5:24; 2 Chr 8:13; Ezek 45:21.

24. Diethelm Michel, Grundlegung einer hebrischen Syntax* (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 34-39, 49; quoted by Gerhard F. Hasel in "The Hebrew Masculine Plural for Weeks in the Expression 'Seventy Weeks' in Daniel 9:24," AUSS 31 (1993), 114, 115; Cf. W.G.E. Watson, "Gender-Matched Synonyms Parallelism in the Old Testament," JBL 99 (1980): 321-341.

25. See Hasel, "Hebrew Masculine Plural," 115-120; Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 102-104.

26. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 116.

27. Cf. Ibid.

28. See GKC, 462, 463 [#145a-g]; Cf. R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), 240; C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950), 339; Montgomery, 376; Owusu-Antwi, 222 note 198; Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1850), 269.

29. Owusu-Antwi, 116.

30. Cf. Young, 196; Wood, 248.

31. See e.g., Ezek 2:1, 3, 6, 8; 3:1, 3, 4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1; etc.

32. See also 1 Kgs 12:28-33; 13:33, 34; 15:30, 34.

33. See pp.

34. It would seems inaccurate to continue to reckon the sins of Israel after its formal demise in 722 B.C. at the hand of the Assyrians, however notice how Daniel in his prayer for restoration in ca. 539 B.C. continued to consider Israel as being fully existent (See Dan 9:7, 11, 20). Clearly though the Northern Kingdom had been overtaken, and no doubt prevented from deserting the realm of the Assyrians, to go to most likely Judah, if even physically practical, the people of Israel were nonetheless still reckoned as God’s posterity, to a lesser degree, just like the Jews from Judah residing as exiles in Babylon. Thus their subsequent sins, since/if they still wanted to be considered as God’s people, would also still have to be reckoned and dealt with prior to their acceptance and restoration, as indeed God fully desired (cf. e.g., Ezek 39:25-29), even if in such an act of ‘propitiative mercy’ as in Ezekiel 4:4-6.

35. For a discussion on the usage of the day-year principle in the interpretations of Qumran and Rabbinic writers who also recognized that the Seventy Weeks were referring to 490 literal years, see Owusu-Antwi, 118-121[@]; Roger T. Beckwith, "The Significance of the Calender for Interpreting Essene Chronology and Eschatology, "RevQ 10 (1980): 172-181; idem, "Daniel 9 and Date of Messiah’s Coming..., "RevQ 10 (1980): 523, 524; Jacques Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 34;  Robert C. Newman, "Daniel's Seventy Weeks and the Old Testament Sabbath-year Cycle." JETS 16 (1973): 229, 230; Shea, Selected Studies, 89-93.

36. As a requisite for the unmerited grace of God, Bible prophecy patently contains elements of faith where the believer has to accept/trust a prior requirement/statement of God in order to unlock the true and full interpretation of the prophecy. In the light of the chronological and substantive precision and clarity of this 70 Week prophecy, indeed arguably the most straightforward prophecy in the entire Bible, the only element where this “faith” condition has been attached seems to be in this ‘day for a year’ issue concerning its time period. So it is really only when this is accepted in faith, indeed based upon the applicable precedents in Num 14:34 & Ezek 4:6, that this though quite straightforward prophecy can be rightly/fully understood.

37. Luke 13:31-33, See in “The Year of the Crucifixion,” Ch. 7, pp.

38. Such as: Archer, 445; Glen Richard Goss, "The Chronological Problems of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel." TH.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966), 85-101;  Newman, 230; etc.

39. Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, 10th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1977), 75.

40. See Owusu-Antwi, 220-221 note 190.

41. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 111-115 [@].

42. Cf. Ibid.

43. See e.g., (NKJV): Gen 8:2 and Psa 40:9 where l^ekallē^⊃ is translated as 'restrained', 'restrain,' respectively; See also Psa 40:11 ['withhold']; 119:101 ['refrained']; Jer 32:2, 3 ['shut him up']; Ezek 31:15 and Hag 1:10 ['stayed']; etc.

44. See e.g., Num 14:18; Job 8:4; 14:17; 31:33; 33:9; 34:6; 35:6; 36:9; Psa 5:10; 19:13; 36:1; 39:8; 65:3; 89:32; 103:12; Pro 10:12, 19; 12:13; 17:9, 19; 19:11; 28:13, 24; 29:6, 16; Isa 24:20; etc.

45. See (esp. in NASB) Exod 23:21; 1 Sam 24:11; 25:28; Psa 107:17; Pro 28:2; 29:22; Isa 53:8; 57:4; 59:20; Dan 8:12, 13; Micah 1:5; 3:8; 6:7; 7:18. This understanding of peša^⊂ as a ‘sin of rebellion’ is concretely seen in Job 34:37 in a statement made by one of Job’s friend -Elihu- as he was trying to convince Job that he was ‘rebelling’ against God when he was asking God for an explanation concerning the great trials he was going through. Elihu literally said that Job was now adding “rebellion to his sin” (Job 34:37) because he felt that it was an act of rebellion on the part of Job not to admit guilt in the face of this apparent judgment of God, but to instead question it. Elihu even said that by doing this Job had gone beyond the limit and that he should therefore be “tried [or judged] to the utmost.” (vs. 36).

46. Cf. Leslie Hardinge, Jesus Is My Judge (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1996), 188, who says that: “Pesha describes the most devastating sin {Gen 31:36} and rebellion {1 Kgs 8:50} which leads to fighting God {Isa 1:2}.”

47. See BDB, 833.

48. See e.g., 1 Kgs 12:19; 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:5, 7; 8:20, 22(2X); 2 Chr 10:19; 21:8, 10(2X); etc.

49. See Gen 31:36; 50:17; Exod 34:7; Lev 16:16, 21; Josh 24:19; 1 Sam 24:11; Job 13:23; Psa 25:7; 32:1, 5; 51:1-3; 59:3; Isa 43:25; 44:22; 58:1; 59:12; Ezek 33:10, 12; Amos 5:12; Micah 1:5, 13; 3:8; 6:7.

50. See also Dan 9:11a for Daniel’s similar statement of confession.

51. David L. Cooper, The 70 Weeks of Daniel (Los Angeles, CA: Biblical Research Society, 1941), 25.

52. See how this expression l^ehatēm is used in this sense of "sealing something" in passages like 1 Kgs 21:8; Jer 32:10, 14, 44; Neh 9:38 (10:1); 10:1 (10:2); Esth 3:12; 8:8, 10; Dan 12:4; etc.

53. “Transgression” is used here simply in the since of a “sin.”

54. Cf. Marvin H. Pope, Job. The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. Inc. 1986), 109-111.

55. The English word “iniquities” that is accurately used for this Hebrew word ^⊂awōn comes from the Latin word iniquus which means “unequal.”

56. Cf. Lev 16:16, 21.

57. Cf. Isa 43:25 where God made a similar promise to Israel.

58. Cf. Heb 5; 7:1-10:25.

59. This expression "everlasting" is also used in Micah 5:2 (HB 5:1) to speak of the eternal pre-existence of Christ by saying that His 'going forth were from old, from everlasting.'

60. Cf.  Shea, "The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27." In The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series.  Vol. 3. Edited by Frank           Holbrook. (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 83.

61. Num 4:4, 19; 1 Chr 23:13; 2 Chr 31:14.

62. E.g., Lev 2:3, 10; 10:17; Num 18:9b; Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65; Ezek 42:13.

63. Exod 29:37; 30:10, 29, 36; 40:10.

64. See Exod 26:33, 34; 1 Kgs 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; 1 Chr 6:49; 2 Chr 3:8, 10, 22; 5:7; Ezek 41:4; 44:13; 45:3.

65. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 85.

66. Cf. RSV.

67. See Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 605-610 [36.2.3a-g].

68. See Ibid., 606, 607 [36.2.3d].

69. See Ibid., 607 [36.2.3d].

70. See Ibid., 600 [36.1.2a].

71. And also in Hebrew poetry.

72. Although the events in book of Daniel took place in the 6^th century B.C., critical lexical and syntactical studies [e.g., S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. rev. ed.  (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 497-508] have revealed that its present Hebrew text is that of a much later time. The simple answer to this apparent “major dilemma” (a conclusion that has led to many faulty interpretation of its prophecies) is that the writings of Daniel were translated from an original language (of Daniel) [Aramaic, Babylonian (cf. Dan 1:17), or earlier Hebrew] when they were then collected to form a formal book. This collection would have been done sometime after 400 B.C. That is then why the Hebrew of Daniel is classified as “Late Biblical Hebrew” [Cf. Angel Saenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by John Elwolde. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 52; cf. GKC, 351 [#114p]; cf. 345 [#113z].

73. Cf. GKC, 351 [#114p]; cf. 345 [#113z].

74. See Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Subsidia Biblica. Vol 14. (Rome: Pontifical Biblica Institute, 1991), 364 [#124p]; GKC, 351 [#114p]; Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS,  611 [36.3.2a].

75. See Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 607 [36.2.3d].

76. Boutflower, 183.

77. Cf. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 398 [24.1f]; 400 [24.1h]; 405 [24.3b].

78. See Ibid., 408 [24.3.2d].

79. Ibid., 434 [27.1d].

80. See Notes #48, 52, 56-59 in Chapter 1.

81. We will later analyze in greater detail the pausal value and function of this athnach punctuation (See “The athnach punctuation in Dan 9:25" Ch. 5, pp. ) as it appears again in verse 25 of Dan 9 in a position that, when misunderstood, affects the way in which the chronology of this prophecy is to be reckoned.