The Commencement of the Seventy Sevens.

The time of commencement is stated to be ‘from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem’. While the going forth of that word must in the end refer to God as determining the commencement of action, we might also expect some corresponding decree on earth parallel with it demonstrating that God has begun His action. Thus we may probably relate this to some earthly event.

The decree to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem is described in Ezra 1 (c.539/8 BC), compare Isaiah 44.28 where Cyrus is seen as saying that Jerusalem also was to be rebuilt. But in the decree itself the rebuilding of Jerusalem is not mentioned, and it was in fact on a minimal scale. It commenced as simply a huddle of buildings, a small provincial town of no importance and having little significance, except as evidence that there was hope for the future.

Then following this, Zechariah and Haggai spurred on the building of the Temple (see Ezra 6.3, 14) and this was finished around 516 BC. Later Ezra was sent to assist in the establishing of Temple worship (see Ezra 7.12). But the aim there was specifically in order to rebuild the Temple, and this was because Cyrus sought the blessing of the gods of the nations. He was not particularly concerned about the restoration of Jerusalem with any kind of status other than as containing the holy shrine of the God of Israel.

So while it is true that Isaiah 44.28 links this activity to the rebuilding of Jerusalem in a small way as a religious centre, it is clear that the actual rebuilding of Jerusalem was not a part of the edict of Cyrus. Building the temple would assume the building of a small group of living accommodation round it, which is why Isaiah could speak of Cyrus saying that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt. But real restoration demands more than putting up a few buildings and rebuilding a Temple, and the commands of Cyrus really concerned the Temple rather than the city (Ezra 1). Thus Nehemiah later receives the news that ‘the wall of Jerusalem is broken down’ (Nehemiah 1.3) and is aware that it does not govern itself but is governed from Samaria. Jerusalem was not yet restored as a city on its former basis.

It was in fact Nehemiah himself who was specifically commissioned to restore Jerusalem and establish it as its own ruling city. This occurred in 445 BC. When Jerusalem was destroyed and ceased to be a ruling city, that was the sign that God had forsaken His people. And while it was trodden down that situation remained. The almost overwhelming vehemence of Ezekiel’s cries that ‘Jerusalem must be destroyed’ was the seal that God had closed a chapter in the history of Israel and Judah.

(Later indeed, in other circumstances, after another destroying of Jerusalem, we are told that the times of the Gentiles will continue while Jerusalem is trodden down (Luke 21.24) demonstrating that it is Jerusalem primarily and the Temple only secondarily that was seen as the prime test of God’s favour on the Jews).

Thus up to the time of Nehemiah Jerusalem had again been populated to some extent, but it was only a huddle of buildings with its own small Temple, and as such it was ruled from elsewhere and had little real authority. It was merely a provincial town of no importance, and with no independence, being simply part of a larger province. It was a symbol in Israelite hearts rather than a city in reality. It was Nehemiah to whom the privilege was given to rebuild the walls and make it once more a ruling city with its pride restored (Nehemiah 5.14). Thus it was Nehemiah who ‘restored Jerusalem’ and an independent nation. In view of this we may well see the edict in mind in Daniel’s prophecy as that concerning Nehemiah.

That being posited let us look at the prophecy.

9.24 ‘Seventy sevens are determined upon your people and on your holy city, to finish (or ‘restrain’ or ‘shut up’) transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy (the holy of holies)’.

It is clear from this that the seventy sevens are seen as not only making the situation right between the nation and God but also as resulting in their final restoration and acceptability with God, and the final fulfilment of prophecy which we know from elsewhere includes all nations (Isaiah 42.6; 49.6; etc).

‘Are determined on your people and on your holy city.’ The limited view that suggests that these verses only refer to Israel misses the point. Israel was not here for itself, it was here for the world. From the time of the first promise to Abraham of blessing on all nations (Genesis 12.3), through the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of priests in the Sinai covenant (Exodus 19.6), to the recognition that they were to be God’s servant to the nations in Isaiah 41 onwards, the divine emphasis was always on their status and position as world functionaries. What God determined on His people He determined for the sake of the world. This prophecy has a world view.

The result of the seventy sevens is to be:

• 1). ‘To shut up (restrain) transgression.’ This and 2). are parallel ideas. Transgression has raged through the world since man’s first days. Now it is to be restrained, to be brought under control, to be imprisoned, to be finally dealt with.
• 2). ‘And to make an end of sins (or ‘seal up sin’).’ Job 14.17 refers to ‘the sealing up of sin’ where the idea is that God has sealed it up so as to bring it to account. The restraining and imprisonment of transgression and the making an end of or sealing up of sin could only have in mind both the binding and restraining of the Evil One and the cessation of the power of sin over men’s lives both in penalty and effectiveness. This would be brought about through a sufficient sacrifice for sin which put away sin (Hebrews 9.26), and effective transformation through the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3.18) so that men became blameless before God.
• 3). ‘And to make reconciliation for (or more literally ‘cover’) iniquity.’ This means such a reconciliation that man can come to God and be received as His with no shadow of failure between (2 Corinthians 5.19; Ephesians 2.16). It was to remove any shadow or barrier between God and man.
• 4). ‘To bring in everlasting righteousness.’ This signifies that the stain of sin and evil is removed for ever, both judicially before God as men are covered in perfect righteousness (1 Corinthians 1.30; 2 Corinthians 2.21), and in fact, so that man will actually be holy, blameless and unreproachable before Him for ever (Colossians 1.22; Ephesians 5.27). It promises the everlasting kingdom. Anything less is not everlasting righteousness in the Old Testament sense.
• 5). ‘To seal up vision and prophecy.’ This signifies the final and complete fulfilment of prophecy so that it is no longer required and is past instead of future.
• 6). ‘To anoint ‘the most holy’ (literally ‘the holy of holies’ - that which is most holy)’. Anointing indicates a new dedication to God, a setting apart for Him, within His purposes. This refers either to the final anointing of the everlasting King or more likely to the ‘anointing’ of the supreme everlasting sanctuary, in the heavenly Jerusalem (Exodus 40.9; Hebrews 12.22; Revelation 21), the eternal dwellingplace of God with men. Whichever we choose it is an indication of the fulfilment of God’s final purposes.

In our view these descriptions cancel out any interpretation of these seventy sevens that falls short of resulting in final perfection. While the death of Jesus would undoubtedly be the foundation on which these promises would be built (as the passage itself makes clear), it is as a major stage towards the accomplishment of these purposes, not as the final end itself. Nor is there any space for an inadequate ‘kingdom age’ to follow. Perfection will have been achieved (‘seventy sevens’, in contrast with ‘seventy years’, is an intensified divinely perfect period). Nor is it sufficient to stop short in a partial fulfilment at Christ’s first coming, glorious and initially complete though that was. That made possible the final completion of the vision, but it was not its complete fulfilment. Daniel is clearly in the end thinking of the final consummation when the everlasting perfect kingdom begins.

It has been said that there is no clear indication of what closes off the seventieth seven. We find this statement quite remarkable, for it is here stated quite clearly. It is when the final fulfilment of all God’s purposes for a sinful world are brought to a state of perfection and completion.

9.25 ‘Know therefore, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem to the anointed one the prince shall be seven sevens and sixty two sevens. It will be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times. And after the sixty two sevens the anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing, and the people of the coming Prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary, and its end will be with a flood, and even to the end there shall be war, desolations are determined’.

It is possible to read this as meaning that the first ‘anointed one, the Prince’ mentioned comes after the ‘seven sevens’ (the Hebrew is not specific and leaves the question open), but the fact that he is called ‘an anointed prince’, or ‘Messiah the Prince’, and that this is followed by two references, one to ‘an anointed one’ or ‘the Messiah’ and the other to ‘a Prince who will come’ suggests rather that we connect the three together.

The Significance of the Seven Sevens.

Then in that case why mention the seven sevens separately? We must look at this from the perspective of the Jews and understand in this regard that ‘seven sevens’ was a distinctive period for Jews. They knew nothing of ‘decades’ or ‘centuries’. Time for them was split first into seven year periods, with the seventh year being a sabbath for the land and a time of release (Deuteronomy 15.1; Leviticus 25.2-4), and then into ‘seven times seven years’ with the fiftieth year a year of Jubile (Leviticus 25.8-10). That was how they looked at time. Thus time was seen as moving forward in seven year periods and then in forty nine year periods, with each fiftieth year being a time of great restoration. For them that summed up time.

So if ‘seven sevens’ was seen as referring to years, we would expect it to lead on to the year of Jubile, the year of release, the year when all Israelite bondservants would be released and land outside of walled cities would revert to its original owners (see Leviticus 25 & 27). All Israel would then be made free again, and full restoration occur. The culmination of ‘seven sevens’ would thus point to a final picture of freedom and deliverance and redemption. But the point here is that this will not be achieved after seven sevens. Deliverance must await the distant future.

This confirms that the prophecy is indicating looking forward to the freedom of the people, but also indicates a long period before that will occur. It is no good looking forward to Jubile, for things will extend long beyond that. There will be seven sevens, and then --? Answer: there will be a further sixty two sevens.

So the people are not to greet the next jubile year with great expectancy as it approaches, for it is not the time when God will act. Instead of jubile and release occurring at the end of the seven sevens there will simply be the establishing of the city with squares and moat (and thus as an important city) but this will continue to be in troubles times. For in order for God’s purposes to come to completion there will then need to be a further sixty two ‘sevens’ beyond this recognised period. It is a discouraging message of foreordained delay. They cannot look forward to a quick blessing. Rather they must wait for a further long period before God will act. Thus instead of blessing after the ‘seven sevens’, which might have been expected, it will be ten times that long.

So the anticipated jubile, the fiftieth year, is to be replaced by sixty two further sevens. Expectancy must be shelved, deliverance will be delayed and the lack of jubile will be extended by a considerable extent, by ‘sixty two sevens’. This would serve to explain the division made. It is stressing that the wait will not last just for seven sevens up to a fifty year release but that it will endure for that plus a further sixty two sevens. The Great Jubile, the time of freedom and rejoicing and restoration, is to be long delayed. The whole passage is in fact looking for the coming of ‘the anointed Prince’, and it is pointed out that that is a long, long way ahead. Meanwhile the city will be built again with street and moat, in other words will become an established, defendable city, but times will be troubled.

That the anointed one, the Prince does not come after the first seven sevens is confirmed by the fact that there is no mention of any action connected with the Prince in mind after the first seven sevens. There was a continual line of princes, why just mention one if there was no significance to it? And besides there are also good grounds for referring the later reference to ‘the coming Prince’ as looking back to this ‘Prince who is coming’. Thus we can argue that while, speaking in earthly terms, ‘princes’ would be constantly coming along, there seems little point in picking one out and mentioning him when he does not appear to have done anything special. And certainly if this ‘the anointed Prince’ is seen as arising after the seven sevens no activity is described for him. Thus it must be seen as more likely that he is seen as appearing at the end of the sixty nine sevens. (The Hebrew is ambiguous). The issue is not of any vital importance except to demonstrate that, if we see the references as being to one and the same Prince, it stresses the importance of the Prince in mind, for the second ‘anointed one’ definitely comes after the sixty two sevens, and must also be a Prince. This being so after sixty nine sevens will come ‘the Anointed Prince’ to whom all has been building up. Surely then the coming of God’s Anointed will finalise the situation. Yet that it will not do so is indicated by the fact that he comes at the end of sixty nine sevens, and not at the end of the seventy sevens. His coming is important but it has not brought everything to conclusion. The everlasting kingdom is not yet.

For finally there will be a seventieth seven in which all comes to conclusion. Thus the ‘seven times seven’ which would normally lead up to the year of release will instead rather be extended ‘tenfold (which might simply mean a great many times), and only then will the Great Release come. Seventy times seven is an intensification of seven times seven. Thus the final Jubile and restoration will be an intensified one. And it is also an extension of Jeremiah’s ‘seventy years’ into the distant future of ‘seventy times seven’ indicating the divinely perfect length of time. (Not that it is denying fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. The exile did end within a man’s span of life of seventy years. But we are now not just thinking of restoration, but of divinely perfect and complete restoration).

But how long are ‘seventy sevens’? Some see them as simply signifying God’s perfect time, not ‘years’ but ‘sevens’. Seven is the number of divine perfection so that this combination of sevens (seven times seven times ten - i.e. intensified seven times seven) might be seen as just that, with the added factor that it is seen as lasting ten times longer than the period leading up to jubile, and ‘ten times’ is an idea which is not specific but signifies ‘a number of times’ (Genesis 31.7, 41; Numbers 14.22; Daniel 1.20).

This case is supported by the fact that ‘seven times’ occurs elsewhere in Daniel where it is a specific period as far as God is concerned (a God-appointed period) but not strictly measurable as far as man is concerned. See Daniel 4.16, 25. Some interpret the seven times and the seventy times seven as meaning years, but usually when Daniel means years he says so. There are no real grounds for just assuming a reference to years. It is therefore possible that it is rather intended to mean a mysterious but predetermined period within the purposes of God, similarly with the equally mysterious, ‘a time, times and half a time’ which indicates a broken period of less than seven times. (If it means years why did he not say so?)

Thus the writer could be declaring a perfect, but from men’s viewpoint, unlimited period, before the final purposes of God are fulfilled, unlimited, that is, except in God’s eyes, Who Himself has chosen to limit them to ‘seventy sevens’. The writer may simply be saying that all that will happen will happen in God’s time and stressing that that will be a long way ahead, far beyond man’s reckoning.

This would tie in with Daniel’s earlier reference to ‘seventy years’ (Daniel 9.2) but with the ‘years’ have been replaced by ‘sevens’, that is, perfect time periods determined by God.

However it could be argued that the introduction of the idea of leading up to jubile by a period of ‘seven sevens’ (of years) points to the sevens as signifying years. And on top of this a further interesting fact remains. In prophetic and general calculations months tend to be seen as of thirty days. This was equally used for convenience outside prophetic circles. It was a useful approximation. Months per the moon were roughly for twenty eight to twenty nine days which made for awkwardness, and our rather awkward method of calculating months would not have been known to Daniel. Men lived by moon periods. So for calculation purposes a month was often seen as thirty days. Consider the 1,260 days of Revelation 11.3 (but not in Daniel) which equates to forty two months which is intended to represent three and a half years (Revelation 11.2 with 11.3), and the 150 days of the flood which seems to indicate five months (Genesis 7.11 with 8.4). If we take the first sixty nine sevens as years and count each year as being 360 days in length (12 times 30) we have 483 x 360, and the number of days resulting actually, if dated from the decree of Nehemiah, quite remarkably, brings us to the time of Jesus ministry on earth. This seems so extraordinary a ‘coincidence’ that it is difficult to see it as accidental.

But these facts do not necessarily exclude the ‘seventy sevens’ as signifying God’s time periods. It would merely indicate that God was pleased to actually bring it about in this way as a further added seal on the prophecy. For the fact is that no one in New Testament times appears to have tried to calculate on this basis, so clearly they did not see it as indicating years. No one who knew the prophecy of Daniel, not even Jesus, pointed to it as indicating the first century AD. Thus no one, not even those who spoke Hebrew fluently and understood Jewish ideas, interpreted it in terms of years. It was seen rather as indicating God’s appointed time.

‘And after the sixty two sevens the anointed one will be cut off and will have nothing, and the people of the coming Prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary, and its end will be with a flood, and even to the end there shall be war, desolations are determined’.

But whichever way we take it this period of sixty nine sevens is seen as bringing us to the time of ‘the anointed one’ (Messiah) who will be ‘cut off’. Daniel may well have had in mind here Isaiah’s prophecy of a Suffering Servant, for although the Servant is never specifically described as ‘anointed’, there could be no question that he was to be chosen and set apart by God and the prophet in Isaiah 61.1 is described as ‘anointed’. That this in the end refers to the Messiah (the anointed one), and therefore to Jesus Christ, cannot for Christians really be in doubt. All were looking forward to the coming of an anointed Prince (Isaiah 11.1-2; 9.6-7; 55.3; Hosea 3.4-5) or Prophet (Deuteronomy 18.15, 18; Isaiah 42.1-4; 49.1-6; 53.1-12; 61.1-2).

And yet this Messiah, the hope of Israel, is then to be ‘cut off and shall have nothing’. This is a deliberate contrast. The one anointed as God’s representative, with all the potential that that promises, will be cut off and left with absolutely nothing, seemingly totally bankrupt. It would seem almost unbelievable. But that was exactly what Isaiah had prophesied in Isaiah 53, and that was how Daniel also saw it. As always Israel will reject the one whom God sends, and God will do His work through the humble and lowly. This explains why his coming is at the end of sixty nine sevens and not at the end of the seventy sevens. God’s purposes are not yet complete. Once he has been cut off one further divine period remains before the end of time.

And the result of this cutting off of the Messiah will be the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. How could it be otherwise? If disobedience and the rejection of the prophets led to the destruction of the first Jerusalem and the first Temple, how could the rejection and betrayal of the Messiah not lead to the same for the Jerusalem and the Temple of that time? It is a prophetic pattern repeated.

And we know now how this was amazingly fulfilled. Jesus Christ came into the world as God’s Messiah and was rejected by His own people and crucified. He died in poverty and nothing was left but a band of dispirited disciples. All seemed at an end. And as far as Jerusalem and the Temple were concerned that was true, for within forty years the city was sacked and the Temple was destroyed.

But Jesus depicts the destruction of the Temple as inevitable because of their rejection of Him. From the moment that they passed sentence on Him the Temple was doomed. He associated His body with the temple from the beginning (John 2.19-21) and was known to do so (Mark 14.58). And He constantly referred to its coming fate (Matthew 23.37-38; 24.2 and parallels). Consider also the cursing of the fig tree and the casting of ‘this mountain’ into the sea of God’s judgment (Mark 11.21, 23), the former of which Mark clearly connects with the temple (compare the prior looking around in Mark 11.11 with 11.13 and the cursing as then following the discovery of the state of the temple - 11.15-17 with 11.20-21). The famous apocalyptic discourse (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) was specifically based on Jesus declaration of the certain destruction of the temple. He knew that it had to follow as a consequence of His death.

But in fact, almost unobserved by the world, but very much observed by the true people of God He had established the New Covenant, which confirmed and expanded the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31.31-34; Mark 14.24 and parallels; Hebrews 8.8-13; 10.16-17), and had begun to build up a people for Himself. Thus he certainly at this stage ‘confirmed covenant’. And from that would arise a new people of God, a new Israel sprouting from the old Israel, to evangelise the world. The destruction of the temple would not be an end but a new beginning. It was to be replaced by the temple of His people (2 Corinthians 6.16). The prince who from the world’s point of view had nothing, turned out to have had everything, and all resulted from His ‘cutting off’.

However, the destruction of the Temple did not take place until forty years later. From a fulfilment point of view this dashes any idea of the ‘sevens’ as indicating years, for in this account it is seen as coming within the seventy sevens. But in terms of God’s divine outworking in His perfect time it fits admirably.

The People of the Prince (Nagid) Who Will Come.

‘And the people of the coming Prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary, and its end will be with a flood, and even to the end shall be war. Desolations are determined’.

The question here is, who is this ‘coming Prince’ and why should the writer speak of ‘the people of the coming Prince’ rather than of the prince himself? This latter is most unusual in Daniel. Activity like this is usually spoken of by Daniel as in terms of the relevant ruler who carries out the action (e.g. the king of the north and the king of the south). Why not then say simply ‘the coming prince’, or, following precedence, ‘the coming king’, rather than ‘the people of the coming prince’? In Daniel’s terminology the latter is an unusual, indeed unique, description.

Furthermore another fact emerges. Elsewhere Daniel only uses the term ‘nagid’ of princes of Israel (e.g. Daniel 9.25 - ‘the anointed Prince’; 11.22 - ‘the prince of the covenant’ - see below). So it is rather unusual if he uses it here of a foreign prince. He uses other terms of foreign rulers. Indeed it should be noted that nagid is a favourite Old Testament word for the ‘prince’ of Israel, and has for them a special meaning as the one ‘appointed by God’. (See below). But if the coming Prince is the anointed one of God who has been cut off we can understand why reference is made to him as ‘nagid’, and why reference is made specifically to his people. It is because he is a prince of Israel, and because he has been cut off.

There are in fact a number of grounds for seeing this ‘prince who will come’ as the anointed one who has been cut off.

• 1). Verse 25 speaks of ‘the anointed one, the Prince’. Verse 26 speaks of ‘the anointed one’ and then later of ‘the Prince’. As deliberate variation for literary purposes this is clearly explicable, but if the purpose is not literary why does Daniel not call the second ‘anointed one’ prince as well, and why does he also not distinguish the ‘second’ prince in verse 26 as being different, and foreign, by using ‘sar’ or something similar? If all, however, refer to the one Prince then it is fully understandable.
• 2). The term Prince ‘nagid’ is used of a prince of the Jews in its only other two uses in Daniel, in 9.25 and 11.22 as mentioned above. Furthermore, outside Daniel, as a title it is a regular term for rulers of Israel but it is only once used of a ruler outside Israel, and then probably ironically because he is claiming to be chosen by God. Let us consider the facts.

  It must be admitted that the references by Daniel are few. Yet they are significant, for the term is used only of princes of God’s people and such princes are not described by any other title. And in the remainder of the Old Testament the title ‘Prince’ (nagid), while in regular use for prince/kings of Israel, is elsewhere applied to a ruler outside Israel only in Ezekiel 28.2 where it is used of the ‘Prince of Tyre’. And there it may well be ironic. It may be that there a deliberate contrast is intended between him as a self-proclaimed ‘nagid’, one who claims to be chosen and appointed by the gods (see verse 2) , the anointed of the gods (see verse 14), and the true nagid of the people of the God. He is being vilified in view of his great and blasphemous claims. Ezekiel is saying, ‘he fancies himself as a nagid, the chosen of the gods but he is not’. Later in the passage he is indeed called ‘the king of Tyre’ (28.12).

  There is a possibility that it is also used more generally, but only in the plural and not as a title, in Psalm 76.12 - but there it may actually signify princes of Israel in contrast with the kings of the earth, so that the verse is neutral.

  But from the earliest days it was a regular term applied to rulers of Israel, to Saul, David and Solomon (1 Samuel 9.16; 10.1; 13.14; 25.30; 2 Samuel 5.2; 6.21; 7.8; 1 Kings 1.35) and to early rulers of Israel and Judah after Solomon (1 Kings 14.7; 16.2; 2 Kings 20.5) . Saul was anointed ‘nagid’ (1 Samuel 9.16; 10.1). David was to replace him as ‘nagid’ (1 Samuel 13.14) as David acknowledged (2 Samuel 6.21). And even though he later saw himself as king, he still recognised that in becoming king Solomon would be appointed a ‘nagid’ (1 Kings 1.35).

  Furthermore in all the verses above, apart from 2 Kings 20.5, the term nagid is related to the actual appointing or anointing of the person as ‘prince’. It is seen as a term especially related to one chosen and anointed by God.

  It is also used of important men in authority in Israel and Judah (e.g. ‘rulers over the house of God’, rulers of priestly courses, and grand viziers of Judah and Israel once kingship was fully established), but, apart from the possible two occasions above, it is only once ever applied outside Israel and Judah in 2 Chronicles 32.21, where it is used in the plural of the king of Assyria’s war leaders.

  So its only certain use of a foreign prince in the singular outside Daniel is in Ezekiel 28.2 where the idea of the ‘chosen nagid’ of Israel may actually be in mind as a comparison.

  That being so the term ‘nagid’ has close relation to leaders of God’s people, and especially to its early anointed kings, while only very rarely being used in the plural of foreign dignitaries, and only once in the singular, and that ironically. So that the fact that Daniel uses the term of the Jewish prince of the covenant in 11.22, and of the anointed Jewish prince (here in 9.25) and of no foreign leader elsewhere (when there was ample opportunity to use it) counts strongly as it meaning a Jewish prince, ‘a chosen one’, here in 9.26.

• 3). Furthermore the phrase ‘the people of the Prince that will come’ does in fact have a near parallel, and that is in 7.27 where Daniel speaks of ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’. Compare how in 7.17-18 the other nations are described in terms of their ‘kings’ while Israel is always spoken of in terms of ‘the saints (people) of the Most High’ or its equivalent, that is in terms of ‘the people’. Furthermore in 7.13 the prince who comes to receive the kingdom is called ‘one like a son of man’, but this likeness in fact depicts not only him but the people of Israel, for the ‘son of man’ is in comparison with the beasts, who are the nations. The nations are ‘beastly’, the people of God are truly human. And the people of Israel are called ‘the saints of the Most High’ and they too receive the kingdom (verses 18, 27). Thus the ‘saints of the Most High’ and the Prince are seen as one in the corporate ‘son of man’. If the Prince can so be equated with the saints of the Most High, then the two phrases ‘the people of the Prince that will come’ and ‘the people of the saints of the Most High’ are almost equivalents. No such terminology is ever used of foreign nations who are called ‘kings’ or ‘kingdoms’.

If the prince who will come is to be seen as Antiochus Epiphanes why is he not called king as usual in Daniel? This is fatal to that suggestion. If it refers to Titus we might understand the use of the term as ‘war leader’. But why should Daniel move from his usual method of referring to the one in total rule, the ‘king’? Titus is acting on behalf of a ‘king’. Why then mention him and not ‘the king’. Why also use the specific term nagid otherwise used only of the anointed/covenant prince of Yahweh in 9.25; 11.22.? Titus makes no covenant. There were many other words Daniel could have used, and had used, in his book. And even more, why then mention Titus in terms of the people who follow him which he never does elsewhere? So unless he has gone against all precedent Titus is ruled out by this description.

The same stricture applies to any reference to a future king. If it is ‘the king of the end times’ that is in mind why is he not called a king? And if it is speaking of such an important figure why is he simply introduced in a genitival phrase as a kind of identifying afterthought? Why does he come in out of the blue in a secondary way only to disappear immediately? It all seems very unlike Daniel.

Furthermore the phrase ‘the people of the coming prince’, when the coming of a prince has already been mentioned, strongly supports the idea that we should see it as referring to ‘the coming Prince’ who has previously been mentioned, and who has been cut off (verse 25), for, with their prince having been cut off, his people would be leaderless and would therefore be seen as acting on their own, as ‘the people of the prince’. This strongly suggests that we are to see here reference to the people of the anointed prince as acting in their rebellious initiative once he is cut off. If this were not the significance we would expect rather ‘the king that shall come will destroy --’. Mention of the people would be unnecessary as it has never been necessary elsewhere in Daniel.

But if these people are his own treacherous people who have cut off the Prince we can then link the two phrases together, the cutting off and the destruction of city and sanctuary. The indication is then that the act of ‘cutting him off’ connects with the destruction of the city and temple. Their act of rebellion has resulted in the course of events that leads to the destruction of their own city and sanctuary. It is as a result of their action, that they have destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

It should be noted that very similar language was in fact used by the Jewish historian Josephus in 1st century AD who also ascribed the destruction of Jerusalem as the work of his own people and as resulting from their behaviour. He says, ‘I venture to say that the sedition destroyed the city and the Romans destroyed the sedition.’ In other words he is saying that it was the Jewish people who were responsible for the destruction of their own city (and if we read Josephus’ account that is very much the truth).

And again Josephus says, ‘I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her walls.’ (Italics ours). If Josephus could thus date the destruction of Jerusalem from the death of Ananus, how much more could it be dated from the death of their God sent Messiah.

Indeed Jesus Himself drew to our attention to this connection. The act of rejecting and crucifying Him was closely connected by Him with the idea of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. They had refused to listen to Him when He sought to gather them as chickens under His wings and their House would therefore be left desolate (Matthew 23.37-38; 24.2; compare John 2.19). And Jesus’ confidence that the Temple would be destroyed until not one stone was left on another must have been with His coming death in mind (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), for He went out immediately to face it. Compare also how in the same context in Daniel Jerusalem’s previous destruction came from a curse on them (Daniel 9.11-12). So it could well be that by this act of cutting off the Messiah the people are seen by Daniel as again putting themselves under a curse, and thus, by it, bringing about the effective destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

In that case, in Jewish terminology, the destruction of Jerusalem effectively took place in the act of cutting off the Messiah and thus took place at the end of the sixty ninth seven, even though God then mercifully did allow a further generation before it was actualised, a delay in His purposes, to give the people time to repent, and to enable Him to gather in those who did repent. But there can surely be little doubt that the moment of crucifixion was in God’s eyes the date when the destruction of city and sanctuary was determined. Only His longsuffering prevented them being destroyed at that moment, as the veil of the Temple in fact was torn in two at that time as symbolic of their rejection (Matthew 27.51). God had by this ended His relationship with the hierarchy and the religious leaders who had rejected His Son. And it was thus at that point that the sixty nine sevens came to an end. And the New Testament makes clear that the crucifixion did indeed bring to an end God’s acceptance of His former people as such (see for example Matthew 23.32-36; 1 Thessalonians 2.16; Romans 11.12, 15, 20), although God would then build a new Israel for Himself, springing from the remnant of the old Israel.

The Seventieth Seven.

All that we have said up to this point is quite clear if we consider Daniel’s words here in the light of his usage elsewhere. It is so clearly evidenced that if we really want to interpret Daniel accurately there really is no alternative to seeing ‘the people of the prince who is coming’ as the Anointed Prince who is cut off. But now we come to the question of the seventieth seven.

There are two ways of looking at the seventieth seven. Some see it as indicating a period of seven years. They then have to argue that that seventieth seven was fulfilled through the ministry and death of Jesus, followed by the advance of the early church, or they have to argue that there is a gap between the sixty ninth and the seventieth seven. This is, at least theoretically, a possibility. We could argue that God’s dealings with Israel ceased at the end of the sixty ninth seven with the crucifixion of their Messiah, by which they rejected Him, and would not commence again until they returned to Him. But those who interpret in this way do not see the confirming of the covenant as referring to their coming back to the Messiah. They see it as confirming a covenant with a foreign king. There is no real reason why that should be seen as God again taking up His dealings with Israel. And there is certainly no hint of a gap in the narrative. What then is the alternative?

The View That The Seventieth Seven Is Of Time Only Limited By God.

The alternative, which we will consider first, is to see the seventieth seven as a time of unknown duration decided on by God, His ‘divinely perfect time’ (seven is the number of divine perfection) following the cutting off of the Messiah. This would then make the seventieth seven follow immediately after the sixty ninth seven as God began His final action. It is no argument against this to say that the seventieth seven is therefore longer than each of the other sixty nine sevens. That is no problem with God to whom a thousand years is but one day. He makes His periods as long as He wishes.

The fact is that all that had gone before was leading up to this seventieth seven, which is the final period leading up to the end of time. It is the period leading up to the final completion of all that is described in verse 25. It could be seen as symbolising ‘the last days’. And those began with the death and resurrection of Christ (Acts 2.16-17).

The fact that ‘the end times’ began at the resurrection is vital and is clearly stated in Scripture. ‘He was revealed at the end of the times for your sake’, says Peter (1 Peter 1.20), so that he can then warn his readers ‘the end of all things is at hand’ (1 Peter 4.7). So to Peter the first coming of Christ has begun the end times.

Likewise Paul says to his contemporaries ‘for our admonition, on whom the end of the ages has come’ (1 Corinthians 10.11). What could be clearer? The first coming of Christ was the end of the ages, not the beginning of a new age, and the writer to the Hebrews confirms this when he tells us ‘He has in these last days spoken to us by His Son’ (Hebrews 1.1-2), and adds ‘once in the end of the ages has He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself’ (Hebrews 9.26-28). So those early writers saw their days as ‘the last days’, for this age is the culmination of all that has gone before and leads up to the end. This some maintain is the seventieth seven.

And when people queried the length of the ‘last days’ Peter actually pointed to the fact that a thousand years were but as one day with God (2 Peter 3.8) and that the reason for the length of time was the longsuffering of God. Thus the divine extension of the seventieth seven is explicable in these terms.

Taking this view two alternatives are offered. The first alternative that is offered by some sees the cutting off of the prince as taking place in the middle of the seventieth seven and equates it with the cessation of sacrifice which results from His death (it being He Who had previously ‘confirmed covenant’ with His people when He commenced His ministry). Their argument is that for all practical purposes at that point sacrifices ceased to be relevant to God because they were replaced by the sacrifice of His Son Whose offering was sufficient for the sins of the whole world. They then claim that all the blessings mentioned in verse 25 are fulfilled in this sacrifice, (and certainly it was so potentially even if not completely factually). The remainder of the seven is then seen as going on until God’s determined time. (There are, of course, various interpretations in the overall view. Some, for example, see the first three and a half years as those of Jesus ministry, and then the death of Christ, and then three and a half years of early church ministry consolidating the church, all of which is followed by unknown times of persecution).

Two arguments stand against this view. The first is that the impression given is that in the passage the prince is seen as cut off at the end of the sixty ninth seven, and not in the midst of the seventieth seven, otherwise there is no indication of what ends the sixty ninth seven. But a more fatal objection is that this view makes the cessation of sacrifice a good thing whereas in other places in Daniel it is always a bad thing, something which is contrary to God’s purposes and results from the persecution of His people (8.11-14; ; 11.31; 12.11). That being so we would expect it to be same here.

The second view is to see the seventieth seven as commencing with the death of the Messiah. This is then followed by the ‘confirming of the covenant’ as the new covenant is taken out to the world and offered to ‘many’, something which began with the Apostles and will go on until the end of time (Matthew 24.14).

But then attention is drawn to the fact that still all will not go smoothly. When the Messiah came he was ‘cut off’, but only after ‘confirming covenant’ with his people. But now at some point ‘in the midst of the seven’ a similar situation is to face his people. Savage persecution will arise and His new people are to put under intense pressure to cease looking to the sacrifice of Christ, and to cease offering spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to God (1 Peter 2.5). ‘They (the people of the coming prince who have previously destroyed the city and the Temple, and therefore a singular verb) will cause offerings and sacrifices to cease’. The Jews as a whole will still be antagonistic towards the Messiah and His people and will make every effort to prevent their continuing to offer their wholehearted worship to God. That this happened in the early decades of the early church is unquestionable (see for example Acts 12). And the result will be that desolations will follow until the end of time, as Jesus Himself forecast. And at that point (the end of time) verse 25 will be literally finally fulfilled, resulting from its potential fulfilment in the earlier death of Christ.

Two arguments may be raised against this view. Firstly that it does not take the seven as meaning seven years. But as it is nowhere stated that it means seven years, and such an idea can only be seen in it if implied, it means that the argument is not very strong. Secondly that it makes the people who confirm the covenant different from those who cut off Christ. But in general, of course, they were not different people. They were a portion of the same people. The Jews did cut off their Messiah, and it was the Jews in the form of the Apostles who went out with the New Covenant, confirmed by them with Christ, and took it to the world, to ‘the many’. And we must note that to the Apostles the church did not simply replace Israel, rather it was the true Israel, the Israel of God. Paul stresses this fact continually (Galatians 3.28-29; 4.26; 6.16; Ephesians 2.19 in comparison with 2.12; and see also James 1.1; 1 Peter 2.9; Revelation 7.4-8 where the church is depicted as the perfect number of the twelve tribes of Israel).

The View That The Seven Is Seven Years.

Apart from the view briefly mentioned above in brackets, which also takes the seven as seven years (the view that Jesus’ three and a half years of ministry brings us to the cessation of sacrifices as a result of His death, followed by three and a half years of church ministry in establishing the initial church) this view is usually taken by those who see a gap between the sixty ninth seven and the seventieth seven. They claim that there is a delay between the sixty ninth and the seventieth ‘seven’, a delay which comes out in verse 26, a delay caused by the cutting off of the coming Prince, (that is, He Who is ‘the anointed one, the Prince’ - verse 25 - ‘the anointed one’ - verse 26 - ‘the prince that shall come’ - verse 26). It will be a time of desolation and destruction. As with the earlier destruction of Jerusalem God’s purposes for Israel will stand still. During this period, the majority of them claim, the destruction of city and sanctuary takes place. (Some refer the destroying of city and sanctuary to the end of time, but not many see this as likely).

Then, after the delay, the seventieth seven will begin. The cutting off of the Prince after the sixty ninth seven is seen as having resulted in God disowning His people and thus as beginning the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21.24), resulting in a delay in God’s purposes for the Jews. They then say that at some stage the Jews will renew their covenant with God (or with a coming anti-God prince) and then will begin the seventieth seven.

The Theory of a Gap Between the Sixty Ninth Seven and the Seventieth Seven.

The fact that there will be such a gap is seen as being confirmed by the phrase ‘to the end’. Earlier in Daniel we have examples of history foretold and then of a sudden jump to ‘the end’. Contrast 11.29-35 with 11.36-45. The contrast between those two sections is so remarkable that two periods of activity appear to be in mind, and the latter takes us on to ‘the time of the end’. Compare and contrast also the ‘horn of littleness’ (a small horn is an indication of a horn that is starting to grow) of the third empire in 8.20-26 which contrasts with ‘the horn, the small one’ at of the fourth empire in 7.20-25 where the contrasts are far more than the similarities.

They consider that here in verse 26 Daniel sums up what follows the cutting off of the Messiah by ‘their (his) end will be with a flood’. Whose end? Why, the people of the coming Prince (a singular noun in Hebrew followed by a singular verb). They will be destroyed by a flood of invaders (compare 11.22). This will include the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. And the phrase that follows, ‘and even to the end shall be war. Desolations are determined’ is an indefinite phrase that can covers what further happens until verse 27.

That such a history would be the lot of Israel is confirmed by Jesus in Luke 21.24 where He speaks of the coming in of the invaders and the terrible and long exile of the Jewish people (described in Matthew as included in the phrase ‘great tribulation’) which would commence with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, when ‘the times of the Gentiles’ would begin. Thus, they argue, the ‘seventy sevens which are determined upon your people’ (9.24) are suspended.

This idea, they say, is also confirmed by Paul in Romans 11.15-24. Indeed, they say, that is exactly his argument there. He is dealing with the problem of God turning away from His people and answers it along two lines.

• 1). That not all Jews have been rejected. An examination of the past reveals that God has always chosen out some and rejected others. Thus this position is no different.
• 2). That the temporary rejection of the nation as a whole is in order that God might bless the Gentiles, but there is the suggestion that when this purpose is accomplished the Jewish nation itself may expect a new final offer of deliverance (verses 25-31).

Thus, they say, Paul clearly saw a period when the Jewish nation would be put into the background, followed in the end by a great work of God among that people. This last they see as confirmed in the seventieth seven. Their main problem however is that there is no real indication of such a gap. The narrative really reads as though the seventieth seven follows the sixty ninth one as we would expect.

This then brings us to verse 27.

The Interpretation of Verse 27.

We will now consider verse 27 in the light of the terminology revealed elsewhere in Daniel.

‘And he/they will confirm covenant with many for one seven and in the midst of the seven he/they will cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and on the wings of abomination will come one who makes desolate, and even to the consummation, and that determined, shall it be poured out on the desolator (or ‘the desolate’).’

The first question is as to who will do the confirming of the covenant. Taking the Hebrew text by itself without thought of interpretation the subject of the verb would look back to the subject of the previous sentence unless we had strong reason for doing otherwise, and the subject of the previous sentence is actually ‘the people of the coming prince’. ‘People’ is a singular noun and would therefore require a singular verb in Hebrew as here (although we would translate ‘they’). Thus the natural reading is to take the verb as applying to ‘the people of the coming Prince’. It is they who will confirm covenant.

We English speakers have great difficulty with collective nouns because of the nature of our language. I remember when young seeing a notice which said, ‘the people who use this pathway is requested --.’ The latter verb in the singular was acceptable as following ‘people’ but the writer was too clever by half for he gave the collective noun both a plural verb and a singular verb, because ‘uses’ just did not fit, and thus he was after all grammatically wrong. However, the point from it is that he did recognise rightly that ‘people’ could take a plural or a singular verb even in English. But in Hebrew it always takes a singular verb. If our suggested view of the Prince is correct this must refer to the people of the Prince (for Daniel makes no suggestion that he comes alive again).

Others see the ‘he/they’ as referring either to the Prince who has been cut off, because He has risen again, and thus refer it to Christ, (this ignores the obvious reference of the verb to ‘the people of the coming prince’ and seeks the antecedent a long way back in verse 26a) or as referring to a king of ‘the end time’. The latter we have already seen as unlikely because of the use of nagid, and because of the indirect reference to the prince, and the use of ‘the people of’. It also means that the verb refers to someone only previously indirectly referred to, which is not usual in Daniel. But it has a further thing against it in that it is to connect him with ‘the covenant’. For this leads us on to the next question, and that is as to what covenant is being referred to.

What covenant is being referred to? As the aim is said to be to ‘confirm’ or ‘make strong’ the covenant we would normally expect previous mention of the covenant, and the only covenant ever mentioned in Daniel is in fact that between God and His people (9.4 see also 11.22, 28, 30, 32). Thus in Daniel ‘covenant’ always elsewhere means the holy covenant with God, and other words are used for foreign alliances.

This being so the natural interpretation from every point of view would be to take this as meaning that the ‘people of the Prince who will come’ will confirm God’s covenant ‘with many’. In Daniel ‘many’ is a vague word used when Daniel does not want to be too specific (8.25; 11.14, 18, 26, 33, 34, 39, 41, 44; 12.3, 4, 10). Here it probably refers to those who have continued faithful to God.

(An alternative to this might be to see God as the subject of the sentence, the ‘he’. The sudden introduction of God as ‘he’ without introduction does occur elsewhere. But the above seems more likely.)

Now let us consider some suggested interpretations of the passage.

1). That the covenant-maker in question was Antiochus Epiphanes.

Certainly he destroyed the city and defiled the sanctuary, but he definitely did not destroy the sanctuary and he is called a ‘king’ elsewhere. Why then is he demoted to a Prince (see above)? Why also is he called a nagid? And why is he for the first time spoken of in terms of his people? Furthermore this would make verse 27 refer back to someone who has not been prominent in the passage at all, so much so that he is only mentioned in terms of his people (which in itself is unusual in Daniel). This is in direct contrast with the fierce king of chapter 7 and 8, and Daniel’s whole approach in dealing with such kings. It further ignores the fact that in Daniel it is only Israel which is described in terms of its people, with its Prince secondary. All the nations are spoken of in terms of their king.

It also ignores the fact that when Daniel speaks of the covenant he is always referring to God’s covenant with Israel. The fact that the covenant is ‘made strong’ suggests a previous covenant is in mind but no such covenant is ever mooted for Antiochus. (And treaties are always in fact indicated by other terms in Daniel, not as ‘covenants’). And it would mean that the one who is the subject of verse 27 is the same as the one described by the vague ‘one who makes desolate’ in the later part of the verse. But that is not the impression conveyed. Indeed the vagueness of the whole contrasts strongly with Daniel’s previous certainty in ascribing things to kings in previous chapters.

These difficulties should make us think twice before assuming a reference to Antiochus.

2). That the covenant-maker in question was the Prince who was cut off, and that by His cutting off He brings sacrifice to an end.

But the impression given by the passage is that that Prince was cut off at the end of the sixty nine sevens, whereas this interpretation would make it happen in the middle of the seventieth seven. Furthermore the ‘he’ of the making of the covenant would then be referred back to two phrases previously whereas we would naturally refer it back to the previous phrase. The truth is that no one would have read any of it like that if they were not trying to fit it into a theory.

But more importantly this theory makes the cessation of sacrifice and oblation here a good thing whereas the whole emphasis in Daniel is that it is a bad thing. In 12.11 it is linked directly with the setting up of the desolating abomination. Nowhere is it spoken of approvingly.

This theory also fails on all the points we made above against Titus being the Prince that will come of verse 26 for it assumes that Titus’ destruction of Jerusalem was the desolation spoken of.

But the most unsatisfactory part of this theory is that it makes the seventieth seven tail off into uncertainty. We reach the crucial event in the middle of the seven and then everything ends in desolation. And that crucial, even world shattering, event is passed off as though it was merely a passing event in the midst of that desolation. The concentration is on the end of the desolator rather than on the one who produced the victory.

3) That the covenant-maker in question was the coming evil king of the last days.

But this suffers under the same problems as 1). The ‘king’ suddenly becomes a ‘prince’ (nagid). Nowhere else in Daniel are these end of the age figures called princes (nagid). And then he suddenly springs into prominence with no previous direct introduction. This again is unusual in Daniel. Then ‘one who makes desolate’ is mentioned. If this is in contrast with God’s people the vagueness is understandable. But why such vagueness when he has previously been described, and that strangely in terms of his people? The impression is that the ‘one who makes desolate’ is another than the ‘coming prince’. And it is only the desolator whose just end is described. Had Daniel meant one evil king he would surely have written all this very differently (compare 7.24-26; 8.23-25 where the king is prominent throughout). There are in fact no grounds at all (apart from a theory) for seeing this as referring to a king of the last days.

4). But if we make the covenant-renewer ‘the people of the coming prince (who was cut off)’, the people who are in mind throughout the seventy sevens, everything fits in beautifully with no straining of the passage. This then allows two alternatives.

1). That they (the Jews) confirm the holy covenant with ‘many’, that is with the holy remnant, for the Bible always recognises a holy remnant, those already faithful to the covenant throughout, (that is, in this case, Jewish Christians (or all Christians)) by resubmitting to the authority of the covenant which they rejected when the Prince was cut off. This would then bring the Jews back into God’s reckoning and the final seven would begin.

But then fierce persecution and the advent of a desolator is seen as bringing about another failure on the part of many of these ‘converts’ causing ‘them’ (the majority) to renege on the covenant so that they cease their sacrifice and oblations. This sacrifice must here be seen as the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving and of a worshipping heart (Romans 12.1; Hebrew 13.15, 16; 1 Peter 2.5) as in the New Testament, for there is no suggestion that the sanctuary has been rebuilt. In other words they again turn their backs on the covenant.

(It is indeed reasonable to affirm that just as the swords and spears to be turned into pruning hooks have to be reinterpreted into modern day terms of tanks into tractors, so the ancient sacrifices also have to be reinterpreted in modern terms. Daniel may have thought in the literal terms of his day, but he does not mention a new temple and it was the idea that was important not the literal detail. This has to be reinterpreted because times and situations change. Very few would think that we must take the swords and spears and horses of Armageddon literally. Why then should the same not apply to the sacrifice and oblations? It is the ideas of weapons of war and of offerings to God that are primary, not the detail).

The result is then final desolation until the day of wrath and (12.2-3) the final resurrection. The whole of this last half seven is then seen as depicted vividly in Daniel 12 and Revelation 11, when God’s true people will survive the desolation. And thus is fulfilled what was promised in verse 24.

2). The second possibility is, as mentioned earlier, to see the covenant as being made strong after the crucifixion by the descendants of Israel, the Apostles and the early Jewish Christian evangelists, with ‘many, that is with fellow-Jews who turn to Christ and then with the Gentiles. This then to be followed by an attack ‘in the midst of the seven’ (during God’s divinely perfect (as regards to time) final period) on these covenant-keepers by the world (or the Jews) which seeks to turn them from the covenant, and succeeds in part, so that the ‘they’ refers to the turncoats. This then to be followed by continual desolations to the end of time, at which God’s final purposes are completed.

Summary.

Having examined all the terminology of the passage in the light of Daniel’s use of terms elsewhere and in the light of Hebrew grammar it appears to us that the passage becomes very clear in its meaning. The Prince (nagid) refers to a prince of Israel. The ‘covenant’ refers to a covenant with Israel. The people of the Prince refers to Israel. It would appear to us that there is very little argument against these conclusions, for they result from Daniel’s usual usage. And once we differ from this we are simply left with speculation and lack of clarity. We are left to make it mean whatever we want it to mean. But in order to do so we have to ignore all the arguments that we have given above.

That being so what is its final meaning? It indicates that the Messiah will come in God’s own time, that He will be rejected and killed, that as a result of His death Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed, that His true people will meanwhile confirm covenant with God, that attempts will be made to break them away from that covenant by intense persecution, and that desolation will then continue on until the end of time. And this is all seen as being fulfilled within God’s perfect timing. This can in fact all be seen as being described in Jesus’ farewell address (His cutting off which is to follow being assumed) in Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21 where we have the desolations that will come on the world, and the persecution that will come on His people, clearly outlined. Daniel 12 then confirms that through it all the true people of God will remain faithful until the resurrection at the last day.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

THE PENTATEUCH

GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---

NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION

--- THE GOSPELS

THE PENTATEUCH --- --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS

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