SEVENTY SEVENS
AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR ESCHATOLOGY
A Study of Daniel 9:24-27
Introduction
The
seventy sevens (or weeks) of Daniel 9:24-27 are considered one of if not the
most challenging prophecy in the entire Bible. It “has been one of the most
notorious interpretive problem passages in Old Testament studies”[1]
and has been described as “the continental divide of Biblical prophecy.”[2] In
the sixteenth century John Calvin wrote, “This passage has been variously
treated, and so distracted, and almost torn to pieces by the various opinions
of interpreters, that it might be considered nearly useless on account of its
obscurity.”[3] Reading such assessments
of so infamous a prophecy might almost cause a modern interpreter to despair.
These
admissions of the text’s difficulty and controversy, however, should not deter
the careful and regular re-examination of its features. This passage, like many
of the prophecies in Daniel, is so explicit and specific that liberal
commentators who deny the possibility of inspired prophecy dismiss it as “not
genuine prophecy but known history cast in the form of prophecy.”[4] If
the revelation given to Daniel is so detailed as to frustrate modernist and
post-modernist scholars, it should be eagerly studied by those who acknowledge
the divine origin and prescience of biblical prophecy. Despite the
eschatological questions associated with it, the seventy sevens prophecy in
Daniel 9:24-27 is a powerful announcement of the Messiah’s appearance and work
which God would accomplish in a new age of restoration for his people.
Textual
Observations
The
ninth chapter of Daniel is internally dated to “the first year of Darius the
son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the
Chaldeans” (Dan. 9:1).[5]
This same Darius “received the kingdom” in 5:30 is probably either Gubaru, the
Persian governor of Babylon, or Cyrus the Great.[6] “The
events of Daniel 9 were triggered by the reading of Scripture,” leading to
Daniel’s penitential prayer and the subsequent appearance by Gabriel and
revelation of the seventy sevens prophecy.[7] It
is reading the words of Jeremiah concerning Israel’s seventy years in exile
that moves Daniel to pray for God to be merciful (Dan. 9:2-19).[8]
After seeking the Lord “by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and
sackcloth and ashes,” a divine messenger appears, the angel Gabriel, with a
message for the prophet from God (Dan. 9:20-23). This context, the captivity of
Israel for seventy years and Daniel’s prayer for its completion, provides a
necessary structure for understanding the seventy sevens prophecy.
Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to
finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to
bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to
anoint a most holy place. (Dan. 9:24)
The
context makes it obvious this prophecy concerns Israel and the city of Jerusalem.[9]
Seventy “weeks” (ESV), literally seventy “sevens,” were announced with
prophetic significance for Daniel’s nation. “The consensus among scholars of
all prophetic schools” is that these “weeks” are a reference to years, though
there is no consensus on whether these years are to be understood literally or
figuratively.[10] The Old
Testament law divided Israel’s calendar into periods of seven years, each
seventh year being set aside as a Sabbath rest for the land (Lev. 25:1-7). If
each “seven” in the prophecy is seven years, then seventy sevens would be 490
years.[11]
Six objectives are given for the
seventy sevens prophecy. Each is stated in infinitive form and points to
Messianic fulfillment.[12]
These goals describe the point of the prophecy, and any interpretation of the
passage must give priority to their import. The arithmetic questions about the
seventy sevens notwithstanding, Phil Roberts helpfully reminds us:
We should remember that the vision itself
does not specify any particular event as marking the end of the seventy weeks.
It is apparently not the precise date of the end of the seventy weeks that the
vision is intended to communicate, but the objectives to be accomplished within
the seventy weeks.[13]
This observation
is particularly important as we wrestle with the eschatological and theological
implications of the seventy sevens. Though we may be unable to resolve every
difficulty and question regarding the prophecy, its purpose and outcome should
be clear.
Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to
restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there
shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with
squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
(Dan. 9:25)
The
seventy sevens would begin with “the going out of the word to restore and build
Jerusalem.” Scholars debate whether this word refers to a decree by God,[14]
Cyrus,[15]
or Artaxerxes (in 458/7 or 445 BC).[16]
The context of exile and return and the anticipation of Cyrus’s release of the
Jews (Isa. 44:28; 45:1, 13) immediately suggest Cyrus’s decree as the starting
point for the seventy sevens. This view, however, is often criticized on the
grounds the king’s decree as preserved in 2nd Chronicles 36:22-23
does not specifically authorize any rebuilding. But David Lurie notes, “This
objection fails to address the fact that Cyrus is named explicitly in the
prophecy of Isa 44:28 as the man who would cause both Jerusalem to be rebuilt
and the foundations of the temple to be laid.”[17]
Cyrus’s involvement is emphasized again in Isaiah 45:13 and is supported by
Josephus, a Jewish historian in the late first century.[18]
Lurie goes on to say, “The real objection to Cyrus’ decree as the terminus a quo of the seventy ‘sevens’
has always been chronological.”[19]
Without dismissing the struggle to reconcile all of the data, it seems dating
the prophecy from Cyrus’s decree is the most obvious option in the text.
The rebuilding of Jerusalem is undoubtedly
in view in this prophecy, as is its judgment and desolation. James Smith notes,
“The expression ‘with plaza [squares] and moat’ is figurative for complete
restoration.”[20] The reference to “a
troubled time” may point to the opposition encountered by Zerubbabel, Ezra, and
Nehemiah as they sought to re-establish their fellows Jews in the homeland.[21]
And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and
shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy
the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end
there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
(Dan. 9:26)
After
the initial seven sevens and the sixty-two sevens following it, “an anointed
one” would be cut off. Stephen Miller rightly notes this is a prophecy of the
crucifixion of Christ.[22] Many
conservative scholars “identify ‘the people of the prince who is to come’ as
the Roman armies which destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70.”[23]
Though not explained in Daniel 9, this Messianic death is the basis for
successful completion of the six objectives stated in verse 24.
And he shall make a strong covenant with
many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice
and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes
desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator. (Dan. 9:27)
Apart
from the questions surrounding the arithmetical value, if any, of the seventy
sevens, this may be the most difficult portion of the prophecy. Liberal
scholars identify the “end to sacrifice and offering” and “the wing of
abominations” which ushers in the desolator with Antiochus IV and his
desecration of the Jerusalem Temple.[24]
More conservative scholars regard this either as a reference to Titus and the
Roman armies which destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70[25]
or to the Antichrist and Tribulation in the end times.[26]
General
Interpretations
Phil
Roberts notes that through the history of interpretation “four major approaches
to the passage have emerged, and most of the remaining multitude of
interpretations are but variations on one of these four.”[27]
He summarizes these positions as the Traditional Messianic Interpretation, the
Church Age Interpretation, the Maccabean Interpretation, and the Dispensational
(or Futurist) Interpretation.[28]
The Dispensational view is unique to that theological and eschatological system,
and most, though not all, conservative commentators reject the Maccabean view
which finds virtually unanimous acceptance among liberal scholars. But the rest
of conservative, biblical scholarship, whether historic premillennial,
a-millennial, or post-millennial in eschatology, is divided among the
Traditional Messianic and Church Age positions.
The
Traditional Messianic Interpretation regards the seventy sevens either as
symbolic or only loosely literal and as descriptive of “the period extending
from the time of Daniel down through the first coming of Christ.”[29]
John Collins, writing from a liberal perspective, observes, “Messianic
interpretation was for long the central issue in the interpretation of Dan
9:24-27 but is now abandoned by all but the most conservative interpreters.”[30]
Collins overstates the case. The Messianic view maintains a dominant presence
in biblical scholarship.
The
Church Age Interpretation says “the 490 years are entirely symbolic.”[31]
This view regards the first seven weeks as spanning Cyrus’s decree and the
first advent of Christ, the second block of sixty-two weeks is the current
church period, and the final week immediately precedes the final judgment.[32]
The
Maccabean Interpretation is the typical view of liberal scholarship which
denies the possibility of inspired prediction of future events.[33]
This view regards the seventy sevens as leading up to the Maccabean crisis but
considers the author to have erred in his anticipation of the Messiah’s
appearance.[34]
The
Dispensational or Futurist Interpretation regards the seventy sevens as literal
years spanning the period between the return from captivity (dispensational
scholars disagree on the actual starting point for the prophecy) until the
Second Coming of Christ and the beginning of the millennial kingdom.[35]
This view assumes a large gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth seven
which allows the numbers to be taken literally but the final period to still be
in the future.[36]
Hermeneutical
Questions
One
of the primary challenges in exegetical study is interpreting the biblical text
within its context, not interpolating one’s own views into the passage. The
historical, theological, and social background of a text as well as its genre,
purpose, and audience must be given careful consideration before definite
assertions about its meaning are made. In the case of Daniel 9:24-27, there
are, at least, “three factors upon which…any correct interpretation must be
based.”[37]
The
first interpretive factor is the context of the covenant prayer.[38]
Daniel was praying for the seventy years of captivity to end when Gabriel was
dispatched with a message (Dan. 9:1-3). The angel announced, “At the beginning
of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for
you are greatly loved” (Dan. 9:23). This “word” should be understood as the
divine command for the exile to end and for the restoration of Israel to begin.
This divine decision was the basis for Cyrus’s decree releasing the Jews to return
home, just as Isaiah prophesied of the Persian monarch, “He is my shepherd, and
he shall fulfill all my purpose; saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’ and
of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid’” (Isa. 44:28).[39]
Thus the first and obvious factor in interpreting the prophecy must be the
immediate historical situation of Daniel and the Jewish nation.
The
second interpretive factor suggested by Roberts is the goal of the seventy
sevens.[40]
Six outcomes for the prophecy are enumerated, each stated as an infinitive.[41]
Gabriel explained to Daniel, “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and
your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone
for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and
prophet, and to anoint a most holy place” (Dan. 9:24). Homer Hailey notes, “It
seems clear that the six points made by Gabriel are all Messianic; hence the
seventy weeks must end with the time of the Messiah and the end of the Jewish
age.”[42]
How exactly these six objectives for
the prophecy should guide its interpretation remains disputed. Stephen Miller
says, “’To seal up vision and prophecy’ must include revelation concerning both
Christ’s first and second advents,”[43]
and he regards the fulfillment of all six objectives as awaiting the future,
millennial kingdom.[44]
But Phil Roberts correctly observes regarding the phrase “to seal up vision and
prophecy”:
In this context it seems rather to refer
to the validation of vision and prophecy by fulfillment. In other words, the
seventy weeks will see the fulfillment of the visions and prophecies in which
God had revealed his plans for the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish people –
plans which, according to this prophecy, would culminate in a second
destruction of their city and sanctuary (v. 26).[45]
It
should be noted “Jewish tradition related the end of the seventy weeks to the
destruction of the temple,”[46] and
Josephus credits Daniel with predicting Rome’s desolation of Jerusalem.[47]
The
third interpretive factor given by Roberts is the numerical symbolism of the
seventy sevens.[48] Roberts sees the (loosely
literal, mainly symbolic) seventy years of captivity (actually 66 or 67 years,
from 605 BC to 539 BC) as well as the Sabbath year concept in OT law (Lev. 25:1-7)
and the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-22) as being important historical and
theological background for understanding the symbolism of seventy sevens.[49]
These observations weigh against a literalistic, mathematical interpretation of
the seventy sevens in favor of a more theologically driven view. Nevertheless,
Stephen Miller rightly points out:
Those who contend that the sevens are
symbolic must account for the fact that specific numbers are used and for
division of the seventy sevens into units of seven, sixty-two, and one. Why
would such definite numbers be employed to represent periods of indefinite
length?[50]
While
it is easy to find biblical and theological significance for a symbolic use of
both seven and seventy, the numbers sixty-two and sixty-nine do not have any
obvious significance and seem to support Miller’s criticism. James Smith
concurs:
That the numbers seven, three and ten
often have symbolic significance is certainly true. Yet the seventy heptads are
divided into units of seven, sixty-two and one. The latter two numbers are
devoid of symbolic significance. This seems to indicate that the entire figure
is intended to be taken arithmetically and chronologically.[51]
These
objections to the symbolic interpretation of the seventy sevens are serious,
though not necessarily fatal. The round number prophetically attached to the
Babylonian exile might support the same interpretation of Daniel 9, but Miller
and Smith offer a compelling challenge to it.
Despite
the weakness of a symbolic explanation for the intermediate sixty-two sevens,
the weight of evidence still seems to support Roberts’ conclusion that “the
whole of the seventy weeks does not represent 490 literal years, but only
symbolizes the period necessary for the full accomplishment of God’s plan to
bring a true Sabbath rest and a true Jubilee – true rest and deliverance from
sin – to his people.”[52]
This is especially so since literalistic interpretations are by no means free
of numerical challenges. For example, Randall Price and Thomas Ice admit, “Futurists
have classically interpreted the seventieth and final week (in verse 27) as
beginning long after the end of the sixty-ninth week.”[53]
This is because it is difficult to make 490 literal years fit both the prophecy
and history, and if one regards the conclusion of the prophecy as announcing
the Second Coming of Christ, harmonization is impossible without assuming a
significant (almost 2,000 years) gap.
Futurists do not suggest a time gap
between the sixty-ninth and seventieth sevens solely as a means of making their
interpretation work. They insist the context demands such a position. For
example, Price and Ice say, “We do not yet see the answer to Daniel’s central
concern – the final end of the captivity of the Jews and Jerusalem (Daniel
9:2).”[54]
But this begs the question, assuming that the premillennial presupposition of
complete national and political restoration of Israel is an objective of
biblical prophecy.[55]
If the assumption of Jewish political restoration is challenged, “There is not
one thing named as a goal of, or said to happen in, this seventy weeks that had
not occurred by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century.”[56]
Jesus’ own use of Daniel in foretelling the Temple’s destruction in A.D. 70
argues in favor of a first century termination for the seventy sevens (Matt.
24:1-19, 34).[57] The historical and Messianic
context of the passage suggest the seventy sevens are “a symbolic meaning of
the time from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the return
under Zerubbabel, until the death of the Messiah, the cessation of the
sacrifices, the making of a covenant, and the coming of the prince who
completely destroyed Jerusalem and the old order.”[58]
Theological
Conclusions
It
is unfortunate that eschatological differences surrounding Daniel 9:24-27 so
often overshadow its explicitly Messianic message. Disagreements over the
seventy sevens and how to interpret or compute them have been and will remain
part of its hermeneutical legacy. J. Paul Tanner observes:
Early church fathers commonly embraced a
messianic interpretation of the passage and sought to prove a chronological
computation for the time of Messiah’s coming based on this prophecy. This
approach has been favored by many conservatives—both premillennial and
amillennial—down through the centuries. Advocates of the messianic view differ over
the details of interpretation (e.g., the number of times Messiah is referred to
in the passage, the termini of the calculations, or how the final seventieth
week relates to the first sixty-nine), but they agree that this passage is one
of the most astounding references to the Lord Jesus Christ and the time of His
first advent.[59]
This
agreement on the prophetic and Messianic significance of Daniel 9:24-27 should
not be overshadowed or set aside by disagreement in interpreting its other
elements. The seventy sevens prophecy is first and foremost about Christ and
the restoration he would accomplish for Israel.
This is not to suggest
eschatological debates between futurists and preterists[60]
discount the Messianic significance of Daniel 9. Futurists who insist on a
future, literal fulfillment of the seventieth seven acknowledge the passage is
Messianic, but they also assert, “The New Testament writers used the 70-weeks
prophecy to predict future events, so we too should interpret it
futuristically.”[61] This assumption, however,
is by no means necessary and is seriously undermined by the prophecy’s
Christological focus on the atonement, an event which Christians look back on,
not ahead to. This strongly suggests the context of the prophecy concerns the
Messiah’s redemptive work at his first appearance, not his Second Coming.
Again, Tanner notes:
Though most early church fathers took a
messianic view of the seventy-weeks prophecy, they tended to favor a
messianic-historical position, meaning that the entire seventy weeks was
fulfilled at some point in the first century A.D. Only a few opted for a
messianic/eschatological position in which the seventy weeks would not be
completed until some future point beyond the first century, such as the reign
of Antichrist or the second advent of Christ.[62]
The
Jews also considered Daniel’s prophecy to terminate with Rome’s desolation of
the Second Temple. Josephus says Daniel’s prophecies point to Jerusalem’s destruction
in A.D. 70.[63]
Whatever
questions must remain and be debated, Daniel 9 must be a passage which exalts
Christ, not merely excites controversy. John Calvin rightly regards the
prophecy’s theological significance as having priority over any mathematical
computation from it. He says, “These two points, then, in my judgment, must be
held as fixed; first, the seventy weeks begin with the Persian monarchy,
because a free return was then granted to the people; and secondly, they did
not terminate till the baptism of Christ, when he openly commenced his work of
satisfying the requirements of the office assigned him by his father.”[64]
Speaking from a symbolic view which confines the seventy sevens from the sixth
century B.C. to the first century A.D., Phil Roberts offers the following
summary:
Though the grammar is difficult and many
details are obscure, the gist of this answer to Daniel’s prayer is clear: God
is about to begin a new age for his people. It will be seventy ‘weeks’ in
duration (probably to be understood as weeks of years, or 490 years) and will
see not only the restoration of the temple and the city of Jerusalem but also
forgiveness of sin, the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, the sealing
up of vision and prophecy, and the anointing of the most holy. Moreover, near
the end of this period, the Messiah will appear. But he will be rejected and
desolation will follow, resulting once again in the destruction of Jerusalem
and the temple.[65]
Though
the timing of Robert’s summary will be debated, the essential import of it should
be agreeable to most conservative, evangelical scholars.
Conclusion
The
seventy sevens prophecy in Daniel 9 is, regrettably, under-appreciated as a
Messianic testimony in much of the evangelical community. Its primary
significance, at least, at a popular level, seems to be more in determining the
timing of the Tribulation in the end times than in assuring faithful Jewish
exiles of God’s plan to return, rebuild, redeem, and restore their fortunes
through the work of his Messiah. Yet whatever its future significance may or
may not be, the latter significance for Daniel and the Jews who returned to rebuild
the homeland in the sixth century B.C. must not be forgotten. Indeed, its
historic and Messianic significance must be given priority in its
interpretation and application, relegating its significance for futurist depictions
of the Tribulation and Antichrist to a secondary, though not necessarily
insignificant, concern. The eschatological disagreements surrounding the
seventy sevens must not discourage its careful study and faithful exposition by
and for believers today, nor should expositors and commentators feel the need
to resolve every question about the text which may be raised. Divine prophecy
must be allowed to speak with the force and clarity which its Author intends
while leaving us in mystery whenever and wherever he so desires.
[1] J. Paul Tanner, “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic?”
Bibliotheca Sacra (Apr 2009), 182.
[2] James E. Smith, The
Major Prophets in Old Testament Survey Series, (Joplin: College Press,
1992), 605.
[3] John
Calvin, Commentary on Daniel: Volume 2,
Dan. 9:24.
[4] Norman
W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary,
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 144.
[5]
Smith, 601.
[6] Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, Volume 18 in The New American Commentary, (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1994), 171-177.
[7]
Smith, 601.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Miller, 258-259.
[10] Smith, 605; see also, Randall Price and Thomas Ice,
“Seventy Weeks of Daniel,” in The Popular
Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, ed. Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, (Eugene:
Harvest House, 2004), 357.
[11]
Smith, 605.
[12] Homer
Hailey, Hailey’s Comments: Volume One,
(Las Vegas: Nevada Publications, 1985), 259.
[13] Phil Roberts, “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27,” The Doctrine of Last Things, ed. Melvin
D. Curry, (Temple Terrace: Florida College, 1986), 104.
[14]
Smith, 606-607.
[15]
Roberts, 101-102.
[16]
Price and Ice, 357; see also Miller, 262-263.
[17] David H. Lurie, “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s
‘Sevens’ and the Chronology of the Seventy ‘Sevens,’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Sep. 1990), 308.
[18]
Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews
11.1.1-3, 343-344.
[19]
Lurie, 308.
[20]
Smith, 608.
[21]
Ibid.
[22]
Miller, 267.
[23]
Smith, 610.
[24] John
J. Collins, Daniel, (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993), 357-358.
[25]
Calvin, Lecture Fifty-second.
[26]
Miller, 270-273.
[27]
Roberts, 98.
[28]
Roberts, 98-99; see also Miller, 252-257: Miller’s categories are somewhat more
helpful but not as succinctly stated.
[29]
Roberts, 98.
[30]
Collins, 354.
[31]
Roberts, 98.
[32]
Miller, 255-257.
[33]
E.g. Porteous, 141-144; see also, Collins, 352-360.
[34]
Roberts, 98-99.
[35]
Price and Ice, 356-360.
[36]
Ibid., 357.
[37]
Roberts, 100.
[38]
Ibid., 100-102.
[39] Josephus,
The Antiquities of the Jews 11.1.1-3,
343-344; Josephus confirms the Jews’ familiarity with Cyrus’s role in decreeing
the eventual reconstruction of the Temple.
[40]
Roberts, 102-104.
[41]
Smith, 606; see also Price and Ice 357.
[42]
Hailey, 259.
[43] Miller,
261.
[44]
Ibid., 259; see also Price and Ice, 359.
[45]
Roberts, 103.
[46]
Collins, 356.
[47]
Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews
10.11.7, 341.
[48]
Roberts, 104-110.
[49]
Cf. Collins, 352.
[50]
Miller, 258.
[51]
Smith, 612.
[52]
Roberts, 110-111.
[53]
Price and Ice, 357.
[54]
Ibid., 358.
[55]
E.g. “These six goals have not been fulfilled in the church in this age;
rather, they apply to the Jewish nation in the age to come,” Price and Ice, 359;
cf. 357.
[56]
Roberts, 104.
[57]
Hailey, 260.
[58] Ibid.
[59]
Tanner, 182.
[60] I
am using preterist here to refer to
those who believe in a first century fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27, not to
full-preterism which denies any future fulfillment of biblical prophecy and a
literal, bodily resurrection.
[61]
Price and Ice, 357.
[62]
Tanner, 200.
[63]
Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews
10.11.7, 341.
[64]
Calvin, Dan. 9:25.
[65]
Roberts, 97-98.
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Commentary
on Daniel: Volume 2. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom25
(accessed April 12, 2013).
Collins, John J. Daniel.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Hailey, Homer. Hailey’s
Comments: Volume One. Las Vegas: Nevada Publications, 1985.
Josephus. Josephus:
The Complete Works, transl. by William Whiston, A.M. Nashville: Nelson,
1998.
Lurie, David H. “A New Interpretation of Daniel’s ‘Sevens’
and the Chronology of the Seventy
‘Sevens.’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Sep. 1990). http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jets33-3-02
(accessed April 5, 2013).
Miller, Stephen R. Daniel.
Volume 18 in The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman
& Holman, 1994.
Porteous, Norman W. Daniel:
A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.
Price, Randall and Thomas Ice. “Seventy Weeks of Daniel.” in
The Popular Encyclopedia of
Bible
Prophecy, ed. Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson. Eugene: Harvest House, 2004.
Roberts, Phil. “The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24-27.” The Doctrine of Last Things, ed. Melvin
D. Curry. Temple Terrace: Florida
College, 1986.
Smith, James E. The
Major Prophets in Old Testament Survey Series. Joplin: College Press,
1992.
Tanner, J. Paul. “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy
Messianic? Part 1.” Bibliotheca Sacra
(Apr 2009). http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/bsac166-662-05
(accessed April 5, 2013).
