========================================================================
  THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS
  by John F. Walvoord
========================================================================

Summary: John F. Walvoord's sermon explores Daniel's prophecy of the
Seventy Weeks, emphasizing the importance of prayer, confession, and
God's faithfulness to His promises.

Topics: "Prophetic Scripture", "Gods Mercy"
Scripture References: Daniel 9:24-27

------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------

John F. Walvoord preaches on the third vision of Daniel, focusing on
God's program for Israel culminating in the coming of their Messiah to
reign on earth. The chapter reveals the comprehensive program for both
the Gentiles and Israel, making the study of Daniel key to understanding
prophetic Scriptures. Daniel's prayer, prompted by Jeremiah's prophecy
of seventy years of desolation for Jerusalem, leads to the third vision
through the angel Gabriel, providing crucial insights into Scripture.
The chapter highlights the importance of confession, prayer, and
understanding God's mercy and righteousness in fulfilling His prophetic
plans for Israel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The third vision of Daniel the prophet, following the two preceding
visions of chapters 7 and 8, concerns the program of God for Israel
culminating in the coming of their Messiah to the earth to reign.
Although other major prophets received detailed information concerning
the nations and God's program for salvation, Daniel alone was given the
comprehensive program for both the Gentiles, as revealed to Daniel in
preceding chapters, and for Israel, as recorded in Daniel 9:24-27.
Because of the comprehensive and structural nature of Daniel's
prophecies, both for the Gentiles and for Israel, the study of Daniel,
and especially this chapter, is the key to understanding the prophetic
Scriptures. Of the four major programs revealed in the Bible--for the
angels, the Gentiles, Israel, and the church, Daniel had the privilege
of being the channel of revelation for the second and third of these
programs in the Old Testament.

This chapter begins with Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years of the
desolations of Jerusalem and is advanced by the intercessory prayer of
Daniel. The chapter concludes with the third vision of Daniel, given
through the agency of the angel Gabriel, which provides one of the most
important keys to understanding the Scriptures as a whole. In many
respects, this is the high point of the book of Daniel. Although
previously Gentile history and prophecy recorded in Daniel was related
to the people of Israel, the ninth chapter specifically takes up
prophecy as it applies to the chosen people.

The Seventy Years of the Desolations of Jerusalem

9:1-2 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of
the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; In the
first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the
years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that
he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

According to the opening verse of chapter 9, the third vision of Daniel
occurred "In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed
of the Medes." In other words, the events of Belshazzar's feast in
chapter 5 occurred between the visions of chapters 8 and 9. It is not
clear where chapter 6 fits into this order of events, but it also may
well have occurred in the first year of the reign of Darius, either
immediately before or immediately after the events of chapter 9. If
Daniel's experience at Belshazzar's feast as well as his deliverance
from the lions had already been experienced, these significant evidences
of the sovereignty and power of God may well have constituted a divine
preparation for the tremendous revelation now about to unfold.

The immediate occasion of this chapter, however, was the discovery by
Daniel in the prophecy of Jeremiah that the desolations of Jerusalem
would be fulfilled in seventy years. The expression by books may be
understood to mean "in books." Jeremiah the prophet, in addition to his
oral prophetic announcements, had written his prophecies in the closing
days of Jerusalem before its destruction at the hand of the Babylonians.
Although the first record of Jeremiah had been destroyed (Jer 36:23),
Jeremiah rewrote it, acting on instructions from the Lord (Jer 36:28).
Jeremiah himself had been taken captive by Jews rebelling against
Nebuchadnezzar and had been carried off to Egypt against his will to be
buried in a strange land in a nameless grave, but the timeless
Scriptures which he wrote found their way across desert and mountain to
far away Babylon and fell into the hands of Daniel. How long Daniel had
been in possession of these prophecies is not known, but the implication
is that Daniel had now come into the full comprehension of Jeremiah's
prediction and realized that the seventy years prophesied had about run
their course. The time of the vision recorded in Daniel 9 was 538 B.C.,
about 67 years after Jerusalem had first been captured and Daniel
carried off to Babylon (605 B.C.).

Jeremiah had prophesied, "This whole land shall be a desolation, and an
astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy
years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished,
that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord,
for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it
perpetual desolations" (Jer 25:11-12). Later, Jeremiah added to this
prophecy, "For thus saith the Lord, that after seventy years be
accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word
toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the
thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and
not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me,
and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye
shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your
heart. And I will be found of you, saith the Lord: and I will turn away
your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations and from all
the places whither I have driven you, saith the Lord; and I will bring
you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive"
(Jer 29:10-14).

On the basis of these remarkable prophecies, Daniel was encouraged to
pray for the restoration of Jerusalem and the regathering of the people
of Israel. Daniel, although too old and probably too infirm to return to
Jerusalem himself, lived long enough to see the first expedition of
pilgrims return. This occurred in "the first year of Cyrus king of
Persia" (Ezra 1:1), and Daniel lived at least until "the third year of
Cyrus king of Persia" (Dan 10:1) and probably some years longer.

As brought out in the earlier discussion of chapter 6 relative to Darius
the Mede, Darius had been appointed by Cyrus as king of Babylon. The
assertion of Daniel 9:1 that Darius "was made king over the realm of the
Chaldeans," indicates that he was invested with the kingship by some
higher authority. This well agrees with the supposition that he Was
installed as viceroy in Babylonia by Cyrus the Great. This appointment
is confirmed by the verb "was made king" (Hebrew homlak) which does not
seem a proper reference to Cyrus himself. In this connection, it is of
interest that in the Behistun Inscription, Darius I refers to his
father, Hystaspes, as having been made king in a similar way.

In studying Daniel 9:2, with its reference to "the desolations of
Jerusalem," Sir Robert Anderson distinguishes the duration of the
captivity from the duration of the desolations of Jerusalem. Anderson
states, "The failure to distinguish between the several judgments of the
Servitude, the Captivity and the Desolations, is a fruitful source of
error in the study of Daniel and the historical books of Scripture."464

Anderson goes on to explain that Israel's servitude and captivity began
much earlier than the destruction of the temple. Although Anderson's
dates are not according to current archeological findings (606 b.c.
instead of 605 for the captivity, 589 b.c. instead of 586 for the
desolation of the temple, and his date for the decree of Cyrus 536 B.C.
instead of 538), in general, his approach to the fulfillment of
Jeremiah's prophecy is worthy of consideration. As previously discussed
in the exposition of chapter 1, the captivity probably began in the fall
of 605 B.C. at which time a few, such as Daniel and his companions and
other of the royal children, were carried off to Babylon as hostages.
The major deportation did not take place until about seven years later.
According to Donald J. Wiseman, the exact date of the first major
deportation was March 16, 597 b.c, after the fall of Jerusalem following
a brief revolt against Babylonian rule. About 60,000 were carried away
at that time.465

Jerusalem itself was finally destroyed in 586 b.c,466 and this,
according to Anderson, began the desolations of Jerusalem, the specific
prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11, also mentioned in 2 Chronicles 36:21 and in
Daniel 9:2.

The precise prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11-12 predicts that the king of
Babylon would be punished at the end of seventy years. Jeremiah 29:10
predicted the return to the land after seventy years. For these reasons,
it is doubtful whether Anderson's evaluation of Daniel 9:2 as referring
to the destruction of the temple itself is valid. The judgment on
Babylon and the return to the land of course took place about twenty
years before the temple itself was rebuilt and was approximately seventy
years after captivity beginning in 605 b.c. Probably the best
interpretation, accordingly, is to consider the expression the
desolations of Jerusalem, in Daniel 9:2, as referring to the period 605
B.C. to 539 B.C. for the judgment on Babylon, and the date of 538 b.c
for the return to the land.

This definition of the expression the desolations of Jerusalem (Dan 9:2)
is supported by the word for "desolations" ( h£orbo‚t) which is a plural
apparently including the environs of Jerusalem. The same expression is
translated "all her waste places" in Isaiah 51:3 (cf. 52:9). Actually
the destruction of territory formerly under Jerusalem control even
predated the 605 date for Jerusalem's fall.

Although it is preferred to consider Daniel 9:2 as the period 605
b.c.-539 b.c, Anderson may be right in distinguishing as he does the
period of Israel's captivity from the period of Jerusalem's destruction.
Zechariah 1:12, referring to God's destruction of the cities of Judah
for three score years and ten, may extend to the time when the temple
was rebuilt. This is brought out in Zechariah 1:16 where it is stated,
"Therefore thus saith the Lord; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies:
my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts, and a line shall
be stretched forth upon Jerusalem." It is most significant that the
return took place approximately seventy years after the capture of
Jerusalem in 605 b.c, and the restoration of the temple (515 b.c) took
place approximately seventy years after the destruction of the temple
(586 b.c), the latter period being about twenty years later than the
former. In both cases, however, the fulfillment does not have the
meticulous accuracy of falling on the very day, as Anderson attempts to
prove. It seems to be an approximate number as one would expect by a
round number of seventy. Hence, the period between 605 b.c and 538 b.c
would be approximately sixty-seven years; and the rededication of the
temple in March of 515 b.c, would be less than seventy-one years from
the destruction of the temple in August of 586 b.c

What is intended, accordingly, in the statement in Daniel 9:2 is that
Daniel realized that the time was approaching when the children of
Israel could return. The seventy years of the captivity were about
ended. Once the children of Israel were back in the land, they were
providentially hindered in fulfilling the rebuilding of the temple until
seventy years after the destruction of the temple had also elapsed.

Several principles emerge from Daniel's reference to Jeremiah's
prophecy. First, Daniel took the seventy years literally and believed
that there would be literal fulfillment. Even though Daniel was fully
acquainted with the symbolic form of revelation which God sometimes used
to portray panoramic prophetic events, his interpretation of Jeremiah
was literal and he expected God to fulfill His word.

Second, Daniel realized that the Word of God would be fulfilled only on
the basis of prayer, and this occasioned his fervent plea as recorded in
this chapter. On the one hand, Daniel recognized the certainty of divine
purposes and the sovereignty of God which will surely fulfill the
prophetic word. On the other hand, he recognized human agency, the
necessity of faith and prayer, and the urgency to respond to human
responsibility as it relates to the divine program. His custom of
praying three times a day with his windows open to Jerusalem still in
desolation revealed his own heart for the things of God and his concern
for the city of Jerusalem.

Third, he recognized the need for confession of sin as a prelude to
restoration. With this rich background of the prophetic program revealed
through Jeremiah, Daniel's own prayer life, and his concern for the city
of Jerusalem as the religious center of the nation of Israel, Daniel
approaches the task of expressing his confession and intercession to the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Because Daniel, for the first time, used the word Lord or Jehovah in
Daniel 9:2, repeating the expression in verses 4, 10, 13, 14, and 20,
critics have used this as an argument against the authenticity of this
passage and the prayer which follows.467

Daniel's Preparation for Prayer

9:3-4 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and
supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: And I prayed unto
the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and
dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and
to them that keep his commandments.

Encouraged by his understanding of God's intention to restore Jerusalem,
Daniel now seeks to make adequate preparation to present his confessions
and petitions to the Lord. Every possible element of preparation is
included. First, he declares, "I set my face unto the Lord God." This
was a formal beginning in which Daniel turns away from other things to
concentrate on his prayer to the Lord. It implies faith, devotion, and
worship. His activity in prayer has a specific end expressed by the word
to seek. It anticipates that he hopes to find ground for an answer to
his prayers. The attitude of mind and steadfastness of purpose indicated
is now supplemented by prayer and supplications, that is, prayer in
general and petition specifically. This is accompanied by every known
auxiliary aid to prayer: namely, fasting, that he might not be diverted
from prayer by food; sackcloth, a putting aside of ordinary garments in
favor of rough cloth speaking of abject need; and ashes, the traditional
symbol of grief and humility. In a word, Daniel left nothing undone that
might possibly make his prayer more effective or more persuasive. While
God honors the briefest of prayers, as the experience of Nehemiah 2:4
indicates, effective prayer requires faith in the Word of God, proper
attitude of mind and heart, privacy, and unhurried confession and
petition. Daniel's humility, reverence, and earnestness are the
hallmarks of effective prayer. In beginning his prayer to the Lord,
Daniel relies upon the fact that the majesty of God's person and the
greatness of His power are manifested especially in His fulfilling His
covenant promises and manifesting mercy to those who love Him and keep
His commandments. As Nelson Glueck has brought out in his study of the
word "mercy" (hesed), the word con-note's not only forgiveness but
loyalty in keeping His covenant with Israel.468 This loyalty of God to
His covenant is contrasted with the inexcusable disloyalty of the people
of Israel. In beginning his prayer, Daniel thus is assured of the
greatness of God and the goodness of God. His problem is that the
children of Israel have sinned, broken their covenant, and have made
themselves liable to the divine judgment which the faithfulness of God
must inflict according to His promises.

Daniel's Prayer of Confession

9:5-14 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done
wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and
from thy judgments: Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the
prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our
fathers, and to all the people of the land. O Lord, righteousness
belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to
the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all
Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries
whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have
trespassed against thee. O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to
our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned
against thee. To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses,
though we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed the voice of
the Lord our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his
servants the prophets. Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even
by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is
poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the
servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And he hath
confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges
that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole
heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. As it is
written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we
not our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our
iniquities, and understand thy truth. Therefore hath the Lord watched
upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the Lord our God is righteous
in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.

Having reminded himself of God's covenant and mercy, Daniel begins his
prayer of confession. Daniel himself is one of the few major characters
of the Old Testament to whom some sin is not ascribed. He is dealing not
with his personal sins, but with his identification with the sin of the
nation and the collective responsibility which Daniel shares both in
promises of blessing and warnings of divine judgment. Daniel does not
spare himself or his people in his confession. As John Calvin points out
in his exposition, there is a fourfold description of the extent of
their sin: first, they have sinned (Heb. h£a„t£a„ánu‚), meaning a
serious crime or offense; second, they have committed iniquity, that is,
"acted unjustly"; third, they have done wickedly, or "conducted
themselves wickedly"; and fourth, sinning in this way, they have
rebelled even by departing from thy precepts, that is, "become,
rebellious and declined from the statutes and commandments of God."469
Moses Stuart notes, "The climactic construction of the sentence is
palpable. To turn back from obedience to the divine statutes, in the
frame of mind which belongs to rebels, is the consummation of
wickedness, and so Daniel rightly considers it. The variety of verbs
employed here, indicates the design of the speaker to confess, all sin
of every kind in its full extent."470

The heinousness of their sin is amplified in verse 6 by the fact that
they have disregarded the prophets which God sent to them. This
disrespect and disobedience to the prophets characterized all classes of
Israel, including their kings, their princes, other leaders referred to
as "our fathers," and finally "all the people of the land." Even in such
times of revival as during the reign of Hezekiah when the king's
messengers went throughout the land calling people to the Passover at
Jerusalem, the Scriptures record that many "laughed them to scorn, and
mocked them" (2 Ch 30:10). The disregard of the Word of God in Israel's
departure from the precepts and judgments as mentioned in verse 5 as
well as the disregard of the prophets, "is the beginning of all moral
disorders," as Leupold expresses it.471

In verses 7-8, Daniel contrasts the righteousness of God and the
confusion of face belonging to Israel. God has been righteous in His
judgments upon Israel, and in no way does Israel's distress reflect upon
the attributes of God adversely. By contrast, Israel's confusion or
shame of face which had made them the object of scorn of the nations was
their just desert for rebellion against God. Daniel itemizes those who
are especially concerned: first, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, that is, the kingdom of Judah which was carried into
captivity by the Babylonians, and second, "all Israel, that are near,
and that are far off," that is, also the ten tribes of the kingdom of
Israel which were carried off by the Assyrians in 721 B.C. The
scattering of the children of Israel "through all the countries which
thou hast driven them," was not occasioned by one sin, but by generation
after generation of failure to obey the Law or to give heed to the
prophets.

In verse 8, those who are ashamed are itemized according to classes of
society, that is, "our kings," "our princes," and "our fathers." The
judgment of God did not spare any class but was according to their sins
and their rebellion. In this passage, as in Daniel's earlier confession,
he does not mince words but refers to Israel's trespasses and their sins
with no attempt to excuse them.

Frederick A. Tatford summarizes Daniel 9:5-8 in these words, "There was
no tautology in the prolific accumulation of expressions he used: it was
rather that he sought to express by every possible word the enormity of
the guilt and contumacy of himself and his people. They had sinned in
wandering from the right, they had dealt perversely in their wilful
impiety, they had done wickedly in their sheer infidelity, they had
rebelled in deliberate refractoriness, they had turned aside from the
Divine commandments and ordinances. Their cup of iniquity was full.
Their guilt was accentuated by the fact that prophets had been sent to
them with the Divine message and they had refused to listen. All were
implicated--rulers, leaders (the term 'fathers' being used, of course,
in a metaphorical rather than in a literal sense), and the people. God
was perfectly just, but a shameful countenance betrayed their own guilt.
Nor was the confusion of face limited to Judah and Jerusalem: it was
true of all Israelites throughout the world. Indeed, their scattering
was in punishment for their own unfaithfulness to God. Daniel associated
himself completely with his people in acknowledging their wrong-doing
and freely confessed that their shamefacedness was due to perfectly
justified corrections: they had sinned against God."472

Having contrasted the righteousness of God to the sins of Israel, Daniel
now turns in verse 9 to the contrast of the mercies and forgiveness of
God as compared to the sin of Israel. The word mercies here is a
different word than in Daniel 9:4 and is correctly translated. Although
God is a God of righteousness, He is also a God of mercy. It is on this
ground, of course, that Daniel is basing his petition. In doing so, he
turns from addressing God directly in the second person to speaking of
God in the third person, as if to state a truth for all who will hear, a
theological fact now being introduced as the basis for the remainder of
the prayer. As Stuart observes, "The plur. form of these nouns ["mercies
and forgivenesses"] denotes intensity in the manifestation, or the
continued and extended exercise of these qualities or attributes."473

Over against the reminder of the merices and forgivenesses of God,
Daniel now plunges into recital of the extent of Israel's sin in verses
10-11. Again, Daniel restates the facts that Israel has not obeyed the
voice of the Lord their God. They have not walked according to His laws
as proclaimed to them by the Lord's servants, the prophets. The word
translated "laws" in verse 10 means literally, "instructions" (cf. Is
1:10 ff.). The rebellion was not on the part of a few but "all Israel
have transgressed thy law, even by departing." Because of their
persistent failure and rebellion against God, the prophesied curse
pronounced upon Israel as "written in the law of Moses the servant of
God" was applied.

In Deuteronomy 28, for instance, the conditions of blessing and cursing
are set forth before Israel in detail. If they obeyed, they would have
every blessing, temporal and spiritual, from God. If they disobeyed, God
would destroy them and scatter them over the earth. Moses had made
perfectly clear that Israel's situation would indeed be desperate if
they disobeyed the Lord God. Most of Deuteronomy 28 is devoted to
itemizing these curses, concluding with the prophetic warning of the
world-wide dispersion of Israel (Deu 28:63-65) and the resultant
uncertainty of life and future which would characterize individual
Israelites.

How sad are Moses' words: "And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord
rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will
rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and you
shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And
the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the
earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which
neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. And among
these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy
foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart,
and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in
doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have
none assurance of thy life: In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it
were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for
the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of
thine eyes which thou shalt see" (Deu 28:63-67). It was to such passages
and similar warnings of God to which Daniel referred.

G. E. Mendenhall has shown that the Mosaic covenant in its form has a
close parallel in certain suzerainty treaties (i.e., treaties between
the Great King and his vassals) of the Hittite Empire. Sanctions are
typically supplied in these treaties by a series of blessings and
cursings as also illustrated in Leviticus 26:14-39 and Deuteronomy
27-28. Such warnings are witnessed by heaven and earth (cf. Deu 4:26 and
Is 1:2) and in their form are similar to many passages in the Old
Testament.474

In verses 12-14, Daniel itemizes the evil which God had brought upon
them as a result of their sin. In thus bringing judgment upon Israel, He
had "confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our
judges that judged us" (cf. Is 1:10-31; Mic 3). Above all, the other
terrible judgment was that of the destruction of Jerusalem itself which
was the final blow to Israel's pride and security.

Adding to all their earlier sins, Israel in their extremity did not turn
to the Lord in prayer: "yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our
God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth."
Even in the midst of the terrible manifestation of the righteous
judgment of God, there was no revival, no turning to God; rulers and
people alike persisted in their evil ways. What Daniel is saying is that
God had no alternative, even though He was a God of mercy; for when
mercy is spurned, judgment is inevitable. Daniel, accordingly, concludes
in verse 14, "Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, and brought
it upon us: for the Lord our God is righteous in all his works which he
doeth: for we obeyed not his voice." Porteous notes that the word
watched, which can also be translated "keep ready" or "vigilant," is the
same word Jeremiah uses when he tells how God was watchful over His word
to perform it (Jer 1:12; cf. 31:28; 44:27). Jehovah was being faithful
in keeping His word both in blessings and in cursings, which must have
encouraged Daniel in anticipating the end of the captivity.475

Daniel's Petition for Forgiveness and Restoration

9:15-19 And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out
of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as
at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, according to
all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be
turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our
sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people
are become a reproach to all that are about us. Now therefore, O our
God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause
thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's
sake. O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold
our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not
present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for
thy great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and
do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people
are called by thy name.

In his progression of thought, having laid fully the groundwork by
confession of sin and recognition of the righteousness and mercies of
God, Daniel now turns to the burden of his prayer--that God would, in
keeping with His righteousness and according to His mercies, forgive and
restore the people of Israel. In presenting his petition, Daniel first
of all appeals to the revelation of the power and forgiveness of God in
delivering the people of Israel from Egypt. In doing so, God had not
only manifested His forgiveness but His power, and had gained "renown"
among the nations for the demonstration of His mighty power. The
deliverance of the people of Israel from Egypt is, in many respects, the
Old Testament standard illustration of the power of God and His ability
to deliver His people. By contrast in the New Testament, the
resurrection of Jesus Christ is God's standard of power (Eph 1:19-20).
In the future millennial reign of Christ, the standard of power will be
the regathering of Israel and their restoration to the land (Jer
16:14-15). The three dispersions of Israel from the land and their
regathering are among the more important demonstrations of power in
relation to Israel. God had allowed them to go into Egypt and delivered
them in the Exodus. He had punished them by the captives, but now Daniel
is pleading with Him to restore His people to their land and their city.
The future final regathering of Israel in relation to the millennial
kingdom will be the final act fulfilling Amos 9:11-15, when Israel will
be regathered never to be dispersed again. In both the dispersions and
the regatherings, God's righteousness, power, and mercies are evident.

Having introduced the thought of God's deliverance of Israel from the
land of Egypt, Daniel is once again overwhelmed by the wickedness of
Israel which seems to block the way for the restoration. He injects, "We
have sinned, we have done wickedly"--his theme song up to this point in
the prayer--but, nevertheless, proceeds to his petition for Israel's
forgiveness and restoration.

Stuart summarizes verse 15 in these words, "Here commences the
supplication of the speaker; at least, this address is preparatory to
it. The argument stands thus: 'O God, who in times past hast wrought
wonderful deliverances for thy people, and thereby acquired a glorious
name --repeat thy wondrous doings, and add to the glory which thou hast
already acquired! As thou didst bring us out of exile in Egypt, so bring
us out of exile in Babylon.'--a name, as at the present time, i.e. such
a name, glory, honor, as is attributed to thee even now.--We have sinned
etc., the deep sensation of penitence forces from the speaker the
repetition of confession."476

In making his petition in verses 15-19, Daniel addresses God only as
Adonai and Elohim and no longer uses the term Jehovah as he did in
verses 4-14. Strangely, most commentators have ignored this significant
change in address.477 Montgomery goes so far as to insert the word
Jehovah in his translation, although he calls attention in his critical
apparatus to the actual Hebrew.478 The explanation seems to be that in
using the word Adonai, Daniel is recognizing God's absolute sovereignty
over him as Lord.

In presenting his petition specifically, Daniel significantly appeals
again to the righteousness of the Lord in verse 16. Although
anticipating that the hope of the restoration of Israel depended on the
mercies of God, Daniel recognized, nevertheless, that it must be
"according to all thy righteousness." Here is implied the whole system
of reconciliation to God by sacrifice, supremely fulfilled in Jesus
Christ. Daniel recognizes that somehow there is no contradiction between
the righteousness of God and His mercies and forgiveness. It is also
true that the same Scriptures which predict God's judgment upon Israel
also predict their restoration, and it would be in keeping with the
veracity of God as a covenant-keeping God not only to inflict judgment
but to bring in the promised restoration. In verse 16 as in verse 15, in
beginning his petition, Daniel argues on the ground that the children of
Israel are "thy people" and that his petition has to do with the
restoration of Jerusalem which is "thy city," and "thy holy mountain."
The appeal is to the fact that restoration will not only be an act of
mercy but also that which will bring honor and glory to God and a
testimony to the nations before whom Israel now is "a reproach." As
Young expresses it, "The prayer is a tragic confession of guilt.
Jerusalem should have been the mount unto which all nations would flow,
and Israel should have been a light unto the Gentiles, but because of
the people's sins, Jerusalem and Israel had become a reproach."479

With his petition now grounded on the fact that an answer would be to
the glory of God, Daniel now adds one further item, namely, that the
sanctuary itself, the place where God met man in sacrifice, was in
desolation and that the whole sacrificial system had fallen into disuse
because of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Accordingly, in
verse 17, he beseeches God to "hear the prayer of thy servant, and his
supplications" and, in answer to Daniel's petition, to "cause thy face
to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake."
Ultimately, it was not simply the restoration of Israel which Daniel
sought, nor the restoration of Jerusalem or even of the temple, but
specifically the sanctuary with its altars of sacrifice and its holy of
holies.

The eloquence of Daniel's prayer now reaches its crescendo. How it must
have delighted the ears of God to have heard His devoted servant present
His petitions. How it must have moved the heart of God to have heard
Daniel say, "O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and
behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we
do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses,
but for thy great mercies." If prayer to God can be called persuasive,
Daniel's prayer certainly merits this description. Daniel in his holy
life, his careful preparation in approaching God, his uncompromising
confession of sin, and his appeal to God's holy character as the One who
is both righteous and merciful, illustrates the kind of prayer that God
delights to answer. Daniel, led by the Spirit of God, had expressed
precisely the prayer that God wanted to hear and wanted to answer.

In closing his prayer, Daniel once again beseeches God to hear, to
forgive, to do, to defer not, all for God's own sake, for God's city
Jerusalem, for God's people Israel, who are called by the name of the
Lord. As Tat-ford has well said, "The prayer is one of the most
remarkable in the pages of Holy Writ."480

Although no other portion of the Bible breathes with more pure devotion
or has greater spiritual content than this prayer of Daniel, it has been
attacked without mercy by the higher critics, of which Charles is an
illustration. Acting on the premise that the book of Daniel as a whole
is a second-century forgery and not written by Daniel the prophet in the
sixth century B.C., exception is taken by the critics to this section of
Daniel as a particular proof that the book of Daniel as a whole could
not have been written by Daniel the prophet. Charles has seven arguments
against accepting this passage as genuine.481 Leupold representing
conservative scholars summarizes the seven arguments of Charles and
refutes them adequately.482

Montgomery has summarized the objections of the critics. Although making
preliminary concessions that the prayer "is a liturgical gem in form and
expression, and excels in literary character the more verbose types
found in Ezr. and Neh.," he holds "the prayer is of the liturgical type
which existed since the Deuteronomic age represented by Solomon's
Prayer, 1 Ki. 8, the prayers of Jer., Jer. 26.32.44, and the prayers in
Ezr.-Neh., Ezr. 9, Neh. 1.9." Montgomery goes on to say, "By far the
largest part of this prayer consists of language found in those other
compositions."483

Not all the higher critics, however, accept the explanation that Daniel
9:2-19 is an interpolation not originally in the book. These complicated
arguments have been summarized both for and against by Montgomery. He
states,

Von Gall, Einheitlichkeit, 123-126, has developed the thesis that Dan.'s
prayer is an interpolation, although the rest of his work contends for
the practical integrity of the canonical books. He is followed by Mar.,
Cha. [Marti's Commentary, and Charles]. It is patent, as these scholars
argue, that the theme of the prayer does not correspond to the context,
which would seem to require a prayer for illumination, cf. 2:20 ff., and
not a liturgical confession bearing on the national catastrophe.
Further, Dan.'s prayer for immediate redemption is in contrast to the
recognition of the far distance of that event, 8:26 and end of this
chap. It is pointed out that 5:4a repeats 5:3 and especially that 5:20
is a joint with the main narrative, which is resumed in 5:21; this would
explain the repetition: "whiles I was speaking and praying and
confessing" "whiles I was speaking in prayer." The present writer agrees
with Kamp. [Kamphausen] in finding these arguments inconclusive. The
second-century author may well have himself inserted such a prayer in
his book for the encouragement of the faithful, even as the calculation
of the times was intended for their heartening... For an elaborate study
of the Prayer, defending its authenticity and also arguing for its
dependence on the Chronicler, 10 Bayer, Daniel-studien, Part 1.484

The critics' argument is based on the false premise that Jeremiah's
seventy years and the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are the same.
Because Daniel distinguishes these two periods, it is argued that the
material is an interpolation. It is the critics who are wrong, not
Daniel. The alleged copying from a common source on the part of Daniel,
Nehemiah, and Baruch is better explained by the fact that Daniel was
written first (sixth century B.C., not second century) and that Nehemiah
and Baruch had Daniel before them. Again, it is the critics' theories
which are the basis of their argument, and the theories are in error.
The critics of Daniel argue in a circle; assuming a second century date
for Daniel, they then criticize Daniel for not harmonizing with their
erroneous premises. The unity and beauty of this passage is its own
defense.

The Coming of the Angel Gabriel

9:20-23 And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin
and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before
the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God; yea, whiles I was
speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision
at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time
of the evening oblation. And he informed me, and talked with me, and
said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and
understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment
came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved:
therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

While Daniel was offering his petition to the Lord, the answer was
already on the way by means of the heavenly messenger, the angel
Gabriel. Daniel implies in verse 20 that the angel was sent at the very
beginning of his prayer. As Daniel expresses it, it was accomplished
"whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin
of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my
God for the holy mountain of my God." According to verse 21, Gabriel
touched Daniel about the time of the evening oblation. It is obvious
that the prayer of Daniel recorded here is only a summary of the actual
oral prayer which probably was lengthy and culminated at the time of the
evening sacrifice.

The reference to "the man Gabriel" is not a denial that he is an angel,
but serves to identify him with the vision of Daniel 8:15-16. The term
man (Heb. áish) is also used in the sense of a servant.485 As brought
out in chapter 8, there is an interesting play upon the thought here.
Leupold notes: "The term 'Gabriel' means 'man of God,' but with this
difference: the first root, gebher, means 'man' as the strong one, and
the second root, 'el, means the 'Strong God.'"486 In other words, the
expression the man Gabriel could be translated "the servant, the strong
one of the strong God." In addition to the identification by the name
itself, Daniel adds, "whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning,"
that is, in chapter 8. Gabriel, according to Daniel, "being caused to
fly swiftly," arrived at the time of the evening oblation. The Hebrew
for being caused to fly swiftly is difficult, as all commentators note,
but this seems to be the best possible translation. The thought is that
God directed Gabriel to go immediately to Daniel at the beginning of his
petition. Although he flew swiftly, he did not arrive until the end of
Daniel's prayer.

It is a touching observation that he arrived at the time of the evening
oblation. There, of course, had been no evening oblation for half a
century since the destruction of the temple in 586 B.C.; but in Daniel's
youth, he had seen the smoke rise from the temple site in the afternoon
sky with its reminder that God accepts a sinful people on the basis of a
sacrifice offered on their behalf. This sacrifice usually began about 3
p.m., and consisted of a perfect yearling lamb offered as a whole burnt
offering accompanied by meal and drink offerings, which typified the
future sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross as the spotless Lamb of
God (Heb 9:14). Daniel does not speak specifically of the sacrifice but
only of "the evening oblation," that is, the meal offering and the drink
offering. The time of one, of course, was the time of the other. As the
time of the evening sacrifice was also a stated time for prayer, Daniel
was encouraged also to pray. As God in a sense met the spiritual need of
His people at the time of the sacrifice and oblation, so Gabriel was
sent by God to meet Daniel's special need at this time and remind him of
the mercies of God.

Upon arrival, Gabriel talks with Daniel and states that the purpose of
his coming is "to give thee skill in understanding." Although Daniel's
prayer was not directed to his own need of understanding God's dealings
with the people of Israel, this is the underlying assumption of his
entire prayer. God, in a word, wants to assure Daniel of His unswerving
purpose to fulfill all His commitments to Israel, including their
ultimate restoration. In verse 23, Gabriel confirms what is implied in
verse 20 that he was given instructions to go to Daniel early in
Daniel's prayer. The commandment apparently came from God Himself,
although conceivably he might have been sent by Michael the Archangel.
Because of the magnitude of the revelation which follows, however, it is
better to ascribe it to God Himself. According to Gabriel's own
statement, he had come to show Daniel what was necessary to understand
the entire matter of Israel's program, and specifically, to consider the
vision of the seventy weeks described in the verses which follow.
Gabriel bears witness to the special relationship which Daniel had to
the Lord in that he was one "greatly beloved," in many spiritual and
moral characteristics like the Apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus
loved (Jn 13:23). The long preamble of twenty-three verses leading up to
the great revelation of the seventy weeks is, in itself, a testimony to
the importance of this revelation. The stage is now set for Gabriel to
reveal to Daniel God's purposes for Israel, culminating in the second
coming of Christ to establish His kingdom on the earth.

The Revelation of the Seventy Sevens of Israel

9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy
city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to
make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting
righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the
most Holy.

In the concluding four verses of Daniel 9, one of the most important
prophecies of the Old Testament is contained. The prophecy as a whole is
presented in verse 24. The first sixty-nine sevens is described in verse
25. The events between the sixty-ninth seventh and the seventieth
seventh are detailed in verse 26. The final period of the seventieth
seventh is described in verse 27.

Although many divergent interpretations have been advanced in
explanation of this prophecy, they may first be divided into two major
divisions, namely, the Christological and the non-Christological views.

The non-Christological approach may be subdivided into the liberal
critical view and the conservative amillennial view. Liberal critics,
assuming that Daniel is a forgery written in the second century B.C.,
find in this chapter that the pseudo-Daniel confuses the seventy years
of Israel's captivity with the seventy sevens of Gabriel's vision. As
Montgomery summarizes the matter in the introduction to chapter 9,
"Dan., having learned from the Sacred Books of Jer.'s prophecy of the
doom of seventy years' desolation for the Holy City, a term that was now
naturally drawing to an end (1.2), sets himself to pray for the
forgiveness of his people's sin and the promised deliverance (3-19). The
angel Gabriel appears to him (20-21), and interprets the years as year-
weeks, with detail of the distant future and of the crowning epoch of
the divine purpose (22-27)."487 In a word, Montgomery is saying that
this is not prophecy at all but is presented by the pseudo-Daniel as if
it were. Whatever fulfillment there is, is a fulfillment in history
already accomplished at the time this Scripture was written. In his
extended note on the interpretation of the seventy weeks, Montgomery in
general attempts to support the idea that the details of the prophecy
are to a large extent fulfilled in the life and persecutions of
Antiochus Epiphanes.488 In his summary, Montgomery states,

The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O. T.
criticism. The difficulties that beset any "rationalistic" treatment of
the figures are great enough, but the critics on this side of the fence
do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness of
assumptions and theories and efforts to obtain an exact chronology
fitting into the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of
infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the
70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology. As we
have seen, the early Jewish and Christian exegesis came to interpret
that datum eschatologically and found it fulfilled in the fall of
Jerusalem; only slowly did the theme of prophecy of the Advent of Christ
impress itself upon the Church, along with the survival, however, of
other earlier themes. The early Church rested no claims upon the alleged
prophecy, but rather remarkably ignored it in a theological atmosphere
surcharged with Messianism. The great Catholic chronographers naturally
attacked the subject with scientific zeal, but their efforts as well as
those of all subsequent chronographers (including the great Scalinger
and Sir Isaac Newton) have failed.489

In other words, Montgomery, for all of his scholarship and knowledge of
the history of interpretation, ends up with no reasonable interpretation
at all.

Some conservative scholars have done no better, however, as illustrated
in the commentary of Edward Young. Although treating the Scriptures with
reverence, he finds no satisfactory conclusion for the seventy sevens of
the prophecy and leaves it more or less like Montgomery without a
satisfactory explanation.490

The conservative interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 usually regards the
time units as years. The decision is, however, by no means unanimous.
Some amillenarians, like Young, who have trouble with fitting this into
their system of eschatology consider this an indefinite period of time.
Actually, the passage does not say "years"; and because it is
indefinite, they consider the question somewhat open. Further, as Young
points out, the word sevens is in the masculine plural instead of the
usual feminine plural. No clear explanation is given except that Young
feels "it was for the deliberate purpose of calling attention to the
fact that the word sevens is employed in an unusual sense."491

Most commentators agree that the time unit is not days. Further, the
fact that there were seventy years of captivity, discussed earlier in
the chapter, would seem to imply that years were also here in view. The
interpretation of years at least is preferable to days as Young
comments, "The brief period of 490 days would not serve to meet the
needs of the prophecy, upon any view. Hence, as far as the present
writer knows, this view is almost universally rejected."492 Young
finally concludes after some discussion that Keil and Kliefoth are
correct when they hold that the word sevens does not necessarily mean
year-weeks, but "an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of
time measured by the number seven, which chronological duration must be
determined on other grounds."493

With this point of view, Leupold, an amillenarian, also agrees: "Since
the week of creation, 'seven' has always been the mark of divine work in
the symbolism of numbers. 'Seventy' contains seven multiplied by ten,
which, being a round number, signifies perfection, completion.
Therefore, 'seventy heptads'--7x7x10--is the period in which the divine
work of greatest moment is brought to perfection. There is nothing
fantastic or unusual about this to the interpreter who has seen how
frequently the symbolism of numbers plays a significant part in the
Scriptures."494

Some amillenarians, however, use a literal year time unit for the first
sixty-nine weeks but an indefinite period for the last seven years, as
in the case of Philip Mauro (see pp. 232-37). In view of the precision
of the seventy years of the captivity, however, mentioned in the same
chapter, the context indicates the probability of a more literal
intention in the revelation.

To be added to the non-Christological interpretation of Young is that of
orthodox Jewry which concludes that the period ends with the destruction
of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. This, of course, also does not give an adequate
explanation of the text.

The overwhelming consensus of scholarship, however, agrees that the time
unit should be considered years. It is normal for lexicographical
authorities in the field of Hebrew to define the time unit as "period of
seven (days, years)," and "heptad, weeks."495

Otto Zöckler, Professor of Theology in the University of Greifswald in
Prussia in the 19th century, argued at length from the internal
evidences within Daniel that the Hebrew term translated "week" denotes a
period of seven years:

This cannot possibly denote seventy weeks in the ordinary sense, or 490
days; for the number has an obvious relation to the seventy years of
Jeremiah, 5:2, and the brief limit of 490 days is not suited to serve as
a mystical paraphrase of the period of three and a half years. Moreover,
according to the descriptions in chapters 7 and 8, the three and a half
years were throughout a period of suffering and oppression, while in
5:25 et seq. the latter and more extended subdivision (amounting to
sixty-two weeks) of the seventy weeks is characterized as being
comparatively free from sufferings. Finally, the three and a half years
evidently reappear in 5:27, in the form of the "half-week" during which
the sacrifices and oblations were to cease, etc.: and this undeniable
identity of the small fraction at the end of the seventy weeks with the
three and a half years of tribulation, heretofore described, removes it
beyond the reason of doubt that the seventy weeks are to be regarded as
seventy weeks of years, and therefore as an amplification of the seventy
years of Jeremiah.496

In view of the great variety of opinions which find no Christological
fulfillment at all in this passage, the interpreter necessarily must
approach the Christological interpretation with some caution. Here
again, however, diversity of opinion is found even though there is
general agreement that the prophecy somehow relates to the Messiah of
Israel. Christological interpretations divide again into two major
categories. All Christological interpretations tend to interpret the
first sixty-nine sevens as literal. The division comes on the
interpretation of the seventieth seven. Amillenarians generally regard
the seventieth seven as following immediately after the sixty-ninth
seven and, therefore, is already fulfilled in history. The other point
of view regards the seventieth seven as separated from the earlier
sequence of years and scheduled for fulfillment in the future in the
seven years preceding the second advent of Christ. Although many minor
variations can be found, the principal question in the Christological
interpretation of this text concerns the nature of fulfillment of the
last seven years.

In the Christological interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, it is generally
assumed that the time units indicated are years. The English word
"weeks" is misleading as the Hebrew is actually the plural of the word
for seven, without specifying whether it is days, months, or years. The
only system of interpretation, however, that gives any literal meaning
to this prophecy is to regard the time units as prophetic years of 360
days each according to the Jewish custom of having years of 360 days
with an occasional extra month inserted to correct the calendar as
needed. The seventy times seven is, therefore, 490 years with the
beginning at the time of "the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem" found in verse 25 and the culmination 490 years later in
verse 27. Before detailing the events to be found in the first 483 years
(sixty-nine times seven), the events between the sixty-ninth seven and
the seventieth seven, and the final seven years, Daniel gives the
overall picture in verse 24. Careful attention must be given to the
precise character of this important foundational prophecy.

The prophetic period of time in question is declared to be "determined."
This involves the assumption of a comprehensive plan of God in which
future events are rendered certain and conceived of as a part of an
overall plan which is being executed by God.

A very important aspect of the prophecy given at the start is that the
period of time in question relates to "thy people" and "thy holy city."
Even in ruins, Jerusalem remains the city set apart in the heart of God
(cf. 9:20) and Daniel shared this love for the city which is central in
God's program for His kingdom both in the past and the future. Unlike
the prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, and 8, which primarily related to the
Gentiles, this chapter is specifically God's program for the people of
Israel, as Daniel would obviously interpret it. To make this equivalent
to the church composed of both Jews and Gentiles is to read into the
passage something foreign to the whole thinking of Daniel. The church as
such has no relation to the city nor to the promises given specifically
to Israel relating to their restoration and repossession of the land.

Once it has been established that the prophecy relates to the people of
Israel and the holy city Jerusalem, six important purposes of God are
clearly discerned in verse 24: (1) "to finish the transgression"; (2)
"to make an end of sins"; (3) "to make reconciliation for iniquity"; (4)
"to bring in everlasting righteousness"; (5) "to seal up the vision and
prophecy"; and (6) "to anoint the most Holy."

These six items, to be completed in the seventy sevens of Daniel 9:24,
are comprehensive in nature. Some expositors, like Young, attempt to
find three negative results, namely, "to finish the transgression," "to
make an end of sins," and "to make reconciliation for iniquity." By
contrast, the positive accomplishments would be "to bring in everlasting
righteousness," "to seal up the vision and prophecy," and "to anoint the
most Holy." This obviously is an arbitrary division, because "to make
reconciliation for iniquity" is a positive rather than a negative act
and, on the contrary, "to seal up the vision and prophecy" is probably
negative instead of positive.497 The preferable approach is to take each
on its own merits.

The first three, however, do deal with sin named in three ways: "the
transgression," "sins," and "iniquity." Although a great variety of
interpretations are possible, as the text itself does not explain the
terminology, the general idea can be ascertained. In the period of the
seventy sevens, first will be a program to finish the transgression. The
expression to finish is derived from the piel verb form of the root
ka„la‚ meaning "to finish" in the sense of bringing to an end. The most
obvious meaning is that Israel's course of apostasy and sin and
wandering over the face of the earth will be brought to completion
within the seventy sevens. The restoration of Israel which Daniel sought
in his prayer will ultimately have its fulfillment in this concept.

The second aspect of the program, "to make an end of sins," may be taken
either in the sense of taking away sins or bringing sin to final
judgment.498 Due to a variation in textual reading, another possibility
is to translate it "to seal up sin."499

Keil translates this aspect, "to seal up sin," and states, "The figure
of the sealing stands here in connection with the shutting up in prison.
Cf. ch.6:18, the king for greater security sealed up the den into which
Daniel was cast. Thus also God seals the hand of man that it cannot
move, Job 37:7, and the stars that cannot give light, Job 9:7... The
sins are here described as sealed, because they are altogether removed
out of the sight of God."500

The final explanation may include all of these items because the
eschatological conclusion of Israel's history does indeed bring an end
to their previous transgressions, brings their sin into judgment, and
also introduces the element of forgiveness.

The third aspect of the program, "to make reconciliation for iniquity,"
seems to be a rather clear picture of the Cross of Christ in which
Christ reconciled Israel as well as the world to Himself (2 Co 5:19). As
far as the Old Testament revelation of reconciliation is concerned,
lexicographers and theologians have understood the Hebrew word kippe„r
when used in relation to sin to mean to "cover," to "wipe out," to
"make... as harmless, non-existent, or inoperative, to annul (so far as
God's notice or regard is concerned), to withdraw from God's sight, with
the attached ideas of reinstating in His favour, freeing from sin, and
restoring to holiness."501

While the basic provision for reconciliation was made at the cross, the
actual application of it is again associated with the second advent of
Christ as far as Israel is concerned, and an eschatological explanation
is possible for this phase as well as an historic fulfillment.

George N. H. Peters relates Christ's sacrifice to the kingdom
specifically:

Following the Word step by step, it will be found that the sacrifice
forms an eternal basis for the Kingdom itself. For it constitutes the
Theocratic King a Saviour who now saves from sin without violation or
lessening of the law, He having died "the just for the unjust," and even
qualifies Him as such a King, so that in virtue of His obedience unto
death He is given authority over all enemies, and to restore all
things... The sacrifice affects the restoration of the Jewish nation;
but when the happy time comes that they shall look upon Him whom they
have pierced, faith in that sacrifice shall also in them bring forth the
peaceable fruits of righteousness. The allegiance of the nations, and
all of the Millennial and New Jerusalem descriptions are realized as
resultants flowing from 'this sacrifice being duly appreciated and
gratefully, yea joyfully, acknowledged. It is out of the inexhaustible
fountain from whence the abundant mercies of God flow to a world
redeemed by it.502

The fourth aspect of the program is "to bring in everlasting
righteousness." There is a sense in which this also is accomplished by
Christ in His first coming in that He provided a righteous ground for
God's justification of the sinner. The many Messianic passages, however,
which view righteousness as being applied to the earth at the time of
the second coming of Christ may be the ultimate explanation. Jeremiah,
for instance, stated, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I
will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and
prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his
days, Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is
his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Jer
23:5-6). The righteous character of the Messianic kingdom is pictured in
Isaiah 11:2-5 (cf. Is 53:11; Jer 33:15-18).

The fifth aspect of the program, "to seal up the vision and prophecy,"
is probably best understood to mean the termination of unusual direct
revelation by means of vision and oral prophecy. The expression to seal
up indicates that no more is to be added and that what has been
predicted will receive divine confirmation and recognition in the form
of actual fulfillment. Once a letter is sealed, its contents are
irreversible (cf. 6:8). Young applies this only to the Old Testament
prophet,503 but it is preferable to include in it the cessation of the
New Testament prophetic gift seen both in oral prophecy and in the
writing of the Scriptures. If the seventieth week is still
eschatological, it would allow room for this interpretation which Young,
attempting to interpret the entire prophecy as fulfilled, could not
allow.

The sixth aspect of the prophecy, "to anoint the most Holy," has been
referred to the dedication of the temple built by Zerubbabel, to the
sanctification of the altar previously desecrated by Antiochus (1 Macc
4:52-56), and even to the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:1-27).504 Young suggests
that it refers to Christ Himself as anointed by the Spirit.505 Keil and
Leupold prefer to refer it to the new holy of holies in the new
Jerusalem (Rev 21:l-3).506 A. C. Gaebelein, expressing a premillennial
view, believes the phrase "has nothing whatever to do with Him [Christ],
but it is the anointing of the Holy of Holies in another temple, which
will stand in the midst of Jerusalem," that is, the millennial
temple.507

========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/speakers/john-f-walvoord/the-prophecy-of-the-seventy-weeks/
========================================================================