Some time ago, I had an interesting conversation with a professor who teaches at a conservative Christian college. He wanted to “straighten me out” about the interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27—the portion of Scripture that contains the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks—which I expound in my book Daniel Unsealed. He assumed that I had not read and studied the literally hundreds of Daniel expositions available in the commentaries and study Bibles in print today, since he proceeded to recount the traditional interpretation of Daniel 9 to me as if I were a first-year seminary student. I listened patiently while he repeated the same worn narrative that has been handed down for generations—like an heirloom of error, polished by repetition and protected by reputation.
The traditional exposition he presented uses a Persian decree to anchor the prophecy in history and substitutes seven years for each “week” in the prophecy. Rather than point out that this approach contains numerous chronological details that do not align with either the biblical text or documented history (that’s the big “secret” about older Daniel interpretations in conservative circles that no one seems to want to discuss—the chronology doesn’t add up), I decided to focus on a serious weak point in his exposition, hoping to encourage him to examine the traditional view more critically rather than simply repeating long-standing interpretive assumptions.
As is customary in virtually all traditional interpretations of Daniel 9:24–27—those still circulating in conservative Bible-believing circles today, including the respected works of Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes, John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Sir Robert Anderson, Arno C. Gaebelein, Clarence Larkin, H. A. Ironside, John F. Walvoord, Leon J. Wood, and Edward J. Young, among others—the professor had, like so many before him, quietly merged the seven-week division of Daniel 9:25 into the sixty-two weeks, treating them as one unbroken span of 483 years. That habitual simplification, passed along more from deference than from exegesis, has endured largely unchallenged—an interpretive tradition considered sacrosanct with the kind of polite acceptance that too often substitutes for genuine understanding.
Setting aside other errors in his exposition, I zeroed in on the seven-week period and asked him to step back and explain its meaning:
- What year in history did the seven weeks begin?
- What year did they end?
- What specific events marked their beginning and end?
- Where are those events documented in the biblical or historical record?
It has been a dozen years since I posed those questions, and the professor has yet to respond. The reason is simple: he can’t. His traditional exposition, like so many others, offers no real explanation for the seven weeks. At best, it relies on speculation. Some commentators guess that the seven weeks end with the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls, often dated around 409 BCE. Still, they offer no solid documentation from Scripture or history to support that year. As the late Dr. Leon Wood of Grand Rapids Bible Seminary admitted in his Daniel commentary, “Details are lacking for certainty.”
But that is not good enough. The Bible and its prophecies gain their authority through certainty. Vague approximations and speculative interpretations do not do justice to the precise, time-bound predictions God has given in his Word. To interpret chrono-specific prophecy with guesswork is to say, in effect, “We really don’t know what it means.” But that cannot be the case if the prophecy is truly from God. I contend that the division into seven and sixty-two weeks in verse 25 was given deliberately, with purpose and meaning. And if God gave it for our understanding, then a faithful exposition must explain each division clearly and with reference to identifiable historical events.
It should be apparent to any Bible-believing reader: if an expositor cannot explain the meaning of the seven-week division in Daniel 9:25 with clarity and documentation, then the reliability of his or her entire interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27 is brought into question. This is the case with virtually all modern expositions of Daniel 9. Check your commentary or study Bible. If it does not provide a detailed explanation of the seven-week division—with a clear starting point, ending point, and historical corroboration—then it is based on guesswork. In contrast, I do offer a complete and specific explanation in my books. I maintain that the seven weeks represent seven Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) festivals, one each year, aligned with the seven-year sabbatical cycle observed by ancient Jews from 42 BCE to 36 BCE. This interpretation anchors the prophecy in real time and helps locate the prediction about the arrival of the Messiah in chapter 9 with precision.
(See the chart of The Seventy Weeks.)
In the Conclusion of my book Daniel Unsealed, I write:
“Of course, the interpretations set forth in this book, inasmuch as they fully explain the chrono-specific prophecies in Daniel by matching their biblical texts to events documented in history, constitute a challenge to the field of biblical eschatology. Bible-believing Bible scholars (and, fortunately, there are still a few of them around) will need to reexamine basic assumptions about their sequence of end-time events, and do so without using a framework of future events from the Danielic prophecies to build upon. That process will be troubling for the most conservative eschatologists among us, especially when they realize that some of their more cherished eschatological assumptions may have to be adjusted as a result.
For non-Bible-believing Bible scholars (and, unfortunately, there are all too many of them around), the actuality of revelatory predictive prophecy validated by later fulfillment in history—a sure sign of the reality of divine providence—will now have to be incorporated into their anti-theistic academic approaches to biblical exposition. Sadly, even with the overwhelming evidence provided by the Danielic prophecies and their fulfillments, admitting the concept of transcendence into the halls of academia may be considered too risky for those biblical scholars who choose to remain wise in the eyes of their peers.
As for Jewish scholars and religious professionals, the challenge offered by the new interpretations presented in this book will be even greater still. The chronological preciseness of the prophecy in Daniel, chapter 9, demands that serious consideration be given to the evidence that Jesus, in whose name Jews have been unjustly persecuted and killed for almost two-thousand years, was, is, and will again be the Anointed One foretold by Moses and the prophets in the Tanakh.
Indeed, it is quite possible—even probable, in your author’s opinion—that the chrono-specific predictive prophecies in Daniel have been unsealed by God at this time in history according to his promise (Dan. 12:4,9), working his will through the recalled people of modern Israel—even as a nation recalled in unbelief—especially for the edification of the Jewish people, to allow them to understand the Holy One of Israel in the manner the Scriptures ordain they will acknowledge and worship him at the time of the end.”
As long as incorrect interpretations of Daniel’s chrono-specific predictive prophecies continue to be taught in seminaries and preached from pulpits around the world, the power and precision of God’s Word will be diminished accordingly. So here and now, I am calling on all Bible scholars, professors, preachers, teachers, and anyone else who expounds Daniel to acknowledge that the traditional interpretations of Daniel’s prophecies do not align with both the biblical text and documented history. And I invite each of you—honestly and prayerfully—to examine the new and correct interpretations of Daniel’s prophecies as presented in my commentary, Daniel Unsealed.
I make no claim of personal brilliance, nor do I imagine that I have discovered what others could not. If any clarity has emerged from my study, it is because the same Spirit who inspired the prophets still illuminates their words for those who seek understanding in faith. As Paul wrote, “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise” (1 Cor. 1:27). My role has simply been to listen—to follow where Scripture and the Spirit lead, even when that path departs from well-worn tradition.
If you want to read an exposition of the Daniel prophecies that does not rely on the incorrect chronology that arose out of 19th-century Christianity but instead one that shows exact fulfillment of the biblical text and total agreement with documented history, see my book Daniel Unsealed.