As the name implies, futurists believe that most prophecies concerning the end times are yet to be fulfilled. Though there are several distinctive positions among futurists in general, this commentary will consider the Premillenial Pretribulational view. Simply put, those holding to this view believe that the second coming of Christ will happen just before the millennial period and that the rapture will occur before the Great Tribulation. For the purposes of this paper Philip Mauro's book The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation will be used representatively for the preterist view and Stephen R. Miller's commentary on Daniel will be used to represent the futurist view.

Context

            Now while 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 in behalf of the holy mountain of my God, while I was still speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision previously, came to me in my extreme weariness about the time of the evening offering. He gave me instruction and talked with me and said, "O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding. "At the beginning of your supplications the command was issued, and I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed; so give heed to the message and gain understanding of the vision (Dan. 9:20- 23).[1]

            Chapter nine begins with Daniel's lengthy and heartfelt confession, prayer, and plea for mercy for the nation of Israel. As the text above indicates, in the midst of this supplication Daniel is interrupted by the angel Gabriel who has been sent to him with an answer to his prayers. The stated purpose for Gabriel's visit is to give "insight with understanding" concerning the future of Daniel's people. This passage provides the immediate context for the next several verses; Daniel has importuned the Lord on behalf of his people and God has decided to reveal his plans for the nation of Israel to his "highly esteemed" one. From this context it would seem that what is to follow is a prophecy concerning the nation of Israel in particular since it was this nation that Daniel was specifically praying about.

v. 24

            Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place (Dan. 9:24).

            The angel Gabriel now proceeds to declare to Daniel the sovereign plan of God concerning Daniel's people and city. The seventy weeks described here are generally taken by both preterists and futurists alike to mean seventy sevens of years, or 490 years. For example, Miller, representing the futurist view, notes that "'seven' is best interpreted to represent seven years, and 'seventy sevens' would equal 490 years,"[2] and Mauro, speaking for most preterists, agrees, "The word here rendered 'weeks' is literally 'sevens'; so there is no doubt that the period designated in this prophecy is seventy sevens of years?490 years."[3] But this is where agreement between the two camps over this verse ends. Futurists insist that the second half of the statement makes it clear that the 490 years are to apply particularly to Daniel's "people," the Jews, and his "holy city," Jerusalem, whereas it is common for preterist scholars to symbolize Daniel's "people" as referring to some kind of a spiritual Israel, the church, and his "holy city" as the heavenly Jerusalem.[4] Though it is certainly possible for text to have the future church and a kind of heavenly Jerusalem in view, it does not seem likely from the context. Again, Daniel was praying for his people, the Jews, and his city, Jerusalem, and the text has Gabriel deliberately reiterating these designations as if to reinforce the fact that the prophecy concerns Israel and her most prominent city.

            Gabriel then describes the purpose of the seventy weeks by setting out six distinct accomplishments to be achieved during this period of time. The nature of these six accomplishments is the subject of much debate between preterists and futurists. Characteristically, preterists espouse the position that each of the six goals were completed by AD 70 at the latest while futurists insist on a yet future and final fulfillment of the events.

            The first goal of the seventy weeks is "to finish the transgression." Miller maintains the classic futurist interpretation of this statement understanding it to describe a complete end to humanity's sin. He maintains that human transgression was not "finished" after the crucifixion of Jesus, demonstrated by nearly two millennium saturated with human sin, and therefore must await a future fulfillment in the second coming of Christ.[5] Mauro also interprets this first stated goal as referring to the completion of transgression, although his understanding of the nature and subject of the transgression differs greatly. According to his view, the transgression is that of Israel and the rebellious Jewish people in general. Israel's great apostasy from Yahweh would be finally completed, or crowned, with the greatest act of sin yet: the rejection and crucifixion of Messiah. In other words, "the transgression" of Israel was accomplished with the Crucifixion.[6]

            Gabriel declares that the second goal of the seventy weeks is "to make an end of sin." Miller sees this second accomplishment as a reiteration and broadening of the first whereby sin can be understood as a more general term than transgression. In any case, the argument for a future fulfillment of this goal is the same; it is to be accomplished in the second coming of Christ and especially in the eternal state.[7] Though some preterists maintain that this phrase should be translated "to make an end of sin-offering," with the obvious implication of the abrogation of the sacrificial system with the death of Christ, Mauro concludes that such an interpretation is unwarranted. Nevertheless, he agrees with the majority of preterists that the "end of sin" refers to the atonement whereby God provided "a complete remedy for sin."[8]

            Next is the phrase "to make atonement for iniquity." Interestingly, Miller finds fulfillment for this goal in the atonement at Christ's first advent. Though sin will be completely ended only after the second advent of Jesus, it is in the atonement that God provided a means whereby he could forgive and still be just. "All the blessings of the coming kingdom of God have been made possible by what Christ accomplished at Calvary," says Miller.[9] Despite the fact that Mauro prefers the translation "reconciliation" over "atonement," he nonetheless agrees with Miller that this accomplishment is now passed, having been settled at the cross.[10]

            The fourth stated goal of the seventy weeks is "to bring in everlasting righteousness." After a brief visit to the first century Miller is back to the culmination of history finding fulfillment for this universal righteousness at the end of the seventy sevens which he believes to be the period of the second coming on into the eternal state. He notes that it is specifically Israel as a nation that will receive a permanent right relationship with God.[11] Not surprisingly, Mauro looks again to the cross for the accomplishment of this goal. The righteousness achieved on our behalf by Christ and in Christ is an "everlasting righteousness" that will never run out or be devalued.[12]

            The next stated goal of the seventy weeks seems to change subjects dramatically: "to seal up vision and prophecy." Miller describes two possible meanings for this phrase, "'To seal' may refer to the closing up of a document, for in ancient times a scroll was rolled up and sealed shut for preservation. A seal was additionally employed as a mark of authentication by a king or other official."[13] So according to Miller, Gabriel is here indicating that either "these forms of revelation would be closed," or that "God will someday set his seal of authentication upon every truly God-given revelation by bringing about its complete fulfillment."[14] Miller does not explain what exactly he means by "forms of revelation." Some futurists prefer to understand the statement as a promise of preservation and fulfillment. Thus, this phrase could refer to the fact that the vision and prophecy would be preserved until its definite fulfillment. Mauro understands the phrase "seal up" as referring to the hearts and minds of the Jews at the time of Christ rather than to the visions and prophecies received by Daniel. In his view the sealing was a "judicial blindness" upon Israel which prevented them from understanding the visions and words of the prophets who had foretold the coming of Messiah in Scripture. This blindness was to last until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.[15] Some preterists believe the statement to mean that at the end of the 490 years, culminating in the first century, all of the prophecies and visions of the Bible would be fulfilled, or "sealed up."

            The final goal of the seventy weeks is "to anoint the most holy place." Miller concurs with the NASB translation of "holy place" noting that the Hebrew here literally reads "holy of holies." In Miller's view a future temple is most likely intended, probably the one described by the prophet Ezekiel in Ezek. 40-48. This coincides with the common futurist-dispensational view that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem and "consecrated for service at the onset of the millennium."[16] Yet again, Mauro is in complete agreement that the proper translation should be "holy place" but differs over the identification of said place. Mauro is absolutely convinced that the fulfillment of this prophecy took place at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples of Christ, on the day of Pentecost, thereby anointing a spiritual temple "the temple of the living God.'" Obviously, Mauro's temple is not a literal edifice but a spiritual one.[17]

            In response to the two positions represented by Miller and Mauro concerning the first verse of Daniel's seventy weeks several observations can be made. First, there is widespread agreement, though less than unanimous, concerning the interpretation of the seventy weeks as 490 literal years. Second, the difference between the futurist and preterist view has been clearly demonstrated from this point through the rest of the verse. Miller understands five of the six goals as having a future fulfillment no earlier than the return of Christ. Mauro, on the other hand, places the fulfillment of all six goals within the roughly two month period between the crucifixion week and the outpouring at Pentecost. The disparity here is one of nearly 2000 years and counting. At this point it is difficult to give one position the interpretive edge over the other since both have accounted for the elements in the verse in a satisfactory way. The first four stated goals of the seventy weeks do seem to find fulfillment in the crucifixion and atonement of Christ. Christ became the end of sin, made atonement for iniquity, and has made everlasting righteousness now available for all those who put their trust in him. Of course, there is also a valid sense that the ultimate manifestation of these events is yet to be accomplished, as the futurists point out. It is possible that both preterists and futurists have touched on some truth here. After all, the New Testament does reflect ubiquitously the "already?not yet" aspect of the kingdom of God.

            The statement "to seal up of vision and prophecy" seems rather vague and both approaches have possible explanations. However, it is with the sixth goal that the futurists seemingly have a superior angle, though not overwhelmingly so. It is difficult to avoid the connotation of a literal temple when one hears the phrase "holy of holies." And, as was noted already, the context seems to demand that the seventy weeks be applied to Israel and Jerusalem specifically. It is certainly possible to understand the phrase "your people" as referring to the people of God in general, including the church, but this is information that Daniel would have lacked. One could also spiritualize the phrase "holy of holies" and apply it to the church as the "living temple" of God in the New Testament which houses the presence of the Holy Spirit, but there does not seem to be any indication in the text that such spiritualizing should be done.

v. 25

            So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress (Dan. 9:25).

            Verse twenty five is crucial to this passage because it sets out the markers for the time element in the prophecy. Gabriel informs Daniel that the seventy weeks of years is to be divided into three parts, (1) a forty-nine year period beginning with a command to rebuild Jerusalem followed by (2) a 434 year period that will conclude with the appearance of "Messiah the Prince" and (3) a yet to be explained seven year period to make a total of 490 years. The controversy over this verse begins when determining the starting point of the forty-nine year period and the ending point of the 434 year period.

            Those who interpret the seventy weeks as a literal 490 years have offered multiple alternatives for the starting date of the first sixty-nine week period or 483 years?seven sevens plus sixty-two sevens. Miller surveys two prevailing views on the matter. The first view, and the one Miller espouses, is that the starting date of the first seven sevens should be 458 BC with the decree of Artaxerxes I to Ezra. This decree allowed Ezra and other exiles to return to Jerusalem for the reestablishment of Jewish worship and religious practices. As Miller readily admits, this decree had to do specifically with the religious life of Jerusalem and the temple, but said nothing whatever about rebuilding the actual city.[18] Nevertheless, this view is very popular largely because the numbers work out so well. Miller points out that, "if this view is correct, 483 years after 458 B.C. would result in a date of A.D. 26, the time when many scholars believe Christ was baptized and began his public ministry as the Messiah. Jesus' anointing for ministry came at his baptism (cf. Matt. 3:16); thus he became the "Anointed One" at that time, an amazing fulfillment of prophecy."[19]

            The second possible starting point is with the second decree of Artaxerxes I issued to Nehemiah in 445 BC. At this date the Persian king sends Nehemiah to Jerusalem, which had already received Jewish exiles from the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC and the above noted first decree of Artaxerxes I in 458 BC, with the specific task of rebuilding the city itself. It is important to note that this is the only decree that included a direct command to rebuild Jerusalem (Neh. 2:5). This fact is persuasive and has convinced many scholars to begin the first seven sevens at this date. But Miller argues against this position claiming that a starting date of 445 BC would place the conclusion of the 483 years, or first sixty-nine weeks, at AD 39, a date well after the time of Christ. Though he does not accept the harmonization, Miller acknowledges that if the years of the prophecy are 360 prophetic days rather than 365 days, then the ending date would be AD 33, a possible year for both the triumphal entry and crucifixion of Christ. There is precedence for the practice of rounding prophetic years off at 360 days in Scripture and even elsewhere in the book of Daniel itself, a fact that Miller also recognizes. It would seem that Miller's primary objection to the 445 BC date has to do with his rejection of AD 33 as the date of Christ's crucifixion, preferring the date of AD 30 instead.[20]

            Mauro offers a third alternative for the starting date of the sixty-nine weeks. His argument is long and complex, and a truncated summary will be sufficient to evaluate his view. According to Mauro, the prophet Isaiah makes it absolutely clear that it is Cyrus who ultimately sends the Jews home to rebuild Jerusalem: "He will build My city and will let My exiles go free (Isa. 45:13)." Since Mauro does not symbolize the seventy weeks but considers them to equal a literal 490 years, the only way to make the 483 years stretch from Cyrus to Christ is to reject the classic dates given for the Persian monarchs, and this he does. Mauro demands that we start with Christ and work backwards, assigning a date for the reign of Cyrus 483 years before the baptism of Christ in the Jordan River.[21]

            Each of these propositions can be held by preterists or futurists who accept a literal 490 year period; their eschatological perspectives do not seem to demand disparity over this particular issue. In response, the most plausible starting date for this prophecy seems to be 445 BC, the second decree of Artaxerxes I. Simply put, only here do we find an explicit "decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" which was a task charged to Nehemiah. It is certainly possible to understand the years to be rounded prophetic years of 360 days, and the date of Christ's crucifixion is a matter of great debate and is by no means settled; scholars are divided over the dates of AD 30 and 33. Artaxerxes' first decree in 458 BC simply does not mention the rebuilding of Jerusalem, nor is there any indication that Ezra or his fellow returnees engaged in that task. Mauro's theory does not seem likely as it flies squarely in the face of accepted history concerning the length of Persian dominance. His argument from Isaiah is also tenuous because, though Cyrus is said to be called by God to resettle and rebuild Jerusalem, there is no record of him giving a "decree" to that end. Mauro references the writings of Josephus for historical information about such a decree from Cyrus, but here he is patently inconsistent, accepting the veracity of Josephus' histories while rejecting the "pagan" histories relating to the time span of Persian rule; this is a clear case of special pleading. The prophecy in Isaiah is better understood to mean that God would use Cyrus to end the Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people which would ultimately lead to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Therefore, it is unlikely that Cyrus is a candidate for issuing the decree that begins the first 483 year period.

            Apart from the issue regarding the starting point of the prophecy, there seems to be relative agreement over the other elements in this verse. As is the case with Miller and Mauro, most scholars identify the phrase "Messiah the Prince" as a clear reference to Jesus Christ who is called the "Prince of Peace" in Isa. 9:6. Likewise, the phrases "it will be built again," and "even in times of distress," seem to refer unambiguously to the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under the leadership of Nehemiah. The book of Ezra/Nehemiah chronicles this endeavor and the "distress" caused by neighboring enemies of Israel who tried to thwart the reconstruction of Jerusalem rigorously. Nehemiah recounts that his men had to work with a tool in one hand and a sword in the other because of the constant threat of attack.

            But what of the phrase "with plaza and moat?" Miller is very helpful here. He explains that the word "plaza" in Hebrew describes a broad street or square in a city where the markets would be located. The city plaza was also the place where town assemblies or gatherings would occur. Miller next discusses the Hebrew word translated "moat" in the NASB. He notes that there are several ways to understand this term. For example, it could be that (1) a literal canal of water surrounding the city is intended, (2) a trench cut into the rock below the city walls to make them higher and thus more formidable is meant, (3) the word may have originally been "wall" or "street," similar words in Hebrew that may have been miscopied by scribes, or (4) the Dead Sea Copper Scroll is correct which employs the Hebrew word for "conduit" instead of "moat" to describe the water system within Jerusalem.[22] The only option above that seems implausible is the first, for there is no record of the city of Jerusalem ever being surrounded by a moat.  

v. 26

            Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined (Dan. 9:26).

            The first statement here concerning the cutting off of Messiah is one portion of this verse where futurists and preterists are in relative unanimity. "Relative" is the operative word in this instance because the general agreement begins and ends with the identification of "the Messiah" as Christ and the phrase "will be cut off" as referring to the crucifixion. There is also broad consensus that the words "and have nothing" speak to the reality of the state of Christianity immediately after the crucifixion of Christ, but before his resurrection. When Christ died, he literally had nothing: no more fame, no more following, no progeny or heirs. To the former disciples of Christ, who had expected him to liberate Israel from Rome, it seemed as if the ministry and life of Jesus was an utter failure. This, of course, radically changed after he rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples, but in a real sense Christ died with "nothing."

            The text indicates that the crucifixion will happen "after the sixty-two weeks," clearly indicating that this event would follow the first 483 year period. Futurists believe that the crucifixion of Christ and the rest of the events of this verse transpire within a gap of time between the first sixty-nine week period and the final seven week period yet to be described. Preterists generally include the crucifixion of Christ within the final seventieth week of years. As for the rest of this verse, preterists have devised several theories concerning where these events fall in relation to the 490 years.

            As all futurists do, Miller considers the crucifixion of Christ to have taken place after the end of the first sixty-nine sevens, though he comments that the text does not indicate precisely how much later the Messiah would be "cut off." The rest of the verse also occurs after the first 483 year period, but before the final seven years, thus introducing a gap between the sixty-ninth week and the seventieth week, as Miller explains, "Christ's crucifixion and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 would occur after the sixty-ninth seven, but not during the seventieth week, revealing a gap between these sevens."[23] In his view the gap of time in this prophecy demonstrates a common and well-accepted characteristic of prophetic perspective where entire blocks of time between events are sometimes not perceived by the prophet.[24] For Miller, who is a dispensationalist, this gap constitutes the "church age" which acts as a kind of parentheses in the plan of God concerning the nation of Israel and the Jewish people. When the current dispensation is over, God will again deal with Israel, and the final seven year period, the seventieth week of years, will finally begin.

            Miller also understands the statement "and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" from a classic futurist perspective. Here is an amazing prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in response to the Jewish uprising which began in AD 66. Notice, it is not the coming prince who destroys the city, rather it is the "people" of the yet coming prince. Miller identifies the "people" as the Romans and the "prince" as a "future persecutor of Israel during the seventieth seven" who would "come out of the peoples and nations that made up the ancient Roman Empire."[25] The identification of the "prince who is to come" is crucial in this verse and in futurist interpretation generally. This individual is none other than the coming Antichrist who will oppose the Jewish people in the final week of the prophecy.

            There seems to be more disagreement here among preterists than among futurists. Though other preterist interpretations may differ in detail, Mauro's general analysis of this verse may be taken as a representative approach within his hermeneutical camp. Rather than locating the crucifixion of Christ in a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week, Mauro assigns this event to the final week of the prophecy. In fact, Christ's death is the culmination and completion of the entire 490 year period described by Gabriel; the entire seventy weeks prophecy of Dan. 9:24-27, including the six stated goals to be accomplished during this period, is completed with the crucifixion. As noted above, Mauro understands the first sixty-nine year period to end with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist around AD 26. This event simultaneously marked the end of the previous sixty-nine sevens and the beginning of the final seven. In his view this final week was completed during the three and one-half year ministry of Christ.[26] Further discussion of Mauro's view of the seventieth week must await examination of the next verse.

            After the Messiah is "cut off" the seventy weeks of years is officially ended, and what follows in this verse, namely the destruction of Jerusalem, happens outside of the prophesied period?some forty years later in actual fact. Much like the futurists, Mauro sees no problem with the destruction of Jerusalem occurring outside of the seventy weeks. He contends that "while the destruction of the re-built city and temple was also predicted, that event is not among the things which were to happen within the seventy weeks."[27] In other words, the destruction of Jerusalem was prophesied with the seventy week period, just not within the seventy week period. In one sense Mauro's identification of "the people of the prince who is to come" is more straightforward and simpler than Miller's. Mauro thinks it obvious that "the people" are the Roman legions who sacked Jerusalem and "the prince" is their leader, the Roman general Titus. It is a matter of historical fact that Titus, son of the emperor Vespasian and "prince" in relation to the throne, led the Roman army which destroyed "the city and the sanctuary" just one generation after the crucifixion of Christ.[28]

            Again, there is some agreement between futurists and preterists over the rest of the verse. Nearly everyone understands the final statements as speaking to the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Miller interprets the rest of the verse as most do. The phrase "its end" refers to the end of the city. The word "flood" is used figuratively to describe the utter devastation of the city at the hands of the Roman soldiers who plundered and burned Jerusalem to the ground. The statement "even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined" is taken by Miller to mean that this war and desolation was determined by God as punishment on the nation of Israel, a punishment so severe it would end only with the complete eradication of the ancient city.[29]

            The commonality between preterists and futurists over this verse is far more interesting than the disparity. Though they differ as to when the events described here are to occur or have occurred in relation to the 490 years, they are in agreement over a crucial fact: the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 did not occur within any of the seventy sevens. Whereas futurists place this event between the prophesied weeks of years, preterists typically place it after the prophesied weeks of years. And yet it is precisely here where the most controversial and hotly debated element of futurist interpretation is found: the gap. The gap between the sixty-ninth seven and the seventieth seven is better described as a yawning valley in futurist interpretation, for it covers a period of nearly twenty centuries.

            The criticism from the preterist camp over this idea seems unwarranted in light of their own interpretation. Many preterists are happy to acknowledge that the seventy week prophecy included more events than were contained in those weeks. In fact, it would seem that they too have their own gap between one portion of the prophecy and another, namely the part of the prophecy concerning the seventy weeks and the portion concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. It might just be that the text demands a gap somewhere, and it seems the crucial question has to do with the location of the gap, not its duration. There does not seem to be any good reason why the gap cannot be dividing the seventy sevens, and some would argue that the text indicates this by its word order: the Messiah is "cut off" and the city is destroyed after the sixty-ninth week but before the seventieth week is specifically introduced in v. 27. On the other hand, preterists may find a gap of 2000 years simply unbelievable, but it must be recognized that the text nowhere specifies the number of years that pass between events which occur outside the 490 years. There may, in fact, be good reason for such a long gap of time. Miller explains that if the prophecy specifically regards the nation of Israel and the Jewish people, then a nearly 2000 year gap is not unreasonable since there was no distinct Jewish nation or region until 1948. So it seems that within the framework of futurist interpretation the gap is not one of convenience, but of necessity, given the fact that an intervening period of gentile dominance would not be included in a prophecy concerning Daniel's "people" and "holy city."[30]

            The identification of the "prince" in this verse seems to be entirely dependent on the placement of the gap mentioned above. If the seventieth week transpires before the destruction of Jerusalem, then the prince is most probably Titus, if after, then the prince must be a yet future figure since following its destruction in the first century Jerusalem was not controlled by Jews for another 1900 years and has not been destroyed in modern times. Preterists maintain that identifying the prince as a future individual is superfluous at best because Titus perfectly matches the description of a prince, eventually becoming emperor, who led his people, the Romans, against Jerusalem. But again, it is the text that makes possible the identification of the prince as a yet future ruler. The text literally says that it is "the people of the prince who is to come" that will destroy the city, and can be taken to mean, though not necessarily so, that the prince who is to come will somehow and in some way be connected to the people who destroyed Jerusalem in the first century. If it read "the prince who is to come and his people" or "the people and their prince who is to come" it would be difficult to argue for a yet future fulfillment. The wording here is very curious and should not be overlooked. It must be admitted by futurists, however, that the precise identification of this individual is derived not from this passage in Daniel, but elsewhere in the larger context of the book, which is beyond the scope of this commentary. Only when one has already determined that the antichrist is to "come out of the peoples and nations that made up the ancient Roman Empire" is this interpretation demanded; otherwise it may be that the preterist view is the more natural reading.[31]

v. 27

            And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate (Dan. 9:27).

            The final verse of the seventy sevens prophecy has been given two very distinct interpretations. The previous verse served as a disjunctive which clearly demarcated the preterist and futurist views. By the time one reaches v. 27 the two interpretive schools have now branched off to the point where no further agreement is possible. Either this verse refers to some past events, or to future events. The answer to this will inevitably come from one's interpretation of the preceding verses.

            For the futurist, here is an unequivocal prophecy concerning the Antichrist who is to come onto the world scene and initiate the final seven sevens?the seventieth week. Essential to the futurist argument is the identification of the "he" in the first part of this verse. Miller declares, "The majority of scholars correctly hold the 'he' denotes the 'ruler' spoken of in the previous verse."[32] This is because the subject that functions as the antecedent of the "he" in v. 27 is "the prince who is to come" in v. 26. In order to identify this person as someone other than the coming prince one would have to ignore basic grammatical structure. Miller interprets the statement "he will make a firm covenant with the many" to mean that the coming Antichrist will make a treaty or alliance with the Jewish people, the nation of Israel, that will be for "one week" or seven years.[33]

            In the middle of this treaty, after three and one-half years, the Antichrist will break his alliance with Israel and put "a stop to sacrifice and grain offering." According to Miller, "The seventieth seven is commonly referred to as the tribulation period, and the second half of this seven is known as the great tribulation."[34] Of course, Miller's information here is drawn not from this passage in Daniel, but from his interpretation of Rev. 7:14 and Matt. 24:21. Miller insists that the fact that sacrifice and offering are stopped by the Antichrist does not necessarily imply that the sacrificial system must be reinstated. Although he thinks this certainly possible, and many futurists believe it to be probable, it may be that what will be forbidden by Antichrist is worship in general and not a literal sacrificial rite.[35]

            The next statement in this verse says that "on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate." Miller understands this to be a figure of speech describing "overspreading abominations," or terrible wickedness which refers to the "Antichrist's incredible atrocities against his fellow human beings and his attacks upon God himself."[36] The Antichrist himself is the "one who makes desolate," apparently indicating that he will be the cause of the atrocities committed against the Jewish people and their temple. But his reign of terror will be short, for the Lord has "decreed" that the Antichrist himself will be judged, "even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." For futurists, the destruction of Antichrist marks the final event that will transpire within the seventy weeks of years, an event that will herald the second coming of Christ.

            Crucial to Mauro's position is the detail that the sixty-nine week period ended at the baptism of Jesus in AD 26-27. Therefore, the first 483 years ended at the very beginning of Christ's three and one-half year ministry. In contradistinction to the view expressed by Miller, Mauro believes the seventieth week to have begun immediately after the first sixty-nine week period. One is to look no further than the supreme moments in history surrounding the ministry and death of Christ to locate the final week of Daniel's prophecy. The cross marked the consummation and completion of the seventy sevens.[37]

            Common to all preterist interpretations of this verse is the identification of the individual making a "firm covenant with the many" as a figure who lived in the first century. Mauro identifies this covenant maker as Christ himself who inaugurated the new covenant with his atoning death. According to Mauro there are three points in this final verse that have direct and clear fulfillment in Christ. The first has to do with aforementioned covenant that Christ initiated at his death. Mauro explains that the covenant was made "with the many" because only those who place their trust in Christ receive the benefits associated with it. The fact that the covenant is said to be made for "one week" is certainly problematic for this interpretation, for the new covenant in Christ is an everlasting agreement. To avoid this apparent contradiction Mauro reassures his readers that the original Hebrew presents no such difficulties. He claims that there is no preposition "for" before the phrase "one week" in the text thereby indicating that the meaning has nothing to do with duration, but rather has to do with "the time when it was confirmed."[38] In addition, Mauro declares that the proper translation of this verse is found in the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. The Septuagint, he claims, has the verse, "And one week shall establish the covenant with many."[39] To summarize, Mauro thinks the text indicates that the covenant would be made within the seventieth week, but not for one week?seven years.

            For Mauro, the second element in this verse that seems to point directly to Christ for its fulfillment is found in the phrase "in the middle of the week." Gabriel tells Daniel that the same person who makes the covenant would also put an end to sacrifice at the mid-point of the seventieth week. It is well agreed upon, as Mauro points out, that the earthly ministry of Christ, from his baptism to crucifixion, lasted for three and one-half years. If the seventieth week began at Christ's baptism in AD 26 or 27, then three and one-half years from this point leaves us precisely at the cross in AD 30, exactly in the middle of the final week of years.[40] But what about the final three and one-half years of the seventieth week? Some preterists attempt to account for them in the several years immediately following the death of Christ and during the birth and growth period of the early Jerusalem church. Mauro does not see a need to account for the missing three and one-half years because he does not consider any years to be missing. Instead he offers a clever solution. He reminds his readers that the unit of measurement in this prophecy is a "heptad" and not a year. Mauro explains,

            If we think of the Seventieth "Week" as a period of seven years, then it would indeed appear as if there were three years and over which were not accounted for by the exposition. But if, on the other hand, we take the prophecy as it is given, that is to say, in heptads, not years, then it will be clearly seen that all the seventy heptads are accounted for.[41]

            He goes on to explain that no events are said to take place at the end of the seventieth week, but only in the middle of the seventieth week. Therefore, it is simply unnecessary to account for the final three and one-half years because the final week, or heptad, is finished mid-way through when the entire prophecy climaxes at the crucifixion of Christ. Before concluding his argument, Mauro looks elsewhere in the Scriptures for examples of instances where a part is considered as the whole; one such example he provides is the three days and three nights of Christ's predicted interim in the grave, which in truth only lasted two nights and less than two full days.[42]

            The third element in v. 27 that has convinced Mauro that Christ is the subject of this passage is the stopping of sacrifice. At the cross, Christ offered himself as the final sacrifice for sin before God. With the inauguration of the new covenant came the abrogation of the old, complete with all its rites, rituals, and sacrificial regulations. In his death Jesus quite literally "put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering" as a viable form of worship before God. Though it is true that the Jews continued to sacrifice at the temple until it was destroyed some forty years later, Mauro declares that the sacrificial form of worship was officially rescinded in the kingdom of God with the crucifixion.[43]

            The remainder of the verse concerning the desolations and final destruction of the desolator Mauro interprets in a way very similar to Miller. The chief difference, of course, is that Mauro understands these words as describing the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and his legions. Just forty years after the crucifixion of Christ, the end of the seventy sevens, Jerusalem was completely destroyed in judgment. God's wrath was then poured upon the very tool of indignation against Israel, Rome. Mauro does not discuss the nature of this divine payback, nor does he reference any historical accounts.[44]

            It would seem that both preterists and futurists have a comprehensive interpretation of this final verse. The strength of the futurist position here is undoubtedly their identification of the "he" with the "the prince" in the previous verse. And this is no small matter. The preterists have little grammatical warrant to jump over the "the prince" in v. 26 and identify the "Messiah" as the subject for the "he" in v. 27. On the other hand, Mauro's insistence that this verse refer to Christ and his work of atonement has the benefit of making the entire prophecy Christocentric rather than Antichristocentric. Finally, although some would find Mauro's explanation of a truncated seventieth week untenable, it does seem to have some biblical precedence.

Conclusion

            This commentary has briefly explored Daniel's incredible seventy weeks prophecy from the perspectives of a futurist and a preterist. Scholars on both sides of the spectrum have formulated impressive interpretations for these four crucial verses. Each position has accounted for the various elements in reasonable fashion, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Neither Miller nor Mauro have forced the elements of this verse into their interpretive frameworks in such a way as to bruise them badly. And this fact leads to the conclusion that Dan. 9:24-27 is simply insufficient to determine which hermeneutical approach is correct. One will, no doubt, interpret this passage based on his interpretations of other prophetic passages preceding and subsequent to these verses. Therefore, in order to determine the proper interpretation of this passage it seems necessary to consider in detail the context of the larger book, a task beyond the scope of this commentary.