Chapter 9 begins with Daniel realizing that Jeremiah’s prophecy about the 70 years of Babylonian captivity (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10), called “the time of Jacob’s distress” (Jer. 30:1-7), was coming to an end (v.2). So Daniel prays to God on behalf of his people for deliverance. During their captivity, the land enjoyed its Sabbaths (Lev. 26:34). Now they would be in the land for seven times as long as they were in captivity. In verses 24-27, God gives Daniel the time period as to the coming of David’s seed, the Messiah. Here is that vision:
Dispensationalists say that the 483 years expired when Jesus died on the cross. John MacArthur believes “This was fulfilled at the triumphal entry.”2 If this is so, we have a severe problem on our hands because the text literally says that “…from the going out of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince, shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks” (emphasis supplied). That is 69 weeks, which is 483 years. Many people believe that this is the birth of Christ. Maybe they are right. But I do not think so, and I will show you why. If this refers to the birth of Christ, it obviously, and logically, cannot refer to the triumphal entry or the death of Christ. Someone is not reading their Bible literally—again.
Based on the text, the 483 years cannot possibly refer to the death of Christ, or the triumphal entry, so we can scrap those concepts in the garbage. If the 483 years bring us to the birth of Christ, where do the next 30 years of Jesus’ life fall under before His public ministry? Now, the Dispensationalist might say, had he not already said that the 483 years bring us to the death of Christ, that the next 30 years, plus Jesus’ public ministry, fall into their “parenthetical gap” that they have created.
The word translated “Messiah” can also be translated as “anointed,” referring to a consecrated person. The idea that 483 years brings us to the birth of Christ presents a real problem for me. Not only is there no accounting for the first 30 years of Jesus’ life, but He also was not revealed to the world as Messiah until John the Baptist said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). This was when He was acknowledged as the Messiah. Now, being that the word could be translated as “anointed,” could it be possible that this is speaking of Jesus’ baptism by John? He was anointed by the Holy Spirit at this time. I believe that this is the case. I will show you yet still why I believe this to be so.
We are told by Dispensationalists that there exists a gap in Daniel’s 70 weeks, but is this true? Mr. Ryrie writes, “There is an interval of undetermined length between the first sixty-nine weeks of seven years each and the last or seventieth week of seven years.”3 Henrietta Mears agrees, “Scripture divides these seventy sevens into three divisions with a parenthetic time lapse for the present ‘Gentile rule.’”4 Really!? Where? Where in the text does it say there is a “parenthetic gap” or an “undetermined length” of time in the 490 years? It does not! Dispensationalists must add it. If Scripture can be understood of by even a child, then it should be easy enough to discern what is taught and what is not merely by reading the passage as it stands.
In verse 26, the phrase translated “be cut off” is the Hebrew word karath (כָּרַת), which means “to cut off, cut down; to make (a covenant, agreement); to be cut off, broken off; to be cut off, be destroyed; ‘to cut a covenant’ is ‘make a covenant,’ a figure of the act of ceremonially cutting an animal into two parts, with an implication of serious consequences for not fulfilling the covenant.”5 The implication is that of cutting flesh and passing between the pieces. Sound familiar? It should! Read Genesis 15. We read in verse 18, “On that day the LORD made (karath) a covenant with Abram…”
For your consideration, here are the first 17 occurrences (of 280) of the use of the word karath in the Bible:
In verse 27, it states that in the midst of the week He will cause sacrifice and offerings to cease, which happened the moment Christ was crucified and the 18-inch-thick veil was torn in two. The high priest could no longer go in and sprinkle blood on the mercy seat. While some Jews apparently still kept trying to offer sacrifices, it was to no avail. Acceptable sacrifices and offerings were no longer valid. They were done. So if Jesus causes the sacrifices and offerings to cease in the midst of the 70th week when He is crucified, three and a half years earlier brings us to the start of His ministry when He was baptized by John the Baptist, which would be the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week. Thus why I believe verse 25 is speaking of Jesus’ baptism. All of what we have just looked at derived from a simple reading of the text.
Now, whether you believe Jesus’ ministry was for three years or three and a half years makes little difference. It still brings you to the midst of the week. If you try and divide it exactly, and deny that three years could not possibly be the midst of the week, all you are doing is splitting hairs. Stop it!
Charles Ryrie writes, “When this last period of seven years begins, ‘He will make a firm covenant with the many for one week’ (v.27).”7 Do you see what the Dispensationalist does here? He adds the word “make.” In verse 27, there is no word used for the making of a covenant. The literal translation is “He shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week” (emphasis supplied). One would think the English word “confirm” was self-evident, or the fact it says “confirm the covenant” (KJV), but apparently not. The word translated “confirm” is the Hebrew word gabar (גָּבַר), which means “to confirm, to strengthen, to cause to prevail.” So, in verse 27, a new covenant is not being made, but the text explicitly declares that He is strengthening or causing to prevail an already existing covenant. Which covenant would that be? The covenant of grace that Jeremiah and Isaiah spoke of (Jer. 31:31-34; Isa. 59:21), and Jesus Christ fulfilled. “He: this he is not Titus making truce with the Jews, which he did not, though he endeavoured to persuade them that he might spare them. I say then with Graser, Mede, and others, that this he is the Messiah, and the covenant he confirms is the new testament or covenant, called therefore the covenant of the people, Isa. xlii. 6; xlix. 9; and the Angel of the covenant, Mal. iii. 1; and the Surety of the covenant, Heb. vii. 22; and the ancient rabbins called the Messias אישניגים a middle man, or middle man between two. Quest. How did Christ confirm the covenant? Answ. 1. By testimony, (1.) Of angels, Luke ii. 10; Matt. xxviii.; (2.) John Baptist; (3.) Of the wise men; (4.) By the saints then living, Luke i. 2; (5.) Moses and Elias, Matt. xvii. 3; (6.) Pharisees, as Nicodemus, John iii. 2; (7.) The devils that confessed him. 2. By his preaching. 3. By signs and wonders. 4. By his holy life. 5. By his resurrection and ascension. 6. By his death and blood shed. Shall confirm the covenant; הגביִר he shall corroborate it, as if it began before his coming to fail and be invalid.”8
Mr. MacArthur states, “The leader in this covenant is the ‘little horn’ of 7:7-8, 20-21, 24-26, and the evil leader of NT prophecy.”9 Jesus Christ is an “evil leader”? Shame on you, Mr. MacArthur! Church history agrees that the first half of verse 27 is Jesus, which the Dispensationalists have swapped for their Antichrist. Mr. Ryrie claims this is the Antichrist because “nothing in the record of Christ’s life in any way connects Him with the making (and later breaking) of a seven-year covenant with the Jewish people.”10 This is subjective opinion, my friends. First, where does he get this concept of “breaking” a covenant? It is nowhere to be found in Scripture. It is an imaginary concept derived from a wrongly distorted reading of Scripture. Second, Mr. Ryrie is confused and thinks Daniel 9:24-27 is ultimately about Israel, rather than about Jesus, of Whom it is about. (Actually, Dispensationalists think the entire Bible is about Israel, rather than about Christ.) Third, apparently Mr. Ryrie has never read Jeremiah 31:31-34; Isaiah 59:21; or the book of Hebrews. There is much in the life of Christ that connects Him to the “making” of a covenant: only it is not “making,” it is confirming; and it is not merely with the Jewish people, it is with His people—Jew and Gentile alike. The Christian is under and partaker of the New Covenant, which is through Jesus’ blood.
To show you that Dispensationalists are wrong by interpreting the text to be “making” a covenant, I have compiled all the verses from Scripture that use the same word. For your consideration, you tell me if the verse means what they try to force it to mean:
What about the last three and a half years? Good question! After Jesus’ resurrection, His disciples preached the gospel for the next three and a half years mostly to Jews (see Acts 1-6). The 490 years officially came to an end with the Jewish leaders’ final rejection of the gospel of the Messiah by their stoning of Stephen in 37 A.D. After Stephen was martyred, the door was flung open to make way for the Gentile inclusion, just as the prophets had predicted beforehand. In Acts 10, Peter was given a vision by God revealing that it was now time to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (vv.1-28).
1 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, 4:857.
2 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, 1213.
3Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 541.
4 Henrietta Mears, What the Bible Is All About, 288.
5 James Strong, Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1517-1518.
6 Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 2:839.
7 Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 541.
8 Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 2:839.
9 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, 1213.
10 Ibid.
“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. 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. 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. 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.”In English, the word “weeks” is a poor translation. In the Hebrew it is שׁבוּעַ שׁבְעִים—seventy sevens. In translating verse 24’s “seventy sevens,” we come up with 490 years—a year for a day (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6). Daniel is told that 490 years are decreed upon his people and the holy city to accomplish everything that is mentioned in verse 24. Every one of those items has been fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Ergo, the 70 weeks are finished. “The great affairs that are yet to come concerning the people of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem, will lie within the compass of these years.”1 Dispensationalists will argue the fact, but I will prove it to you.
Dispensationalists say that the 483 years expired when Jesus died on the cross. John MacArthur believes “This was fulfilled at the triumphal entry.”2 If this is so, we have a severe problem on our hands because the text literally says that “…from the going out of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince, shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks” (emphasis supplied). That is 69 weeks, which is 483 years. Many people believe that this is the birth of Christ. Maybe they are right. But I do not think so, and I will show you why. If this refers to the birth of Christ, it obviously, and logically, cannot refer to the triumphal entry or the death of Christ. Someone is not reading their Bible literally—again.
Based on the text, the 483 years cannot possibly refer to the death of Christ, or the triumphal entry, so we can scrap those concepts in the garbage. If the 483 years bring us to the birth of Christ, where do the next 30 years of Jesus’ life fall under before His public ministry? Now, the Dispensationalist might say, had he not already said that the 483 years bring us to the death of Christ, that the next 30 years, plus Jesus’ public ministry, fall into their “parenthetical gap” that they have created.
The word translated “Messiah” can also be translated as “anointed,” referring to a consecrated person. The idea that 483 years brings us to the birth of Christ presents a real problem for me. Not only is there no accounting for the first 30 years of Jesus’ life, but He also was not revealed to the world as Messiah until John the Baptist said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). This was when He was acknowledged as the Messiah. Now, being that the word could be translated as “anointed,” could it be possible that this is speaking of Jesus’ baptism by John? He was anointed by the Holy Spirit at this time. I believe that this is the case. I will show you yet still why I believe this to be so.
We are told by Dispensationalists that there exists a gap in Daniel’s 70 weeks, but is this true? Mr. Ryrie writes, “There is an interval of undetermined length between the first sixty-nine weeks of seven years each and the last or seventieth week of seven years.”3 Henrietta Mears agrees, “Scripture divides these seventy sevens into three divisions with a parenthetic time lapse for the present ‘Gentile rule.’”4 Really!? Where? Where in the text does it say there is a “parenthetic gap” or an “undetermined length” of time in the 490 years? It does not! Dispensationalists must add it. If Scripture can be understood of by even a child, then it should be easy enough to discern what is taught and what is not merely by reading the passage as it stands.
In verse 26, the phrase translated “be cut off” is the Hebrew word karath (כָּרַת), which means “to cut off, cut down; to make (a covenant, agreement); to be cut off, broken off; to be cut off, be destroyed; ‘to cut a covenant’ is ‘make a covenant,’ a figure of the act of ceremonially cutting an animal into two parts, with an implication of serious consequences for not fulfilling the covenant.”5 The implication is that of cutting flesh and passing between the pieces. Sound familiar? It should! Read Genesis 15. We read in verse 18, “On that day the LORD made (karath) a covenant with Abram…”
For your consideration, here are the first 17 occurrences (of 280) of the use of the word karath in the Bible:
Gen. 9:11 – “…all flesh shall never again be karath by the water of the flood…”As we noted, verse 24 informs us there will be 70 weeks (490 years). Verse 25 gives us 7 weeks (49 years) and 62 weeks (434 years), which is a total of 69 weeks (483 years). In verse 26, it states, “Then after the sixty-two weeks…” (emphasis supplied; those 62 weeks that followed the 7 weeks). After 69 comes what, brothers and sisters? 70! In the 70th week the Messiah, or Anointed One, would be “cut off but not for Himself” (Literal translation). Matthew Poole writes regarding karath, “It is used for cutting off by capital punishment, Exod. xii. 15; xxx. 33, 38; whether this be by the signal hand of God, or by the magistrate, for some heinous offence, Lev. xviii. 29; xx. 17; Psal. xxxvii. 34.”6
Gen. 15:18 – “On that day the LORD karath a covenant…”
Gen. 17:14 – “…that person shall be karath from his people…”
Gen. 21:27 – “…and the two of them karath a covenant.”
Gen. 21:32 – “So they karath a covenant at Beersheba…”
Gen. 26:28 – “…and let us karath a covenant with you.”
Gen. 31:44 – “So now come, let us karath a covenant, you and I…”
Gen. 41:36 – “…so that the land may not karath during the famine.”
Ex. 4:25 – “Then Zipporah took a flint and karath her son's foreskin…”
Ex. 8:9 – “… that the frogs be karath from you and your houses…”
Ex. 12:15 – “…that person shall be karath from Israel.”
Ex. 12:19 – “…that person shall be karath from the congregation of Israel…”
Ex. 23:32 – “You shall karath no covenant with them or with their gods.”
Ex. 24:8 – “…Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has karath with you in accordance with all these words.”
Ex. 30:33 – “…shall be karath from his people.”
Ex. 30: 38 – “…shall be karath from his people.”
Ex. 31:14 – “…that person shall be karath from among his people.”
In verse 27, it states that in the midst of the week He will cause sacrifice and offerings to cease, which happened the moment Christ was crucified and the 18-inch-thick veil was torn in two. The high priest could no longer go in and sprinkle blood on the mercy seat. While some Jews apparently still kept trying to offer sacrifices, it was to no avail. Acceptable sacrifices and offerings were no longer valid. They were done. So if Jesus causes the sacrifices and offerings to cease in the midst of the 70th week when He is crucified, three and a half years earlier brings us to the start of His ministry when He was baptized by John the Baptist, which would be the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week. Thus why I believe verse 25 is speaking of Jesus’ baptism. All of what we have just looked at derived from a simple reading of the text.
Now, whether you believe Jesus’ ministry was for three years or three and a half years makes little difference. It still brings you to the midst of the week. If you try and divide it exactly, and deny that three years could not possibly be the midst of the week, all you are doing is splitting hairs. Stop it!
Charles Ryrie writes, “When this last period of seven years begins, ‘He will make a firm covenant with the many for one week’ (v.27).”7 Do you see what the Dispensationalist does here? He adds the word “make.” In verse 27, there is no word used for the making of a covenant. The literal translation is “He shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week” (emphasis supplied). One would think the English word “confirm” was self-evident, or the fact it says “confirm the covenant” (KJV), but apparently not. The word translated “confirm” is the Hebrew word gabar (גָּבַר), which means “to confirm, to strengthen, to cause to prevail.” So, in verse 27, a new covenant is not being made, but the text explicitly declares that He is strengthening or causing to prevail an already existing covenant. Which covenant would that be? The covenant of grace that Jeremiah and Isaiah spoke of (Jer. 31:31-34; Isa. 59:21), and Jesus Christ fulfilled. “He: this he is not Titus making truce with the Jews, which he did not, though he endeavoured to persuade them that he might spare them. I say then with Graser, Mede, and others, that this he is the Messiah, and the covenant he confirms is the new testament or covenant, called therefore the covenant of the people, Isa. xlii. 6; xlix. 9; and the Angel of the covenant, Mal. iii. 1; and the Surety of the covenant, Heb. vii. 22; and the ancient rabbins called the Messias אישניגים a middle man, or middle man between two. Quest. How did Christ confirm the covenant? Answ. 1. By testimony, (1.) Of angels, Luke ii. 10; Matt. xxviii.; (2.) John Baptist; (3.) Of the wise men; (4.) By the saints then living, Luke i. 2; (5.) Moses and Elias, Matt. xvii. 3; (6.) Pharisees, as Nicodemus, John iii. 2; (7.) The devils that confessed him. 2. By his preaching. 3. By signs and wonders. 4. By his holy life. 5. By his resurrection and ascension. 6. By his death and blood shed. Shall confirm the covenant; הגביִר he shall corroborate it, as if it began before his coming to fail and be invalid.”8
Mr. MacArthur states, “The leader in this covenant is the ‘little horn’ of 7:7-8, 20-21, 24-26, and the evil leader of NT prophecy.”9 Jesus Christ is an “evil leader”? Shame on you, Mr. MacArthur! Church history agrees that the first half of verse 27 is Jesus, which the Dispensationalists have swapped for their Antichrist. Mr. Ryrie claims this is the Antichrist because “nothing in the record of Christ’s life in any way connects Him with the making (and later breaking) of a seven-year covenant with the Jewish people.”10 This is subjective opinion, my friends. First, where does he get this concept of “breaking” a covenant? It is nowhere to be found in Scripture. It is an imaginary concept derived from a wrongly distorted reading of Scripture. Second, Mr. Ryrie is confused and thinks Daniel 9:24-27 is ultimately about Israel, rather than about Jesus, of Whom it is about. (Actually, Dispensationalists think the entire Bible is about Israel, rather than about Christ.) Third, apparently Mr. Ryrie has never read Jeremiah 31:31-34; Isaiah 59:21; or the book of Hebrews. There is much in the life of Christ that connects Him to the “making” of a covenant: only it is not “making,” it is confirming; and it is not merely with the Jewish people, it is with His people—Jew and Gentile alike. The Christian is under and partaker of the New Covenant, which is through Jesus’ blood.
To show you that Dispensationalists are wrong by interpreting the text to be “making” a covenant, I have compiled all the verses from Scripture that use the same word. For your consideration, you tell me if the verse means what they try to force it to mean:
Gen. 7:18 – “And the water gabar…”That should be sufficient enough evidence to prove without a doubt that the making of a covenant is not in view in Daniel 9:27, nor can it be. It is the strengthening and prevailing of the New Covenant. As Hebrews tells us, a testament or will cannot be put into effect until the death of the testator (Heb. 9:16-17). With Jesus’ death, He made the first one (the Old Covenant) obsolete (Heb. 8:13) and abolished it in order to establish the second (Heb. 10:9). The New Covenant was inaugurated with and by Jesus’ blood (Heb. 9:18-22). We are under it now. Do not believe the Dispensationalist who tells you that the New Covenant is for Israel only. That is a bold-faced lie in the light of Scripture and the Christian reality.
Gen. 7:19 – “And the water gabar…”
Gen. 7:20 – “The water gabar fifteen cubits higher…”
Gen. 7:24 – “And the water gabar…”
Ex. 17:11 – “So it came about when Moses held his hand up, Israel gabar…”
1 Sam. 2:9 – “… For not by might shall a man gabar.”
2 Sam. 1:23 – “… They were gabar than lions.”
2 Sam. 11:23 – “The men gabar against us…”
1 Chr. 5:2 – “Though Judah gabar over his brothers…”
Job 15:25 – “…and gabar himself against the Almighty.”
Job 21:7 – “Why do the wicked…gabar very powerful?”
Job 36:9 – “…and their transgressions, that they have gabar themselves.”
Ps. 12:4 – “…With our tongue we will gabar…”
Ps. 65:3 – “Iniquities gabar against me…”
Ps. 103:11 – “…So gabar is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.”
Ps. 117:2 – “For His lovingkindness is gabar toward us…”
Ecc. 10:10 – “…then he must gabar more strength…”
Is. 42:13 – “…He will gabar against His enemies.”
Jer. 9:3 – “Lies and not truth gabar in the land…”
Lam. 1:16 – “…My children are desolate because the enemy has gabar.”
Zech. 10:6 – “And I shall gabar the house of Judah…”
Zech. 10:12 – “And I shall gabar them in the LORD…”
What about the last three and a half years? Good question! After Jesus’ resurrection, His disciples preached the gospel for the next three and a half years mostly to Jews (see Acts 1-6). The 490 years officially came to an end with the Jewish leaders’ final rejection of the gospel of the Messiah by their stoning of Stephen in 37 A.D. After Stephen was martyred, the door was flung open to make way for the Gentile inclusion, just as the prophets had predicted beforehand. In Acts 10, Peter was given a vision by God revealing that it was now time to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (vv.1-28).
1 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, 4:857.
2 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, 1213.
3Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 541.
4 Henrietta Mears, What the Bible Is All About, 288.
5 James Strong, Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1517-1518.
6 Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 2:839.
7 Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 541.
8 Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 2:839.
9 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, 1213.
10 Ibid.