It is often assumed that dispensationalists invented the idea of a gap in Daniel’s seventy weeks in order to support their eschatological system. In reality, dispensational and non-dispensational interpreters have substantial textual and historical reasons for rejecting the view that the seventieth week was fulfilled by AD 40. The following are some of the strongest arguments supporting a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks.
Reason 1 – The Six-Fold Checklist is Incomplete
The core issue with Daniel 9:24 is the timeline of its fulfillment. If the seventieth week ran from AD 33 to AD 40, history simply doesn’t match the prophecy. While the Messiah’s work in AD 33 laid the groundwork, it didn’t fully exhaust the six specific promises made to Daniel—many of which clearly await a future completion.
“However, it is far more plausible to see the sixty-nine weeks fulfilled historically and the seventieth week as yet unfulfilled. . . to view the six things in Daniel 9:24. . .as having been fulfilled in Christ’s death at His first advent is impossible. All these have reference to the nation of Israel and none of these has been fulfilled to that nation. Israel has not yet finished her transgression, nor been purged of her iniquity. Nor has she experienced the everlasting righteousness promised her. Paul sees this still in the future for Israel (Rom. 11:25-27). The anointing, as Young would have it; instead the “most holy” (קָֽדָשִֽׁים קֹ֥דֶשׁ) are technical words that are always translated in the Old Testament by the phrase the “holy of holies.”
━━ Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 131.
“The fulfillment of the tremendous events in verse 24 cannot be found anywhere in known history.”
━━ Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 Weeks (Winona Lake: BMH Books, 2007), 35.
“An understanding of these six goals is crucial for the proper interpretation of the remaining three verses. For example, the common viewpoint of critical scholars is that Dan 9:24-27 finds its complete fulfillment in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt during the years 171-164 BC. However, the above six goals were certainly not fulfilled (and could not be) by this stage of history. Furthermore, they could not even be fulfilled completely in the first advent of Christ (which eliminates the first century messianic views), suggesting that the seventy “weeks” must extend until Christ’s return.”
━━ J. Paul Tanner, Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 580.
“In summation, regarding the time of fulfillment of all six items, the first four are fulfilled in principle at Christ’s first coming, when full atonement for sin was made, but fulfilled in respect to actual benefit for Israel as a nation only at Christ’s second coming, when the nation will truly turn to God; and the last two items are fulfilled only in connection with the second coming, when prophecies of that time will be fulfilled and there will be a restored Temple to anoint.”
━━ Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 251.
These six goals: 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 must be fully realized in history, and they haven’t been. My position on the six goals are as follows:
P1 • to finish the transgression – Daniel first sees that, within the context, the people of Israel must “finish the transgression.” This refers to a specific act of rebellion uniquely tied to Israel. The term translated “transgression” (הַפֶּשַׁע) carries the sense of willful rebellion against God. In this passage, Israel is portrayed as persisting in that rebellion throughout the seventy weeks (490 years), with this defiance serving as the root from which all other national sins flow. Accordingly, Israel’s rebellion will only come to an end when the seventy weeks have fully run their course. This aligns with the broader biblical expectation that, at the return of Christ, Israel will repent and turn to the Lord (cf. Zech. 12:10–13:1; Rom. 11:25–27).
“The first goal is “to finish the transgression” (לְבַלֵּא הַפָּשַׁע ləḵallê happeša‘). The same word peša was used previously in Dan 8:12-13 to speak of Antiochus’ transgression against the biblical faith and his atrocities against the Jewish people. However, in this context it is the transgression of Israel that is in view (the following infinitives link this to sin and iniquity). The word fundamentally means “rebellion,” and hence this looks at Israel’s long history of rebellion against Yahweh God. Indeed, Israel’s apostasy and rebellion against Yahweh was the primary cause of the Babylonian exile, and even though the present exile was now ending, her rebellion against him was continuing (eventually climaxing with her rejection of Messiah Jesus). Her rebellion was described poetically in Deut 32:15-43, where Israel is said to have provoked Yahweh to jealousy by her continual turning from the Rock of her salvation. God not only promised to bring calamity on the nation, but he promised, “I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation” (Deut 32:21, NASB). This bears witness to God’s salvific work among the Gentiles in the present age (Rom 10:19). Nevertheless, Israel’s rebellion did not result in her being permanently cast off nor her being replaced by the church. Rom 11:11 declares, “I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous” (NASB). One day at the close of the tribulation period-Israel’s rebellion against the Lord will come to an end. Romans 11:25-27 goes on to depict the conclusion of her transgression and her full restoration that will be implemented at Christ’s return.”
━━ J. Paul Tanner, Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 577.
P2 • to make an end of sin – Daniel next speaks of a “sealing up” or closing up of sin. This should not be reduced merely to Christ’s death on the cross, but understood in relation to Israel as a people, since the seventy weeks (490 years) are explicitly decreed for them (Dan. 9:24). The means of dealing with this transgression is indeed the Messiah—Jesus bears the penalty for the nation’s sin—but the full realization awaits Israel’s future repentance at His second coming. At that time, the nation’s sin will be decisively removed (cf. Ezek. 36:24–32).
“The second goal listed in Dan 9:24 is “to bring about an end to sin (לְהָתָם חַטָאת ləhāṯêm ḥaṭṭāṯ). This is similar to the first goal, but perhaps with the means in view. For this to happen, Messiah Jesus will have to be punished for the sins of the nation (Isa 53), though his death will ultimately pay the price of sin for everyone, not just those of Israel. At the time of his second advent, he will cleanse the nation and remove her sin-a blessing that will only benefit those who humble themselves and turn to him in faith (Ezek 36:24-25; 37:23; Zech 5; 13:1). Archer (112) suggests that this goal has in view not only the payment for sin but ridding the world of sin: “the bringing in of a new society in which righteousness will prevail in complete contrast to the present condition of mankind.” If the latter is in view, this will come about in the promised kingdom when Christ will rule as king over the world.”
━━ J. Paul Tanner, Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 578.
P3 • to make atonement for iniquity – Daniel also envisions the purging of Israel’s iniquities. As with the previous point, the ground of this cleansing is the work of Christ, yet the application is still future. Israel will be cleansed, their sins removed, and their long-standing rebellion against God will come to an end.
“The third goal is “to atone for iniquity” (לְכַפַּר עָוֹן ləḵappêr ‘āwōn). Regarding the verb kipper (כָּפַר), Goldingay (229) notes, “in Arabic kpr can mean ‘to cover,’ but the Heb. meaning links rather with Akk. kaparu/kuppuru ‘cleanse’: CAD.” Hence, to “atone” means to purge iniquity (i.e., wipe it clean) on the basis of sacrifice, and thus to grant forgiveness. The ground for this is the crucifixion of Christ at Calvary. There is an application of this to Israel as a nation at her eschatological national day of atonement in conjunction with the return of Christ (Zech 3:8-9; 13:1).”
━━ J. Paul Tanner, Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 578.
P4 • to bring in everlasting righteousness – Daniel sees the bringing in of everlasting righteousness. This should not be limited to the concept of forensic justification, but understood as the establishment of a righteous order under the Messiah. The focus is kingdom-oriented: the Messiah will inaugurate a reign characterized by righteousness, as already anticipated in Daniel 7:13–14.
“The fourth goal is “to bring in everlasting righteousness” (לְהָבִיא צֶדֶק עִלְמֵים ləhāḇî ṣeḏeq ‘ōlāmîm). This should not be confused with the idea of “forensic righteousness” that is taught in the New Testament (e.g., Romans). The idea of Messiah Jesus establishing a kingdom of righteousness is a recurrent theme in the Old Testament prophets (Isa 11:2-5; 60:21; Jer 23:5-6), and that is what this verse has in view (recall the kingdom promise to a “Son of Man” in Dan 7:13-14).475 When he reigns as king over a kingdom of regenerated subjects and with Satan bound in the abyss (Rev 20:1-3), righteousness will flourish on the earth. In fact, he will be called “Yahweh our righteousness” (Jer 23:6). Psalm 72:2-3 (a messianic psalm) eloquently describes this time when he will rule from sea to sea with all nations serving him:
“Then he will judge Your people with righteousness
And Your afflicted with justice
The mountains will bring peace to the people,
And the hills, in righteousness” (author’s translation)”
━━ J. Paul Tanner, Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 578-579.
P5 • to seal up vision and prophecy – The idea Daniel conveys here is that his vision and prophecies will be sealed up—that is, preserved—until the time of the end. This anticipates Israel’s restoration in the last days, when they will witness the fulfillment of all that has been foretold.
“The fifth goal to be accomplished is “to seal up vision and prophecy (לַחְתּ חָזוֹן וְנְבִיא laḥtōm ḥāzōn wənāḇî). To “seal” (Heb. ḥāṯum) can mean (1) to authenticate by sealing (1 Kgs 21:8; Jer 32:10-11, 44); (2) to conceal something or make it inaccessible (Isa 29:11; possibly Dan 12:4, 9); or (3) to secure something or preserve it securely (possibly Dan 12:4, 9; Deut 32:34). If the latter idea is intended, the prophetic vision is sealed up now (for preservation) but will be ultimately realized in the “end of time” (cf. Dan 8:25; 12:4, 9). This looks at the full realization of what God said he would do in fulfilling his program with Israel, especially her restoration in preparation for Messiah’s kingdom (keeping in mind that the vision pertains to Daniel’s people and their holy city, i.e., Jerusalem).”
━━ J. Paul Tanner, Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 579.
P6 • to anoint the most holy place – The final clause here corresponds to what Ezekiel anticipates in the anointing of the most holy place (cf. Ezek. 45:2–4). Daniel, then, is looking ahead to the restoration of the temple—not under Zerubbabel, but under the Messiah, the Anointed One (מָשִׁיחַ). At that time, the glory of the Lord will return to the temple, as described in Ezekiel 43.
“The sixth and final goal is “to anoint the most holy place” (לִמְשְׁחַ קְדֶשׁ קָקְדְשִׁים limšōaḥ qōḏeš qāḏāšîm). Although the word “place” is not technically in the Hebrew text, this is the correct understanding. Whenever the “holy of holies” is referred to, this is rendered in a slightly different way: קְדֶשׁ הַקְדְשִׁים qōḏeš haqqödāšim (e.g., Exod 26:33, 34). The words “most holy” (qōḏeš qāḏāšîm) usually do not refer to a person-though possibly in one case they do (see 1 Chr 23:13 regarding Aaron). A number of early church fathers (e.g., Hippolytus, iv. 32.4) understood this—mistakenly in my opinion—as a reference to Jesus, the Most Holy One. This view was even generally adopted by the reformers (so Luther, Calvin) and more recently by Pusey (182), and is even found among Jewish exegetes (so Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides). Yet Montgomery (375) is more correct when he writes,
The term is used always of sacrosanct things or places: of the tent of meeting, the temple, its debîr or adyton, of the territory belonging to the temple, the altars, holy vessels, incense, sacrificial flesh, etc…. Only once is it possibly used of a person, I Ch. 23″, ‘And Aaron was separated to sanctify him as most holy, which latter clause, however, may mean ‘that he should consecrate the most holy. This well-nigh universal use of ‘the holiest’ compels us to interpret the term as of either the temple or especially the altar of burnt offerings.
Likewise, Goldingay (229) understands it to refer to the temple or objects related to it. Often these words describe the altar or furnishings of the tabernacle as being “most holy” (Exod 29:37; 30:29). Significantly, the “sanctuary” (hammiqdāš) in Ezekiel’s eschatological vision is called “most holy” (qōḏeš qāḏāšîm) in Ezek 45:3, as is the entire top of the mountain for the sanctuary (Ezek 43:10-12; note esp. v. 12). Hence, the anointing of a most holy place, though it may have some partial fulfillment with Zerubbabel’s rebuilt temple in 516 BC, most likely looks to the proper inauguration of a millennial temple following Jesus’ return (so Archer, 113). Cf. Isa 2:1-4—This interpretation is in keeping with the general eschatological overtones seen in the other five goals.
━━ J. Paul Tanner, Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 579-580.
To summarize:
P1 • to finish the transgression = Israel will bring her rebellion against God to an end (future)
P2 • to make an end of sin = Israel’s sin will be brought to an end (future), on the basis of Christ’s finished work (past)
P3 • to make atonement for iniquity = Israel’s iniquity will be atoned for and purged (future), grounded in Christ’s redemptive work (past)
P4 • to bring in everlasting righteousness = Israel will experience the establishment of the Messianic kingdom, in which everlasting righteousness is fully realized (future)
P5 • to seal up vision and prophecy = Vision and prophecy will be sealed up—preserved and brought to their fulfillment—at the appointed time (future)
P6 • to anoint the most holy place = With the arrival of the kingdom, the most holy place in the millennial temple will be anointed (future)
Reason 2 – The “After” Clause in Daniel 9:26
The text states the Messiah is cut off “after” the sixty-ninth week, not “during” the seventieth (Daniel 9:26). If the crucifixion had occurred “in the midst” of the final seven years, we would have a strong case for immediate fulfillment. Instead, this specific wording implies a chronological gap between the end of the sixty-ninth week and the start of the seventieth.
“There can be no honest difference of opinion about that: the cutting off of Messiah is ‘after’ the sixty-two weeks. It is not the concluding event of the series of sixty-two weeks. Neither is it said to be the opening event of the seventieth. It is simply after the seven plus sixty-twoָ֣ weeks.”
━━ Robert Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 157.
“. . .the Messiah was cut off “after” the sixty-ninth week and not “during” the seventieth.”
━━ Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 131.
“Further, the events in verse 26—”the cutting off of Messiah,” and of the “people of the prince”—are stated to occur after the sixty-nine weeks. If this was intended to occur in the seventieth week, the text would have read here “during” or “in the midst of” (cf. Daniel’s use of hetzi, “in the middle of,” v. 27). This language implies that these events precede the seventieth week but not immediately follow the sixty-ninth. Therefore, a temporal intervale separates the two.”
━━ J. Randall Price, “Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 152.
Reason 3 – The “Mountain Peak” Perspective of Prophecy
The prophets were not concerned with chronological precision. Interpreters often assume as we read these types of texts that the prophets were intending to present perfect chronology, but this is not necessitated by the text. For instance, nowhere in the Old Testament do we see the prophets parsing out the first and second comings of Christ. They paint the first and second comings of Christ as if they are one event.
“The possibility of a gap between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth-weeks is established by the well-accepted OT phenomenon of prophetic perspective, in which gaps such as that between the first and second advents were not perceived.”
━━ Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 190.
“Not only are gaps between first and second coming events common, but the two thousand year span (at least) found here may also be explained by the nature of this revelation.”
━━ Steven R. Miller, Daniel: The New American Commentary, Vol. 18 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 269.
“This seems so clear to me today that it is hard to understand how long with many others I could have missed the point so long. But doubtless, like the average English reader, I came to the passage with what the late Dr. M. G. Kyle liked to call “our Anglo-Saxon passion for a continuous chronology,” a thing in which the Oriental mind was greatly interested. . . .As a matter of fact, it is well known that there is often little or no time perspective in the visions of the Old Testament prophet. He saw events together on the screen of prophecy which in their fulfillment were often separated by centuries of time. This curious characteristic, so strange to Western minds, was in complete harmony with the Oriental mind, which was little concerned with a continuous chronology.”
━━ Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 Weeks (Winona Lake: BMH Books, 2007), 33, 38.
Two excellent examples that further this argument are Isaiah 61:1-2, where Jesus stops mid-verse in Luke 4:18-21, and proclaims that only part of the verse is fulfilled in their hearing, which clearly implies that the second part of the verses hasn’t been fulfilled in their hearing.
Zechariah 9:9-10 is another example where the two advents are split by thousands of years.
“An unseen gap in prophetic time is not at all an unusual phenomenon in Old Testament prophecy.”
━━ Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 Weeks (Winona Lake: BMH Books, 2007), 36.
“An example of a gap between the two advents of Christ is seen in Luke 4:18-19 when Christ quoted Isaiah 61:1-2 leaving in the words referring to His first advent but omitting the words referring to His second advent.”
━━ Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 132.
Reason 4 – Identifying the Antagonist in Dan. 9:27
The “he” who confirms the covenant in Daniel 9:27 is not the Messiah; grammatically, the direct antecedent is the “prince who is to come” (Dan. 9:26) mentioned in the previous verse. Since this ruler never appeared to enact a seven-year treaty between AD 33 and AD 40, the seventieth week remains unfulfilled and must lie in the future.
“Jesus never made a seven-year covenant, and He would certainly not break any covenant He made. He is the covenant God.”
━━ Paul M. Henebury, The Words of the Covenant: A Biblical Theology, Volume One-Old Testament Expectation (Maitland: Xulon Press Elite), 316.
“The majority of scholars correctly hold that “he” denotes the “ruler” spoken of in the previous verse, and Archer points out that “normally the last eligible antecedent is to be taken as the subject of the following verb.””
━━ Steven R. Miller, Daniel: The New American Commentary, Vol. 18 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 270.
“The pronoun “he” of this sentence is best understood in light of its nearest antecedent, namely “the ruler who is to come” in v. 26—the one that is related in some way to the ancient Roman Empire. This suggests that the one confirming the covenant is the antichrist, the one said to arise from the Roman Empire in Daniel 7. The temporal comparison between 9:27 and 7:25 tends to confirm this interpretation.”
━━ J. Paul Tanner, Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 591.
“. . .the “prince that shall come” is the nearer of the two antecedents, making for a grammatical preference.”
━━ Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 257.
Reason 5 – The Case of the Missing Seven-Year Treaty
No record exists of a firm, seven-year covenant made with “the many” (Israel) between AD 33 and AD 40. This cannot be the New Covenant established by Christ, as the New Covenant is an everlasting pact encompassing both Jews and Gentiles, whereas Daniel 9:27 describes a specific, temporary seven-year treaty.
“This person makes a “firm” covenant with people, but Christ made no covenant. God made a Covenant of Grace with people, and Christ fulfilled requirements under it, but this is quite different from Christ’s making a covenant…Even if Christ had made a covenant with people during His lifetime, the idea of mentioning it only here in the overall thought of the passage would be unusual, when the subjects of his death and even the destruction of Jerusalem have already been set forth.”
━━ Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 257.
Reason 6 – The Altar Didn’t Stop at the Cross
Christ’s death did not cease the sacrificing of animals in the middle of the week (i.e., 3.5 years after the firm covenant was set in motion). They continued up until the temple destruction in AD 70—37 years after the 69th week ended in AD 33. The “prince” is the one who ceases the tamid (daily) offerings—as seen in Daniel 12:11. The cessation of sacrifices in Daniel 9:27 is forcibly imposed, not merely theologically rendered obsolete.
“The idea that this one causes “sacrifice and offering to cease” does not fit in reference to Christ in this context.”
━━ Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 257.
Reason 7 – The Desolation Timing Doesn’t Fit
The Abomination of Desolation (AoD) is anticipated in Daniel 9:27 (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), and again, nothing immediately after Christ’s death reflects this fulfillment between AD 33-40. Christ and Paul spoke of the AoD as far off in the future (cf. Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4), not something to occur immediately after His death.
“. . .the abomination of desolation has not yet been fulfilled.”
━━ Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 133.
Reason 8 – The 40-Year Math Problem
It is impossible for the remaining seven years (Daniel 9:27) to stretch to the destruction of the temple in AD 70—which is where one could attempt to logically tie together the AoD and Daniel 9:27.
“It has been well observed by various writers that if the seventy weeks are to end with the death of Christ and the incoming destruction of Jerusalem, it is simply impossible—with all ingenuity expended in this direction by eminent men—to make out an accurate fulfillment of prophecy from the dates given, for the time usually adduced being either too long to fit with the crucifixion of Christ or too short to extend to the destruction of Jerusalem.”
━━ George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 3 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, [1884], 1978), Vol. II, 659.
Reason 9 – The Pattern of Daniel’s Other Visions (Dan 2 & 7)
The patterns in Daniel 2 and 7 already set the stage for a prophetic gap, so an interval in chapter 9 shouldn’t surprise us. Both earlier visions describe a transition from the Roman Empire to the final Kingdom of God—which still awaits its fulfillment.
“Further, Daniel’s end time visions in chapters 2 and 7 have already prepared us to see a prophetic gap, which we now know reaches from the first coming of Christ in the first century A.D. to the second coming which lies in the future. Hence, we expect a second coming fulfilling of Daniel 9:24-27.”
━━ Paul M. Henebury, The Words of the Covenant: A Biblical Theology, Volume One-Old Testament Expectation (Maitland: Xulon Press Elite), 317.
Reason 10 – A Long History of “Interval” Interpretation
The belief in a prophetic gap is neither a modern invention nor exclusive to one theological school. It finds significant historical support in the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus, as well as among non-dispensational scholars like T. Kliefoth, C.F. Keil, and H.C. Leupold.
“Irenaeus did not discuss the seventy weeks as such; but in his Against Heresies, v. 25,4 (about 185), he did lay the foundation for a futuristic interpretation of the last week by associating the reign of the Antichrist with its latter half. His disciple, Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, 43 (between 200 and 230), then elaborated this new concept. He taught that the sixty-ninth week terminated with Christ but that the seventieth week was yet wholly future, that the figure who confirms the covenant in Daniel 9:27 was not the Christ but the Antichrist, and that the Lord’s appearing could not transpire until these seven final years of tribulation should have run their course.”
━━ J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), 150.
“It is worth noting that the antichrist interpretation of Dan 9:27 is embraced not only by most premillennial scholars but also by some amillennial ones (e.g., T Klieforth, C.F. Keil and H.C. Leupold). This position was also held by several early church fathers, such as Irenaeus (Against Heresies, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:554), Hippolytus (Commentary on the Prophet Daniel, 2.22), and Origen (Contra Celsum, book 2, chap. 49 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4:450-51; and book 6, chap. 46, 4:594-95). Note, however, that Origen may have voiced a different interpretation in his commentary on Matthew; cf. L.E. Knowles, “The Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel in the Early Fathers,” WTJ 7 (1945): 149-50. Finally, there is the opinion of Apollinaris of Laodicea (preserved in Archer, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, 104-5). He took Dan 9:27 to refer to the antichrist, though he held the unorthodox view that the entire seventy weeks spanned the time between the first and second coming of Christ, and thus he expected Dan 9:27 to be fulfilled before the year AD 500.”
━━ J. Paul Tanner, Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 591, fn. 297.
Conclusion
The evidence presented demonstrates that a prophetic gap in Daniel 9 is not only permissible but exegetically necessary. This gap provides the vital link that harmonizes Daniel’s visions with the broader biblical narrative—aligning the seventieth week with the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, the “Man of Sin” in 2 Thessalonians 2, and the final judgments of Revelation 6–19.
