Does Daniel 9:24–27 support a dual 70-week fulfillment with a chiastic structure?

GloryToHisName said:

I’ve been studying Daniel 9:24–27 closely and created a detailed clause-by-clause chart of the prophecy, including Hebrew words, chiastic layers, and proposed historical and eschatological fulfillment. My translation emphasizes that the 70 weeks are “divided out” (נֶחְתַּךְ), and verse 25 mentions “the second sixty” (בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים), suggesting a second 70-week cycle beyond the first 70 fulfilled historically (457 BC – 33 AD).


══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Verse | Phrase / Clause | Hebrew Key Words | Chiastic Layer | Fulfillment / Date Marker
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:24 | There are divided out seventy weeks | נֶחְתַּךְ | A – Divine Purpose | Dual cycle: first 70 (457–33 BC), second 70 (1542–2032 CE)
9:24 | For your holy city | קָדְשְׁךָ | A | First 70: Jerusalem rebuilt 457–408 BC
9:24 | And your people's rebellion | עַמְּךָ | A | Second 70: Israel aligns with man of sin, 1967–2032 CE
9:24 | For the restraining of lawlessness | לְכַלֵּא חַטָּאת | A | Second 70: restraining the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2), 2025–2028.5 CE
9:24 | Marked out for the coming punishment of purging | עָוֹן | A | Second 70: end of tribulation / Day of the Lord, ~2032 CE
9:24 | For the sealing of the vision and the prophet | וּלְחָתֵם חָזוֹן | A | Second 70: vision fully realized in eschatological age, ~2032 CE
9:24 | Unto the age of righteousness; anointed holy of holies | צֶדֶק, וְלִמְשֹׁחַ קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים | A | Second 70: age of righteousness begins, ~2032 CE
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:25 | From the word that went forth | מִן-מֹצָא דָבָר | B – Starting Points | First 70: 457 BC decree; Second 70: 1542 CE Suleiman rebuilds
9:25 | For the restoration and building of Jerusalem | לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִם | B | First 70: 457–408 BC walls rebuilt; Second 70: 1542 CE walls rebuilt
9:25 | For a ruler and an anointed one for Jerusalem | נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ | B | First 70: Ezra & Nehemiah; Second 70: typological “anointed ruler” / covenant leadership, 1967–2032 CE
9:25 | It shall take seven sevens to be built | שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעִים | B | First 70: 49 years, 457–408 BC
9:25 | Returned at the second sixty | בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים | B | Second 70: 1967 CE, second 60th week, pivotal chiastic marker
9:25 | Anguish and diligence in streets | — | B | Both 70s: First 70 = post-rebuilding trials; Second 70 = tribulation, 2025–2032 CE
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:26 | Two and sixty weeks after | שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם | C – Pivot | First 70: Messiah cut off, 26–33 AD
9:26 | None of the Messiah will be cut off | וְאֵין לוֹ | C | First 70: preserved remnant of faithful Jews, 26–33 AD
9:26 | People of the ruler shall come like a flood | עַם-נָגִיד יָבוֹא בַּשֶּׁטֶף | C | Second 70: eschatological armies / enemies, 1967–2025 CE
9:26 | City and sanctuary destroyed | הָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ יִשָּׁחְתּוּ | C | First 70: 70 AD temple destruction; Second 70: final judgment & abomination destruction, ~2032 CE
──────|----------------|-----------------|----------------|-------------------------
9:27 | He shall cause many of the covenant to prevail | וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים | D – Central Climax | Second 70: 2025 CE start of final 7-year week
9:27 | For the week and a half of one | וְחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ | D | Second 70: mid-week, 3½ yrs into final week, 2028.5 CE
9:27 | Upon offering and sacrifice he shall bring to end abominations | מִנְחָה וְזֶבַח … שִׁקּוּצִים | D | Second 70: eschatological cleansing of temple / people, 2025–2032 CE
9:27 | Until the one who makes desolate pours out what is decreed for consummation | שֹׁמֵם | D | Second 70: consummation / Day of the Lord, ~2032 CE
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Notes:
- Chiastic pattern: A–B–C–D–C’–B’–A’
- Hebrew keywords highlighted for structural clarity
- Second 60th week = 1967 CE pivotal marker
- Restraining lawlessness = 2 Thess 2 reference; final week = revealing of man of sin

Questions for the community:

1. Does the Hebrew wording and syntax provide linguistic support for two distinct 70-week cycles, rather than a single 490-year timeline?


2. Can the chiastic pattern (A–B–C–D–C’–B’–A’) be reasonably defended from a grammatical and syntactical standpoint?


3. Are there any objections from the Hebrew text itself (singular/plural forms, verb agreements, semantic scope) that might favor a single-cycle interpretation?



I’d love insights from scholars or practitioners experienced in Biblical Hebrew, Daniel studies, or eschatological prophecy analysis.


---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DANIEL 9:24–27 DUAL 70-WEEK CHIASM
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CHIASTIC LAYER: A B C D

FIRST 70 WEEKS — HISTORICAL FULFILLMENT
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
457 BC 408 BC 26 AD 33 AD 70 AD
|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
Word goes 7 weeks Messiah Messiah cut Temple
forth: decree (49 yrs) appears off (וְאֵין לוֹ) destroyed
to rebuild Built walls (נָגִיד/ People of City & Sanctuary
Jerusalem /city מָשִׁיחַ) the ruler destroyed
(מִן-מֹצָא completed rejected (הָעִיר וְהַקֹּדֶשׁ)
דָבָר, בִּירוּשָׁלִם) Messiah)
נָגִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ)

Verse refs: 9:24–26

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
SECOND 70 WEEKS — MODERN / ESCHATOLOGICAL FULFILLMENT
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1542 CE 1967 CE 2025 CE 2028.5 CE 2032 CE
|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
Word goes Second 60th Start final Midpoint of Consummation
forth: Suleiman week marker 7-year week week, half- / Day of Lord
rebuilt walls (בַּשְּׁנַיִם Many of the week (וַחֲצִי ends / holy
of Jerusalem שִׁשִּׁים) covenant הַשָּׁבוּעַ) place anointed
(מִן-מֹצָא prevail (וְהִגְבִּיר)
דָבָר)

Abominations cease (שִׁקּוּצִים)
Until the one who makes desolate pours out decree (שֹׁמֵם)

Verse refs: 9:24–27
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
CHIASTIC STRUCTURE KEY:

A — Holy City / People’s Rebellion (v.24)
B — Starting points / restoration (v.25)
C — Messiah cut off / people of ruler (v.26)
D — Many of covenant prevail / final week & half-week / cleansing (v.27)
C’ — Mirror of C: eschatological “people of ruler” & destruction
B’ — Mirror of B: second 60th week / Jerusalem returned
A’ — Mirror of A: consummation / sealing up / age of righteousness
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Click to expand...

1. Does Daniel 9 support a dual 70-week fulfillment?​

A constructive and biblical “Yes but with caution.”​

• Day of the Lord, "historical (Isa 13) and eschatological (Joel 2–3)."
• Abomination of Desolation, "Antiochus IV (Dan 11), Roman destruction (Matt 24), and an end-time antichristic pattern."
• Temple imagery, "physical, spiritual, and eschatological (Ezek 40–48; Rev 21–22)."

However…​

2. Chiastic structure (A–B–C–D–C′–B′–A′): Is it defensible?​

• Psalm 1
• Daniel 2–7 is a well-known Aramaic chiasm (A–B–C–C′–B′–A′).
• Lamentations 1–5
• Isaiah 6

• A: Purpose clauses (v.24)
• B: Starting points / Jerusalem (v.25)
• C: Messiah & destruction (v.26)
• D: The covenant / final week (v.27)

3. Hebrew objections? Single-cycle vs dual-cycle​

• The number “seventy” (שִׁבְעִים) appears only once (v.24)​

• The “seven weeks + sixty-two weeks” (v.25) grammatically forms a single continuous chain​

• The phrase בַּשְּׁנַיִם שִׁשִּׁים​

✓ The finished work of Messiah (v.26)​

✓ The coming final cleansing (v.27)​

✓ The triumph of everlasting righteousness (v.24)​

My Dear Brother,​

samaus123456789 said:

The decree was 444 bc in Nehemiah 2 20th year of Artaxerxes- 483 =39 Ad -1 year when going from bc to ad = 38 AD. The author of Genesis, and Jubilees (both Moses) are using 360 day a year calendar same with the author of Revelation so need to - another 7 years = 31 AD for the crucifixion. The 444 date comes from archaeology, and could be wrong by a year or two. Notice the 70th 7 is not connected to the 69th in Daniel 9. Eleazar Ben Hananias stops the daily sacrifice 66 AD starting the Judean Roman wars (Josephus) so the final 7 was 63-70 AD ending with the temple being destroyed, and someone setting up an abomination of desolation in it before hand whatever it was as it was not recorded by Josephus. Inspired scripture stopped here too.

Click to expand...

1. About the 444 BC decree (Nehemiah 2)​

2. About the 360-day prophetic calendar​

3. “The 70th week is not connected to the 69th”​

4. Eleazar ben Hananiah stopping the sacrifices (66 AD)​

“The daily sacrifice was stopped by the zealots.” (Wars 4.2.1)

Click to expand...

• The text of Daniel 9 describes a covenant being enforced (וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים)​

• Jesus places the “abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:27) in the future relative to 30 AD (Matt 24:15)​

5. “Inspired Scripture stopped here.”​

• Paul (2 Thess 2) speaks of a future man of lawlessness seated in the temple of God.
• John (Revelation) describes further abominations, prophetic timelines, and covenant persecutions.
• Jesus (Matt 24:21–29) links a future tribulation to Daniel’s prophecy.

pastorwaris said:

Brother, thank you for your thoughtful contribution!
Your observations about the decree of Artaxerxes, the 360-day prophetic calendar, and Josephus’ account of the cessation of sacrifices are valuable pieces of the discussion. You clearly have a good grasp of the historical data and how many scholars approach Daniel’s timeline. I appreciate the precision and care in your argument.

Allow me to respond point-by-point with respect, while also offering a few clarifications from the Hebrew text, chronology, and New Testament context.

1. About the 444 BC decree (Nehemiah 2)​

The 444 BC date is indeed widely held (Artaxerxes’ 20th year), but even conservative scholars acknowledge some chronological uncertainties in Persian regnal years.
However, Daniel 9:25 says:
מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם
"From the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem."
Many scholars note that Ezra 7 (457 BC) is the only decree that explicitly authorizes restoration (לְהָשִׁיב) not just repairs. Nehemiah’s decree is more narrowly focused on the walls.
So while 444 BC is a legitimate position, 457 BC remains linguistically stronger.
Your point is well-taken, but the Hebrew nuances keep the discussion open.

2. About the 360-day prophetic calendar​

Yes, prophetic literature often uses a 360-day schema (e.g., Rev 11–12: “1260 days = 42 months = 3½ years”).
But applying a strict 360-day year to Daniel’s 70 weeks is interpretive, not required by the Hebrew text.
In Daniel 9, no unit of days is mentioned only שָׁבֻעִים (weeks/sets of seven).
The text leaves the “type” of year undefined.
So using a 360-day year can be helpful, but it is not mandated linguistically.

3. “The 70th week is not connected to the 69th”​

This is an excellent observation. Many scholars agree with you:
There is an intentional gap between the 69th and the 70th week.

Daniel 9:26 explicitly states:
וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם
“After the sixty-two weeks…” then events occur before v.27’s final week begins.
This does show a structural separation.
Where interpreters differ is how long the gap is.

You propose 33–63 AD.
Others argue the gap continues into the last days (cf. Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2; Rev 13).
Both views attempt to handle the same textual tension in different ways.

4. Eleazar ben Hananiah stopping the sacrifices (66 AD)​

You are absolutely right that Josephus records this:



This is a strong candidate for the “cessation of sacrifice” in Daniel 9:27.
However:

• The text of Daniel 9 describes a covenant being enforced (וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים)​

There is no record of Eleazar, Zealots, or Romans strengthening a covenant with many.

• Jesus places the “abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:27) in the future relative to 30 AD (Matt 24:15)​

Meaning something beyond His earthly ministry.

So 66–70 AD is historically important,
but not a complete fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.

5. “Inspired Scripture stopped here.”​

Brother, respectfully this is a theological conclusion, not a textual one.
Jesus and the apostles treat the destruction of Jerusalem as a pattern, but not the final culmination:

• Paul (2 Thess 2) speaks of a future man of lawlessness seated in the temple of God.
• John (Revelation) describes further abominations, prophetic timelines, and covenant persecutions.
• Jesus (Matt 24:21–29) links a future tribulation to Daniel’s prophecy.

So the New Testament does not treat 70 AD as the end of prophetic history.

Blessings

Click to expand...

pastorwaris said:

Brother, thank you for your thoughtful contribution!
Your observations about the decree of Artaxerxes, the 360-day prophetic calendar, and Josephus’ account of the cessation of sacrifices are valuable pieces of the discussion. You clearly have a good grasp of the historical data and how many scholars approach Daniel’s timeline. I appreciate the precision and care in your argument.

Allow me to respond point-by-point with respect, while also offering a few clarifications from the Hebrew text, chronology, and New Testament context.

1. About the 444 BC decree (Nehemiah 2)​

The 444 BC date is indeed widely held (Artaxerxes’ 20th year), but even conservative scholars acknowledge some chronological uncertainties in Persian regnal years.
However, Daniel 9:25 says:
מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם
"From the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem."
Many scholars note that Ezra 7 (457 BC) is the only decree that explicitly authorizes restoration (לְהָשִׁיב) not just repairs. Nehemiah’s decree is more narrowly focused on the walls.
So while 444 BC is a legitimate position, 457 BC remains linguistically stronger.
Your point is well-taken, but the Hebrew nuances keep the discussion open.

2. About the 360-day prophetic calendar​

Yes, prophetic literature often uses a 360-day schema (e.g., Rev 11–12: “1260 days = 42 months = 3½ years”).
But applying a strict 360-day year to Daniel’s 70 weeks is interpretive, not required by the Hebrew text.
In Daniel 9, no unit of days is mentioned only שָׁבֻעִים (weeks/sets of seven).
The text leaves the “type” of year undefined.
So using a 360-day year can be helpful, but it is not mandated linguistically.

3. “The 70th week is not connected to the 69th”​

This is an excellent observation. Many scholars agree with you:
There is an intentional gap between the 69th and the 70th week.

Daniel 9:26 explicitly states:
וְאַחֲרֵי הַשָּׁבֻעִים שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁנַיִם
“After the sixty-two weeks…” then events occur before v.27’s final week begins.
This does show a structural separation.
Where interpreters differ is how long the gap is.

You propose 33–63 AD.
Others argue the gap continues into the last days (cf. Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2; Rev 13).
Both views attempt to handle the same textual tension in different ways.

4. Eleazar ben Hananiah stopping the sacrifices (66 AD)​

You are absolutely right that Josephus records this:



This is a strong candidate for the “cessation of sacrifice” in Daniel 9:27.
However:

• The text of Daniel 9 describes a covenant being enforced (וְהִגְבִּיר בְּרִית לָרַבִּים)​

There is no record of Eleazar, Zealots, or Romans strengthening a covenant with many.

• Jesus places the “abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:27) in the future relative to 30 AD (Matt 24:15)​

Meaning something beyond His earthly ministry.

So 66–70 AD is historically important,
but not a complete fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.

5. “Inspired Scripture stopped here.”​

Brother, respectfully this is a theological conclusion, not a textual one.
Jesus and the apostles treat the destruction of Jerusalem as a pattern, but not the final culmination:

• Paul (2 Thess 2) speaks of a future man of lawlessness seated in the temple of God.
• John (Revelation) describes further abominations, prophetic timelines, and covenant persecutions.
• Jesus (Matt 24:21–29) links a future tribulation to Daniel’s prophecy.

So the New Testament does not treat 70 AD as the end of prophetic history.

Blessings

Click to expand...

samaus123456789 said:

I had a mistake in the maths at one point not doing things in the right order.


In Dan 9 the messiah was going to be cut off (the crucifixion) at the end of 483 years (69 times 7) starting from when a decree went out to rebuild. One of the decrees is in Nehemiah 2 the 20th year of Artaxerxes of Persia which based on archeology was 445 BC. The author of Genesis (150 days, 5 months) Jubilees (150 days, 5 months) , and Revelation (times, time, half a time, 1260 days) are using 360 day a year calendars. So 445 BC minus 483 = -39 AD then minus another 1 year when going from BC to AD or vice versa 40 AD in Gregorian years. To convert to 360 day years then 483 times 5.24 days (the difference between Gregorian years of 365.24 and 360 day years)= 2530/ 360 = 7 year difference. Subtract 7 from 40 AD puts the crucifixion at 33 AD. Please explain if there is a problem with that math.

If the decree was 7th year of Artaxerxes 457 BC in Ezra then 457-483= -26, - another 1= 27 AD - 7 = 20 AD so that makes no sense unless someone has Jesus being born around 10 BC (the NT says something about Jesus 30th year)

Click to expand...

Dear Brother, thank you for all three replies your effort, calculations, and desire for accuracy are genuinely appreciated.​

1. About the 360-day year​

• Genesis 7–8
• Jubilees
• Revelation 11–12

שָׁבֻעִים – “weeks / units of seven”​

2. About the decree date: 445/444 BC vs. 457 BC​

מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם​

לְהָשִׁיב – “to restore” (not just rebuild walls)​

• restores Jewish law
• restores autonomy
• restores worship
• restores judicial authority
• restores the temple economy

3. About the math leading to 20 AD or 18 AD crucifixion​

If the math produces an impossible crucifixion year, that means the system not the Bible is flawed.​

• Jesus’ ministry begins in “the 15th year of Tiberius” (Luke 3:1) → 27/28 AD
• Jesus is “about 30” at that time (Luke 3:23)
• Passover crucifixion fits 30–33 AD astronomically

4. “2 Thessalonians 2 happened in 70 AD”​

• exalts himself as God (2 Thess 2:4)
• sits in the temple of God
• performs false signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9)

“Do not think the Day of the Lord has come.”
(2 Thess 2:2)

Click to expand...

5. “All of Matthew 24 happened in 70 AD”​

• the gospel will be preached to all nations (Matt 24:14) not completed in 70 AD
• the sun and moon will be darkened (24:29) did not happen
• tribulation such as never was or never will be (24:21) WWII exceeded 70 AD
• they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds (24:30) did not occur
• angels gathering the elect (24:31) no record of this event

1. Local signs (70 AD) Luke 21
2. Global final signs (end times) Matthew 24

6. “Revelation was written in 41 AD”​

• Irenaeus (AD 180)
• Clement of Alexandria
• Origen
• Victorinus
• Eusebius

7. “The final 7 years were 63–70 AD”​

• strengthens a covenant with many
• stops sacrifices
• sets up an abomination
• is destroyed at the consummation

• not covenant-related
• not done by a single ruler
• not accompanied by abomination signs
• not followed by the ruler’s destruction
• not followed by everlasting righteousness (9:24)

Back to the Topic: Does Daniel 9 support a dual 70-week structure?​

1. The Hebrew word נֶחְתַּךְ (“divided out, cut off”)​

2. The structure of the prophecy is chiastic​

3. There is a clear gap after the 69th week (Dan 9:26)​

4. Jesus places part of Daniel 9 in the future (Matt 24:15)​

5. Paul places elements of Daniel 9 in the future (2 Thess 2)​

6. John places elements of Daniel 9 in the future (Rev 11–13)​