Let’s unpack Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks—because this might be the most complex and most debated timeline in all of Scripture, and it’s way too easy to get lost in the math and miss the heartbeat of the message.
When most of us hear “70 weeks,” we immediately start doing mental calculations. We’re talking about 490 years. And the traditional approach often slices that timeline up, then pushes the 70th week far into the future—reserved for a future tribulation and the rise of someone labeled the Antichrist. That’s the default framework for a lot of people.
But what you’re laying out is a major paradigm shift. The prophecy isn’t primarily about the triumph of evil, or a massive gap in time, or a future political monster. It’s fundamentally about Christ’s completed work—Christ as the covenant keeper. And here’s the big claim: the cross doesn’t merely appear inside the prophecy. The cross splits the final week right down the middle.
To see why this matters, we have to start with Daniel himself. He’s not sitting in comfort, mapping out futuristic chaos like a prophecy engineer. He’s in Babylon, in exile, deep inside the capital of captivity. He’s distraught. He’s reading Jeremiah. He realizes the 70 years of exile are nearly over—and he prays with desperate hope.
He isn’t hunting secret codes. He’s looking for proof of God’s faithfulness when everything looks like ruin.
And his prayer in Daniel 9 says exactly that. He appeals to God as the great and dreadful God who keeps covenant and mercy. That’s verse 4. Daniel is basically holding God to God’s own promise—despite Israel having completely broken their side of the covenant. Daniel knows God is faithful even when his people are not.
Then Gabriel shows up with an answer to that covenant-focused prayer: a highly specific prophetic timetable. And right there in verse 24, Gabriel gives six objectives. And this is where your Messiah-centered reading becomes so compelling.
Because if this prophecy were mainly about a future political tyrant, you’d expect language about military power, geopolitics, and empire-building.
But that’s not what we get.
We get cosmic, redemptive goals:
- to finish the transgression
- to make an end of sins
- to make reconciliation for iniquity
- to bring in everlasting righteousness
Let’s slow down and be honest. What human ruler can “finish the transgression”? That isn’t political reform. That’s a definitive solution to the root problem of sin and rebellion. No king can accomplish that. No treaty can achieve that. That’s God-level work.
And “everlasting righteousness”? Sure, a human leader might enforce temporary law and order. But only the Anointed One can bring righteousness that lasts forever.
So the focus shifts: this stops looking like a prophecy about future political chaos and starts reading like a declaration of Messiah-driven redemption.
Then the timeline narrows in. Gabriel says that after 69 weeks—483 years—“Messiah the Prince” comes. That’s verse 25. Then the Messiah is “cut off, but not for himself.” That’s verse 26. So the prophecy places the death of the Messiah after the 69th week.
And now we hit the controversy: Daniel 9:27.
Traditional readings usually argue that since the Messiah is cut off after the 69th week, there must be a vast time gap between week 69 and week 70—the so-called great parenthesis. And in that view, the “he” in verse 27 becomes a different figure altogether: a future Antichrist who makes a seven-year political covenant with Israel, triggering the tribulation.
But your argument pushes back hard, and your counterpoint is surprisingly simple: Hebrew grammar.
The subject in verse 26 is the Messiah—the one who is cut off. So why assume a brand-new, unnamed character suddenly hijacks the action in the very next line?
You wouldn’t—at least not without a strong reason.
So the most natural, grammatically faithful reading is that the Messiah remains the subject in verse 27: the Messiah is the one who “confirms the covenant.”
That changes everything.
It implies the 490 years run as a continuous prophetic arc, not a stop-and-start timeline. And it places the Messiah’s ministry and death inside the 70th week.
And if the Messiah is the covenant confirmer, then we have to ask: how does he confirm it?
Not with a political peace treaty.
In your framing, this confirmation is done with blood. The thought jumps straight to the Last Supper: “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” The Messiah ratifies the new covenant with his sacrifice.
Under this framework, the 70th week begins with Christ’s ministry about three and a half years before his death.
Then comes the next crucial phrase in verse 27: “in the midst of the week.”
That means three and a half years into that final seven-year period. And the verse says he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease.
If the Messiah is still the subject, then Christ himself brings the sacrificial system to its ordained conclusion—not by issuing a policy memo, but by making the entire system theologically unnecessary through the once-for-all sacrifice of the cross.
You support this connection to the cross with three strong lines of evidence:
- The veil of the temple torn
At the moment of Christ’s death, the veil is torn in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51). That’s not random symbolism. That’s God announcing that access is now open and the old order has reached its climax. - The shadow-to-substance argument
Hebrews describes the old sacrifices as shadows. The moment the true sacrifice arrives—Christ himself—the shadows lose their purpose. Why keep sacrificing animals when the Lamb of God has completed the ultimate sacrifice? Hebrews 10 drives that logic home.
So the message is simple and sharp: the Lamb of God ended the need for lambs of men.
With Christ’s death three and a half years into the 70th week, the new covenant is inaugurated and the need for temple sacrifice is permanently ended.
That means:
- 69 weeks (483 years) bring us to the Messiah’s arrival.
- The first half of the 70th week (3.5 years) brings us to his death.
That’s 486.5 years of fulfillment, with the cross as the hinge of redemptive history.
So what about the remaining half-week?
Here’s your conclusion: a final, unfulfilled prophetic half-week remains. That’s three and a half years—also described as 1260 days, or “time, times, and half a time.”
And that has huge implications for how people think about the tribulation.
In the traditional model, the future tribulation is a full seven years. Under your Messiah-centric model, the future period is cut in half immediately. If Christ fulfills the covenant confirmation and ends sacrifice at the midpoint of the week, then the future period of final judgment and redemption aligns with the remaining three and a half years.
And that shorter timeframe fits the recurring apocalyptic numbers in Revelation: 1260 days, 42 months—especially in chapters 11, 12, and 13.
So, in this view, the 70th week is neither entirely future nor entirely past. It’s divided by the cross. The Messiah claims the first half through his ministry and sacrifice. The church age follows. And history will eventually see the completion of the final half-week by God’s sovereign appointment, particularly in God’s final dealings with Israel and the world.
All of this loops back to the emotional engine of Daniel 9.
Daniel starts in exile, praying for covenant faithfulness in the shadow of judgment. And God answers with a prophecy that doesn’t merely promise restoration—it promises covenant fulfillment enacted by God himself.
So this reading pushes Daniel 9 away from being a scary chronicle of future chaos and back toward being what it may have always been: a Messiah-centered declaration that God finishes what he begins.
And your summary of the Messiah’s four key actions in this prophecy lands cleanly:
- He appears.
- He is cut off.
- He confirms the covenant.
- He brings sacrifice to an end.
In that light, Daniel 9 becomes less a cryptic puzzle and more a Christ-centered roadmap.
And it leaves the listener with a haunting, thoughtful question:
If the first half-week completed the sacrificial inauguration of the new covenant—finalizing reconciliation and ending the need for sacrifice—what specific divine purposes must unfold within the final, shortened three and a half years?
What completion is left when the covenant itself is already secured?
That’s the weight of the remaining half-week. That’s the tension the prophecy invites you to sit with.Let’s unpack Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks—because this might be the most complex and most debated timeline in all of Scripture, and it’s way too easy to get lost in the math and miss the heartbeat of the message.
When most of us hear “70 weeks,” we immediately start doing mental calculations. We’re talking about 490 years. And the traditional approach often slices that timeline up, then pushes the 70th week far into the future—reserved for a future tribulation and the rise of someone labeled the Antichrist. That’s the default framework for a lot of people.
But what you’re laying out is a major paradigm shift. The prophecy isn’t primarily about the triumph of evil, or a massive gap in time, or a future political monster. It’s fundamentally about Christ’s completed work—Christ as the covenant keeper. And here’s the big claim: the cross doesn’t merely appear inside the prophecy. The cross splits the final week right down the middle.
To see why this matters, we have to start with Daniel himself. He’s not sitting in comfort, mapping out futuristic chaos like a prophecy engineer. He’s in Babylon, in exile, deep inside the capital of captivity. He’s distraught. He’s reading Jeremiah. He realizes the 70 years of exile are nearly over—and he prays with desperate hope.
He isn’t hunting secret codes. He’s looking for proof of God’s faithfulness when everything looks like ruin.
And his prayer in Daniel 9 says exactly that. He appeals to God as the great and dreadful God who keeps covenant and mercy. That’s verse 4. Daniel is basically holding God to God’s own promise—despite Israel having completely broken their side of the covenant. Daniel knows God is faithful even when his people are not.
Then Gabriel shows up with an answer to that covenant-focused prayer: a highly specific prophetic timetable. And right there in verse 24, Gabriel gives six objectives. And this is where your Messiah-centered reading becomes so compelling.
Because if this prophecy were mainly about a future political tyrant, you’d expect language about military power, geopolitics, and empire-building.
But that’s not what we get.
We get cosmic, redemptive goals:
- to finish the transgression
- to make an end of sins
- to make reconciliation for iniquity
- to bring in everlasting righteousness
Let’s slow down and be honest. What human ruler can “finish the transgression”? That isn’t political reform. That’s a definitive solution to the root problem of sin and rebellion. No king can accomplish that. No treaty can achieve that. That’s God-level work.
And “everlasting righteousness”? Sure, a human leader might enforce temporary law and order. But only the Anointed One can bring righteousness that lasts forever.
So the focus shifts: this stops looking like a prophecy about future political chaos and starts reading like a declaration of Messiah-driven redemption.
Then the timeline narrows in. Gabriel says that after 69 weeks—483 years—“Messiah the Prince” comes. That’s verse 25. Then the Messiah is “cut off, but not for himself.” That’s verse 26. So the prophecy places the death of the Messiah after the 69th week.
And now we hit the controversy: Daniel 9:27.
Traditional readings usually argue that since the Messiah is cut off after the 69th week, there must be a vast time gap between week 69 and week 70—the so-called great parenthesis. And in that view, the “he” in verse 27 becomes a different figure altogether: a future Antichrist who makes a seven-year political covenant with Israel, triggering the tribulation.
But your argument pushes back hard, and your counterpoint is surprisingly simple: Hebrew grammar.
The subject in verse 26 is the Messiah—the one who is cut off. So why assume a brand-new, unnamed character suddenly hijacks the action in the very next line?
You wouldn’t—at least not without a strong reason.
So the most natural, grammatically faithful reading is that the Messiah remains the subject in verse 27: the Messiah is the one who “confirms the covenant.”
That changes everything.
It implies the 490 years run as a continuous prophetic arc, not a stop-and-start timeline. And it places the Messiah’s ministry and death inside the 70th week.
And if the Messiah is the covenant confirmer, then we have to ask: how does he confirm it?
Not with a political peace treaty.
In your framing, this confirmation is done with blood. The thought jumps straight to the Last Supper: “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” The Messiah ratifies the new covenant with his sacrifice.
Under this framework, the 70th week begins with Christ’s ministry about three and a half years before his death.
Then comes the next crucial phrase in verse 27: “in the midst of the week.”
That means three and a half years into that final seven-year period. And the verse says he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease.
If the Messiah is still the subject, then Christ himself brings the sacrificial system to its ordained conclusion—not by issuing a policy memo, but by making the entire system theologically unnecessary through the once-for-all sacrifice of the cross.
You support this connection to the cross with three strong lines of evidence:
- The veil of the temple torn
At the moment of Christ’s death, the veil is torn in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51). That’s not random symbolism. That’s God announcing that access is now open and the old order has reached its climax. - The shadow-to-substance argument
Hebrews describes the old sacrifices as shadows. The moment the true sacrifice arrives—Christ himself—the shadows lose their purpose. Why keep sacrificing animals when the Lamb of God has completed the ultimate sacrifice? Hebrews 10 drives that logic home.
So the message is simple and sharp: the Lamb of God ended the need for lambs of men.
With Christ’s death three and a half years into the 70th week, the new covenant is inaugurated and the need for temple sacrifice is permanently ended.
That means:
- 69 weeks (483 years) bring us to the Messiah’s arrival.
- The first half of the 70th week (3.5 years) brings us to his death.
That’s 486.5 years of fulfillment, with the cross as the hinge of redemptive history.
So what about the remaining half-week?
Here’s your conclusion: a final, unfulfilled prophetic half-week remains. That’s three and a half years—also described as 1260 days, or “time, times, and half a time.”
And that has huge implications for how people think about the tribulation.
In the traditional model, the future tribulation is a full seven years. Under your Messiah-centric model, the future period is cut in half immediately. If Christ fulfills the covenant confirmation and ends sacrifice at the midpoint of the week, then the future period of final judgment and redemption aligns with the remaining three and a half years.
And that shorter timeframe fits the recurring apocalyptic numbers in Revelation: 1260 days, 42 months—especially in chapters 11, 12, and 13.
So, in this view, the 70th week is neither entirely future nor entirely past. It’s divided by the cross. The Messiah claims the first half through his ministry and sacrifice. The church age follows. And history will eventually see the completion of the final half-week by God’s sovereign appointment, particularly in God’s final dealings with Israel and the world.
All of this loops back to the emotional engine of Daniel 9.
Daniel starts in exile, praying for covenant faithfulness in the shadow of judgment. And God answers with a prophecy that doesn’t merely promise restoration—it promises covenant fulfillment enacted by God himself.
So this reading pushes Daniel 9 away from being a scary chronicle of future chaos and back toward being what it may have always been: a Messiah-centered declaration that God finishes what he begins.
And your summary of the Messiah’s four key actions in this prophecy lands cleanly:
- He appears.
- He is cut off.
- He confirms the covenant.
- He brings sacrifice to an end.
In that light, Daniel 9 becomes less a cryptic puzzle and more a Christ-centered roadmap.
And it leaves the listener with a haunting, thoughtful question:
If the first half-week completed the sacrificial inauguration of the new covenant—finalizing reconciliation and ending the need for sacrifice—what specific divine purposes must unfold within the final, shortened three and a half years?
What completion is left when the covenant itself is already secured?
That’s the weight of the remaining half-week. That’s the tension the prophecy invites you to sit with.





