The prophet Daniel

Josiah, ruler of the kingdom of Judah, stands out as the last monarch truly devoted to observing the Mosaic law. Unlike his grandfather Manasseh and his father Amon, he committed himself to honoring God and removed all the places of worship dedicated to foreign deities that his predecessors had established in the land.

Reading the writings of Isaiah reveals to him that the Babylonians are about to dominate the region (Isaiah 39.5-7). Aware that divine judgment is imminent upon the nation of Judah — because of its abandonment of the ways of the the Eternal — show definition INF038 — the king also knows that the prophet Jeremiah has been warning the people tirelessly, for twenty-three years, of the consequences of their apostasy. However, since he had restored the observance of the Law, Josiah receives the promise that this punishment will not fall during his lifetime (2 Kings 22.18-20).

It was through the prophetess Huldah that this divine word was announced. This situation is a reminder that nothing is left to chance: a supreme Authority, God himself, orchestrates history according to a sovereignly established purpose.

The thirty-one years of Josiah’s reign were marked by peace, but the announced judgment was bound to come. Having studied the oracles of Isaiah, the king had discerned the profound geopolitical upheavals under way. He understood that the rise of Babylon offered a strategic opportunity: to align himself with this new power rather than remain under the tutelage of Egypt, judged too costly in tribute.

In this context, Josiah made the bold decision to defy Pharaoh Necho. Was this initiative guided by an assurance obtained from Babylon, or was it simply an error of judgment? Be that as it may, his action, which seemed to defy all logic in the face of Egyptian military might, proved to be a fatal mistake.

In 609 BC, the decision to oppose Necho leads to tragic consequences. In the valley of Megiddo, Josiah loses his life, ending thirty-one years of reign. At that time, the young Daniel is only about ten years old.

Four years after Josiah’s death, the kingdom of Judah finds itself caught in a vise between Egyptian and Babylonian ambitions. In 605 BC, following his victory over the Assyrians and the Egyptians at Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar II takes part of the people of Judah into captivity in Babylon, among them Daniel and his companions. The young man is then only about fourteen years old. The unwavering commitment of these four adolescents — Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah — to their God remains remarkable.

This deportation marks the culmination of a political and social decline that had been worsening for years, as the prophet Jeremiah had foretold. Josiah’s peaceful reign merely delayed this inevitable fall. Although the country’s critical economic and social situation might seem attributable to the heavy tribute demanded by the Egyptians, the true cause lies in the people’s abandonment of the the Eternal — show definition INF038.

The prophet Jeremiah speaks of this period of calamity lasting seventy years:

Daniel will never return to what he regards as “the most beautiful land in the world,” in the words used by Ezekiel and by himself. Faithful to his God to the end of his days, he will remain in Babylon, serving the various rulers who will succeed one another there.

The fall of Babylon in 539 BC — marked by the capture of the city by the Persians on 12 October — puts an end to Babylonian domination. Cyrus, the new master of the empire, adopts a policy of tolerance: he encourages the conquered peoples to practice their religion and customs, and authorizes the Judeans to return to their homeland to rebuild the Temple (Isaiah 44.28, Isaiah 45.1-4).

The beginning of Babylonian hegemony can be dated to 609 BC, the year of Josiah’s death, and it ends in 539 BC, a period of seventy years, in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy. Other cycles of the same length can be observed in Jewish history, notably the seventy years separating the destruction of the Temple in 587 BC from its partial reconstruction in 516 BC, followed by embellishments until 417 BC under the reign of Darius II. These various periods illustrate the precision of Jeremiah’s oracle and underscore that history is guided by the divine will.

The historical landmarks found in most of the accounts of the book of Daniel make it possible to trace the chronology of his life.

Daniel takes care to date events, according to the conventions of the time, by the number of years of the kings’ reigns. Consequently, thanks to the clues Daniel gives, we know:

We have now reached the year 539 BC; Daniel is then eighty years old.

When biblical data are compared with those of the ancient peoples — Chaldeans, Babylonians and Assyrians — a remarkable historical precision emerges. These civilizations were meticulous in observing the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, stars) and recorded the important dates of their history. These astronomical records served to harmonize months and years, and to attempt to predict the future.

The biblical text provides precise time markers, such as “the first year of the reign of Darius.” Sometimes even the exact month and day are mentioned, offering a wealth of information for dating events.

The precision supplied by the scribe Ezra, establishing the date of 3 April 458 BC according to our Gregorian calendar, proves crucial. This mention is not intended merely to confirm the historical truth of the event: we shall see that this seemingly insignificant detail is of capital importance for our contemporary understanding.

The interest of this datum becomes even more evident when we examine Daniel’s astonishing revelations concerning the seventy weeks. These words, of considerable import, deserve particular attention in the remainder of our study.

Daniel is distinguished by his exceptional intelligence and vast learning. On several occasions he successfully interprets dreams and omens for the successive rulers of Babylon, consistently stressing that these revelations come not from his own abilities but from his God (Daniel 2.27-28, Daniel 4.21). Over the years, he is progressively raised to positions of considerable authority (Daniel 2.48, Daniel 6.1-2).

Despite these leading political responsibilities, Daniel remains deeply attached to his origins and to the destiny of his people. He steadily applies himself to understanding the reasons for and the length of the exile of the Judeans. To do so, he immerses himself in the study of the Scriptures, in particular the Torah — show definition INF032 — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy — as well as the oracles of Jeremiah (Daniel 9.2).

Through this careful study, Daniel reaches the conviction that the seventy years of captivity announced by Jeremiah are drawing to a close (Jeremiah 25.11-12, Jeremiah 29.10). He discerns that the historical events he is witnessing confirm the prophetic word.

Three fundamental elements emerge from this approach:

• prophecy,
• history,
• and in-depth study of the Scriptures.

Daniel understands that the end of the exile is imminent. The encounter with the angel Gabriel, a divine messenger, confirms and seals this understanding.

What is truly surprising in the revelation brought by Gabriel is that it no longer concentrates on the seventy years of captivity. The angel presents a new period: seven times seventy years, that is, four hundred and ninety years. Unlike the exile, this announced era does not relate to the domination of foreign nations over the Judeans, but to a spiritual time culminating in a crucial event: the death of the Messiah (Daniel 9.24-26).

This death will not be a mere historical endpoint; it will mark the beginning of a new era of redemption and salvation for humanity.

We now turn to the text that remains an essential key to understanding the story of Jesus the Messiah.

This passage has given rise to numerous discussions and an abundance of theories, sometimes hard to grasp. This ferment around the text undeniably testifies to its considerable importance.

We would like to highlight an essential observation, which offers an answer to those who consider these texts to be riddles of no interest.

The words of the angel reported by Daniel suggest that these revelations are intended for the generation living in the last times. A question therefore arises: are we that final generation, particularly in view of the signs fulfilled with regard to Israel? If so, it becomes imperative to study these texts in order to draw logical, rational and instructive explanations from them.

If these words are to remain sealed, for whom are they intended? Would God have spoken in vain? Let us recall that in Revelation, John insists that his revelation must not be hidden (Revelation 22.10).

Let us therefore resume the analysis of Daniel’s text concerning these seventy weeks. Verse 24 indicates that this period marks the interval between two major events: the royal decree authorizing the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the death of the Messiah (Daniel 9.24). Six key points linked to the atoning work of Jesus the Messiah — including his death and resurrection — are mentioned there.

The seventh and last week stands apart from the preceding ones by its singular characteristics (Daniel 9.27). The precision of this information makes it possible to analyze History in a new light. However, after examining many commentaries on this subject, one is bound to note a certain disappointment: interpretations vary, and even the most rigorous exegetes do not agree on the dates.

We will therefore first identify the points on which there is consensus, before turning to the subjects of debate. The stakes are high: it is a matter of determining the precise date of the death of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah. If this date corroborates the data of the Gospels, it would confirm God’s omniscience and omnipotence, as well as the exactness of his purpose.

Unanimity on this question appears only in in-depth and methodologically sound studies. The term “week,” in this context, must be understood as designating a heptad, that is, a period of seven years. Thus, the seventy weeks mentioned by Daniel correspond to a total of four hundred and ninety years (7 × 70).

Why interpret these weeks as units of years? This reading follows from a logical deduction: weeks made up of days or months would be manifestly disproportionate to the historical scale of the events described. The year therefore appears to be the only coherent unit of time. This interpretation is reinforced by Daniel’s use of the term “years” elsewhere in his accounts (Daniel 9.2), which suggests that he remains in the same temporal register when he speaks of these weeks.

The starting point of this period is linked to a royal decree authorizing the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Daniel 9.25). As for the seventieth and last week, it is generally regarded as distinct from the first sixty-nine, because of the unique characteristics associated with it.

The main divergence among scholars concerns the date of the royal decree marking the beginning of the four-hundred-and-ninety-year prophetic period, as well as the interpretation of the seventieth week. These differences of analysis affect the coherence of the calculations aimed at linking this period to a precise date for the death of Jesus. Among the possible days for the celebration of Passover falling on a Friday in the period concerned, 7 April AD 30 and 1 April AD 33 are generally retained.

To agree with Daniel’s prophecy, one must identify a royal decree authorizing the rebuilding of Jerusalem, add four hundred and ninety years to it — taking into account the absence of a year zero in the calendar — and arrive at one of these two dates. Moreover, the interpretation of the last week also generates debate. Some consider that it is not an integral part of the period and that it is postponed to the end of time; the count would then be four hundred and eighty-three years rather than four hundred and ninety.

We will now examine these two controversial points in order to propose a satisfactory explanation.

The Bible mentions four royal decrees that could mark the beginning of the seventy weeks referred to in the book of Daniel. Each of these decrees, issued by a sovereign authority, constitutes an official act that must satisfy the criterion defined by the prophetic text: the explicit authorization to rebuild Jerusalem.

An old and still lively debate concerns which of these decrees should be retained as the starting point. Without claiming to settle this controversy definitively, our aim is to examine carefully the four royal acts mentioned in the Scriptures in order to propose an interpretation that can be harmonized with Daniel 9.24-25.

The reference most frequently invoked concerns the decree reported by Nehemiah, dated 445 BC (Nehemiah 2.1-8).

According to this passage, King Artaxerxes grants Nehemiah permission to go to Jerusalem to restore the city. This decree, dated to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes’ reign, explicitly mentions rebuilding and can therefore constitute a starting point consistent with Daniel’s indications.

However, if we add 490 years to the year 445 BC, we arrive at the year AD 46 — taking into account the absence of a year zero. This date proves too late compared with the years generally accepted for the crucifixion of Christ, namely 7 April AD 30 or 1 April AD 33.

To overcome this difficulty, some scholars have proposed using a 360-day “prophetic year,” relying notably on the time indications relating to the flood (Genesis 7.11, Genesis 8.4). According to this method, the total duration is reduced by about 2,450 days, or approximately 6.8 years. Despite this adjustment, the period still has to be corrected to coincide with the years 30 or 33.

If we retain only the first sixty-nine weeks — excluding the last, regarded as distinct — the calculation becomes: 483 − 445 + 1 = 39. Applying the 360-day year, we then subtract about 6.7 years, which leads to the year 32; some, after correction, finally opt for the year 33. Although this approach is widely disseminated, it gives the impression of forcing the text to reach a predetermined result. The whole resembles a puzzle piece artificially adjusted rather than the expression of a divine plan characterized by precision.

Anderson’s theory, based on this type of calculation, is examined in more detail in the appendix ANN067 entitled “The Theories of Anderson and Denney.”

This decree authorizes the people of Judah to return to their homeland, but the rebuilding concerns only the Temple — the text is explicit on this point. Moreover, this date is too early: adding 490 years to 537 BC, we arrive at the year 47 BC, far from the dates envisaged for the death of the Messiah.

This decree is in reality only a confirmation of the one issued by Cyrus. It concentrates exclusively on the rebuilding of the Temple and makes no mention at all of the city. Adding 490 years to 518 BC would bring us to the year 28 BC — a date equally unsuitable.

It should be noted that the policy of the Persian rulers included granting religious freedom and supporting the rebuilding of places of worship. The British Museum holds the famous Cyrus Cylinder, which bears witness to this disposition and corroborates the biblical accounts.

It remains for us to examine the decree mentioned in Ezra 7.11-26. If this one does not prove to be the sought-after starting point, we would then have to turn to Nehemiah’s decree or consider the hypothesis — surprising and unlikely — of a fifth decree that left no trace in the Scriptures.

This decree has three remarkable features:

• It is reproduced in full in the original language — Aramaic — unlike the rest of the book of Ezra, written in Hebrew. This fidelity to the official text avoids any potential alteration of the meaning.
• The date is given with exceptional precision: the 1st of Nisan of the seventh year of Artaxerxes, that is, 3 April 458 BC according to our Gregorian calendar (Ezra 7.7-9).
• A specific remark suggests the divine inspiration of this decree (Ezra 7.27-28).

Refer to the appendix ANN006 entitled “The Exact Date of the Decree” for more details.

By adding the complete period of 490 years mentioned in Daniel 9.24, we obtain: −458 + 490 + 1 = 33. We thus arrive at 3 April AD 33, one of the two dates suspected for the resurrection of the Messiah — to the very day.

One question remains, however: why is there a debate around this date if the equation seems so obvious? The answer lies in the very text of Ezra 7.11-26: King Artaxerxes does not formally mention there the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. That is why many exegetes dismiss this decree as the starting point of the seventy weeks.

We will show that, although this rebuilding is not explicitly cited, it is implicitly authorized.

.

After reading this edict, one must acknowledge that Artaxerxes does not expressly mention the rebuilding of Jerusalem — unlike his later decree addressed to Nehemiah in 445 BC (Nehemiah 2.5).

Let us note, however, the attitude of the sovereign toward Nehemiah: he neither hesitates nor equivocates about the authorization to rebuild the city. The central question seems to concern the means to be employed more than the decision itself. One might deduce that the king had already considered this possibility and was now concentrating on allocating the necessary resources.

Let us examine verse 18:

The king stresses the house of God, but grants Ezra great freedom of action within the framework of the divine will. Now, what was that will? The prophet Isaiah had announced it about one hundred and fifty years earlier:

Flavius Josephus reports in the Antiquities of the Jews (book XI, chapter 1) that Cyrus became aware of this prophecy and was seized with the desire to accomplish what was written. In the wording “you shall do what seems good to you, in accordance with the will of your God,” the rebuilding of Jerusalem is therefore implicitly included.

Moreover, verses 25-26 give Ezra full powers to reestablish the judicial system:

How can one imagine establishing a judiciary in a city in ruins? Rebuilding is automatically presupposed by this mandate.

Ezra had evidently understood the meaning of this decree, since he undertook the rebuilding of the city. Chapter 4 of his book mentions two incidents that hindered the progress of the work. The second, reported in Ezra 4.7-16, takes place precisely under the reign of Artaxerxes.

The adversaries of the restoration wrote to the sovereign to protest:

Remarkably, their complaint is not based on an alleged prohibition against rebuilding the city, but solely on the future risk of revolt. This suggests that the rebuilding was indeed authorized.

The king’s reply is just as significant:

Artaxerxes orders the work to stop, but denounces no transgression of his initial decree. Had it not included — even implicitly — the authorization to rebuild, the king would have reacted with punitive measures far more severe than a mere temporary halt.

At this stage, only three decrees were in force: those of Cyrus (537 BC) and of Darius (518 BC), both relating exclusively to the Temple. It is therefore the decree of 458 BC that provoked this opposition — confirming that all the parties concerned understood the implicit authorization it contained.

This also explains Nehemiah’s distress when he arrived in Jerusalem thirteen years later (Nehemiah 1.3-4): he knew that the rebuilding had been authorized, but progress did not live up to his expectations. Let us recall that certain families involved in the work on the wall under his direction were assigned to sections located near their own houses (Nehemiah 3.10, Nehemiah 3.23, Nehemiah 3.28-30).

Ezra’s prayer confirms that he had fully grasped the scope of the decree:

When Ezra speaks of “a secure shelter in Jerusalem,” he implies rebuilt houses and a restored city.

For all these reasons, we conclude that the decree of King Artaxerxes dated 3 April 458 BC is indeed the starting point of the seventy weeks mentioned by Daniel.

The angel Gabriel had announced to Daniel that a period of seventy weeks — that is, 490 years — was to elapse until the death of the Messiah (Daniel 9.24-26). This is why we have not introduced a break between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth week. However, one question remains: what becomes of this last week during which the Antichrist — show definition INF265 is supposed to appear?

According to our interpretation, this last week — not having unfolded as planned — was in a sense suspended. Time stopped for the Jewish people while the era of the Church opened, that “mystery” revealed by the apostle Paul (Ephesians 3.3-6). This week will be replayed at the end of time; it will then become a period of judgment and tribulation (Revelation 7.14), and will end with the final victory of Jesus the Messiah.

A historical parallel sheds light on this principle. After Passover, the Hebrews left Egypt and quickly reached the borders of the Promised Land. But their refusal to enter led God to cancel that event and send the people back into the wilderness for forty years (Numbers 14.33-34). At the end of that journey, the event was replayed: this time, the people entered the land of Canaan — show definition INF011 (Joshua 3.14-17). The seventieth week will unfold according to the same principle.

We develop this proposal in the appendix ANN067: The Theories of Anderson and Denney.

We now study the passage of Daniel 9.24-27:

Daniel announces here a prophetic period of “seventy weeks” set for the people of Israel and for Jerusalem (Daniel 9.24). In the prophetic context, these weeks must be understood as weeks of years, that is, a total duration of 490 years.

The purpose of this period is the fulfillment of the divine plan: to put an end to rebellion, to atone for sin, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to confirm the prophetic vision and to anoint the most holy place. The text thus directly links this prophecy to the work of the Messiah and to redemption.

According to our understanding, these 490 years form a coherent and continuous whole, leading up to the rejection and death of the Messiah, the central event of the atonement (Isaiah 53.5-6 ; Daniel 9.26). However, several objectives mentioned by Daniel do not yet seem fully realized in history. This leads us to envisage a progressive fulfillment of this last prophetic week, the completion of which would still belong to the future.

After presenting the vision as a whole, Daniel now details its structure (Daniel 9.25). The period is divided into two segments: seven weeks, then sixty-two weeks, for a total of sixty-nine prophetic weeks.

The first cycle of seven weeks probably corresponds to the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem in a context of great difficulties, in keeping with the accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 4.23). The second cycle of sixty-two weeks leads up to the appearance of the Messiah.

Daniel thus distinguishes three stages:

• a first period of 49 years devoted to the rebuilding of Jerusalem;
• a second period of 434 years leading to the Messiah;
• and finally, a particular last prophetic week, separate from the preceding ones.

This precise division underscores the orderly and progressive character of the prophetic calendar revealed to Daniel.

Verse 26 constitutes a major turning point in the prophecy (Daniel 9.26). Daniel announces that “after the 62 weeks” the Messiah will be cut off. This expression must be understood in light of the preceding verse: the 62 weeks are added to the first 7, for a total of 69 weeks.

The text thus specifies that the Messiah is cut off after the 69 weeks, which implies that this event takes place during the seventieth prophetic week.

Daniel then speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary by “the people of the prince who is to come.” Historically, this announcement finds a remarkable fulfillment in the events of AD 70, when the Roman armies led by Titus, son of the emperor Vespasian, destroy Jerusalem and the Temple (Luke 21.20-24).

The prophecy also mentions devastations that will last “until the end of the war.” This period can be linked to the definitive crushing of the Jewish revolt at the fall of Masada, at Passover in AD 73.

Here we observe a phenomenon frequent in prophetic texts: a compression of time. Daniel juxtaposes several events separated by long historical periods without detailing the intervals that separate them. This device also appears in other prophetic passages (Isaiah 61.1-2 ; Luke 4.18-21).

The last verse introduces a figure distinct from the Messiah (Daniel 9.27). While the Messiah has disappeared from the prophetic account, a new actor imposes a covenant for one week and interrupts the sacrifices in the middle of this period.

This week is divided into two equal parts of three and a half years. During the second half, this leader manifests himself as a violent and destructive adversary. Although Daniel does not explicitly use the term “Antichrist — show definition INF265,” the description corresponds to the one developed later in the apostolic writings (2 Thessalonians 2.3-4 ; Revelation 13.1-8).

Daniel thus seems to present two parallel periods:

• a first seventieth week centered on the Messiah;
• a second, eschatological one, dominated by an imitator of the Messiah.

In both cases, the week is marked by a break in the middle of the seven years. This parallel structure seems deliberate and underscores the opposition between the work of the true Messiah and that of his imitator.

One of the most remarkable features of the book of Daniel is this condensed vision of history. The prophet passes directly from the destruction of Jerusalem to the final period preceding the establishment of the Kingdom of God, without explicitly mentioning the era of the Church.

This absence does not mean that this period does not exist, but rather that it is not part of the main framework of the revelation given to Daniel, centered on Israel and Jerusalem (Daniel 9.24).

History confirms several elements announced by the prophet:

the destruction of the Temple in AD 70;
the dispersion of the Jewish people;
the end of the war against Rome — show definition INF004 after the fall of Masada in AD 73.

After these events, the prophecy seems to make a considerable temporal leap toward the end of time, when this leader hostile to God and to the Jewish people appears.

We seek to explain the apparent interweaving of the two prophetic weeks: the one associated with the Messiah and the one linked to the Antichrist — show definition INF265. According to our analysis, Daniel did not receive a detailed revelation of all future events in their complete chronological sequence, but rather a condensed prophetic vision, characterized by a form of time compression. This prophetic phenomenon seems to have led him to juxtapose, in a single perspective, distinct events belonging to different periods of salvation history.

Thus, the Messiah and the eschatological figure of the Antichrist — show definition INF265 appear associated with a single prophetic week (Daniel 9.26-27), whereas other biblical data show that they belong to two separate historical contexts. The Scriptures indeed indicate a significant interval between the rejection of the Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21.20-24) and the events of the end times described in Revelation (Revelation 13.1-8).

This way of presenting distant events in a single vision is not exceptional in prophetic texts. The prophets sometimes contemplate several successive fulfillments without clearly distinguishing the intervening periods (Isaiah 61.1-2 ; Luke 4.18-21). We consider that Daniel 9 falls within this prophetic logic.

According to our working hypothesis, the 69 prophetic weeks lead precisely to the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist and then of the Messiah:

• the decree of Artaxerxes would be dated 3 April -458;
• 483 years later, the ministry of John the Baptist would begin on 5 April AD 26;
• the baptism of the Messiah and the beginning of his ministry would be placed on 4 October AD 29, on Yom Kippur;
• the rejection and death of the Messiah would occur at the end of the 490 years, in the spring of AD 33 (John 19.14-18).

(The precision of these dates remains a hypothesis arising from our research.)

From this perspective, the ministry of John the Baptist would last about 3.5 years, followed by that of the Messiah for a comparable length of time. The structure of the last prophetic week would then appear clearly.

The birth of Jesus, placed about thirty years before the beginning of his ministry (Luke 3.23), would lead to an approximate date corresponding to the autumn of the year -2, possibly during the Feast of Tabernacles — show definition INF208 (John 1.14).

These elements will be the subject of detailed analyses in the appendices devoted to the chronology of the life of the Messiah.

Daniel carefully distinguishes a first period of seven weeks, that is, 49 years (Daniel 9.25). This phase seems to correspond to the complete rebuilding of Jerusalem after the exile.

We are then at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Nehemiah arrives in Jerusalem under the reign of Artaxerxes and undertakes the rebuilding of the walls despite the opposition of the neighboring peoples (Nehemiah 2.1-8 ; Nehemiah 4.7-23).

The walls are rebuilt quickly, in fifty-two days (Nehemiah 6.15), but the complete restoration of the city requires several decades. Nehemiah himself governs Judah for twelve years (Nehemiah 5.14).

This first period of 49 years could thus mark the gradual completion of the restoration of Jerusalem, the main objective of the royal decree. This reconstruction constitutes the indispensable historical background to the later fulfillment of the messianic prophecy.

It also recalls several prophetic promises announcing the restoration of Jerusalem after the exile (Isaiah 44.26-28 ; Isaiah 58.12).