Hello,

Ive been following the debate over Daniels 70 weeks, not only on this website, but over approximately 35 years through literally hundreds of books, articles, letters, essays, etc. and what I have learned during this time can be encapsulated thus: 

1)     there are as many theories and interpretations on how the 70 weeks will play out as there are galaxies in the universe. For all the scholarship that has gone into interpreting this most famous prophetic passage in the Bible one thing remains abundantly clear: we are still no closer to having a definitive answer to what the passages mean than we were when they were penned. If anything, the interpretive waters have only further muddied with the passage of time. This is as God wants it, I suspect, because the glory of God is to conceal a thing, but the glory of the king is to seek it out?, and also because, inevitable, finally solving the riddle presents a whole different host of problems over and above the impossible task of arriving at a concise understanding of how the verses in Daniel 9 should be correctly interpreted. What kinds of problems? Well, much like ones that would ensue if we actually uncovered the true date of the rapture: partying like an animal until the day before the rapture and then repenting, for one. 

2)     Daniel 9:27 has, I believe, been delivered to us deliberately in an ambiguous state for reasons we must trust God for. Couldnt Gabriel have cleared the ambiguity simply by saying, And in the midst of the week the Anointed One shall bring an end to the sacrifice? But no, Gabriel used the pronoun, he?. This would have been okay if Hebrew distinguishes between human and divine by the use of a capital H, but it doesnt. So we are left with a he? that, no matter how we twist and turn the logic; no matter how much scholarship one brings to bear on a particular interpretation, the plain fact is that we are still left with a he? that could just as easily refer to Christ as the antichrist. 

3)     Robert Anderson has presented a compelling case for the 70 weeks beginning in 445 BC. But Miriam Howard has also presented an equally compelling argument in her excellent series, Those Certain years and Days of Daniels People? for why the countdown should start at 457 BC with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes. Add to that MJ Agees no-less persuasive thesis for why the countdown should begin in 539 BC with the decree of Cyrus.  Which do we choose? Three dates; three very convincing, even compelling positions on when the 70 weeks should start. All ending dates bring us exactly to Jesus Christ. Ah, but theres the rub: 

4)     in Daniel 9:25, does the phrase, until Messiah the Prince? refer to Jesus birth, His declaration in Luke 4:21 that Isaiah 49:8-9 has been fulfilled, His triumphant ride into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, or His sacrifice on the cross a half a week later? We are not told. If we accept MJ Agees very convincing premise that the 69 weeks began with Cyrus, we must accept the fact that the 69 weeks were fulfilled at His birth, else how can we make 483 years stretch from 539 BC to 30 AD? Howards and Andersons positions, backed by equally stunning authority, bring us to 30 and 32 AD respectively. 

These points merely begin to scratch the surface of the neigh-on impossibility of uncovering what Gabriel was truly imparting to Daniel. As stated earlier, I dont think biblical scholars will ever come to a consensus that adequately marries the myriad theories floating around. Perhaps that is where the glory ultimately lies---our loving God so much that we continue to try to solve Daniel 9:24-27, despite the unlikelihood we ever will.