Daniel 9: The Countdown That Will Continue

Why the Final Week Still Awaits & What It Means for the Return of Christ

Over the past two Sundays, I’ve been preaching through Daniel 9:24-27, and I believe this passage presents one of the strongest cases for premillennialism in all of Scripture (the idea that Christ will return to earth before the future 1,000-year Millennial Kingdom described in Revelation 20). Not only is verse 27 the key for understanding Daniel 9, but it’s also the key that unlocks the rest of biblical prophecy. Let me try to walk you through why.

The Two Comings in Verse 24

Daniel 9:24 lists six major redemptive accomplishments that must be fulfilled by the end of the Seventy Weeks. This refers to a prophetic period of 490 years, with each “week” representing seven years (Gen. 29:27-28, Lev 25:1-10, 2 Chron 36:20–21). Some were fulfilled at Christ’s first coming, but others clearly were not:

1. “To finish the transgression”
   This is not sin in general, but the specific covenant-breaking rebellion that Daniel has been confessing. Israel’s national transgression didn’t end at the cross; it continued after 70 AD and continues today. The finishing of the transgression awaits Israel’s future repentance at Christ’s second coming (Zech. 12:10; Rom. 11; Hos. 3:4-5; Lev. 26:40-42; Isa. 59:20-21; Ezek.36:24-27; Jer. 31:33-34; Acts 3:19-21).
2. “To put an end to sin”
   This can’t be the first coming since sin still dominates our world. This looks ahead to the close of the Millennial reign and the creation of the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 20:10-14; 21:4, 27; Isa. 25:8; Dan. 12:2-3). 
3. “To atone for iniquity”
   Without a doubt, this was fulfilled at the cross when Jesus’ sacrifice was offered once for all (Isa. 53:5-6; Heb. 9:26; 10:12-14; Rom. 3:25-26).
4. “To bring in everlasting righteousness”
   While Christ’s death secured our justification, the universal righteousness Isaiah prophesied has not yet come. It awaits the Messianic Kingdom when the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord (Isa. 11:4-9; Jer. 23:5-6; Psalm 2; Ps. 72:1-7; Dan. 7:27).
5. “To seal both vision and prophet”
   This is still future. Prophetic ministry continued into the early church, and Revelation shows it will resume during the Tribulation (Acts 2:17–18; Eph. 4:11–12; 1 Cor. 12:10; Rev, 11:3–6; Dan. 12:4). While some argue this was fulfilled in Christ as the ultimate revelation of God (Hebrews 1:1–2), the sealing here points to the final ratification and closure of prophetic vision, not just its validation. This sealing awaits the end of redemptive history, when all prophecy is completed and fulfilled.
6. “To anoint a most holy place”
   While some see this as fulfilled in Christ or the Church, the language more naturally points to a physical structure consecrated for worship and indwelt by God’s glory. This fits the Millennial temple described in Ezekiel 40–48, which has never been built and whose sacrificial system has never operated. Throughout the Old Testament, God repeatedly promises to dwell in the midst of His people in a restored, sanctified sanctuary (Ezek. 43:1–7; Jer. 3:17; Isa. 2:2–3; Zech. 6:12–13; Mic. 4:1–2; Dan. 8:13–14; Isa. 60:13). That promise remains unfulfilled.

The idea of sacrifices in the Millennium raises understandable questions, but Scripture is clear that these offerings never removed sin (Heb. 10:1–4). In the Old Testament, they provided a temporary covering and pointed forward to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. In the future temple, they will point back as memorials. To “anoint a most holy place” is to consecrate that future sanctuary for Kingdom worship, which will be fulfilled when Christ returns to reign from Jerusalem. This does not suggest a return to the Levitical system of sacrifices, which never removed sin, but a symbolic memorial rooted in Christ’s finished work.

While some of the first and second coming distinctions in verse 24 are open to debate, the main point remains clear. The six objectives stretch across both comings of Christ. Some were clearly fulfilled at His first advent, such as the atonement for iniquity. Others, like the bringing in of everlasting righteousness and the putting away of sin, remain unfulfilled. That means the seventy weeks are not entirely in the past. The final week is still to come.

Verse 25: The First 69 Weeks

Verse 25 breaks down the 69 weeks into 7 + 62 = 69 weeks (or 483 years). Here’s the timeline:

• 7 weeks (49 years): From the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to its completion.
• 62 weeks (434 years): From Jerusalem’s rebuilding to the arrival of the Messiah.

That totals 483 years. Most scholars across the spectrum agree that this was fulfilled chronologically, historically, and with precise timing, leading us right to Christ’s first coming.

Verse 26: The Crucifixion and 70 AD

Verse 26 continues the flow:

• “The anointed one shall be cut off and have nothing”
  That’s Jesus’ crucifixion. Christ was rejected, crucified, left with no throne, no followers, no kingdom. Just a cross.
• “The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”
  This was fulfilled in 70 AD when Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. But notice the prince himself is still “to come.” He is not present in 70 AD, but is said to come from the people who carried out that destruction. That’s crucial: the Antichrist is future, yet his lineage traces back to Rome. This aligns with the vision in Daniel 2 of the legs of iron and feet of iron mixed with clay, which shows a two-stage phase of the Roman Empire. It also matches Daniel 7’s fourth beast, which has two stages: the historic empire, and a revived version in the last days ruled by the final horn.

Verse 27: The Identity of “He”

This is where the views diverge.

View 1: Antiochus Epiphanes

Some claim that Daniel 9:27 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, the Greek ruler who desecrated the temple in 167 BC and is a figure clearly portrayed in Daniel 8. But this interpretation breaks down when applied to the 70th Week in Daniel 9 for several reasons:

• Daniel 8 gives a prophetic period of 2,300 days, which equals just over 6 years. That doesn’t match the full 7 years described in Daniel 9:27. If Antiochus is a type or foreshadowing of the future Antichrist, it makes sense that his reign would be shorter—he sets the pattern, but not the full fulfillment.
• Daniel 9:27 describes a prince who is still to come. Jesus confirms this in Matthew 24:15, when He refers to “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” as a future event. That places Daniel 9:27 well beyond the desecration Antiochus committed nearly two centuries earlier.

So while Antiochus may be a shadow of what’s coming, he is not the substance. He’s a preview, not the prince. The true desolator of Daniel 9:27 is still to come.

View 2: Jesus

Others claim “he” refers to Christ:

• They say Jesus made a strong covenant—the New Covenant. (Jer. 31:31-33; Lk. 22:20; Heb. 8:6; 9:15; Isa. 42:6; 49:8)
• That His death ended sacrifice. (Heb. 10:11-14).

But this interpretation breaks down for several reasons:

• Jesus didn’t establish a 7-year covenant, nor did He break one midway.
• He didn’t end sacrifice at the midpoint of a prophetic week.
• He isn’t a desolator who defiles the sanctuary. Instead, He fulfilled the Law; He didn’t desecrate or abolish it (Matt. 5:17).
• The judgment in verse 27 is poured out on the one who defiles. That doesn’t fit Christ, but does fit the Antichrist of Daniel 7.
• Grammatically, the “he” in verse 27 most naturally refers back to “the prince who is to come” in verse 26, not to “the people” nor to “the anointed one” who was cut off. While some scholars argue otherwise, this antecedent best fits the flow of the passage and the actions attributed to “he” in verse 27.

Taken together, these details confirm that verse 27 is not describing Christ’s first coming but a future figure. And if verse 24 clearly spans both the first and second comings of Christ, then it makes sense to view verse 27 in the same light, as something that remains future. Since the first 69 weeks were fulfilled as literal years, it would be inconsistent to treat the 70th Week differently. The passage gives no reason to change the way we interpret the timeline.

Instead, the Seventy Weeks move forward with clarity and precision: literal years marking literal events, all building toward the return of Christ.

The Only View That Fits: A Future Antichrist

The best interpretation is that verse 27 describes the final Antichrist:

• He’s the prince who comes from Rome (v. 26).
• He makes a covenant with Israel for 7 years.
• He breaks it after 3½ years.
• He stops sacrifices and desecrates the temple.
• He exalts himself above God (2 Thess. 2; Rev. 13).
• He is destroyed by divine judgment at Christ’s return (Dan. 7:11; 7:26-27; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:20).

We shouldn’t fear types and shadows in Scripture, so long as we don’t mistake them for the end of the story. Daniel 8 clearly describes the lesser antichrist, Antiochus Epiphanes, but he serves as a shadow of the greater figure still to come. This is meant to create anticipation, not serve as the final fulfillment. Just as every Old Testament sacrifice pointed forward to the cross, Antiochus points forward to the final Antichrist. The fuller substance appears in Daniel 7 and 9:27, where the coming desolator is revealed in detail. And the structure of the book confirms this: chapter 8 is framed by chapters 7 and 9-12, all of which point beyond Antiochus to a future, end-times prince who will fulfill in full what Antiochus only previewed.

What About the Gap?

Virtually all theologians, regardless of their eschatological position, recognize that there is a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week. Verse 26 describes events that occur “after the sixty-two weeks,” but before the final week begins in verse 27. At minimum, this gap spans the years between Christ’s crucifixion around 30 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But the language of the text suggests the gap is even longer. Verse 26 says, “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” The Romans carried out that destruction, but the prince is still future. He does not appear in 70 AD, though he comes from the same people. This rules out both Titus and Nero as the prince in view and confirms that the prince in verse 27 is still to come. And if the prince is future, then so is the 70th Week he sets in motion.

The seventy weeks revealed to Daniel point not only to Messiah’s first coming but also to His second. Some argue that everything in the prophecy was fulfilled in Christ’s first coming or in the events of 70 AD. But the text itself won’t allow that. Not all six objectives listed in Daniel 9:24 have been fulfilled. Israel’s national rebellion has not ended. Everlasting righteousness has not filled the earth. And prophetic vision has not ceased for good. These are not abstract, spiritualized ideals. They are concrete, visible realities that Daniel expected to unfold in history.

Just as the first sixty-nine weeks were fulfilled literally, down to the year, there is no textual justification for treating the seventieth week differently. The prophecy does not change genres midstream. It’s consistent. These are weeks of years tied to real events in redemptive history. Verse 26 makes that clear. It places the crucifixion of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem after the 69th week but before the 70th. That sequence creates an unavoidable pause. The question is not whether a gap exists, but how long it lasts.

And the text gives us the answer. Verse 27 tells us the 70th Week begins when “he” (the prince who is to come) “makes a strong covenant with many for one week.” That covenant does not fit with 70 AD, since the destruction was carried out by his people before his time. Instead, it is initiated by the final prince and is what restarts the prophetic clock. Until that happens, the 70th Week has not begun.

Jesus Himself confirms that Daniel’s Seventieth Week is still future. In Matthew 24:15, He warns of “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel,” placing it at the beginning of a great tribulation that culminates in His second coming. Many argue that Jesus is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but that cannot be. Daniel 9:26 clearly states that the destruction of Jerusalem was carried out by the people of the prince who is to come—not by the prince himself. The prince appears after that destruction and brings about the abomination in verse 27. This means Jesus, quoting Daniel, was not pointing back to 70 AD but forward to an event that follows the destruction of Jerusalem. He affirms Daniel’s timeline, not redefines it. This detail alone eliminates the possibility that Matthew 24 is merely about Rome or the past. It is a decisive confirmation that Daniel’s Seventieth Week, and the desolator it describes, remains a future event.

What Does This Mean?

So why the gap? This gap isn’t arbitrary. It marks the Church Age, a mystery once hidden from Daniel but revealed in the New Testament (Eph. 3:3–6; Col. 1:26–27). It is the era in which God is gathering a people from all nations until “the fullness of the Gentiles comes in,” before resuming His covenant dealings with Israel (Rom. 11:25–27). This isn’t a minor chronological footnote—it’s a theological turning point. Recognizing the gap and identifying the Seventieth Week as still future is essential for rightly interpreting Daniel 9 and understanding God’s redemptive plan. It also naturally leads to a premillennial view of history.

This means we are still living in the gap. We are waiting not only for the return of the King, but for the final seven-year period that will usher it in. To collapse the prophecy into the past dismisses the precision of the first 69 weeks and disregards the explicit markers of the 70th Week. The structure of the passage demands a pause. And the covenant of verse 27 marks its end. Until then, the prophetic clock remains paused but not forgotten. God’s redemptive calendar is still unfolding exactly as He said it would, and the final week still awaits its appointed hour.

If this is true (and the internal logic of the passage demands it), then you’re left with only one viable eschatological framework: a premillennial understanding of Scripture. Premillennialism takes both Daniel and Jesus, Who quoted him, at their word. It honors the literal fulfillment of the first 69 weeks and expects the same for the 70^th Week. It also affirms a future for national Israel. The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants have not been revoked or reassigned. Though Christ now sovereignly reigns at the right hand of the Father, His universal rule is not the same as His future, earthly reign. When He returns at the end of the 70th Week, He will sit on David’s throne in Jerusalem and reign visibly, physically, and gloriously.

That’s not a minor detail; it sits at the heart of God’s redemptive plan. It changes how we read the Bible, how we view history, and how we prepare for what lies ahead. We are not just remembering what Christ has done. We are longing for what He has promised to do.

The 70th Week is still ahead.

The Antichrist will rise.

But the King is coming.