Monday, October 6, 2025

“Daniel 9:27 Explained: Messiah, Covenant, and the Seventh-day Adventist View”

Ellen G. White false prophet.
What does Daniel 9:27 truly mean? Is the Seventh-day Adventist reading correct? This apologetic article examines biblical exegesis, Church Fathers, theologians, and Catholic teaching to offer a balanced, evidence-based interpretation.

Introduction — Why Daniel 9:27 is controversial

Daniel 9:24–27 is one of the most debated prophetic passages in Scripture because of its dense imagery, numeric symbolism, and implications for messianic and eschatological prophecy. Verse 27, in particular, speaks of a “covenant made for one week” and the cessation of sacrifice, among other things — and different interpreters see different actors (Messiah, Antichrist, “prince who is to come”) and different timing (past fulfillment, future prophecy, or dual fulfillment).

The Seventh-day Adventist interpretation (and similar “prophecy school” approaches) often identify Daniel 9:27 with a future 7-year covenant (the so-called “70th week”) involving the Antichrist, mid-week abrogation of sacrifice, and a future “Great Tribulation.” But is that the correct reading?

In what follows, I will analyze: (1) the literal and grammatical meaning of the verse; (2) alternative interpretations (including SDA); (3) the testimony of early Christians and Church Fathers; (4) what modern biblical scholarship says; and (5) a reasoned conclusion from an orthodox / Catholic perspective.

1. Text, translation, and key issues in Daniel 9:27

Let’s look at a standard rendering (ESV / similar):

“And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
— Daniel 9:27 (ESV)

The key clauses and interpretive questions are:

  1. “He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week” — Who is he? What is “covenant,” and what does “one week” mean (7 years, symbolic, or other)?

  2. “In half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering” — What is the “sacrifice and offering”? Does it refer to temple sacrifices, or a spiritual sacrifice?

  3. “On the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate” — Who is this “one who makes desolate,” and what is the “abomination”?

  4. “Until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator” — What is the “end,” and when is it poured out?

Other issues: Are the events chronological? Is there a gap or “parenthesis” between verse 26 and 27? Is there a dual or typological fulfillment?

1.1 “One week” = 7 years?

Most traditional interpreters, including Church Fathers, take “week” here to mean a “week of years” — i.e., 7 years (so 1 week = 7 prophetic years). This is consistent with the broader structure of Daniel 9: the “seventy weeks” prophecy (70 × 7 = 490 years) is commonly understood as 490 prophetic years (often 490 “years,” using the day-year principle). The SDA interpreters follow this method as well.

The early Christian tradition generally accepted the “weeks of years” reading. For example, many Church Fathers understood Daniel’s seventy weeks in terms of years leading toward the coming of the Messiah. matthew713.com+2lionandlambapologetics.org+2

1.2 The identity of “he” and the meaning of “covenant”

The he in “he shall make a strong covenant” is contested:

  • The SDA / futurist view typically identifies he with a future Antichrist / “prince to come” who makes a covenant with Israel (or “many”) in a future 7-year period, then in mid-week breaks it and persecutes.

  • Some interpreters (and some in historicist tradition) see he as referring to Christ himself, “confirming the covenant” (i.e. ratifying the new covenant by His work).

  • Others see he as a “prince to come” who is a lesser figure (a human ruler) in the later stretch of the prophecy (often tied to Roman or pagan powers).

Likewise, “covenant” can be understood in different senses:

  • A new covenant (spiritual, Christ’s mediation).

  • A political treaty (between powers).

  • A typological or symbolic reference to God’s covenant with His people.

1.3 Cessation of sacrifice and the “abomination of desolation”

The clause “in half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering” is commonly understood to refer to cessation of temple sacrifices. This corresponds to other prophetic passages (e.g., Daniel 11:31, 12:11) and the concept of abomination of desolation (the setting up of something idolatrous in the temple).

“Abomination of desolation” is a phrase that appears in Daniel 9:27, also Daniel 11:31, 12:11, and is cited by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 / Mark 13:14. Many interpret this as an idol or blasphemous object placed in the temple (or “holy place”) to desecrate it. The New Testament applies that language to Jesus’ prophecy about impending judgment and temple destruction. bible.ca+4Thoughtful Catholic+4Bible Hub+4

1.4 Chronology, “gap,” and literary structure

One major interpretive challenge is whether Daniel is giving a strictly chronological sequence of events, or whether verses are telescoped, chiasmic, or interrupted by parenthetical material. Some propose there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week, so that verse 27 refers to a future antichrist period. Others argue for a continuous fulfillment in the first century, with Christ’s ministry and the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilling the prophecy.

Hermeneutics discussions have noted that the structure of Daniel 9 displays chiastic or symmetric patterns — that is, the prophecy moves back and forth between Jerusalem’s construction, Messiah’s coming, and the city’s destruction, rather than a purely linear timeline. Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange

2. The Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) interpretation of Daniel 9:27

To present a fair critique, let me summarize how SDA interpreters commonly read Daniel 9:27:

  • They see the prophecy of the 70 weeks as spanning from the decree to restore Jerusalem (often dated 457 BCE) to a future 7-year antichrist period (the “70th week”).

  • The first 69 weeks (483 years) are believed to culminate in Christ’s first coming, baptism, or some event in His life.

  • The 70th week is reserved for future prophecy: a 7-year period in the end times when a “covenant with many” will be made (a peace treaty or alliance), then in the middle of that 7-year period the Antichrist will break it, stop sacrifices, set up the “abomination of desolation,” persecute the saints, etc.

  • They often place the “midst of the week” as 3½ years of tribulation.

  • The SDA system is part of a more comprehensive prophetic schema (linked with Daniel 7, Revelation 13, prophetic time periods, etc.).

This futurist / dispensational reading is popular in many Evangelical and Adventist prophetic systems.

Strengths and challenges of the SDA interpretation

Strengths / reasons why it appeals:

  • It accounts for unfulfilled expectation: it places the full prophecy in the future, so that the tribulation and Antichrist aspects are still awaited.

  • It aligns with readings of Revelation and apocalyptic frameworks common in certain Protestant circles.

  • It gives weight to the mid-week break as a dramatic turning point.

Challenges / criticisms:

  1. Lack of early Christian support — The SDA futurist reading is relatively modern; it is not the dominant or traditional reading among Church Fathers or historic interpreters.

  2. Difficulty with chronology — Fitting a precise consecutive 7-year period in future prophecy while aligning with first-century events is complex and contested.

  3. Issue of sacrifices — The cessation of “sacrifice and offering” is problematic if no temple exists in the future (in many SDA scenarios, there is a rebuilt temple, but even so this raises difficulties).

  4. Textual and grammatical challenges — The subject he is not unambiguously “Antichrist” in the Hebrew; other interpreters can plausibly assign it to the Messiah or to the “prince who is to come.”

  5. Patristic and historic consensus — The weight of early Christian interpretation leans toward a first-century fulfillment (or at least early fulfillment) rather than awaiting a future 7-year Antichrist covenant.

3. What the early Church Fathers & Christian tradition said

A crucial test for prophetic interpretation is how the ancient Church understood it. Let’s see what the Fathers said about Daniel 9 and the 70 weeks, especially concerning verse 27.

3.1 Messianic / fulfilled readings in early Christianity

Many Church Fathers read the seventy weeks prophecy in a Messianic / first-century sense, seeing Christ’s coming, death, and the destruction of Jerusalem as fulfilling it.

  • The Epistle of Barnabas (very early Christian writing) associates the completion of the “week” with the spiritual temple (i.e. the Church) and sees typological fulfillment in Christ. matthew713.com

  • Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian — these early writers argued that the weeks were fulfilled in Christ’s time. For example, Origen says, “the weeks of years … which the prophet Daniel had predicted … have been fulfilled”. bible.ca+1

  • Jerome, in his Commentary on Daniel, wrote extensive reflections on Daniel’s prophecy and often read the 70 weeks in view of Christ and the destruction of the Temple. Jerome’s work became especially influential in the West. Tertullian Project

  • Some Fathers, like Irenaeus, allowed a more “dual” or extended reading: he recognized a 3½ year period of tribulation and the figure of the Antichrist, and tied Daniel 9:27 to the “middle of the week” as a future time. Irenaeus explicitly cites Daniel 9:27 when speaking of the Antichrist’s period of 3½ years of persecution. bible.ca+4Joel's Trumpet+4Christianity Stack Exchange+4

  • However, the majority of patristic interpreters did not leave the 70th week entirely future. Many read it as fulfilled in the past or in Christ’s time. The “future 7-year covenant / Antichrist” reading was not widespread in the early centuries. matthew713.com+2lionandlambapologetics.org+2

A summary from a modern survey of the Fathers: “there was a strong consensus among the early church fathers that Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy was fulfilled in Christ.” From Daniel to Revelation+2lionandlambapologetics.org+2

3.2 Irenaeus and the “midweek” Antichrist

Irenaeus is one of the more prominent Fathers who allowed that Daniel 9:27 has an eschatological dimension. In Against Heresies (5.25.4), he cites:

“In the midst of the week he says, the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation be brought into the temple… Now three years and a half constitute the half-week.” Joel's Trumpet+1

So Irenaeus sees a 3.5-year period of persecution tied to the “middle of the week” — consistent with a kind of Antichrist framework. However, Irenaeus is not slavishly tied to a single future 7-year covenant that matches modern SDA scheme; his eschatology is broader and more symbolic.

Thus, while Irenaeus is sometimes cited in SDA / futurist arguments, his position is not nearly as neatly aligned as some modern interpreters presume.

3.3 Gaps, dual fulfillment, and historical reading in the tradition

Some early interpreters recognized that the prophecy may have a dual fulfillment or a telescoping structure: initial fulfillment in Christ’s ministry and the 1st century, combined with a future application or typological significance of the “week.” Others saw a gap between the 69th and 70th week allowing for the final week in the future (though this was not a consensus view). Christianity Stack Exchange+3matthew713.com+3lionandlambapologetics.org+3

But the mainstream patristic consensus (especially in earlier centuries) leaned toward seeing the prophecy as essentially fulfilled historically, not entirely postponed into a pre-tribulation or end-times framework.

4. Modern scholarship & interpretive options

Modern biblical scholars largely fall into several interpretive categories. Below is a comparative table of prevalent views, with pros and cons.


Interpretive OptionKey Features / ActorStrengthsWeaknesses / Criticisms
Messianic / historicist / first-century fulfillmentHe = Messiah or “prince to come” in the immediate prophetic context; the covenant “confirmed” by Christ; the cessation of sacrifices via Christ’s death; the abomination = desecration in 70 ADAligns well with early Christian readings; no need for speculative future temple or elaborate chronology; strong coherence with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70Some parts (e.g. “abomination of desolation”) seem more forcefully future; reconciling timeline gaps is complex
Futurist / SDA / dispensationalThe 70th week is future, to be fulfilled by an Antichrist figure who makes a covenant with Israel, breaks it midweek, stops sacrifices, sets up an idol in a rebuilt templeFits popular eschatological frameworks; gives a future “great tribulation” focus; appeals to mid-week break imageryLacks strong patristic consensus; depends on reconstructed future temple and restoration of sacrifices; subject he and timeline issues debated
Ideal / symbolic / non-literalThe prophecy is symbolic of God’s dealings with His people, not tied to strict chronologyAvoids chronological debates; emphasizes theological meaning over predictive detailLess satisfying to those seeking detailed prophecy; may underplay the historical value
Modified or dual fulfillmentThe prophecy has a partial historical fulfillment (in Christ / AD 70) and also foreshadows future antichrist eventsSynthesizes historical and eschatological insights; allows both first and later fulfillments

 

Many respected commentaries and scholarly sources lean toward a messianic / historical reading (or modified dual reading), especially in more conservative or mainline traditions. For example:

  • Some commentators argue that he refers to Christ, confirming the covenant of redemption, and that the sacrifice ceases because Christ’s atoning death fulfills the sacrificial system. (See e.g. the article “A Strong Covenant With Many: Seeing the Atonement in Daniel 9:24-27”) Christ Over All

  • Others caution that the SDA reading tends to overextend the text, reading too much into a clause that may be symbolic or not strictly chronological.

  • Several scholars underline that Daniel’s prophecy is apocalyptic literature with symbolic, telescoped structure (not always a linear timeline). Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange+1

Thus, while the SDA reading is not impossible, it is contested and not without significant textual, historical, and theological obstacles.

5. Evaluation: Is the SDA interpretation “correct”?

Given the evidence, here's how I evaluate the SDA reading versus an orthodox / traditional interpretation:

5.1 Arguments for the SDA view that are valid to consider

  • The clause “in half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice” naturally invites a “mid-week break” reading, which the SDA scheme embraces.

  • The imagery of a covenant made then broken, persecution, an abomination, etc., is vivid and maps onto popular end-times frameworks.

5.2 Key problems for the SDA reading

  1. Patristic tradition does not support a purely future 7-year covenant interpretation as the dominant reading. Most ancient Christian interpreters read Daniel 9 as fulfilled in Christ or in the early Christian / first-century era.

  2. Temple / sacrifices: in the typical SDA reading, there must be a future temple, reinstated sacrifices, etc. That raises theological and practical difficulties, especially when the New Covenant has abolished the need for repetitive sacrifices.

  3. Ambiguity in he: The Hebrew/Aramaic text does not unambiguously demand the subject be a future Antichrist; he could refer more broadly to the “prince to come” in the prophetic context (which might be fulfilled in Christ or in Roman power).

  4. Chronological fitting: The SDA scheme often forces alignments and dates which many scholars view as speculative or uncertain.

  5. Theological consistency: If Christ’s sacrifice is final and perfect, then the idea of needing future temple sacrifices seems theologically regressive. The orthodox reading sees the cessation of sacrifices as fulfilled in Christ’s one sacrifice.

5.3 A more balanced orthodox / Catholic reading

From a Catholic / orthodox perspective, one can affirm:

  • Daniel 9:27 does contain prophetic imagery that looks forward (typologically) to judgment, abomination, and the desolator — and the concept of the “midst of the week” is suggestive.

  • But the primary fulfillment is in Christ’s ministry, death, and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. In that reading:

    • He (the one confirming the covenant) is Christ (or the figure through whom the covenant is ratified).

    • The cessation of sacrifice is because Christ’s sacrifice obsoleted the old sacrificial system.

    • The abomination of desolation refers to the Roman destruction of the Temple and desecration in AD 70 (or Jewish rebellion).

    • The “desolator” is Rome or anti-God powers, and the “end poured out” refers to divine judgment on Jerusalem / Israel.

  • One can allow for a dual or typological horizon: some elements of Daniel 9:27 can serve as types or foreshadowings of future conflict, but the text should not be forced into a rigid modern 7-year covenant scheme alien to its original context.

Thus, I would say: the SDA interpretation is not clearly “correct” — it is one among several possible readings, and it faces serious objections. The traditional / orthodox reading that sees the prophecy largely fulfilled in Christ’s first coming and in the 1st century has stronger support in the early Christian tradition, in biblical-theological coherence, and in historical exegesis.

6. Summary / key points

  • Daniel 9:27 is a densely symbolic prophetic verse; key interpretive issues include who “he” is, what “covenant” means, how “sacrifice and offering” is to be understood, and how the chronology works (gap vs no gap).

  • The SDA / futurist reading sees a future 7-year covenant made by an Antichrist, a mid-week violation, cessation of sacrifices, and a future desolation.

  • But the weight of early Christian interpretation tends to favor a first-century / messianic fulfillment — that much of Daniel 9 was realized in Christ’s ministry, death, and the destruction of Jerusalem.

  • The SDA reading has merits in appealing to end-time typology, but faces serious challenges: weak patristic support, theological tension with Christ’s sacrifice, and speculative temple / sacrifice expectations.

  • A balanced orthodox reading affirms the primary fulfillment in Christ while allowing cautious typological or future resonance in the prophecy.

 

 

 

READ ALSO:

 

By at
Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Where Halloween—and “Trick-or-Treat”—Really Came From? (Origins, Church Response, and Historical Timeline)

Learn where Halloween and trick-or-treating began: the Celtic Samhain, medieval Christian “souling,” and later North American reinvention. ...