Daniel 9:24 was clearly not fulfilled by Jesus.

Daniel 9:24 was clearly not fulfilled by Jesus.

Since Daniel 9:24–27 speaks of events that must be fulfilled before the destruction of the Second Temple (which took place in 70 C.E.), the question that must be asked is this: If Jesus did not fulfill Daniel 9:24, who did? Who was it that ushered in everlasting righteousness and made atonement for iniquity before 70 C.E. if not Jesus the Messiah? In reality, if Jesus did not fulfill Daniel 9:24, then no one fulfilled it and the prophecies of Daniel cannot be trusted.

Daniel 9:24 sums up the main events to be accomplished during the period of the seventy weeks of years (see above, 4.18): “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy” (NIV). The Stone edition reads, “Seventy septets have been decreed upon your people and upon your holy city to terminate transgression, to end sin, to wipe away iniquity, to bring everlasting righteousness, to confirm the visions and prophets, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.” It can be seen, then, there is not much difference between these two translations, the former reflecting traditional Christian scholarship, the latter reflecting traditional Jewish scholarship.174 The question is one of interpretation and application: What does this verse mean and did it come to pass?

Professor Walter Kaiser presents the traditional Christian understanding of verse 24:

God uses six infinitives to describe his divine purposes for Israel during these 490 future years for the nation.… All the transgressions against God must be completed. The final sacrifice that will put an end to sin has to be offered so that atonement can be made. God will need to bring in everlasting righteousness during this period, and the visions and prophecies about the future will remain enigmatic to the Jewish people. Finally, the most holy person, the Messiah himself (or does it refer to the temple as the Most Holy Place?) will need to be anointed somewhere during this same 490 years.175

More detailed is the interpretation of conservative Christian scholar James E. Smith. He explains the sixfold promise of Daniel 9:24 as follows:

1.     To fill up [or restrain] the transgression. Within the 490 year period the people of Israel would commit their final transgression against God. Jesus indicated that the leaders of his generation were about to fill up the measure of the sin of their forefathers (Matt. 23:32).…176

2.     To seal up the sin. The perfect sacrifice for sin offered by Jesus Christ provided the means by which the sin problem of mankind could be dealt with decisively (Heb. 10:12).…

3.     To make atonement for iniquity. The necessary sacrifice would be offered and would become the basis upon which iniquity could be forgiven. In Christ there is redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:14). His once-for-all sacrifice is able to make perfect those who accept it as their own (Heb. 10:12–14).

4.     To bring in everlasting righteousness. It is obviously God who brings in this righteousness, and he does that through the Messiah. This righteousness by its very perpetuity must belong to the age of the Messiah.…

5.     To seal up vision and prophecy [lit., vision and prophet].… On two occasions Jesus cited the prophecy in Isaiah 6:9–10 regarding the obtuseness of [his fellow] Jews.177… The sealing of vision and prophecy in their midst—the failure to understand that the long awaited Messiah was ministering in their midst—was one of the penalties suffered by the Jewish nation because of their hardness of heart. [Smith further notes that some scholars think “the sealing refers to the fulfillment of prophecies in Christ.”]

6.     To anoint the most holy. The expression could refer to the anointing of the most holy person,178 the anointed one par excellence.…

In summary, it is clear that all six objectives stated in Daniel 9:24 were accomplished by the time Jesus of Nazareth ascended to heaven in A.D. 30, or shortly thereafter.179

Very different is the translation and commentary of Professor John J. Collins, reflecting a critical historical interpretation of the verse (bracketed quotations are also from Collins and convey his understanding of the text):

Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression [“the idea is that evil must run its course until the appointed time”], to bring sins to completion [as in Daniel 8:23, where the meaning is that the sins will reach their full measure] and to expiate iniquity [“kpr, with God as subject, means to ‘cancel’ or ‘absolve’ ”], to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal vision [as authentic], and to anoint a most holy place [“The reference is to the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple, which was actually accomplished by Judas Maccabee late in 164 B.C.E. (1 Macc. 4:36–39)”].180

Which view is right? In favor of the traditional Christian interpretation are the following points: (1) It recognizes the magnitude and scope of Daniel 9:24–27, understanding the lasting significance of the events described there; (2) it does not downplay concepts such as bringing in “everlasting righteousness”; and (3) it recognizes the accuracy of the prophecies in terms of a 490-year window of fulfillment. Against this interpretation the following objections could be raised: (1) It struggles with the meaning of anointing a most holy, applying this to Jesus instead of to the Temple, and (2) it seems to fall short of the mark in terms of total fulfillment, since the world is still filled with sin and unrighteousness (this, of course, is the core of the overall objection we are presently discussing).

In favor of the historical-critical interpretation of these verses are the following: (1) It points to a definite series of well-documented historical events; (2) it agrees with the critical dating of the Book of Daniel, placing the book within the time frame of the events described; and (3) it has a simple explanation for the phrase “to anoint a most holy place,” as explained above by Collins. There are, however, some fatal flaws to this interpretation. (1) It actually makes Daniel mistaken in his dates, since the specific period of years that he predicts simply does not pan out. The interpretation is actually off by fifty to one hundred years!181 As summarized by Old Testament scholar John Goldingay, “The critical view has usually been that the seventy sevens extend as one sequence from some point in the sixth century to the period of Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel 9 is then an overestimate and Daniel is faulted for its ‘wrongheaded arithmetical calculations.’ ”182 (2) It places Daniel in the second century B.C.E. rather than in the sixth century B.C.E. (where the Hebrew Bible explicitly places him), claiming that all the prophecies of the book are not prophecies at all, but rather history passing itself off as prophecy. That is to say, it claims that the author of Daniel was not really Daniel at all but a second-century B.C.E. Jew who looked back at the history of the previous four centuries and then created a mythical figure named Daniel, claiming that this man Daniel lived four hundred years earlier and predicted the historical events described in the book.183 (3) It does not recognize the significance of Daniel 9:24–27 and fails to do justice to some of the specific promises, such as bringing in “everlasting righteousness.” For these reasons alone, this interpretation must be rejected.

What then of the problems with the Christian view? The answer to this question is really quite simple. Since the prophesied events had to take place before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., and since the most natural interpretation of these events points to Yeshua’s atoning death, it is only logical to begin with him and ask to what extent he fulfilled each of the six divine promises in Daniel 9:24. Having done this, we can easily resolve any remaining difficulties. Let’s consider the six phrases one by one, asking if, in fact, they point to Jesus the Messiah and the events of his day.

1. “To finish transgression.” This probably means bringing sin to its ugly, final climax, as opposed to bringing it to an end. According to one Christian view, as represented by Old Testament and Semitic scholar Gleason Archer, “The culmination of the appointed years will witness the conclusion of man’s ‘transgression’ or ‘rebellion’ (peŝaʿ) against God—a development most naturally entered into with the establishment of an entirely new order on earth. This seems to require nothing less than the inauguration of the kingdom of God on earth. Certainly the crucifixion of Christ in A.D. 30 did not put an end to man’s iniquity or rebellion on earth, as the millennial kingdom of Christ promises to do.”184 Archer, then, would posit the fulfillment of this event during the last of Daniel’s seventy weeks of years, which Archer believes has yet to take place. A more plausible view, however—and one that does not call for such an extended gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks—is to take seriously Yeshua’s words spoken in Matthew 23:32, when he sarcastically exhorted the hostile Jewish leaders of his day, “Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!” Thus, the generation that rejected the Messiah would suffer the culmination of the sins of all the previous generations: “Upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth.… I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:35a, 37).185 This is similar to God’s word to Abram in Genesis 15:12–16, explaining that Abram’s descendants would have to wait four hundred years to inherit the Promised Land because “the sin of the Amorites [who then inhabited the land] has not yet reached its full measure.”

2. “To put an end to sin.” This phrase also could be interpreted in one of two ways, as speaking of a still-future event that will be ushered in with Messiah’s return (this is the position of Archer and others) or as referring to Messiah’s atoning death on the cross, an event of cosmic proportions that did, in fact, deal a deathblow to the power of sin. As other New Testament writers explain, everything necessary for forgiveness and redemption was accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus. It need only be applied and appropriated (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14–21).

3. “To atone for wickedness.” This statement sums up the very heart of the Messiah’s mission on the earth. Archer is correct in stating that this “certainly points to the Crucifixion, an event that ushered in the final stage of human history before the establishment of the fifth kingdom (cf. [Dan.] 2:35, 44).”186 It is only fair to ask, If one of the central redemptive events described in Daniel’s prophecy was “to atone for wickedness,” and if this event was to take place before the Temple’s destruction in 70 C.E., and if this was the whole focus of Yeshua’s ministry, why then seek a different explanation and overlook the most important atoning event in human history?

4. “To bring in everlasting righteousness.” As with the first two phrases, this could point either to the culmination of the Messiah’s work when he returns and establishes God’s righteous kingdom on the earth (again, Archer’s position) or to Messiah’s work on the cross, which brought about “the gift of righteousness” spoken of by Paul in Romans 5:17: “For if, by the trespass of the one man [Adam], death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus [the Messiah].” As explained by Peter, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter 2:24). Thus, “if anyone is in [the Messiah], he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” This is because, “God made him who had no sin [the Messiah!] to be sin [or, a sin offering] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). From citations such as these you can see that Paul and Peter, two devoted Jewish followers of Jesus the Messiah, had no problem explaining how “everlasting righteousness” was inaugurated by Jesus’ atoning work.187

5. “To seal up vision and prophecy.” This could mean “to authenticate” or “to hide.” Either one would be applicable to Jesus, since (1) his coming fully validated the prophetic witness of the Hebrew Scriptures (if he did not come at the appointed time, this would have invalidated both vision and prophecy), and (2) God judged those who rejected him with hardness of heart, thus hiding the truth of the prophetic Scriptures from them.188

6. “To anoint the most holy.” This is perhaps the most difficult phrase to explain with reference to Jesus. However, since the first five phrases can so readily be explained with reference to him, it seems only logical to see if this phrase too could apply to him. What then does it mean? According to Archer, “This is not likely a reference to the anointing of Christ (as some writers have suggested) because qodeš qadašîm nowhere else in Scripture refers to a person. Here the anointing of the ‘most holy’ most likely refers to the consecration of the temple of the Lord, quite conceivably the millennial temple, to which so much attention is given in Ezekiel 40–44.”189 Once again, this pushes the fulfillment of this event to the final seven-year “week,” which according to Archer culminates with Yeshua’s return. As I have stated throughout this section, I find this poisition unnecessary, although it still points to fulfillment in Jesus. Archer’s point, however, is well taken in terms of the meaning of the Hebrew phrase “most holy” (lit., “holy of holies”) never referring to a person—with one possible exception, namely, 1 Chronicles 23:13, as observed by Smith (see n. 178). It is true that most translations understand this verse to state that Aaron was set apart “to consecrate the most holy things” (NIV; cf., e.g., KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NLT). Yet there are other translations, both Christian and Jewish (e.g., NASB and Stone), that interpret the Hebrew with reference to Aaron himself: “Aaron was set apart to sanctify him as most holy” (NASB; for the Stone rendering, see n. 178).190 If this is an accurate understanding of the Hebrew, then there would be biblical precedent for taking “the most holy” to refer to a person, not just to a place in the Temple or to items in the Temple. And to what person could the anointing of the most holy better refer than to our righteous Messiah, our priestly King?191 As far back as the eighteenth century, C. Schöttgen cited no less an authority than Nachmanides as having stated that “the Holy of holies is naught else than the Messiah, the sanctified one of the sons of David.”192 This view may also be supported by the Septuagint, and it is certainly supported by the Syriac Peshitta, composed in the first centuries of this era.193 If “the most holy” refers to a place (or to sacred things) rather than to a person, then it could refer to the spiritual Temple—i.e., the redeemed people of God, who, according to the New Testament authors, have become a holy dwelling place for the Spirit. This Temple was, in fact, inaugurated by Jesus the Messiah, and the community of believers who make up this Temple are, in fact, anointed by the Spirit of God. On the other hand, the reference could be to a still-future Temple, the Messiah’s millennial Temple in Jerusalem.194

Where then does this leave us? As I see it, only two choices are viable, and both point to fulfillment through Yeshua. (1) We have seen that all six divine declarations found in Daniel 9:24 could apply to the work accomplished through the death and resurrection of the Messiah, the anointed one cut off in the very time period prophesied by Daniel. Thus, everything Daniel recorded in 9:24–27 reached its fulfillment by 70 C.E. (2) It is also possible that on the basis of our Messiah’s atoning work, the ultimate fulfillment of Gabriel’s revelation to Daniel in this key section of Scripture will take place at the end of this age, when Jesus returns. But this is not a cheap cop out, as frequently charged by anti-missionaries, who claim that the whole concept of the Messiah’s second coming is a simple way of escaping the fact that Jesus, in their opinion, failed to fulfill the real Messianic prophecies (see further 4.33 and vol. 4, 5.15). Hardly! To the contrary, this interpretation is realistic and honest, remaining true to the text and true to history, since Daniel 9:24–27 points to major redemptive events that had to take place before the destruction of the Second Temple. And if it is true—as the Jewish commentator Rashi and the Christian commentator Gleason Archer both claim—that these verses speak of events that took place more than nineteen hundred years ago as well as events that culminate in the end of the age, then it is only the Christian interpretation that makes sense. This is because it is the only interpretation that explains why the events that took place in the first century of this era will have an impact at the end of this age, when the Messiah’s kingdom will be established on the earth.

In other words, it was during his first coming that Yeshua died for the sins of the world, making atonement for iniquity and bringing in everlasting righteousness, in accordance with Daniel 9:24. Since that time our righteous Messiah has extended his spiritual kingdom through his followers on the earth, to the point that more than one billion people now worship the God of Israel through him. When the good news of his death and resurrection has been shared around the world, the end will come—apparently on the heels of great worldwide wars—Messiah will return, and his kingdom will be established on the earth.

I reiterate, then, my premise: If all the events spoken of in Daniel 9:24–27 had to be fulfilled before 70 C.E., then Jesus must be the central, anointed figure involved in their fulfillment, bringing redemption and forgiveness to his people. If the events spoken of in the text were partially fulfilled before 70 C.E. and will only reach their total fulfillment at the end of this age, then this too can only be interpreted with reference to Jesus, since it is only through what he accomplished before 70 C.E. that the culminating events of this age will take place.

There is one last important piece of corroborating evidence in the book of Daniel, namely, his prophecy of the kingdom of God destroying and displacing the greatest of the kingdoms of man. I refer here to Daniel 2, in which the prophet interpreted king Nebuchadnezzar’s symbolic dream with reference to four ancient kingdoms: first, the Babylonian empire, represented by gold; second the Medo-Persian empire, represented by silver; third, the Greek empire, represented by bronze; and fourth, the Roman empire, represented by iron mixed with clay. But those kingdoms would not endure. Rather, the Scripture declares, “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces” (Dan. 2:44–45a).

Notice the opening words of this passage, “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed” (2:44a). What does this mean? According to Rashi, “And in the days of these kings in the days of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence. the God of heaven will set up a kingdom The kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which will never be destroyed, is the kingdom of the Messiah. it will crumble and destroy It will crumble and destroy all these kingdoms.”195 Exactly! The Messianic kingdom was established in the Roman era—just as the New Testament writings declare—and it has been growing and increasing around the world ever since. As Daniel explained to the astonished Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar,

While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

Daniel 2:34–35

Yes, this “rock” is becoming a huge mountain that is filling the whole earth. But its origins were in the days of Rome, when Jesus the Messiah inaugurated the kingdom of God on earth. This is also the key to understanding Daniel 9:24–27: Everything written there is fulfilled through Messiah Yeshua, beginning with his atoning death on the cross and culminating with his return to earth, when the kingdom of God will be fully established on the earth. Do you see it?

With Yeshua in the middle of the picture, Daniel 9:24–27 makes perfect sense. Take Yeshua out, and these verses become completely obscure and unintelligible. I trust the picture will be clear for you! As the psalmist wrote, “Whoever is wise, let him heed these things and consider the great love of the Lord” (Ps. 107:43). Or in the words of the prophet Hosea, “Who is wise? He will realize these things. Who is discerning? He will understand them” (Hosea 14:9a). I pray you will be counted among the wise.




174 As noted in the NIV and most modern versions, the Masoretic manuscripts offer variant readings for several of these verbs. The overall sense of the verse is not affected, however. See the commentaries for discussion.

175 Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 202, his emphasis.

176 See James E. Smith, What the Bible Teaches about the Promised Messiah (Nashville: Nelson, 1993), 384. For refutation of the allegation that verses such as Matthew 23:32 are anti-Semitic, cf. vol. 1, 2.8.

177 I have changed Smith’s reference to “the obtuseness of the Jews” to “the obtuseness of [his fellow] Jews” to remind the reader that Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah and the last (and greatest) national prophet, spoke to his own people as an in-house, family member. This was not an anti-Semitic criticism coming from the outside. See again vol. 1, 2.8.

178 Smith, The Promised Messiah, 385, supports this view with reference to 1 Chronicles 23:13, where, according to a minority of interpreters, the high priest is set aside as “most holy” (cf. the rendering in the Stone edition, “Aaron was set apart, to sanctify him as holy of holies”), using the same Hebrew phrase (qodesh qodashim) that elsewhere is used with reference to the most holy place in the Temple, or to the holiest items in the Temple. According to Gleason Archer (“Daniel,” EBC, 7:119), “Twice qodhesh qadhashim ( …‘the most holy’) refers to the altar—Exod 29:37; 30:10; four times to the holy objects of the Holy Place or temple—Num 18:10; Ezek 43:12; 45:3; 48:12. Gesenius-Buhl (Handwörterbuch, p. 704) suggests that in Dan 9:24 qodeš qadašî refers to the temple. In Exod 30:36 it is used of holy incense; in Lev 24:9 of the memorial bread (showbread). Or it refers to the priestly portion of peace offerings (‘fellowship offerings,’ NIV)—Lev 2:3, 10; 6:10; 10:12. In Lev 6:18, 22 it is used of sin offerings; in Num 18:9; Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65 of offerings in general; likewise in Lev 21:22; 2 Chronicles 31:14; Ezek 42:13; 44:13. Ten times it is used of the Holy Place of the tabernacle or temple—Exod 26:33–34 (bis); 1 Kings 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; 2 Chronicles 3:8, 10; 4:22; 5:7; Ezek 41:4.”

179 Smith, The Promised Messiah, 384–85.

180 Collins, Daniel, 345. Interestingly, Collins does not directly explain the phrase “to bring in everlasting righteousness.” Jewish scholars tend to follow either the standard, historical-critical interpretation articulated here by Collins or the interpretation espoused by Rashi and Seder Olam Rabbah, who understand Daniel 9:24–27 to culminate with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E.

181 Thus, James A. Montgomery, a respected Semitic and biblical scholar, was forced to acknowledge that this interpretation “would then take us down some 65 years too far. We can meet this objection only by surmising a chronological miscalculation on the part of the writer” (Daniel, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 393). Montgomery, however, claims that the author of Daniel “was not embarrassed, in the absence of a known chronology, in squeezing these 434 years [i.e., the 62 weeks of years] between the Return and the Antiochian persecution” (ibid.).

182 Goldingay, Daniel, 257, citing N. W. Porteous at the end of the quote. This really is quite fascinating: Critical scholars determine that Daniel is speaking of a period of seventy sevens ending in the time of Antiochus but then turn around and state that Daniel was way off in his chronology, since the seventy sevens don’t end at that time. What makes this all the more unfortunate is that many critics arrive at this conclusion because they refuse to believe that Daniel could have actually been predicting future events under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thus, they not only shoot themselves in the foot with their faulty reasoning, but they miss one of the greatest predictive prophecies contained in the Scriptures.

183 As stated by Archer, “It is axiomatic among critics who rule out supernaturalism that Daniel’s successful predictions of events leading up to the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.) can be accounted for only by assuming that some unknown pseudepigrapher wrote this book so as to make it seem an authentic sixth-century prophecy” (“Daniel,” EBC; Archer notes that this view goes back to the third-century philosopher Porphyry). Archer has also argued that dating Daniel to the second or third century B.C.E. goes against the linguistic evidence; cf. idem, “The Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon Compared with the Aramaic of Daniel,” in J. Barton Payne, ed., New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco: Word, 1970), 160–69; idem, “The Hebrew of Daniel Compared with the Qumran Sectarian Documents,” in John H. Skilton, ed., The Law and the Prophets (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 470–81. Cf. also Zdravko Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992); more broadly, see Edward M. Cook, Word Order in the Aramaic of Daniel (Malibu, Calif.: Undena, 1986).

184 Archer, “Daniel,” 7:112.

185 Cf. also 1 Thessalonians 2:16, along with the notes and explanations provided in vol. 1, 2.8.

186 Archer, “Daniel,” 7:113; Archer adds, “The Crucifixion was the atonement that made possible the establishment of the new order, the church of the redeemed, and the establishment of the coming millennial kingdom.” I would suggest that similar statements could be made for the first two phrases as well, thus removing the need to point to a still-future fulfillment.

187 Montgomery (Daniel, 398) makes reference to a fascinating Rabbinic interpretation of this phrase, noting that according to C. Schöttgen in Horae hebraicae, Rabbi Moses Haddarshan “is reported to have said: ‘The eternal righteousness, that is King Messiah,’ which interestingly enough agrees with [Jerome’s] statement [fifth century C.E.] that the Jews of his day made the same equation.”

188 Cf. the usage of Isaiah 6:9–10 in the Gospels (e.g., Mark 4:1–12); cf. further the discussion in Romans 9–11 and 2 Corinthians 3. Once again, I see no reason to follow Archer here when he states, “This fulfillment surely goes beyond the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ; it must include his enthronement on the throne of David—as supreme Ruler over all the earth” (“Daniel,” 7:113).

189 Ibid.; cf. further my discussion in vol. 2, 3.17.

190 Ludwig Köhler and Walter Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zun Alten Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967–96), 2:1078 (henceforth cited as HALAT), cites Daniel 9:24 and 1 Chronicles 23:13 under the heading of “meaning the temple.” Interestingly, these are the only references cited under this heading.

191 Before Jesus was conceived, the angel Gabriel announced to the virgin Miriam, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). NIV also offers the alternative rendering, “so the child to be born will be called holy,” in the text notes.

192 C. Schöttgen, as cited in Montgomery, Daniel, 398.

193 Cf. Keil, Daniel, in C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 1028–33. Keil also discusses 1 Chronicles 23:13.

194 Some believe that “the most holy” refers to the Messiah’s coming to the Temple in Jerusalem, but most scholars do not consider this interpretation worthy of serious discussion.

195 Cf. further b. Avodah Zarah 2b.

[1]Brown, M. L. (2003). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 3: Messianic prophecy objections (92). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Daniel 9:24 was clearly not fulfilled by Jesus.