It is understandable why this prophecy is so confusing, and that is because the fulfillment is so complex. Here are the basics:
There are three fulfillements for the "messiah" or the anointed one. One is the first coming messiah, one the second coming messiah and the third the Jews as the "messiah."
Some things are parallel and some things unique. In every intance, the "messiah" fulfills the 70th week in some way. What is most confusing is that many don't understand there are three periods of "70 weeks".
One is from 455 BCE to 36 CE, the 70 weeks of the first coming, which Christ arrives for the 70th week from 29-36 CE.
One is from 1506 to 1996 where the messiah appears to fulfill the 70th week from 1989-1996.
One is from 1435 BCE to 1996 where the "70th week" for the Jews is their jubilee week of 49 years, the last 49 years of a week of 70-weeks, that is seven days of 490 years each, each representing periods of 10 jubilees each, each jubilee period being 49 years. Thus 1947-1996 is the 70th week for the Jews that they fulfill and thus become the anoined one.
As far as the "cut off" of the messiah after 62 weeks, this represents the beginning of the Holocaust, which was to last for one week (7 years), a one time event in relation to the second 490 years from 1506 to 1996. Thus 62 weeks from 1506 is 434 years later that begins in 1940. The 70 weeks are broken up into 62 weeks, 1 week and then 7 weeks, meaning 434 years, 7 years and then 49 years. Thus between 1490-1947 is when the "great tribulation" would occur and the "extermination" mentioned in Daniel 9 and the war. This only happens once during the last 490 years from 1506-1996. Indeed, the Holocaust did occur between these years.
But at the end of that week, the Jews would be restored to their homeland and allowed to enjoy the 70th week of their covenant that began way back in the time of Moses. Thus when the Bible speaks of leaving the covenant in place for the remainder of the week, it's that original Jewish covenant of the 70 jubilees, 3430 years from 1435 BCE to 1996.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/jcovwk1996G.GIF (Jewish Covenant Week Chart)
Finally, the "end of gift and sacrifice" at the middle of the week is fulfilled twice! This is with the first and second messiahs. The first time is with the death of the messiah when the animal sacrifices no longer become symbolic. But Jesus instituted a substitution for this "constant feature" in the form of the Lord's Supper, celebrated every year. It was instituted as a memorial during Christ's long absence. It became a new form of "gift and sacrifice." But it was only to be kept until he returned, when he would eat it one last time and then end the celebration. That's why JWs who claim Christ arrived in 1914 but who still celebrate the "memorial" is just a farce on its face.
Even so, this detail means that Christ cannot arrive for the second coming more than a year before mid-week passover of the second 70th week, that is, within a year of passover of April 6, 1993. That would be the first passover after his second coming, which he ends "gift and sacrifice" at mid 70th week when he eats the last passover. Thus we know from this prophecy as well precisely the year the messiah would arrive, which is between 1992-1993, in conjunction with the 70th week from 1989-1996.
Regarding that wonderful chart on the 70 weeks. It is clear that there has always been a problem for interpreters because destruction is spoken of and extermination, but none of that occurred really by the 70th week of 29-36 BCE. Jerusalem didn't fall until 70-73 CE! This has forced some, as the chart shows, to break off that last 7 years and introduce a "gap" to fulfill this. But that only shows they don't have the correct understanding. That is, that the 70 weeks is fulfilled similarly for both the first and second coming periods of the 70 weeks, that is from 455BCE-36CE and 1506-1996 AD, but the "extermination" and the great tribulation and the "war" spoken off only occurs during the second-coming 70-week period from 1506-1996, specifically the Holocuast for the 1 week period (7 years) of 1940-1947. So there is no need to introduce a huge long gap in order to fulfill this prophecy.
As far as Antiochus the IV goes, he doesn't seem to have come at a critical time to fulfill this in relation to 490 years. It is quite clear, even though other details are not, that the "anointed one" comes to fulfill the 70th week. Most gather that Jesus' appearance is at the time of his baptism, 483 years after the prophecy begins.
I'm surprise, with such detailed discussion of this historical significance of this prophecy no one mentioned a rather prominent reference to it by Martin Anstey who wrote in 1913 the "Romance of Bible Chronology." He is the foundation for many preterists who also believe the 1st of Cyrus must occur in 455 BCE, such as Philip Mauro.
"A new era of national life for Israel had now begun; and this second term of Jewish history, starting with the return from Babylon in the first year of Cyrus (B.C. 457)* is called "the latter days," to distinguish it from the first era of Israel's national existence, which is called "the former days." [457 BCE is based upon the baptism of Christ in 27 CE vs 29 AD]
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks.html (Seventy Weeks, Philip Mauro)
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1913_anstey_romance.html (Romance of Bible Chronology, Martin Anstey)
It was Martin Anstey who first figured out, if the Bible is true, that the Persian Period is 82 years too long!
Here is Anstey's specific reference with regard to the prophecy and the 82 years:
There is one, and only one alternative. The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 fixes the period between the going forth of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem (in the first year of Cyrus) to the cutting off of the Messiah (in the year A.D. 30) as a period of 483 years. If this be the true Chronology of the period from the 1st year of Cyrus to the Crucifixion, it leaves only 123 years instead of the 205 given in Ptolemy's Canon, for the duration of the Persian Empire.
Daniel Ptolemy
Persian Empire (Cyrus to Alexander the Great) 123 years 205 years
Greek Empire (Alexander the Great to A.D. 1) 331 years 331 years
[TOTAL] 454 years 536 years
A.D.1 to the Crucifixion, A.D.30 29 years 29 years
[TOTAL] 483 years 565 years
a difference of 82 years.
Consequently the received or Ptolemaic Chronology, now universally accepted, must be abridged by these 82 years. The error of Ptolemy has probably been made through his having assigned too many years, and perhaps too many Kings, to the latter part of the period of the Persian Empire, in the scheme which he made out from various conflicting data.
Anstey suspected this 82-year discrepancy, but now we have precisely corrected these 82 years, using both the Bible and secular evidence. These 82 years thus vanish quite quickly as follows: Per the Bible Darius I only ruled for 6 years (Ezra 6:14,15) and was followed on the throne by "Artaxerxes." Secular history assigns Darius I 36 years. So that's 30 years less right there. We learn from other research that the Persian kings used two different names, assuming a new name when they became king. Xerxes assumed the new name of Artaxerxes, but later claimed he was his own son. We actually have records of a king named "Arses also known as Artaxerxes" dated to year 38, which can fit no other king from Xerxes/Artaxerxes:
See for example AD I, p. 152, no. -346, left edge: MU 12.KAM m Ú-ma-kuš šá m Ár-tak-šat-su LUGAL MU-šú na-bu-ú, “year 12 of Ochos, who is called king Artaxerxes (III)”; MU 38.KAM m Ár-šú LUGAL šá m Ár-tak-šat-su LUGAL MU-šú [na-bu-ú], “year 38 of king Arses, who is called king Artaxerxes (II)” (AD I, p. 136, no. -366 B lower edge; on tablet A left edge the title LUGAL, “king,” added to both names, has been omitted in both cases); m Ú-ma-kuš šá m Da-a-ri-muš MU-šú SA 4 , “Ochos, who is called Darius (II)” (AD I, p. 66, no. -391 B obv. 1). http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-arses/arses_2.html
Only one Artaxerxes ruled past year 38, which was Artaxerxes II, but he is clearly known as "Mnemon" and not "Arxes"/Xerxes. In the meantime, the Bible calls the successor of Darius "Artaxerxes" and "Artaxerxes" is buried between Darius I and Darius II at Naqshi-Rustam. So it is clear Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king, Xerxes claiming to be his own son for political reasons to avoid a ratalitative war with the Greeks. It's like Ben Ladin being found a week after 9/11 would stronly lessen the push for a war in Iraq. This removes 21 more years from the tmeline. This only thus leaves 31 years more to remove. Clearly the 47-year rule of Artaxerxes II, which is wholly unsubstantiated except by Greek historians is the obvious place where another 30 years were introduced. That reduces his rule to 17 years, which matches Ktesias' claim he was the surgeon for Artaxerxes II for 17 years. We have now removed 80 years! The last year apparently was one co-rulrship year of Kambyses with his father that was counted as a sole rulership years, reducing his rule from 8 years to 7 years. That's it! That's the 82 extra years, just that quick, with lots of evidence now supporting Xerxes and Artaxerxes being the same king.
So besides understanding what the prophesy should be, it is virtually impossible to try and make application to real events unless you have the absolute correct chronology, or you go by strict Biblical chronology as Martin Anstey does. The complete understanding would be "sealed up" until the last days when only "those with insight" (Daniel 12) would fully understand these things but would publish it for all to understand, as I'm doing now.
"The FINISHING of transgression" mentioned has to do with the forgiveness of the Jews for leaving the covenant and restoring them after the "great tribulation" takes place during which time two-thirds of their numbers would be exterminated (Zech 13:8). Once that occurs, then they are restored to God's favor again until the covenant week ends, which ends in 1996. As we know, six million out of 9 million Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust. This was the cllimax of what was promised would happen to the Jews if they left God's covenant, which would mean exile and a sword coming after them. Thus when Daniel 12 speaks of the "dashing of the holy ones to pieces" during this last "great tribulation" it's not talking about Christians or even the majority of the anointed ones with Jehovah's witnesses. It is primarily talking about the Jews as the "holy ones". And since "salvation" comes through the Jews, they are substituted for the "messiah" or anointed one as well. Ultimately, they become the "prodigal son messiah" as well. They are dead but like a log snatched out of the fire at the last minute. That is, they were almost exterminated during the Holocaust but saved at the last minute. But the "days had to be cut short or else no flesh would be saved." That is, the tribulation was scheduled for 1 week, that is, 7 years, from 1940-1947. But already two-thirds of the Jews had been exterminated by late 1944, so the actual War ended by the spring of 1945. Even so the Jews would not be restored to their homeland until after 1947, or the end of that 1 week. Then they would enjoy the 7 weeks as restored to Israel and also God's favor from 1947-1996, at which point their covenant would end, as well as the covenant with Jehovah's witnesses.
Note, it is not a mistake that JWs are singled out during the Holocaust, since they too, as another branch of God's chosen people must be the target of the "disgusting thing causing desolation."
"When you see the disgusting thing causing desolation" know the desolating of her is near. This parallels 70/73 CE when the encamped aries surrounded Jerusalem. The parallel is when the Germany army surrounded Warsaw, Poland, which was the capital of the Jews as far as the largest city of the exile. It was literally surrounded.
The "70 weeks" prophecy is thus no longer a mystery. We understand it fully and totally and everything was fulfilled precisely as noted.
But this is another one of those "jive" talks, like the issue of which pharaoh was ruling at the time of the Exodus. Manetho/Syncellus already identified that pharaoh as Amenhotep III. But historians act dumbfounded when they are confronted with that reference, since the policy has been to pretend its up for grabs and nobody really knows which pharaoh was ruling when the Exodus occurred. It was known by Syncellus in c. 800 AD How come he knew and now nobody now knows? When people see or hear the truth, they don't want to accept it if it doesn't agree with their personal beliefs. Just like others ignore Martin Anstey's discovery of 82 years too many during the Persian Period that we can now correct. Some people like to make you think there are only so many choices, but in fact, they leave out some of them, the important ones, because it is their job to promote deception.
JC
