Daniel 9:24, Part 2. “To Make an End of Sins”

Daniel 9:24, Part 2.  “To Make an End of Sins”

Introduction

In Daniel 9:24, Gabriel proclaims that within 70 weeks (490 years), six events will be accomplished for Israel and Jerusalem, including “to make an end of sins” (וּלְחָתֵם חַטָּאוֹת, ul’chatem chata’ot). This second event, integral to a prophecy culminating in the death of the Anointed One (Daniel 9:26, AD 30), refers to the termination of sins’ legal condemnation through the end of the Mosaic law’s authority and the nullification of sin-sacrifices.

As the second purpose, “to make an end of sins” flows directly from the first—Israel’s climactic covenant rejection (culminating in AD 30) filled up transgression, precipitating the very judgment that Christ’s death absorbed and resolved (Leviticus 26:40–45). The cross thus both judges the old covenant’s rebellion and judicially terminates sins’ hold, providing the promised restoration.

This essay argues that “to make an end” means permanently resolving the penalty and power of sins, achieved solely by Jesus’ sacrificial death (AD 30) within the 70th Week (AD 27-34) of the unified 490-year timeline (458 BC to AD 34). Rooted in Paul’s teachings (Romans 4:15; 6:6-11; Hebrews 10:1-18) and the covenantal framework of Leviticus 26, this interpretation fulfills the Mosaic covenant’s redemptive purpose. While alternative fulfillments have been proposed, extending this purpose beyond Jesus’ death during the literal 70th week can make it challenging to fully integrate the New Testament’s emphasis on the cross’s complete victory.

The Resolution of Sins’ Condemnation

The Hebrew phrase “ul’chatem chata’ot” denotes the final closure of moral sins, with “chatem” (to seal) implying completion or finalization, as in sealing a document (Jeremiah 32:10) or tomb (Matthew 27:66), and “chata’ot” (sins, plural of חַטָּאת, chattat) referring to covenantal offenses (Leviticus 4:3). The Septuagint (LXX) renders it “to seal up sins” (σφραγίσαι ἁμαρτίας, sphragisai hamartias), emphasizing resolution. Paul’s teachings clarify this as the termination of sins’ legal condemnation: “Where there is no law there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15) and “sin is not counted where there is no law” (Romans 5:13). Jesus’ death (AD 30) ends the Mosaic law’s authority for forgiveness (Romans 10:4, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness”), removing the legal framework that defines sins’ guilt (Romans 8:1, “no condemnation”). While “chata’ot” means “sins,” not “sin-offerings,” the nullification of sin-sacrifices (Hebrews 10:18) is related, as the law’s sacrificial system (Leviticus 16) addressed sins’ penalty. Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 10:14) ends this system, resolving sins’ judicial power. This judicial end, not a behavioral cessation of sinning (1 John 1:8, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves”), fulfills Gabriel’s prophecy within the historical 70th Week, no alternative interpretations are necessary. 

Historical and Covenantal Fulfillment

The event’s fulfillment is anchored exclusively in Jesus’ death (April AD 30), within the 70th Week (AD 27-34) of the 490-year timeline from Artaxerxes’ decree (458 BC, Ezra 7). The Talmud notes that Yom Kippur offerings ceased being accepted in AD 30 (Yoma 39b), signaling a covenantal shift, as Jesus’ sacrifice supplanted the Mosaic system. Leviticus 26:14-45 outlines covenantal curses for sins (exile, desolation, 587 BC; AD 70) and restoration through repentance and atonement (26:40-45), fulfilled by Jesus’ sacrifice (Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Deuteronomy 30:1-5 promises spiritual regathering, realized through the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6-13) initiated by Jesus’ death. Paul’s teachings in Romans 6:6-11 (“the body of sin might be done away with”) and Hebrews 10:1-18 (“no longer any offering for sin”) confirm that Jesus’ death ends sins’ condemning power and the sacrificial system, fulfilling Leviticus 26:40-45. No other event can fulfill this prophecy, as alternatives—such as a future Messianic Kingdom where Jesus rules with a “rod of iron” (Revelation 19:15), implying ongoing sin, or an eschatological New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21:1) with glorified beings—extend the prophecy beyond the 70 weeks and may appear to undervalue Jesus’ sacrifice. Suggesting His death left sins unresolved may be considered an attack on its sufficiency, as Hebrews 10:14 declares believers “perfected for all time.” The unified 490-year timeline ensures this event’s completion in AD 30, with no future extension.

The climactic corporate rejection of the Messiah (John 19:15, “We have no king but Caesar”) sealed Israel’s covenant rebellion, filling up the measure of transgression under Leviticus 26’s escalating pattern of discipline. This ultimate act of defiance, foreseen in the covenant curses, precipitated the cross: the Anointed One’s death bore the covenantal judgment while providing the atonement that terminated sins’ legal condemnation (Romans 8:1; Hebrews 10:18). Far from leaving sins unresolved, the cross decisively ended their judicial power, fulfilling Leviticus 26:40–45’s promise of restoration through confessed iniquity and accepted punishment—accomplished once-for-all in Christ.

Strengths of This Interpretation

  1. Textual Precision: “Chatem” as “final closure” and “chata’ot” as “sins” fit the Hebrew, with Paul’s teachings (Romans 4:15; 6:6-11) clarifying the judicial end of sins’ penalty, aligning with the 70 weeks’ timeline.
  2. Pauline Support: Romans 4:15, 5:13, 6:6-11, 10:4, and Hebrews 10:1-18 tie the end of sins to the law’s termination and sacrifice nullification, validating this interpretation. 
  3. Historical Fit: Jesus’ death (AD 30) in the 70th Week (AD 27-34) aligns with the 70 weeks (458 BC to AD 34), supported by Yoma 39b and crucifixion dating (John 19:31).
  4. Covenantal Coherence: Leviticus 26:40-45 and Deuteronomy 30:1-5 frame the event as covenantal restoration, fulfilled by Jesus’ atonement, ending sins’ penalty.
  5. Sequential Order: As the second event, it follows finishing transgression (#1) and precedes atonement for iniquity (#3), culminating in the 70th Week, aligning with this sequential process.

Weaknesses

  1. Behavioral Misinterpretation: The phrase “make an end of sins” might suggest stopping sinning, but 1 John 1:8 and Romans 7:15-20 clarify it’s judicial, not behavioral, mitigated by emphasizing Paul’s focus.
  2. Sin-Offerings Distinction: While “chata’ot” means “sins,” the related nullification of sin-offerings (Hebrews 10:18) might blur the focus, addressed by prioritizing sins’ penalty.
  3. Overlap with Event #3: The similarity between “end of sins” (#2) and “atone for iniquity” (#3) is resolved by distinguishing penalty (#2) from reconciliation (#3), per Romans 5:11.
  4. Eschatological Confusion: References to death’s future defeat (1 Corinthians 15:26) are separated from AD 30’s judicial end, ensuring no future extension.

Concerning Common Alternative Interpretations

Many sincere interpreters, including those in dispensational traditions (e.g., resources like Precept Austin), understand “to make an end of sins” as a future global cessation during a Messianic Kingdom, often placing it after a gap following the 69th week. This view seeks to account for ongoing sin in the world and references to future rule (e.g., Revelation 19:15). However, Daniel 9:24–27 presents a unified 490-year timeline centered on the Anointed One’s death (9:26), with no textual indication of interruption. Extending the second purpose beyond AD 30 can make it harder to integrate Paul’s emphasis on the cross as already ending sins’ condemning power (Romans 8:1; Hebrews 10:18), where “there is now no condemnation” and “no longer any offering for sin.”
 
Similarly, partial-fulfillment approaches (e.g., some messianic Jewish scholars like Michael Brown) initiate resolution at the cross but delay full completion to the Second Coming. While appreciating the cross’s centrality, this introduces a distinction not explicit in the 70 weeks’ framework and risks leaving the impression that Christ’s sacrifice—declared “once for all” (Hebrews 10:14)—awaits supplementation.
 
Non-messianic Jewish readings (e.g., Rashi) tie the purposes to temple events or a future figure apart from Jesus, understandably from that perspective. Yet the prophecy’s focus on the Anointed One’s cutting off (9:26) aligns more closely with New Testament fulfillment in AD 30.

Conclusion

The fulfillment of “to make an end of sins” in Daniel 9:24 is the permanent resolution of sins’ legal condemnation through Jesus’ death (AD 30), which ends the Mosaic law’s authority (Romans 10:4) and nullifies sin-sacrifices (Hebrews 10:18), within the 70th Week (AD 27-34) of the 490-year timeline (458 BC to AD 34). Paul’s teachings (Romans 4:15; 6:6-11; Hebrews 10:1-18) confirm this judicial end, fulfilling the covenantal promises of Leviticus 26:40-45 and Deuteronomy 30:1-5. As the second event in a sequential process, it follows “finishing the transgression” and precedes “atonement for iniquity”, marking a pivotal step in God’s redemptive plan. The unified timeline and historical fulfillment reject incomplete or behavioral interpretations, ensuring the event’s completion within the 70 weeks. Any interpretation that delays this resolution or misrepresents it as stopping sinning risks misrepresenting the singular, transformative impact of Jesus’ death, unintentionally overshadowing the full completeness already declared in Scripture (e.g., Hebrews 10:14, 18).”

Though believers continue to battle indwelling sin in this age (Romans 7:15–20; 1 John 1:8), the legal condemnation and covenantal power of sins were decisively and irrevocably ended at the cross—no further sacrificial or prophetic fulfillment is needed.