The authors assumption that the temple was the focal point of Daniels prayer is patently incorrect. Daniel doesnt even remotely refer to the temple. Its fairly apparent (upon reading the rest of the article) that the authors main purpose for assuming this is so that she (or maybe he, Im not sure) can eventually make the connection to the destruction in 70 AD.
Second, it seems silly that the author would claim literal fulfilment of the first 69 weeks, in so many words, ... then abondon that approach and accept a spiritual fulfillment for the rest of the prophecy. This is where the position breaks down into speculation. The contortions that must be undertaken to stretch out the required time frame for the 70th week to absorb the events of 70 AD are just too extreme.
Then exercising His royal heavenly rule over all the nations, Messiah in the midst of the seventieth week would send forces of destruction against the Jerusalem temple
appears that the last half of the seventieth week is the age of the community of the new covenant,
the last half week is the age of the church in the wilderness of the nations for a time, and times, and half a time
Come on ...
Finally, and surely the most severe problem; the author never once mentions the kingdom.
How is that even possible?
After major prophecies of world kingdoms there is not even a mention. The entire book of Daniel is set in the context of kingdoms. A lost kingdom, current world kingdom, the hope of a restored kingdom, and prophecies of future kingdoms.
What exactly does this author think is going to be restored after the exile? The Mosaic covenant? Please ... that motif is too restrictive given the entire historical context of Daniel. Daniel and every other Jew in exile was expecting a KINGDOM to be restored after the exile. The disciples in Acts 1 were STILL expecting the restoration of the kingdom. This supports the notion that Gabriels instruction WAS a clarification of the restoration prophecies, something the author dispenses with out-of-hand.
Again, some good historical information ... but the conclusions fail to answer some fundamental questions of the text ... and the context.