Horizontal Menu Bar

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Daniel 9:26




The “Cutting Off”of "māšîah"
            Dan 9:26 picks up the chronology of the Seventy weeks where Dan 9:25 had left off in the first part of its verse, by saying:

                         “Then after the sixty-two weeks māšîah shall be yikkārēt.”
                                                                                   
            Now based on the absolute occurrence of the expression māšîah in this verse and also on the occurrence of the other absolute expression gîd later on in this verse, it therefore appears that an intentional splitting up of the double title māšîahgîd from verse 25 was done in this verse. This splitting upis graphically demonstrated in the following way:1
                                                                                   
                                    1.  vs. 25      māšîah    nāgîd        A + B
                                    2.  vs. 26a    māšîah    -------        A     --
                                    3.  vs. 26b    --------     gîd        --     B

            We will first examine the expression mšîah here, and then determine its actual meaning and function here in this verse.

The Expression "māšîah" in Dan 9:26
            As it was stated earlier, this title of māšîah is here again in the same absolute form that it had occurred in back in verse 25 and since there is absolutely no contextual reason that would indicate that a change of identity in this title from its previously established identity in verse 25 is to be made here, then it can only be concluded here that this title is again referring to: Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
           
The Expression "yikkārēt"
             The expression yikkārēt, that also occurs in this opening statement, has the literal meaning of: “to be cut off.”R2As it appears in Dan 9:26, the expression yikkārēt is grammatically identified as a Niphal (imperfect).R3 The Niphal stem conjugation in the Hebrew is used to represent a subject “as having been acted upon by an unstated agent.”R4 It answers to the question "What happened to [the subject]?"R5 This subject is also merely depicted as participating in the action.R6
            Now when the Niphal of the expression yikkārēt is applied to a human subject in the Old Testament, it can have two meanings. It can (1) be used in reference to someone not lacking a successor,S7 or (2) it can be used to refer to someone, or a group of people, who are deservingly punished for a wrong that they have done, mostly a covenant violation. This punishment was usually by a physical separation from the rest of a group, or by capital punishment (death). This meaning of  yikkārēt was therefore used in reference to an Israelite covenant-breaker;S8 the fate of people that were 'cursed;'S9  the fate of the 'defiled' or 'inconvenient;'S10 the destruction of the 'wicked' or 'evildoers;'S11  and the fate of 'the enemies of God's people.'S12
            Since this expression is applied in Dan 9:26 to Jesus the Messiah, then this "cutting off" was therefore a clear prediction of Christ’s future death on the cross, when, as the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53 says, He would be “cut offN13 from the land of the living” (Isa 53:8).
            This understanding that the Messiah in Dan 9:26 would actually be "killed" was recognized as early as about A.D. 50 as the "Peshitta (simple or plain [version]) in Syriac," which was a Syrian translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and was apparently of Jewish originR14 translated Hebrew expression yikkrēt with the Syrian future verb “neteqtel which literally means: "will be killed." Interpreters today generally agree with this translation for this prediction in Dan 9:26, and also that it was indeed fulfilled in the death of Jesus Christ.R15
            This interpretation of the Niphal expression yikkrēt goes on to leads us to arrive at a more accurate translation and understanding of  the somewhat ambiguous expression that follows in Dan 9:26, namely weên .

The Expression "weên lô"
            The expression weên lô in Dan 9:26 was originally translated in the major English versions of the Bible as “but not for Himself” (KJV, NKJV), but almost all of the other major English versions have come to see that this expression is more accurately translated with the meaning of "[the Messiah] not having (something) to Him." The RSV and NRSV have “and shall have nothing;” the NIV has “and will have nothing;” while the NASB has “and have nothing.” Based on the fact that expression ên is a particle of negation that is used to express ‘non-existence, absence, or non-possession,’R16 and that when it is in the distinctive idiomE17: ên l[e]X -construction, it particularly indicates non-possession,R18 then these latter translations of Dan 9:26 as "not having something" are indeed more accurate. The question that now needs to be answered is: What will Jesus, the Messiah not have when He is "cut off?"
            The three closest Old Testament parallels to the expression weên lô in Dan 9:26 occur in Psa 72:12; Jer 50:32 and Dan 11:45. In these passages a qualifying term was clearly expressed in the immediate context to help identify more specifically what the expression "have nothing" is referring to. In Psa 72:12 and Dan 11:45 the term “helper” was given and in Jer 50:32 the verb “raise (up)” was given,N19 but unlike these passages, the expression weên in Dan 9:26 does not have such a qualifying term. Therefore, its meaning can only be determined semantically, that is: based on the  relationship of the expression weên lô to the meaning of clause that precedes it.
            An example of how this semantic interpretation of weên lô should be done is seen in (e.g.,) Isa 41:17 where it says that:

                                                “The poor and needy seek water,
                                                  but there is none.”

            What is clearly being referred to as "not being" in the second phrase is “water.”

Also in Pro 13:7 it says:

                        “There is one who pretends to be rich, but has nothing [weên kl];
Another pretends to be poor, but has great wealth.”

            If we were to isolate the first phrase of this verse and try to determine what is meant by “but has nothing,” it would be obvious that this phrase would mean that this person “who pretends to be rich” actually has no riches or wealth; and the second phrase would go on to explicitly support this conclusion as it contrastingly shows that the person who “pretends to be poor actually “has great wealth.”
            So similarly in Dan 9:26, the understanding of what a person should have when he or she is “cut off” would help to determine what Jesus "would not have" when He is “cut off.”
             Usually when someone was cut off during the covenant years of Israel, it was because they had somehow violated some aspect of the covenant and had done not followed the Law of God. In other words they had, in some way, sinned or transgressed. But this, of course, was not the case with Jesus Christ. His death was an undeserving punishment since He Himself had not done anything to be treated so, as the thief of the cross testified (Luke 23:40, 41). He had no sin of His own (John 8:46; 14:30 S20), and had not violated any aspect of the existing covenant (Matt 5:17, 18). Based on this semantic understanding that a person who was "cut off" had to have done something wrong, or transgress in some way, the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew has suggested that the nouns rîn (judgement)N21 (i.e., an accusation/verdict/condemnation)R22 The expression wen (iniquity) could  be supplied here into the text to bring out the full meaning of the expression weên lô here.R23  The text would then say:

             "Messiah will be cut off, but He will have no judgement/iniquity to Him [],"B24

 but it could inclusively expressed as:

            "Messiah will be cut off, but He will have no sin to Him."N25

            This expression "no sin" is actually indicating that the Messiah would be without fault. This would mean that even though the Messiah would be condemned to be "cut off," it would not be because He had sinned, as sin would not have existed in Him. This was indeed the case historically, as Pontius Pilate would later testify after interrogating Jesus the Messiah, and trying to find something wrong with Him, and saying: “I find no fault in this Man” (Luke 23:4).N26
             Now when this interpretation for this prediction in Dan 9:26 is compared to the fact that the expression yikkrēt was expressed in a future imperfect tense, it is then seen that a most important fundamental theological truth of Christianity was also being expressed here in this prediction, for when an imperfect tense refers to future time, it indicates a situation that arises as ‘a consequence or a logical result of some expressed or unexpressed situation.’B27 This is unlike the perfect tense which represents a future situation as an “accidental”event.R28 This then meant that the future "cutting off" of the blameless Messiah would still, in essence be, a logical consequence of something. This consequential "something" was of course due to the fact Jesus was going to take on the sins of humanity at His death. He then would, naturally, and theologically speaking, "logically" have to suffer the fate of death, as Scripture points out. (Rom 6:23). As every Christian knows, Jesus was "cut off" because He allowed God to lay on Him “the iniquity of us all.” (Isa 53:4, 6).S29 For He was:

‘Wounded for our transgressions,
 He was bruised for our iniquities;
           The chastisement for our peace was upon Him
 For the transgressions of His people He was stricken.
So that by His stripes we could be healed.
(Isa. 53:5, 8, 11)

And by Him bearing all of our iniquities we are justified.

‘Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken
Smitten by God and afflicted.’
(Isa 53:4)S30
           
          Also, since the imperfect tense here indicated that the future death of the Messiah would not be “accidental,” as it would not be an unforseen event; then the theological statement that Jesus was the ‘Lamb of God, who was slain from the foundation of the world’ (see 1 Peter 1:19, 20; cf. John 1:29; Eph 1:4; Rev 13:8), was also hinted at in this Messianic prediction. This then meant that this future death of the Messiah would indeed be a fulfillment of the long-ago determined ransom price for fallen man. As the apostle Peter would later proclaimed: ‘although this Jesus had been nailed to a cross and put to death by the hands of lawless men, He had in actuality been “given over” to His to enemies (as a gift) by the “predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God.”’ (Acts 2:23).
            There are also some more theological points that can be seen in this Messianic prediction based on the Hebraic syntax here.
             Since there are two predictions that are made here which say that: (1) the Messiah will in essence seem to do something to cause Himself to be “cut off’ or “killed,” (by Him voluntarily bearing the sins of the world), but also (2) that He will "allow" all this to be done to Him even though He will not Himself have actually done anything to deserve this fate; all of this therefore makes this Niphal expression become syntactically identified as a Double-Status NiphalB31 of a tolerative construction.B32 This is a type of Niphal that combines a reflexive notion (as the subject somehow is acting upon himself) with a notion of permission (as the subject allows this undeserving action to be done to him).R33 Interestingly enough, this would be the only case of  a Niphal of Double-Status and tolerative construction for the Hebrew expression kārat (“cut off”) in the Old Testament since all of the other Niphal stems of this expression, when applied to a human subject, indicate, a fitting punishment that is to be carried out on a deserving transgressor.S34 
            This Double-status Niphal is more accurately translated with the meaning that: ‘X (the subject) allows himself to be Y (verb),’R35 so this would make the prediction in Dan 9:26 actually say:
           
                                    “The Messiah will allow Himself to be “cut off...”

            Since it was always understood that when the Messiah would be ‘would be cut off from the land of the living,’(Isa 53:8),S36 and that He would be put to death or killed; (see e.g., Luke 24:25-27, 46; etc), then the prediction in Dan 9:26 would more accurately read as:
                        “The Messiah will allow Himself to be killed, although He will have no sin to Him.”

            The notion of the Messiah "allowing" something to be done to Him was also accurately fulfilled by Christ as in the events leading up to His crucifixion, (1) He allowed Himself to be arrested when He could have prevented it;S37 (2) He allowed Himself to be falsely accused and condemned;S38 and (3) He allowed Himself to undeservingly suffer the punishment of a criminal and be put to deathS39 This "being put to death" notion in this tolerative construction prediction in Dan 9:26 was also indicated by Jesus Christ as He would at times say that He was willingly going to offer up His life as a sacrifice (see e.g., John 10:11, 15, 17, 18), but at other times, He would specified that He was actually be going to put to death by others (see e.g., Matt 16:21; 17:22, 23, etc). This then clarified that His future, voluntary death would not be because of an accident, nor a suicide but indeed and execution!
            What is also significant about the Niphal tolerative construction is that, as Waltke and O’Connor point out:
           
 “If in the passive the subject is non-willing and in a reflexive the subject is willing, then in a tolerative the subject is half-willing.”B40 [i.e.s.].  
           
            This "half-willing" notion was perfectly fulfilled by Jesus as, although He always knew He had to be violently put to death when He would die to redeem mankind,S41 yet He was still half-willing to go through with all of this, exactly as it had been planned, as His last struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane demonstrated. (See Matt 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-39; Luke 22:39-45.)

Furthermore, as Waltke and O’Connor go on to indicate:

 “The tolerative Niphal often involves the element of efficacy” meaning “what the subject allows to happen can indeed be carried through.”N42 
           
            Examples of what this “efficacy” notion actually emphasizes are given as: -‘To let oneself be questioned,’ in such an efficacious way that it practically means ‘to answer’ (when speaking of God); - ‘to let oneself be warned’ in such an efficacious way that it practically means ‘to bear in mind the warning;’ -‘to let oneself be corrected- to be corrected;’ -‘to let onself be entreated - to grant.’R43 If we would here make a similar analogy with the tolerative Niphal in Dan 9:26, it would then come to imply that the Messiah could actually not naturally suffer the full, efficacious, implications of this “cutting off” action, and that would largely be because He would be blameless. He would therefore have to allow Himself be “cut off” in such an “efficacious” way that He would actually suffer the full effect of this being “cut off,” or being “killed” action.N44
            So in summary, the prediction in the first part of Dan 9:26 actually made a multi-point, theological prediction about the meaning of future death of  “the Christ, the Son of living God” (Matt 16:17; cf. John 11:27) by indicating:

 (1) A voluntaryS45 and sacrificial,S46 yet executionaryS47 death as Jesus willingly allowed           Himself to be killed.
 (2) A death that was not an “accident” in the sense of an unforseen tragedy, but                  rather a foreordainedS48 and eternalS49 plan of God.
             (3) A vicariousS50 and atoningS51 death as Jesus the spotless Lamb of GodS52 and God                            IncarnateS53 would fully pay for the sins of mankind by Him dying in our place.


The Predicted Destruction of the Temple and the City
            Now from this prediction about the cutting off of Messiah, the Seventy Week prophecy goes on to reveal that this event would actually be a major turning point in the prophecy as, from that point on in this prophecy, a gradual degradation of the Jewish nation, their religious institutions, and the Holy City and Temple, begins to be described and ultimately culminates in their utter destruction.
            The first part of this prediction in verse 26 indicates this gradual downfall by saying, (traditional/common translation):

            “and the people of the prince who is coming will destroy the city and the sanctuary.”R54

            This traditional translation is not without some controversy today, since recently, some English versions have come to propose that this part of verse 26 should read in the lines of:

            “and the troops of the prince who is coming will destroy the city and the sanctuary”R55

            This translation is proven to be incorrect since it is based on the supposition that the expression gîd here refers to a military "prince." As we have already noted, the actual Hebrew word for "prince" is not gîd, but: śîy/nāśî,S56 and also the actual Hebrew word that is usually used in the book of DanielS57 to refer to a "military prince" is śarS58 and not gîd. So if this was the intended meaning and prediction here, then this word would have been specifically used here. Since this is not the case, then this absolute title gîd here, which literally means, as we have seen: a "Ruler" (cf. NIV), should again be understood as a reference to Jesus Christ, functioning this time in His role of a "King" ruling over His people (i.e., ruling over the Jewish nation [Matt 27:41]).N59
            Also, since earlier in verse 26, when the atoning death of the Messiah was referred to, it was the title māšîah, "Messiah," that was used; but now, following the rejection of the Messiah in this part of verse 26, it is the title gîd Ruler that is used instead, then this phrase is not a reference to "the people of the Messiah" (i.e., the believers in Christ), but rather to "the people of the King," and this “people” would here theoretically be any Jew since Jesus was the King of all of the Jews. Whether or not the Jews accepted Him as their Messiah, He was still a "Ruler" over them, as the inscription on the cross, ironically enough, still declared to all,N60 for when the Jews crucified their (ruling) King, they were for all intents and purposes, left without a kingdom.N61 They did recognize Jesus as their King and were, interestingly enough, more ready to accept Him as such as the event of the Triumphal Entry demonstrated (Matt 21:1-9), but that was mostly out of national pride, and in God’s eyes that wouldn’t be acceptable.N62 To be a "people of the Messiah," these unbelieving Jews would have to, consciously and willingly, accept Jesus as their Messiah, as many among them had done.S63 So since this wouldn’t be the case with the majority of the Jewish nation, then this “people of the King” in Dan 9:26 was specifically referring to the unbelieving Jews.       
            So based on this identification of the “ruler/king” with Jesus, and the this “people” with the unbelieving Jews, the first part of this phrase would read as:

                                    "And the people of  “King” who will come, etc..."R64
             
But would specifically mean (paraphrase):

                        "And the unbelieving Jews will yašehît the city and the sanctuary."

We can now see exactly what action is being predicted here by yašehît (‘destroy’).

The Expression "yašehît"
            The expression yašehît has usually, simply been translated as "shall destroy," but there are some significant syntactical features that accompany this expression that give it a more precise meaning in its translation, and also add to the understanding of this prediction.
            As the expression yašehît appears in Dan 9:26, it is grammatically identified as a Hiphîl stem. Since this Hiphîl verb would govern (or "have") a direct object in the simple Hebrew tense- the Qal form, it is then said to be a transitive verb,B65 and thus would form a causative Hiphîl.R66 This would therefore mean, as we have already mentioned, that this Hiphîl would have an element of causation in its translation and/or meaning.B67 So although the prediction in Dan 9:26 would now say:

            "And the people of the “King” who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary."

 it would actually mean:

"And the unbelieving Jews will cause the city and the sanctuary to be destroyed."

            Also since the verb in this expression was in the Hiphîl stem, this also meant that the object of that sentence (the city and community of  “Jerusalem” and the Temple) would “participate” in some degree in this (destruction) event expressed by the verbal root here, and even as an indirect second subject.R68 Since it was the presence of God Almighty that made the "Jerusalem" and the Temple indestructible, then the only way that they could have “participated” in this destruction event would have been if God vacated the premises, so-to-speak. This "Jerusalem" would then be quite a contrast to the "Jerusalem " of [Neh] 8:1 that had "participated" in the restoration event in the Fall of 457 B.C. At that time it was said that: “all the people had gathered as one man at the [city’s] square and saidR69 [wayyêāmepûN70] to Ezra [not "asked"N71] to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded Israel,” so they could  know what was in it. This Jerusalem community had then unknowingly, fulfilled their role of the (syntactic) second subject of the Hiphîl expression “to restore .... ” in Dan 9:25 that would also participate in this restoration activity as they were then fully led by the Spirit of God.
                                                           
The Expression qişô
A significant, if not pivotal, point of interpretation occurs in this portion of verse 26 in
the Hebrew expression qişô - which translated is the expression “end” accompanied by a third person singular masculine (3ms) pronoun. Certain interpreters see here a reference to a future antichrist whose “end” will come in the later mentioned war.R|E72 Other, mainly Messianic Interpreters have seen a reference to the one who would effectuated the just mentioned physical destruction in that verse, namely Titus in 70 A.D. Others instead see here a reference to the end of either the “city” or the “sanctuary” of the previous clause. In addressing in their commentary this expression and the various main interpretations, Keil & DelitzchB73 have refute interpretation that have sought to find an antecedent for this pronoun in either the city or the sanctuary as only one of these two entities would have to be selected to concord with this singular pronoun. That of course would be an arbitrary choice based on factors not provided in the immediate context. Furthermore in the Hebrew the term “the city” is in the feminine gender. Still other interpreters have sought a more abstract antecedent for this pronoun by looking at the just introduced/mentioned destruction as the antecedent. While having such an abstract antecedent is entirely possible, as, in the Hebrew, the 3rd person masculine suffix does not just have to refer to a masculine person. (i.e., “his”) but can also refer to abstract things, and non-living objects. (i.e, “its”), it still is not the best choice for this pronoun as further analysis shows.
            The first above-mentioned, assumedly, “grammatically correct” view that this antecedent is referring to a future antichrist is derived from a belief that this is referring to the nagid mentioned earlier in that verse, however the identification of this “Ruler/Prince” as a military leader has already been refuted in an above section.R74 As fully explained there, this is a reference to Jesus Christ as the (temporal) King/Ruler, by Royal Descent, of all of the Jewish people irrespectively of their view of, or belief in, Him.
            Also the choice of the nagid here as the antecedent is actually not a grammatically correct. As Dr. Owusu-Antwi has said while searching for an antecedent for the ‘“he” who confirms a covenant’ in vs. 27 (discussed in the next chapterR75):

“the Prince of vs. 26b cannot be the antecedent because it is neither the subject nor the object of the preceding clause, “And the people of the prince....” The “Prince” is subordinated to the active subject of the clause ‘the people.’”B76 

            Indeed as it can be seen from the syntax expositions in the work of Waltke and O’Connor,B77


 the clause: ‘the coming prince’ is juxtaposed to the noun “the people” and is in construct apposition to it. Waltke and O’Connor have called such an apposition an “adjectival modifier”, and surnamed it as an “adnominal” (as opposed to an adverb). This statement is thus solely here providing an identifying answer to the question “which people?”. Indeed that statement in Dan 9:26 can be made without this additional qualifying identifier of “the coming prince” even though the question of “which people” would linger.  Therefore to consider this, here, purely adjectival apposition as a pronominal antecedent would be as incorrect as e.g., considering the similar adjectival appositions in the construct expressions (with people): “a people of old” (Isa 44:7; Ezek 26:20); “people of rebellion” (Isa 30:9); “holy people” [‘people of holiness’] (Dan 12:7), among other such examples, as possible subject antecedents.
            Also the expression “the people”, though plural in sense, in the Hebrew is grammatically still a masculine singular. Indeed though the sense is plural, the understanding is actually still singular as can be seen by the rendering of this collective term in the singular as “a people” which literally, collectively refers to ‘the many individual persons in/of a particular country.’
            Therefore as the expression “the people” is both a nearest subject, and also grammatically accords with the 3ms suffix appended in qişô by itself being a 3rd person masculine, it is the most natural and grammatically correct candidate for the antecedent of that pronoun. It is therefore chosen as  the proper choice here, and not “temple and/or the city,” nor “the coming ruler,”
            The only questions that needs to be answered are: why this reference? What does it mean interpretively?
            It can be seen in reading the last clause where the destruction of the Temple and the (capital) City of the Jews were (literally, as per the causative Hiphil) ‘going to be caused to be destroyed by the people’ that this is quite an abrupt, almost out-of-nowhere, statement, and really shocking, especially in the light of the previously mentioned ‘successful restoration and rebuilding’ of verse 25. However it is now saying that the restored people of Judah would ‘cause their Temple and Holy City to be destroyed.’ Still this was not an entirely unimaginable possibility as this is exactly what the Jews in the past had done when they would not listen to the prophesying of Jeremiah and serve the God-ordained, King of Babylon, which led to war and a physical destruction of their temple and city lasting for 70+ years. (See e.g. Jer 27:6-11ff; cf. 25:11)
            This interpretation is also borne out syntactically as it is also said of pronomial suffixes which are affixed to nouns, as in the case of qişô here, that they have a genitive (i.e., possessive) nature,B78 and that such a genitive suffix does have “the same range of purposes as other genitives.”B79 This thus fully comes to include a possible function as a “genitive of authorship,”B80 hence the translation: “their end” = ‘the end (of destruction/war) caused/originated by the people.’B81

            Therefore this subsequent statement to the just mentioned destruction of the Temple and the City would here be providing further information on that previous abrupt statement. It is thus accurately, and best, translated and understood as:

ThisE82 theirE83 (i.e., the people’s) end (i.e., this just mentioned end of physical destruction, which would be of their {the people’s [sing.]} own causing/making/choosing) being in that which overflows.”

            The translation here “in that which” is from the definite article that is present in this term and which is also prefixed by the preposition bin (“in”). This article is here functioning an (independent) relative marker.B84

            The expression “overflows” (literally rendered as “flood” some versions,E85 is lexically understood as with the use of that same Hebrew term in Isa 8:7, 8 to represent ‘an overwhelming destruction that is to be done by a powerful invading army.’ (Also Nah 1:8)

            Now the next clause also makes mention of “the end” [Heb. qēş] of this previous clause, but with more specification as it says:

[wead milehāmāh] - “And until this end of war,
            [nehereşet šōmēt] - desolationsN86 will have been determined”S87, N88

            This statement thus confirms the understanding of the previous “overflowing” statement as ‘an event/advent of war’. It was thus being said to be “inevitable” and would lead to the utter destruction of Israel’s Sanctuary/Temple and capital city Jerusalem.               
    
                                               
{Excellent DocuAnimation & (BBC) DocuDramatization on/of
the 66-70 A.D. Jewish Revolt & War with the Romans}




The Historical Destruction of the Temple and the City
            Now this causative/authorship/responsibility role of the Jews in this precise destruction prediction was accurately fulfilled historically as revealed by the accounts of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. reveal.N89 He repeatedly pointed out, and emphasized throughout his account of this event that it was not the initial, nor the ultimate intention of the Romans to destroy the city of Jerusalem and the magnificent Jewish Temple, even after they had laid siege on Jerusalem,R90 but rather, as He says, it was: “[The Jews’] own “rebellious temper” that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.B91 Many times, during this on and off, 4-year war, and especially during the final siege under the leadership of Flavius Titus, the Romans repeatedly tried to come to a peaceful agreement with the Jews. Josephus says:

Titus “did often voluntarily delay the taking of the city, and allowed time to the siege, in order to let the authors [of the rebellion] have opportunity for repentance.”B92

            But all of these peace efforts were in vain and were categorically rejected by the “hard-headed” Jews as Josephus characterized them.B93
            In 70 A.D., when the Roman armies, had managed to break through 2 of the 3 walls of protection that were around JerusalemB94 [See Map#5], they again gave the Jews yet another chance to surrender peacefully before they broke through the third, final and weaker wall.R95 Titus even had Josephus give a direct appeal to the Jews, but all of these peaceful efforts were also violently rejected.R96  Titus thus was left with no other alternative than to pursue his assaults on the city and subdue the Jewish people by force. This then led to the complete destruction of the city, but even as the city was being ravaged, Titus still did all he could to keep the Temple from, not only not being destroyed,R97 but also from even not being defiled.R98 Josephus reports that when Titus heard that the Jews had stopped offering the daily sacrifices in the Temple he did all  he could to keep them to be offered.B99 He even told the Jews:

 “I will endeavor to preserve you your holy house, whether you will or not.”B|N100
           
            Unfortunately this earnest attempt to preserve the Temple was again in vain, due mostly again to the blindness of the Jews as they went on to use the Temple as a Fort and a hiding place. This only caused the conflict that was raging on outside the Temple to also be carried out inside of its precincts. The sanctuary itself eventually ended up catching on fireR101 and then soon became a heap of ruins, and this despite Titus’s all-out attempts to put this fire out.R102
            Following this great catastrophe, and in a response-speech to the Jews who began to beg for mercy after the destruction of their Temple, an incredulous and baffled Titus said:

“I ... came to this city, as unwillingly sent by my father and receive melancholy injunctions [depressing orders] from him.N103 When I heard that the people were disposed to peace, I rejoiced at it: I exhorted you to leave off these proceedings before I began this war; I spared you even when you had fought against me a great while; I gave my right hand as security to the deserters; I observed what I had promised faithfully. When they fled to me, I had  compassion of many of those that I had taken captive; I tortured those who were eager for war, in order to restrain them. It was unwillingly that I brought my engines of war against your wall; I always prohibited my soldiers, when they were set upon your slaughter, from their severity against you. After every victory I persuaded you to peace, as though I had been myself conquered.  When I came near your temple, I again departed from the laws of war, and exhorted you to spare your own sanctuary, and to preserve your holy house to yourselves. I allowed you a quiet exit out of it, and security for your preservation: nay, if you had a mind, I gave you leave to fight in another place yet you have despised every one of my proposals, and have set fire to your holy house with your own hands...”B104 [explanations supplied]
           
            Even Titus had recognized that it was the Jews who were solely responsible for this great utter destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, as the Seventy Week prophecy had said.
            An interesting, yet somewhat varying account of this part of the war of 70 A.D. was discovered in the writing of a 4th/5th century Church historian by the name Sulpicius Severus who in between 400-403 A.D. had set out to write a history of the world (from a religious perspective), from the Creation down to A.D. 400. When he reached the period of 70 A.D., and the historical event of the destruction of Jerusalem, he made the following interesting statement in regards to Titus’s attitude concerning the destruction of the Temple. He said:

“Titus first took counsel and considered whether he should destroy so magnificent a work as the temple. Many thought that a building which excelled all mortals works in sacredness ought not to be destroyed, for if it were saved, it would serve as a token of Roman moderation, but its destruction would display an eternal mark of savagery. But others, on the contrary, including Titus himself, expressed the opinions that the temple ought most certainly to be destroyed, in order that the Jewish and Christians religions might more completely be abolished; for although these religions were hostile to each other, they had nevertheless sprung from the same founders; the Christians were an offshoot of the Jews, and if the root were taken away the whole part would soon perish.”[i.e.s]R105

            Josephus also makes reference to this "Council of War"R106 but in an entirely different light. He indicates that it took place the day before the Temple was burned to the ground [the 9th day of the Jewish month: Ab-(July/August)], and since Titus had been given orders from Emperor Vespasian regarding only the city of Jerusalem,N107 it can be understood why he held this council at this time. At that time, Josephus says that 6 principle men were summoned by Titus.N108and that:

“Titus proposed to these that they should give him advice what should be done about the holy house. Now some of these thought it would be the best way to act according to the rules of war, [and demolish it,] because the Jews would never leave off rebelling while that house was standing; at which house it was that they used to get all together. Others of them were of opinion, that if the Jews would leave it, and none of them would lay their arms up in it, he might save it; but that if they got upon it, and fought any more, he might burn it, because it must then be looked upon not as a holy house but as a citadel; and that the impiety of burning it would then belong to those that forced this to be done, and not them. But Titus said that ‘although the Jews should get upon that holy house, and fight us from there, yet ought we not to revenge ourselves on things that are inanimate, instead of the men themselves;’ and that he was not in any case for burning down so vast a work as that was, because this would be a mischief to the Romans themselves, as it would be an ornament to their government while it continued.”B109 [i.e.s]

            Based on these two account the question then becomes who should be believed here: Josephus or Severus? Judging on the actions of Titus immediately after the dismissal of this council to put out the fires in the TempleR110and then to keep his soldier from carrying out justifiable warring actions against it,R111 (These righteous deeds by Titus have not been contradicted by other accounts of this war), it then seems that Josephus’s account is the one that is to be trusted here.N112
            Now Titus foresaw that all of these incredibly ironic developments would be hard to believe by other people who had not been eye-witnesses of them, so he became, as Josephus says, ‘desirous that the knowledge of these affairs should be taken from [Josephus’s] books alone and subscribed  his own signature, the imperial imprimatur, to them and ordered that they should be published.’R113 He was probably glad to see that someone had accurately related his true feelings especially in the light of this colossal utter destruction. So even today, this whole war is still referred to, even by leading Jewish Rabbis,R114 as the "Jewish Revolt."N115      
            Commenting on the great loss in the destruction of the Temple, Josephus says:

“Now, although anyone would justly lament the destruction of such a work as this was, since it was the most admirable of all the works that we have seen or heard of, both for its curious structure and its magnitude, and for the vast wealth bestowed upon it, as well as for the glorious reputation it had for its holiness; yet might such a one comfort himself with this thought, that it was fate that decreed it so to be, which is inevitable, both as to living creatures and as to works and places also.”B116

                                                                                               

Predetermined Desolations
            The choice of verb stems, and also the features found in the Hebraic syntax here help to clarify and add meaning to this last part of Dan 9:26. The use of a Qal stem with the expression “desolations” actually gave this last phrase the meaning: ‘Until this end of war, desolations will have (naturally or already) been (firmly) determined.’ The adjectival function of this participle, which describes a state, was also indicating a fixed, permanent quality;R117 i.e., a continued state of “desolations.” In other words the predicted desolations in “this end of war” would not be an accidental event, but a long-determined natural result of a previous cause. This was also indicated by the fact that the other related participle here, nehereşet (“determined”), is in the Niphal stem, and is thus understood to be a passive participle,R118 and therefore describes a situation that results from some previous action.R119
            The use of a future imperfect tense for the verb “destroy” here would also further supports this latter conclusion as it would indicate that the future destruction of Jerusalem would be a situation that would be a logical consequence of a previous situation.R120 This previous action and situation was, as the first half of Dan 9:26 indicated, the rejection of Jesus Christ the Messiah by Him being put to death.
            Today Christians, and also Jews, not only attribute the uncanny and inevitable destruction of the temple and to Jerusalem to the prediction in the Seventy Weeks of Daniel, but also to the prophecy that Jesus had made near the end of His ministry concerning the future certain destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple as He prophetically specified exactly how this prediction in Daniel’s prophecy would be fulfilled.
            Jesus started to hint at the causative role of the Jews in the future determined destruction of Jerusalem as He said:

“If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you when your enemies will throw up a bank [palisade] before you,N121 and surround you and hem you in [close you in] on every side, and will level you to the ground, and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the [set or appointed] time of your visitation.” Luke 19:42-44 (NASB) [i.e.s and explanations supplied]

            This prediction of Jesus clearly indicated that it would be because the Jewish people "did not recognize the [set or appointed] time of their visitation" that the Romans, in the future would lay a siege on their city and level it. So in other words, it would be the spiritual blindness of the Jewish people, that had reached a climax during the time of Christ, that had doomed Jerusalem to an eventual utter destruction.
            Also, when Christ's disciples were once marveling at the magnificence of the temple and exclaimed:
           
            “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” (Mark 13:1)N122

Jesus responded by prophesying along these same “utter destruction” lines that:

            “Not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down.” (vs. 2)S123         
           
He even had given a time period when this, and other signs would be all fulfilled as He added:

“Assuredly, I say unto you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” Mark 13:30.
           
            Since this specific prediction of destruction was fulfilled by 70 A.D., which was about 40 years after Jesus had declared them,N124 then the generation that was being referred to here by Jesus had indeed not passed away. Had the destruction of Jerusalem occurred instead in 170 A.D. then this “generation prediction” of Christ would not have been fulfilled as the generation that had rejected Him (cf. Luke 17:25) would have all “passed away” by then.
            So while the future, utter destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had been predicted centuries before in the Seventy Week prophecy, it was the prophecy of Christ that had set the seal on the fulfillment of this long-ago prediction as the Jews had failed to do their part in order to prevent it from being fulfilled, and not even the sincere efforts of Flavius Titus, or Josephus, could have prevented this prediction from being fully fulfilled the time of its consummation.
            The unbelieving Jews had indeed become "blind to the things that belonged to their [present and future] peace." (Luke 19:42).                                                                          


A Related (Simple) Cause of the Destruction
            While speaking retrospectively about what actually started the Jewish war with the Romans, Josephus makes the statement that the High Priest Eleazar had suddenly decided that the Jews should not receive any gift or sacrifice for any foreigner and persuaded those in the Temple services to go along with this policy. Josephus adds that “this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account.”B125 This reasonless action by the Jews would naturally arouse the suspicion of the Romans and cause them to come over to Judea to investigate the root cause of this sudden hostility. If this is indeed what triggered this great war with the Romans than, it interestingly enough, (or rather ironically enough) would be a "reversed fulfilment" of the time when this same generation of Jews had tried to end the life and ministry of Jesus by trying to get Him to be suspected of insurrection against the Romans. This was the time when they had asked Him if its was permissible (i.e., required of Jews) to pay “poll-tax” (i.e., population/property tax)N126 to Caesar. Jesus wisely responded with the memorable and "unimpeachable" statement:

            “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”B127

            More directly, i.e., cause-to-effect, related, throughout his work, Josephus blames the ca. 8 B.C. ‘census-tax’ rebellion of Judas of Galilee, founder of the Zealots, (chiefly mentioned in his War of the Jews, 2:8.1 [#118] and also cited by Gamaliel in Acts 5:37), for having laid the foundation to the utter demise of the Jewish nation culminating in their 66-70 A.D. Great Revolt destruction.N128
            The importance of abiding by the principle given in this statement can be seen in the way that the apostles would later repeatedly admonish the Christians to practice it (See Rom 13:1-7;1 Pet 2:13-16).The Jews who had rejected Christ, and thus rejected His teachings, were thus deprived of this key principle, and it did, in a fatal way, come back and actually destroy them.
            So when all is taken into consideration here the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was indeed all-in-all, a collective result of the Jews’ rejection of Christ and thus His various ‘peace fostering’ teaches (Luke 19:42) some near 40 years before. Josephus came close to this conclusion by saying that God had brought judgement against Jerusalem because of the stoning again James “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”B129 as James had been a respected figure in Jerusalem as it can somewhat be seen from the fact that he was the first "president" of the Jerusalem Christian Church.S130 But the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had indeed been due to the Jews rejection of Jesus, the Word (see John 1:1, 3, 10, 11), for as He had said during the closing moments of His ministry:
           
“He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings has one who judges him; the word I spoke is that which shall judge him at the last day.” John 12:48; (cf. Deut 18:15, 19).



Notes to "Verse 26"
1. Shea, "Unity of Daniel." Symposium on Daniel. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Vol. 2.  Edited by Frank Holbrook. Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986, 224; and Owusu-Antwi, The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27, 168.

2. See BDB, 503, 504.
3. Cf. Owens, Analytical Key OT, 4:744.
4. See Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 363 [22.2b].
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. See 1 Kgs 2:4; Jer 33:17, 18; 35:19.
8. See e.g., Gen 17:14; Exod 12:15; 31:14; Lev 7:20, 21; 17:14; Num 9:13; 15:31; Hos 8:4.
9. Josh 9:23; Psa 37:22.
10. 2 Sam 3:29.
11. Gen 9:11; Psa 37:9, 34; Isa 29:20; Nah 1:15.
12. Isa 11:13; Mic 5:8; Oba 9, 10.
13. The word used here is gāzar which literally means to “cut, divide,” but its use is synonymous with the expression kārat (from which the expression yikkārēt in Dan 9:26 is derived from) as gāzar also has the extended meaning of: to “destroy, exterminate.” (BDB, 160). See e.g., Ezek 37:11; Lam 3:54; Psa 88:5.
14. Cf. Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995), 86.
15. See Montgomery, 381; Otto Zockler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel.  Transl. by James Strong. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Vol. 13. (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1876), 198; Hartman and Di Lella, 252; Lacocque, 196; Towner, 144; Marti, 70; Walvoord,  229; Harry Bultema, Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1988), 286; Wood, 255; Joyce C. Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction  and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Groves: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), 171; Young, 206.
16. See Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 108. Examples are in e.g., Gen 11:30; 31:50; 39:11; Exod 17:1; 22:11; Lev 11:10; 26:6; Duet 22:27; 1 Sam 26:12; 2 Kgs 9:10; 2 Chr 20:24; Psa 37:10; 72:12; Isa 27:4; 34:12; Ezek 13:16; 38:11; Hos 10:3; Nah 3:18; Hag 2:17.
17. An idiom is mode of expression or an expression itself that is peculiar to or characteristic of a language or dialect and is not logically explicable.
18. See Seow, 108.
19. See other examples of supplied qualify term for the particle of negation ên in e.g., Gen 11:30: ‘Sarah has no child;’ 31:50: ‘no one or person;’ Isa 27:4: ‘having no wrath;’ and Ezek 38:11: ‘having no bars or gates.
20. See also e.g., 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22; (Isa 53:9); etc.
21. This is probably based on the LXX Theodotion version (ca.180 A.D.) of the book of Daniel which has supplied the Greek word krima (judgement) in their translation of this verse.
22. Cf. M. Rissi, "krima," EDNT, 2:317, 318. See the use of the Greek equivalent of this Hebrew expression riz - krima- as such in Mark 12:40; 23:40, 24:20; Rom 12:2, 3; 3:8; 13:2; 1 Cor 11:29; 2 Pet 2:3; Jude 4; Rev 17:1; 18:20; etc.
23. Cf. David J.A. Clines, ed., "ayin,"DCH (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 1:216; see also HAL (1994), 42.
24. Clines, ed.,"ayin," DCH, 1:216.
25.HAL (1994), 42 also suggests that the semantic relationship of this expression could also mean that Messiah will have no successor, but as we have already pointed out the absolute form of the title māšîah could only have been fulfilled by anyone else apart from the true Messiah: Jesus Christ, so this notion that Jesus could not have a successor after He was cut off would actually be contextually and historically inaccurate and unnecessary. Jesus Himself indicated this by saying that anyone else coming after Him claiming to be the Messiah would actually be false christs (see Matt 13:21-23; 24:23-26).
26. This would become a key reminder/prediction since by the first century A.D., it had apparently become a widespread inaccurate teaching that the Messiah of Israel wouldn’t die as it had was asked to Jesus after He had told the people that He would be crucified (See John 12:32-34). This teaching was probably based on an isolation of Old Testament promises such as Psa 89:3, 4, 35-37; 110:4; Isa 9:7.
27. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 511 [31.6.2a].
28. Cf. Ibid.
29. Cf. 1 Pet 2:21, 22.
30. Cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; See also John 3:14; 12:32.
31. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 387 [23.4a].
32. Ibid., 389, 390 [23.4f-g].
33. See Ibid., 349 [20.2n]; 387 [23.4b]; 389 [23.4f].
34. See Gen 9:11; 17:14; Exod 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38; 31:14; Lev 7:20, 25, 27; 17:4, 9, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:17, 18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13, 20; Psa 37:9, 22, 28, 34, 38; Pro 2:22; Isa 11:13; 29:20; Hos 8:4; Oba 9, 10; Nah 1:15; Micah 5:10.
35. Cf. Ibid., 389 [23.4f].
36. Cf. Psa 16:10 [Acts 13:35-37]; 22:15b.
37. Cf. Matt 26:50, 53, 55, (56).
38. Mark 14:55-60; cf. John 19:4-6, 10, 11.
39. Cf. Matt 27:42, 43; Mark 15:28; Luke 22:63; 23:41; John 10:11, 15. See also Isa 53:7, 12.
40Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 389 [23.4f] [i.e.s].
41.  See e.g., Matt 16:21; 17:12, 22, 23; 20:19; Luke 17:25; 24:26; John 3:14; cf. 8:28; 10:11, 15, 17, 18; 12:34; cf. Isa 50:6.
42. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 389, 390 [23.4f-g]. Interestingly enough, Waltke and O’Connor, this notion then makes ‘this tolerative construction be often used in regards to deity’(Ibid., 390 [23.4g]), and when this concept is combined with the Biblical fact that “all (humans) have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), then a very strong argument for the divine, unfallen nature of Christ can be made based on this passage.
43. Examples cited by Paul Joüon, 115 [#51c].
44. This efficacious notion is not contradicted by the common English translation of both Num 15:31 and Nahum 1:15 which have used the English word “utterly” before the expression “cut off.” In Num 15:31 two Niphal expression of krat (“cut off”) were placed back-to-back with the first being an infinitive absolute [hikārēt] which is literally translated as- “being cut off,” while the second being in a future perfect tense [tikārēt] -lit. “to be cut off,” so the literal translation of that phrase actually is that: “the person who is being cut off (from vs. 30), is [indeed] to be cut off.” In Nahum 1:15 the Hebrew expression kullōh is used to emphasize a totality as Judah’s enemies will be completely  cut off” or “completely destroyed” (cf. NIV). So neither one of these two expressions is here indicating a more ‘efficacious’ state of being “cut off.”
45. See e.g., Isa 53:7, 8; John 10:11, 15, 17, 18; 1 Pet 2:23; etc
46. See e.g., Isa 53:4, 5, 7; etc
47. See e.g., Psa 22:7, 8; Isa 50:6; 53:3, 10a; Acts 2:23b; 1 Pet 2:21; etc
48. See e.g., Matt 26:39, 42; Luke 24:25-27, 46; Acts 2:23a; 1 Pet 1:2a, 19, 20
49. See e.g., Eph 1:4a; Col 1:15-17; Rev 13:8; etc
50. See e.g., Isa 53:4-6, 8; John 3:16; Rom 4:25a; 1 Cor 5:7; Heb 9:28a; 1 Pet 2:24a; etc
51. See e.g., Psa 16:10; 22:15b; Isa 53:10b, 11, 12b; Acts 13:35-37; Rom 4:25b; 5:15, 16-18; 1 Cor 5:7; 15:3, 21, 22; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 1:4a; Heb 9:28b; 1 Pet 2:24b; 1 John 2:2; etc
52. See e.g., Luke 23:4, 40, 41; John 1:29; 8:46; 14:30; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5; Rev 5:6-14; etc
53. See e.g., Matt 1:23; John 1:1, 2, 14; 10:30; Phil 2:6; etc
54. Cf. KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, NIV.
55. NRSV. The NEB, REB have: “the hoards of the invading prince....”
56. See Gen 25:16; 34:2; Num 7:2, 18, 24, 30, etc; Josh 13:21; Ezek 7:27; etc.
57. See Dan 1:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18; 8:11, 25; 9:6, 8; 10:13 (2X), 20 (2X), 21; 11:5; 12:1.
58. See Gen 12:15; 21:22, 32; Jer 32:32; 38:17, 18, 22; Ezra 7:28; Hos 13:10; etc.
59. The contra-argument could then be made that this phrase could still be referring to the "troops" of a King, but since Jesus is the “King” here, and since He never had an earthly army (cf. John 18:36), then such an interpretation would not hold up here.
60. [Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19]. It has greatly troubled some that the four Gospel do not give an exact rendition of this inscriptions:

                               Matthew  has: “This is Jesus the king of the Jews”   
                                      Mark has: “The king of the Jews
                                       Luke has: “This is the king of the Jews
                                and John has: “Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews

This discrepancy is apparently resolved by the fact that since John indicates that this inscription was actually written in three languages-Hebrew, Greek and Latin (John 19:20), and since the gospel writers do not say that they were translating from one particular language, it could very well be that this statement was not written in an identical way in the three languages. [Cf. Dr. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, [Receiving the Word (Berean Books: Berrien Springs, MI, 1996), 299].
             Now since this inscription was indeed written in three different languages it would then be read by (at least) three different major people groups. Since Mark’s and Luke’s quotes are so similar (except for “is the”) they both probably quoted the same version and since they were both writing to a Roman audience this was probably the Latin Version. The Greek version was probably written for the Jews of the dispersion who mostly spoke Greek as they were directly affected by the Hellenistic way of life and many of them could actually not read Hebrew or Aramaic. This version was more than likely the one which had the additional information about Jesus, in regards to where He came from- Nazareth, as it would help these visiting Jews to know better who this Jesus had been. This Greek Version was apparently the one quoted by John, who would have had a predominantly "dispersed" Jewish  audience. Now based on a process of elimination here, Matthew  apparently quoted the Hebrew Version, and this would have been one that would specifically be intended for the Jews in Jerusalem, and thus would not need any further indications concerning Jesus as it was well known in Jerusalem where He was from (cf. Mark 6:3). So in summary Matthew had quoted in his Gospel the Hebrew version of the inscription on the cross, Mark and Luke-the Latin version and John-the Greek version.
            [Dr. Pipim also makes the suggestion that the inscription could have fully read, in all three languages as: “This is Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews,” and that the each Gospel writers only quoted segments from this complete statement (Ibid.)].
61. By doing this they themselves accomplished what they thought they would actually be preventing in ending the (now undeniably powerful) ministry of Jesus, ‘for the good of the nation.’ (See John 11:47-53).
62. Cf. for example, this underlying theme in the discussion between Jesus and some Jews in John 8:31-56.
63. See e.g., Matt 16:15, 16; John 1:41; 4:25, 26, 29, 39; etc.
64. Cf. Waltke and O’Connor, [IBHS, 622] who use this phrase as an example and literally translate it as: “And the people of the ruler who will come.”
65. Ibid., 694 "transitive verb."
66. Cf. Ibid., 441 [27.3a].
67. Ibid., 434 [27.1d].
68. Ibid., 355 [21.2.2b] &  435 [27.1e].
69. KJV; cf. e.g., NKJV, RSV.
70. This expression is a Future [See Wigram, EHC-OT, 129] Qal Imperfect [Cf. Zodhiates, TCWS-OT, 1268] which indicated a future [sometime after they had gathered at the square], and logical or consequential, and also natural, action on the part of the people.
71. Contra e.g., NASB.
72. Examples. Hence this Hebrew expression is translated as “His end” mainly on a belief that this is a reference to ‘the end of physical life’ however, the expression “end” actually can referred to any type of “end” and not solely to ‘the end of life.’ So an ‘end of destruction and war,’ which has just been introduced in the context in the prior clause, and then immediately specified in the next clause, indeed has more exegetical (i.e., contextual) support here than a ‘doctrinally imposed future antichrist.’ So this expression does not have to refer to the “end” (i.e., death) of an individual (i.e. a future antichrist as Futurists/Dispensationalists posit).
73. Keil, Johann F. and Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Old Testament Vol. 9: Ezekiel-Daniel, [on Daniel 9:26]
74. See above section: “The Predicted Destruction of the Temple and the City”
75. See in section: Who is "He"?                
76. Owusu-Antwi, Chronology, 198.
77. See IBHS, 73 [#4.6.1]
78. IBHS, 303-304 [#16.4c-d]
79. IBHS, 303 [#16.4c]
80. IBHS, 143 [#9.5.1c]
81. IBHS, 143 #9.5.1c. Cf. example #8 - "tax imposed by Moses - 2 Chr. 24:6 where the word imposed by is not in the Hebrew text but is rightly understood as such. How much more for the caused by statement here which is found in the Hiphil expression of the previous clause and is inherently involved in the understanding of this statement here.
82. As ‘a noun is considered to be definite in Hebrew if it has a pronominal suffix’ (Pratico & Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew, 98), as is the case here with qişô, the “end” that is being mentioned here is thus considered to be definite, meaning that it is specifically known. The context of this verse has indeed made mention of “an end” in the prior clause in the mention of a predicted destruction of ‘the temple and the city’. Therefore to make reference to that previously, explicitly stated “end” the (English) proximal demonstrative “this” is here used. This syntactically implied “definiteness” can be understood to function as when an explicit article is used anaphoricly (using a pronoun or similar word instead of repeating a word used earlier) with such demonstrative sense. (Cf. IBHS, 242, 243 [#13.5.1d]).
83. Some may consider the use of the pronoun “their” in the English rendering as incorrect because they assume that it is solely a plural pronoun but, as they say, some things get lost in translation. Here, in the English language the, at the very least, colloquial use of they/their as a actually a gender-neutral singular, rather than plural pronoun is quite common, even in published/official texts. So as this singular pronoun in vs. 26b is referring to the grammatically singular “the people” which still has a plural sense, this is probably the best that it can be referred to an English rendering. So any issue here would not be with the underlying, still, agreeing grammatical accord, but with possible translational semantics. Still this does not affect the intended reference to one people specifically, and, exegetically, it rightly is: ‘the end that has been caused by this people’ hence: “their end” or more explanatory/periphrastically: “this end of theirs (i.e., their causing/making).”
84. IBHS, 338-340 [#19.7]
85. Although not as “the (cataclysmic) Flood [similar to Noah’s] as some futurist have posited to suggests that this take place at the end of the world. Noah’s flood is from the Hebrew expression MaBûl [Strong’s #03999] and not the current expression šeme [Strong’s #07858].
86. Exactly what these “desolations” are referring to will be seen later on. (See Ch. 7, “The Results of Rejecting the Messiah,” pp.).
87. Cf. a similarly “decreed destruction” in Isa 10:22.
88. For a similar translation of this phrase see Maier, 337, 349; Marti, 70; Lacocque, 187: “devastations are decreed;” Charles, 248: “that which is determined of desolations;” Wood, 256: “desolations are determined.” The words “have been” do make the translation of this Niphal participle more accurate here since this determined, utter destruction of Jerusalem  had indeed been divinely determine some forty years before by Jesus Christ.
89. He was functioning as sort of a war correspondent between the Jews and the Romans during the last part of this war.
90. See Josephus, War of the Jews, 6:8.1 [#334].
91. Idem., Preface to the Jewish Wars, 4 [#10].
92. Ibid.
93. Idem., War of the Jews, 5:9.4 [#417].
94. Ibid., 6:1.4 [#31, #32].
95. See Ibid., 5:8.1 [#331]-5:9.2 [#361a].
96. See Ibid., 5:9.2 [#361b]-5:10.1 [#420]; See also ibid., 6:2.1 [#93]-6:2.2 [111].
97. Cf. Ibid., 6:4.3 [#241].
98. See Ibid., 6:2.4 [#124-#128].
99. Ibid., 6:2.1 [#94-#95].
100. Ibid., 6:2.4 [#128b]. Indeed, later on Titus is recorded to have stated that ‘the Romans considered the vast work of this Jewish Temple to be an ornament to the government as long as it continued.’ Ibid., 6:4.3 [#241].
101. See Ibid., 6:4.5 [#251-#253].
102. See Ibid., 6:4.6 [#254]-6.4.7 [#266].
103. Titus had been given orders by Vespasian to take a select part of his army to Jerusalem and “destroy it.” (Ibid., 4:11.5 [#658]).
104. Ibid., 6:6.2 [#344-346]; cf. idem., Preface to the Jewish Wars, 4 [#10].
105. The Sacred History of Sulpicius Severus, 1:30; found in NPNF 2nd series T&T Clark (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996), 2:111. (This translation is from: F. F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations: The History of Israel from the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple. Rev. by David F. Payne (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 226].
106. See Josephus, War of the Jews, 6:4.3 [#236-#243].
107. See Note #85.
108. They were: (1) Tiberius Alexander (the commander [under the general] of the whole army); (2) Sextus Cerealis (the commander of the fifth legion); (3) Larcius Lepidus (the commander of the tenth legion); (4) Titus Frigius (the commander of the fifteenth legion); (5) Eternius (the leader of the two legions that came form Alexandria [Egypt]) and (6) Marcus Antonius Julianus, procurator of Judea. The also came with them all of the rest of the procurators and tribunes. (See Josephus, War of the Jews, 6:4.3 [#237, #238]. This development is, interestingly enough, typical of a destruction of Jerusalem as revealed in Ezek 9:1, 2a).
109. Josephus, War of the Jews, 6:4.3 [#238b-#241].
110. See e.g., Ibid., 6:4.3 [#243]; 6:4.6 [#256]; 6:4.7 [#261-263].
111. See e.g., Ibid., 6:4.6 [#258]; 6:4.7 [#265, #266].
112. Some say that the account found in Severus’s writings is a rare surviving fragment from the account of Roman historian Tacitus, who also wrote about this War, (eleven of his 16 books exist today in whole or in part); but this view has been questioned by others. [See H. W. Montefiore, "Sulpicius Severus and Titus’ Council of War" Historia 11 (1962), 156ff].
113. See Josephus, The Life of Josephus, 65 [#363].
114Cf. in Jonathan Magonet, The Explorer's Guide to Judaism (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1998), 317.
115. Josephus rightly introduced this whole conflict as:“the war which the Jews made with the Romans;” (Preface to the Jewish Wars, 1 [#1]) and not vice-versa.
116. Josephus, War of the Jews, 6:4.8 [#267].
117. Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS, 613, 614 [37.1e].
118. Ibid., 613 [37.1b].
119. Ibid., 614 [37.1e].
120. Ibid., 511 [31.6.2a].
121. Josephus makes mention of the building of these earth mounds [banks] in Wars, 5:9.2 [#356]; 5:11.1 [#446]; 5:11.4-5 [#466-#473]; 6:4.1 [#220]; among other places.
122. Also in mentioned Matt 24:1; Luke 21:5. The Sanctuary and its surrounding courts were indeed quite magnificent and did appear to be physically indestructible. [See the modern day, lifelike, model of Alec Garrard in: Robert Backhouse, The Kregel Picture Guide to the Temple. Edited by Dr. Tim Dowley (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1996), 16, 17].
123. Cf. Matt 24:2; Luke 21:6.
124. The last time that such a prediction about the complete future destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple was made was during the days of Jeremiah, and, interestingly enough, the destruction occurred 40 years after Jeremiah had begun to prophesy. [Jeremiah ministry was from 627 B.C. to 587 B.C. (dated by the regnal dates in Jer 1:3; cf. 25:3)]. Another similar 40-year delay period seen in Num 14:34 reveals that such a time sentence was quite typical of God’s (final) judgement of a rebellious people of His.
125. See Josephus, War of the Jews, 2:17.2 [#409].
126. Greek-kēnson; Latin equivalent- census. (See H. Balz, "kēnson," EDNT, 2:287).
127. See Matt 22:15-22|Mark 12:13-17|Luke 20:19-26 vs. Luke 23:2.
128. See Josephus, Antiquities, 18:1.1[#4-#9]; 18:2.6[#23-#25]; 20:5.2 [#102]; War, 2:8.1 [#118]; 2:17.8 [#433-#440].
129. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20:9.1 [#200].
130. See Acts 15:13ff; 21:18; Gal 1:19; 2:9.


2 comments:

  1. Hi, I want to subscribe for this blog to take most recent updates, so where can i do it please help out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks!! See the subscriptions boxes in the (upper) right hand column of these pages. I have also just added the changedetection.com service which will update and highlight specific changes to any page...

      God Bless!!

      Delete

This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.

-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.

[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]