Re-Examining the
Six Requirements of the 70 Weeks
In the prophecy of the Seventy
Weeks, God had given to the nation of Israel a period of 490 years of probation
in the form of 70 prophetic weeks. A question that can be asked and answered
now is why specifically “70 ”weeks. Why not 30, 40 or 50 weeks? The
significance of this probationary time period can be brought out here when the
self-evident symbolism in Biblical numerology is taken into consideration.
The number 70 is formed by product
of 7x10 and when one considers that (1) the number seven indicates a perfect
representation (the 7-day weekS1 which perfectly represents the Creation
week;S2
the seven candlesticks (i.e., lampstands) of RevelationS3 which perfectly represent the (true)
historical Churches of Christ that were to fully showcase Him-“the Light of the
World”N4); (2) that the number 10 indicates something that is
all-encompassing and complete as seen with the Ten Commandments;A5
and the ten plagues in order to completely destroy the power of Egypt,S6
etc, and (3) that the product of these numbers (70) is used to represent a
period of judgmentN7 (e.g., Israel’s 70-Year captivity in
Babylon), and that 70 men were usually used to judge Israel throughout its
history;N8 then it can be seen
here that the symbolic period of “70” in the “Seventy Weeks” indicated an
all-encompassing (i.e., all-time), (national) judgement number. Then
with this number being multiplied by 7 (70x7), it then showed that this would
be a “perfect/representational national and all-encompassing judgement,”
meaning a judgement that sum up into one final form all of other the previous
judgements of Ancient Israel, or in other words: an all-time judgement of God’s
former chosen people!
Jesus seemed to endorse the meaning
of this symbolic period of perfect probation when He declared that the period
of inter-personal tolerance of repeated and unforsaken of sin was to be
set at “seventy times sevenN9 [i.e., 490 times]” (Matt 18:21, 22). He
also seemed to endorse the number 70 as an “all-encompassing, judgement” number
as in the last year of His ministry he “instituted” (i.e., trained and ordained
for public work)N10seventyN11 men in addition to
the Twelve disciples (Luke 10:1) to go before Him to ‘any house and any
city’(cf. vss. 5 & 8); [and not only to “lost sheep of the house of Israel”
(Matt 10:6) as the Twelve had previously been commissioned to only do
(vss.1-15)]; with judgement authority (Luke 10:10-16), in order to bring in the
“full harvest” of His ministry (Luke 10:2S12).
So all of this shows that period of
490 years th
at was determined
by God to weigh Ancient Israel in the
heavenly balances was a fair and righteous period of probation.
Now as we mentioned at the
beginning,R13 there were six specific things that Israel had to have
accomplished during this special period, namely:
(1) To put a restraint on the
transgression/rebellion;
(2) To seal the sin;
(3) To make atonement for iniquity;
(4) To cause the everlasting righteousness
to be brought in;
(5) Also To seal vision and prophet;
(6) Also To anoint a Most Holy
Place.
These requirements can now be examined here in greater detail to see
how they were or were not fulfilled historically.
“Putting a
Restraint on the Transgression/Rebellion”
As it was mentioned earlier, there
were essentially two great sins that Ancient Israel, as a nation, kept on
committing and which caused them to greatly mar their covenant relationship
with God. One of them was that they repeatedly followed the evil ways of the
pagan nations that around them and flagrantly did things that were contrary to
God’s explicit will such as idolatry, human sacrifices, immorality, etc. The other major sin of Ancient Israel
was that they continually committed their habitual transgression of rebellion
as that they would repeatedly reject the
messages of the prophets that God had sent to them in an attempt to bring them
back to the right way. Based on the fact that in the eyes of God the sin of ‘rebellion
was as witchcraft and stubbornness was as iniquity and idolatry’ (1 Sam 15:23);N14
and also based on the fact that both Jesus and Stephen indicated that it was
because of this transgression of
rebellion and stubbornness against God through His elected prophets that
God was now going to completely rejected this nation,S15
we can now firmly conclude here that the major transgression that Ancient
Israel had to “put a restraint” on was rebellion against, and rejection of, God’s
prophets.
Interestingly enough, for the
majority of the period that was covered by the Seventy Weeks of probation (457 B.C.-34 A.D.), the Israelites were actually quite faithful as they
had then become strict law-observers, even at the risk of losing their lives,
as their courage during the religious persecution of Antiochus Ephiphanes
showed.R16 So God didn’t have a problem of lawlessness with
the Israel that returned from the Babylonian Captivity. They now greatly upheld
the Law, but this went on to lead their religious leaders to build sort of a
"protective hedge" around the Law by formulating all kinds of
complicated and restrictive rules and traditions. The wrong that was caused by
this practice was that these regulations eventually went on to kill the spirit
of the Law and led the nation of Israel to the other extreme of lawlessness, -legalism-,
which was just as abhorrent to God.N17 As the revolutionary
teachings of Jesus would later demonstrate, this form of worship had never been
God’s ideal for His chosen people.S18 This was mainly because it
took away from them having complete faith in Him.
The rejection of God’s prophets was
indeed greater than the repeated falling aways of Israel since the people would
at times unknowingly apostatized or do things contrary to God’s Law, as Daniel
had initially indicated in his prayer of intercession by literally saying that:
“we were caused to act wickedly” (Dan 9:5a); but because a prophet’s
message was in essence the message of God Himself (see Jer 19:14, 15),N119
then rejecting it was in essence rejecting God.N20
Following the period of about 400
years between the two Testaments, when Israel did not receive a
prophetic message although they were gradually slipping away into the clamps of
legalism, the time then came for God to do something new in Israel, and He raised
up a prophet to initiate this purpose in John the Baptist (cf. Luke
7:28) who would also prepare Israel for the advent of the Messiah, but Israel
proved that they still had the same rebellious disposition as their forefathers
(2 Chr 36:15,16) despite this [probably intentional] 400-year “break” and
generational gap. As Jesus later pointed out: ‘“They did to [John the Baptist]
whatever they wished” and would later treat Him in the same manner (Matt
17:10-13; cf. Luke 11:49), and by this they were just approving the evil deeds
of their fathers (Luke 11:48; cf. Matt 23:29-34).’ If Israel had been able at
that time to "put a restraint" on this one habitual act of rebellion,
they would have been able to remain as God's chosen people. But for a people
who were characterized throughout their history as a “stiffnecked people” as it
was said by God (Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5), Moses (Deut 9:6,13) and others,N21
this one requirement would indeed be
quite a challenge in itself. In fact in the long history of Ancient
Israel, their "stiff-neckedness" was specifically identified as their
constant rejections of God’s chosen messengers. (See Jer 7:25, 26; cf. 19:14,
15). It is no wonder that God had made this the primary requirement of this
490-year period of probation with the fulfillment of the other five
requirements greatly depending on the fulfillment of this first one. As a
Messianic prophecy in Isaiah had said:
“The Redeemer will
come to Zion, and [more specifically] to those who turn from
transgression/rebellion [peša⊂] in Jacob.” Isa 59:20 [i.e.s.].
Cf. Rom 11:26, 27.
“Sealing the Sin”
Since
Ancient Israel was not able to put a restraint on their habitual transgression
of rebellion by rejecting God’s chosen messengers, they were then unable to
meet this second requirement of having their past Sin “sealed.” The failure for
them to have this done literally had devastating consequences when
decision-time came near the end of the Seventy Week period as Jesus had pointed
it out in His last sermon to them (Matthew 23).N22 At that time He clearly indicated that the rebellious
generation of Jews living in His time were going to be held accountable for all
of the past sin of rebellion against God’s messengers in the near future as He
said that:
“All the righteous
blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of
Zechariah, son of Berechiah,N23 who you murdered between the Temple and the
altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this
generation.” Matt 23:35, 36.
Or as He had previously, and
similarly said during the dinner He had with the religious leaders,R24
it would be:
‘The blood of all the prophets which was shed
from the foundation of the world that would be required of this generation.’
(Luke 11:50; see also vss. 49 and 51)
What is significant about the
specific Old Testament incidents that Jesus had referred to here is that the
murder of Righteous Abel was recorded in the book of Genesis [4:1-8], which was
the first book in the Hebrew canon, while the murder of the prophet Zechariah
was recorded in the book of Chronicles [2 Chr 24:20, 21], which was the last
book in the Hebrew canon.N25 Therefore, by using these two
parallel examples from two extreme booksN26 in the Hebrew Canon,N27
Jesus was indicating that indeed, all of Israel’s past murders of God’s
righteous ones, that were recorded in the Sacred canon, which went back to the
foundation of the world through the Creation account, would now be brought back
to remembrance, and would be avenged upon this most-knowledgeable and
most-privileged, and thus most-accountable and most-guilty, generation (cf.
Luke 17:25).
Interestingly enough in both of
these extreme examples, vengeance was asked to be repaid for the shedding of
the blood of these two righteous people as it was said that ‘the blood of Abel cried
out to God [for vengeance]’ (Gen 4:10); and similarly the last words of
Zechariah the priest were: “The Lord look on it and seek [a
"retribution" or "vengeance"]!” (2 Chron 24:22).
This Divine sentence of vengeance
judgement on Israel was unmistakably fulfilled in the horrible massacre that
occurred at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem as over 1.1 million Jews
lost their lives in this conflict and 97,000 others were taken captive.R28
Also when one thinks about it, this siege of Titus could not have occurred at a
time when the city was more populatedN29 as it occurred during the
pilgrimage feast of the Passover,B30 and as Josephus
says, the diaspora Jews and the Jews who lived in Jerusalem were trapped in the
city as if “shut up by fate.”B31 These Jews of the
dispersion still came to Jerusalem by droves for this Passover Celebration even
though Jerusalem was then in the midst of a war.N32
The sad truth in the statement by
Josephus was that this punishment of the Jews was indeed not a coincidence, but
the actual outworking of a sanctioned “fate.” This could be seen in the fact
that it more than likely wasn’t the intention of the Romans to have to contend
with such a vast populace in their attempt to subdue the rebellious city of
Jerusalem. They fully knew that the Jews were a formidable opponent of war and
were not to be taken lightly as, in the early siege under Cestius Gallus, the
Jews had been able to cause the part of Roman armies under Cestius Gallus to
flee in retreat.R33 The Romans also fully knew in advance
that Jerusalem would be this populated at the time of this Passover feast, for
Josephus reported that Cestius had once previously asked the Jewish priests to
take a count of all the sacrifices that were going to be offered at an upcoming
Passover feast in an attempt to inform the then-ruling Emperor Nero of “the
power of the city.” Since a company of no less than 10 would offer one
sacrifice,N34 and with the total number of sacrifices that year being
256,500,R35 Josephus said that it was then estimated that there were at
least 2,700,200 people in the city at the time of this population census.B36
This was only a minimum number because a company of people for these
sacrifices could be as high as 20 in some casesR37 and Josephus also
pointed out that this number only included the people who were considered “pure
and holy,”B38 for it did not include the people that were physically or
ceremonially "defiled" N39 at that time, and also the
[uncircumcised] strangers who had also attended this feast but were not allowed
partake in these sacrifices.B40 So when all of these figures would have been
totaled up, there could have easily been an excess of 3,000,000 people in
Jerusalem during this, or any other Passover celebration. So even though the
Romans were fully aware of all of this they still chose(?) to attack Jerusalem
at the time.
The Romans also knew from the past
attack of Cestius Gallus that the Jews would not be hesitant to abandon their
religious feast and rites in order to
launch an attack against them since in their counterattack of Cestius’s army
back in 66 A.D., the Jews had abandoned their celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles in order to launch
their counter-attack, and this also on the Holy Seventh-Day Sabbath, no less!N41
So if the timing of this siege had really been under the complete
"control" of the Romans, then they surely would have chosen another
time for it when there was much less potential for man power in Jerusalem and
thus less resistance.
It could be said that the Roman had
planned this attack on the Jews in 70 A.D. at the time of the
Passover in a strategic attempt to make the Jews realize that it was better to
surrender without resistance, but if that had indeed been the case, then they
would not have continued the war after they had seen that the Jews were going
to fight back. They would then probably have retreated and returned at a time
when the city was less populated. What they really wanted was to the control of
the city itself, and not its destruction of the city, or the death of the
people. So since these events unfolded in such a, humanly speaking, illogical
way, it then can only be concluded here that it was the righteous judgement,
and the ultimate will of God that was being accomplished at that time as He
allowed natural human passions and tempers to rule at this time, which resulted
these events to be carried out in this way. So God was certainly not looking
out for the Jews at this time.
Josephus adds emphasis to this ‘Judgement
of God’ factor by saying/suggesting that:
“The multitude of
those that therein perished exceeded all the destruction that either men or God
ever brought upon the world;...”B42
As other Divine judgements in the Old Testament had repeatedly
demonstrated, this was not the first time that God had used, allowed, and/or
sent a foreign nation and army to execute physical destructive judgement upon
His once-chosen Nation. Josephus himself could only view this whole uncanny
development as such and actually saw a parallel between this destruction and
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 B.C. This was primarily because he noticed that this
destruction in 70 A.D. fell in the same time of the
year as the one in 587 B.C.,R43 but, interestingly
enough, Jerusalem had been similarly destroyed in 587 B.C. because the people
would not heed to the warnings of the prophet Jeremiah who was urging them to
surrender to the authority of
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians (see e.g. Jer 27:12-15, 17). Like the
similar message of Josephus,N44 the warnings of Jeremiah
were also violently rejected.S45 As Jeremiah, and Josephus
had told the Jews, when they thought they were fighting the Babylonians or the
Romans, respectively, they were actually
“fighting God.”N46
Interestingly enough, for centuries,
the Jewish people have commemorated the fall of Jerusalem of both 587 B.C. and 70 A.D. on the ninth day of Ab
(mid-July); and the Book of Lamentations, which was greatly influenced
by the message and ministry of Jeremiah,N47 is read on that day.R48
This judgmental "pouring
out" on Jerusalem was also not only a fulfillment of the prediction in the
Seventy Week prophecy, but it was also a fulfillment of the statement that the
rebellious Jews who thought they were right when they ask that Jesus be put to
death and that the “Zealous” murderer Barabbas (Mark 15:7) be set free instead.
They were then so “blinded” that in prideful arrogance they went on to ask that
the blood of Jesus be ‘on them and their children (Matt 27:25).’ This request
was proof in itself that they fully recognized that there was substance for
retribution in the actions they were taking against the Righteous and Blameless
Jesus. So in 70 A.D., God granted them their wish
and request.
“Making Atonement
For Iniquity”
The requirement here for Ancient Israel to “make
atonement for [past] iniquity” had basically been made void by them here in the
light of their failure to fulfill the first three requirements of this
prophecy, and particularly the first one of “putting a restraint on the
transgression of rebellion.” Based on the symbolism in the ceremony of the Day
of Atonement (Lev 16), which was a solemn day of judgement in the camp of
Israel, God would here have completely blotted out the past sins of His former
chosen people and would have started anew with them; with a clean slate, so to
speak. This is what He had promised the “Remnant
of His heritage” (Micah 7:18) at the time of the upcoming Second Covenant, as
He said that at that time He would ‘Forgive Israel’s former iniquities and
would remember their sins no more’ (Jer 31:34b). The Jews who chose to believe
in the mediator of this Second Covenant -Jesus Christ- were able to experience
this spiritual "rebirth" as they were able to, on an individual, yet
collective basis, meet the first two requirements in Dan 9:24 (cf. Rom. 9:27;
11:5).
For the rest of the Jewish nation,
the period of 3½ years between the Cross and Stephen’s speech that had
providentially been provided for them to realize their great sin of rejection
and repent from what they had done to their Messiah, was not spent in contrite,
Day-of-Atonement-like repentance, but instead in ever increasing hatred and
heart-hardening rebellion against the Gospel message and its proclaimers. (See
Acts 4:1-22; 5:17-32).
“Causing the
Everlasting Righteousness to be Brought In”
With God’s former Israel having
proven to be an unfit channel for Him to perform His work of righteousness and
redemption in behalf of the human race, the privileges of this glorious
requirement was therefore given to a New Israel, the Christian Church, as they
allowed God to, once again, have a people that would represent Him on the face
of the earth. They were then able to fully enjoy the promises of Righteousness
in the Second Covenant and were privileged to be able to proclaim this Good
News to the world as God’s true representatives.
“Also Sealing
Vision and Prophet”
Since we have previously seen that
the accurate translation for this requirement should be “to seal vision and
prophet,”R49 what now needs to be answered is: Which vision and
which prophet would become sealed by the fulfillment of the Seventy Week
prophecy? The “vision” here can be identified by examining the broader context
of the revelation of the Seventy Weeks.
‘Sealing a
Vision’
In relating the prophecy of the
Seventy Weeks, the prophet Daniel had stated that He was seeing the angel
Gabriel for a second time, as he had previously also seen “in the vision
[hazôn] at the beginning”(Dan 9:21), that is the vision found in
Dan 8 (see Dan 8:16). Understanding what this reference to the "vision [hazôn]
in the beginning" is key to understanding the mention of the
"sealing of vision [hazôn]" in Dan 9:24, as they both
refer to the same vision, as we will see. This conclusion is based on the
actual relationship that exist between the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks and
the prior vision recorded in Daniel 8. This close relationship was first
spotted in 1768 by a German Calvanist pastor by the name of Johann Petri, who was
seconded shortly later by the similar conclusion of a pious Irish Layman by the
name of Hans Wood,N50 and then this key prophetic understanding
was also soon widely spotted and accepted around the early 1800's by other
Prophetic Expositors of the time.R51 While it is that most of
these expositors came to this realization based on a surface reading of the
known English translation of Daniel 8
and 9 of that time, a more in-depth and exegetical analysis of the Hebrew text
of these passages here reveal that they were following the right lead.
A detailed explanation of the vision
of Dan 8 cannot be done here,N52 but a brief
comparison of the allusions to the unexplained portion of the vision in Dan 8
with the revelation of the Seventy Weeks will be sufficient here. A partial commentary on the “Little Horn” section of Dan 8 is made here. And a more indepth presentation of what is discussed below is made on this site/video about this 2300 Day Prophecy and its applicable, interpreting “Day-Year Principle” [PDF].
In chapter 8, Daniel had received a
vision of successive coming world kingdoms that were symbolized by animals (Dan
8:1-12). Then his attention was suddenly directed to a conversation between two
heavenly beings who were discussing the events in the preceding vision. They
asked:
“How long (or until
when) will the vision about the continual sacrifice be, and the transgression
that makes desolate, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be
trampled?” Dan 8:13
And to this question the answer was
given, to Daniel:
Dan 8:14.
The Hebraic expression here of
"evenings and mornings" is an extended way of saying "a
day," as a day according to the Biblical record was reckoned from first
the night part (an evening) to the day part (the morning).S54
Now if the prophetic day-year principle is applied here, as it should be, then it can be seen that these 2300 prophetic
days actually represented 2300 literal years.
Now when this vision in chapter 8
came to an end, Daniel still did not
understand its meaning, so the angel Gabriel was sent back to him again with,
interestingly enough, the specific command to “make him (Daniel) understand the
appearance.” (Dan 8:16); that is the “appearance” [mar⊃eh] of the 2300 days
as the angel Gabriel later specified in Dan 8:26. It is significant that Daniel
was not told here to understand the ‘vision’ [hazôn], but instead
the “appearance”[mar⊃eh]. Most English translations
do not reveal the actual difference between the expression mar⊃eh (as it appears here
in its masculine form) and the expression hazôn since these two
expressions have usually been inaccurately both translated as "a vision," but it is actually only
the feminine form of mar⊃eh, -mar⊃h- that refers to a “vision,”S55
and not the masculine form mar⊃eh which is used to refer to an “appearance.”S56,
R57
So the accurate translation of mar⊃eh here in Dan 9:23 is indeed “an
appearance.”
Now the Angel Gabriel went on to say
that this mar⊃eh of ‘the 2300 evenings and
mornings’ (vs. 26) pertained to the “time of the end” (vs. 17), and also,
following an explanation of the vision (vss. 1-12) in vss. 20-25), he then told
Daniel to also “seal up the “vision” [hazôn],” for it
[also] referred to many days in the future. (vs. 26). At this point chapter 8
of Daniel then comes to an abrupt end as the prophet Daniel became physically
unable to continue this Divine Revelation session, but as he later said, he was
still perplexed about the ‘appearance [mar⊃eh] of the
2300 days’ and was looking for someone to explain it (vs. 27).
This is where chapter 9 of Daniel is
seen an actual "sequel" to chapter 8 because while the prophet Daniel
was making his fervent prayer of confession and intercession (Dan 9:1-20), the
angel Gabriel, was again sent back to him with, again, the same specific
mission as in Dan 8:16, to give Daniel ‘understanding
into the “appearance”[bamar⊃eh]’ (See vs(s). [21,
22] 23 cf. NASB). The intentional use of the definite expression “(the) mar⊃eh” in Dan 9:23
presupposes a previous knowledge of this “appearance” and thus leads to the
inevitable conclusion that this was here again a reference to ‘the mar⊃eh of the 2300 days’
from Dan 8:14. This mar⊃eh was also the only unexplained
portion from the previous entire vision in chapter 8. So after Gabriel had
shared the specific purpose of his current visit with Daniel (vs. 22, 23), he
then related to him the time-prophecy of the Seventy weeks to help clarify the
unexplained larger time element of the 2300 days.
The angel Gabriel also used another
very interesting word in the opening statement of the Seventy Week prophecy
that further indicated a connection of the Seventy Weeks prophecy to the “appearance”
of the 2300 days. This expression was not previously analyzed in great
exegetical detail in this book as it did not affect the overall chronology of
the Seventy Weeks, but its accurate meaning here is essential here in the light
of this broader context for the Seventy Weeks.
This key expression is the Hebrew
verb nehtak which lexicographers have shown could be translated
to either mean "determine, decide,"R58 "cut,"R59 "to cut,
dissect; to sever,"R60
"decree, ordain" and "divide,"R61
depending on the immediate context that it is found in. So if the Seventy Weeks
were an independent chronological revelation, then the meaning of nehtak
as "determined," "decreed," or "decided"
would have been accurate here, but since the Seventy Weeks is an explained
portion of the 2300-day time period of Dan 8:14, then the meaning of nehtak
as "cut off" would be more contextually accurate here, as it would
accurately point out that the shorter time period of the Seventy Weeks (490
days) was “cut off” from the larger period of the 2300 days.R62
So the most accurate translation of the opening statement of the Seventy Weeks
would be:
“Seventy
Weeks have been cut off for your people and for your holy city.”
The choice of this meaning for nehtak
here is further supported by the fact that the angel Gabriel had used a
definite expression to refer back to the period of 2300 days. If he had
been referring here to only a revelation
that was entirely new, independent, and original, then he would not have used
this definite expression here but would have simply said to Daniel:
"Understand a mar⊃eh." He,
furthermore, would not have used the expression mar⊃eh here, if he really
wasn't indeed actually referring to a previous "appearance" and not
to the upcoming ‘Seventy-Week revelation,’ since this revelation of the Seventy
Weeks had actually not "appeared" yet. If that had not
been the case, he probably would then simply have said: "Understand a
nebû⊃āh [prophecy]."
So based on all of these linguistic
and contextual reasons, what can only be concluded here that the “vision [hazôn]
in the beginning” mentioned by Daniel (Dan 9:21), was a reference to the entire
vision in Dan 8, and that the “appearance” [mar⊃eh] mentioned by the
angel Gabriel in Dan 9:23 was a reference to the unexplained “appearance” of
the 2300 days of Dan 8:14. The Seventy Week prophecy was thus a partial
explanation of the chronology of this 2300-day. It was expressed here by
Gabriel in words, and in a context that Daniel could relate to and understand
as it dealt with things relating to “his People and his Holy City” (Dan 9:24)
and the current situation of the “desolation” that they were now in. (Dan
9:2-19) This whole theme was indeed one that was weighing heavily on Daniel’s
mind at that precise time (Dan 9:1-4, etc), and this is what had caused God to
send Gabriel to him at this very same time (vs. 23).
So briefly, in summary of this first
part of this fifth requirement, at the time of Gabriel’s second visit with the
prophet Daniel, he would have pointed Daniel back to the vision that he had
related to him and had started to explain prior to Daniel getting sick. He
would then have now indicated, concerning the unexplained mar⊃eh of 2300 days
(years), that: ‘490 (years) from it had been “cut off” from this larger portion
for the Jewish nation’ and that the fulfillment of this prophecy would “seal”
[the fulfillment of] the "vision [hazôn]” that had
previously discussed. (Dan 8:1-14). So in essence God had “cut of” a
symbolically significant period from the longer 2300 day period to evaluate and
judge his then chosen people. At then end of this period, it would be seen if
they were fit to continue as His chosen people or if they would have to be
replaced.
‘Sealing a
Prophet’
Now the second part of this fifth
requirement: “to seal a prophet,” was apparently a reference here to Jesus
Christ as He would be functioning in His role of a ProphetS63
and also to the sealing of His more detailed prophecies concerning the future
utter destruction of Jerusalem (Matt 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20; Luke 13:33;
21:20-24). As He had said following His prophecy of determined desolation:
“Heaven and Earth
would pass away but My words will by no means pass away.” Matt 24:35.
This conclusion is further supported
by the fact that Jesus’s prophecy of sure destruction was made 3½ years before
the entire probationary period of the Seventy Weeks completely ran out. So theoretically the certainty of
fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy hung in the balance for 3½ years after His
death until the Jewish Nation actually caused it to be “sealed” (in the sense
of becoming unchangeable), by their rejection of the righteous Stephen in 34 A.D. Had they repented it would surely have been reversed (see Jer 18:7, 8
& Ezek 18:23, 32). So it was in that sense that Christ’s words would become
“sealed.” Also had Israel been able to meet these requirements, prior to their
execution of Him, then He surely would have poured out words of blessings upon
this once chosen Nation, and it would have been these words of blessings of
Christ that would have later been sealed and not words of condemnation and
destruction.
So based on this understanding, this
fifth requirement in Dan 9:24 would be referring to (1) the sealing of the
entire 2300 day vision that preceded the giving of Seventy Week prophecy and
(2) the sealing event that would take place near the very end of this prophetic
time period.
“Also Anointing a
Most Holy Place”
The mention of the anointing a “Holy
of Holies” or more specifically a “Most Holy Place” can seem somewhat
contradictory here since the message of this prophecy clearly showed that Jesus
had come to supercede the Jerusalem temple (Matt 12:6) and its services, and
that as a result of His death it was transposed into a state of desolation
(Matt 23:38; Luke 13:35; cf. Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) which would
later to be physically consummated later; but the Epistle to the Hebrews, which
was written while the Jerusalem Temple was still standing (see Heb 10:11;
13:10, 11), comes to shed some light on this requirement by elaborating on the
present High Priestly ministry of Jesus Christ in Heaven (Heb 7 & 8), in a
Heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9) of which the earthly Jewish sanctuary/temple was
only a miniature representation (Heb 8:1, 2, 5; 9:23, 24; cf. Exod 25:8, 9,
40). So this prediction of the anointing of the Most Holy Place here
would be a prediction of Jesus anointing the Heavenly Sanctuary for His High
Priestly Ministry there, after His ascension, just as the typological earthly
sanctuary had been anointed for its services after it had finished being built
(Exod 29:10-46).N64
A More Specific
(Anti-Typical) Application of the First 4 Requirements
It could also be added here that
while the fulfillment of the first four requirements here could indeed be
taking into consideration the entire rebellious history of the Jewish nation,
it could also very well have been particularly referring to the anti-typical
(or greatest of) rebellion of the Jewish nation (since Jesus was the Greatest
prophet of them all) which would extend between the time when they would reject
their Messiah in 31 A.D., and when this rejection would
be sealed 3½ year in 34 A.D. So based on this it can be
said that (1) the “putting a restraint on the transgression of rebellion” was
focusing on the Jewish nation’ rebellion against Jesus Christ and the gospel
message; (2) “the
sealing of the sin” would be the hoped for sealing of the sin of
crucifying the Messiah; (3) the “making of atonement for iniquity” would be the
contrite pleas of forgiveness that should have been made and heard
throughout Jerusalem, by the Jews during the 3½ year period that followed the
cross; (4) the everlasting righteousness that would have been brought in at
that time would here still be the righteousness provided by Jesus Christ in
this Second Covenant throughout the entire nation. So while the rejection of
the Messiah was prophesied to happen, it was purposely done 3½ years before the
end of this all-time judgement period in order to provide the Jewish nation an
opportunity to recognize to end their rebellion and thus meet the six
requirements in this prophecy.
Notes to
"Reviews"
4. Compare Christ’s teaching in Matt 5:14-16=Mark
4:21=Luke 8:16 (11:33) with John 8:12, and the use of this symbol in Rev 2:5
(and 18:23).
5. There once were two lawyers who were walking up
and down the isles of a immense Judicial Library which housed an innumerable
amount of books on all kinds of Laws. After hours of browsing these endless
shelves, one of the lawyers made the [then glaring under]statement that a
staggering number of Laws had indeed been formulated over the course of human
history (est. 35 million laws). The other lawyers responded by saying: “Yeah!
It’s even more amazing when you consider that we supposedly started off with
just ten!
66 Exod 7:14-11:10; 12:29-36. The fact that it is
repeatedly said during the account of the plagues, from the sixth plague on,
that God “hardened the heart of Pharoah” (Exod 9:12; 10:1, 2; 20; 27; may be used
to prove that He wanted to bring this total of ten plagues upon the Egypt. (See
also Exod 14:8).
7. A judgement period of 70 years was pronounced
upon the wicked nation of Tyre (Isa 23:15-17) and, as seen before, on the
rebellious nation of Israel (Jer 25:11, 12; cf. 29:10).
8. The 70 judges/elders of Israel (see
Exod 24:1, 9; Num 11:16; 24, 25; see also Judges 9:2) who stood as a
representation of the whole Nation; and was the precursor of the 70-member
Sanhedrin.
9. Cf. e.g., KJV, NKJV, ASV, NEB, RSV; and not “seventy-seven
times” as some versions (e.g., NIV, NRSV, JB, NJB) have translated the Greek
expression ebdomēkontakis epta (lit. seven seventy-times) as. Cf.
Lamech’s plea for forgiveness according to this number in Gen 4:24 [LXX].
10. Cf. H. Schlier, "deiknymi,"TDNT,
Edited
by G. Kittel. Translated and edited by Geoff W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 2:30, 31. Luke uses this word two other times to
speak of John the Baptist’s “public appearance” to Israel (Luke 1:80), and of
Peter asking God to “reveal” who among a group of candidates should be chosen
to replace Judas in order to make up the meaningful "Twelve" once
again (Acts 1:24).
11. A few
manuscripts suggest that this number should be seventy-two, but
the majority of manuscripts favor the “seventy” reading. (So the Textus
Receptus). The text of the UBS4 has included the number two
(Gk.-duo) in its main text but its has indicated that it still regarded
as disputed by also placing it in [ ] brackets. See their manuscript analysis
for and against the inclusion of this word in this text under Luke 10:1, and
also 10:17, on pages 242 and 244, respectively. Some major English Version that
accept a “seventy” readings are: KJV, NKJV, RSV ,ASV, NRSV, NASB; other
versions that accept a “seventy-two”
reading are: NIV, NEB, JB, NJB. The present discussion showing the actual meaning
inherent in the number 70 strongly favors such a reading here.
14. This is quite a statement when one not take into
consideration the obvious satanism in “witchcraft,” but also the debase
vileness, animalism and barbarianism that was involved in the rites of idolatry
at that time. [Cf. Frederick W. Farrar, The First Book of Kings, 2nd
ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904), 352, 353].
17. See in the following passages where God
repeatedly indicated that He was not, and would never be interested in a “legalistic
and ritualistic” religion: 1 Sam 15:22; Psa 40:6-8; 51:10, 16, 17; Isa 29:13;
Jer 7:21-24; Amos 5:21-27; 6:6-8; Heb 10:5-9a. This point was quite forcefully
emphasized in the Biblical context of 1 Sam 15:22 as King Saul thought that the
many sacrifices that he was going to offer to God with the “good” livestock and
“best things” that he has spared (for God) when destroying the Amalekites (See
1 Sam 15:9, 15, 21) was going to overrule the fact that he had disobeyed the
clear and express commandment of God (vss. 3, 13, 10, 18-20). God demonstrated
that this apparently meaningless sin in the eyes of Saul, that had a “good”
intention, was actually an infinite abomination in His sight as it was an
absolute and shameless insult to His stainless character. It depicted God, in
front of all Israel and all of the enemies of Israel, as a murderer (a breaker
of His own 6th Commandment) and then as a blood-thirsty legalist.
But that was the furthest thing from the truth for even in commanding the
armies of Israel to now utterly destroy
the Amalekites, God was actually bringing about upon the Amalekites their
long-deserved sentence of judgement for having savagely ambushed the Israelites
back during the time of the Exodus (1 Sam 15:2 (6); cf. Exod 17: 8-16)]. So as
a result of Saul’s abominable unpardonable sin, God had now rejected
Saul (and his descendants) from being King of Israel (vss. 26b, 28; cf. 16:1),
and He was not going to change His
mind (vs. 29), no matter how many times if Saul "repented " (1 Sam
15:24-26a).
19. The main function of a prophet was to be
"spokesperson" for God, a forthteller (cf. Amos 3:7), and not
necessarily always foreteller
of future events.
20. The importance of heeding to the prophet’s
message of rebuke for a sin and God’s willingness to forgive that sin when the
guilty person heeded to the message, even in the case of premeditated sin, was
clearly seen in the story of David’s fall and his complete forgiveness when he
listened to the voice of God through the message of the prophet Nathan (2 Sam
12:1-13), although he did have to pay the consequence [vss. 14-24]. See also
the story of Josiah’s reforms (2 Kings 22) as he allowed the newly found truth
in the book of the Law to guide him to the right path that he had unknowingly
not been following.
21. King Hezekiah- 2 Chr 30:8; Stephen-Act 7:53; See
also Ezek 2:3b, 4 where God described Israel as “rebellious,” “stubborn,” and “shamelessly
bold” children!
22. It should be explained here that what may appears
on the surface to be a contradiction concerning actual time when this last
sermon of Christ was given since Luke mentions a similar speech of Jesus
in Luke 11:37-52. What explains this apparent contradiction is that, as Luke
was clear to point out, Jesus had previously made this similar speech during a
private luncheon that He had been invited to by some Pharisees, scribes and
lawyers (Luke 11:37, 45, 53). He had made this speech after they had rebuked
Him for not having "ceremoniously" washed His hands before the meal
(Luke 11:38). Now Matthew in his gospel, indicates that this same speech was
made by Jesus during his final sermon (Matthew 23) as He was then speaking to a
“multitude and to His disciples” (Matt 23:1), and apparently also to scribes
and Pharisees who were apparently also present, based on the direct “Woe unto
you, scribes and Pharisees!” statements that He went on to make starting from
vss. 13ff. It therefore is clear that Jesus had here repeated, and elaborated
on the previous private speech that He had given to the religious leaders (Luke
11:37-52) as He was now warning this crowd about the dangers of following these
apparently pious, but hypocritical religious leaders, by telling them of their
actual final fate.
23. Matthew says in his gospel that this Zechariah
was the “son of Berechiah” but this does not match up with the identification
of this Zechariah in the book of Chronicles as it says there that Zechariah was
the “son on Jehoiada," but because the murder that is described by Matthew
resembles so much the historical murder of the Zechariah recorded in the
Chronicles (2 Chr 24:20, 21), and because Luke in his gospel only refers to
this person simply as “Zechariah” (Luke 11:51), then this apparent
contradiction could simply have been caused by an error of detail that was made
either by Matthew himself or by later copyists, or by an error in the alleged
source [known as “Q”(=Quelle (German)-“Source”)] that Matthew was
allegedly using in writing his gospel.
[Cf. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 33b
(Dallas, TX: Word Book Publishers), 676-677].
25. For a detailed defense of the view that this was
indeed the order of the Hebrew Canon at the time of Christ see Roger T.
Beckwith The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament and Its Background in
Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1985), 211-222; cf. KNT
4.1:422-423.
26. What further supports the view that Jesus had
purposely chosen two examples from these two extreme books of the Hebrew Old
Testament to make this statement of
judgement here is that: on the historical time line, the murder of
Zechariah the priest, which took place in the 9th century B.C., during the reign of King Joash (cf. 2 Chron. 24:1, 2), was not that
last recorded murder of a righteous messenger of God in the Old Testament
times. It was the murder of a prophet by the name of Uriah that was the last recorded murder of
one of God’s messengers in the OT as, in about the early 6th century
B.C., he followed in the footsteps of Jeremiah and ‘prophesied
against Jerusalem according to the words of Jeremiah’ and was murdered because
of that. (See Jer 26:20-23). Soon after this last murder came the Babylonian
captivity, and then the predominantly "better days" of Israel
followed after the return from exile.
27. What further indicates that Jesus was only
dealing with the deaths of God’s righteous ones that were in the Biblical canon
is that Josephus recorded in Antiquities, 14:2.1 [#19-#25] that in about
70 B.C., a ‘righteous man’ by the name of Onias who
was ‘beloved by God,’ and had once ‘in a certain drought, prayed to God to put
end to the intense heat, and whose prayers God had heard, and had sent rain,’
was later on stoned to death after he had been forced to pray for the end an
intense civil strife in Jerusalem between the majority of the people who were
supporting a High priest by the name of Hyrcanus, and a potential king named
Aristobulus who was being supported by the other priests. Onias refused to pray
over this touchy situation at first, but when the crowds forced him to pray, he
conceded but remained neutral in his prayer as he said: “O God, the King of
the whole world, since those that stand now with me [Hyrcanus’s party] are
your people, and those that are besieged [Aristobulus’s party] are also
your priests, I beg you, that you will neither hearken to the prayers of those
against these, nor bring to effect what these pray against those.” Josephus
then says that as soon as he had made this prayer,n the wicked
Jews that were around Onias [i.e., the guilty party] stoned him to death. So
from this story, it then can be seen here that Jesus was only focusing on
events recorded in the Holy Biblical canon. [Interestingly enough Josephus goes
on to state that God went on to take vengeance on these people for the murder of Onias, although he saw this retribution
in an incident that was realistically unrelated. [See Antiquities, 14:2.2
[#25-#28]].
29 Josephus also says that this war occurred in a
time when Jerusalem “had arrived at a higher degree of felicity than any other
city under the Roman government (Preface to Wars, 4 [#11]).
32. It was probably the brief respite on the part of
the Romans just prior to the siege of Titus that no doubt had the Jews thinking
that God was fighting on their side and that Jerusalem was an indestructible
city.
39. Ibid., 6:9.3 [#426]-(This criteria was based on
Lev 12-15). These people were allowed to offer their Passover sacrifice
a month later (see Num 9:6-14).
41. See Ibid., 2:19.2 [#517]; cf. 2:19.1 [#515].
Roman historian Dio Cassius, writing on the first Jewish war with the Romans in
63 B.C. says that it was because the Jews at that time
had refused to take up arms during the time of the Day of Atonement and on the
Seventh-Day Sabbath that the Roman were able to overtake Jerusalem (see Dio
Cassius, Roman History, 37:16.1-4).
44. See Ibid., 5:9.2 [#361b]-5:10.1 [#420]; See also ibid.,
6:2.1 [#93]- 6:2.2 [111]. Both Josephus and Jeremiah received
favorable recognition and honor from the Roman and Babylonian armies,
respectively. This was because Josephus had predicted the coming into power of
Vespasian while the Emperor Nero was still in power [see Ibid., 4:10.7
[#622-#629]; and Jeremiah had predicted the unfathomable destruction of
Jerusalem (Jer 40:1-7).
46. See e.g., Jer 21:1-10; 27:17-22; 37:17; and
Josephus, Antiquities, 5:9.4 [#378]. See also Josephus in Ibid.,
5.9.1 [#411] where he said that Titus also recognized that God was on the
Roman’s side as he said that: “We have certainly had God for our assistance,
and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications*
for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these
towers*?”
[*These “fortifications”
(“towers”) were the Antonia Fortresses which were 4 strong towers that provided
a formidable defense fort for the city (see in Map#5)]
47. After an in-depth textual and theological
comparison between the books of Lamentations and Jeremiah, which has revealed
both similarities and differences; and also after a survey of historical views
regarding the authorship of Lamentations in both Jewish (MT and LXX) and Christian
circles, Dr. Ronald Eugene [An Investigation of the Jeremianic Authorship of
Lamentations (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services,
1988), 138-145], has stated that: “It must be concluded that the ascription of
Lamentations to Jeremiah is without sound exegetical basis and should be
regarded only as a tradition.” He then has suggested that the well-structured
book of Lamentations (an acronym of the 22-letter Jewish alphabet) was more
than likely composed by someone who was closely or distantly acquainted with
the prophet. He may have (1) heard Jeremiah preach, or known first-hand of the
scrolls upon which Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, recorded his preaching, or (2) he
may have been part of a later generation who, “upon realizing the validity of
the preaching of the prophets, allowed their lives to be influenced by the
words of generations past.” (144).
A Biblical precedence that could
explain, and support either one of these two views is Daniel’s prayer
of intercession in Dan 9:3-19, as he had more than likely been a contemporary
of Jeremiah and would have heard his preaching, and now he went on to include many of the key thoughts and themes
from the writings and messages of Jeremiah in his prayer of intercession. [See in "Daniel’s Intercessory
Prayer," Ch. 1, pp.].
50. See L. E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our
Fathers, 2:713-722. Petri began the time periods of both prophecies
in 453 B.C., while Wood began them
in 420 B.C.
51. See e.g., Alfred Addis, Heaven Opened,
(London: Joseph Robins, 1829), 176; Edward Bickersleth, A Practical Guide to
the Prophecies, 5th ed. enlarged. (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside,
1836); John A. Brown, The Christian
Observer, vol. 9, no. 107. (1810),
668-670; William Hales, A New
Analysis of Chronology, vol. 2. (London: printed for author,
1801-1812), 563; Edward Newenham Hoare,
ed. The Christian Herald, vol. 3
no. 31 (Dublin, Ireland, 1832), 190-194; William W. Pym, Word of Warning in
the Last Days, (Philadelphia: J. Dobson and J. Whetham, 1839), 24, 25; Daniel Wilson, On
the Numbers of Daniel (Madridge: The Church Mission Press, 1836), 10. L. E.
Froom (Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, 3:750-751) states that another 50
leading prophetic expositors of that time also came to this same
understanding.
52. This will be done in a forthcoming sequel to this
book entitled: The Greatest Prophecy About Jesus.
53. These translations of “justified” (or) “vindicated”
are two tentative translations of the expression nişdaq which is an
expression that has proven that it could have several, interrelated meanings.
[See the study of Neils-Erik Andreasen, "Translation of Nişdaq/Katharisthēsetai in Daniel
8:14." Symposium on Daniel, 475-496[@]]. This is until
further exegetical, extra-biblical, historical and contextual studies can
confirm what the translation and meaning of this expression in the context of
Dan 8:14 should be.
56. See e.g., Gen 2:9; 12:11; Exod 3:3; 24:17; Lev
13:3, 4, 12, 20, etc; Num 9:16; Ezek 1:5, 13, 14, 16 (2X), 26, 27(4X); 8:4;
43:3; Dan 1:4, 13, 15; 8:15, 16, 26, 27; 9:23; 10:1, 6, 18; etc.
60. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim,
the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrash Literature (1943),
1:513, CHAL, 120.
62. Cf. Owusu-Antwi, 126, 127; Henry Feyerabend, Daniel
Verse by Verse, (Berrien Spring, MI: Maracle Press Ltd, 1990), 138.
64. This theme of Christ ministry in the Heavenly
sanctuary will be further elaborated on in my forthcoming book The Greatest
Prophecy About Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
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.]