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 nāgîd later
on in this verse, it therefore appears that an intentional splitting up of the
double title māšîah nāgîd 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
-------- nāgîd --
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 we⊃ên lô.
The Expression
"we⊃ên lô"
The expression we⊃ên 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 we⊃ên 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 we⊃ên 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 we⊃ên lô to the meaning of
clause that precedes it.
An example of how this
semantic interpretation of we⊃ên 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 [we⊃ên 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 we⊃ên lô here.R23 The text would then say:
but it could inclusively
expressed as:
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.’
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):
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:
This translation is
proven to be incorrect since it is based on the supposition that the expression
nāgîd here refers to a military "prince." As we
have already noted, the actual Hebrew word for "prince" is not nāgîd,
but: nāśîy⊃/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 nāgîd.
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 nāgîd 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 nāgîd 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:
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 [wayyê⊃āmepûN70] 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:
[we⊂ad milehāmāh] - “And until this end of war,
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 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:
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:
Jesus responded by prophesying along these same “utter destruction”
lines that:
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:
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.
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.
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.’
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.”
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.
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]
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).”
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.).
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.
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].
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]).
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].
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).
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].
114. Cf. 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.
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].
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.
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].
Hi, I want to subscribe for this blog to take most recent updates, so where can i do it please help out.
ReplyDeleteThanks!! 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...
DeleteGod Bless!!