The Greatest Of The Prophets - by George McCready Price (1955) 59
9. THE TIMES OF THE MESSIAH - continued...
Daniel 9:27. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. And upon the wing of abominations shall come one that makes desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.
To whom does the he of the first clause refer?
The “critics,” of course, try to put Antiochus into this verse; but to do so they have to resort to many changes of the text, and all of them acknowledge that with them this verse is one of “great difficulty.” This only means that they have great difficulty in making any sort of fit between these statements and the events of the times of Epiphanes, even though they tell us that this book of Daniel was written post event, or to fit the history.
The futurists apply this text to some future antichrist, but they are not at all agreed among themselves. of course, if it is all still future, we need not discuss its accuracy of fulfillment. There can he no “difficulties” in such a futuristic application, if everything is pushed over into an unknown future period where almost anything may be possible.
The scholarly E. B. Pusey, who is sometimes spoken of as a futurist, in that he did hold to the coming of a future antichrist, is entirely with the historical school of interpretation in this entire prophecy. He gives a sound and consistent interpretation of it, and of course he identifies the he of this verse with the Messiah, the “Anointed One,” of the preceding verses. In this way the entire prophecy is maintained as a consistent unit, and all its statements can be applied in a natural way to actual events running down to the times of the Messiah, with all the dates agreeing accurately with the history. No part has to be broken off arbitrarily and postponed to the future, to fit some supposed future antichrist. It seems a thousand pities that the sober good sense of such eminent scholars as Hengstenberg, Auberlen, Pusey, C. H. H. Wright, Charles, and Boutflower is not followed by all modern writers on this prophecy. Boutflower gives an especially detailed exposition of this chapter.
The Messiah is here foretold as making a firm covenant with many for one week. The literal Hebrew is “make mighty a covenant,” which Driver says is a peculiar expression, but probably means “make strong,” or “confirm.” - The Book of Daniel, page 141. He adds: “The subject is naturally the ‘prince’ just named [in verse 26].” This of course refers to the gracious offer of salvation which was made to all who would accept it among the Jewish nation for seven full years, beginning with the personal ministry of Jesus after His baptism in AD 27, extending to the crucifixion in the midst of the week in the spring of 31, and then through His disciples until the Sanhedrin finally rejected the gospel in the autumn of 34, after which the disciples turned to the Gentiles. Here is a full seven years, or a prophetic week, during which the offer of salvation was made specifically to the Jewish nation.
It was exactly in the midst of the week, or in the Passover season of 31, just 3.50 years after His baptism in the autumn of AD 27, that Jesus, by the voluntary sacrifice of Himself, caused all other
sacrifices and oblations to cease for evermore. The rending of the temple veil by an invisible hand from the top to the bottom, at the very instant of the death of the Messiah, was a divine notification that henceforth all the temple services were at an end. True, the Jews continued to offer sacrifices on their polluted altars; but the sacrifice of the Messiah rendered them henceforth unnecessary and blasphemous. Some years later, or AD 70, they were ended physically and literally by the Romans. Pusey records a remarkable Jewish tradition that for about thirty-nine years preceding the destruction of the temple by Titus, the sign of acceptance which the high priest always looked for on the Day of Atonement, never took place. See Lectures on Daniel, page 172, note. From the midst of the week in the spring of 31, all further offerings of sacrifice and oblations in the temple became a mockery and a denial of the Messianic promises.
Even if we adopt the reading “for half of the week,” as given in the modern Jewish translation and favored by some scholars, the meaning would still be essentially the same. The clear meaning of the passage is that, though the national probation of the Jews would be extended mercifully for another 3.50 years beyond AD 31, yet during this last half of the prophetic week all the temple sacrifices and ritual would be null and useless in the sight of God, even though the deluded priests did keep on with their accustomed round of service. All that they did had indeed become useless and meaningless for this last “half of the week,” and the God of heaven regarded them as an insult and a mockery.
The date 31 as the year of the crucifixion is supported by eminent authorities. Other dates both before and after have been advocated at times; for, strange as it may seem, the actual date of the crucifixion is probably the most difficult of definite location of any important event in the world’s history. Very probably it is not capable of satisfactory settlement for those who do not admit this very prophecy as a genuine Messianic prediction. Pusey and Hales and other eminent scholars can be quoted for this date; but to avoid further discussion here I would refer the interested reader to the Source Book for Bible Students, pages 560, 561, and to the authorities there cited.
Perhaps the most conclusive argument for this date is founded on a consideration of this prophecy of Daniel as a whole. If we begin the 490 years with 457 BC, then there is no other place for them to end except AD 34. On this basis, the “one week,” in the midst of which the sacrifice and oblation were to be made to cease, must begin with the autumn of the year 27, which is the date of the baptism as given in most Bibles. From this the halfway mark, or “the midst of the week,” cannot be other than the spring of AD 31. In this way there is perfect harmony and a perfect fit with the facts of history. If one of these dates is disturbed, all the others are thereby thrown into confusion and to an equal extent. Accordingly, we have an abundance of evidence on which to rest our faith that this is a true Messianic prophecy and that Jesus was the long-predicted One named in the prophecy. Even after Jesus had appeared by definite appointment in His glorified state to His disciples on the mountain in Galilee, the record is: “But some doubted!” Matthew 28:17.
And upon the wing of abominations shall come one that makes desolate. There seems little doubt that we have here a poetical expression dealing with the sad, dark fate of the Jewish nation, where desolation is pictured as being carried along upon the wing of abominations. One translator renders the passage: “Upon the wing of abominations comes the Desolater!” In more than one place in the Old Testament, God is represented as riding upon a cherub for the deliverance of His people. In a contrasted figure of poetry, as C. H. H. Wright expresses it, “the Desolater is represented as borne aloft upon the wing of the abominations committed. In other words, the abominations committed in the temple and in the Holy City were the cause of the desolations threatened by the prophets of old.” Daniel and His Prophecies, page 228.
Few persons outside of a small number of specialists in this period of history have any idea of the horrors and atrocities which flourished during the closing days of the Jewish nation and the ruin of Jerusalem. Perhaps never before nor since in the history of the race were fanaticism and savage cruelty so combined in the internal disintegration of a besieged city, and never did they result in a more complete ruin for a people who declared to the very last that they were the special favorites of Jehovah and therefore never could be *Overthrown. Paris in the fiercest days of the Terror is the nearest to it by way of a comparison, but Paris was not being besieged by the most efficient military machine which the world had up to that time ever seen. John of Gischala told Josephus that he had not the slightest fear of the city’s being taken, because it was God’s city. However, every breathing spell which they had from the attacks from without was used in fighting among the factions within, by drunken debauchery in the very temple itself, and by blasphemous practices which are so incredible that they tend almost to discredit the reputation of the Jewish historian who records them.
I quote briefly from Boutflower and Auberlen, who have given us some of the best comments on this awful period of the moral nadir of humanity, as a comment on the passages we are here studying from Daniel.
“The Zealots, whom Josephus so sternly denounces as the direct cause of the destruction of Jerusalem, received their name from their affected patriotism and pretended zeal for the law. In reality they were robber bands, cutthroats and murderers, the Bolshevists of those days; and are more truthfully described by their other name, Sicarii or Assassins. Herod the Great in his early days did much to put down these robbers, who had made their strongholds in the precipitous hillsides of Galilee. But in the last years of the Jewish state this evil broke out afresh in the same quarter. A strong band of these men had held the town of Gischala against the Romans; but when they saw its capture to be certain, they contrived by a stratagem to make their escape to Jerusalem under the leadership of John of Gischala. Having made their way into the capital, they set to work to corrupt the younger men, and stirred them up to rebel against the Romans. Meanwhile they were joined by many like characters from all parts of the country, and were able by making themselves masters of the temple to turn it into a fortress, from which they could sally out into Jerusalem and commit any acts of tyranny and savage barbarity which might serve their purpose. There could be no better description of the prosperous career for the time being of atrocious wickedness, violence, murder, rapine, and pollution, engaged in so lightly by the Zealot army, and of the terrible gloom which it cast over Jerusalem, than those brief words of Gabriel, ‘Upon a wing of abominations shall come one that makes desolate.’ These bold, determined, desperate robber-ruffians, who jested over holy things, and yet when it suited their purpose professed a zeal for the law and a belief in the prophets, sailed forth boldly on their career of crime like some powerful bird of prey the terror of the flocks.... Thus they seized the appointment to the high priesthood, and elected by lot to that sacred office a rustic clown, whom they decked with the priestly robes and brought him forth as if on the stage, indulging in uncontrolled merriment over his awkwardness, while the more earnest-minded of the priests shed hot tears of indignation at this horrid profanation.” - In and Around the Book of Daniel, pages 200, 201.
I give also some statements by Carl A. Auberlen:
“After the crucifixion of the Messiah, abomination was heaped upon abomination, till, shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, they reached their height-in the devastation of the temple by the
Zealots, who were specially meant by the prophecy of Jesus, and of whom Josephus says, with evident reference to our passage [here in Daniel]. ‘They thought that the prophecy against their country was approaching its fulfillment. For it was an old prediction, that the city would be destroyed, and the sanctuary, according to the usage of war, be burned down, when a revolt would break out, and native bands desecrate the temple of God. The Zealots believed this, and offered themselves as the instruments of its fulfillment.” -The Prophecies of Daniel, etc., page 107, Andover, 1857.
And even unto the full end [of the Jewish nation], and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate. The full meaning of these terrible words is not clear, but it seems evident that they refer, as do some of the preceding expressions, to the sad fate of those who had rejected their only hope of salvation, and who became controlled by evil angels for the more perfect ruin of themselves and their nation.
It is usually thought that it is to this verse, in its Septuagint form, that our Savior referred in His great prophecy of Matthew 24. He warned His disciples to be prepared to flee instantly from Jerusalem, when they saw “the abomination of desolation,” which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, “standing in the holy place.” Verse 15.
Christ was quoting these words from the Septuagint version of Daniel, which in some portions is much more like a paraphrase or an interpretation than a literal translation. Yet we cannot fail to note that Jesus evidently had not the slightest sympathy with the interpretation of this prophecy which was common in His day, which applied these and other parts of Daniel to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Such an application of the prophecy Jesus implicitly brushed aside without notice, and made these predictions apply to events still in the future in His day. Wright neatly expresses the alternative: “A professedly Christian commentator ought to follow the teachings of Christ.... Persons who accept the teachings of the divine Master ought to oppose all hypotheses which affirm that Christ was ignorant of the history of the past, or of the future which He revealed.’--Daniel and His Prophecies, Introduction, pages vii, viii.
Elsewhere (see pages 182-184, see also the note on chapter 8:13) we have discussed the somewhat complicated topic of what is meant by this expression from the Greek Septuagint, “the abomination of desolation.” It is sufficient for our present purpose to remark that Jesus applied the term to something connected with, or occurring at the same time as, the Roman invasion of Judea and Jerusalem. Whether He had reference to the vicinity of Jerusalem as “the holy place,” which was to be occupied by the Roman armies, or referred to the temple itself, which was to be desecrated by the Zealots at the very time of the Roman invasion, makes no difference in this connection. The words of Jesus, though, definitely preclude our applying this “abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet,” to Antiochus Epiphanes. It was something still future in Christ’s day.
What difference does it make that the Jews of the times of the Maccabees, and later, thought they saw a fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy in the persecutions which they were compelled to endure as Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to Hellenize the Jewish nation? Neither then nor since could any detailed similarity be shown between the prophecy and the actual history of those times. There is no doubt that such an application served for the time being to satisfy the uncritical Jews of that time and for a century or so afterward. However, it is significant that Josephus was not by any means satisfied with this interpretation, and himself applied some of the more important parts of Daniel’s prophecy (the fourth kingdom, etc.) to the Romans. Yet in spite of this testimony of Josephus, and of Jesus Christ Himself, with all the detailed and exact confirmations of history now shouting to us across the centuries, the modern “critics” still keep on with their vain attempts to deny any true prophecy to Daniel’s book, and say that it was written after the events, and is only a pseudo prophecy, designed to encourage the Jews of the times of the Maccabees.
In closing our remarks on this wonderful ninth chapter of Daniel, it should be remembered that these sad predictions of the final destruction of Jerusalem and the utter uprooting of the Jewish nation from their national home should not be looked upon as simply an announcement of the implacable wrath of Jehovah. Rather let us look upon these predictions of the 490 years still future in Daniel’s day as a definite announcement on the part of God that mercy would still be extended toward His people for nearly five more centuries.
In spite of Israel’s sins in the past, in spite of her still unrepentant condition after the captivity, the well-merited destruction would still be deferred century after century, until the cup of her iniquity would be full to overflowing. Mixed also with the sad announcement of the final doom was the bright promise of the definite date for the coming of the long-looked-for Messiah, “the Anointed One.” From Daniel’s time forward, every son of Israel who longed for the Messianic coming, so frequently foretold in ways hazy and ambiguous to the prophets of the past, could now read the definite date for the coming of the long promised One, who would break the power of the destroyer and establish an eternal kingdom of His faithful people where righteousness would endure forever.
Many more centuries have since come and gone; and still the final and complete form of the promised deliverance awaits its complete fulfillment. Yet by every milestone which has already been passed along the path of the centuries, all illumined by the light of the divine predictions, we realize more and more that the vision and the prophecy is thereby attested and made more sure to us: “For yet a very little while, He that comes shall come, and shall not tarry.” Hebrews 10:37.
The following diagram will illustrate the seventy weeks and its subdivisions. The next diagram will serve to show the connection between this first prophetic period of seventy weeks and the much longer one of 2300 days.
If now we glance backward at the various ways in which the modern “critics” evade the plain intent of the predictions of this chapter, we are reminded of the wise remark of Ellen G. White: “All who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon, will find them.” The eminent Hebrew scholar, E. B. Pusey, when confronted with the same phenomenon of theophobia, remarked: “Of a truth, unbelief imposes hard laws upon the intellect of man.” The apostle Paul spoke of this same psychological phenomenon as evidence of the “carnal mind.” Romans 87, AV. Even Edward Gibbon, a notorious skeptic and the historian of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, whose six-volume work I had to study more than sixty years ago as a history textbook, involuntarily acknowledged the true cause of all such unbelief when he wrote concerning some specific example of God’s intervention in the affairs of mankind: “But the stubborn mind of an infidel is guarded by a secret incurable suspicion.”
It has been remarked concerning the use of such symbols as beasts and other non-human things in prophecy, that God more or less had to employ these ambiguous symbols in order to keep evil angels and wicked men from combining to deliberately thwart definite predictions which God had made centuries in advance. Certainly it is one of the wonders of all history that, while allowing complete freedom of choice to even wicked humans and evil spirits, God could reveal so much about the future, and still have all these events come out exactly as predicted and on schedule time.
In this chapter we have few if any symbols. True, many generalized statements are made, and some that are more or less enigmatic; but what a long list of definite, specific events, with exact dates for so many of them. No such series of specific events, in such a precise order, many of them even dated, could have been predicted and then matched with the exact fulfillments long centuries afterward, without omniscient wisdom followed by omnipotent power in the management of all human contingencies. In spite of these specific predictions having been recorded centuries in advance, no combination of evil men and demons ever succeeded in deranging the steady progress of events, as they marched steadily forward to fulfill everything on schedule time. Similarly, the modern efforts inspired by the same theophobia to discredit these wonderful prophecies will be equally ineffective upon all except those who love darkness rather than light.
Pusey gives an admirable summary of the chief points in this Messianic prophecy, from which I may quote as follows: “Look then at this harmonizing prophecy as a whole, the completeness of its symmetry, its complicated harmony. . . . There is a whole of time, 490 years, distributed into periods of 49, 434, and 3.5 years, twice repeated, and these four periods not to be taken anyhow, but following in this exact order. Then, in this series of years, as in every other part of prophecy, there is a nearer prophetic foreground of events, whose fulfillment was to guarantee the more distant, the restoration of the city and polity in a period of 49 years from a decree to be issued. 434 years, from the end of those 49, were to reach to the coming of Messiah the Prince. At a time within the 490 years, but after the first 483, i.e. in the last 7, Messiah was to be cut off; in the midst of those 7, He was to make sacrifice to cease, but to confirm a covenant, not with all, but with the many. Transgression, sin, iniquity were to be effaced: everlasting righteousness was to be brought in. But city and sanctuary were to be destroyed by the overwhelming tide of the armies of a foreign prince; coming down upon the pinnacle of abominations, and the desolation was to endure.” - Daniel the Prophet, page 188.
It should also be noted that while the prophecy as a whole ends on a sad note, giving the utter and lasting destruction of the Jewish city and nation, there are in contrast many and vitally important
announcements of gospel mercy and hope. Especially does this chapter give the first specific and dated announcement of the long-promised coming of the Messiah, and a statement of His chief work. So there is a remarkable blending of mercy and evangelical proclamation along with the prediction of judgment. A new covenant is to be proclaimed for the many, following the end of the long-established sacrifice and oblation, the latter being done away only to be succeeded by something far nobler and better.
All this, says Pusey, became a reality through the literal and accurate fulfillment of this prophecy. “He, the so-long-looked-for came; He was owned as the Messiah; He did cause the sacrifices of the law to cease. He was cut off; yet He did make the covenant with the many; a foreign army did desolate city and temple. The temple for these 1,800 years has lain desolate; the typical sacrifices have ceased, not through disbelief in their efficacy on the part of those to whom they were once given. The city rose from its ashes, but not for them.” - Ibid., p. 189.
There have been many who have sought to determine all the dates in this complex prophecy by first fixing the date of the crucifixion, and then measuring the other dates from this datum. This method has proved confusing and disappointing, hence it must be fallacious. For one thing, incredible as it may appear to some, the exact date (I mean the year) of the crucifixion is probably the most difficult to settle conclusively of all the major dates in the world’s history. We know the day of the week-it was on the day before the Sabbath. We know the time of year; for it was in close connection with the Passover, and this was near the vernal equinox. However, the Passover was a movable period, like our modern Easter, sometimes early in the season, sometimes late, depending upon a complicated series of preceding events, and (unlike the modern Easter) would occur sometimes on one day of the week and sometimes on another. One might think that it would be easy to determine by astronomy just what year (in the half dozen years before and after AD 30) the Passover would fall on a Friday. But the conditioning factors seem to be so complicated and so difficult of conclusive determination that every year from 29 to 33 has been advocated by some group of scholars, men of learning and of a sincere desire to learn the truth, from the days of Sir Isaac Newton down to the recent computations of certain professors in the University of Chicago. But the date would seem impossible of determination by this means alone. I mean, apart from its pivotal place in this prophecy now before us. But if, as specified in the prophecy, we first fix on 457 as the date for the beginning of these seventy weeks or 490 years, which is the date given in the margin of most Bibles, then we have AD 27 as the date of the manifestation of the Messiah, and this date also is given in some Bibles as the date of the baptism and the anointing of the Holy One. Mark 1:9-11; Acts 10:38. Since this baptism took place in the autumn, it is as inevitable that 3.5 years more will bring us to the spring of 31. This event is thus the midst of the week spoken of in the prophecy, the full week running on to 34. Then Stephen was stoned and the Jewish nation definitely rejected the gospel, with the result that the apostles turned to the Samaritans and the Gentiles. Thus with these terminal dates established, every subdividing date falls into place like a cog in a well-designed wheel meshing into its partner, predictions and events matching one another perfectly. All this is proof of inspiration, and proof also of the Messiah ship of Jesus of Nazareth.
Note on the History of the Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks. One learns with astonishment that the religious leaders in the time of the apostles and immediately thereafter had only vague and in many respects inaccurate ideas about the periods connected with the career of the Messiah and their relation to this prophecy. Although there are clear data in the Gospels to indicate that Jesus attended four Passovers, in conformity with the fact that His public ministry extended from the baptism in the autumn of 27 to the spring of 31, or three and one-half years, yet the working out of all the related facts was unclear to the church fathers of the post apostolic period. As many modern people seem disposed to trust to apostolic tradition in such matters, instead of going at the problem by a more scientific or historical method, the result has been that the confusion and inaccuracy of the early church fathers have become a permanent heritage in the modern church.
Many people still think that the date of the crucifixion is pivotal in this entire prophecy, and that when this is first established, the other dates will necessarily be fixed thereby. As has been remarked above, however, the date of the crucifixion is the most difficult to determine independently; it is far better to settle the terminus a quo, after which all the other periods and subdivisions will automatically fall into line.
Literally hundreds of diverse methods of reckoning or applying the subdivisions of the seventy weeks have been presented; but this is not the place to attempt even a cursory glance at the details of what Montgomery has termed “the Dismal Swamp of Old Testament criticism.” It may suffice to distinguish three leading groups of interpretations, though the medley is so confusing that any clear-cut classification is almost impossible.
1. First there is what we may term the contemporary or the Maccabean interpretation. The Jews of the times of Antiochus evidently had definite opinions about many things in this book of Daniel, quite oblivious of the fact that contemporary interpretation of any prophecy has not usually been successful, and also forgetful of what the angel so repeatedly told Daniel that the prophecy would be understood only in the last days, or at the time of the end. Under this Maccabean interpretation, all the periods and dates mentioned in the book, and specifically those of this chapter, were applied as best they might to events connected with the persecution by Epiphanes. The modern “critical” view may be considered a variation of this original view, though its advocates frankly admit that this chapter, like all the others in this book, is no real prophecy, is in reality a vaticinium ex eventu, or a dressing up of history in the guise of prophecy, in other words, a pseudo prophecy. No agreement is to be found among those who in the past have adopted this view, nor among those who today are still teaching to America and England these infidel theories dating from Porphyry and passed along to modern times by the skeptical “critics” (mostly Jews) of the German universities of the middle nineteenth century. E. B. Pusey gives a table on page 215 of his Daniel the Prophet, wherein are listed some of the main points in the theories of about two dozen of the German “critics” of the last century. They had one thing in common, they were all intent on denying the Messianic interpretation of this prophecy. But on most other points and facts they are as diverse as Babel itself.
2. The second may be termed the Jewish interpretation. It is what the Jews of the post apostolic period, or even down to modern times, have taught about this chapter. It turns on the view that the
destruction of Jerusalem is the chief point in the chapter, and that all the other parts are to be adjusted to fit it, though those who take this position do not agree among themselves as to whether it should be the first destruction under Titus, AD 70, or the final and more complete one under Hadrian, AD 135. For each of these conflicts the Jewish leaders are able to point out a period of approximately 3.5 years which they say is specified in the prophecy. If we are to trust Jerome, some Jewish interpreters even admitted a reference to Jesus in the prophecy of the Anointed One who was to be “cut off,” but gave a turn to the middle of verse 26 by which it would mean, “but the kingdom of the Jews will not be his.” It should be taken for granted without my saying it, that all such “interpretations” never try to hold themselves down to specific dates for any large number of the ones given in the prophecy, to say nothing of giving an application of all the many statements in it. They try to show how one or two specifications in the prophecy fit their theory, and quietly ignore all the others.
3. The third interpretation seeks to find a starting point in one or another of the four imperial decrees or commandments to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. From the terminus a quo thus obtained, it ought to be a simple matter of arithmetic to find the other dates. As a matter of fact, a variety of methods are used, with terminations at various events in the life of Christ, with dates for the crucifixion varying under apparently able and sincere men from AD 29 to 34, with the 3.5 years still remaining interpreted in all sorts of ways. Jerome tells us that in his day there were nine different ways of interpreting this Messianic prophecy, concerning which he thought it “dangerous” to decide. Since his day the number has become more like ninety-nine. But why all this confusion? What is the truth?
In the comment on chapter 9:26, as well as in the diagrams at the end of the chapter, we have what seems to be a self-consistent and absolutely historical method of reckoning these dates. The starting point there adopted, 457 BC, is one of the most securely fixed dates in all ancient history. It has behind it the data assembled by the great Sir Isaac Newton, and since added to by other eminent scholars. When this starting point is adopted, all the other dates as given in the diagram must follow with mathematical precision and necessity. Why should not all lovers of truth settle on this as the true interpretation?
While this may be termed the Adventist view, it is also agreed to in all essentials by such diverse scholars as Pusey, Charles, Boutflower, and many others. The position is also taken in this book that only down at the true “time of the end” could anyone hope to arrive at a sound and correct understanding of these Messianic prophecies. This is doubtless the reason why we do not find any attempt in the entire New Testament to compute these periods of the Messiah (though very likely Stephen and Paul and the other apostles did have some of the dates computed), and why we have to come down to fairly modern times before all the historical facts for their full computation were available.
Now we see that Christ Himself set the seal of His certification to one of the important milestones in the calculation, when He declared: “The time is fulfilled.” Mark 1:15. At this time He was officially proclaimed from heaven as the Messiah, and the date, 27, corresponds exactly with the predicted date for the coming of the Anointed One. Then with this milestone fixed, 3.5 years later brings us to the Passover of 31, at which precise time the Messiah was cut off, thereby making the sacrifice and offering to cease, though in the person of His apostles He kept on confirming the new covenant with the many for a half hebdomad more, or another 3.5 years, until the autumn of 34, when the end of the 490 years was reached. Then, if these seventy weeks are only a first part of the longer period 0f 2300 years, from which they were “cut off” or assigned to the Jewish nation, as argued in the preceding pages, we arrive inevitably at the date of 1844 for another most important evangelic event, the beginning of the judgment work in heaven, preparatory to the return of Jesus to claim His people and His kingdom.
To Be Continued...
