The Greatest of the Prophets - 58

 The Greatest Of The Prophets  - by George McCready Price (1955) 58

9. THE TIMES OF THE MESSIAH

Daniel 9:26. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the Anointed One be cut off, and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolation are determined.

We seem to have in this verse an example, so common in all extended prophecies both in the Old Testament and in the New, of a brief summary of the most important events, followed by further particulars, but without any attempt at any over-all orderly succession of the details. At any rate, this verse is an independent statement, the next one going back and giving further details. The general meaning of the first part of this verse seems to be that the Messiah, instead of showing Himself as a glorious conqueror and deliverer, would meet a violent death soon after His appearance. When it says that the Anointed One is to be cut off, we have a very clear and definite prediction of the death by violence of the very One for whom the people of Israel had so long waited and desired. The term “cut off” is one frequently used throughout the Old Testament for death by public execution. It is the term used for the fate of reprobates under the Mosaic law, who were to be “cut off” from their people. Exodus 12:15, 19. 

A parallel expression, also applied to the future Messiah, though under the equivalent name of the Servant of Jehovah, occurs in Isaiah 53:8, where it is said: “He was cut off out of the land of the living.” It is the same event spoken of in the very same way. The Messiah was not to have a happy and prosperous career, but was to be cut off almost immediately after His appearance.

After the threescore and two weeks. There is no occasion for a quibble here, because this did not occur immediately when the threescore and two weeks had expired. The plain meaning is that this cutting off of the Anointed One would occur, not within this period of time, but soon after it was completed, and with the plain implication that there would be no great lapse of time after His first appearance before he would meet with a violent death. We frequently use the term “soon after” with this meaning. As has been stated above, this verse is an introductory summary of the chief events, and this expression is not intended to fix the exact time when this sad and calamitous cutting off of the Messiah would occur. The exact time comes in the next verse, in the midst of the week.

And shall have nothing. This expression has given rise to much discussion. The King James Version renders it, “but not for Himself,” which of course would mean a vicarious death. The literal Hebrew is, “and there shall be nothing to Him.” As Wright remarks, it was left for the future to reveal the

real meaning of the phrase. John 1:11 seems to be a divine commentary on this passage: “He came unto His own, and they that were His own received Him not.” No matter how we may render this passage in Daniel, it very clearly implies His rejection as the Messiah. If we are to trust Jerome, the Jews with whom he was acquainted were willing to admit a prophecy of the death of Jesus in this passage, but made the last part mean: “But the kingdom of the Jews will not be His,” meaning that Jesus was not the true Messiah. See Montgomery, Commentary, pages 397, 382, top.

Of course the “critics,” who deny any Messianic application of this entire prophecy, apply this passage about being cut off and having nothing to one of the high priests, Onias Ill, who was deposed in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and was afterward put to death by a Syrian official, with or without the connivance of the king. But this ex-high priest was in no sense a “confessor” or a “martyr” for his faith. Also, the time of his death cannot be made to fit into the predicted dates of this prophecy. The whole affair seems a perverse and sacrilegious resort of unbelief, to evade the clear evidence of predictive prophecy pointing forward for hundreds of years to the Messiah.

Furthermore, it seems far from reliably proved that this high priest, Onias Ill, was actually assassinated, or that he met a violent death of any sort. This idea rests wholly upon a statement in 2 Maccabees, which is known to contain other unhistorical statements; and it seems to be directly

contradicted by Josephus in his Wars of the Jews (Li, 1:VIIX : 2, 3), who tells us that Onias, after the capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus, fled to Egypt and founded another temple in the vicinity of Heliopolis. On account of all this, Wellhausen, the famous German Semitic scholar, “brands the whole record of the assassination of Onias as apocryphal.” Charles thinks Wellhausen mistaken; but see Driver, page 140, note. 

And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The literal Hebrew of this passage turns the structure of the sentence around, making it read, “And the city and the sanctuary will the people of the prince that is to come destroy,” thus throwing a strong emphasis on “destroy,” and another emphasis on “the city and the sanctuary.” Clearly enough it means a complete obliteration of both the temple and the city of Jerusalem. This we know the Romans did accomplish in AD 70. Antiochus Epiphanes, on the other hand, did nothing of the kind, though the “critics” apply this prophecy to him. He did take possession of the city, and he desecrated the temple by making it over for a short time into a heathen temple. But Montgomery says: “There was little destruction effected by the Greeks in the Holy City.” - Commentary, page 383. If it were not so serious a matter, it would be amusing to watch the twisting and turnings which are performed to make this passage apply to Epiphanes, and thus avoid the clear prediction of the coming of the Romans and their destruction of the city and the temple. The minute accuracy of the prediction is seen when we remember that it was not Titus who destroyed the temple. He wished above all things to preserve it intact, and gave stringent orders to that effect. But some of the soldiers took blazing firebrands and set fire deliberately to the hangings and the wooden framework of the building, and soon nothing could save it.

Thus it is strikingly accurate for the prophecy to say, the people ... shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. By Contrast, under Epiphanes neither the city nor the sanctuary was destroyed at all, and only a few houses were burned.

But is it right to apply the prince that shall come to the Roman general Titus, son of the emperor Vespasian, who afterward became emperor himself? Many have thus made the application, and all the “critics” tell us that this “prince” must be a different person from the one already mentioned in verse 25 as Prince Messiah. They have no reason for this, except they want to apply the first “prince” to Onias Ill or some other Jewish dignitary, while they are bound to apply this second “prince” to Epiphanes. It would seem more natural to say that the “prince” must be the same in both instances. This offers no difficulties, and it is certainly more consistent to make both references apply to Christ. The application would still he exactly as above. As Boutflower has pointed out, Christ seems to have referred to this prophecy of Daniel in His parable of the marriage of the king’s son, where it is said: “The king was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.” Matthew 227. 

Clearly Jesus was here foretelling the fate of Jerusalem, the “king” in this parable representing God the Father. The avenging Roman armies are spoken of as coming at the command of God, a form of language which is constantly used in the Old Testament of armies sent to punish the Jewish nation for their sins. Accordingly, it is entirely proper to say that the destroying Romans were sent by God as the messengers of His judgments.

In passing, it should be noted that this prediction of the ruin of Jerusalem and the temple does not say that this would occur within the times embraced by the period of seventy weeks. It gives no hint of any such thing. What logical or other reason is there for thinking that nothing outside the compass of these seventy weeks should ever be mentioned in this prophecy? However, though the final ruin of Jerusalem and the nation was in mercy postponed for another generation after their crime in murdering their own Messiah, everybody knows that this utter ruin was due to their murder of the Messiah, the climax of all their apostasy and wickedness; and this is sufficient reason for making mention of it here.

And the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolation are determined. Throughout the Old Testament destructive war is often spoken of as “a flood.” In this instance the prophecy plainly states that it will be a war to the bitter “end” of both city and nation. Such it surely was. It is reliably estimated that more than a million Jews perished in the destruction of Jerusalem, while an enormous number were sold into slavery. From that day to this the Hebrew people have had no national home. (((Interjection 2025 - They do now. 1948 it began. 1967 Jerusalem recaptured by the Jews. 1980 Jew make Jerusalem their capital. Luke 21:24 fulfilled.)))) Complete and utter desolation are determined for not only the city but the nation. Thus was fulfilled the still older prediction recorded in Leviticus: “And you will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw

out the sword after you: and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.” Leviticus 26:33.

To be continued...

The Greatest of the Prophets -57

 The Greatest Of The Prophets - by George McCready Price (1955) 57

9. THE TIMES OF THE MESSIAH

Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.


Moses Stuart renders the first expression “Mark well and understand.” Evidently the angel is about to begin his formal statement. From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. We get the setting of this announcement when we remember that at the time when this vision was given to Daniel, Jerusalem and its temple were still in utter ruins. Now the God of Israel, through His authorized messenger from heaven, announces that at some time in the future, whether soon or remote is not stated, a commandment would go forth to restore and build Jerusalem. From that date a definite number of years would reach to that long looked-
for event, the coming of the Messiah.

What could be plainer or simpler?

The “critics” have a different theory. They point us to Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jeremiah 30:18;
31:38-40), where it was predicted that Jerusalem would be built again after the captivity, and they tell us that this is the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. The date for Jeremiah’s prediction is usually given as 606 BC. But when we try to measure from this date the specified number of years, we get to about 123 BC, which does not fit the times of Epiphanes or anything else.

Besides, this prophecy of Jeremiah was in no possible sense a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. It only predicted that at some indefinite time in the future the city would be rebuilt.

A hundred years before Jeremiah, however, Isaiah had given a more specific prophecy. He had
foretold that a king named Cyrus would arise who would say of Jerusalem: “She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.” Isaiah 44:28. Also God had said through this same prophet and about this same Cyrus: “He shall build My city, and he shall let My exiles go free, not for price nor reward, said Jehovah of hosts.” Isaiah 45:13.

Thus we have even the name of the king who was to let the exiled Jews return to their land, and
who was also to order the rebuilding of the city and the temple.

Then by looking at the history of the restoration, as recorded by Ezra and Nehemiah, we find that Cyrus, the king of Persia, did this very thing.

The matter of who issued this commandment to restore and build Jerusalem is not so simple as this would make it appear. When we look carefully into history we find no less than four imperial edicts which might appear to answer the specifications. These four edicts are listed below for comparison, showing how the full period of seventy weeks, or 490 years, comes out when reckoned forward from them, the predicted time of the appearing of the Messiah being of course in each case seven years before the final dates here given.

Description of The Edict Beginning Ending

I. First year of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1-4) 538/537 BC 48/47 BC.

II. Third year of Darius Hystaspes
(Ezra 6:1-12) 519/8 BC 29/28 BC.

Ill. Seventh of Artaxemes (Ezra 7) 457 BC AD 34

IV. Twentieth of Artaxemes (Nehemiah 2) 444 BC AD 47

The ending dates are of course obtained by following down the chronology 490 full years from the dates of the decrees. If a part of the year had already elapsed when the edict was issued, then the end of the period would actually be a corresponding part of the year beyond the ending date as here given. For example, in the case of the third of these edicts, the actual time when the edict went into effect was when Ezra finally arrived at Jerusalem with the royal command forbidding any and all opposition, and this was on the first day of the fifth month, or sometime early in the autumn of that year, since the Persians made their years begin in the spring, usually about the time of the vernal equinox. Thus the full period from this seventh of Artaxerxes would run on into the year AD 34. All the subdivisions of the seventy weeks would need to be reckoned in a similar way, to make the calculations exact. The last “week” or hebdomad of
seven years would thus begin in the autumn of AD 27, and “the midst of the week,” or halfway between 27 and 34, would fall in the spring of AD 31, when the crucifixion took place, at the time of the Passover. The baptism took place 3.50 years before, and this was the beginning of His official work as the Messiah; for He was then anointed with the Holy Spirit. The full “week” of seven years, during which He “made a firm covenant with many,” for the first 3.50 years personally and then by His disciples working exclusively for the Jews for another 3.50 years, or until the death of Stephen and the final rejection of the gospel by the Jewish nation, extends to the autumn of AD 34.

When we examine these four imperial decrees, we find that the third is the only one which answers the conditions of the prophecy; but everything about this third edict fits the specifications exactly. The first two may be dismissed with scant notice. Cyrus, indeed, ordered the rebuilding of the temple (and by implication the rebuilding of the wall of the city to protect it), and Darius confirmed this decree. But neither of them seems to have made any genuine provision for the restoration of the civil state as a complete unit, though a restoration of both the religious and the civil government was promised in the prophecy, “to restore and to build Jerusalem.” The seventh of Artaxerxes was the first to give the Jewish state full autonomy. Besides, if we reckon the 490 years from either of the first two edicts, we fall a full generation short of even reaching the Christian Era. Neither of them can be made to fit into any system of
chronology about the Messiah or about the final rejection of the Jewish nation, both of which are crucial events in the prophecy. However, they were preliminary, and prepared the way for the more full and important edicts which followed.

Thus the choice narrows down to the third or the fourth. Each has had its advocates; but there are many objections to the fourth. It seems to have been merely a verbal or oral permission to Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem and to adjust matters there. The record clearly shows that the walls and gates had already been built under the decree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes, some thirteen years before. But the enemies of the Jews had been busy hindering the work and trying to undo what had been done, for these were some of the “troublous times” foretold in Daniel 9:25. What Nehemiah did was accomplished in less than two months.

Besides, if we start from this date, 444 BC, the 490 years will run on to AD 47, with nothing significant to mark their termination; while all the other subdivisions of the prophecy are similarly thrown into confusion. Such reckonings of the prophecy have been the occasion for unbelievers to declare that the entire prophecy is a failure.

Intelligent Christians ought to work on the supposition that this prophecy is actually of divine origin, and that if we adopt the correct interpretation, then every date and every specification will fit the event, as every cog of a wheel meshes into the mate for which it has been made. This we find to he the case when we begin with the seventh year of Artaxerxes, in 457 BC. Not only so, but we find a statement in Ezra which definitely speaks of all the first three decrees as in reality one. In telling of the rebuilding of the temple Ezra says: “And they built and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.” Ezra 6:14.

Thus we have the Bible itself treating the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem as a unity, one threefold decree, given in its final form by Artaxerxes in 457 BC. Obviously this is the starting point of the prophecy. This date of 457 BC. as the seventh year of Artaxerxes is one of the best-established dates in ancient history. It is found in the margin of most Oxford Bibles opposite this decree of the seventh chapter of Ezra, being the date assigned for this event by Ussher’s chronology. In fact, it is established in so many ways and by such a wealth of authorities that it is not worth while laboring the point here. See Source Book for Bible Students, 1927 edition, pages 554-562; also Horn and Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, Review and Herald, 1953.

Unto the Anointed One, the Prince. The Hebrew for these two nouns is Mashiach Nagid, and the A.V. translates them as 11 the Messiah the Prince.” The translators of the Revised Version leaned over backward to give what they regarded as a literal and “impartial” translation, avoiding any appearance of a Messianic interpretation. We should remember, though, that S. R. Driver and other notorious “critics” were on this translating committee. The two Hebrew words have no article, and Boutflower states the reason: “As both Mashiach and Nagid are titles, they are treated as proper names and appear in Hebrew without the definite article.” - In and Around the Book of Daniel, page 191. Hengstenberg, Auberlen, Pusey, Wright, and other eminent scholars might be quoted to the same effect. There is no doubt that the King James Version is correct in translating these words as “the Messiah, the Prince,” a combined title and official name, or as Boutflower and others render them, “Prince Messiah,” or “King Messiah.”

No informed person can deny that for many centuries there had been prophecies in the Old Testament telling of a coming King who would deliver Israel from all her enemies. But the “critics” say that no such official title had been given to this future King, and hence they quibble about the use of this word as a title here in Daniel, and deny that Daniel was foretelling any such use of the title by Jesus of Nazareth. In accord with their settled plan of denying any predictions in Daniel, they wish to apply this title to some person before the time of Epiphanes, such as Cyrus, Onias III, or someone else. Obviously there must have been a first occasion for the use of this term Messiah as a title for this future King of Israel; and why not here in Daniel as well as by someone else? It cannot be denied that in the time of Christ the name Messiah was being used by everybody, Samaritans and Jews alike. The woman of Samaria, not a conspicuously religious person, said: “I know that Messiah comes (He that is called Christ).” John 4:25. In reply Jesus declared: “I that speak unto thee am He.” One of the first disciples announced to another: “We have found the Messiah.” John 1:41. In numerous other passages we have profuse testimony that the name Messiah, which is the exact Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word Christ, was almost universal among the common people of that day, whether Jews, Samaritans, or even Gentiles.

The leading Jewish authorities were constantly pressing Jesus to tell them plainly whether or not He was indeed the Christ, or the Messiah. Pusey well remarks: “The name was not taught them by our Lord; they knew it already.”--Page 181. Where did these people learn of this title, except from this very prophecy, of Daniel now before us? This is the only place in the Old Testament where it is found. It is idle to deny that Daniel’s prophecy is the source, the solitary source, in the entire Old Testament for this title and its use as a proper name, applying to the long promised Deliverer. Nor can any quibbler deny that Jesus appropriated this title to Himself, and that His disciples universally followed His example. Now, was Jesus mistaken in this claim? Was He an impostor? We might expect unbelieving Jewish scholars to take this position; but it is preposterous that professed Christians, professors in theological seminaries in Germany, England, and America, should follow these Jews in this respect.

The only candid, scholarly position to take is that Daniel predicted that the long-looked-for Prince Messiah would appear at a certain specified time. At this very date Jesus of Nazareth appeared before John the Baptist and demanded baptism. When this rite was completed, He was anointed from heaven by a special manifestation of the Spirit of God. Forthwith Jesus went forth proclaiming: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” Mark 1:15. What time was it to which He thus referred? Obviously, the very time foretold by Daniel in this prophecy. This is confirmed by noting that this act of being anointed, thus becoming the Messiah or the Christ, occurred in the autumn of AD 27, which is exactly the predicted number of years given here by Daniel: “Unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and
threescore and two weeks!” Daniel 9:25, A.V. How could anything be plainer or more undeniable?

Shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. Together these two amounts make a total of sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years. The natural method of reckoning them is of course to make them consecutive, the sixty-two weeks beginning where the seven weeks end. But the “critics” shy at this method, because they have found that they can get nothing significant to mark these periods in the times of the Maccabees, even though they claim that this pseudo prophecy was all made up after the events themselves were already past. So they want to begin the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks at the same place, and have them run parallel. Even thus, however, they get a number which is “too large by sixtyseven,” as Driver expresses it, and as many others agree. Let them, says Pusey, “place the beginning of the period where they will, they cannot make either the whole sum, or its several portions, agree with any event in history before Antiochus, if only they adhere to the obvious principle, that the parts are equal to the whole, and so, that 7 + 62 + 1 are the same as the 7o mentioned just before.” -Daniel the Prophet, page 194.

The reason why the first seven weeks, or forty-nine years, is set off by itself, seems to be that this period was allotted to the extremely difficult task of rebuilding the city and re-establishing the Jewish commonwealth. This is indicated by the accompanying remark, it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. We know practically nothing of this long period extending from Artaxerxes down to the time of Alexander, or some 170 years, during which period this re-establishment of the Jewish nation took place. Thus we have no exact dates here to which we can refer; but it is reasonable that it took the forty-nine years here specified. Wright remarks: “No writing is in existence which gives the history of Jerusalem between Nehemiah and Alexander the Great.” - Daniel and His Prophecies, page 238. But there is no reason to doubt that the number of years here assigned for the “troublous times” of rebuilding are correct.

How do these seven weeks plus sixty-two weeks, or 483 years, reach to the Messiah? Certainly not to His birth; and it is probable that this seeming disagreement misled many, especially during the early days of the church.

But Jesus did not become the Anointed One, that is, the Messiah or the Christ, at His birth. Nothing of the kind. He became officially the Anointed One at His baptism, at which time He began His formal work for mankind. The baptism was in the autumn of AD 27, which is exactly 483 years from the beginning of the period in 457, and as far along in 27 as the original decree was in the year 457.

This exact fit becomes apparent when we consider that 457 full years BC and 27 full years AD make 484 years, not 483. But a considerable part of the year 457 had elapsed when the decree went into effect; and thus by the autumn of AD 27 the exact period had been reached. What occurred then? At the baptism of Jesus the Holy Spirit descended in a visible form upon Him, and a voice spoke from heaven: “This is My beloved Son.” Matthew 3:17. This, and no other, was the time referred to by the prophecy, for it was then, as Peter says that “God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power!” Acts 10:38. It was then, and not before, that He became officially the Anointed One, the Messiah. Directly thereafter He went forth “preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled. Mark 1:14, 15.

Obviously He was referring to the time foretold in this very prophecy of Daniel. The exact time pointed out in the prophecy had arrived, and He was calling attention to the fact that the event corresponded exactly to the prediction.

How dare anyone quibble or doubt the divine origin of the prophecy, when Christ’s own words thus attested its fulfillment? Surely this announcement of Christ set the “seal” to the entire “vision and prophecy,” as had been announced. Thus Jesus positively authenticated Daniel’s entire prophecy, for by this announcement, “The time is fulfilled,” He was clearly referring to the time pointed out for the coming of the Anointed One, the Prince. So here is another way mark settled.

To be continued….

Greatest of the Prophets - 56

 The Greatest Of The Prophets - by George McCready Price (1955) 56

9. THE TIMES OF THE MESSIAH

Daniel 9:20. And while I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before Jehovah my God for the holy mountain of my God;
Daniel 9:21. Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

From this mention of the evening oblation it is evident that this prayer was the third of the daily series which he prayed concerning the matter which was upon his heart.

The angel Gabriel has been mentioned only once before, when he appeared to explain the vision of the eighth chapter to Daniel. On that occasion he had completed the explanation of all the main symbols; but the time symbol, about the 2300 evenings and mornings, was left wholly unexplained, and without the slightest hint of the time of its beginning.

It would be wholly unreasonable to think that they should begin with the time of Daniel or the giving of the vision; for the other symbols with which this time period was connected, that is, the little horn and its doings, were not themselves to begin until many centuries yet in the future, at least not until after the empire of Babylonia and that of Medo-Persia had passed away. Thus it is self-evident that Gabriel had not completed what he had been told to do: “Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.” Chapter 8:16. At the end of the same chapter, after Gabriel had completed his partial explanation, Daniel says: “I wondered at the vision, but none understood it.” Verse 27. Gabriel now appears to complete his work, and from what he tells Daniel, it is evident that his statements are of the nature of an enlargement or explanation of the time period of the 2300 evenings and mornings.

All these facts prove the close connection between this ninth chapter and the preceding eighth, making them in effect one vision; though this connection seems to have been strangely overlooked by most commentators. This intimate connection between the periods of the Messianic prophecy of this chapter and the 2300 days of the eighth chapter will become still clearer as we proceed. Neither is complete without the other.

Daniel 9:22. And he instructed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee wisdom and understanding.
Daniel 9:23. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment went forth, and I am come to tell thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision.

The angels are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who are heirs of salvation. It is well for us here on this sin-cursed earth to remember that the unseen powers of heaven go and come at the needs of God’s waiting, trusting people.

Consider the matter. What matter? Evidently the matter or subject which he tells us he had not understood. Gabriel had been commissioned by High Heaven to make Daniel understand the vision, and Gabriel had started in and had got as far as the time symbol of the 2300 days, when Daniel fainted and was sick certain days. After recovering and going about the king’s business, he declares that he still wondered at the vision, “but none understood it.” Obviously Gabriel had not fully completed what he had been commanded to do.

Understand the vision. In the light of all this, it is as clear as sunlight that Gabriel is not referring to some vision yet to be announced. To make such a remark about some vision which had not yet been
given would be superfluous, to say the least; for if he had some further vision to announce to Daniel, it was his business to make Daniel understand it in the right way. But he had been expressly told to make Daniel understand the vision of chapter 8; yet after he had given what explanations he did give in that chapter, Daniel was still in the dark concerning part of it, and declared that neither he nor anyone else understood it. Hence it is clear that Gabriel is here directing Daniel’s mind back to the unexplained part of the preceding vision. This unexplained part dealt with the matter of time and the date of certain events; likewise in Gabriel’s present message the subject is the same, the times and dates of certain events. Moreover, he begins by saying that a certain period is to be “cut off” and assigned to the Jewish people. Accordingly, we are absolutely shut up to the conclusion that the periods of time here given must be parts or subdivisions of the long period mentioned in chapter 8, namely, the 2300 evenings-mornings. No other conclusion is possible.

Daniel 9:24. Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy Holy City, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy.

Many peoples of ancient times, the Romans and the Greeks scarcely less than the Hebrews, were fond of dwelling on the mystic meanings of numbers. Such persons must have found much pleasure, if not instruction, in comparing the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity with the 70 x 7 years spoken of in this prophecy with its many subdivisions, and then comparing all of these with the “seven times more” (Leviticus 26:18), which was the term God used in His threat to chastise the Israelites for their sins. It is probably true that some mystical values of seven do enter into these predictions here in Daniel; though our present purpose is not to discover any mystical or recondite meanings which may underlie them, but to deal with the obvious facts which lie on the open face of these predictions.

Above all other prophetic periods given in the entire Bible, this period of seventy weeks, or seventy hebdomads, to use a term familiar to the Greeks which has become sufficiently Anglicized to be used in the plural form, stands out as a definite, unambiguous prediction, of vast importance to Christian doctrines, and easily capable of definite location both as to its beginning and its termination. Yet, because of the chronic blindness and perverse ingenuity of many who have dealt with the subject, J. A. Montgomery has termed the history of its exegesis or interpretation, “the Dismal Swamp of Old Testament criticism.” - The Book of Daniel, page 400.

In the year 1654 John Tillinghast published a book in London entitled, Knowledge of the Times, in which he dealt with these prophecies of Daniel and took the position that the seventy weeks “is a lesser epoch comprehended within the greater epoch of the two thousand three hundred days.” William Miller and his friends of about a century ago took the same position.

This situation has come about partly because hasty interpretations were made two thousand years ago or so, when no one had sufficient accurate historical facts to ensure a correct interpretation; then subsequent commentators have followed this wrong example. Over and over again the angel warned Daniel that his visions belonged to, or could only be correctly understood in, “the time of the end.” We need not expect to find that Jerome or even Luther or Calvin had a sufficiently accurate knowledge of the chronology involved to make an exact application of the dates here indicated. Even the great and pious Sir Isaac: Newton, only some two hundred and fifty years ago, was astray in some of the chronology regarding the crucifixion, even though he had the correct starting point for these seventy weeks, namely, 457 BC.

These observations ought to correct the general misunderstanding that people of antiquity were better informed concerning the dates of ancient events, merely because they lived nearer to them. This view is contrary to all the facts. We in modern times are better equipped to work out the true dates of ancient events, except for those persons who were directly or at least very closely connected with them. Thus the prophecy was absolutely correct in stating that the true chronology of the dates involved, like the true meaning of the symbols, would be “sealed until the time of the end.” Both the dates and the symbols would be correctly understood only at the time specified, or in what we now term modern times.

The radical disagreements among the “critics,” involving every single point in all these prophecies, and based on anti-Christian theories “made in Germany” and derived from Jewish scholars who have a settled antipathy toward Jesus as the Messiah, have been the chief factors in making this field of exegesis “the Dismal Swamp of Old Testament criticism.”

Yet it would seem incumbent on modern Christian scholars to reach a correct understanding of every detail of this great prophetic period, the most exactly measured off among all the prophecies of the entire Bible. Far more also depends upon its correct understanding. If the events connected with the career of Jesus of Nazareth agree with these numerous and precise predictions, then we have here a most powerful apologetic to prove that He was the true Messiah. Whereas, if the events do not thus agree with the predictions, the reverse of this is true. Surely it ought to be an axiom of Christian scholarship that what has been revealed is for our understanding, if we approach its study in the proper spirit. James 1:5. ((Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. )) Also in the time of the end, the statement of the angel to Daniel will be realized: “None of the wicked shall understand; but they that are wise shall understand.” Daniel 12:10.

We should today be able to understand everything about this prophecy. The angel’s interdiction is now removed, for the time of the end is fully come. Besides, we have available all the data necessary to pin down every date and every attendant specification of this period of the seventy weeks, if we approach the subject in the true spirit of scientific investigation. We should be aware of all the difficulties, while assured that we are now living in the days when the visions of Daniel are no longer sealed up, but are open for the understanding of all who are truly wise.

This entire question is so profoundly important that we shall do well to consider each item fully, even if need be at the expense of repeating some matters already stated.

Does this period of seventy weeks stand alone, as an independent line of prophecy? Or is it a part of, a supplement to, the much longer period of 2300 days brought to view in chapter 8:14? The latter had no assigned beginning, and can be measured only if its beginning is found somewhere else, as would be the case if this is a part of it. William Hales (1747-1831), William Miller 1782-1849), George Bush, Joseph Wolff, and all Adventists ever since have always contended that this period of seventy prophetic weeks is merely a part of the much longer period of 2300 days or years, and that the two begin together. The “critics,” however, deny any such connection, and treat the two periods as independent. The futurists not only treat the two periods as independent, but have adopted the additional peculiarity of breaking off the last week of the seventy (or the last half week, equaling 3.50 years), postponing this final period until after the Second Coming of Christ. Which system is right?

If it were merely a literary or historical problem, to be decided by the strict laws of language and common sense, there would be little difficulty in settling the matter; but man is seldom a logical or wholly candid animal. Theological and moral issues, far-reaching and profound, are so involved that what is obvious from a literary-exegetical point of view is ignored or flatly denied because of a priori considerations. Consistency is verily a rare jewel.

Seventy weeks. The original word here translated weeks is merely the plural for seven; thus it means seventy of these periods of seven, or a total of 490 in all; that is, 490 years. The Greeks and the Latins, as well as the Hebrews, were familiar with the custom of counting many things in groups of sevens, and of reckoning long periods of time in units of seven years each. The Hebrews not only reckoned their days in sevens, but years were also grouped in sevens, and then seven times seven years gave them their period of jubilee. Pusey (page 165, footnote) gives examples from the classical writers of a similar use of seven-year units.

Few scholars deny that these seventy weeks are meant to represent 490 literal years. The “critics,” however, for some unaccountable reason, wish to connect this period with the seventy years of Jewish captivity announced by Jeremiah. Jeremiah 29:10; 25:11. They tell us that by the time this pseudo Daniel was writing (assumed to be the time of the Maccabees), all pious Jews realized that Jeremiah’s term of seventy years had long passed, and that the return from captivity had not been fulfilled. Hence this pseudo Daniel invented this, another vision, to piece out Jeremiah’s period to a much later date, hoping that in the meantime something would happen to bring a real restoration from the captivity, and thus save the credit of the prophecy. Accordingly, this period of Daniel’s seventy weeks of years (so the “critics” tell us) was just a magnification or a prolongation of the original period of captivity foretold by Jeremiah, invented after the failure of Jeremiah’s prophecy had become apparent and the horrible persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes had begun. Daniel’s pseudo prophecy merely tried to encourage the Maccabees to persevere, they say, for soon Epiphanes would be destroyed, and the Jews would again enjoy peace and prosperity.

Hence the “critics” make a clumsy attempt to have Daniel’s period of seventy weeks begin with the prophecy given by Jeremiah, either 604 or 596 BC. R. H. Charles says that it should be dated from the
actual destruction of Jerusalem, 586 BC. See his Commentary, page 244. However, Pusey justly remarks that though they may “place the beginning of the period where they will, they cannot make either the whole sum, or its several portions, agree with any event in history before Antiochus, if only they adhere to the obvious principle, that the parts are equal to the whole, and so, that 7 + 62 + 1 are the same as the 70 mentioned just before.” - Daniel the Prophet, page 194.

We may pass from such a confusing of the prophecy to something more reasonable.

Are decreed upon thy people and upon thy Holy City. The Hebrew verb here translated “are decreed” is not found anywhere else in the Old Testament; hence the translators did not have much to work with to determine its true meaning. All scholars agree that the primary meaning of the word is “to cut,” or “to cut off,” and it is so rendered in the early translations of Daniel into Greek and Latin. Boutflower renders it “cut off, portioned off;” and similarly many others, including Moses Stuart and Montgomery, as well as Hengstenberg and Gesenius. No Semitic scholar denies that this is its primary meaning. But the English translators, not seeing any connection between this period of seventy weeks and the longer period of 2300 days, and thus seeing nothing from which this period of seventy weeks could literally be cut off, gave the word its secondary meaning of “decreed,” or “determined,” or “assigned.”

The meaning of the passage here under consideration therefore becomes about as follows:

“Seventy weeks are cut off [from the 2300 days] and are assigned to thy people and to thy Holy
City.”

“[From the 2300 days] seventy weeks are portioned off to thy people and to thy Holy City.”

“[From the 2300 days] seventy weeks are allotted to thy people and to thy Holy City.”

It may be well to recall here the close logical connection between the eighth chapter and the ninth, even at the risk of seemingly tiresome repetition.

In the eighth chapter we find recorded the vision of the ram and the he-goat, followed by the question about the length of time involved in certain of the statements: “How long shall be the vision?” The answer was given: “Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”…

Daniel desired to understand the vision further, and he heard a heavenly voice which said: “Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.” Then followed a plain, straightforward explanation of the various symbols. But when he came to the portion dealing with time, the angel merely said: “And the vision of the [2300] evenings and mornings which hath been told is true: but shut thou up the vision; for it belongs to many days to come.” Chapter 8:26.

Of course, there was only the one part of the vision which the angel had not explained, namely, the part dealing with time. The temple and the city of Jerusalem were still in ruins, though Daniel knew that Jeremiah’s prophecy about the definite length of the captivity was soon to end. Though now an old man, he had cherished the hope that even he might personally return to his native land within a few years. But here he had a direct message from heaven about the taking away of the daily sacrifice and the treading down of the sanctuary for 2300 years more. The whole thing seemed too horrible for Daniel; and the best he could say was that no one understood what it meant. Had he been as rash as some people of these days, he might have said that there must be some mistake regarding these 2300 days or years; for clearly he could not reconcile it with Jeremiah’s prediction of a return from the captivity at the end of seventy years.

The next thing that Daniel records is that he dedicated himself to fasting and prayer to gain a better understanding of the great discrepancy apparently involved between the prophecy of Jeremiah and the statement of the angel in the preceding vision. His pathetic and impassioned prayer had as its central theme the entreaty that God would have mercy and cause His face “to shine upon Thy sanctuary that is desolate.” When Gabriel again appeared, he expressly announced: I am now come forth to give thee wisdom and understanding. . . . Therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision.” Verses 22, 23.

What vision?

Clearly enough, this can refer only to the preceding vision which he had been commissioned to make Daniel understand, but which Daniel declared nobody understood. It is thus as certain as language could make it, that the further statement which the angel proceeds to make in this ninth chapter about the seventy weeks and its various subdivisions is to be regarded as a part, the initial part, of the previous period of 2300 days; and the two periods begin together.

As we now proceed to consider the rest of this chapter, it is evident that the six points made in the verse before us constitute a sort of summary of what is to be accomplished during these seventy weeks.

To finish transgression, and to make an end of sins. This means the filling up of their cup of iniquity by the Jewish nation. R. H. Charles translates it: “To complete the transgression and bring sins to the full.” This the Jewish nation did when they rejected and crucified their Messiah. The remaining specifications in this summary are more hopeful.

To make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. Reconciliation was provided for by the sacrifice of the spotless Son of God. He also provided everlasting righteousness for everyone who will accept it. Clearly nothing in these statements can fit anything done during the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes.

To seal up vision and prophecy. That is, to set the seal of attestation to the vision and prophecy. When this period of seventy weeks had elapsed, so the world could see that all its specifications and subdivisions had been accurately fulfilled, this would be a guarantee that the remainder of the long period of 2300 days would also come about in due time. The fulfillment of all these specifications regarding the seventy weeks is also a tremendous certification of the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to being the long promised Messiah.

To anoint the most holy. The margin reads, “a most holy place.” Hebrew scholars agree that the expression here used refers to a place, not a person. Apparently it does not refer to the anointing of the Messiah, which is also mentioned in this same prophecy, but to the inauguration by an anointing ceremony of the holy of holies in the heavenly sanctuary. This was accomplished at the beginning of our Savior’s work as high priest in heaven, when He entered upon His work soon after His ascension, an event which was signalized on earth by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. See Acts 2:33; Hebrews 6:20. The type or foreshadowing of this is recorded in Exodus 40:9, 10, where Moses was commanded: “Anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein.... The altar shall be most holy.”

Regarding this last statement, as the culmination of the five preceding ones, Uriah Smith justly
remarks:

“Thus this first division of the 2300 days brings us to the commencement of the service in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, as the whole period brings us to the commencement of the service in the second apartment, or most holy place, of that sanctuary.” - Daniel and the Revelation, 1912 ed., P. 218.

Also regarding these six predictions packed into this single verse, C. H. H. Wright declares:
“No grander expressions have been used of Messianic days by any of the prophets, and no language more suitably depicts the Christian Era and its blessings, than these six sentences of Daniel which speak of the six acts of divine grace to be performed within the compass of the ‘seventy weeks.”---Daniel
and His Prophecies, page 202.

The Greatest Of The Prophets - by George McCready Price (1955) 55

The Greatest of the Prophets - 54

 

The Greatest of the Prophets - 53

 

The Greatest of the Prophets - 52