The Greatest of the Prophets - 61

 The Greatest Of The Prophets  - by George McCready Price (1955) 61

11. A DETAILED HISTORY

All commentators acknowledge that this chapter is extremely difficult to understand or to interpret. But there are many evidences that this line of prophecy must be of profound importance to the people living in our day, so near the close of human probation. Hence we should take up its study with more than usual interest; but also with extreme caution, knowing that, amid the great diversity of interpretations, many must be wrong. 

The first few verses are so plain and unequivocal that they resemble a simple chronicle of historical events. So plain and accurate indeed is this first port that Porphyry and many others since his day have denied that they were written as predictive prophecy centuries before the events took place. They tell us that it is never the custom (they do not bluntly say that it is impossible) for prophecy to give such minute and accurate predictions in advance. This is their real reason for wanting to have this entire book of Daniel written in the times of the Maccabees, or after these events had become history. 

The many long-range predictions about Rome, both imperial and papal, as given in chapters 2, 7, and 8, have been as strikingly and accurately fulfilled; and they cannot be brushed aside, even if the book was written in the times of the Maccabees. Hence the strange efforts of the “critic” to apply these

prophecies to the career of Epiphanes.

If the prophecies of chapters 2, 7, and 8 run down to the end of human history, and in their latter portions give many predictions about Rome and its warfare against the people of God and the truths which they hold dear, it is highly reasonable to expect that this eleventh chapter will also cover the some ground and give additional details. We also have a right to expect that some mention will be mode in it of the crucifixion, that pivotal event of all history. Since the book of the Revelation is rightly regarded as a further

expansion of these prophecies of Daniel, especially of their latter portions, which deal more specifically with our own days, is the period just preceding the resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ, with the revived or rejuvenated papacy as the final persecutor of the people of God, we surely have a right to expect in this chapter some mention of this final, deadly conflict of the church with the powers of darkness. This statement of some outstanding events which we may reasonably expect to find mentioned in this prophecy gives us a method for seeking the right interpretation of this chapter. For by pinning down a few of the outstanding historical events, such as the crucifixion, the papal persecutions, the nearly fatal collapse of the papacy near the close of the eighteenth century (French Revolution), with its astonishing revival to the prospect of a second world dominion in our own day, we can feel confident of our general correctness of interpretation, even though some details here and there along the line are confessedly obscure and hard to be understood.

Since the terms -king of the north” and “king of the south” figure so prominently in this chapter, some geographical and historical facts need to be, kept in mind. From the geographical Position of Palestine it is readily seen that the north and the south were the only two directions from which any

formidable invasions could occur. On the west was the Great Sea; and no maritime enemy existed to invade the country from that direction. On the east the country was similarly protected by the impassable desert.

Hence Israel could be attacked or invaded only from the north or from the south. Furthermore, in almost innumerable passages in Jeremiah and other Old Testament prophets the Israelites were warned against the king of Babylon as the king of the north, who would invade and subdue the land. Consequently, when the king of Syria, Seleucus, become also the king of Babylon in the breakup of Alexander’s empire, it was only natural for this enemy of Israel to be described as “the king of the north.” Later, as the rising power of Rome look over the empire of Babylon and Syria, it in turn become the king of the north.

The “critics” all declare that the first third or more of the chapter is so plain and so accurate in its history of the Syrian wars that the book cannot be a prophecy; it must be a document posing as prophecy, but really written after the events. They say that with the twenty-first verse we begin the history of Antiochus Epiphanes, and that all the rest of the chapter deals with him and his doings. I shall not here attempt to show the many, many places in the chapter where this interpretation does not fit the text, and the many other places where they admit that they have no historical records to cover the statements in the text. 

Uriah Smith carried the Syrian wars down through verse 14, where he  introduced the Roman power. He continued a straightforward course with imperial Rome down through verse 22, from which point he went backward to the Jewish league of 161 BC, and again carried forward the Roman history down through the barbarian invasions, as spoken of in verse 30, from which point he depicted a transition from pagan to papal Rome.

One of the certain mileposts in this difficult portion of the chapter is the reference to the breaking of “the Prince of the covenant” in verse 22, which cannot possibly be mistaken as meaning the death of the promised Messiah, which occurred under the reign of Tiberius. The next six or seven verses are difficult to understand on any method of interpretation. However, I suspect that Dr. Edward Heppenstall, of La Sierra College, may he right in his suggestion that the two kings mentioned in verse 27 must somehow refer to the

pope and the emperor, their speaking lies at one table having reference to the union of church and state thus established. Verse 31, in its mention of the taking away of the daily mediation and the placing of the abomination of desolation, must positively refer to the papal establishment of a false system of mediation, shown in a multitude of ways but culminating in the idolatrous “sacrifice of the mass.” The exact date for this is difficult to determine, for the transition seems to have been a gradual one; but the date AD 508, when Clovis established the Romish priesthood for the first time, would seem to be the date for the beginning of the 1290 days (years) mentioned in chapter 12:11.

From this point onward everything in the chapter seems to be plain and clear.

Daniel 11: 1. And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him.

The identity of Darius the Mede is not positively known. For many years it was thought that Gubaru, or Gobryas, might be the same as Darius. He was the companion of Cyrus in the final capture of Babylon, he personally slew Belshazzar in the palace, and was appointed governor of the captured city. On

the other hand, Cyaxares II, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus, seems to have been honored by Cyrus as the supreme ruler, while Cyrus after the death of Cyaxares assumed sole ruler ship within two years after Babylon’s conquest.

All historians now agree that there never was a separate or independent Median kingdom following the Babylonian. This imaginary Median kingdom was simply an invention of the “critics” to enable them to have four world empires before Rome. 

The Septuagint here reads: “In the first year of Cyrus the king,” which would make its date coincide with the royal Persian proclamation for the return of the Jews to their own land. If we had more facts we would be in a better position to clear up the historical situation.

Daniel 11:2. And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall he far richer than they all: and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.

The most authoritative work on the chronology of this period, R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology 626 BC - AD 45 (Chicago, second edition, 1946), provides the following dates for kings dealt with in this period of Median and Persian history.

539-530 Cyrus

530-522 Cambyses

522 Smerdis

522-486 Darius the Great

486-465 Xerxes I

A usurper, the false Smerdis, held command for some seven months during 522. At the time the usurper came to power Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, was away in Egypt. Cambyses, thinking the situation desperate, committed suicide. Because of these circumstances this usurper can be inserted in this list. The first of the four kings spoken of by the angel would have to be Cyrus himself; for the one who stirred up all against the realm of Greece is certainly Xerxes. If Smerdis is to be included, then the first of the four would be Cambyses. On either method of reckoning, the one here referred to as invading Greece must be Xerxes, who was so overwhelmingly defeated at Salamis, 480 BC. 

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Persian army amounted to some five and a quarter millions of men-if any such disorganized, tatterdemalion

collection of human beings ought to be called an army. The tradition that Xerxes, when he looked over this sea of humanity, wept at the thought that in a hundred years not one of them would be alive, gives more credit for humanity to this king than he deserves. The useless and uncalled-for sacrifice of so many poor, helpless beings indicates a callousness and a colossal egotism and selfishness which is seldom found except in the commanders of armies, but which seems to have been pre-eminently  characteristic of the Assyrian and Persian kings.

Daniel 11:3. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 

Daniel 11:4. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides these.

One of the peculiarities of this prophecy is the abrupt and unannounced way in which a wholly new power is introduced from time to time, making it difficult to follow. Here we pass without any clear explanation from Persia to Greece under Alexander. There can be no possible doubt about the meaning of this text; every specification fits the case of Alexander, and it fits no one else. But in order to make this application, we must ignore the nine or ten Persian kings who succeeded Xerxes, and have to ignore the fact that the mighty king here introduced is not given any definite location either of place or of time. But the passage must mean Alexander; for every single statement fits his case completely. Hence when we find further on in the prophecy that some other power is similarly introduced without any apparent antecedents, we may expect to have to ignore some intervening rulers, perhaps pass over a long period of time, and also perhaps pass to an entirely different land, in order to find the power that is being introduced. This is a fundamental principle in seeking to understand this chapter. But we are enabled to understand this prophecy by comparing it with the ones preceding, especially with the terms used in chapter 8:8. The specifications are so nearly identical in both cases that the one might almost be termed a quotation from the other.

Daniel 11:5. And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.

This text seems ambiguous, even equivocal; hence commentators have, perhaps rightly, appealed to the facts of history to determine the meaning of the text. In this case we know that, when Alexander’s empire was divided among his four leading successors--Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy--it was not long before these four were reduced to two, Seleucus in the north--that is, north of Palestine, and Ptolemy in the south. As Seleucus had nearly

three fourths of the old Alexandrian empire, and Ptolemy one fourth, it is not at all difficult to determine which must be the power here spoken of as being strong above him. Evidently it must be Seleucus, who was one of his [Alexander’s] princes; and perhaps this is the original meaning of the text, though the margin reads: “shall be strong; but one of his princes shall be,” etc. Various emendations of the text have been suggested, and the text as we have it may ‘need some correction; but the evident meaning is to point out the king of the north, or Seleucus, as the one whose dominion shall be a great dominion.

Daniel 11:6. And at the end of years they shall join themselves together; and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the strength of her arm. Neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in those times.

A brief sketch of the history here involved will clear up these specifications. We come to the second generation of these two dynasties, of Syria and of Egypt. Almost perpetual wars, termed by historians the “Syrian wars,” prevailed between these two powers, the Jewish people being in the midst and suffering from both sides. At the close of his reign, 248 BC, the king of Egypt, Ptolemy Philadelphus--son and successor of Ptolemy I, surnamed Soter,-tired of the perpetual struggle, gave his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus Theos, and accompanied her with a rich dowry, hoping thereby to establish a lasting friendship between the two nations. By the marriage agreement Antiochus was to divorce his wife Laodice, declare her children illegitimate, and establish the offspring of his new wife as

heirs. Presently the father of Berenice died; then Antiochus divorced her and took back his former wife, Laodice. When opportunity offered, Laodice poisoned her husband the king, and had her son, Seleucus Callinicus, put on the throne in his place. Not long afterward she had her rival, Berenice, assassinated, together with her infant son and many of her Egyptian friends, they that brought her. Such deeds could not fail to undo all the planned agreement between the two nations; hence wars were renewed with all the

former savagery.

It might help the reader to understand the sordid and petty history of these times if he remembered that the ruling families of both Egypt and Syria were Greeks, descendants of Alexander’s officers. They were all Greeks by descent, and the court language of all these countries was always Greek, so that the wars between these kings were much of the character of family rows. The people never had anything to say about their government. The common people were considered as only so many inferior beings who existed for the purpose of paying taxes and to furnish the soldiers with which the rulers might carry out their own selfish and cruel designs. 

Thus far all is plain and straightforward. We are now down some seventy-five or eighty years this side of Alexander, and well on toward three hundred years after the time of the prophet Daniel. The details of these petty wars are still given by the prophecy, not because of their being of any world importance, but because, when they were seen to have been fulfilled literally and accurately, everyone might acquire confidence in the similar fulfillment of the rest of the prophecy. The Jewish nation was the center of all this

conflict; they were the losers no matter which of the two sides won the day. They were placed in a strategic position to check up on the prophecy and its verification as no others could. As all these events were still more than two centuries before the coming of Christ, there was still much to observe in the way of the fulfillment of the vision. The Jews of that-time must have watched these events with absorbed interest. 

Daniel 11: 7. But out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up in his place, who shall come unto the army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail.

This is applied to a war of revenge which was carried on by the brother of Berenice, Ptolemy Euergetes. Some have objected to the expression here used, out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up. These persons think that such an expression ought to indicate rather a son than a brother. Bevan and other critics would have the passage read, “an offshoot of the roots from whence Berenice had sprung,” making “her roots” mean “her parents.” This may not be the usual meaning of the term, though it may be the meaning here. At any rate, when Euergetes succeeded to the throne, he raised a large army and invaded the countries of his sister’s slayers. He succeeded so well that when he finally felt obliged to return to Egypt on account of an insurrection he brought a large amount of booty, as is specified in the next verse. By this

expedition he conquered Syria and a large part of the upper Euphrates Valley, and also Seleucia, on the coast of the Mediterranean, which is the fortress here mentioned. This city remained for a long time in the hands of the Egyptians. In all these various ways he fulfilled the prediction that thus he would prevail.

Daniel 11:8. And also their gods, with their molten images, and with their goodly vessels of silver and of gold, shall he carry captive into Egypt; and he shall refrain some years from the king of the north.

Daniel 11:9. And he shall come into the realm of the king of the south, but he shall return into his own land.

Among the booty brought into Egypt by Ptolemy from this expedition was about forty thousand talents of silver and costly vessels, besides many images of various gods, including a large number of Egyptian deities which Cambyses had carried away into Syria some 280 years before. Because of the latter feat, the people of Egypt bestowed upon him the title of “Euergetes,” or  Benefactor. Thereafter he did refrain some years from the king of the north. But the ninth verse would seem to shift the subject back to the king of the north, for when Seleucus Callinicus had re-established his power in Asia (242 BC), he made an expedition into Egypt, but was unable to accomplish anything, and was obliged to return into his own land.

Up to a few years ago we were dependent upon scattered references in the classical historians for our knowledge of these events; but an inscription has been discovered which gives in considerable detail the large areas of Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Media, and Persia which were overrun by Ptolemy Euergetes.

Also at Tanis in the delta of Egypt has been discovered a decree of the Egyptian priests issued in 239 BC in honor of Euergetes, and mentioning the fact that he had brought back home large numbers of the sacred images which had been carried off by Cambyses. Thus the facts spoken of in this verse have now been confirmed by these recent archaeological discoveries.

Daniel 11:10. And his sons shall war, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on, and overflow, and pass through; and they shall return and war, even to his fortress.

We are still on ground where all commentators are agreed. This and the verses immediately following refer to the times of Antiochus III, surnamed Magnus, or the Great, who became the father of the notorious Antiochus Epiphanes. He gained the throne in 223 BC, having been preceded by an older brother who had a short and insignificant reign. This, it will be noted, is exactly one century after the death of Alexander. Antiochus III became king of Syria when only fifteen years of age. At this time the king of Egypt, Ptolemy Euergetes, died, and was succeeded by a worthless fellow, Ptolemy IV, who gave himself

largely to dissipation. In the fifth year of his reign, or in 218, Antiochus declared war against Egypt, and in a brilliant campaign took possession of Seleucia, on the Orontes, following which the Syrian armies swept, like an

overwhelming flood, over Phoenicia and Judea, taking Tyre and other chief cities. After an armistice which lasted only until the next spring, the two countries were again at war; but this time the king of Egypt defeated Antiochus at the battle of Raphia, 217 BC, and Judea and Coele-Syria again changed hands, falling back into the hands of Egypt. This campaign is probably what is described in the next verse.

Daniel 11:11. And the king of the south shall be moved with anger, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north; and he shall set forth a great multitude, and the multitude shall he given into his hand.

As remarked above, this undoubtedly refers to the campaign of 217, ending with the battle of Raphia, where Antiochus lost some 10,000 on the battlefield, besides 4,000 who were taken prisoners.

Daniel 11:12. And the multitude shall be lifted up [margin, “he carried away”], and his heart shall be exalted; and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. 

This is merely a continuation of the events already spoken of. Ptolemy was more desirous of getting back to his debaucheries in Egypt than of following up his victories. So he made peace with Syria; and after entering Jerusalem in triumph, where he was angered by being forbidden to enter the holy of

holies in the temple, he returned to Egypt, where after some twelve years more of dissipation he died, though not until he had carried on a severe persecution of the many thousands of Jews then residing in Alexandria. 

In the meantime, or during these twelve years of a breathing space, Antiochus had greatly strengthened himself by successful wars against the Parthians and other nations to the north and east. He even marched clear to India, where he secured another supply of elephants for another war against Egypt, as is described in the next verse.

Daniel 11:13. And the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; and he shall come on at the end of the times, even of years, with a great army and with much substance.

The ruler of Egypt was but a child, and Antiochus thought he should have an easy victory. He was also joined by the powerful Philip V of Macedon and by influential parties among the Jews. Thus we can see the appropriateness of the first clause of the next verse. 

Daniel 11:14. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

As was stated above, many of the surrounding peoples thought it a good time to combine against Egypt, for the king was a mere child. The guardian of the young king was inefficient and unpopular, which gave rise to seditions and dangerous revolts.

For the first time in this chapter we meet with a statement regarding which commentators are not agreed, and concerning which they differ widely in their application. The phrase here rendered the children of the violent among thy people is by some applied to a set of unprincipled Jews who became known as

“the sons of Tobias,” and who took the side of Antiochus in the wrangle between the rival interests of Syria and Egypt, while most of the men of Jerusalem took the other side, or wished to retain a position of neutrality. The latter position was clearly impossible, while leaving either side for the other was only a change of masters, and whichever side gained in these perpetual wars, the poor Jews were sure to lose.

Some of the Jewish commentators of the period just before the time of Christ, also some of the early church fathers, applied this passage to this faction of the Jews mentioned. They also sought to apply all the rest of this chapter to those times of distress to the Jewish nation, culminating in the savagery and persecutions of the years following under Antiochus Epiphanes.

Other students of prophecy, especially some in modern times, think that we are here being pointed to the rising power of the Romans, who about this time certainly did come into connection with the Jewish nation. The Roman power certainly is brought to view in the twenty-second verse, for Rome and no other was the power which overwhelmed and broke “the Prince of the covenant,” an expression which can mean only Christ. But if the children of the violent among thy people refers to the Romans, the statements in this verse about them must be regarded as a mere introductory summary of their career, for the larger part of the remainder of the chapter deals with the Roman power in its two phases.

After taking all things into consideration, it seems better to apply this expression to some faction among the Jewish people, who were seeking to do evil that good might come, a form of action which has been all too common among the nominal people of God all down the ages. At a much later period we have an outstanding example of a fanatical party who lifted themselves

up to establish the vision. From about AD 6 down until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, the political party known to history as the Zealots were in almost continual revolt against the Romans, seeking to establish a Jewish theocracy over the entire world, and appealing to a twisted interpretation of the prophecies of the Old Testament, those of Daniel among the rest, to justify all they did. Josephus assigns them as among the chief causes of the complete destruction of the city of Jerusalem under the Romans. Quite likely-although our historical data are scanty-some similar fanatical faction is referred to in the verse here under consideration.

To be continued - God Willing :) 

The Greatest of the Prophets- 60

 The Greatest Of The Prophets  - by George McCready Price (1955) 60

10. BY THE BANKS OF THE HIDDEKEL

We now enter upon the study of the lost recorded vision of Daniel. All of this chapter is introductory to the account of the vision proper, which occupies all the next chapter, or chapter 11, and runs over into chapter 12. The division of the Bible into chapters and verses seems to have been first made by

Stephen Longdon, who became archbishop of Canterbury and died AD 1228. It is unfortunate that this

vision has been divided among three chapters, for the division has resulted in much confusion and

misunderstanding.

It has been thought by some that these three chapters (chapters 10-12) are not really another and

separate prophecy, but only the third and final installment of the vision of chapter 8. It will be remembered that Gabriel was commanded to make Daniel understand the vision. Chapter 8:16. 

Forthwith some explanation of the symbols was given; but because Daniel fainted, the angel had to stop. At the end of the chapter Daniel declared that he did not understand it, Gabriel had not finished the work he was divinely commanded to do. Sometime later, therefore, Gabriel again appeared and explained further details of the prophetic time periods. 

Chapter 9. It would seem that this third appearance of Gabriel in chapters 10, 11, and 12 might well be regarded as only a further attempt to have Daniel understand more details or expansions of the prophecy which was initiated in chapter 8. 

If this be so, it would explain why in these last three chapters no further symbolism is introduced,

but the prophecy is almost wholly in plain literal language, at least of the first. It begins with what is little more than the mere mention of a few kings of Meda-Persia, followed by a list of some of the successors of Alexander and the Syrian wars, then a few high lights of the rulers of imperial Rome, followed by a vivid picture of the career of the papacy, and finally some statements (probably figurative or symbolic) about the last stages of human history under the final and revived phase of the papal power. Apart from these final symbolic or figurative terms, all the first part at least of chapter 11 is given in plain, straightforward language, just as “explanations” of symbolic prophecies are generally given. Hence all this would seem to confirm the theory that in chapter 11 we have only a further and final installment of the explanation which was begun in chapter 8.

No matter how we interpret the predictions in chapter 11 (and this prophecy has been considered

the most difficult in the book), it is very plain that the detailed naming of kings one after another is done chiefly for the purpose of proving the divine character of the rest of the prophecy. With absorbing interest the Jews of the centuries immediately following the return from the captivity must have followed the unrolling of the prophetic scroll, these early kings of the north and the south contended for the supremacy. Thus almost immediately following the age of Daniel the gradual fulfillment of these first literal predictions must have enormously established faith in the book as a whole. There is good evidence that it was largely because of these visions of Daniel that the Jews of the times of the Maccabees were inspired to gain their national independence. If the rank and file of professed Christian people could only catch some of the some inspiration, through seeing the marvelous fulfillment of all these prophecies, there would follow a spiritual revival such as has not been seen since apostolic times.

As already explained, it is a vital factor in the system of interpretation here adopted that this entire vision, is given in detail in these final chapters, should he regarded as running parallel to all the other visions in this book. That is, that this vision, like those preceding, should be regarded as running from the days of the prophet down to the consummation of all things. It follows, therefore, that expressions which we find in this vision which seem equivalent to other words or phrases which we find in one or more of the previous visions, ought to be regarded as being equivalent in meaning. This principle will help us to assign meanings to some of the terms used in this vision which, without this guiding rule, are liable to be misunderstood. On this basis, all the visions of the book may be regarded us arranged in a series of increasing difficulty; the prophecy of the second chapter being the most elementary and furnishing the key to the rest. That of the seventh chapter being a little more advanced in difficulty (and also in importance); that of the eighth and ninth chapters (really one vision) being much more difficult, and also much more important, to the people of God in the last days. If on this basis we find the final vision very different from the others, since it seems to be given in plain, almost literal and matter-of-fact statements, or perhaps as an angelic explanation of the last part of chapter 8, the actual difficulty of the entire latter part may be an indication of its real importance.

Daniel 10:1. In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. 

Since Cyrus, who had previously been king of Anshan, became the conqueror of Babylon in 539

and began to count his reigning years from the spring of 538 BC, his third year as king in his new position would last from the spring of 536 to the spring of 535 BC. The title here used, king of Persia, is peculiar, since Cyrus and his successors abandoned this title after the conquest of Babylon, and used instead “the great king,” or “king of kings,” or “king of the countries.” Cyrus made his son Cambyses “king of Babylon,” and he made various officials subordinate “kings” here and there over his vast empire. Among the thousands of business tablets of this period which have been discovered and read, only one or two use the title “king of Persia.” This title was not big enough, after the Persian monarchs became emperors of the world.

For some reason not well understood, the prophet in this verse resumes the use of the third person,

as in the first verse of the seventh chapter; though elsewhere in this vision the first person is used.

Since the prophet had now been in captivity more than seventy years, it is evident that he must by

this time have attained a great age; though any attempt to measure it in exact years can be only a guess.

Daniel 10:2. In those days I, Daniel, was mourning three whole weeks.

Daniel 10:3. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.

The precise cause of Daniel’s concern and anxiety on the present occasion is not stated, but it is

evident from the words of the angel in the twelfth and fourteenth verses that his perplexity had to do with the welfare of his people. If our dates are correct, the return of his people from the captivity (though confined to a pitifully small number) had already taken place, and Daniel, possibly on account of his great age, had been left behind. At any rate, whatever the specific occasion, he was again in great anxiety concerning the welfare of his people in the future; and on this account he set himself by fasting and prayer to intercede with God about the matter.

His fasting was only a partial one; though this was the usual form that fasting took among the

Hebrews, since such a fast could be carried out for a considerable length of time. The term pleasant bread is a Hebrew expression in contrast with what they termed “bread of affliction,” the latter being probably a form of unleavened cakes. 

The Oriental anointing was regarded as a luxury, and when it was omitted was taken as a sign of

mourning.

Three whole weeks. The original of this expression is “three weeks of days.” It may have been

used here to distinguish it from the weeks of years previously used.

Daniel 10:4. And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel, 

Daniel 10:5. I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with pure gold of Uphaz:

Daniel 10:6. His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as flaming torches, and his arms and his feet like unto burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

The river here mentioned is the Tigris, which at its nearest point is some fifty miles distant from

Babylon, which probably continued to be Daniel’s home. Some have inferred that the prophet (and his

human companions) were simply transported in spirit to this locality. There may be some significance in the fact that the former vision was by the Ulai and this by the Tigris. The Tigris is a swift, turbulent river of some 1,100 miles in length, and the name here used, Hiddekel, signifies the river of the date palm. The Revelation, though Uriah Smith argues that it is not Christ but only Gabriel in a transcendent form. Any statement on this point must necessarily be a matter of one’s opinion.

Daniel 10:7. And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision; for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves.

Daniel 10:8. So I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me; for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.

Daniel 10:9. Yet heard I the voice of his words; and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I fallen into a deep sleep on my face, with my face toward the ground.

The circumstances here, where the men were frightened but did not see the vision, are similar to those of Paul on the way to Damascus, in Acts 9:7. The phrase deep sleep is generally thought to be what is meant by a swoon, or a complete loss of physical consciousness; but it must have been radically different in some respects, for in it the prophet heard and saw all that the angel was to give him. His experience here following is called a vision; it is not one of symbols, but of a clear statement of facts and events communicated to Daniel by the heavenly messenger. In this respect it is of a higher order than a mere vision of symbolic pictures; it is similar to the verbal explanation which usually follows a vision of symbols.

Daniel 10:10. And, behold, a hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands.

Daniel 10:11. And he said unto me, O Daniel, thou man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright; for unto thee am I now sent And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.

Daniel 10:12. Then said he unto me Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou did set thy heart to understand, and to humble thyself before thy God, thy words were heard: and I am come for thy words’ sake.

This assurance by the angel that Daniel was a man greatly beloved is the second time that such an

assurance has been addressed to him. Surely it is a wonderful fact that any human being can be said to be an object of such regard on the part of the great God of heaven. We may learn also from the words of the angel that every sincere prayer is heard in heaven, even though the answer may seem to be delayed beyond our understanding. Daniel’s prayer on this occasion was for understanding, for a better knowledge of what would happen to the Jewish people in the then future; and no such prayer for wisdom and understanding is ever disregarded. James 1:5.

On this occasion Daniel was praying three full weeks before any answer appeared. Yet the angel told him that from the first day of his prayer his words were heard and that in spite of the seeming delay, the angel had been sent to inform and enlighten him on the subject of his anxiety.

Daniel 10:13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there [margin, “was not needed”] with the kings of Persia.

The “critics” generally have taken the absurd position that the expression here used, the prince of

the kingdom of Persia, refers to some angel who was looked upon as the patron or the guardian of the

interests of Persia, in opposition to those angels who were the guardians of the other countries. Thus they have created an imaginary conflict behind the scenes between these antagonistic spirit beings. Of course, there are antagonistic spirits of good and evil; but this is not the meaning of the text here.

The obvious meaning is that there was some important action which the angel now talking to Daniel had been trying to get the king of Persia to do, probably something in connection with the young

nation of the Jews at this time striving against great odds to establish themselves in their old national home.

But the king of Persia did not respond to the work of the angel. Since human beings are given real free will, not a mere make-believe of free will, they do have the power to resist the workings of the angels of God, even when the latter are sent on profoundly important missions. In this case the king stood out for fully three weeks. The meaning of the last clause in this text seems to be that Michael came and relieved this angel (Gabriel?) so the latter could come on this errand to enlighten Daniel.

Who is the being called Michael in this connection? The margin of the A.V. would give him the

title of “the first of the princes,” while in the first verse of Daniel 12 he is termed “the great Prince who stands for the children of thy people.” Jude 9 calls him “the Archangel,” a title which would seem to be distinctive, for there would seem to be but one Archangel. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16 we are told that the voice of the Archangel will raise the dead, while in John 5:28 this work is predicted of the voice of the Son of God. It seems legitimate to conclude from these passages that the name “Michael” is one which is applied to the pre-existent Son of God, who in His career of condescension took the place of one of the angels before He became human.

Daniel 10:14. Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days; for the vision is yet for many days.

The announcement here made that the vision is yet for many days is a clear intimation that the vision here following is parallel to the other prophecies of the book of Daniel, running from the days of the

prophet down the many subsequent centuries to the very climax of human history and the setting up of the everlasting kingdom of God. Yet it would seem reasonable that the vision here to be given in detail would necessarily have distinctive features of its own, though at the same time having terms or expressions common to the visions already given, so as to guide the student in the identification of the predictions made, by comparing them all together.

In chapter 8:13 the question was asked, How long will be the vision concerning both the sanctuary

and the host? The latter meaning the true people of God. The answer about the sanctuary was given back there in chapters 8 and 9; but the answer about “the host,” or the true people of God-not the apostate Jews is here taken up and will be given presently; for the angel declares that he has come to tell Daniel what shall befall thy people in the latter days. As this present chapter is only an introduction to what is given in chapter 2 and running on into chapter 12, the final answer to this part of the question is found in chapter 12:1: “At that time thy people shall be delivered.” Until that time, or during the long intervening centuries, Daniel’s spiritual kin, the true people of God, must drink of the cup and be baptized with the baptism, as was the case with the Master Himself.

James Moffatt translates this verse thus: "I am here to let you know what is to befall your people at

the end of the ages; for this vision relates to the far future.” 

Evidently it should be difficult to limit such a prophecy to the persecutions under Epiphanes.

Daniel 10:15. And when he had spoken unto me according to these words, I set my face toward the ground, and was dumb.

This inability to speak was not voluntary on Daniel’s part; but he was overwhelmed with the

conviction that there impended long ages of suffering and distress for the people he loved. He was, as we have seen, a very old man. Yet he had cherished the hope that, although he himself might not live to see the fulfillment of all the blessed promises which had been given in such profusion to his people, yet this glorious period could not be much longer delayed. Now he remembered with dismay the previous visions, especially the one about the 2300 years. That, with the present announcement that the vision was yet for many days, completely overcame him, and he swooned away.

Daniel 10:16. And, behold, one in the likeness of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spoke and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by reason of the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I retained no strength.

Daniel 10:17. For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? For as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither was there breath left in me.

It would seem probable that the vision to which Daniel here makes reference is the vision of chapters 8 and 9, which, we have seen, constitute really one connected whole, and therefore might be termed one vision, though given in two separated parts. However, it may be that the present appearance of

this celestial being had overpowered him. 

Daniel 10:18. Then there touched me again one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me.

Daniel 10:19. And he said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace he unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he spoke unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou has strengthened me.

We have here an illustration of the fact that the commands of God have in themselves the power of

their own accomplishment. The various imperatives here given by this heavenly visitant might be thought as only equal to the word of an angel; but they were much more than this. As this being had been expressly sent by God, the commands he issued were truly the commands of God; and like the word of command in the beginning, “Let there be light,” this word of the one who was visiting Daniel, be strong, yea, be strong, had within itself the power of bringing about its own fulfillment. In this sense the moral commands of God, like the Ten Commandments, are for the Christian far more than forbidding; these ten words are so many big promises which will surely be fulfilled to every trusting child of God when battling with sin and Satan.

Daniel in this case was strengthened by believing and accepting for himself the command to be strong.

Every command of God implies a promise.

Daniel 10:20. Then said he, Know thou wherefore I am come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I go forth, lo, the prince of Greece shall come.

Daniel 10:21. But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of truth: and there is none that holds with me against these, but Michael your Prince.

Some of the “critics,” always very free to change the text, do not like the interrogative form of the

angel’s first statement, so they change it over to: “Thou knows wherefore I am come unto thee.” There is no real difference in the two forms of expression.

To fight with the prince of Persia. This means to fight on the side of the prince of Persia. The powers of heaven were on the side of the Persians so long as God’s wisdom and foreknowledge saw that this would be for the best. When I go forth, that is, when I have completed this work of upholding the

Persian cause, lo, the prince of Greece shall come. In the preceding vision, that of chapter 8, it had been definitely announced that Greece would be the next great world empire, succeeding Medo-Persia. It was to outline the future of the divided Greek kingdom and the next great world empire, that of Rome, that the celestial messenger had now visited Daniel.

That which is inscribed in the writing of truth. Reference is here made to the heavenly tablets, where the times and seasons of all the nations of earth are inscribed. In primitive times, all important records were made on clay tablets; and even in Daniel’s day, though other forms of records were known,

still all legal or annalistic records were made on tablets, which of course had to be inscribed. The books which are mentioned in the Apocalypse of John the apostle correspond to the later developments in the art of writing; but Daniel was more familiar with tablets in which documents were “inscribed.”

In addressing the Athenians, Paul declared that God has determined for all the nations of the earth,

“their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation.” Acts 17:26. That is, everything about the nations of the world is supervised and controlled by divine Providence. Paul went on to say that the reason for all this strict supervision of the nations is “that they should seek God.” Verse 27. In other words, the destinies of all nations are so controlled and managed as to promote the best interests of the purposes of God. This is the Christian philosophy of history.

None that holds with me against these. What wide vistas of world philosophy and theology are here opened up before us! Michael your Prince has been already identified with the preexistent Son of God,

who, after the rise of the great rebellion, stepped down to take the place of the fallen Lucifer. The two covering cherubs over the ark of the Mosaic dispensation are understood to symbolize the two angels with official positions directly subordinate to the Son of God Himself in the original management of the universe. We infer that Lucifer at first held one of these positions; when he went astray and had to be dismissed, the Son of God voluntarily stepped down to take the place thus made vacant. And throughout the Old Testament dispensation, under the name of the Angel of Jehovah and other titles, He was the intermediary between God and guilty man. In the visions of Daniel He is referred to as Michael your Prince. In the present passage the angel who is speaking to Daniel, perhaps Gabriel, announces that he and Michael have the entire burden and responsibility of holding in check the forces of evil among the nations and of managing the larger affairs of the world.

What a field of historical research will be opened up for our reverent study when the official archives of the universe are made accessible to the redeemed people of God to examine and explore. What greatly improved ideas we will then have of the relative importance of the various problems of human life.

Many little things will then seem big, and the big, very little. How we ought to be striving here and now to train ourselves for that point of view which we will have to adopt “over there.”

To be continued…

Let Nothing Mean More to Us Than You!

 Parables. Jesus told stories to make things easier for us to relate to. He wanted us to think deeply about the things He left for us to study. Not a single word spoken by Jesus that has been recorded by man through the Holy Spirit's guidance, can be counted unimportant. We are to STUDY to show ourselves approved to God, workmen that aren't ashamed, that rightly divide the word of truth.  (2Ti 2:15) 

One particular parable, or rather the understanding Jesus gave, has been on my heart recently. It's found in Luke 8:11-15. And it talks about the Sower (Jesus) and the Seed ( The Word of God). In the parable before the understanding is giving, the Sower (Jesus) is going about sowing the Seed (Word of God) and His words, those seeds are falling in places where they can't flourish, all except in one instance.

Luk 8:11  Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 

Luk 8:12  Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 

Luk 8:13  They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. 

Luk 8:14  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 

Luk 8:15  But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. 

All people are given a chance to hear God's truth, His Word. And there are going to be reactions from people from what they hear.

The devil will come and take away the Word of God out of the hearts of some people. The devil doesn't want those people to believe and be saved.

Temptations come to others and those temptations take precedence over continuing to believe in God's truth, even if, when it's first heard they are joyful over what they hear. They go on after hearing, very happily believing the truth and then … because their roots are not deep, they fall to their temptations no longer believing the truth, the Word of God.

Another group of people hear the truth and as time goes on, even as they believe, they are choked with CARES, they are choked with RICHES, they are choked with PLEASURES OF THIS LIFE- and they will bear no mature fruit.  

What choked this last group of people? Cares. We understand how easy it is to worry about everything and anything. In fact we find it odd when people do not worry. We call them uncaring for lack of worrying because the worrying dictates the extent of their caring. Lies. 

Satan would have us so wrapped up in our cares, that we do not trust Christ COMPLETELY. Satan loves when we only trust Jesus a little bit, but not in EVERYTHING. 

Satan is so happy when we pick only things important to us to worry about. 

Satan is just as happy for us to NOT sweat all the small stuff, but perhaps pick just ONE particular care to worry about. We can be CHOKED by ONE care, or thousands, the result is the same- our walk with Christ will not be completed, it will not produce mature fruit and therefore it's no good.

Next.

What else chokes the last group of people? RICHES. 

MONEY! MONEY! MONEY! 

These people have money in their hearts so deeply they cannot go on to be complete in Christ. They are choked by their thoughts and actions concerning money. Whether it's never having enough to feel secure, or having enough but hoarding it, or any other obsession with it. Being so poor you believe that if only you had enough money that all your problems will be over, is just as bad has hoarding any money.

MONEY chokes the Word of God right out of people! They can't believe the Truth, that Jesus is ALL things and God will take care of them even in their destitute lives if need be. Being without money terrifies people so much they no longer live as Jesus would have them live- selflessly.  They know it's a real possibility without money they will die because money buys sustenance, medications, shelter, clothing etc. So yes. A whole class of people will give up the Word of God because of MONEY. RICHES will concern them more. They lack the faith they need to have in God's truth to supply their needs, even if that need is a life of pure destitution. The very poor, are not cautionary tales of those with a Godless life. They are not symbols of God's abandoning them. Their walk, the trials that they must face in life are perhaps different than those you face. They, like the man born blind- may be poor because it will reveal the hearts of those who are not poor.

Now this LAST group of people who are going to bring NO completion to their walk with God (bearing no fruit) are a group that I have been thinking about for a bit now, and caused my need to write this. 

These people are choked by PLEASURES OF THIS LIFE.

Take a moment to consider that, please. 

Pleasures of life. 

Anything we find pleasurable in life no matter what it is, if it consumes God's place in our life, it is not good! If it in anyways goes against a single royal law given, it is not good! If it causes us in any way to reveal that God is not first and foremost in our lives, our loving Him, and that loving others is not the next most important thing in our lives… it is  NOT GOOD!

We can be choked by anxiety, worry, cares and it's easy to comprehend that. 

We can be choked by money problems, money obsession, trusting in money, we can comprehend that.

We can be choked by our pleasures that are lusts- and lusts are anything that consumes us, our self-gratification,  placing pleasure before God and others.

We need to comprehend this!

Choked. A seed becomes a green shoot that will one day bear precious life sustaining fruit, but then it is choked, strangled by thorns- another plant that will bear no life sustaining fruit. That green shoot is killed, it's life is over because of those thorns.

Let's take a very hard look at our lives and our walk with God. May we be as the seed that falls on good ground. May the Word of God be sown in our hearts, finding a place in our lives above all else. May our heart be good and honest  because we truly HEAR and COMPREHEND the word of God, and then we KEEP the word of God, knowing it is the only way for us to bring forth any mature fruit. All with PATIENCE.  

The precious Word of God. 

May the Holy Spirit guide us here and now to hear the Word of God and then live the Word of God. Please, Lord Jesus, please, Father in Heaven, please guide us to this end. Live in us doing your will through us in all things. Let nothing mean more to us than You!

The Greatest of the Prophets - 59

 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...

--

https://adventistlaymen.com/

http://sites.google.com/site/whostosaywereright2/Hom

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….