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….

Greatest of the Prophets - 56

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

9. THE TIMES OF THE MESSIAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What vision?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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