by
Damien
F. Mackey
This is what the Lord says:
‘Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper
in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne
of David
or rule anymore in Judah’.
Jeremiah 22:30
Introduction
In
my article:
Historical
and chronological ramifications of inaccurately interpreting Daniel chapter 9
(2) Historical and
chronological ramifications of inaccurately interpreting Daniel chapter 9
we
learned, following Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz’s helpful account of the proper meanings
of the key Hebrew words in Daniel 9, that commentators have long been foisting
their artificial translations upon the ancient Danielic text, usually for the
purpose of ‘making’ it culminate with Jesus Christ the Messiah.
I
also suggested that a flaw in the Rabbi’s own interpretation of Daniel’s text,
chronology wise, pertained to the inevitable difficulties associated with
accepting the standard Babylonian to Medo-Persian succession of kings.
According to the Rabbi:
It is important to remember that from the beginning
of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, 18 years before the fall of Jerusalem, until the
fall of the Babylonian Empire, when Cyrus came into power, 70 years had
elapsed. By subtracting the 18 years subjugation before the destruction of the
first Temple from the total of 70 years we are left with 52 years. This proves
that King Cyrus arose to power and fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophesy 52 years after
the destruction of Jerusalem.
That
would be according to the conventional arrangement of neo-Babylonian kings:
which,
unfortunately, has several too many kings - Nebuchednezzar being in fact the
same as Nabopolassar and Nabonidus; Evil-Merodach being the same as the
biblical “Belshazzar” (Bel-shar-usur).
For
more on this, see e.g. my article:
Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure
historical sequences
(2) Chaotic King
Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences
Given
that 23 years of the prophet Jeremiah’s count of 70 years of captivity had
already expired by the 1st year of Nebuchednezzar, then about (23+18
=) 40/41 years must have expired when the Temple was destroyed by the
Chaldeans.
That
means that there could have been only about 30 years, rather than the Rabbi’s
“52 years”, until the 1st year of Cyrus. Those 30 years would now be
made up of a remaining 25 years for Nebuchednezzar, plus 3-4 of his
son-successor Belshazzar, plus the first year for Cyrus (25 + 4 + 1 = 30).
{This
is only an approximate calculation on my non-mathematically inclined part}.
My
choice for the “cut off” anointed one of Daniel 9 has to be king Jehoiachin of
Judah.
He
is “cut off” even in name in the Book of Jeremiah, which reduces his name, sans
theophoric, to “Coniah” (Jeremiah 22:24-28):
‘As surely as I live’, declares the Lord, ‘even if you, Coniah
son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would
still pull you off. I will deliver you into
the hands of those who want to kill you, those you fear—Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon and the Babylonians. I will hurl you and the mother who
gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there
you both will die. You will never come
back to the land you long to return to’.
Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken
pot,
an
object no one wants?
Why will he and his children be hurled
out,
cast
into a land they do not know?
King
Jehoiachin I have previously identified with the wicked Haman of the Book of
Esther, and, more recently, with king Amon of Judah, from whom, indeed, we must
get the name “Aman” (or Haman). See my article:
King Amon’s
descent into Aman (Haman)
(2) King Amon’s
descent into Aman (Haman)
As
Haman, he was childless alright, all ten of his sons having been killed by
order of king “Ahasuerus” (i.e., Cyrus) soon after his own violent death
(Esther 7:10): “So
they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the
wrath of the king abated”.
Such
was the ugly demise of the very evil and extremely long-reigning (but only in
captivity) former king of Judah, Jehoiachin (Jeconiah-Coniah)/Amon/Aman
(Haman).
The
aged king of Judah had even been revered by the Persians as “father” (Esther
16:11-12):
[Haman] … found our humanity so great towards him, that he was
called our father, and was worshipped by all as the next man after the king:
But he was so far puffed up with arrogancy, as to go about to deprive us of our
kingdom and life.
The ‘terminus ad quem’ of
Daniel 9
“…
he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.
And
at the Temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation,
until
the end that is decreed is poured out on him”.
Daniel 9:27
For
those who would interpret Daniel 9 as being a Messianic prophecy pertaining to
Jesus Christ, then its culminating two verses (vv. 26-27):
The
people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The
end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations
have been decreed.
He
will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’
he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the Temple he will set up
an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured
out on him [,]
can
only be a description of the complete destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple
in 70 AD (conventional dating).
Though
who the “he” might be in this case could be problematical.
Not
so, however, according to my revision, in which the “he” can be one, and only
one, person, following on from my identification of the “cut off’ anointed one
of the previous verse (v. 25) with Haman of the Medo-Persian period.
The
“he” can then only be that terrible persecuting king Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’
of “the [Macedonian] people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the
sanctuary”.
For, as we read in 1 Maccabees 1:20-24:
In
the year 143, after the conquest of Egypt, Antiochus marched with a great army
against the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. In his arrogance, he entered the Temple
and took away the gold altar, the lampstand with all its equipment, the table for the bread offered to the
Lord, the cups and bowls, the gold fire pans, the curtain, and the crowns. He
also stripped all the gold from the front of the Temple and carried off the silver and gold and
everything else of value, including all the treasures that he could find stored
there. Then he took it all to
his own country. He had also murdered many people and boasted arrogantly about
it.
Then,
just two years later (vv. 30-32): “… he suddenly launched a fierce attack on
the city, dealing it a major blow and killing many of the people. He plundered the city, set it on fire,
and tore down its buildings and walls. He
and his army took the women and children as prisoners and seized the cattle”.
Next, came the Abomination (vv. 54-57):
King
Antiochus set up The Awful Horror [Abomination] on the altar of the Temple, and
pagan altars were built in the towns throughout Judea. Pagan sacrifices were
offered in front of houses and in the streets. Any books of the Law
which were found were torn up and burned, and anyone who was caught with a copy of
the sacred books or who obeyed the Law was put to death by order of the king.
My
identification of the “cut off’ one also necessitates now that the long count
of the approximately 434 years of Daniel 9:26 must be retrospective – and not
looking forwards – in relation to the era of Daniel, for as we read there: “After the sixty-two
‘sevens,’ an Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing”.
The author of the following blog article
has likewise rejected the “anointed” one of Daniel as being Jesus Christ,
whilst correctly also (I believe) connecting the Abominator with Antiochus.
His/her identification of the “anointed” one with the Maccabean high priest,
Onias - which I personally cannot accept - is a view that does have some
supporters as well.
His/her conventional chronology of the
Maccabean period is, I believe, wildly off the mark:
https://dustinmartyr.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/responsibly-interpreting-the-visions-in-daniel-9-part-3/
Responsibly
Interpreting the Visions in Daniel 9 (part 3)
This will be the final post on the Seventy Weeks prophecy in Daniel 9. For
a recap of my thoughts on the passage’s introduction and verse 9:24, click
here. Yesterday’s post regarded the exegesis of Dan 9:25 (here). Today’s
post will deal with the final two verses (9:26-27) and some concluding matters
of interpretation.
9:26
“And after the sixty-two weeks an anointed one will be cut off and no one will
come to his aid. Then the people of the coming prince will spoil the city and
the sanctuary. But his end will come with a flood unto an end; a war is being
decided; desolating things.”
9:27
“He will confirm a covenant with the great ones for one week. But in the middle
of the week he will remove the sacrifice and the grain offering; and upon a
wing of abominations he will be desolating, up to the point of a complete
destruction being decided which will be poured out upon the one
desolating.”
Quite a few remarks need to be stated in regard to this passage.
I will number them for the sake of making organized conversation points:
1. As I noted in the previous post, these two verses focus entirely upon the
events after the initial two periods of history (‘seven’ weeks and ‘sixty-two’
weeks). In other words, the final week of the Seventy Weeks prophecy gets the
most attention, making its events the crux of the passage’s emphasis.
2. The beginning of this passage moves the listener over a long period of time
up to this decisive moment where an anointed figure will be killed. Since there
is a massive sixty-two week period separating these events from those described
in 9:25, it seems obvious that the anointed figure in 9:26 is not the same
individual as the one back in 9:25. It has been common ground for Christians to
regard this anointed figure again as the
Anointed One (i.e., Jesus Christ). Again, this argument fails
to hold up to scholarly scrutiny. For one, we again have the Hebrew noun mashiach without the definite
article, requiring the translation “an anointed one” rather than “the anointed
one.” Sadly, many modern English translations have not been entirely honest on
this point. Secondly, if this were a predictive prophecy about the death of
Jesus Christ, why does the passage qualify this death with “no one will come to
his aid”? Shouldn’t the passage (if it were referring to the death of Jesus)
say that he will be supernaturally vindicated in glorious resurrection by God
the Father? Why then does the passage actually say that no one will come to his
aid? This is hardly a reference to Jesus.
Furthermore, the New Testament Christians (who searched the Hebrew Bible
diligently for any hint of messianic predictions) never once quote Daniel
9:26 to refer to Jesus’ death. Instead, they focus primarily upon Isaiah 53
and other verses, but never once is Dan 9:26 quoted in the New Testament to
refer to Jesus. This suggests that its interpretation had an accepted reading
which excluded Jesus from being its object of focus.
3. In fact, we possess a perfect candidate for this anointed figure mentioned
in 9:26. In the year 171 BCE a high priest named Onias III was in fact
murdered. Unfortunately for him, none of the Jews came to help him or avenge
his death. Instead his brother, the Hellenistic sympathizer Jason, took control
of the temple. The actions of Jason were instrumental in the events leading up
to the Maccabean Revolt.
4. Around this time, the Seleucid Empire ruled by Antiochus IV made an
agreement with some of the leading officials in Jerusalem in order to hellenize
the city and its people. This agreement is the “covenant” mentioned in Dan
9:27. This is recorded in detail in 1 Maccabees:
In
those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let
us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since
we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.” This proposal pleased
them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king, who authorized them to
observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem,
according to Gentile custom, and they removed the marks of circumcision, and
abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves
to do evil. (1 Macc 1:11-15)
5. After the murder of the anointed high priest Onias III the Seleucid armies,
commanded by Antiochus Epiphanes, came into Jerusalem. The act of circumcision
was restricted and the Sabbath was profaned. But the most detestable act was
the placement of a statue of Zeus upon the temple’s sacrificial altar.
Jews were forced to offer sacrifices to this image.
These offensive acts are what Dan 9:26 refers to as the “spoiling of the
city and the sanctuary” and what 9:27 describes as the plural “abominations.”
These events were too much for the conservative Jews who were resistant to
Hellenization (thus provoking the Maccabean Revolt).
6. As I just noted in #5, the Syrian forces led by Antiochus brought about
desolating abominations upon Jerusalem and its people. Note carefully that
these abominations of desolation are plural,
not singular. Furthermore, they are plural objects,
not persons. This is something different from what Jesus stated in Mark 13:14
(i.e., a single, personal abomination of desolation). This point should not be
taken lightly; Daniel 9:24-27 refers to plural abominations as things/objects
and Mark 13:14 refers to a single person who is an abomination of desolation.
We should let Daniel 9 say what it wants to say and let Mark say something else
(without harmonizing the two accounts). Jesus is likely reusing the terrible
events of the past as a rubric to convey the future abomination of desolation.
7. Daniel 9:26 promises that there will indeed be divine retribution upon the
coming prince Antiochus. His end will come with a “flood” – a common prophetic
hyperbole for a swift death (cf. Isa 8:8; 10:22; 30:28; Ezek 13:13; Nah 1:8).
Furthermore, 9:27 says that a destruction has been decreed by God (divine
passive). This reassures the original readers that this national catastrophe
will not go unpunished by Israel’s God, encouraging them to resist the
hellenizing influences in covenantal faithfulness. Antiochus IV did indeed die
in the year 164 BCE.
8. To connect some loose ends, it is important to remember that some of the
significant dates need to be kept in the forefront of these discussions:
o Onias III, the Jewish high priest, was murdered in 171 BCE. This began the
agreement/covenant (1 Macc 1:11-15) between the Seleucids and the leading Jews
to hellenize Jerusalem and its people,
o The Syrian forces led by Antiochus halted sacrifices and offerings by
placing an idol of Zeus upon the altar. This occurred in 167 BCE,
o The Maccabean Revolt ended in 164
with the cleansing of the holy temple, thus removing all of the abominations
from it,
o 171 minus 164 equals 7. How many years are in a single week? Seven. When did the sacrifice
and offerings cease? In the
middle of this period (167 BCE).
9. If the seventieth week deals with the events from 171-164 BCE, then
prophetic schemes expecting a future seven year tribulation prior to the end of
the age have absolutely no biblical basis for their theology.
