There are few passages in the Old Testament which have caused more consternation between Jews and Christians than Daniel 9:24-27. And though it be one of the most illustrious and glorious prophecies of Christ in the entirety of Scripture, yet this does also prove occasion for the wickedness of the devil in his deception of the Jews. The difficulty of this place is in no small part heightened by the various ways in which the calculation of the time allotted herein is to be most properly understood, and many learned men are of widely differing opinions. However, this proves no ground for the Jews to altogether object to the Christian interpretation of this text; though there be various ways of computation the 70 weeks herein described. For all Christians do generally agree that these 70 weeks are expired at some point in either the birth or death of Christ, or the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Furthermore, we may turn the tables against the rabbis in this regard; for they also have many disputes and contentions concerning this place. They agree not amongst themselves as to the chronology delineated. As we will see later, the Jews have devised a fictitious computation of the Persian period in order to evade the force of Daniel’s prophecy; yet herein, they do still dispute amongst themselves as to it.
The following table presents 3 different translations of this text to illustrate some of the important peculiarities to each one, which lead us into how the Jews do twist this passage:
It is to be first observed that the Jews and Christians are all generally agreed that the time period which the angel Gabriel says has been נֶחְתַּךְ, “determined”, “cut out” is 490 years, for שָׁבֻעִים שִׁבְעִים means “seventy sevens”, if literally rendered. Such is the admission of R. Saadian Gaon (Emunot ve-Deot, book VIII, ch. 9).
A preliminary observation is due concerning the occasion whereof Daniel received this revelation from Gabriel. And this was, that after the conquest of Babylon by the Persians, it was supposed by Daniel that the 70 years of captivity spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah had taken their end. And the chief cause of Daniel’s great distress was that he had not yet witnessed any substantial return of the Jews to the land of Israel. Hence he clothed himself in sackcloth and ashes (verse 3) and repented of the sins of Israel (verses 5-12), fearing that the final curse of the law had been sanctioned by God against them (verse 13). And for the better improvement of his peace and consolation concerning the promises of God and his covenant, the angel Gabriel gives him this prophecy in verses 24-27, which has now been the circumstance of much debate and consternation; and the confusion resulting hereon is not from any obscurity in the Scripture itself, for is a lamp to guide our feet and make straight our paths before God (Psalm 119:105). Rather, it is the blindness and unbelief of the Jews that has made the interpretation so difficult and obfuscating.
Concerning these 70 years of exile spoken of by Jeremiah, there are varying opinions. Some would place it with the captivity of King Jechoniah in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:12). The most widely held and received opinion is that these 70 years of exile are to be counted from the captivity of King Zedekiah, which took place in his 11th year of rule (Jer. 39:2). At this time, it was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, in which the city and temple were destroyed (2 Kings 25:8). And this is the view of Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, Eusebius, and Jerome. However, it seems that the opinion of Andrew Willet (1562-1621) is more well-founded (Hexapla in Danielem [Cambridge: Cantrell Lege, 1610], pgs. 267-268). For that prophecy in Jer. 29:10 was given to those who went into captivity with Jechoniah (29:1-2; cf. Esther 2:6). And the prophet Ezekiel in many places counts from this captivity of Jechoniah (Ezk. 1:2; 8:1; 20:1; 31:1). Furthermore, it appears that the captivity of Jechoniah was the more numerous one (2 Kings 24:14), and therefore more likely to be intended by Jeremiah—it being the chief one known and remembered amongst the Jews.
Some would say that there are two sets of 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah (29:10 being a reference to Jechoniah, as demonstrated above) which overlap one another. There are 70 years from the captivity of Jechoniah until the first year of Cyrus, while there are also 70 to be counted from the captivity of Zedekiah until the second year of Darius Hystaspes. And the evidence given by many writers for this latter reckoning is that these 70 years are called “the years of the desolation”, and the temple remained in such a state until the 2nd year of Darius. However, this cannot be admitted. For the desolation ended in the time of Cyrus when the Jews had liberty to return and begin work on rebuilding the temple, and make various provisions for the house of God (Ezra 1:3-4). The prophecy of Jeremiah is expressly determined by the Scripture as having its fulfillment in that time. “Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom.” (2 Chron. 36:22)
And it is these 70 years which proved the occasion of Daniel’s great distress and perplexity (Dan. 9:1-2). Seeing that the Babylonians had been conquered, and yet the Jews had not yet returned, he begins to fear that the curses have come upon Israel. And it is on this occasion that the angel Gabriel brings the word of the Lord unto him for the better improvement of his consolation and peace.
When it comes to these 70 weeks themselves, there are so many varying interpretations and computations of therein which have unfortunately served rather to muddy the waters further rather than bring new light as to its genuine meaning, and the design of the angel Gabriel in these words to Daniel, who was despondent on account of the prophecies of Jeremiah about the duration of the exile in Babylon, and his perceived failure of their due consummation and fulfillment. However, when the text is read carefully and due attention is given to the design of God therein, we have one of the clearest proofs that the Messiah is come, and that it is Jesus of Nazareth — if the weeks be computed correctly, and expired at the right time in accordance with Scriptural history. And I therefore will bring forth these headings considerations under which we will provide our defense of the true intention of the Holy Spirit upon this text. I. The Accusation of Christian Mistranslation; II. A Brief Overview of the Various Calendars in Use for the Computation of the 490 Years; III. The true chronology of Daniel’s 70 weeks vindicated against the Jews and their vain twistings of it; IV. The work of the Messiah described herein, and the effects thereof.
I. Knowing within their hearts the great calamities which this prophecy has brought upon them and their rabbis, the Jews have for many years now thrown the slander against us that we have perverted the Hebrew original, in order that our design may be accomplished of the chronology adding up to the time of Christ and His death, forty years or so before the destruction of the Second Temple. And there are 3 chief phrases here in the Hebrew which deserve our attention for the better understanding of these verses: [1], what is meant by מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד, and whether it ought to be rendered in the indefinite signification as “an anointed one” (as the Jews and many modern Christian translations do, or more particularly, as “Messiah the Prince” (KJV); [2]. what the proper numerical division of the 70 weeks is, whether it is 69 weeks (the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks enumerated in verse 25 being taken together as a sum total of 483 years), or 7 weeks followed by a period of 62 weeks, which the Jews insist upon by their punctuation and diacritical marks which they have put in the Hebrew, in order that the chronology would not lead to the time of Jesus of Nazareth; and [3], what is intended by the particles וְאֵין לוֹ, “and no more” or “and not for himself” (the latter of which is the rendering of the KJV).
[1]. What is the meaning of שָׁבֻעִים, “weeks” in the context of Daniel’s prophecy? For here, it is not meant to be taken as a unit of 7 days as it is in our regular modern usage. Rather, the text may literally read as “seventy sevens”; i.e. 490 years—which is the span of time agreed upon by Jewish commentators and Christians alike. Under the law of Moses, this would be 70 Sabbatical cycles. “And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.” (Lev. 25:8). One week here is to be taken as a unit of 7 years.
[2]. The true and proper rendering of מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד. First, it is necessary to discuss the import of this word נָגִיד, which is rendered as “prince.” Indeed, it used by the sacred writers to express one who has the government and rule over his subjects; “Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler [נָגִיד] over my people, over Israel” (2 Sam. 7:8); “for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be ruler [נָגִיד] over Israel and over Judah.” (1 Kings 1:35); “Go, tell Jeroboam, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee prince [נָגִיד] over my people Israel.” (1 Kings 14:7). This word is expressly ascribed to the Messiah properly in Isaiah 55:4, “Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader [נָגִיד] and commander to the people.” For in verse 3 of that same chapter, the subject to whom the title of נָגִיד is applied is “David”, which Ibn Ezra confesses may aptly said of the Messiah, which the same commentator expresses also on verse 4. And נָגִיד carries the same meaning as “ruler”, מוֹשֵׁל (Micah 5:2), “Shepherd” רֹעֶה (Ezek. 34:23), and “prince” נָשִׂיא (Ezek. 34:24). Upon these grounds, the one spoken of in Daniel 9 is the true Messiah, who has already come. Second, The Jews say against us that the KJV perverts the text by rendering it as “the Messiah the Prince”, for the definite article הַ is not to be found in Dan. 9:24. However, it is not necessary that the lack of הַ prove the noun itself to be indefinite, for there are instances in which it occurs without it. As in 1 Kings 16:16, the phrase “Omri, the commander over the army” uses שַׂר־צָבָא with no use of הַ (cf. 2 Sam. 2:8); Jeremiah 39:9, נְבֽוּזַר־אֲדָן רַב־טַבָּחִים is rendered “Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard.” and this is due to their status at titles; such is also the case with מָשִׁיחַ; Isaiah 20:1, מֶ֣לֶךְ אַשּׁוּר is “the king of Assyria.” This pattern is also used by the rabbis themselves; מָשִׁיחַ, as a name, appears throughout the Hebrew text of Sanhedrin 98b without the definite article. Are we therefore to always render it in an indefinite sense? And Hebrew grammarians have also noted this observation: “Proper nouns and other appellatives are also definite by nature and do not require other determination, since they name a specific person or thing.” (Bill Arnold & John Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Cambridge University Press, 2003], pg. 28); “Also inherently definite are unique appellatives, terms that refer to unique individuals or things and are used more or less as names. Terms for the God of Israel tend to be treated as unique appellatives, taking the article rarely (the anarthrous form is more common in the Pentateuch, while the article is used more often in the Former Prophets) or never.” (Bruce K. Waltke & M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], pg. 240) — This is also the case in many places in which common nouns appear without a definite article, and are yet still rendered as definite in their true sense. The noun תֵּבֵל (“world”) is used without a definite article in the following texts, but retaining a proper meaning: 1 Sam. 2:8; 2 Samuel 22:16; 1 Chron. 16:30; Job 18:18; 34:13; Psalm 19:4; 24:1; 77:18; 89:11; Prov. 8:31; Isaiah 13:11; 14:17.
The Jews do make two anointed ones to be spoken of in this text, and some say that the anointed one who will be cut off refers to the last high priest (R. Saadia Gaon, Emunot ve-Deot, book VIII, ch. 9), for they are said in the law of Moses to be “anointed” (Lev. 4:3, 16; 6:15). Rashi dreams that the second anointed one is Agrippa! Calculating the 490 years from the destruction of each of the two temples, Abarbanel says that the 62 weeks take place from the time of Darius till AD 70.
[3]. The proper numerical division of the 70 weeks; The rabbis divided the 70 weeks into three distinct periods: 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434 years), and one final week (7 years) which is divided in half (3.5-4 years). In order to this scheme of theirs, the Jews have placed a Hebrew diacritical mark in the text of Dan. 9:25 known as an אַתְנָח, athnach (^). What this punctuation does in our case is put a textual break between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks, in such a way that there is an anointed one for the 49 weeks (whom they usually claim to be King Cyrus), and another anointed one that comes at the end of the 434 years. This athnach functions similar to the way a semicolon does in English, i.e. disjunctively. This is the interpretation embraced by many of the Jewish polemicists, including Rabbi Tovia Singer (Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah?, Vol. 1, pgs. 222-224). Who this second anointed one is, is disputed by the rabbinical commentators, as I shall more fully disclose in a moment. This is the first pillar of the rabbinic twisting of Daniel’s calculation. Dan. 9:25 appears as follows in the Masoretic text: יְרֽוּשָׁלִַ֙ם֙ עַד־מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד שָׁבֻעִ֖ים שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְשָׁבֻעִ֞ים שִׁשִּׁ֣ים וּשְׁנַ֗יִם. The word I have put into the red bold font is the one with the break in the syntax; the athnach appears right after the letter ע (with the vowel pointing qametz underneath), and before the letter ה. When the text is interpreted as the Jews make it, one cannot add the 62 weeks to the 7 weeks, giving us the total of 483 years, for they know that it would lead to the time of our Lord Jesus. They say therefore that there is one anointed one who will appear at the end of the 7 weeks (49 years), and then another who shall be revealed at cut off at the end of the 62 weeks (434 years); and this pretence is based upon their twisting and division of this prophecy. As John Owen said, it is passages such as these which are “justly esteemed the racks and tortures of the rabbins.” (An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with Preliminary Exercitations, ed. W.H. Goold [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1854], 1:317).
The athnach is placed by Hebrew grammarian under the broader of Masoretic diacritical pointings which function in a disjunctive manner to divide a verse into clauses; the same grammatical intention is also used with the tiphchah, the segolta, and the silluq. Therefore on the basis of this punctuation, the Jews divide the 62 weeks from the 7 weeks, placing two anointed ones respectively at the end of each. But this folly cannot be admitted: —
1st, the primary function of the Masoretic diacritical marks was musical in nature, intended for the public reading and chanting of the Hebrew text by the Jews in their synagogues, and one must not base too much upon them when it comes to the logical structure and syntax of a given passage. “Altogether the accents perform three functions. Their primary function, as already noted, is to represent the musical motifs to which the Biblical text was chanted in the public reading…the second function of the accents is to indicate the interrelationship of the words in the text. The accents are thus a good guide to the syntax of the text; but, since the reader was naturally presenting meaning, not structure, and accentuation marks semantic units, which are not always identical with syntactic units.” (Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, trans. and ed. By E.J. Revell [Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980], pg. 158; emphasis mine); “at the outset, the accentuation was probably intended to indicate the melodic pattern of the reading.” (Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992], pg. 68) This is why even though the disjunctive accent tiphchah is placed under שָׁבֻעִים, “weeks” in Dan. 9:25 (the very text which we are discussing!) before the word שִׁבְעָ֑ה, “seven” — these words are obviously intimately related grammatically, and should be treated as such, rather than placing a comma or semicolon there in an English translation. If we were to apply the Jew’s logic consistently, it would say “seven; weeks”!
2nd, this previous point is evinced from other passages of the sacred writers in which no logical or hermeneutical break in the text can be inferred from the mere presence of the athnach. Gen. 1:1 places an athnach under אֱלֹהִ֑ים; The Masoretes placed an athnach under the name “Tarshish” in 1 Chron. 1:7, “The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim.” Should it therefore read “...Tarshish; Kittim…”? Obviously, this is absurd. Many such other examples of this use of the athnach may be adduced. In none of these texts does the athnach contain the kind of full disjunctive value which the Jews and higher critics wish to do in dividing Daniel’s weeks. Even in passages (like Deut. 28:32) which do indicate a logical break with an athnach, it still is not enough to imply that 70 weeks may be divided up in such a manner. At best, many translations place a comma in these versers rather than a semicolon.;—“And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife [הַֽמַּאֲכֶ֑לֶת] to slay his son.” (Gen. 22:10); “And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh [וָרֹ֑אשׁ], Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard.” (Gen. 46:21); “And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony [הָעֵדֻ֑ת], of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” (Ex. 25:22); “But ye shall offer a sacrifice made by fire for a burnt offering unto the LORD; two young bullocks, and one ram [וְאַ֣יִל אֶחָ֑ד], and seven lambs of the first year: they shall be unto you without blemish” (Num. 28:19); “Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long [הַיּ֑וֹם]: and there shall be no might in thine hand.” (Deut. 28:32). In other places such as 1 Kings 8:42, the athnach carries a parenthetical function with its presence therein: “For they shall hear of thy great name, and of thy strong hand, and of thy stretched out arm [הַנְּטוּיָ֑ה] when he shall come and pray toward this house.” See also Ezra 1:10; 2 Chron. 34:8; 35:9, 19.
3rd, those who make this argument do not consistently apply the force of the athnach. For example, this punctuation is placed under the word עֹֽלָמִ֑ים in the phrase “everlasting righteousness.” (Dan. 9:24) However, this does not entail that we should place a break here between the clause containing “everlasting righteousness” and the fifth and final clause of this verse, which says “and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”
4th, the way that an athnach is used in Hebrew passages containing numbers (i.e. those similar to Dan. 9:24) also demonstrates the truth of our cause. The Hebrew clause preceding the athnach is not necessarily to be separated from the clause which comes after it. “The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab [וְיוֹאָ֑ב], two thousand and eight hundred and eighteen.” (Neh. 7:11). “And the brass of the offering was seventy talents [כִּכָּ֑ר], and two thousand and four hundred shekels.” (Ex. 38:29). In this place, the brass of the wave offering is being divided by two entities; viz. 70 talents and 2,400 shekels. Here, the athnach cannot be taken to divide these numbers from each other, since they both refer to the same unit which is being divided (brass), as the 62 and 7 in Dan. 9:25 are both dividing weeks. The most devastating example would be Num. 1:46; “The sum of all those who were counted: six hundred and three thousand [אֲלָפִ֑ים], five hundred and fifty.” There is an athnach here in between the 603,000 and the 550. However, it is obvious that we should add those numbers together to 603,550 for the sum total of the counting of the Israelite census.
5th, Dan. 9:25 uses the common Hebrew conjunction וְ for the phrase שָׁבֻעִ֖ים שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְשָׁבֻעִ֞ים שִׁשִּׁ֣ים וּשְׁנַ֗יִם; “seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.” The vav is commonly used in the book of Daniel to connect two numerical units together in some way (Dan. 1:5, 20; 2:1, 3, 12; 6:9 [Heb. 10], 6:11 [12]; 8:14-15, 22, 23, 24). See Waltke & O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pgs. 648-649.
[4]. What is intended by the words וְאֵין לוֹ (verse 26)? The Jews and many modern translations interpret it “and he will be no more”, while the KJV renders it “and not for himself.” Whom are we to follow, and does this make any impact on the Christian interpretation of Daniel’s weeks?
[5]. The expiration of the 70 weeks is placed by Gabriel at when the Messiah shall be יִכָּרֵת – “cut off”, which verb has two distinct senses that we ought to take note of. 1st, it is in many places used for the making and sealing of a covenant and pact between two respective parties, as between God and Abraham (Gen. 15:18), or between the latter and the king Abimelech (Gen. 21:27), and between God and Israel (Ex. 24:8). 2nd, it is used for the severing of one from the covenant, on account of punishment for sin. “whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off [וְנִכְרְתָה] from Israel” (Ex. 12:15), and of a penal “cutting off”: “And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off [וְנִכְרְתָה] from his people; he hath broken my covenant” (Gen. 17:14). Compare also with Num. 15:30. And this is expressly granted by Saadia Gaon: “Whenever the expression shall be cut off (yikkareth) is used with the meaning of ‘to kill,’ it is employed only for one who is put to death deservedly, as in the statement of Scripture: Whosoever eateth it shall be cut off (Lev. 17:14).” (Emunoth ve-Deot, book VIII, ch. 9)
[6]. The statement of verse 27 that the Messiah will confirm a covenant with many in the final week, but that the sacrifices will cease in the וַחֲצִי הַשָּׁבוּעַ, “in a half of the week” is perplexing to interpreters. Concerning its application to the life of Christ, the import of this will be more fully opened later. For now, it behooves to say something concerning the meaning of חֵצִי, which some render as “middle/midst” and others as “half.” It appears that the latter is a better translation, since חֵצִי is used in this way in most scriptural examples (with the exception of Ex. 27:5 and 38:4). As 1 Kings 16:21, “Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts (לַחֵצִי): half (חֲצִי) of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half (וְהַחֲצִי) followed Omri.” In the translation of Dan. 9:27, the Septuagint and Theodotion put ἡµίσει, for which “half” is the standard and authoritative meaning (see BDAG 439). Thus, Gabriel is saying that there would be the confirmation of the covenant and the cessation of the sacrifice in one-half of the 70th week, not that it would occur in the middle of the week. If “middle” were intended, it would be far more likely that the sacred writer would use תָוֶךְ instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment