70 Weeks of Daniel

daniels_vision_by_rembrandt_detail

 

 

Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

Prophecy of the Messiah to Come

by Bryan Cook

 

And he instructed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee wisdom and understanding. 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.

Daniel 9:22-23

 

When the angel, Gabriel, brings this message to Daniel he tells him to consider the vision and understand the matter.  What a daunting task that must have been for this prophet of God.  This prophecy has been one of the most controversial passages of scripture for all of the centuries.  Many a Bible student and Bible scholar would throw their hands up in frustration at this short piece of prophecy. In H. C. Leupold’s book, Exposition of Daniel, he states the following about verses 24 through 27:

“This is one of the grandest prophetic passages; and yet if there ever was an exegetical crux, this is it.  Jerome was already acquainted with nine interpretations.  Some interpreters despair completely of arriving at any certainty in their expositing, being overawed by the multiplicity of existing interpretations.  Others rather dogmatically align themselves with the one or the other type of interpretation and then proceed to espouse it and to fault those who differ from them” (Leupold 1949, 403).

 

 

Homer Hailey writes about the seventy weeks, “The many varied interpretations of commentators through the years attest to the difficulty of the vision” (Hailey 2001, 182).  Talking about these verses, Emanuel B. Daugherty states “This passage has proved to be the ‘playground’ for those whose minds are constantly milling in the prophetic realm” (Daugherty 2006, 180).

 

This is a testament to the ambiguity of certain aspects of this vision.  Lessons learned from troubleshooting equipment, computers and even physical ailments of the human body, is to isolate the problemThere are some things in Daniel chapter 9 that can be isolated by their description.  Definitive answers may not be reached, but should be able to tell what certain things are not.

Gabriel points out that this prophecy is upon thy people and upon thy city.  Daniel would have no problem understanding who was his people and his city.  Daniel’s people were God’s chosen people, the children of Israel.  More specifically, they were the children of the southern kingdom, Judah.  The city would be Jerusalem.  Daniel was witness to the captivity of his people and the destruction of Jerusalem and God’s temple.  He was part of the first wave of individuals taken into captivity by Babylon.  Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, was God’s servant to execute righteous judgment upon His idolatrous people. God called Nebuchadnezzar his servant and the hammer of the whole earth (Jer. 50:23).  He was the force that God used to subdue the nations and to inflict the wrath and justice of God upon his people.  After the initial captivity, Nebuchadnezzar was willing to leave a subservient Jewish king in Jerusalem named Zedekiah.  Zedekiah, several years later, rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar.  In his wrath, Nebuchadnezzar sent Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, to attack Jerusalem.  He burned and leveled Jerusalem and leveled the Temple.  This not only displaced the remaining Jews but also destroyed the identity of these people.  Daniel would understand that the people and the city that Gabriel presented here were his own home people and city.  This had to be in the forefront of the mind of this captive people, desiring to have their place and identity restored.

The seventy weeks vision would be for Daniel’s people and city but also for a certain purpose.  The first purpose was to finish the transgression.  This does not say transgressions, plural.  What was that sin that God wanted finished?  Jeremiah talked of Israel and Judah as being harlots, as being defiled by another lover or lovers (Jer. 2:20; Jer. 3:1; Jer. 3:6; and Jer. 3:8).  They were worshipping other gods, which were not gods at all but graven images made by the hands of man.  God had had enough. The longsuffering and patience of God had ended.  This captivity was to finish the transgression.  Jeremiah talks of the seething pot that is boiling from the north (Jer. 1:13).  This boiling cauldron would effectively purify this wayward nation.  After the captivity, nothing is heard about idolatry coming from Israel or Judah.  This transgression was in effect finished.  Turner says that by the time Jesus came to earth there was one place on earth where idols were forbidden and that place was the land of Judah (Turner 1993, 317).

Homer Hailey states finish the transgression should be translated to restrain transgression and places the verse to mean the effect on the New Testament church.  He states the following:

The Hebrew word [for finish] “seems to indicate the interruption of what is in progress of [what] would be naturally in progress” (TWOT I 438).  This applied to the people of God under the Messiah who have been “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5); in whom is the reign of God in their hearts (Luke 17:20-21); who are “led by the Spirit of God” (Rom. 8:14); who have put off the old man and put on the new (Eph. 4:22-24).  These are the ones in whom transgression is restrained (Hailey 2001, 187).

 

Leslie G. Thomas agrees with the restrained translation.  Thomas compares this to Matt. 12:22-29 where Satan is restrained or bound (Thomas 1987, 67).  Consider the implications of this translation.  Even translating this portion of scripture, trading out finished (KJV) for the word restrained, there still is a disconnect for the New Testament church to be associated with this verse as restrained from their sin. Is there any truth that after the working of this vision there would be restraint on the Christian church?   Led; yes, but not restrained.  It seems more fitting if applied to the children of Judah, that are about to come out of captivity.  This captivity is because of a specific, singular transgression: idolatry.  This would also seem more applicable to the people that shortly are coming out of captivity.  Daniel would be preaching to this people.

Notice the …and to make an end of sins,…this seems to be a different thought from finish the transgression.  “end of sins” is plural whereas transgression is singular.  It is feasible that the transgression (singular) done among the people (plural) could be referred to as sins (plural) and still be a singular kind of sin.  Consider though, how this could be applied to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.  His death on the cross bore our sins (of the world population, plural, with the multiplicities of the various kinds of sins, also plural).  Both seem to be viable application for this verse.  Turner considers this also to mean at the end of the 490 years, when sin would be blotted out permanently by the death of Christ (Turner 1993, 316).

Turner makes sense considering the seventy weeks’ time frame did not line up with any literal seventy weeks.  We see neither in scripture nor in the extra-biblical historical sources a seventy week period that settles up with the upcoming events of the vision.  Turner as stated earlier, this seventy weeks period is a span of four hundred and ninety years (Turner 1993, 316).  He also attributes the midst of the weeks mentioned in Daniel 9:27 as being a period of three and one half years, being half of a seven year period (Turner 1993, 292). Turner’s comments are as follows:

The personal ministry of the Christ began at the point of his baptism by John the Baptist, and that was the beginning of the one week, as per Daniel 9:27 which reads: “And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week [seven years]” and the midst of the week [3 ½ years = 1290 days] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” [it ceased at the point of the death of Christ on the cross].  The remaining one-half of the week [3 ½ years] was the continuing mission of the gospel of Christ through his chosen inspired apostles.  The blessing of “the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days” [that is 45 days beyond the 3 ½ years] represented the time when the preaching of the gospel moved to the Gentiles.  One week, or seven years, was held exclusively for the Jews  (Turner 1993, 292).

 

Halley in his Bible commentary states it as:

Adding 483 years to 457 B.C. brings us to A.D. 26, the very year that Jesus was baptized and began his public ministry.  A most remarkable fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, even to the year.  Further, within 3 ½  years Jesus was crucified, that is, “in the midst of the one week” “ the Anointed One” was “ cut off,” “purged away sin and brought in everlasting righteousness”  (24,26,27) (Halley 1927, 349).

Turner puts this prophecy in three major divisions:  the division of seven weeks or 49 years to rebuild Jerusalem; the division of sixty-two weeks or 434 years was the interim between the seven weeks and the one week, and third, the one week or seven years for the period of the gospel (Turner 199,. 321).  Daugherty echoes a similar opinion:

While it is admitted by all that there are difficulties in interpretation, faithful Bible students are quick to give their “Amen” to the fact that “…the events described in this passage were all fulfilled in the first century.  Not a word of Daniel 9 needs yet to be fulfilled!” (Daugherty 2006, 181)

 

Leupold holds another view.  In H.C. Leupold’s book Exposition of Daniel, Leupold states that interpreting weeks as years is an untenable way of interpreting this passage.  Leupold also claims that, in scripture, we never find the word shâbûa‛ being interpreted as anything other than our word for the seven day week.  He also states that the lack of corresponding dates with this literal translation is no excuse to interpret this passage this way.  Leupold leans more to the heptad view of the word.  Heptad means a series of seven things. This is seeing the word for week as seven things or a heptad.   Leupold then goes on to derive another calculation of days (not weeks) 7 X 7 X 10 days (cf. Woods definition below) (Leupold 1949,. 407-409).  Leupold writes of recent critics taking this view (of days not weeks) who take the most Holy to mean the restoration and rededication of the altar of the burnt offering to be during the time of Maccabeans (Leupold 1949, 415).  Leupold believes this to be flawed because nowhere in the addressed writings does the anointing occur for any of these Maccabean restorations. Consideration needs to be made about the previous commandments concerning the anointing of the tabernacle (Ex. 30:26; 40:9; Lev. 8:10) and the alter (Ex. 40:10).  Even if there is no written record of the anointing of this alter, the commandment still stands.  The Jewish people of this Maccabean period could very well have properly anointed the altar without it specifically being recorded.  Thus, Leupold’s argument of no anointing breaks down.  To Leupold’s defense there would be some stretching to call this alter, the Most Holy, as stated in the verse concerning the anointing.

Leon Wood similarly shows in his commentary that the Hebrew word for weeks is simply sevens (שׁבוּע shâbûa‛).  This adds another layer of possible confusion to the mix.  Wood concludes that since seven day weeks would not mean anything in context of the history or prophecy, then it must refer to years (Wood 1973, 247).  Consider also, because of the two previous phrases in this verse, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy. This strongly leads to the Messiah.  There will not be an everlasting righteousness until Christ comes which leads to the next point.

The last part of this verse can be directly attributed to the Messiah. …and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.  Part of my children’s homeschooling was to see if they could not understand any part of this section of scripture.  My eleven year old son, within seconds, understood this verse is about our Savior.  This is so apparent, a child can see it.  As stated earlier, to make an end to sins could very well refer to Christ on the cross; the latter remaining part of the verse unequivocally points to Jesus.  How are we reconciled with God?  How are we to have everlasting righteous?  How are all of the visions and prophecies fulfilled?  Jesus.  Jesus is the answer to all of these questions, Jesus the one anointed to be the most Holy.  Prior to the fulfillment of this messianic prophecy on the cross, where are these visions fulfilled?  Turner writes, concerning the anointing:

“So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God” (Mk. 16:19).  At that point and time, the Christ, or the Most Holy, was anointed King of kings and Lord of lords. (Turner 1993, 332)

 

Leupold in his writings makes a keen observation of the Hebrew word used here for anointing, “mashi”.  It is used in conjunction with two other occurrences in the Old Testament.  It refers to the “king of Israel” in about twenty-eight passages and five passages refer to the “high priest of Israel” (Leupold 1949, 421).  Both of these references can be firmly found in Jesus, King of Israel and our current High Priest (Heb. 7:26).

 

Leslie G. Thomas takes this train of thought to an even further extreme.  Thomas states the following concerning the anointing here:

…as the anointing of the most holy comes last in the series of Divine action, as outlined by the angel who revealed these things to Daniel, it is probably correct to say that the anointing of Christ will come at the close of His mediatorial reign, when He comes to claim His bride (See Revelation 19:1ff; cf.  1 Corinthians 15:24-28). (Thomas 1987, 68)

 

Thomas places this anointing at the second coming of Christ.  Consider how Thomas skips a vital event here.  The anointing was reserved in the Mosaic Law for the alter (Ex. 40:10), tabernacle (Ex. 30:26; 40:9; Lev. 8:10), priests (Ex 30:30; Lev. 16:32) and kings (1 Sam. 15:1; 2 Sam 2:4).  Thomas in essence is saying that Jesus has yet to be made our High Priest and King, but this will occur at the consummation of the church with Jesus at the second coming.  There are several holes to Thomas’ argument.  Thomas puts Jesus as being made king and priest at the time of his second coming.  This is contrary to the New Testament.  Jesus has already been made king (1 Tim 6:15, John 1:49, Rev 15:3, 19:6) and is already recognized as our high priest (Heb 2:17, 3:1, 4:14, 6:20).  It makes no sense to anoint our King and High Priest thousands of years after taking this office.

 

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.    

 

What is interesting about this phraseology is that Daniel was told to know therefore and understand and the next section (which he was supposed to know and understand) is one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible.  There are so many questions concerning if this is figurative, literal, or a combination of the two.  Notice the breakdown of the numbers,  7 + 60 + 2 = 69.  Why is the division of the seven weeks and the two weeks?  Could they not have been put together to read threescore and 9 weeks?  It seems that the threescore and two weeks is intended to be combined as we have President Lincoln combining four score and seven years ago in his Gettysburg Address. Even without fully understanding why the division the math still doesn’t add up.  This still leaves one week that is missing from the seventy week mark.  We will visit this later.

…the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous timesLeslie G. Thomas sees this part of the passage as referring to the New Testament church and not the Old Testament temple and city of Jerusalem.  Thomas states the following:

…it is obvious that the reference is not to the old Jewish temple, but to the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Here is the testimony of the Scriptures:

 

“After these things I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; and I will build again the ruins thereof.  And I will set it up; that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old” (Acts 15:16-18; cf. Amos 9:11,12). (Thomas 1987, 70, 71)

 

Consider the breakdown of Daniel 9:25.  Daniel was told to know and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to 1) restore and 2) build Jerusalem …unto [ bringing closer to fruition] the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks [a time period concerning this building back to bring closer to fruition the coming of the Messiah sixty nine weeks]. Two things specifically will be built again, the street and the wall.  There is a description of the surroundings while these two are being built. This description is while there are troublous times as a condition as to when these items are to be rebuilt.  They will not be built during a time of peace but during a time of adversity. Nehemiah is the one primarily responsible for rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem.  We see from the reading of Nehemiah that the neighboring peoples were not too happy about the new building project.  It was during this time that the walls were built with much adversity.  The people were instructed to have their tools in one hand and a sword for protection in the other.  As far as the city of Jerusalem being rebuilt, there are a few things to consider.  When Cyrus, king of the Medo-Persians, gave funds to help the Israelites rebuild the temple in essence he was rebuilding the city.  Since this verse does not mention the temple one may imply that the temple had nothing to do with this but consider Leopold.  Leupold makes this observation:

….the words of this vision of Daniel speak only about restoring and building Jerusalem and say nothing specifically concerning the Temple…..the second place, the Daniel passage, on the whole, emphasizes the eternal and lasting verities (cf. v. 24) and therefore does not say much about a temple that is destined to become outmoded.  In other words, the decree of Cyrus mentions the Temple and implies the city; the passage in Daniel mentions the city and implies the eternal temple (Leupold 1949, 419).

 

Leupold also makes the observation that by building the Temple the people would also have to build up the city since it was where they were now living (Leupold 1949, 419).   Hailey states concerning the timeframe of the building during this time:

Although the dates suggested by some scholars may differ slightly from these which are the ones generally accepted.  Cyrus issued his proclamation in 538 B.C.; the first contingent of the exiles arrived, built the altar and laid the foundation of the temple in 536 B.C.  For sixteen years the work was hindered by internal indifference and external opposition.  Jehovah raised up Haggai and Zechariah, prophets who urged continuation of the building (Ezra 5:1-2).  Four years later (516 B.C.) the building was completed (Ezra 6:14-15) (Hailey 2001, 194).

 

A case could be made that the restoration and building of Jerusalem could also be put in the time of adversity as the walls and streets were being built.

Chapter 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself, [At the point of 69 weeks the Messiah shall be cut off.  This cut off is most likely the Crucifixion of Christ. Notice the not for himself phraseology.  This would seem to mean Christ dying for the sins of sinful man.  Also notice that the Messiah be cut off would indicate the Messiah being acted upon as in the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities acting on Christ to bind him and put Him on the cross.  The second part of this but not for himself would indicate something internally of Christ being given from His actions.  This is interesting how the verb tenses change in the KJV.  In the ESV and ASV they translate as following: ….shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing:(ASV) and ….an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. (ESV).  The ASV and ESV in my mind seem to cause a conflict with this line of thinking.  Where would Christ be cut off (as in crucifixion) and then have nothing.  According to the New Testament, Christ would receive the victory over sin and death and later be seated at the right hand of God and be the head of the kingdom, the church.  This nothing may be the time prior to resurrection where it seemed that all was lost.  Consider that the disciples were hiding and scared.  What was to come now that their leader was now dead and gone?  Consider also the following: Rex Turner Sr.  attributes the shall have nothing as having to do with his own people, including his disciples, turning away from their Messiah.  Even the Father turned away while Jesus was on the cross (Turner 1993, 346).  Leupold states that this nothing is the taking away of those things that would be due Him, such as followers and influence (Leupold 1949, 427).  Leon Wood states this is a clear description of Christ’s crucifixion, stating that was when He was cut off (Wood 1973, 249).  Hailey states that to be cut off is the description of Christ dying on the cross with nothing except his clothes which were then distributed by the Romans as they cast lots for them (Hailey 2001, 195).  He goes on to say the following:

….He had no church or kingdom yet, but would receive or establish these after His resurrection (Matt. 16:18;  Dan. 7:13-14).  During His crucifixion His disciples forsook Him and fled from the scene (Matt. 26:56).  And following His death He was buried in a borrowed tomb, with only a stone for a pillow (Matt. 27:59-60).  Though Creator of all, He died a pauper (Hailey 2001, 196).

 

Continuing in verse 26,   and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The prince and the representative of the prince here in verse 26 seem to be a different prince than that mentioned in the previous verse.  In verse 25 it is the Messiah, the Prince.   The prince here seems to be set on the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.  There is no place in the New Testament where the disciples of Christ went in and destroyed the city.  Nor did they destroy the sanctuary.  There may have been a tangential effect of Christ and his disciples making the sanctuary of no effect. Because Christ became the ultimate sacrifice and in the Christian dispensation the believer becomes the sanctuary of God, in essence made the sanctuary of no effect.  This seems to be a stretch but still a possibility.  It seems that this prince is some other leader that led his people to destroy Jerusalem and to destroy the Temple. These two areas would be destroyed several times by various leaders and then finally be destroyed in AD 70 by Roman forces to never be rebuilt again.  Currently there is the Dome of the Rock which is a Muslim temple.  Leupold goes so far as to say that this prince is the Antichrist (singular) mentioned in New Testament (Leupold 1949, 428).  This would by definition be true according to 1 John.  The antichrist, as defined by John, would be a force that was against the Christ, so Leupold may have a point here except he states this to be one individual represented at a point in history.  John does not talk of one individual called the antichrist but many, many that were there at that present time.  Leupold also goes on to say that this “Antichrist” is trying to destroy the church.  Leupold thinks that the city and the sanctuary hereis the church (Leupold 1949, 428).  Hailey attributes the prince and his people as soldiers of the Roman empire under Titus, the son of Vespasian, the emperor of Rome.  Hailey wrote the following:

The city, temple, and the nation came to an end in A.D. 70 when these were destroyed by the Roman legions.  This would be “with a flood,”  a flood of destruction.  A similar threat was made by Jehovah against ancient Judah and Jerusalem, a flood from Assyria that would come only to the neck but would not take the city (Isa. 8:5-8). (Hailey 2001, 196)

 

 

 

Hailey’s observations, of this prince and the coming flood, lines up with the remainder of the verse ….and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. The end thereof is most likely the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.  This would be the most logical connection.   Could this flood be a physical flood that physically took place?  Looking forward in history, the Romans destroyed the city and the temple but where would the flood come in at?  Could this destruction be talking about another time where the city and the sanctuary are destroyed followed by a physical flood of some kind?  A historical event such as this is difficult to find.  To have one event that holds all three elements is not found in scripture or secular history.  As previously stated by Hailey, this flood is a description of the destruction, as to how it was executed.  There is nothing in the verses to clearly indicate either way.  Leon Wood explains it as follows:

…This read, literally, “its end in the overflowing.”  The antecedent of “it” is obviously Jerusalem.  “Flood” or “overflowing” can refer only to the degree of destruction meted out.  History records that the destruction of Jerusalem was very extensive.  Titus, with four legions, brought an overflowing ruin on the city, including the Temple (Wood 1973, 256).

 

..and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.  This word unto is used again as previously used to say “to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah.”  There are two things seen here that could be used unto something.  First, the flood could be unto (to bring about the fruition of) the end of the war.  Second we see that unto could be applied to the desolations that are determined.  This seems to be how the sentence flows but does not make a lot of sense when you break the structure of the sentence down.  The desolations are unto (to further to fruition) the end of the war.  Possibly the desolation was what brought about the end of the war if this is how the sentence is supposed to be read.

 

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

As we go through this last verse of this section we notice a confirmation of a covenant.And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:The he here has to be of the two princes mentioned, the one that is the Messiah.  It seems that this is referring to the Messiah because he is confirming a covenant.  Nowhere is found where one has destroyed the city and sanctuary, then confirm a covenant except possibly the covenant God made with Israel. This would be the negative side of God’s promise to Israel and Judah if they did not obey (Deuteronomy 8).  Consider the fact that Jesus would bring in the new covenant with his death, burial, and resurrection.  This text points to the Messiah.  Jesus for a short 3 ½ years preached, taught and did many diverse miracles confirming His word (the new covenant) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. This verse needs to be looked at in light of a question.  At what point did the Mosaic sacrifice and oblation cease?  To clarify further, at what point did these sacrifices and oblation cease to have power and authority?  The answer is at the cross of Christ.  He did just this thing.  By him being the ultimate sacrifice for sin, the older sacrifices were now not effective as the Hebrew writer writes it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats can take away sins Heb 10:4.  Another consideration is that the ceasing of the sacrifice is because of the destruction and war talked of earlier in the chapter.  This would be from the other prince who had the people to destroy the city and the tabernacle.  This would go with the next part of the sentence …and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate.  This second part of the sentence would also not make as much sense if these were to coincide with the Messiah.   Observe the word for in the phrase and for the overspreading of abominations.  The word for is translated from the Hebrew word al which can be translated because of (Strong’s). Let us reread with the other translation of al .  …and because of the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolateThis does sound like the character of God but not specifically the purpose of the cross.  Many places in the Old Testament God gives Israel the charge to follow him or receive His justice and wrath.  It does not seem likely that some pagan ruler or even Satan himself would make them desolate because of their overspreading of abomination.  This has to be a righteous God speaking here.  Hailey gives the illustration that the temple was no longer necessary once Jesus died because in the New Testament God would not dwell in the physical temple.  Just as in the days of Ezekiel when idol worship made the glory of Jehovah to leave the temple, it was fit for only destruction by Babylon.(Hailey 2001, 199)   A further description is given in this verse …and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.  What is this consummation that is at the end of the desolation?  The Messiah is going to come and be the bridegroom with the new covenant church as his bride.  This is the story of the whole Bible, the coming of Christ, but when is this marriage consummated?  Keep in mind that during the time of Christ, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was betrothed to Joseph.  The marriage had not yet been consummated  when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  This was the reason Joseph was trying to quietly put Mary away since he knew he was not the father of this child.  Joseph wrongly suspected Mary of adultery (Matt 1:19).  At what point could this consummation take place?  Let us look at the different stages of Jesus’ life and ministry.  Jesus was born of virgin, raised as a poor carpenter, baptized by John the baptizer and given the approval of God the father, was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days, started his earthly ministry, called his apostles,  did many miraculous things and spoke the message of his Father. Jesus was then taken by wicked hands, his own people, beat and hanged on the tree. Jesus stated “it is finished” and gave up the ghost.  Jesus was in the grave like Jonah for three days and was raised by the Father, defeating sin, death and the grave.  Jesus walked among them for a short time and then ascended up into the clouds to sit at the right hand of the Father where he currently sits until he shall come again to take his bride home and present this church back to the Father (1 Cor 15:24).  Now, where in this sequence of events would you find the consummation of the bride and groom?   Paul states in 2 Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.    Jesus gives us the parable of the wise and foolish virgins in Matthew 25.  Paul and Jesus both seem to put the betrothed stage of this relationship as in the present.  We are to be pure and undefiled (virgin) until the time that Christ will take us home.  In the book of Revelation we have several scenes where Christ is taking his bride home hence the consummation.

Rev 19:7  Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

Rev 19:8  And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Rev 19:9  And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

 

Shortly after this marriage feast two things occur.  First, Christ comes as one on the back of a white horse.  Second,  we see those that are not the chosen being sent to an eternal fiery pit.  Jesus and Paul are describing the church as a chaste virgin remaining pure until the time of the second coming of Christ. John has revelation from God about this pure bride of Christ being dressed and ready to go also at the time of the second coming.  This consummation event of Daniel most likely is the second coming of Christ.

…and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. This phrase is similar to the last phrase of verse 26…and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. If we can continue the thought from verse 26 to verse 27 it can make sense in the King James translation.  The desolations that are unto the end of the war that are determined (verse 26), those determined (verse 27) shall be poured upon the ‘already’ desolate. Since there is a major span between the stopping of the sacrifice and oblation (death of Christ on the cross) and the second coming, this desolation is hard to pinpoint.  Because the warning would be of no use to those at the second coming of Christ, the warning would better serve the Jews during the time of Jesus.  These new Christians would see the destruction of their beloved city and Temple by the Romans.  A possible joining of this determined….poured upon the desolate at the second coming of Christ could be rectified by this being the final judgment and the casting out of the unfaithful (Rev 20:14).  It is not clear by this text.

Daniel was given a great vision while being visited by the angel Gabriel.  This vision would put hope in the hearts of God’s people.  They would eventually return to their beloved homeland.  This would lead the way for the promise given to Abraham, that through his seed all nations would be blessed.  They truly would be blessed with the wonderful gift of God, Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

 

 

Bibliography

Leupold, H. C.   Exposition of Daniel.  1949.  Reprint.  Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Book House, 1973.

 

Hailey, Homer.  A Commentary on Daniel, A Prophetic Message.  2001.  Las Vegas, Nevada:  Nevada Publications.

 

Turner, Rex A.  Daniel, A Prophet of God. 1993. Abilene, Texas:  Southern Christian University.

Wood, Leon.  A Commentary on Daniel. 1973.  Grand Rapids, Michigan:  The Zondervan Corporation

Daugherty, Emanuel B.  A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. 2006.  Bethlehem, West Virginia:  Emanuel B. Daugherty.

 

Thomas, Leslie G.  Studies in the Book of Daniel. 1987.  Abilene, Texas:  Quality Publications

 

Halley, Henry H.  Halley’s Bible Handbook, An Abbreviated Bible Commentary. 1927.  24th  Ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Zondervan Publishing House.  1965.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *