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 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:
|
Ruler |
Reigned |
Comments |
|
626 – 605 BC |
Took control of Babylonia from Sinsharishkun of Assyria, ejected Assyrian armies from Babylonia in 616 BC. Entered into alliance with Cyaxares and destroyed Assyrian empire. |
|
|
605 – 562 BC |
Chaldean king. Defeated the Egyptians and Assyrians at Carchemish. Is associated with Daniel in the Bible. |
|
|
Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) |
562 – 560 BC |
Released Jeconiah after 37 years in captivity. |
|
Nergal-shar-usur (Nergal-sharezer/Neriglissar) |
560 – 556 BC |
Son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar II. Murdered Amel-Marduk. |
|
556 BC |
Son of Neriglissar. Murdered after being deemed unfit to rule. |
|
|
556 – 539 BC |
Last Mesopotamian king of Babylon, originated in Harran in Assyria. Was not a Chaldean, often left rule to his son Belshazzar in a co-regency arrangement. |
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:
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.
