by
Ralph Woodrow
FUTURE OR FULFILLED ? (PART 2)
Having presented what we believe to be the true interpretation of
the 70th week prophecy, we will now examine the FUTURIST
interpretation. In order for the 70th week to be future, those
who hold this position insert a gigantic "gap" of about 2,000
years or so between the 69th and the 70th week. According to
this, the 70th week does not follow the 69th week in logical
order.
Those who believe that the 70th week is future teach that the
confirming of the covenant for one "week" refers to a covenant
the Antichrist will make with the Jews. According to this inter-
pretation, the Antichrist will make a seven year agreement in
which he will allow the Jews to offer sacrifices in a rebuilt
Jewish temple at Jerusalem. But then in the middle of the week,
he will break this covenant and cause sacrifices to cease.
But does the prophecy ever mention or refer to Antichrist?
According to the futurist interpretation, the Antichrist is
referred to in Daniel 9:27. Let us look again at the prophecy.
Verse 26: "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself: 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
unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
Verse 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:"
We notice that verse 27 begins with these words: "And he..."
To whom does the pronoun "he" refer? This is important. There is
not any way that "he" could refer to Antichrist, for the Anti-
Christ is nowhere mentioned in the context! The context does
mention a "prince" whose people would destroy the city and the
sanctuary. Since that destruction came in 70 A.D.as both sides
recognize - we see no reason to assume the "prince" is someone
who will live 2,000 years later.
But regardless of this, we know that the pronoun "he" is not to
be connected with the word "prince" in the expression "the people
of the prince", for the word "prince" is here the object of the
modifying clause "of the prince." A pronoun cannot properly
have as its antecedent the object of a modifying clause. This
point should be carefully noted.
From the very structure of the sentence we know that "he" cannot
be linked with the clause "the people of the prince that shall
come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Taking this into
consideration, there is only one person in the entire passage to
whom the pronoun "he" can be correctly connected and that is
MESSIAH! It is the Messiah who is the subject of the passage and
to whom "he" refers.
The essence of the passage, then, is this: "Messiah shall be cut
off... he shall confirm the covenant... he shall cause the
sacrifice and oblation to cease:" As we have seen, this was
fulfilled by Jesus Christ who confirmed the covenant and put an
end to sacrifices (in God's program) by himself becoming the
perfect sacrifice!
But let us suppose for a moment that "he" of verse 27 could be
connected to the word "prince" in the phrase "the people of the
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."
Would this in any way infer that this prince is an individual of
the future? Hardly; for it is well known that the people that
destroyed Jerusalem were the Roman armies under the direction of
Titus. Those who hold the futurist viewpoint, however, while
admitting that the "people" that destroyed Jerusalem were the
Roman armies in 70 A.D., must teach that the "prince" of those
people has not yet appeared! Thus they separate the "prince" from
his "people" by about 2,000 years.
Ironside, for example, says: "A prince is in view who is yet to
play a large part in prophecy. He, however, HAS NOT APPEARED YET,
but his people, that is, the Roman people, were used as a scourge
of God to punish Israel for their sins, and they destroyed
Jerusalem and the Temple:"
De Haan says: "The prince here mentioned is a prince who has NOT
YET APPEARED."
Kelly says: "That prince has NEVER YET COME ... His people came
and destroyed the city and the sanctuary; but he himself is not
come."
We have actually read dispensational books which quote the clause
"the prince that SHALL come", as though the use of the word
"shall" meant that the coming of this prince is still future! The
coming of the prince was future in Daniel's time, of course, but
so was the destruction of the city and sanctuary: "The people
of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary." How inconsistent to take a statement that was future
when written, and now - over 2,000 years later - assume that the
prophecy is yet future on the basis that the word "shall" appears
in it!
The passage does not say - as some imply - that the "people" were
to come at one time and their "prince" at a later time. The idea
is inconsistent on the surface. According to this awkward
interpretation, the "people" belonged to a prince who was not to
appear for about 2,000 years after the people themselves had
perished. How could the Roman armies of Titus possibly be
regarded as the people of a prince who has not even yet appeared?
How is it that the prince gets separated from his people by
2,000 years?
Assuming that "he" of Daniel 9:27 refers to the Antichrist, those
who hold the futurist interpretation teach that he will make a
covenant with the Jews - an agreement which will allow them to
offer sacrifices in a rebuilt Jewish temple. But as Guinness has
well said: "Few would suppose that the notion has really NO SOLID
GROUND AT ALL IN SCRIPTURE, but is derived from an erroneous
interpretation of one single clause of one single text!"
Nevertheless, dispensational writings repeatedly make statements
about Antichrist, about his supposed covenant, about restored
sacrifices in a Jewish temple at Jerusalem, and then quote as the
proof text Daniel 9:27; Daniel 9:27; Daniel 9:27; Daniel 9:27 -
over and over it is given as the reference for all kinds of
theories about the Antichrist and his supposed treaty with the
Jews! Take the following quotations for example:
"A treaty is proposed (Daniel 9:27)... the new Temple is set up,
and once more the Jewish people follow the statutes of the Old
Testament (Daniel 9:2;). But in the midst of the week, the
Antichrist proceeds at once to tear up the treaty, and to lay
plans to shed every drop of Jewish blood" (Orr, Antichrist,
Armageddon, the End of the World, pp. 22-24).
"Antichrist will guarantee the Jews seven years of peace (Daniel
9:27)" (Estep, Jacob's Trouble, p.26).
"He will make a treaty with the Jews, allowing them to... rebuild
their temple, and begin anew their Old Testament sacrifices
(Daniel 9:27)" (Rice, The Coming Kingdom of Christ, p.123).
"...Antichrist makes a covenant with the mass of apostate Jews.
Daniel 9:27. After three and a half years he breaks this
covenant... and sets up in the Holy of Holies of the renewed
temple, what is called... 'the abomination of desolation.' Daniel
9:27." (Boyd, ages and Dispensations, p.69).
"According to Daniel 9:27, Antichrist will be here for seven
years, for he makes a seven-year covenant with Israel, which will
be the last seven years of this age" (Dake's Annotated Reference
Bible, p.230).
The fact is, Daniel 9:27 says nothing about the Antichrist, says
nothing about a covenant between the Antichrist and the Jews,
says nothing about a future rebuilt temple or future sacrifices!
There are over 280 references to "covenant" in the scriptures and
NOT ONE of them in any way introduces the idea of a covenant
being made between the Jews and the Antichrist. Yet to hear some
tell it, we might suppose that this theory of Antichrist making a
seven year covenant with the Jews is as much a Biblical fact as
God's covenant with Israel at Sinai!
Dispensational writers constantly use the word "MAKE" when
speaking about this supposed covenant between the Antichrist and
the Jews. Notice the following quotations: "This covenant the
Roman prince will MAKE with the many" (Gaebelein). 'Daniel's
'prince that shall come'... MAKES a covenant with 'many'...
permitting the restoration of the temple service "(Scofield).
"... when God takes up Israel again... a Roman prince will arise
who will MAKE a covenant with the nation for seven years"
(Ironside).
"The Bible tells us that the Antichrist shall MAKE a covenant
with Israel." (Roberts).
"Antichrist will MAKE... a covenant with Israel." (Dake), etc.
This whole idea that Antichrist will MAKE a covenant with the
Jews is supposedly taught in Daniel 9:27. But where does Daniel
9:27 say anything about the Antichrist - or anyone else for that
matter! - "MAKING" a covenant? It is not there. The verse says
the covenant would be CONFIRMED, or (as some translate it), the
covenant would PREVAIL. Daniel 9:27 says nothing about a covenant
being made.
Nevertheless, once it is assumed that the Antichrist will MAKE a
covenant with the Jews, it is then taught that he will later
BREAK it. Dispensational writings time and time again talk about
how the Antichrist will MAKE and then BREAK his covenant? It
should be noticed, however, that neither term - MAKE or BREAK -
appears in the text!
Daniel 9:27 says: "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." Once a person has the idea
in mind that this verse is talking about Antichrist and that the
Antichrist will BREAK the covenant, then it is but another step
to assume something else that destroys the true meaning
altogether. Since sacrifices were to cease in the midst of the
week, it is assumed that the covenant has to do with animal
sacrifices in a rebuilt Jewish temple of the future! This is all
based on mere assumption.
The text says the covenant will be confirmed for a "week" - seven
years. Then mention is made of an event that will take place in
the MIDDLE of the seven years: sacrifice and oblation will cease.
THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO ASSUME THAT THE SECOND EVENT IS
THE UNDOING OF THE FIRST. To assume this actually makes the two
statements contradictory. If the covenant is about allowing
animal sacrifices and if such sacrifices cease in the middle of
the week, then it is evident that the covenant would NOT prevail
for seven years!
It is only after a person has the idea in mind that the covenant
will be broken - which the text does NOT say - that any one would
ever conclude that the covenant has to do with restored
sacrifices.
Briefly stated, the futurist position is that (1) Daniel 9:27
refers to the Antichrist, (2) the Antichrist will make a covenant
allowing the Jews to offer sacrifices, (3) he will break his
covenant, and (4) the prophecy of the 70th week is entirely
future.
The truth of the matter is: (1) Antichrist is nowhere mentioned
in the passage, (2) nothing is said to indicate that a covenant
will be made concerning restored sacrifices, (3) nothing is said
about a covenant being broken, and (4) the 70th week is not
future, but has been fulfilled!
The covenant was to prevail with Daniel's people for the "week" -
seven years - which it did through Christ. In the midst of the
"week", Christ caused the sacrifice to cease in the divine
program by himself becoming the perfect sacrifice for sins for
ever!
Those who believe that the 70th week is yet future, however,
argue that the covenant of Daniel 9:27 cannot refer to the
covenant of Christ, for his covenant is an "everlasting
covenant", where as this covenant is only seven years in length.
But Daniel 9:27 does not say that the covenant is seven years in
length! What it does say is that the covenant would be confirmed
or prevail with the many of Daniel's people for the "week", that
is, seven years. It is not a matter of how long the covenant
itself would last, but how long the covenant would be CONFIRMED
with Israel!
The covenant of Christ is truly an everlasting covenant and for
seven years it was confirmed with "the many" of Daniel's people -
for three and a half years by Messiah, in person; then for three
and a half years by his disciples.
Those who hold the futurist interpretation do not apply the
expression "to anoint the most Holy" (verse 24) to Jesus Christ.
They believe this refers to the anointing of a holy place - a
future rebuilt Jewish temple. It is generally pointed out that
the term here translated "most Holy" appears 44 times in the
original scriptures and is used exclusively of things and places,
not of persons. However, in at least two passages it is used in
reference to consecrated persons: Lev.27:28,29; 1 Chron.23:13 RV.
But as Hewitt has well said: "Even if 'most Holy' were never used
of persons as such, it is doubtful if the Messianic
interpretation would be seriously weakened. For Jesus called his
body the 'temple' of God." (Hewitt, The Seer of Babylon - studies
in the book of Daniel, p.258).
"Destroy this temple", Jesus said, "and in three days I will
raise it up... He spake of his body" (John 2:19, 21). We believe
it was this "temple" that was anointed to bring about the purpose
of God in the earth. The very title "Christ" means "the anointed
one." And since we have plain scriptural testimony that at the
time of his manifestation to Israel he was anointed with the
Spirit, we believe he is the one referred to as the "most Holy"
in this prophecy.
Could a future rebuilt temple be more holy than Jesus? Surely
Jesus is greater than any temple that could ever be built by men.
Jesus himself said, "But I say unto you, that in this place is
one greater than the temple" (Mt.12:6).
Some have pointed out that the anointing of the "most holy" could
have reference to the church, since the church - which is now the
temple of the Holy Spirit (Eph.2:20-22) - was anointed with the
Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). But whether we think of Christ
himself as being anointed with the Spirit at Jordan, or his
spiritual body being anointed at Pentecost, there is no conflict
of meaning. Since we have definite scriptural proof that Christ
was anointed and so was his church - both within the time limits
specified - either interpretation would not be out of harmony
with the prophecy. But under no circumstances do we see any basis
for jerking this phrase "to anoint the most Holy" out of its
setting and applying it to a supposed future Jewish temple.
The fact is, no future temple can be found in the prophecy of
Daniel 9. The prophecy that was given to Daniel spoke of the
temple being restored, which it was. The prophecy also stated
that the temple would be completely destroyed, which it was.
Nothing is said about any other temple whatsoever. Nevertheless,
those who hold the futurist interpretation must fit another
temple, a future temple, an unmentioned temple, into their
interpretation.
Just why God would "anoint" a temple in which carnal sacrifices
would be offered in direct conflict with what was accomplished at
Calvary cannot be satisfactorily explained by those who hold the
futurist interpretation.
All together there are six things in Daniel 9:24 that were to be
fulfilled in connection with the Seventieth Week: to finish
transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for
iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up
vision and prophecy, to anoint the most Holy. Those who hold the
futurist interpretation - that the 70th week is yet future and
that the anointing of the most holy refers to the anointing of a
future Jewish temple - tell us these six things have not been
fulfilled!
Dake, for example, says: "The six events of verse 24 have not
been fulfilled." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, p.877; etc.).
The futurist teaching is that these things will happen during the
70th week which they believe is yet future?
H.A.Ironside, a noted dispensational writer,says these things
were not fulfilled because Israel did not accept the Messiah and
so God postponed the 70th week until a future time! "Israel did
not recognize their Messiah. They do not know him yet as their
sinbearer. Their transgression has not been finished. They do not
know anything yet of atonement for iniquity. Everlasting
righteousness has not been brought in. Vision and prophecy have
not been sealed up. The most Holy has not been anointed by the
return of the Shekinah. What then?... Between the sixty-ninth and
the seventieth weeks we have a Great Parenthes which has now
lasted over nineteen hundred years. The seventieth week has been
postponed by God himself who changes the times and the seasons
because of the transgression of the people... The moment Messiah
died on the cross, the prophetic clock stopped. There has not
been a tick upon that clock for nineteen centuries: (Ironside,
The Great Parenthesis, p.23).
According to this reasoning, the Jews did not recognize the
Messiah, do not know him yet as their sinbearer, do not know
anything of atonement, and so the 70th week had to be postponed.
The fact is that "many" Israelites did accept Christ, did
recognize him as their atonement and sinbearer. But whether the
nation of Israel accepted him or not, does not change the fact
that at Calvary the atonement was made! Since Christ did make
atonement at Calvary - and since Christians believe that Calvary
was a complete work - in what possible sense can these things be
fulfilled in some future period of time?
We agree with the words of George Murray: "It is not without
sorrow of heart, therefore, that we listen to men, whose
sincerity we do not question, emphasizing... that an end is not
made of sin, that everlasting righteousness is yet to be brought
in, and going so far as to attribute to a wicked Antichrist that
which our glorious Lord has brought about by His sacrifice on the
cross, the abolition of the oblation and sacrifice" Murray,
Millennial studies, pp. 104-105).
Probably the most glaring discrepancy to the futurist
interpretation of the 70th week is the way it requires a huge
"gap" between the 69th and 70th week. With all due kindness to
those who have taught and believed this, we feel that such a gap
is unscriptural, unfounded, and contradictory. We wonder how some
can so positively point out that the 69 weeks which measured unto
Messiah followed each other in logical order - but then jump over
about 2,000 years and place the 70th week at the end of the age.
All of the other "weeks" followed each other in sequence as
continuous, consecutive weeks.. No "gaps" are allowed between
these.
Why then separate the 70th from the 69th week by a gap of 2,000
years? Since when doesn't 70 follow 69?
To teach that the prophecy could have such a "gap" is to teach
that we could also put gaps in other places and instead of the
prophecy counting unto Messiah - as it so wonderfully does! - it
could be applied to anyone, just depending on how many years we
might choose to put in a "gap"! Such methods would destroy the
very meaning and purpose for which this TIME - prophecy was
given.
The "gap theory" is like telling a man who is about to make a
journey of 70 miles that he will find the first 69 miles con-
secutive miles but as he completes the 69th mile, he will find a
sign telling him that the 70th or last mile is about 2,000 miles
down the road!
Or suppose two men are leaving Los Angeles to drive to Chicago.
The one man asks the driver: "How far is it to Chicago?"
"Seventy miles", the driver answers. But after they drive 69
miles, they are far from Chicago. They are still in California,
in fact!
"Didn't you tell me it was 70 miles from Los Angeles to Chicago?"
"Well, it is 70 miles from Los Angeles to Chicago", the driver
replies, "but there is a gap, a great parenthesis, of 2,000 miles
that I didn't tell you about. You see, the oedometer is set so
that it registers only the first 69 miles and then stops. When we
have driven another 2,000 miles and start the final mile into
Chicago, then it will start again and tick out the 70th mile!"
Or the gap theory has been likened to a man with a yardstick who
cut off the last inch and attached a piece of elastic between
the 35th and 36th inches. Then he could stretch the 36th inch out
as far as he wanted from the 35th inch. He could make it fit
about any length he wanted! But in so doing, he defeated the very
purpose for which the yardstick was intended! We believe the same
inconsistency is involved in the futurist practice of separating
the 70th week from the 69th week by a gap of 2,000 years or so.
There are three basic periods contained within the 70th week
prophecy. The first segment of seven "weeks" (49 years) was taken
up with the work of rebuilding Jerusalem; the next segment of
time, 62 "weeks" (434 years), was to reach unto Messiah; and the
final time period was one "week" (7 years). We have, then,
periods of 49 years, 434 years, and 7 years. Even the strongest
advocates of a "gap" between the 69th and 70th weeks do not
permit any gap between the 49 years and the 434 years. Kelly, for
example, states: "The first sixty-nine weeks ran without a break
... uninterrupted" (Kelly, Daniel's Seventy Weeks, pp. 17,20).
If no gap is allowed between the 49 years and the 434 years, why
should any be placed between the 434 years and the final 7 years?
The term "seventy weeks" is plural, but the Hebrew verb which is
translated "determined" is singular. The actual wording (though
it would be awkward to translate it this way into English) is
this: "Seventy weeks, IS [not are] determined/upon thy people and
upon thy holy city." BARNES says: "In regard to the construction
here - the singular verb with a plural noun... The true meaning
seems to be, that the seventy weeks are spoken of collectively as
denoting a period of time; that is: a period of seventy weeks is
determined. The prophecy, in the use of the singular verb, seems
to have contemplated the time, not as separate weeks, or as
particular portions, but as one period" (Barnes' notes on Daniel,
p.372). "The verb being in the singular number indicates the
unity or singleness of this entire period" (Lange Commentary,
Vol. on Daniel, p. 188). The fact that the 70 weeks were regarded
as a whole is surely evidence against the idea that a huge gap of
2,000 years was intended between the 69th and 70th week.
The seventy weeks prophecy was given to Daniel as something he
could "understand" (Dan.9:25). Daniel knew nothing of any gaps or
stopped clocks! The fact is that the 70th week followed the 69th
in logical order and the events of the 70th week have been
fulfilled perfectly and wonderfully!
The earliest record we have of anyone holding the belief that a
gap was intended between the 69th and 70th week is found in the
writings of Hippolytus. This was not until the third century.
Hippolytus is believed to be the first to advance this teaching!
However, the fact that Hippolytus held a gap theory can add
little weight to the present-day dispensational view, for his
interpretation was different in several ways. He thought that the
"weeks" measured from Cyrus to the birth of Christ. He figured
the gap would then extend until about 500 A.D., the date he set
for the Second Coming of Christ. His theory did not include the
now popular secret rapture idea, for he taught that the church
would suffer at the hands of the Antichrist. He believed the
Second Coming would bring about the destruction of Antichrist,
the resurrection of the dead, and the glorification of the saints
(Hippolytus was probably the first to fall into the error of
setting a date for the Second coming of Christ. The date 500 A.D.
was based on the 6,000 year principle and this in turn was based
on the erroneous Septuagint chronology which dated Christ's birth
as 5,500 years from the beginning) (Oh, indeed, history tells us
many silly and misguided people have tried to set dates for
Christ's return, usually based upon some fancy false
interpretation of a few verses or based upon very bad chronology
- Keith Hunt).
It was not until the rise of dispensationalism around 1830 and
since, however, that the present gap theory has been spread far
and wide - such being used in an attempt to support the secret
rapture theory. We have actually heard well meaning people argue
that there will have to be a "secret" rapture of the church seven
years before the end of the age, so Daniel's 70th week can be
fulfilled! The gap theory is often presented in such positive
tones that one might assume that it has all along been the
established view of Christians. This is not so.
Though often differing on DETAILS, especially in connection with
the chronology involved, the noted Christian leaders and
reformers through the centuries have taught that the 70 weeks
found complete fulfillment in connection with the first advent of
Christ. Africanus believed that the 70 weeks pertained to
Christ's first coming, "for in the saviour's time... are
transgressions abrogated, and sins brought to an end...
everlasting righteousness is preached." Methodius connected the
70th week with Christ's first advent. Polychronius spoke of
Christ confirming the covenant at the middle of the seventieth
week. Athanasius mentioned that the 70 weeks mark "both the
actual date, and the divine sojourn of the Saviour." He pointed
out that some might "be able to find excuses to put off what is
written to a future time. But what can they say to this... or can
they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ referred to,
but he... is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of
Holies..."
Eusebius placed the crucifixion in the midst of the 70th week and
speaks of the covenant as the gospel. Augustine believed the 70
week found fulfillment in Christ's first coming and did not
pertain to his second coming, for of that time no man knows the
day or hour.
Bede, in his The Explanation of the Apocalypse, the earliest
British exposition that is known, taught that the 70 weeks
pointed to Christ's first coming. John Wycliff said that "in the
last week of years our Jesus confirmed those things which he
promised the ancient fathers... when Christ preached and
suffered."
Heinrich Bullinger counted the 70 weeks as reaching unto the
death of Christ. Luther linked the 70th week with the death of
Christ and stated that during the 70th week the gospel was preach
ed with power. Melanchthon figured that Jesus was crucified in
the midst of the 70th week, three and a half years after his
baptism. Calvin implied that the crucifixion occurred in the
midst
of the 70th week, when the sacrifice and offering ended.
Ephraim Huit, writer of the first systematic exposition on Daniel
to appear in the American colonies, stated that "the last week
finishes the sacrifice of the Lord, and begins both the calling
of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews." Matthew Henry of
commentary fame regarded the 70 weeks as referring to Christ's
first coming, that during the final week the gospel was preached.
Adam Clarke wrote that "the whole of this prophecy ... has been
fulfilled to the very letter." Alexander Campbell summed it up
well in these words: "In the middle of the week he [Christ] was
to establish the New Institution... his ministry was three and a
half years, or the middle of one week; then he was cut off. And
in half a week, that is, three and a half years more Christianity
was sent to all nations. This completes the seventy weeks."
The fulfilled position has been the prevailing view of the Church
through the centuries.
Briefly now, let us notice how the two interpretations we have
discussed are in sharp contrast to each other. The futurist
position is that the 70th week is FUTURE; the fulfilled inter-
pretation is that these things are now HISTORY. The futurist
position is that ANTICHRIST will make a covenant with Israel; the
fulfilled position is that CHRIST has already confirmed the
covenant with Israel. The futurist position is that causing
sacrifices to cease will be the work of the DEVIL; the fulfilled
position is that the causing of sacrifices to cease refers to
Calvary and was the work of GOD. The futurist interpretation
requires a huge GAP; the fulfilled interpretation holds that the
weeks all followed each other in LOGICAL ORDER. The futurist
position has it that this prophecy includes a yet future RESTORED
TEMPLE; the fulfilled interpretation holds that the only temple
that was mentioned in the prophecy was one that was to be
DESTROYED.
...............
TO BE CONTINUED
Daniel 9, 70 week Prophecy #3A 2,000 year gap and an antichrist? by
Ralph Woodrow
MESSIAH THE PRINCE
We come now to a portion of the 70 weeks prophecy which has
sometimes been neglected or completely overlooked. Many editions
of the King James Version include the following marginal
rendering of Daniel 9:26: "... and [the Jews they shall be no
more his people, and the prince's [Messiah's] future people shall
destroy the city and the sanctuary." This rendering, including
the brackets, is given in the margin of Bibles published by such
well known companies as the following: Collins, Harper, Hertel,
Holman, National, Nelson, Oxford, Whitman, Winston, World,
Zondervan, etc. According to this, the people that were to
destroy Jerusalem and the temple would be MESSIAH'S PEOPLE!
This interpretation is not based on the margin only, however; it
can also be seen in the regular text. The prophecy spoke of the
coming of "Messiah THE PRINCE." The next sentence says: "And the
people of THE PRINCE that shall come shall destroy the city and
the sanctuary." Unless a person has a theory to uphold, none
would suppose that the prince in the one sentence is any
different than the prince in the next. The passage mentions
Messiah the prince and then talks about the people of the prince.
To believe that the prince in the first sentence is Jesus Christ,
and the prince in the next sentence is the Antichrist, is
certainly contrary to the normal use of language.
If we make a statement to the effect that a certain prince is
going to come, and then we make a statement about the people of
the prince that shall come, none would take it to mean that we
are talking about a good prince in the first instance and a
wicked prince in the second. We see no reason for doing so here.
The prince all the way through the passage is Messiah.
According to the margin, as well as the regular text, then, the
meaning is that it would be the people of Messiah the prince that
would destroy the city and the sanctuary!
Looking further in the prophecy, there is something else we
should notice in this connection. We have seen that "he" who was
to confirm the covenant and "he" who would cause sacrifice to
cease was Messiah. Then verse 27 goes on to say: "...he shall
make it desolate." To be consistent, if "he" in the first part of
verse 27 refers to Messiah, then so does it here. The subject is
the desolation of Jerusalem (city and temple) and this passage
indicates that Messiah would make it desolate.
But we all know and recognize that it was the armies of Titus
that destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. How, then, are we to
understand the statement that it would be the people of Messiah
the prince that would destroy the city and the sanctuary (verse
26)? And, believing Messiah to be the subject of the passage, in
what sense are we to understand that "he" would be the one that
would "make desolate", as we read in verse 27?
Since the prophecy spoke of Messiah bringing blessings upon
Daniel's people and city, some have not understood that he would
also be the one to bring judgment upon those that were
disobedient. But Messiah is both "saviour" and "judge" (Lk.2:11;
Acts 10:42). He is mentioned not only as a "Lamb", but also as a
"Lion"(Rev.5:5,6); a "servant" and yet "King of kings"(Is. 53:11;
1 Tim.6:15); a "man", and yet "the Lord from heaven"
(1 Cor.15:47); he is the true foundation stone, and yet a stone
of "stumbling" (1 Cor.3:11; 1 Peter 2:8). "And whosoever shall
fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall
fall, it will grind him to powder" (Mt.21:44).
Similar contrasts are seen in the Old Testament. If God's people
were obedient, they would be "blessed" by him; if not, he would
bring a "curse" upon them (Deut.28). He is a God not only of
"compassion", but of "anger" (Micah 7:19,20; Hosea 6:1). "He was
their SAVIOUR. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the
angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he
REDEEMED them;...But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit;
therefore he was turned to be their ENEMY, and he fought against
them" (Isaiah 63:8-10).
Now if the saviour and redeemer in the Old Testament was "turned"
and became the "enemy" of, and "fought against" that rebellious
people, it is not inconsistent to believe that the one who is
revealed as the saviour and redeemer of the New Testament could
also bring judgment upon those who rebelled against him and
rejected his Holy Spirit. There is no straining of argument here
at all. We are on solid Bible ground.
Since Christ will be the one that will judge the world in the
appointed day of Judgment (Acts 17:31), why should we suppose
that he who was given "all power in heaven and in earth" (Mt.28:
19) could not bring judgment upon a reprobate city in 70 A.D.?
Christians generally acknowledge that the judgment that fell upon
Jerusalem was the judgment of God, that is, divine judgment. But
many have not thought of this judgment as being the work of the
SON of God, the Messiah. However, according to John 5:22,26,27,
"The Father... hath committed all judgment unto the Son... As the
Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have
life in himself; And hath given him authority to EXECUTE JUDGMENT
also, because he is the Son of man."
It may sound strange for us to speak of the destruction of
Jerusalem as being accomplished by the Lord, when the actual
persons that did the work of destruction were the armies of
Titus. But there is no contradiction here whatsoever. With a
little patience, we can search the scriptures and find example
after example in which the Lord spoke of the overthrow and
destruction of various kingdoms as HIS WORK. He repeatedly said,
"I will do this.." and yet the context shows that the actual work
of destruction was accomplished by heathen armies who did not
have the faintest idea that it was the judgment of God they were
carrying out! We shall see that in this sense, God even spoke of
a heathen military leader as "my servant" and a heathen army as
"his army:' The evidence is complete and conclusive. Let us take,
for example, the Lord's judgment that fell upon EGYPT in the days
of Nebuchadrezzar:
"Thus saith the Lord... Behold, I will... take Nebuchadnezzar the
king of Babylon, *MY SERVANT*... And when he cometh, he shall
smite the land of Egypt... and *I WILL* kindle a fire in the
houses of the gods of Egypt... and the houses of the gods of the
Egyptians shall he burn with fire" (Jer.43:10-13). "*I WILL* also
make the multitude of Egypt cease." How? "By the hand of
Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him...
shall be brought to destroy the land... *I will* set fire in
Egypt... thus *WILL I* execute judgments in Egypt" (Ez.30:10-19).
"Behold, I am against Pharaoh king of Egypt... I will cause the
sword to fall out of his hand. And I will scatter the
Egyptians... I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon...
**I shall put my sword** into the hand of the king of Babylon"
(Ez.30:22-25). "I shall bring thy destruction.... For thus saith
the Lord God; The sword of the king of Babylon shall come upon
thee. By the **sword of the mighty will I cause** thy multitude
to fall... *I shall* make the land of Egypt desolate"
(Ez.32:9-15).
Here we read of things God said HE would do, yet the actual
instruments that carried out the divine will were heathen armies
under the direction of Nebuchadrezzar whom God refers to as "my
servant." We also read of judgments that God pronounced upon
other cities and countries - judgments that are described as the
work of God, yet it is evident that armies of men were the
instruments that did the actual work of destruction.
"Behold, *I will* bring upon Tyrus, Nebuchadrezzar king of
Babylon, a king of kings from the north, with horses and
chariots... He shall slay with the sword... he shall set engines
of war against thy walls" (Ez.26:7). "*I will* send a fire on the
wall of Tyrus, which shall devour the palaces thereof" (Amos
1:10).
"I will bring distress upon men...O Canaan, the land of the
Philistines, I will even destroy thee... Ye Ethiopians also, ye
shall be *slain by MY sword.* And he will ... destroy Assyria;
and will make Nineveh a desolation" (Zeph.1:17; 2:5-13). "The
burden of Nineveh... I am against thee, saith the Lord... and I
will burn her chariots ... I will cut off thy prey from the
earth... I will cast abominable filth upon thee... and it shall
come to pass, that all they that look upon thee shall... say,
Nineveh is laid waste" (Nahum 1:1,2; 2:13; 3:5-7).
"I will send a fire on the wall of Gaza, which shall devour the
palaces thereof: and I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod...
and I will turn my hand against Ekron ... I will send a fire upon
Teman... I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the
palaces of Kirioth... and I will cut off the judge from the midst
thereof, and will slay all the princes thereof" (Amos 1:7-15;
2:2,3). "I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it
shall consume the palaces of Benhadad" (Jer.49:27).
"I will make Samaria as an heap ...I will pour down the stones
thereof... and all the idols thereof will I lay desolate ...I
will cut off thy horses...I will destroy thy chariots: and I will
cut off the cities of thy land" (Micah 1:6,7; 5:10-14).
"Thus saith the Lord God; Behold I am against thee, O Zidon... I
will send into her pestilence... and the wounded shall be judged
in the midst of her by the sword upon her on every side"
(Ez.28:22).
Here, then, are numerous examples in which cities were overthrown
or destroyed by armies, yet God speaks of it as what **HE** would
do. Similar wording describes the destruction that came upon his
own people that were disobedient in Old Testament times.
"The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far" (Deut.
28:49). Who would do this? The Lord! "My soul shall abhor you",
God warned, "and I will make your cities waste, and bring the
land into desolation... I will scatter you among the heathen...
your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste"
(Lev.26:30-33).
Through the prophet Joel, God called the people to repentance. He
described the threat of an invading heathen army; a "great
people" who would conquer and destroy by fire; riding on horses
and with chariots; well-trained, not breaking their ranks;
heavily armoured, so that if they fell upon a sword, they would
not be wounded; and successful in their work of destruction (Joel
2:1-10). "And the Lord shall utter his voice before HIS ARMY" -
and with God directing this army - "who can abide?" (verse 11).
"Therefore", God warned, "turn ye even to me with all your heart
... Let the priests ... say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give
not thy heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over
them." If they would repent, then the Lord said: "I will remove
far off from you the northern army" (verses 12-20).
Here is an example of a "heathen" army that would come against
Judah and Jerusalem to carry out God's judgment against them.
Since these "people" would be carrying out God's judgment, they
are referred to as "his army." The same point is evident in the
following scriptures:
'Behold, I will bring evil upon this people... Behold, I will lay
stumbling blocks ... Behold, a people cometh from the north
country... they shall lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel,
and have no mercy... they ride upon horses, set in array as men
for war against thee, O daughter of Zion" (Jer.6:18-23). "Behold,
I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and
he shall burn it with fire. Behold, I will command, saith the
Lord... and they shall fight against it, and take it, and burn it
with fire: and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation"
(Jer.34:2,22). "I will send a fire upon Judah, and it shall
devour the palaces of Jerusalem" (Amos 2:5). "Judah hath
multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities,
and it shall devour the palaces thereof" (Hosea 8:14). "I will
set my face against them... fire shall devour them... and I will
make the land desolate" (Ez.15:7,8).
"After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah and the great
pride of Jerusalem ...I will dash them one against another...I
will not pity ... but destroy them... Judah shall be carried away
captive... This is thy lot, the portion of thy measures from me,
saith the Lord... Woe unto thee, O Jerusalem!" (Jer.13:9-27).
"Thus saith the Lord; If ye will not harken unto me... Then will
I make... this city a curse to all nations... desolate without an
inhabitant" (Jer.26:1-9). "Thus saith the Lord God; Woe to the
bloody city! I will even make the pile for the fire great... I
will profane my sanctuary" (Ez.24).
"Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?...
Therefore will I deliver up the city with all that is therein"
(Amos 2:5;6:8). "Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, am
against thee, and will execute judgments... and I will do in thee
that which I have not done, and where unto I will not do anymore
the like, because of thine abominations... I will bring the sword
upon thee" (Ez.5:8-17). "I will also stretch out mine hand upon
Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut
off the remnant of Baal... I will search Jerusalem ... and punish
the men that... say in their heart, the Lord will not do good,
neither will he do evil" (Zeph.1:4,12). "Behold, I will send...
Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, **my servant**... against
this land... and will utterly destroy... and these nations shall
serve the king of Babylon seventy years" (Jer.25:8-11).
Thus did the prophets warn the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem
in the Old Testament. What happened, of course, is now history.
Repentance did not come. "They mocked the messengers of God, and
despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of
the Lord arose against his people." And how was the wrath of the
Lord carried out? "He [God] brought upon them the king of the
Chaldees [Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon], who slew their young
men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no
compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped
for age: he [God] gave them all into his hand... and they burnt
the house of God, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt
all the palaces thereof with fire" (Jer. 52:12-14; 2 Chron.
36:14-19).
Concerning the desolate condition that resulted in those days.
God said: "My fury and mine anger was poured forth, and was
kindled in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem;
and they are wasted and desolate" (Jer.44:6). The evidence is
plain. The destruction that came upon Judah and Jerusalem was
carried out by the armies of the king of Babylon. Yet. because
these armies were actually carrying out the judgment of God, the
Lord spoke of these armies as HIS PEOPLE, their work as HIS WORK,
and their leader as HIS SERVANT!
We could say that the armies of Nebuchadnezzar destroyed
Jerusalem and Judah - and be correct - for this the scriptures
plainly say. On the other hand, we could say that God destroyed
Jerusalem and Judah - and be correct - for this the scriptures
also plainly say. Such was God's judgment; but heathen armies,
working as his instruments, did the actual work of destruction.
Now then, if such wording is understood in the destruction that
came to Jerusalem and that land in the Old Testament, why should
we suppose that the same wording would be out of place concerning
the same city and land in connection with the destruction that
came upon it in 70 A.D.?
We could say that the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
and be perfectly correct. But since such was the Lord's judgment
upon an unrepentant nation, we can also say that Jerusalem was -
in a very real sense - destroyed by the Lord, for the heathen
armies were but carrying out his judgment!
We understand, then, that the Roman armies were "the people of
the prince [Messiah, the Lord]that destroyed the city and the
sanctuary. They were not his people in the sense that they were
Christians, of course; but they were his people in the sense that
they carried out his judgment, even as Nebuchadnezzar's armies
had been his people in the destruction that came upon that land
and people in the Old Testament.
Messiah the Prince is the subject all the way through the passage
(Dan.9:24-27). Once we understand this, it no longer matters
whether the word "he" of verse 27 is connected with the word
"prince" in the phrase "the people of the prince" or with
"Messiah the prince", for both expressions refer to Messiah!
Looking again at the prophecy, we read: "And the people of the
prince [Messiah that shall come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary; and the end thereof [the destruction of the city and
the sanctuary] shall be with a flood" (Dan.9:26). The word
"flood" here is sheteph (number 7858 in Strong's Concordance) and
comes from the word shataph (number 7857 in Strong's
Concordance). The two terms are tied together in Daniel 11:22
which describes an enemy invasion in these words: "And with the
arms of a flood [sheteph] shall they be over-flown [shataph] from
before him, and shall be broken."
The word overflow (from which the word flood comes) is used in
the following other places in the book of Daniel: "... a
multitude of great forces... [shall] overflow, and pass through"
(11:10). "...his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down
slain" (11:26). "... he shall enter into the countries, and shall
overflow and pass over... many countries shall be overthrown"
(verse 40). All of the references to "overflowing" in Daniel
refer to the overflowing of enemy invasions. Such would be the
"flood" that would destroy Jerusalem.
It is not unusual for the Scriptures to use the word flood in
this way. In the midst of battle, David said, "The foods of
ungodly men made me afraid" (Ps.18:4; 2 Sam.22:5). "The enemy
shall come in like a f l o o d" (Isaiah 59:19). "Who is this that
cometh up as a f l o o d...? Egypt riseth up like a flood... and
he saith, I will go up, and will cover the earth; I will
destroy... Come up, ye horses; and rage ye chariots; and let the
mighty men come forth" (Jer.46:7-9).
An invading army is likened to "an overflowing f l o o d" in
Jeremiah 47:2,3. The destruction of Nineveh which was
accomplished by an invading army is described by the prophetic
term: "an overrunning f l o o d" (Nahum 1:1, 8).
According to Daniel's prophecy, the "end" that was to come upon
the city and temple of Jerusalem would also be "with a flood" -
the flood of an invading enemy army. And this is confirmed, of
course, by the actual fulfillment. As the Romans hammered away at
the massive gates and city walls, at various places breaches were
made and a rush of warriors from the far away Tiber flowed into
the city like an overwhelming flood - and finally brought about
its destruction.
The prophecy continues with these words: "And unto the end of the
war [against Jerusalem] desolations are determined" or as the
marginal rendering says: :It shall be cut off by desolations."
This work of destruction is further described in verse 27: "And
for the overspreading of abominations he [Messiah, the Lord]
shall make it desolate." According to Jesus' own interpretation
concerning these "abominations" that would make "desolate", we
know that this is a reference to Gentile armies (Mt.24; Lk.21).
Bearing this in mind, let us notice this verse again: "And for" -
on behalf of - "the overspreading of abominations [the invading
Gentile armies] he [Messiah, the Lord] shall make it desolate."
God would move "for" these heathen armies spreading around
Jerusalem to take it. Or as a marginal translation has it: "With
the abominable armies, he shall make it desolate." These armies
were but his instruments to carry out his judgment.
To what extent did the prophecy say these heathen armies would
cause desolation in Jerusalem? Would they merely destroy a small
portion of a wall, or maybe just a portion of the temple, or a
few houses? No, the prophecy continues by saying that the Lord
with abominable armies would "make it desolate, even until the
consummation " - the complete destruction (kalah, number 3617,
Strong's Concordance). In other words, these armies would begin
to tear down and destroy, bit by bit, section by section even
until the consummation, even until their work of destruction was
complete. Or as Jesus put it when commenting on this very
(1. Concerning the overthrow of Babylon, we read: "The sea is
come up upon Babylon: she is covered with the multitude of the
waves thereof. Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a
wilderness... when her waves do roar like great waters" (Jer.51:
42,43,55). Jesus, in reference to the destruction that was to
come upon Jerusalem, spoke of "the sea and waves roaring." That
is, "Distress of nations with perplexity" (Lk.21:25). Neither
Babylon or Jerusalem was destroyed by the literal sea or waves.
These expressions are figurative).
prophecy: "One stone shall not be left upon another that shall
not be thrown down!"
(Well this may be as Woodrow points out, but even he has missed
the important fact that a part of the Temple Wall was NOT CAST
DOWN! It remains to this very day. It is known as the "Wailing
Wall" - for this prophecy of the desolation of Jerusalem is YET
to be fulfilled again just before the Messiah comes in power and
glory, to establish His Kingdom on earth for a 1,000 years. see
my other studies in this section of Prophecy - Keith Hunt).
And the nine closing words of the prophecy again stress these
things for emphasis: "And that determined shall be poured upon
the desolate." The judgment was certain!
The Jewish nation had filled the cup of iniquity full. They had
rejected and killed the Messiah and persecuted those he sent unto
them. What Jesus said in the parable of the marriage feast
perfectly fits the divine judgment that fell upon Jerusalem. They
rejected the King's invitation and killed the messengers he sent
unto them. Consequently, "when the King heard thereof, he was
wroth: and he sent forth his armies and destroyed those
murderers, and burned up their city" (Mt. 22:7).
The prophecy of Daniel 9 said that 69 weeks would measure unto
Messiah, which they did. After this, he was cut off in the midst
of the remaining week - the 70th week - becoming the perfect and
final sacrifice in God's plan. Through his redemptive work, he
made an end of sins, made reconciliation for iniquity, and
brought in everlasting righteousness through the gospel.
The grand theme of the prophecy is Jesus Christ! Its great
fulfillment shines forth from Calvary with glory and power! Its
timing is perfect. Its words harmonious. Its message satisfies
the soul. To cast all of this aside and attempt to apply much of
the prophecy to a time yet future and to the Antichrist (instead
of Christ and his redemptive work at Calvary) is, we feel, a
serious error. We appeal to all brethren who have taught or
believed this to reconsider this interpretation in the light of
the scriptures.
..............
Entered on Keith Hunt's Website August 2003
Now, you need to study Woodrow's in-depth explanation of the much
misunderstood prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2 and the "man of sin."
He has to my mind the best OVERALL explanation (actually as he
shows, an old explanation form the past by many "scholars" and
Bible commentators). There will be a final fulfilment of 2 Thes.
2 but the most part is already history - Keith Hunt)
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment