"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah 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. 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."
All agree that the reference to the Messiah being "cut off" was fulfilled when the Lord Jesus Christ died upon the cross of Calvary. All also agree that "the prince that shall come," who shall "destroy the city and the sanctuary," was fulfilled when the Roman prince Titus destroyed both city and temple in A.D. 70. The disagreement comes in identifying the "he" in the prophetic words "he shall confirm the covenant with many." The traditional interpretation identified the "he" with Christ, but those espousing the gap or postponement theory identify the "he" with Antichrist.
Of course, which view one takes will effect how one interprets the work of what this "he" will do and what it means for him to "confirm the covenant with many for one week."
Those who espouse the traditional view affirm that Christ, being the "he," fulfilled this prophecy when he died upon the cross and they cite such passages as these from the new testament.
"For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26: 28)
"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." (Rom. 15: 8)
Paul in Hebrews speaks much of the new covenant in Jesus blood, speaking of "the blood of the covenant" that sanctifies (Heb. 10: 29) and connecting that with the death of Christ.
"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (13: 20).
"The covenant" is the covenant containing the promises of God concerning man's redemption and deliverance, revealed in the long ago to the prophets.
Wrote Mauro:
"Therefore, all the facts and reasons we have given in proof that verse 27 speaks of Christ, and all the facts and reasons given to show that the prince that is to come of verse 26 was Titus, avail equally to prove that the 70th week joined directly to the 69th. And conversely, all the facts and reasons we are now about to set forth in proof that the 70th week was indeed one of the "seventy," and not a detached and remote period, avail equally to prove that verse 27 refers to Christ."
That is my view exactly.
Wrote Mauro:
"We have thus far appealed only to the plain and obvious meaning of the words "seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression," etc. But there is much more in this prophecy to bind the last week of the Seventy firmly to the other sixty-nine. The 69 weeks brought us "unto the Messiah," but not to His death, by which Israel "finished the transgression.""
Agreed. So, when was Messiah "cut off"? In what week?
Wrote Mauro:
"In order that there should be not the slightest uncertainty as to this, the prophecy says, "And after the three-score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off." Thus the 69 weeks are nothing, except years which must elapse -- a blank space of time,- whereas the 70th week is everything to the purpose of fulfilling the six predictions of verse 24. If then, we know when the Messiah was cut off, we know when the six things of verse 24 were accomplished. And we do know, both by the words of the prophecy, and also by the information given in the Gospel according to John, that Christ was crucified within the "week" (seven years) following His anointing and manifestation to Israel."
Exactly! If the seventieth week is postponed, then Messiah has not been cut off and the six things of verse 24 have not yet occurred.
Wrote Mauro:
"We know, in other words, that he was "cut off" in the seventieth week counting in the ordinary way from the given starting point. And this would be true regardless of what decree be taken as that starting point. This double witness, that of the prophecy itself and that of the Gospel-records, puts the matter beyond all doubt. By means thereof we know to a certainty that none of the six great things foretold in verse 24 happened within the sixty- nine weeks, but that each and all of them came to pass within the week which came next thereafter, that is to say in the seventieth consecutive week from the starting point. Nothing could be better established upon clear scriptural evidence than this."
But this is what is denied by those interpreters of the gap theory. They do not believe that Christ died in the 70th week, nor in any other of the weeks. They teach that Christ died in the gap between the 69th and 70th week.
Wrote Mauro:
"This matter, however, is important enough to warrant our dwelling a while longer upon it. In view of the facts stated above no one will or can deny that the crucifixion occurred in the 70th week from the starting point of the prophecy. The proof of this is absolute."
I agree.
"Cut off" occurs "after" the 69 weeks have ended. Those who teach the gap theory have no qualms about affirming that the sacrificial death of Christ, his resurrection, his ascension, etc., all occurred outside of any the weeks, occurring in the time of the gap. But, I have all kinds of qualms with this idea and I am befuddled as to why those who believe and promote it do not see the negative consequences of affirming such.
If the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ occurred after the 69th week, but not in the 70th, but in the gap between them, then the key event of the prophecy (the crucifixion) is outside the scope of the prophecy. Imagine affirming such a notion! The Messiah's being "cut off" occurs outside of the determined weeks! One of the six things Christ was to do when he comes, according to the prophecy, was to "make reconciliation for iniquity." He did that when he died upon the cross as a sacrifice for sin.
For myself his being cut off "after" the 69th week ended means that he was cut off in the 70th week. That is just the plain reading of the text.
There is nothing in Daniel 9: 24-27 about Antichrist, about a peace treaty with Israel regarding building the temple and offering sacrifices, nothing about his breaking such a treaty, nothing about a third temple.
Spurgeon on Daniels seventy weeks (here):
"The first advent of our Lord is spoken of in our text as ordained to be before the seventy weeks were finished, and the city should be destroyed. And so it was, even as the prophet had spoken. I shall not occupy your time by attempting to fix the beginning and the end of the period intended by the seventy weeks, and the seven weeks and three-score and two weeks. That is a deep study, requiring much research and learning, and I conceive that the discussion of such a subject would be of no great practical use to us this Sabbath morning. You will be better nourished upon the Lord Himself than upon times and seasons. Suffice it to believe that Jesus Christ our Lord, the Messiah, came exactly as it was prophesied, and remained on earth as it was foretold He should do. In the middle of the predestined week He was cut off, when He had completed three and a half years of saving ministry, and within another period of like length the gospel was preached throughout all nations, and Messiah’s peculiar relation to Israel was cut off. At another time it may afford you profitable contemplation if you consider the four hundred and ninety years from the decree of the king for rebuilding to the overthrow of Jerusalem." (SHUTTING, SEALING AND COVERING—OR, MESSIAH’S GLORIOUS WORK. NO. 1681)
I find the fact that Christ's public ministry lasted one half a week, or 3 1/2 years. That is half of Daniel's 70th week. The view that the crucifixion occurs midway through the 70th week of Daniel is the historic and predominant view.
In the next posting I will conclude my remarks on the 70th weeks prophecy.
No comments:
Post a Comment