Daniel 9:26—A Dead Messiah

pay-3456736_640

“Seventy weeks [of years][1] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks, and [in] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times. And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation. And he will strengthen a covenant for the princes for one week, and half the week he will abolish sacrifice and meal-offering, and on high, among abominations, will be the appalling thing, and until destruction and extermination befall the appalling thing.”

Claim: The Messiah is projected by the Prophet to come before the Second Temple’s destruction. Who could this Messiah have been if not for Jesus?! Moreover, the Prophet describes that the Messiah “will be cut off (referring to his life being taken) and will not have (referring to the lack of children)”—both appropriate for the description of Jesus.

Response: Before beginning our response, it is important to note that most Christian Bibles play around with the translation in this chapter, particularly verse 26, to smoothen it to fit with Jesus. Therefore, when doing a proper research on this chapter pay heed to learn it from the Hebrew or from a very literal translation.

The complicating chronology presented in this perplexing chapter clash with the chronology of Jesus as is recorded in the New Testament. The missionaries who are acquainted with frequently quoting this alleged proof-text apparently didn’t even bother taking a calculator to see if the numbers work out for Jesus. And the fact is that it doesn’t work. This is whether the secular or rabbinic chronology are used.[2]  They’ve been so focused on proving from these verses that the Messiah must come before the destruction of the Second Temple that they’ve forgotten to do this basic calculation. Jesus was killed too early for the verse to be referring to him.

A far more suitable explanation of the chapter is that of the rabbis who use the rabbinic chronology of Jewish history.[3]

A similar issue is that verse 26 informs us that the Messiah’s death would take place at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, a criterion which Jesus lacked (having been killed 40 years before the destruction).[i]

It would seem that these few verses, like so many others in the Book of Daniel, are a mystery of a prophecy that we cannot put together how they were fulfilled. While the rabbinic view is the most fitting, especially chronologically, it still does encounter a few minor problems. If we are to take the very literal understanding of the verse, it would remain a mystery of how it was fulfilled. If we are to understand the prophecy as it sounds, without looking how it could have gotten fulfilled in history, we arrive to the following conclusions:

At the time of the building of the Second Temple, there would be a/the Messiah. This very same Messiah—as it so seems from first glance at the verse—would still be around more than 400 years later (62 “sevens”) and would then die. Immediately following this, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple would take place. We are not aware of any public figure who had these qualifications. But one thing is certain: it is not Jesus!

Jesus wasn’t born 420 years (67 “sevens”) before the destruction of the Temple (i.e. at the time of the building of the Temple). Neither did he die after 62 “sevens,” at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. So, even if the rabbinic understanding of the verse would be rejected by first glance understandings, that doesn’t follow that Jesus would qualify to be that Messiah. And even more than that, it doesn’t even allow him to be a candidate. The prophecy of Daniel 9 remains a mystery, and the Christian “solutions,” to be frank, don’t help at all.

I once read in popular missionary literature[ii] that while indeed chronologically it doesn’t fit “so well” with Jesus—no one else fits the description better than does Jesus. Hence, even though it’s not as smooth as it should be, he still fits the criteria better than any other interpretation of the “Messiah” in Daniel 9. The flaws of this argument are quite obvious. First, the argument attempts to undermine the importance of the Messiah fitting the chronology—something which in reality is so fundamental to pin-pointing the proper character of Daniel 9.

Secondly, he says something along the lines: “well, who else fits the description?!” The response is simple: “we don’t know!” This wouldn’t be the only prophecy or statement in the Bible that we couldn’t lay our minds on. If one is challenged with a maze, to start from a starting point and end by the finish-line, makes it through quite deeply but then bumps into a dead-end—he failed that try. He didn’t finish the maze. Prophecy is %100 accurate and if Jesus didn’t fulfill it %100—then he is disqualified. We are looking for a different candidate, and until then we do not say “it is Jesus” but rather “we don’t know.”

 

Calculating the chronology

So now let us see if the chronology does or does not fit with Jesus. Among the attempted chronological calculations in explaining Daniel 9 in light of Jesus, two prevailed to dominate Christian literature in our times. When unmasked, though, these chronological calculations are nothing more than a desperate attempt.

Here’s what needs to get clarified. There is a 70-week period beginning “from the issuance of the word to rebuild and restore Jerusalem.” When this occurred is up for discussion and we will get into it shortly. Next, Daniel splits these 70 weeks into three categories 7, 62 and 1. Apparently, the Christian interpretations ignore this that the 7 and 62 are separated in the verse. We will discuss more on this later. The last week as well is split into two, providing us with 3 1/2 years each (because each week is 7 years as mentioned earlier). The missionaries run into some issues with that last week as well.

 

There are 4 options of when the “word to rebuild Jerusalem” was:

(1) The decree in the first year of Cyrus mentioned in 2 Chronicles 22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4, 6:3-5. [This would be in 539 or 537 B.C.E. according to secular chronology.]

(2) The decree in the second year of Darius I mentioned in Ezra 5:3-17. [This would be around 519/518 B.C.E.]

(3) The decree in the eighth year of Artaxerxes to Ezra mentioned in Ezra 7:11-26. [This would be 457 B.C.E.]

(4) The decree in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah mentioned in Nehemiah 2:1-8. [This would be 445/444 B.C.E.]

 

Note that both Christian interpretations use the secular chronology in contrast to the rabbinic (which includes the missing 166 years).

 

Here are their interpretations:

(1) The 70 “weeks” period begins with option 4. However, calculating normally wouldn’t reach the year of Jesus’ crucifixion. So, they came up with something very original! Let’s not use solar years, and not even lunar years but rather “prophetic years.” I’m sure everyone is aware of prophetic years. Really?! You never heard of it?! Don’t worry… no one ever heard of it until this Christological interpretation was thought up. While a normal year, based off the sun (solar) is 365 days and a moon year (lunar—consisting of 12 months) is 354, a prophetic year would be 360 days. If we are to use these prophetic years, then calculating from option 4 down till Jesus’ crucifixion (around the year 33) would in fact be 69 weeks. It is after 69 weeks that the verse says the Messiah will be cut off. The last week are events that were yet to happen. They will happen at the End of Days.

 

But this solution to the Daniel 9 dilemma is nothing but a failure. Here are its issues:

(A) It combines the 62 and 7 weeks to form their needed 69 weeks from option 4 until the crucifixion. Yet, the verse for some reason found a reason to split this 69-week period into two. One of 7 weeks and the other to 62. Here’s the verse:

“From the issuance of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the [time of the] anointed leader is seven weeks and sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress.” The Jewish interpretation rightfully puts a coma after the words “seven weeks,” as the next “62 weeks” following are going on the era of when Jerusalem is “rebuilt, square and moat, but in a time of distress.”

Nothing happened in the year splitting 7 and 62 if we use this Christological calendar. This is problematic for this interpretation. It therefore refuses to separate those weeks and will rather combine it to form 69 weeks. So it’s as if the verse is telling us “7+62 weeks” in order to tell us the 69 number.

An obvious flaw to this assertion is that not a single language in the world will use the numbers 7 and 62 to convey to us its result number of 69. It would tell us straight out: 69. Hebrew is no exception. You see, number systems cannot have an official name for each number. There are simply too many numbers. A practical solution would be to split the numbers into groups of ten. So if one wants to say 69, they will use 60, which narrows down the number to a set of ten, and they will then proceed to identify within this sixth group of ten: the number 9. Hence “sixty-nine.” So, although we do use two numbers to calculate the final number (60 and then 9), it is only within the ten-digit number system. Never will the number 69 be calculated with 7 and 62. The only way it will is if there’s something (like an event) that actually happened after 7 and then after 62.

The next issue with combining the numbers is from the very next verse. The verse begins “and after the 62 weeks…” proving that this 62 number is significant and was not written just to be combined with the number preceding it. There was an actual significant occurrence after these 62 weeks, an occurrence this interpretation fails to provide.

Now, even if it we would imagine something to have happened at the end of 7 weeks at the start of the 62-week period, that wouldn’t settle the case. For, looking at verse 25 we realize that we must split it into two. The event separating the 7 and the 62 isn’t some mysterious event but one recorded in the actual verse. It says that after 7 weeks the/a appointed messiah will appear. The next 62 weeks is that of the restoration of Jerusalem. Hence, this messiah couldn’t have been Jesus being centuries too early. If this messiah isn’t the ultimate redeemer of Israel, then who is to say that the messiah in verse 26, who is centuries after the previous messiah, is the redeemer of Israel. Having cancelled out that this chapter must be messianic, the missionaries lose most their claim.

(B) What are “Prophetic years”?! Prophetic years are just as ridiculous as using “Disney years”! The solar year is one used by most the world, and its measurement is the time it takes the sun to circle the earth. The lunar year is used by some nations and its measurement is 12 cycles of the moon orbiting the earth (months). But prophetic years is a calendar system not used by any nation in the world and its number of 360 resembles nothing (all it resembles is a rounded-up month of 30 days x 12 months. But this is mistaken because the month is actually 29.5 days and therefore 12 of them ends up being 354 days—not 360). There is therefore no reason to use this fabricated year-length and in fact unsurprisingly the Bible never uses such a calendar.[4] So why should this verse be any different?!

(C) While they might have slipped through 69 weeks through inventing the prophetic year and combining the 69 weeks, they cannot avoid the last week. Some major events are described in verse 27 to happen in the last week. These events cannot be explained by this interpretation. They therefore postpone this week for at least 2,000 years until the End of Days that has yet to happen. The issue is that the chapter is summing-up a period of 70 weeks; if we are to add 2,000 years, then our 70-week deadline will be way overdue (by more than 250 weeks). This gap is not mentioned and doesn’t fit within the 70-week timeframe. Some suggest that a 2,000-year gap is not required, and the last week is completed with the destruction of the Second Temple. But this doesn’t spare the issue as this would make a 40-year gap (more than 5 weeks), from the time of Jesus’ passing until the destruction of the Temple. This gap is something the 70-week period (of verse 24) does not allow for.

Similarly, a sober rendering of verse 26 indicates that the destruction of the Temple will immediately proceed the death of this messiah.

 

Having wrecked attempted interpretation #1, we’ll now move on to attempt #2.

(2) The second interpretation was smart enough not to use this ridiculous prophetic year concept. It uses its starting point of the 70 years from option 3. 483 years later, or 69 weeks, lands at the year 27 A.C.E. That was when Jesus’ ministry is said to have started. This completes the 69 weeks. 3+ years later he is crucified, and another 3+ years Stephan is killed or Paul converts, completing the last of the 70 weeks.

 

Naturally, this fake interpretation bares many flaws. Here we go:

(A) This interpretation possesses the same issue as the first. It combines the 62 and 7 weeks to form their needed 69 weeks from option 3 until the crucifixion. But this is problematic as explained in issue A of the previous interpretation.

(B) There are issues with the last week. How do the words “cut off” resemble the beginning of Jesus’ ministry if he dies only 3+ years later? Additionally, there’s not even the slightest hint in the verse that the last week ends with the killing of Stephan or the conversion of Paul. Moreover, it is important to note that the dating of Stephan’s death and Paul’s conversion are themselves speculative.

(C) Verse 26 suggests that the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem is to immediately proceed the death of the messiah. This was not the case with Jesus, with the Temple having been destroyed some 40 years after his death.

What is even more startling is this that many Christian missionaries not only apply their impossible interpretations, but they even try using it as a “proof” for Jesus!

___________________

 

[1] We will quote the verse as using the term “weeks” although in reality a more literal translation would be “sevens.” From the context it is quite clear that the “sevens” are those of years. “Weeks” in Hebrew would be Shavuot, not shiviim as is written in our chapter.

[2] We are referring to the dispute between modern secular historians and the ancient rabbis regarding Persian chronology, thereby affecting the Jewish chronology of the Second Temple.

[3] Here is an overview of some of the rabbinic explanations. We do not get too detailed in defending it, for that is not the purpose of this subject. The point of this subject is just to refute the alleged Christian proof-text.

The prophecies described in verse 24 have two possibilities in the rabbinic understanding. (1) After the seventy “sevens”/weeks, the process that will achieve these prophecies will begin. This process is the long exile which is intended to cleanse us from our sins. (2) The period of the Second Temple was a sort of “test” or opportunity to avoid the long exile and go so straight to the Redemption era where there’s no sin and evil. But we failed this Second Temple test, and as a result were sent into exile. Hence, verse 24 is telling us the point and goal of the next seventy “sevens”/weeks. Unfortunately, that point wasn’t achieved then. Also logically, that would be the only reason of why there would be a Second Temple in between the two exiles, which seemingly should have been one long and fulfilling exile (that would go straight into the prophesied Redemption).

The “Messiah-Prince” of verse 25 is referring to Cyrus the king of Persia who is called “My anointed one” (Messiah or mashiach in Heb.) in Isaiah 45:1, for being somewhat the redeemer of Israel from the Babylonian exile. [It is clearly not the Messiah of verse 26 which is more than 400 years later.] The Messiah of verse 26 seems to be referring to King Agrippa, the last king of Israel, which was indeed killed at the appropriate mentioned time. As seen earlier, Messiah doesn’t have to particularly refer to the ultimate Messiah. [For example, King Saul and David are also called “My anointed one” (Messiah).] “And not to him” (v’ein lo in Heb.) does not mean that he will be childless, rather that he will exist no longer (his existence is no longer).

Alternatively, it is referring to the Jews at the time who will be kingless—without a king. Alternatively, it translates as “and he doesn’t have a successor,” because after king Agrippa that were no more kings in Israel.

Alternatively, the “anointed one” in verse 26 is referring to the last High Priest (the High Priests were traditionally called “anointed” (e.g. Leviticus 4:3) for they were anointed with oil). His position as mashiach and position as a representative of a continuous chain of High Priests will seize to exist (as a result of the destruction of the Second Temple). Thus, mashiach shall no longer exist (yikaret in Heb.). The High Priests were significant because they were a pivotal aspect of the repentance and forgiveness process (Numbers 8:19), a theme that is stressed in Daniel Ch. 9.

See Abarbanel’s Mayanei Hayeshua 10:7 which defends the rabbinic interpretation of this prophecy, and Ibid 10:8 which refutes other attempted interpretations.

[4] Some point to the Great Flood which as the verse states was exactly six months from day to day (Genesis 7:11 and 8:4). Yet, the flood was 150 days (Genesis 7:24); which would be exactly 30 days per month. But this comparison is erroneous for the number 150 days was rounded up—not an exact number. There are many places in the Torah where numbers are clearly rounded up.

[i] http://www.bibleresearch.org/articles/a11pws.htm

[ii] Answering Jewish objection to Jesus Vol. 3. by Dr. Michael Brown, page 90-98.

Footnotes
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

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