As I studied for this lesson in Daniel 9:24-27 I was surprised at how many different interpretations there are on the internet. It would be safe to guess that there are at least 70 different explanations of the prophesy and perhaps even 490. Get my drift?
This little guide will help you to differentiate between the patently bogus and the ones that are worthy of examination. It is simply where the author places the cross. Most of the ideas are a chart of graph and they place the cross on the time line of history. If the cross is anywhere besides at the end of the 69th week, it is wrong. Follow this now. (V. 25)
“...from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;”
This gives us the time frame” 69 weeks until Messiah the Prince. Then what? (V. 26)
“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing,”
That is where the cross goes. Period. No question. Some of the false interpreters place the cross at the three and one half year point, others at the end of the 70th week. Read the verse again. Do not even waste time looking at these frauds.
Some others rightly place the cross at the end of 69, but then claim that the count down clock continues right on. Look back at the verse.
Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
After the cutting off of Messiah we find the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This happened in AD 70, which immediately and definitively rules out a contiguous 70th week. It has to wait until after the destruction is complete.
My interpretation is based on a literal reading of the entire prophetic statement. Those who choose a different analysis must use a literal sense in the first part, about rebuilding the City of Jerusalem and its environs (plaza and moat). But then switch to a figurative interpretation of the final portion after the cutting off of Messiah.
Prophesy does sometimes layer two meanings onto a single statement. For instance Isaiah’s famous “a virgin shall conceive.” (Isaiah 7:14) That had an immediate fulfillment when Isaiah’s wife had a baby and the King of Syria and the King of Israel were deposed from their kingdoms. (V. 16) But then the prophesy telescoped into the future to a different Son, Immanuel. But they were both literal events. (The second is only partially complete, because the Messiah got cut off. And that brings us back to the present story.)
After the City is destroyed, by “the people of the prince who is to come,” we find the next initiator. (V. 27)
And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week....
The next step to restarting the clock will occur after the City is destroyed, and it will be a seven year “covenant” or treaty. The who of the “he” is also misinterpreted. The antecedent of “he” is the prince who is to come. And he is identified as the guy whose armies destroyed Jerusalem. This cannot be the Messiah. It is unthinkable that Jesus would destroy the City. He did predict it. (Matthew 23:37, 38; Luke 21:20-24) But He would in no way be involved with its destruction.
If we place the cross where Gabriel said it would be, and correctly identify the prince, again as Gabriel described him, we are on the way to a correct interpretation of the prophesy.
That will save a lot of wasted time evaluating corrupt interpretations.
No comments:
Post a Comment