-10-
Is Cyrus the Messiah of Daniel
9:24-27?
(Considering Anti-Missionary
Objections)
The Anti-missionary response to
our position is multifaceted. They claim that Christian translators:
...disregard the Hebrew
punctuation. The punctuation mark atnah functions as the main pause
within a sentence. The atnah is the approximate equivalent to the
semicolon in the modern system of punctuation. It has the effect of separating
the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks: '...until an anointed one, a prince,
shall be seven weeks; then for1 sixty-two weeks it shall be built
again'...The king James Version omits2 the definite article in Daniel
9:26, which should read: 'and after the threescore and two-weeks...' By treating
the sixty-two weeks as a distinct period, this verse, in the original Hebrew,
shows that the sixty-two weeks mentioned in verse 25 are correctly separated
from the seven weeks by the atnah. Hence, two anointed ones are spoken of
in this chapter, one of whom comes after seven weeks [Cyrus the ruler of Medo-Persia
according to the anti-missionary] and the other after a further period of
sixty-two weeks. (Sigal, pp. 110-11).
Sigal cannot resort to arguments
based on punctuation since the original Hebrew did not have punctuation marks.
Note the following quotation from a Jewish Encyclopedia: “It has therefore been assumed that Hebrew nikkud
[punctuation] having originated in the sixth and seventh centuries, was
incorporated into the text of the Bible by the middle of the eight centuries as
an indispensable aid to its study. 3
The Masoretes are the ones who
accented the Masoretic text that underlies today's English translation of the
Hebrew Scriptures. To this Sigal objects that there is: "...no proof that
the Masoretes corrupted the text. Quite the contrary, the Masoretic text is the
result of carefully handed down traditions. Only the written forms of the vowel
signs and accent marks were devised sometime during the seventh or eight
centuries C.E., but the oral tradition which these signs and marks represent
goes back millennia" (Sigal, p. 115).
The "oral tradition" of
the Jews is unscriptural (see Appendix D) and therefore wholly subjective. And
this is one instance where I would side with the Babylonian Geonim (heads of the
Babylonian academies at Sura and Pumbeditha) who rightly said: "The
punctuation was not given at Sinai, but was introduced by the scholars as an
external aid for the reading of the Bible. The prohibition against adding
anything to the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:1) would be transgressed by adding the
punctuation to the Sefer Torah."4
Punctuation being accepted as
inspired for any book violates Deuteronomy 13:1. We cannot rest our whole case
on uninspired punctuation of any scholar whether Jewish or Christian. Only the
context and related passages of Scripture can determine what constitutes proper
punctuation. When these are considered, the punctuation of the Christian
scholars is vindicated for the following reasons. First, "Mashiyach Nagid"
did not come 49 years ("seven weeks") after the command to restore and
rebuild the temple. (I prove this later on.) Since this is the case, "Mashiyach
Nagid" must appear, and be "cut off" after the "seven weeks
and sixty-two weeks." This would mean that there are not two Messiah's in
view, but one, precisely as Daniel recorded it (9:26).
The Alleged Second Messiah
Second, if there are two "Mashiyachs"
referred to in the text as Sigal suggests---one who comes after 49 years (seven
weeks) and another who comes after 434 years (62 weeks), then who was this
second "Mashiyach"? When did he appear? When was he "cut
off" (Dan. 9:26)? The absence of a plausible answer to these questions
proves fatal to the anti-missionary argument on punctuation. If we move forward
434 years from the time the anti-missionary claims the first forty-nine years
("seven weeks") expired (537 B.C.), we reach the year 103 B.C. There
is absolutely no king or priest that came, was killed, and who ushered in any of
the six blessings enumerated by the angel in Daniel 9:24! In the last chapter,
we showed how Jesus did claim to be the Messiah and was indeed "cut
off" to bring salvation from sin.
It is not surprising that most of
the different Jewish sources that I am critiquing do not even comment on the
cutting off of the alleged second "Mashiyach." I am convinced that
this is because they cannot find a fitting candidate for their theory in
history. Troki was the only anti-missionary who was bold enough to reveal the
identity of the alleged "second Mashiyach."
The termination of sixty-two
weeks is remarkable for the cessation 'of an anointed king;' that is to say,
Israel is according to that prophecy to be bereft of his last ruler... The
cessation of a ruler over Israel is simultaneous with the fall of the Temple
and, consequently, alluded to the conquest by Titus, when Israel ceased to exist
as a nation, and was deprived of its Temple, its ruler, and its country (Troki,
p. 204).
This happened in A.D. 70. But
this interpretation cannot be true for the 434 years of the sixty-two weeks of
Daniel's prophecy would have to be changed to 607 years to accommodate an A.D.
70 fulfillment. (B.C. 537 to A.D. 70 is approximately 607 years.)
Cyrus the "Mashiyach Nagid?"
The anti-missionary claims that
the alleged first "Mashiyach Nagid" of Daniel 9:25 has already come.
Sigal, Levine and Troki claim that the "Mashiyach Nagid" of (Dan.
9:25) refers to Cyrus "his anointed" [Mashiyach] (Isa. 44:8; 45:1).
Sigal then concludes that "[Daniel 9:2] is obviously referring to Jeremiah
25:11-12, 29:10, 30:18, and 31:37-39, where the promise of restoration appears.
Therefore, 'the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem'
(Daniel 9:25) dates from the time when God related His message to Jeremiah"
(Sigal, p. 112).
Then a page later, Sigal states:
"We must conclude that the actual command to rebuild Jerusalem must be in
accordance with the words of Isaiah, who said that this would be done by Cyrus:
'he [Cyrus] shall rebuild My city' (see also Ezra 1:1-8, 6:1-5). Indeed, it was
Cyrus who issued a proclamation (ca. 537 B.C.E.) for the return and for the
rebuilding to start forty-nine years after the destruction of Jerusalem" (Sigal,
p. 113).
The contradiction between these
two statements might be lost to the reader through a casual reading of Sigal's
expositions. First, he states that the command to "restore and build
Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25) starts when God related the "promise of
restoration" to Jeremiah (Sigal, p. 112). But Jeremiah received this
"promise (Jer. 25:11-12)" from
God in the "fourth year of Jehoiakim," king of Judah (Jer. 25:1)! The
fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign is the year 611 B.C. Traveling forward 49 years
from 611 B.C. brings us to the year 562 B.C. But this is too early for Sigal,
seeing that Cyrus did not come to power for another 20 years! Remember, the
anti-missionary believes that Daniel prophesied the coming of two Mashiyachs,
one who comes after the first "forty-nine" years (the "seven
weeks" of Dan. 9:25a) and another that comes after the four hundred and
thirty-four years (the "sixty-two weeks" 9:26a). Now that we have
shown that there is no correlation between the expiration of the
"forty-nine" years and the coming of Cyrus to power, we must conclude
that there is but one "Mashiyach" in the purview of Daniel 9:25-26.
Therefore, the Christian translators are vindicated for connecting "..seven
weeks and sixty-two weeks..." in Daniel 9:25.
Secondly, Sigal later states that
"forty-nine years" were to transpire from the "destruction of
Jerusalem [586.B.C.E] " until Cyrus "...issued a proclamation (ca. 537
B.C.E.) for the return and for the rebuilding to start..." (Sigal, p. 113).
This contradicts his earlier claim that the command to "restore and build
Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25) starts when God related the "promise of
restoration" to Jeremiah. (Sigal, p. 112).
The Greatest Point
The greatest point which refutes
the idea that Cyrus is the "Mashiyach Nagid" of Daniel 9:25 is the
context of Daniel 9. According to Daniel 9:2, Daniel was reading from the
prophecy of Jeremiah:
In the first year of his reign I
Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord
came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the
desolations of Jerusalem.
It is crucial to the
understanding of "Mashiyach Nagid's" identity to recognize that
Daniel's ensuing prayer (Dan. 9:3-20) was provoked by his reading of Jeremiah's
prophecies particularly Jeremiah 29:10 which specified that God would restore
Judah after 70 years. However, just a few verses later (remember chapter and
verse demarcations did not come into being until many years later) God spoke of
the Messiah:
For, lo, the days come, saith the
Lord, that I will bring back the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith
the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their
fathers, and they shall possess it...for it shall come to pass in that day,
saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and
strangers shall no more make him serve. But they shall serve the Lord their God,
and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them (Jer. 30:3, 8-9).
Apparently Daniel did not
understand that Jeremiah 29:10 referred only to a limited restoration during
which they would not enjoy national sovereignty. (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12). Jeremiah
30:3-9 refers to the restoration of Judah and Israel under the sovereignty and
headship of King David, whom both Christian and Jewish scholars agree has
reference to Messiah Son of David. This is the same "Mashiyach"
"the branch" whom God was to raise up according to Jeremiah 23:5-8.
After reading through Jeremiah 23-31, we can understand why Daniel confessed the
sins of all Israel hoping for the grand restoration. Thus the answer delivered
by Gabriel dealt with the coming of "Mashiyach Nagid" "the
righteous branch" not "Mashiyach" Cyrus. Cyrus is not mentioned
in the book of Jeremiah from which Daniel was reading; he is spoken of in the
book of Isaiah.
Making the Point Simple
The point we are establishing
really boils down to a simple matter. Daniel prophesied that "Mashiyach
Nagid's" death would come "after" the 483 years (9:26a) but
before the destruction of the temple (9:26b) in A.D. 70. This would place the
arrival of the Messiah at about the beginning of this era. Interestingly enough,
the Jews of antiquity expected their Messiah to come precisely at that time, as
Flavious Josephus records:
But Ananus the priest answered
and spake to them: “I know all the books. When Herod fought beneath the city
wall, I had never thought that God would permit him to rule over us. But now I
understand that our desolation is nigh. And bethink you of the prophecy of
Daniel: for he writes that after the return the city of Jerusalem shall stand
for seventy weeks of years, which are 490 years, and after these years shall it
be desolate.” And when they counted the years, (they) were thirty years and
four. But Jonathan answered and spake: “The number of the years are even as we
have said. But the Holy of Holies, where is He? For this Herod the blood-thirsty
and impure can he (the prophet) not call Holy One.”5
This dialogue took place during
the year of Herod's Arab campaign (approx. 30 B.C.). By their reckoning, the
Messiah was to appear at the beginning of this era the approximate date of
Jesus' birth! Sanhedrin (97a-97b)
The tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches:
'The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was
desolation (i.e., no Torah). Two thousand years the Torah flourished, and the
next two thousand years is the Messianic era (i.e., Messiah should have come at
the beginning of the last two thousand years); the delay is due to our sins.'6
Rashi: 'Because after the second
two thousand years, the Messiah must have come and the wicked kingdom should
have been destroyed.'7
Sanhedrin (97a): Rab said, 'All
the predestined dates (for redemption) have passed.'8
Indeed the dates have passed, but
let all who love the truth take heart: Messiah has come!