Friday , December 15 2017
Breaking News
You are here: Home / Michael Sullivan / My Full Preterist Response to the Michael Brown v. Rabbi Tovia Singer Debate – Is Jesus Messiah? Part 3 – Daniel 7:13-14/Daniel 9:24-27/Dan. 12:1-7; Luke 21:20-22, 27-32 & Jewish Traditions/Talmud

My Full Preterist Response to the Michael Brown v. Rabbi Tovia Singer Debate – Is Jesus Messiah? Part 3 – Daniel 7:13-14/Daniel 9:24-27/Dan. 12:1-7; Luke 21:20-22, 27-32 & Jewish Traditions/Talmud


I am continuing my series critiquing Dr. Michael Brown’s YouTube debates since I am going through them in preparation for my debate with him on 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.  I will be arguing “that which is perfect” (v. 10) is the Second Coming of Jesus and arrival of the New Creation which took place at the end of the OC age in AD 70 — at which point prophecy, tongues and knowledge have “ceased” with the NC Church post AD 70 becoming a “mature man.”  I will get into some of this when we look at “seal up vision and prophet” (Dan. 9:24).  But in this article I will be trying to “Bridge the gap” in Brown’s debate with Tovia Singer[1] by answering Brown’s question – “Has anyone come up with a better interpretation [of Dan. 9:24-27]?”[2] with a resounding “yes I have.”  I will offer that “better interpretation” for Dr. Brown for his prayerful consideration and in doing so will provide a better apologetic to unbelieving Rabbis such as Tovia Singer.

We are going to be looking at Jewish tradition (something Singer puts on the level of Torah), exegesis of particular texts, and how the Christian Church at times has fallen in line with Full Preterism and even Jewish traditions of “this age,” “age to come,” “days of Messiah,” “second exodus,” etc…

Reviewing Dr. Brown’s Position on Daniel 9:24-27

Dr. Brown confesses that there are several interpretations of this passage from the Rabbis and even Christian scholars and finding a consensus is difficult.  But I agree with Brown that God gave this prophecy to bring clarity and not confusion.  Unfortunately for Brown his view is among many confusing ones that does not bring any clarity to the text let alone how Jesus interprets it in Matthew 24:15-34 and Luke 21:20-32.

In short, Dr. Brown interprets the six redemptive events of Daniel 9:25 being a literal chronological fulfillment up to Christ’s death and resurrection.  He admits that other Christian scholars apply these six events or the end of the Seventy Sevens with the fulfillment of the Second Coming.  He readily admits that there are problems with a literal chronological view of the passage which at times may require “gaps” of varying degrees within the Christian futurist interpretations.

Some futurists such as Brown, try to solve the problem by having all the Seventy Sevens prophetic six events listed in Daniel 9:24 as all fulfilled in the work of Messiah’s death and resurrection in AD 30 – the inauguration of the kingdom or the “already.”  But then speaking out of the other side of his mouth Brown and other futurists claim the text is also addressing the consummation or “not yet” which awaits its ultimate fulfillment at Christ’s Second Coming at the end of the age.  In doing so, he is trying to bring his view into some kind of harmony with that of those such as Gleason Archer whom see it ultimately being fulfilled at Christ’s Second Coming (2000 years and counting) and literal expectations of the kingdom for unbelievers such as Singer.

Brown tries to explain that his view is not a “cheap cop out” when in reality it is:

“Thus, everything Daniel recorded in 9:24-27 reached its fulfillment by 70 C.E.  (2)  It is also possible that on the basis of our Messiah’s atoning work, the ultimate fulfillment of Gabriel’s revelation to Daniel in this key section of Scripture will take place at the end of this age, when Jesus returns.  But this is not a cheap cop out, as frequently charged by anti-missionaries, who claim that the whole concept of the Messiah’s second coming is a simple way of escaping the fact that Jesus, in their opinion, failed to fulfill the real Messianic prophecies.”[3]

Let’s now turn our attention to examine and refute Dr. Brown’s view that all six redemptive events in Daniel 9:24 were fulfilled by AD 30 but still await an ultimate fulfillment 2000+ years and counting.

We can know that Brown’s view here is false when we examine how the prophecy begins and ends.  It begins by stating very clearly, “Seventy ‘Sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city…”  This tells us that the entire (not some of it) “Seventy sevens” prophecy involves the time for Israel in which her city would be restored and rebuilt (under Ezra and Nehemiah) — extending to a time in which it would be destroyed (AD 70).  This is confirmed again in how the prophecy ends, “The people of the ruler to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end will come like a flood:  War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.”  “…And on the wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”  Other translations render the ending to the Seventy Sevens “…until the consummation” or “…until the full end” with the destruction of Jerusalem.  The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is the “consummation” or “full end” to the Seventy Weeks or Seventy Sevens prophecy.  The book ends are the restoration of Jerusalem to its destruction in AD 70.  Should be clear enough.

Brown should be less concerned with trying to harmonize what others rightly consider a “cop out” of an interpretation with what Archer and Rashi taught, and be more concerned with how Jesus posits the fulfillment of “all that is written” (ie. all OT prophecy – and thus the end of Daniel’s Seventy Sevens prophecy) with His Second Coming and end of the OC age (not the NC or Christian age) at the fall of Jerusalem within His contemporary AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Matt. 24:15-34/Lk. 21:20-32).

Literal/Chronology or Symbolic/Prophetic Seventy Sevens 490?

There are many chronological and mathematical problems that everyone is trying to solve in Daniel 9:24-27 which creates further confusion.  Brown doesn’t seem to really interact with Christian and Jewish views that understand the Seventy Seven’s prophecy or the number 490 to be symbolic and not a literal chronology or rendering.  Even my Reformation Study Bible points out,

“There are two fundamental approaches to the interpretation of the “weeks” (lit. “sevens”) as symbolic periods of time or as literal periods of time.  In the symbolic view, the seventy years of punishment (v. 2) are multiplied seven times in accordance with the covenantal curses (Lev. 26:18, 21, 24, 28).  Jubilees, a Jewish book from the intertestamental period, also structures the whole of history into periods of 490 years.”[4]

I would agree with Lee Irons and Meredith Kline on the Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9:24-27:

“The seventy “weeks” (literally “sevens”) comprise a definite period of time until the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem…a period that is actually longer than a literal 490 years.”[5]

“…the point of the seventy weeks is not to provide a precise chronological prediction but to make the profound theological point that the coming of Christ and the abrogation of the Old Covenant order will usher in the eschatological Sabbath rest for the people of God.”[6]

Since issues arose concerning Christ’s genealogy in the Brown v. Singer debate, allow me to take you down a brief rabbit trail here and note that Matthew uses Sabbath Seven symbolism with the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17 (whereby evidence is given that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah):

“Similarly, in his genealogy of Christ, Matthew employs sabbatical theology to structure history.  He purposely dropped at least four names and counted David twice to construct a sabbatical structure of the history of redemption from Abraham to the Messiah.  He states that from Abraham to David is 14 generations; from David to the captivity is 14 generations; and from the captivity to Messiah, 14 generations (Matt. 1:17).  This was intentional:  the author purposely wanted to stress this numerical system, primarily because of its sabbatical symbolism (3×14 = 6×7); the generations of the Messiah represents the seventh seven, thereby showing that it is He who inaugurates the ultimate Sabbath rest for the people of God, the eschatological age.  Matthew employs sabbatical symbolism to underscore one of his major themes:  the Messiah’s advent constitutes the apex and fulfillment of redemptive history.”[7]

There is another example in Matthew’s gospel where 490 is symbolic and not literal.  Jesus in the context of forgiveness, tells the disciples to forgive “seventy times seven” – which of course comes to 490 times depicting a non-literal use of the number (Matt. 18:22).  The main thrust of the Seventy Sevens prophecy is the Messiah coming (as a High Priest) to cleanse and forgive Israel from her sin (and anoint the NC Most Holy Place) over a prophetic and symbolic period of 490 sevens.

Now let’s return to Kline’s comments of Daniel 9:24-27 and Sabbath rest – connecting it to eschatology.  The book of Hebrews in chapters 3-4 tells us that entering the land and Sabbath rest were typological pointing to “another day” of Sabbath rest coming. The author later describes this approaching day as Jesus’ High Priestly coming out of the heavenly Temple – that is His “Second Appearing” in Israel’s “last days” (AD 30-AD 70) that was coming in a “very little while” and would “not be delayed” (Heb. 9:26-28; 10:25, 37).  God’s raging fire was “about to” consume the enemies of God – “his people” the Jews who broke covenant (Heb. 10:27 YLT, 30).  The end of the OC age in AD 70, is “the end” or “the end that is decreed” for the seventy sevens to be fulfilled.

Jewish Tradition and Christian Exegesis

In the Brown v. Singer debate (and following the debate) there was much discussion on Singer’s view of tradition (putting it on the level if not higher with that of Torah itself), and Christian exegesis of the OT and NT as the basis of authority.  Let’s put this altogether and try and “Bridge the Gap” between Brown and Singer to help them submit to Messiah’s interpretation which places the fulfillment of Daniel’s Seventy Sevens and His Second Coming on the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13) at the end of the OC age – in the judgment of AD 70.

“This Age” & “Age to Come”

 The Jew during Jesus’ day understood “this age” to be the OC age of the law and prophets and the “age to come” to be the NC age of Messiah which would follow.  As I point out in my/our book, it is Reformed and orthodox Christian interpretation to identify Jesus and Paul’s “this age” to be the OC age (not the Christian age) and the “age to come,” to be the NC age of Messiah arriving when the OC age passed away in AD 70.[8]  Jesus and Paul do not depart from this traditional Jewish two age structure as they look to an imminent fulfillment coming in the lifetimes of their first century audiences – in which the old would pass and the new arrives in a mature state (ie. AD 70).

The Second Exodus & Days of Messiah

Isaiah 11 predicted a second exodus coming for Israel.  The Jews prior to Christ and during his day based upon Psalm 90:15 and other OT passages, believed “the days of Messiah” would be a transition period between the OC “this age” and the Messianic NC “age to come” and that this would be another Forty Year exodus period.  Not only that, but that in the Messianic or NC Age/World to Come/New Heaven and Earth – not everything would be “perfect” in the sense that Brown and Singer have portrayed it:

“There is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except the servitude of the heathen kingdoms alone; as it is said, “For the poor shall never cease out of the land” (Deut. 15:2) (Ber. 34b.), i.e. not even in the Messianic era.

Many Rabbis believed that the period of the Messiah was to be only a transitionary stage between this world [age] and the World to Come [age to come], and opinions differed on the time of its duration.  ‘How long will the days of Messiah last?  R. Akiba said, Forty years, as long as the Iraelites were in the wilderness.”[9]

According to Brown and Singer’s hyper-literalism, isn’t there sin, evangelism, physical death, and procreation in the Messianic World/Age to Come or New Heaven and Earth in Isaiah 65:17-22?  John sees evil surrounding the New Jerusalem and evangelism taking place after the New Creation arrives in Revelation 22.

Jewish Tradition / Messianic Views of Daniel 9:24-27 / Not Discerning Their “end” Deut. 32

Brown cites Rashi and the Talmud (b. Nazir 32b.) as teaching Daniel 9:27 was fulfilled in AD 70.[10]

Our passage under consideration was known to be Messianic among some Jews and that Messiah would come to fulfill Daniel’s last seven.  Some see this passage as having already been fulfilled, and thus combining the two, they have missed or not discerned the coming of the Son of Man/Messiah:

San 97a: “Our masters taught as follows of the particular seven-year period at whose end [Messiah] son of David will appear” (This seems to refer directly to the Danielic final “seven” or week!)

San 97b: “Rav said: All times set for redemption have passed, and the matter now depends only on repentance and good deeds” (All time calculations had been fulfilled).

San 97b: “R. Samuel bar Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Blaste be the bones of those who presume to calculate the time of redemption. For they are apt to say, ‘Since redemption has not come at the time expected, it will never come.’ Rather, one must wait for it…what then delays its coming? The measure of justice delays it…”

Brown points out that the Talmud says,

“The world will exist six thousand years.  Two thousand years of desolation [meaning from Adam to Abraham]; two thousand years of Torah [meaning from Abraham to somewhere around the beginning of the Common Era]; and two thousand years of the Messianic era [roughly the last two thousand years]; but because our iniquities were many, all this has been lost” (i.e., the Messiah did not come at the expected time; b. Sanhedrin 97a-b).  According to this well known Jewish tradition, the Messiah was supposed to come about two thousand years ago!  As explained by Rashi, “After 2000 years of Torah, it was God’s decree that the Messiah would come and the wicked kingdom would come to an end and the subjugation of Israel would be destroyed.”  Instead, because Israel’s sins were many, “the Messiah has not come to this very day” —now two thousand years later.  Interesting isn’t it?”[11]

I should note – Tovia tried to bluff Dr. Brown that he didn’t understand what Rashi was saying but Brown’s sources were spot on and he was understanding them correctly.

I couldn’t agree more that these Jews did in fact miss and reject the redemptive work of their own Messiah (Jesus the Christ) in Daniel’s last seven and “Judaism” hasn’t been the same since AD 70 – having reached her “end” during that terminal “crooked and perverse generation” (Deut. 32:5, 20/Acts 2:20-40/Luke 17:20-21, 25; 21:32).  It is equally sad that self professing “Christian Jews” today such as Brown have missed Messiah coming a Second Time apart from Sin as Israel’s great High Priest on the clouds of heaven and establishing His spiritual NC kingdom at the end of the OC age in AD 70.  Selah.

Common Error for Singer and Brown

Dovetailing on Deuteronomy 32 – Moses predicted that many of them would not be able to “discern” their “end” (Deut. 32:29).  Due to a hyper-literal interpretation of OT kingdom promises, both Brown and Singer continue to not understand or “discern” what “end” and forgiveness (with its redemptive significance) took place in AD 70.  Singer rejects Jesus as Messiah because all we have to do is read prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel 9 literally and “look out the window” and see Jesus didn’t fulfill them.  “Isn’t there war today?  Is the wolf laying down with the lamb?  Has “sin” been eradicated from the world?”  Brown in not “discerning the end” of Christ’s Second Coming in AD 70 to end the OC age, has to redefine NT imminence (soon, quickly, at hand, shortly, about to be, in a very little while, will not tarry, a short work, this generation, etc…), in order to put off the Second Coming in the future due to his hyper-literal hermeneutic of the Messianic Kingdom promises contained in Isaiah and elsewhere.  He too reasons that Jesus’s Second Coming could not have occurred when Daniel and the NT posit it, because all we need to do is “look around.”  Brown in reality fits the saying, “The blind (Brown) trying to lead the blind (Singer) when it comes to Daniel 9:24-27 and other OT prophecies concerning the time and nature of the Messiah’s coming and Kingdom.

Exposition of Daniel 9:24-27

 Daniel 9:24 – Here are the main elements of the seventy sevens in Daniel 9:24-27 to be fulfilled for the people and her city Jerusalem:

  1. To fill up the transgression – Jerusalem “filled up” or “finished transgressions” against God and His Messiah within Jesus’ “this generation” (Mt. 23:31-38; Dan. 9:24a). Brown cites Jame E. Smith favorably on this in connecting it to AD 70:

“Within the 490 year period the people of Israel would commit their final transgression against God.  Jesus indicated that the leaders of his generation were about to fill up the measure of the sin of their forefathers (Matt. 23:32)…”[12]

Brown concedes,

“Thus, the generation that rejected the Messiah would suffer the culmination of the sins of all the previous generations.”[13]  Interestingly Brown appeals to 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 as a corresponding time frame for Matthew 23 in a footnote.  I see a parallel, but once again it points to AD 70 for Pauline eschatology as well.  The Jews in Paul’s day were still “filling up the measure of their sins,” and therefore consistent with Jesus, Paul taught under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Christ would come and give “relief” to those first century persecuted Thessalonians at the coming of the Lord (i.e. AD 66 – AD 70), by which He would render unto them the same kind of “trouble” they were giving the Christians – via the Romans (1 Thess. 2:14-16=2 Thess. 1:5-10).  This of course is a Reformed and Orthodox interpretation of these passages.

The last result of the seventh woe of Matthew 23 is Christ coming in judgment upon the Jews and their “House/Temple” in their contemporary AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Matt. 23:32-39) as a result of “filling up that measure of sin” in killing the NT “prophets” Jesus would send to them.  Many Christian commentators agree.  Therefore, from the outset we see Jesus interpreting the first of these six prophetic events to refer to Him coming in judgment upon the Jews and their Temple in AD 70.  Matthew 24 is simply a development of chapter 23’s topic of Christ coming to judge the leadership of Jerusalem and to destroy the SAME Temple in the SAME time frame “this generation” (Matt. 24:1-34 – see “part 1” which addresses Matt. 23:32-39—Matt. 24 Brown v. White debate).  Having established that the first of these six events is fulfilled by AD 70, it should not surprise us that the rest follow suit and point to the same time of fulfillment!

  1. Put an end to sin – Brown writes of this redemptive event,

“This phrase could also be interpreted in one of two ways, as speaking of a still-future event that will be ushered in with Messiah’s return (this is the position of Archer and others) or as referring to Messiah’s atoning death on the cross, an event of cosmic proportions that did, in fact, deal a deathblow to the power of sin.  As other New Testament writers explain, everything necessary for forgiveness and redemption was accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus.”[14]

As we have seen in our brief discussion of entering into the Sabbath rest in the book of Hebrews, Christ put an “end to sin” at His imminent “in a very little while” “Second Appearing” as the Great Anointed High Priest fulfilling the NC promises made to Israel and to close the “last days” of her OC age in AD 70 (Heb. 9:26-28/10:37; Rom. 11:26-27/13:11-12; Dan. 9:24b.).  James E. Smith of whom Brown has alluded to earlier references Hebrews 10:12, but neglects any reference to Christ accomplishing “redemption” at His coming in AD 70 (Luke 21:27-32), or a proper exegesis of Hebrews 9:26-28 and 10:25-37 as pointing to Christ coming in the fall of Jerusalem as the Great High Priest taking away the sins of His people while at the same time coming as King to  judge “his people” the Jews in AD 70.

  1. To atone for wickedness or the covering over of iniquity – See references in #2 and #3 below.  At Christ’s Second Coming in AD 70 and arrival of the New Creation our sins are remembered no more and covered in the depths of the sea (Isa. 65-66; Micah 7:19; Psalm 32:1).
  1. To bring in everlasting righteousness – At Christ’s return in AD 70, He brought in “everlasting righteousness” or a “world of righteousness” in 2 Peter 3 – the “end of all things” being “at hand” in Peter’s day (1 Peter 4:5-7). And of course it is Reformed and Orthodox to believe that the “elements” of the world that is burnt up and then replaced in 2 Peter 3 is referring to the OC world/age passing in AD 70 with the new arriving (John Owen, John Lightfoot, Gary DeMar, etc…).  “But also on ours, to whom it [righteousness] is about to be reckoned — to us believing on Him who did raise up Jesus our Lord out of the dead,” (Romans 4:24).  “For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.” (Galatians 5:5).
  1. To seal up vision and prophet/prophecy –  Brown disagrees with Archer whom takes this as the Second Coming event – at which time obviously all would be fulfilled according to his eschatology. But Brown differs with him,

“This could mean “to authenticate” or “to hide.”  Either one would be applicable to Jesus, since (1) his coming fully validated the prophetic witness of the Hebrew Scriptures (if he did not come at the appointed time, this would have invalidated both vision and prophecy), (2) God judged those who rejected him with hardness of heart, thus hiding the truth of the prophetic Scriptures from them.”[15]

Let’s look at some other translations that may bring us to a different meaning and conclusion.  The International Standard Version reads,

“to conclude vision and prophecy…”

Douay-Rheims Bible reads,

“vision and prophecy may be fulfilled…”

Some commentators understand this to mean,

“to consummate and fulfil it” (John Gill).

“The impression of the translators being that all visions and prophecies were to receive their complete fulfilment in the course of these seventy weeks. It appears, however, to be more agreeable to the context to suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all prophecy. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 13:8).” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers).

Jews for Judaism or Tovia Singer in his debate with Brown understands this to mean,

“To fulfill all the promises of the prophets” and “bring an end to the prophetic era.” If Singer and Jews for Judaism believe, the Seventy Sevens were fulfilled by AD 70 and yet claim to “seal up vision and prophecy” means, “To fulfill all the promises of the prophets” and “bring an end to the prophetic era,” I’m not exactly sure what they mean by “all the promises of the prophets” were fulfilled when the Seventy Weeks were fulfilled in AD 70?  I do know that Jesus definitely connected the Abomination of Desolation, the Tribulation, and “time of the end”/”end of the age” gathering/resurrection in His generation with an understanding of “to fulfill all the promises of the prophets” (their words which seem identical with Jesus’ (Lk. 21:20-22, 32).  But clearly Singer and them still see a need for a coming Messiah to fulfill “all the promises of the prophets.”

Jesus’ teaching is clear, all of Israel’s promises and prophetic material concerning His redemptive work (being the divine cloud rider of Dan. 7:13-14 worthy of worship) would be accomplished within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” at Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 (Luke 21:20-32).  Prophecy would “cease” when “that which is perfect” (the Second Coming and arrival of the New Creation) arrived at this time (1 Cor. 1:7-8/13:8-12/Rev. 21-22:6-7, 10-12, 20).  The NT bears witness that all would be fulfilled imminently in AD 70 (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 1:4-12; 4:5-7).  Therefore, all the eschatological promises made to Israel concerning vision and prophecy were fulfilled or sealed up by AD 70 in fulfillment of the Seventy Sevens prophecy.  This effective destroys all of the “last days” cults and Islam whom claim that they were given divine revelation and that their “prophets” (Muhammad, Joseph Smith, the Watchtower, etc…) have legitimacy.  This is also devastating to Michael Brown’s Charismatic views which claims there are still “prophets” and “prophecies” being given today.  I would agree with the Charismatic argument that 1 Corinthians 13:10 is not dealing with prophecy ceasing when the NT Cannon is written and completed, but rather when the promises of the NT Cannon have all been fulfilled.  Jesus in no uncertain terms (along with the other NT inspired writers) posit this to take place at the end of the OC age when the Temple was destroyed.

Daniel 9:24-27 / Daniel 12:1-7 Recapitulation/Parallels

To further solidify that Brown and Archer’s interpretation that Daniel 9:24-27 extends to a future Second Coming beyond AD 70, all we need to do is examine the recapitulated material in Daniel 9 that is once again picked up in Daniel 12:

a.  The time of the end.

b.  Abomination of desolation.

c.  Time of Resurrection or time for full atonement/redemption.

d.  All of these things would be fulfilled when the Temple and City are destroyed or “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered” in AD 70 (Dan. 9:24-27=Dan. 12:1-7).

As I point out in my/our book, it is Reformed and Orthodox to believe that Daniel’s soul was raised out of Hades whereby he inherited eternal life in God’s presence at Christ’s coming in AD 70 – in fulfilling “all that has been written.”[16]  And as I point out in my book this is more than problematic for the Partial Preterists since the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is the resurrection of John 5; Acts 24:15 (that was “about to” be fulfilled see YLT); and Revelation 20:5-15 (things must “shortly” take place Rev. 1:1—22:6-12).  No response to my chapter/challenge yet from the Partial Preterist community.

Daniel 12:1-7 / Matthew 24 Parallels

And then once more to see that Jesus not only was referring to Daniel 9:24-27 as “all that is written” would be fulfilled in His generation but also Daniel 12:1-7, let’s look at those parallels:

                              Daniel 12                                                           Olivet Discourse
a. Tribulation and Abomination that causes Desolation
(Dan. 12:1, 12)
a. Tribulation and Abomination that causes desolation (Matt. 24:15, 21; Lk. 21:20-23)
b. Judgment and Deliverance (Dan. 12:1) b. Judgment and Deliverance (Lk. 21:18-22, 28; Matt. 24:13)
c. Resurrection (Dan. 12:2-3) c. Resurrection (Matt. 13:40-43; 24:30-31; Lk. 21:27-28)
d. The End (Dan. 12:4, 6, 8-9, 13) d. The End (Matt. 24:13-14)
e. When would all this take place? “. . .when the power [The Law] of the holy people [Israel] has been completely shattered [the de- struction of the city and the sanctuary in AD 70], all these things [including the judgment and resurrection] shall be finished.” “But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.” (Dan. 12:7, 13) e. When would all this take place? “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” [the destruction of the city and the sanctuary in AD 70].” “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things [judgment & resur- rection] be fulfilled.” (Matt. 24:1, 34)
  1. To anoint the Most Holy Place – Brown quotes Archer,“Here the anointing of the ‘most holy’ most likely refers to the consecration of the temple of the Lord, qite conceivably the millennial temple, to which so much attention is given in Ezekiel 40-44” which “…culminates with Yeshua’s return.”[17]

 While Brown agrees that Archer’s view of a literal future Temple may be in play here, he offers what most commentators (especially before Dispensationalism) would consider a better exegesis,

“If ‘the most holy’ refers to a place (or to sacred things) rather than to a person, then it could refer to the spiritual temple—ie. the redeemed people of God, who, according to the New Testament authors, have become a holy dwelling place for the Spirit.”[18]

Paul refers to Ezekiel’s New Covenant Temple promise (cf. Ezek. 37:27) not a future literal Temple, but to the Church Herself — “the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:16).  In Brown’s commentary on Jeremiah (which includes a commentary by Ralph H. Alexander on Ezekiel), Alexander correctly connects the temple promise here in Ezekiel 37:27 with 40:5—43:9),

“…the Lord’s sanctuary, God’s dwelling place, will remain among the chosen people forever (vv. 26-27; cf. 40:5—43:9).”[19]

Premise #1 – If it is true that the Temple of Ezekiel 37 is the millennial Temple of Ezekiel 40-44,…

Premise #2 – And If it is true that the Temple of Ezekiel 37 is the Church (not a literal building – 2 Cor. 6:16),…

Conclusion – Then the Millennium and the Millennium Temple is the Church which had already begun in Paul’s day.

Some Dispensationalists admit that the sacrifices in the Millennial Temple are not literal but spiritual.  But if the sacrifices are spiritual so is the Temple!  One doesn’t have to be a Hebrew scholar to see this.  This also destroys Brown’s literal Historic Premillennial hermeneutic – awaiting Jesus’ Second Coming to usher in a literal Kingdom, for a literal thousand years, in literal Jerusalem, having a literal Temple(?), etc…  Selah.  If the Millennial Temple is not physical, then neither can the other elements to the alleged literal thousand years period.

And if the the Messianic NC Millennial Temple is not physical, it does no reside in a  physical Jerusalem, or physical land.

Jesus is the Corner Stone or “Stone cut without hands” (cf. Dan. 2:4) to this spiritual NC Temple/Mountain/Zion.  Paul’s “hope” was on what was “unseen” as he was awaiting the fulfillment of this corporate body “house/tent/temple” “not built by human hands” from heaven (2 Cor. 4:18—5:1-10).  Paul is not finished with his contrast of OC glory and NC glory in chapter 3, it extends up to 2 Cor. 6:16.  In the book of Revelation the New Jerusalem is in the form of a perfect cube communicating that God’s NC people have now become the Most Holy Place presence of God and was descending even in John’s day.  It is Reformed and Orthodox to believe that Christ came as a thief “soon” with the New Jerusalem/Most Holy Place coming down from heaven and clothed the Church in AD 70.  God “anointed” and consummated the New Covenant Church as Messiah’s Most Holy Place and Bride at His coming in AD 70 (Ex. 20, 29-31, 40; cf. Hebrews 9:6-10;[20] Revelation 11:18-19, 19–21:16).  Again, it is Reformed and Orthodox to believe that the “first heaven and earth” that fled was the OC age/world, and the new that took its place in AD 70 is spiritual by which we now see God face to face (Rev. 22:4).  Since this is the case, then it should also be Orthodox to connect the seeing “face to face” of (1 Cor. 13:10-12) to AD 70 as well.

 Daniel 9:25 – The “decree (of Cyrus) to restore and re-build Jerusalem” is found in (2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; Isa. 44:24, 26, 28; 45:13; cf. Josephus, Antiquities, xi, 6, 12).  It’s rebuilding in the “difficult times” of Ezra and Nehemiah can be read in the book of Nehemiah.  The first 62 sevens represents a period from the rebuilding of Jerusalem by Nehemiah and Ezra to the first coming of Jesus – the “Anointed One.”  Jesus was anointed by the Father to preach the good news of the Gospel to Israel.  Jews for Judaism and men like Tovia Singer mock Christians trying to fit all of this into a literal chronology when the math just doesn’t work.  But as I pointed out, the 70 7’s or 490 is not meant to be taken as such.

Daniel 9:26 – The Anointed One/Prince/Ruler/Leader/Messiah (Jesus the Christ), would be “cut off” after the 62 sevens.  Isaiah 53 teaches us the same about a coming Messiah who would be cut off and have nothing (with some Jews conceded Isa. 53 is Messianic).  “The people (the Jews or Roman soldiers) of the Ruler (Jesus or Titus), will destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end (of the seventy sevens) will come like a flood:  War will continue until the end (of the OC age in AD 70), and desolations have been decreed.”  Between AD 66 – AD 70 not only did the Romans surround the city, but the Idumeans (Jewish Zealots) did as well and entered Jerusalem resulting in the city being divided into three warring sects – all shedding blood over the Temple area and for control of Jerusalem.  War and blood shed took place within the Temple and thus it was subject to abominations.  The Romans (who were also under the control of Christ) did very little except wait it out and let “the people” that rejected their Messiah to devour (sometimes literally) each other.  Also through the imprecatory prayers of the Christians (people of the Prince), Jerusalem was destroyed and it’s mountain removed and thrown into the Lake of Fire (Matthew 21:18-22; Revelation 8:8).

Daniel 9:27 – The “He” here still could be the Messiah (not an alleged “Anti-Christ”) and through His sacrifice He established the New Covenant for the “many” (ie. the Church the new Israel of God).  This last seven was from the anointing of Jesus in His first coming to His anointing the Church in His Second in AD 70 (see my comments on v. 24 and Rev. 21:16).  Christ came and overshadowed Jerusalem with desolation and determined wrath upon the desolate in AD 70 (cf. Matthew 24:15ff/Luke 21:20-24).

 Daniel 7:13-14 Messiah – Divine Cloud Rider & Worthy of Worship

 Before leaving the book of Daniel, I want to address a passage that I was hoping Brown and Singer would get to in relation to what the OT and Jewish tradition taught of Messiah being divine (worthy of worship) and not just a mere man (ie. Dan. 7:13-14).

Brown in one of his books correctly notes that Jewish tradition in the Talmud supports this passage as being Messianic,

“In Sanhedrin 98a, the Talmud asks an important question:  Will the Messiah, the son of David, come with the clouds of heaven, as indicated in Daniel 7:13-14, or will he come riding on a donkey, as written in Zechariah 9:9?  The Talmud says that if we are worthy, he will come in the clouds, but if we are unworthy, he will come riding on a donkey.  The problem is that the Hebrew Scriptures do not present these two events as either-or options.  Rather, they are both explicit prophecies that must be fulfilled…”[21]

According to the Old Greek Septuagint translation of Daniel 7:13, the Son of Man came “as the Ancient of Days” on the clouds of heaven, not “to the Ancient of Days.” This translation is in harmony with verse 22, which says that it was the Ancient of Days Himself who came in judgment and gave the saints the kingdom. It is also important to point out that John in the book of Revelation alludes to Dan. 7:9, 13 in his description of Christ as being both the Son of Man who comes on the clouds to judge those whom had pierced Him (first century Jews) and as the eternal Ancient of Days in Rev. 1:7, 13-17.

The High Priest understood what Jesus meant when He said he would see Him coming on the clouds (for only Jehovah Himself came on the clouds in judgment in the OT) – (cf. Matt. 26:63-66).

Unfortunately, many Christians apply this cloud coming of Messiah/Jesus to the ascension.  However, the New Testament does not develop or give the slightest hint that “the coming of the Son of Man” on the clouds of heaven would be fulfilled in the Ascension.

Before leaving Daniel 7:13-14 it should be noted that this one likened to the “Son of Man” and “Ancient of Days” coming on the clouds of heaven is “worshiped” (vs. 14 NIV the original Aramaic is pelach – some translations render the word to mean divine “service”).  In establishing the meaning of a passage or word in a particular text we need to examine its usage elsewhere in the same book.  Everywhere in Daniel pelach is used of divine service or worship.  Of false gods in Daniel 3:12. In Daniel 3:17-18 we are told that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego only gave divine service and worship to the only living God and would not render divine service and worship to Nebuchadnezzar’s false gods.  In Daniel 3:28 Nebuchadnezzar gives praise to their God and reinstates that they “yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God.” In Daniel 6:16, 20 it describes Daniel’s divine service to the only living God continually which is given in hopes that God would and did deliver Daniel from the den of the lions.  In Daniel 7:27 when the Ancient of Days came (cf. vss. 13-14, 22) to give possession of the Kingdom to the saints, “all rulers will worship and obey him.”

Jesus is the Messiah, He was born into this world as none other than “Mighty God” and came upon the clouds of heaven in judgment upon Israel in AD 70 “as the Ancient of Days” and the “Alpha and Omega” (Isa. 9:6; Dan. 7:13 (OG) LXX/Rev. 1:7-17) to fulfill all the law and prophets and usher in the mature state of the NC Messianic age for the nations.  Therefore, He is worthy of worship and obedience.  Compromising this message is not an option for the true child of God.


So from the birth of Israel’s Davidic King/Messiah (Jesus the Christ) to His Second Appearing at the end of her OC age in AD 70 is roughly another more significant 70 years for her coming out of bondage and slavery from “Babylon”/OC Jerusalem into the freedom/Sabbatical rest and salvation found not “in the land” but “in Christ” (where all of the promises of God are realized).

Looking at the Jewish traditions along with the OT and NT Scriptures we have pieced together the teachings of Jesus which posit the “already and not yet” of Bible prophecy to be fulfilled by AD 70.  This is when the OC “this age” was “ready to vanish” in the first century at Christ’s Second Coming in His “this generation” and in a “very little while” (Heb. 8:13—9:26-28—10:25-37).

In doing so, it is my sincere prayer that God will open the hearts and minds of “Jewish Christians” (such Michael Brown) and modern unbelieving “Jews” (such as Tovia Singer) to be spiritually discerning of Messiah’s “new thing” (Isa. 42-44) in establishing a spiritual “everlasting kingdom” (Dan. 2, 7), “not of this world” and one that could not be seen with physical eyes for it would be realized “within” (Jn. 18:36; Lk. 17:20-21ff.—21:27-32).  Through the events of AD 70 (and beyond), the Church can be able to discern and know that Christ and His kingdom have “already come” (Mrk. 8:38-9:1).  Selah.

[1] Is Jesus the Messiah? Dr. Michael Brown v. Rabbi Tovia Singer,

[2] Michael L. Brown, ANSWERING JEWISH OBJECTIONS to JESUS Volume Three Messianic Prophecy Objections, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), p. 109, Vol. 3.

[3] Ibid., 98.

[4] R.C. Sproul, General Editor, THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE, (Orlando, FL:  Reformation Trust Publishing, 2015), 1483-84

[5] Lee Irons, Meredith Kline, J. Ligon Duncan, David W. Hall, Hugh Ross, Gleason L. Archer, THE GENESIS DEBATE Three Views on the Days of Creation, (Mission Viejo, CA:  Crux Press, Inc., 2001), 227. I would also agree with Keil and Delitzsch on the point that this is not a reference to a literal 490 years of chronology:

“That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters, but a satisfactory proof of such a meaning has not been adduced. Moreover, in favour of year-weeks (periods of seven years) it has been argued that such an interpretation was very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the Exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, in asmuch as the seventy years’ desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the sabbatical years: 2 Chron. 36:21 (Hgstb., Kran., and others).  But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law שָׁבֻעִים or שָׁבֻעֹות, therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Lev. 25:2, 4, 5;26:34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. 36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Lev. 25:8ff.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be called שָׁבֻעִים. Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that שָׁבֻעִים does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.” (Keil,C. F., & Delitzsch, F.  Commentary on the Old Testament Peabody, (MA: Hendrickson, 1996), Vol. 9, pp. 717–718).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 227.

[8] Michael Sullivan, David Green, Ed Hassertt, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, (Ramona, CA:  Vision Publishing, Second Edition, 2013), 91.

[9] Dr. BOAZ COHEN, NEW AMERICAN EDITION Everyman’s TALMUD, (New York:  E.P. Dutton & CO., 1949), 356.

[10] Brown, Ibid., Vol. 3, 100.

[11] Brown, Vol. 1, 70.

[12] Ibid., 93-94.

[13] Ibid., 95-96.

[14] Ibid., 96

[15] Ibid., 97.

[16] Sullivan, Green, Hassertt, Ibid. – House Divided, 87-95

[17] Ibid., 97.

[18] Ibid., 98.

[19]   Temper Longman & David Garland (General Editors), Michael Brown (Jeremiah), Paul Ferris Jr. (Lamentations), Ralph Alexander (Ezekiel), THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE COMMENTARY (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 2010), 851.

[20] Although I would differ with the JFB Commentary on its literal futuristic consummation of seeing God (literally at a future Second Coming event in the MHP), I agree here in Hebrews 9 that the OC community and people is represented by the Holy Place and the NC community and people is represented by the Most Holy Place.  The MHP is opened up for us when God judged OC Jerusalem/Babylon where our Lord was crucified (cf. Rev. 11:8-19).

[21] Brown, Ibid., Vol. 4, 85.

About Mike Sullivan

Leave a Reply

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