Sermon on the Backs of the Pharisees

'
Background
In the courtyard of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus explained that He was not the son of David. That seemed a bit strange, given that the prophesies required the Messiah to be of David's lineage, that the Apostles claimed the contrary, and later He Himself claimed to be an offspring of David. Mark and Luke recorded how Jesus praised a poor widow who gave everything she had to the Temple. But before that praise, Mark and Luke show Jesus rebuking the Teachers of the Law a little bit. Matthew took that theme of condemnation, and ran with it...

Sermon on the Backs of the Pharisees

Matthew was great at aggregation. In writing his Gospel, he understood that it would be much more convenient or impressive to have the teachings of Jesus which had no significant background story to be grouped into one cohesive package, as opposed to being scattered throughout the various tales and anecdotes. Thus, the Sermon on the Mount was born. But besides those teachings, another common thread of snippets could be found in the stories of Jesus; that of condemnation of particular groups of the religious elite. So Matthew compiled another "sermon" of sorts.

Matthew 23 is an entire chapter primarily devoted to the condemnation of the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law (a.k.a. Scribes). Luke 11:37-54 is somewhat of a parallel, containing much of the same material, but not all of it and in a different order, and at a much earlier point in Jesus' timeline. Let us quickly step through this rant.

One of the most interesting parts is the very beginning, which is material unique to Matthew. Jesus was speaking to the crowds and His disciples (Matthew 23:1). In Matthew 23:2-3, He opened with:

"The Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." NIV

This is both interesting and frightening, because Jesus is effectively suggesting that you must submit to authority, regardless of whether or not that authority is good. This is a consistent message throughout the Bible, from David refusing to harm the anointed King Saul despite the evil he had done (1 Samuel 24:6-10) and killing the guy who killed King Saul (2 Samuel 1:1-16), to Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-21 stating that God has put the authorities in power, and so they must be obeyed.

In Matthew 23:4, Jesus then laments how They (Pharisees and Teachers of the Law) burden the people. Luke 11:45-46 parallels this, but is targeted to "experts in the Law."

In Matthew 23:5-7, we see that They love ostentatious displays, the various forms of respect they get due to Their position, and being called "Rabbi." Luke 11:43 says some of the same things, as do the later, more synchronized passages of Mark 12:38-40 and Luke 20:45-47, but Mark and Luke lack a reference to the honorable title of "Rabbi." This is interesting, because next we see...

In Matthew 23:8-10, oddly unique to Matthew, and contradictory to the Catholic church, Jesus instructed to call no man a "Rabbi," Master, or Father, because that role belongs to God. And only Jesus Himself should be called Teacher. (You probably started transgressing this command in elementary school.)

Tapping into that theme of humility (not claiming lofty titles), in Matthew 23:11-12 we see Jesus saying that you should be a humble servant if you want to be exalted. Essentially the same message is also found in Ezekiel 21:26, Matthew 18:3-5, Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 9:35, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 1:52, Luke 9:46-48, Luke 14:11, and Luke 22:24-27. Strangely, it is nowhere within the Gospel of John.

In Matthew 23:13, Jesus said that They do not enter the Kingdom of God, and They prevent others from doing so. In the parallel of Luke 11:52, Luke was a better editor. He had in mind the Elect, and so he slightly relaxed the language, in that the "experts in the Law" only hinder people entering the Kingdom, as opposed to preventing them from doing so.

Depending on what Bible version you have, you may or may not see Matthew 23:14, where Jesus condemned Them to severe punishment for being unmerciful to widows and making ostentatious prayers. Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 have essentially the same content, but some manuscripts lack this line within Matthew.

In Matthew 23:15, Jesus said They work hard to find any religious convert, but then make him twice the "son of Hell" that They are. This is interesting on many levels. Judaism does not have an explicit call for the form of evangelism described here. There was no "Great Commission" for the Jews. However, that is not to say that God did not expect converts. God expected that, if the Jews actually obeyed His Law, other nations would be both impressed by the wisdom of God and somewhat jealous of the blessings the Jews were receiving from Him, and therefore would become interested in learning His ways (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Psalm 67:1-2, Isaiah 2:3, Micah 4:2).

Besides the evangelism aspect, the "son of Hell" is also an interesting point to ponder. In a previous study, we discussed how there are many who think that references to Hell (Gehenna in the Greek) are to a valley full of tombs and/or trash, and so the reference of that valley was similar to saying "your path leads to death" or "do not throw your life away." However, with the "son of Hell," the "son" carries with it a certain metaphorical weight in the sense of being like its "father," whatever that father is, like what we see in John 8:44. So is this equivalent to saying a "son of trash," a "son of death," or perhaps a "son of the Devil"? Unfortunately, this is unique to Matthew, so we have no other references to help us.

Moving on, in Matthew 23:16-22, Jesus complained that They have Their system of meaningful swearing backwards, because they place the things that can be taken (gold, offerings, etc.) at a higher value than what is more permanent (the altar, the Temple, etc.) That makes sense if you are looking at overall significance, but if you are swearing by something as a guarantee that you will fulfill that oath, it makes more sense to do so by something you can actually lose if you fail to deliver on your promise. This is again unique to Matthew.

In Matthew 23:23-24, Jesus lamented that They focus on the minute details of the Law, but not the more important parts of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. There are no specifics here; just these general charges. It is difficult to know how they were not providing justice. As for faithfulness, Deuteronomy 11:13 is the closest reference to faithfulness within the Law, where it instructs to faithfully obey the Law. As for mercy though, there is none in the Law, literally. The only reference to mercy within the commands of the Law is found in Deuteronomy 7:2, and that says to "show them no mercy." Perhaps this is why Luke (who was a better editor) said that the Pharisees were ignoring "justice and the love of God" instead in his parallel in Luke 11:42.

In Matthew 23:25-28, Jesus accused Them of being hypocrites of cleanliness, giving themselves a clean appearance on the outside, but being greedy, wicked, and unclean on the inside. Luke 11:39-41 is a partial parallel of this section, but has Jesus saying that the Pharisees should give what they have to the poor, and then everything will be clean for them. In a loosely related parallel to the Matthew 23:27-28 reference of whitewashed graves, in Luke 11:44 the Pharisees are called unmarked graves. And while we are on the subject of graves...

Matthew 23:29-36 is the ultimate crescendo of condemnation. Jesus accused Them of being like Their forefathers who killed the prior prophets, despite the fact that They build tombs to honor those same prophets. Just to prove it, Jesus will send Them prophets who They too will kill.

You may ask: "Why is Jesus purposefully sending people to be slaughtered?" You and I know that is a morally repugnant idea, but Jesus thought that would be the ideal way to condemn Them. In Matthew 23:35, we see that They will take the blame for all sorts of injustice, including that which They held no responsibility for:

"And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar." NIV

Luke 11:47-51 is the parallel to this passage, and it carries the same overreaching assessment of blame. This is hardly perfect justice, and not what should be expected or accepted of a perfect God.

This mean-spirited chapter closes out in Matthew 23:37-39 with Jesus generally lamenting Jerusalem's rejection of God, as well as a prophesy of His return when they will have repented. In a different area, the parallel of Luke 13:34-35 has these exact same words, supporting the idea that this lamentable anecdote was just a scrap of a recorded saying without any immediate context, which needed to be fit into the Gospel wherever it seemed appropriate to the author.

Resurrecting a Comedy of Errors

'
Background
In Jerusalem, Jesus had angered some of the religious elite with some only-slightly veiled condemnations, so they had tried to get Jesus arrested through entrapment. They tried to get Him to say that you should not pay taxes to the Romans, but Jesus was too cunning to fall prey to them. Yet another prominent sect was waiting in the shadows to try to make Jesus into a fool; the Sadducees.

Resurrecting a Comedy of Errors

Back in the time of Jesus, scrolls were a luxury. It was not at all like today, where the Bible is the best selling book that is never read, where Christian houses often have multiple Bibles. Back then, the synagogues had handwritten copies of handwritten scrolls, and they were treasured. That made it unlikely that the common folk, if they could read at all, would get much of a chance to read the Scripture for themselves. And that means that errors in Scriptural quotations could easily sneak in unnoticed, especially in a new breakaway sect with even more limited resources, as we will see.

In Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-25, and Luke 20:27-38, there is a scene where some Sadducees try to embarrass Jesus with a difficult question. The Sadducees were a Jewish sect with a division from the other believers in that they found no evidence of resurrection in the Scriptures; taking any apparent reference to an afterlife to be metaphorical.

Stepping back to an earlier post for a moment, we had studied Deuteronomy 25:5-10, where a if a man died without producing a son, then one of that man's brothers must marry that man's widow, and the first son to be born of that union would then count as part of the dead man's lineage.

The Sadducees capitalized on this divine law to craft their challenge to resurrection. They asked:

If a man died without having children, and one of his brothers married his widow, per the instructions Moses gave, but the whole scenario repeated itself such that the woman had been married to each of seven brothers in succession without ever having children, whose wife will she be at the resurrection? (My paraphrase)

Jesus gives a two-part answer; first dealing with marriage of the resurrected, and next dealing with resurrection in general. As usual, it seems that Mark provided the source material for Matthew and Luke, and the other two accounts are similar but different, so let us begin with a focus on Mark. Mark 12:24-25 has the first part of the reply:

Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in Heaven." NIV

The Sadducees had assumed, as nearly every Christian I know assumes, that the relationships we have in this life will carry on through the resurrection, and so they had simply asked "whose wife will she be," not who will she then marry. In Jesus reply, we see that there will be no marriage at all for the resurrection. Once you die, you will never be married again, even to the spouse you had while alive.

That is an interesting, and perhaps unpleasant, concept to grasp. So much for the sanctity of marriage, as it is not sanctified enough to endure to the next life. That puts a whole new spin on the common marriage vow of "'til death do us part!" The person who you likely had the closest relationship with when you were living, a relationship endowed with a special title and significance, will become nothing more than just another soul when you are resurrected. However, this is consistent with Jesus' other teachings of how you should forsake everyone except Jesus, including your wife and children.

Jesus scolded the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures, but there is precious little information regarding either angels or marriage after the resurrection in the Old Testament. In fact, the information that is there seemingly contradicts Jesus' own words!

Jesus claims that the angels do not marry, yet we find in Genesis 6:1-4 that:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. NIV

The "sons of God" is a reference to angels (see Job 38:7), and these angels interbred with humans, creating a new race called Nephilim who were endowed with super-human size (Numbers 13:33) and ability ("heroes of old"). But, to be fair, Jesus did say "like the angels in Heaven," so maybe the angels who came down to earth to mate with our women do not count. ;-)

Then there is prophesy to consider as well on this matter of marriage. Starting from Ezekiel 40 and continuing through to the end of the book, the "son of man" (meaning Ezekiel, but also a title Jesus was fond of calling Himself, likely due to its use in Psalm 80:17) is shown God's future Temple plan for Jerusalem, from where God will be enthroned and live with the Israelites (Jews) forever (Ezekiel 43:7). Besides having an inconvenient list of rules for animal sacrifice in this yet-to-come Temple, in Ezekiel 44:22 we see:

[The priests] must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests. NIV

So if we have a prophesy of a forever-enduring Temple where priests will marry, then it appears that Jesus does not "know the Scriptures" either, because men obviously will be marrying for eternity! Furthermore, this prophesy suggests that divorce and death ("widows") will continue forever too! This is not good for Christianity, is it?

Now, on to Mark 12:26-27, where we find in the next part of Jesus' reply:

"Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!" NIV

Well, lucky us! The "in the account of the bush" tells us where we can find the verse that Jesus quoted, as it is a reference to the burning bush that Moses spoke to in Exodus 3. In particular, Exodus 3:6 is that verse:

Then [God] said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. NIV

It appears that Jesus misquoted His own Father, completely leaving out the phrase "the God of your father."

As strange as that is, we should take a moment to consider that the verse which Jesus picked from the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) as obvious evidence of resurrection that the Sadducees were missing is ambiguous at best. Jesus is making the case that because God said "I am... ... the God of Abraham, etc." that it implies that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still living through the use of the present tense "am." However, it is equally valid to interpret that "am" as being the same God that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had worshiped, neither confirming nor denying a continuation of the life of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Fortunately, we do have some context to clarify, but it points against resurrection. In Exodus 6:2-4, we find:

God also said to Moses, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by My Name the Lord I did not make Myself fully known to them. I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they resided as foreigners. NIV

This suggests that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still do not fully know God, which would be difficult if they had been already resurrected. Also note that God's covenant with them was for the land of Canaan, not for eternal life.

In Exodus 32:13, we see Moses pleading with God to:

"Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom You swore by your own Self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’" NIV

If Abraham, Isaac, and Israel were not dead, why would Moses need to remind God about them? Of course, we could also ask why would God need to be reminded about anything! This theme of God's remembrance of these patriarchs is also seen in Leviticus 26:42, Deuteronomy 9:27, and Psalm 105:42.

Finally, in Isaiah 63:16, we find the prophet claiming:

"But you [God] are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your Name." NIV

If Abraham and Israel (Jacob) were alive then, they certainly would know the Israelites (Jews). This is a statement of contrast. The patriarchs Abraham and Israel had been long dead and many generations have passed, so they could not acknowledge the Jews as their offspring, but God is their eternal Father, and therefore can acknowledge them.

Once again we see the evidence stacking up against Jesus, suggesting that Jesus is the one who does not "know the Scriptures."

In closing, we should quickly examine the differences we find in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew's account is essentially unchanged from Mark's text, with one important exception. There are slight rewordings and several places where Matthew and Mark match word-for-word, but there is a curious omission in Matthew. Above we noted how Jesus misquoted the verse from Exodus from the burning bush episode. It is possible that Matthew double-checked the text of Exodus, but could not find the quote. If so, that may be why we find no reference to Moses or the burning bush in Matthew 22:31-32, just a reference to reading "what God said to you."

Luke, normally being more of a careful editor than Matthew, may have realized some issues with Jesus' reply. While Luke 20:34-38 is similar, it is substantially different, with many words added. In court, being that Matthew and Mark agree so well, we would likely throw out Luke's testimony as being inaccurate because it is so different. Yet there are key phrases which Luke retained from Mark, such as "will neither marry nor be given in marriage," "like the angels," "in the account of the bush," and "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Luke's primary differences involve emphasizing the worthiness of those who will be resurrected, calling the worthy one "God's children," and possibly adding another layer of mystery by saying that "for to [God] all are alive." The parallelism the "God's children" and the account from Genesis with the Nephilim is amusing, to say the least. The "to [God] all are alive" makes it seem like everyone is alive in a state of God's mind, while not in actuality. Like they have the yet unrealized potential to be resurrected. Perhaps the funniest difference is the reference to the quote from Exodus from the burning bush episode. Luke has truncated the quote so that the "I am" is removed, making it no longer a misquote. However, Luke attributes those words to Moses, not to God! In Luke 20:37 we see:

But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' NIV

Wrong! God was calling Himself that, as we have seen above. What is even funnier is that Acts is thought to be penned by the same author as Luke, and yet in Acts 7:32 we find another misquote of the same Exodus verse:

‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’ Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look. NIV

This time, Luke dropped "the God of" for Isaac and Jacob.

With this many errors made, where even Jesus Himself misquotes and contradicts Scripture, how can we possibly accept that this is accurate testimony of God becoming a man for the sake of our Salvation? It is funny just how much we believe which we should not.

The Signs of the Times

'
Background
After rebuking some Pharisees and contradicting God's Law, Jesus took a side trip to the region of Tyre and Sidon. There, He reluctantly healed a woman's demon-possessed daughter after He called her, and her people, dogs. Soon Jesus left that region to go back to Galilee, where He fed 4000 with seven loaves of bread and few small fish.

The Signs of the Times

To a large extent for us today, Biblical veracity comes down to prophesy. None of us were around to witness Jesus, and many of us lack the "feeling" of the presence of God, or the feeling we had once felt no longer exists. The only evidence which should be incontrovertible is prophesy. If words written long prior to Jesus accurately reflected His life and times, then faith can be renewed and even the most bull-headed skeptic must bow in contrition (at least if they are honest). Unfortunately, that is not what we find, such as we will see in this study.

Mark is theorized to be the earliest Gospel, and Mark 8:11-13 is a good example of why. There, the Pharisees test Jesus, asking Him for a sign, to which He tells them no sign will be given to this generation. Of course that is dead wrong based on the Biblical accounts of Jesus working many miraculous signs, but at least Mark's message is simple and short.

Matthew 16:1-4 records the same confrontation, but Matthew added the Sadducees to the group, and said that only one sign would be given; the oh-so-problematic sign of Jonah. But Matthew did not stop there. Proving himself to be somewhat of an aggregator of knowledge, Matthew spliced in a condemnation of the Pharisees and Sadducees; that they could interpret the weather yet could not interpret the signs of the times.

Luke does not exactly cover this episode, but Luke does contain Matthew's same condemnation about knowing the weather yet not knowing the signs of the times. If we remember from a previous study, it appeared as though Luke had edited the "sign of Jonah" the first time Matthew had mentioned it. It may be that Luke edited this anecdote as well due to the reference to the "sign of Jonah" again, and so we see in Luke 12:54-56 that he skipped the Pharisees' request for a sign and instead directed the condemnation at the crowds following Jesus:

He said to the crowd: "When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, 'It's going to rain,' and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, 'It's going to be hot,' and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time?" NIV

Wrap your head around this: Jesus, speaking to a highly illiterate crowd (literacy rates were well below 10% back then), calls these people hypocrites for knowing how to interpret the weather signs (which they would have encountered every day of their lives) but not knowing how to "interpret this present time" (which is an implied reference to prophesies in the Scriptures). These people had to rely on the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes to tell them what was in the Scriptures and to inform them what were the prophesied signs, if any, occurring in their times, but here we see Jesus berating them for not knowing something which they were obviously not taught. Luke made a major blunder here.

Now, we are in the meat of the text! I hope you are hungry, because there is a 24 ounce (0.68 kilogram) porterhouse steak of prophesy coming your way!

Going back to Matthew's version, where instead Jesus focuses His attack more rightfully on the Pharisees and Sadducees, it appears that Jesus had expected them to realize "the signs of the times," which implies a connection to prophesies not only about Jesus, but about the events which were then occurring at that time.

So which prophesies might this implied reference refer to? John Gill, one of the great Christian Bible scholars, suggested these signs in his exposition on this verse:

"the ending of Daniel's weeks, the various miracles wrought by Christ, the wickedness of the age in which they lived, the ministry of John the Baptist, and of Christ, the great flockings of the people, both to one and to the other, with divers other things which were easy to be observed by them"

Working from the end to the beginning, we have already discussed the inaccuracies in the prophesies of people flocking to Jesus, some of the issues with Jesus' ministry, and the issues with John the Baptist leading and preparing the way and representing the foretold reappearance of Elijah. The charge that the times were wicked enough to warrant being a sign is the essence of subjectivity. The recorded miracles of Jesus, such as the feeding of the 5000 and walking on water, have proven to be highly questionable. That brings us to "Daniel's weeks."

The reference to "Daniel's weeks" comes from a prophesy in Daniel 9. The big picture is in Daniel 9:24:

"Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy." NIV

The word for "sevens" is literally the word for weeks, but the content which follows makes literal weeks an obviously wrong translation. Another interpretation of "sevens" is years, making this a prophesy about 70 years, but given the lack of everlasting righteousness being established so soon after the building of the Second Temple, this interpretation seems wrong. So in this case, the context makes it reasonably clear that these weeks are actually sets of seven years according to the day-year interpretation. All of these things are supposed to be accomplished by the end of seventy sevens, or 490 years.

The phrase "to put an end to sin" is literally just that, and is applied specifically to the Jews as the phrase "for your people" establishes. How can we be certain? Minus the "weeks" timeline, this concept is echoed in other prophesies, such as Ezekiel 36:24-36 and Ezekiel 37:21-28. These prophesies state that the Jews (Israelites) will never sin again after some certain point of time, among other things.

The phrase "to anoint the most holy" sure appears to be a reference to Jesus, right? There are a couple problems with that interpretation. The first is semantics based, because "most holy" comes from a pair of Hebrew words which refer to a holy place or a thing, more like a temple, a sanctuary, or even the city of Jerusalem itself, than a god-man. The word "place" should come after "most holy." Coincidentally, this couples well to the coming Third Temple which was prophesied in Ezekiel 40-46. The second problem is even bigger...timing.

The Times
Daniel 9:25 tells us specifically that the starting time of the 490 years began from when the decree was given to rebuild Jerusalem. The Persian leader Cyrus the Great made that decree. Being extra generous, we will use the date in which the Second Temple of Jerusalem was completed, 516 BCE, although the decree was probably around twenty years before that.

So add 490 years to 516 BCE and you get 26 BC, that "BC" stands for "Before Christ" in Christian lingo. According to Daniel's prophesy, it was before Jesus that transgressions and sins would end, atonement would be made, and there would be everlasting righteousness. This is an epic prophesy failure.

These dates come from secular historians, but Jewish history states that the decree to build Jerusalem came much later, around 370 BCE, and vehemently maintain that the Second Temple stood for 420 years. Add 490 years to that and you get 120 CE. If you subtract seven years, 113 CE is when a foreign power conquered Israel. And since 120 CE, the Jews have never sinned and have had everlasting righteousness. Wait, that is not right either. Is this the actual prophesy failure?

No. Strangely enough, Jewish scholars, apparently contradicting their own Scriptures, suggest that the timeline instead begins with the destruction of the First Temple, and that Cyrus the Great was the anointed leader to come after 49 years. This trick aligns that fateful last seven years of prophesy with the start of the reign of the tyrannical High Priest Alexander Yannai (103 BCE). The problem is that Yannai's reign lasted twenty seven years, not seven, and we are again lacking an everlasting righteousness.

You might think that with all of these mixed up dates, Biblical scholars would shy away from associating this prophesy with Jesus, but they cannot do that, given that Jesus Himself referenced this specific prophesy in Matthew 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18, and (a slightly modified version in) Luke 21:20-24. Jesus uses it to point out signs yet to come...

That leads to one more timeline theory: According to Nehemiah 2, Artaxerxes gave a commission to rebuild Jerusalem in 444 BCE (Jehovah's Witnesses claim 455 BCE instead, while Seventh Day Adventists claim 457 BCE). Add 490 years to that and you get 46 CE (or 35 CE according to the Jehovah's Witnesses or 33 CE via Seventh Day Adventists). Despite this timeline being essentially useless to Daniel such that it hardly seems to be an answer to his prayer (Daniel 9:20-23), at least this is in the right range. So let us review the signs.

The Signs
Daniel 9:25-27 is the rest of the prophesy; the events leading up to the perfection achieved at the end of those 490 years. These verses are written so haphazardly as to make it extremely difficult to assemble the proper meaning and timing, especially when translators throw in punctuations which are not in the original Hebrew. Here is how I would render it as clearly as possible:

From the time when the order is given to rebuild Jerusalem, in 49 years there will be an anointed leader (a.k.a. a messiah), and the city will continue on for another 434 years during turbulent times. After those 483 total years, the anointed ruler will be cut off. A foreign leader and his people will capture the city, and will rule it for 7 years until his per-ordained fate. He will make cooperative promises with many of the people during that time. Yet rebellions and blasphemes will be frequent during his reign. Approximately 3.5 years into his rule, he will stop the Temple sacrifices and set up an abomination in the Temple which will last until the end of his reign. At some point, he will destroy the city and the Temple, like a flood, in battle.

Where did Daniel come up with these numbers? Of course, it is difficult to say. Some secular scholars and liberal Christian scholars have suggested that this is an ex eventuex prophesy written after the events sometime in the second century BCE, and that it (the last week of the prophesy in particular) aligns to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the associated Maccabean Revolt (171 BCE), but this requires Daniel to be really bad with dates; off by around 70 years in his timeline even with the most-favorable timeline given above.

I think that there may be a better fitting, but completely overlooked explanation.

If the authorship of the prophesy is much older than the second century BCE, written closer to the time when Daniel supposedly lived, maybe even by Daniel himself, I would suggest instead that it could be an echo of the Old Testament history. The 49 years could represent the time from when David was anointed to become the future king (1 Samuel 16:13) up to the end of his forty-year reign (1 Kings 2:10-11), but there is no specific date given for his anointing to be certain. More precise, however, is that from Solomon's reign to the time when the Babylonians captured Jerusalem was approximately 433.5 years according to the chronology in 1 Kings and 2 Kings, which is pretty darn close to 434 years. It could be that Daniel was forecasting that history would repeat itself. However this time, after a seven year tribulation period instead of a seventy year exile, the cycle of repeated history would end, and everlasting righteousness would be established.

Now, onto the signs:

• An anointed one (a messiah, a.k.a. a ruler chosen by God and anointed with oil, reference Exodus 29:7, 1 Samuel 10:1, 1 Samuel 16:13) will rule in 49 years
• There are anointed rulers for the next 434 years
• The anointed ruler will be cut off, replaced by a foreign ruler (or at least a non-anointed ruler)
• That foreign ruler will rule for seven years (Romans ruled it for well over seven years)
• That foreign ruler will make promises to many
• That foreign ruler will put an end to sacrifices and offerings in 3.5 years (Sacrifices continued to the Temple destruction in 70 CE)
• That foreign ruler will set up an "abomination which causes desolation" in the Temple which will remain there until his preordained end.
• Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed at some point by this foreign ruler's people
• At the end of this seven-year rule, God will make atonement for the Jewish people, put an end to sin, and establish everlasting righteousness.

Collectively, this is one huge failure of prophesy. Yet with so many tempting elements, and with Jesus Himself referencing this specific prophesy in Matthew 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18, and (a slightly modified version in) Luke 21:20-24, Christians cannot ignore it and cannot accept that it is a failure. The product of this contradiction results in some of the most contemptible attempts at Biblical scholarship you will ever find.

For example, one scholarly view is that Jesus was the ruler of the final seven years, where the anointed Jesus was cut off (killed) during that seven years, He had made a covenant with many people, His sacrifice put an end to sacrifices, He had made atonement, He had established an everlasting righteousness, and the Temple was destroyed...eventually (30+ years later).

Contrast this with another popular Christian scholarly view where the ruler during that final seven years is actually the Antichrist, who will rule after the Church is Raptured. It is the Antichrist who will make a covenant with many, will stop the sacrifices and offerings (even though Jesus had already made them unnecessary and somehow even the Rapture of the Church does not convince the Jews enough that the Christians were right to make them stop sacrificing on their own), and will attack Jerusalem and the Temple. This view holds that the first 483 years of Daniel's prophesy has already happened (culminating with Jesus) and did happen sequentially, but that this final set of seven years is (obviously) still yet to occur, which makes absolutely no sense other than making people feel better about a failed prophesy.

For Christian scholars to study the same four verses of prophesy and come up with both Jesus and the Antichrist being represented in the same words is simultaneously hilarious and sad. Yet this shows you the lengths that believers will go to in order to mold these Old Testament prophesies into what they want them to be instead of simply believing what they are actually saying.

I Am the Law

'
Background
God gave His Law, recognized as 613 laws, decrees, commands, rules, precepts, instructions, regulations, statutes, and stipulations, to the Israelites after their Exodus from Egyptian slavery, before they entered the Promised Land.

That is worth repeating. Before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, God gave them His Law, and He expected it to be obeyed to the letter. It would seem that the Promise was tied to obedience, but let us not get ahead of ourselves. In this very detailed study, we will review God's opinion of His Law.

I Am the Law

The Old Testament authors also had a lot to say about God and His Law. While most Christians are at least somewhat familiar with the New Testament teachings on the Law, scarcely few have examined God's foundational perspective of the Law found in the Old Testament. A good place to start such a study is Psalm 119, but let us go deeper into God's word in the Old Testament, asking some very important questions:

What is the purpose of the Law?
Does the Law reflect God?
Will the Law ever change?
How long will the Law be in effect?
Does the entire Law need to be obeyed?
Is it possible to obey the Law?
What if you do not obey the Law perfectly?
If you obey God's Law, will you live?
What worldly influence does God expect the Law to have?
What is the connection between the Law and the covenant of an eternal Kingdom?
Can you summarize all of this information concisely?

---

Exodus 18:20
Teach them His decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. NIV

What is the purpose of the Law?
We do not have to guess the purpose of the Law. God has two reasons spelled out for us.

First, Deuteronomy 4:5-8 states that this Law will show other nations the wisdom of God, thereby demonstrating that the Israelites worship the one true God.

Second, Deuteronomy 6:20-25 explicitly states that the meaning of the Law is for the Israelites to obey it in order to prosper in the Promised Land. Such obedience will be righteousness.

As Psalm 105:42-45 renders it, the whole point of the Egyptian Exodus and inheritance of the Promised Land was “that they might keep His precepts and observe His laws.”

---

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, His works are perfect, and all His ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is He. NIV

Does the Law reflect God?
The Law is a work of God, which, by the verse above, is perfect, but is the Law a valid representation of God's character? Deuteronomy 12:28 makes it pretty clear:

Be careful to obey all these regulations I am giving you, so that it may always go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is good and right in the eyes of the LORD your God. NIV

In case there is still some doubt, consider that the Law has been described as just, right, good, perfect, trustworthy, wise, radiant, firm, righteous, great, glorious, and eternal (Nehemiah 9:13-14, Psalm 19:7-9, Isaiah 42:21, Psalm 119:160). These attributes all reflect God's Biblically labeled character. Furthermore, as we see in Deuteronomy 28:9:

The LORD will establish you as His holy people, as He promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the LORD your God and walk in obedience to him. NIV

obedience to the Law will permit the people to be holy.

---

Psalm 119:96
To all perfection I see a limit, but your commands are boundless. NIV

Will the Law ever change?
If the Law is perfect, we would never expect it to change. Indeed, Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and Deuteronomy 12:32 both say that nothing should be added to the Law, and nothing should be taken away from it either.

---

Psalm 119:160
All Your words are true; all Your righteous laws are eternal. NIV

How long will the Law be in effect?
God intends for His Law to be in effect forever (Psalm 119:152). It should be obeyed always (Deuteronomy 11:1). It is everlasting (Psalm 103:17-18), part of an everlasting covenant (Isaiah 24:5).

---

Numbers 15:39-40
You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by chasing after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. Then you will remember to obey all My commands and will be consecrated to your God. NIV

Does the entire Law need to be obeyed?
There are well over a hundred references to the call to obey God's Law. A subset of at least thirty-two of those commands specifically says to follow all of the Law; Exodus 15:26, Leviticus 19:37, Leviticus 20:22, Leviticus 26:14-15, Numbers 15:39-40, Deuteronomy 5:29, Deuteronomy 5:31, Deuteronomy 6:20-25, Deuteronomy 11:8, Deuteronomy 11:22, Deuteronomy 11:32, Deuteronomy 12:28, Deuteronomy 13:18, Deuteronomy 15:5, Deuteronomy 17:18-20, Deuteronomy 19:9, Deuteronomy 27:1, Deuteronomy 28:1, Deuteronomy 28:13-15, Deuteronomy 28:58, Deuteronomy 29:29, Deuteronomy 32:46, Joshua 1:7-8, Joshua 22:5-6, 1 Kings 6:12, 2 Kings 21:8, 2 Kings 23:24-25, 2 Chronicles 33:8, Nehemiah 10:28-29, Psalm 18:21-22, Ezekiel 18:19, and Ezekiel 18:21.

Take note that this is not simply obeying all of the Law in spirit. With the phase “all the words of this Law” found in Deuteronomy 17:18-20, Deuteronomy 28:58, Deuteronomy 29:29, and Deuteronomy 32:46, it is crystal clear that God is referring to obeying each and every meticulous detail in the Law. As we see in Deuteronomy 32:46:

[Moses] said to them, “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this Law.” NIV

---

Psalm 103:17-18
But from everlasting to everlasting the LORD’s love is with those who fear Him, and His righteousness with their children’s children— with those who keep His covenant and remember to obey His precepts. NIV

Is it possible to obey the Law?
When you see how often God pleads for His people to obey the Law, there should be no doubt. Why would God tell His people to do something which they could not do? In fact, this opinion is explicitly given. Deuteronomy 30:11-14 says this in respect to obeying the Law:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. NIV

God had given the Law to them, instructed that it be spoken about continuously (Deuteronomy 6:7-9), and placed the Law in their hearts so that it would not be too difficult to obey.

There is an entire book of the Bible devoted to a man who perfectly upheld the Law. His name is Joshua. Of course, there are several other references to such complete obedience too, such as Job 23:12 (Note: Some scholars suggest that Job lived prior to when the Law was given), Psalm 18:21-22, Psalm 99:7, and Psalm 119:44. As we see from 1 Kings 8:61 (and 1 Chronicles 28:7), it is not just individuals which could have complete obedience, but also the entire nation:

“And may your hearts be fully committed to the LORD our God, to live by His decrees and obey His commands, as at this time.” NIV

---

Psalm 81:13-15
“If my people would only listen to Me, if Israel would only follow My ways, how quickly I would subdue their enemies and turn My hand against their foes! Those who hate the LORD would cringe before Him, and their punishment would last forever.” NIV

What if you do not obey the Law perfectly?
Per the Bible, you did not have to obey the Law perfectly to be considered righteous. This is obvious both from the facts that not every transgression of the Law held the death penalty, and that there were several different atonement ceremonies which could be performed based on different transgressions. In a sense, in adhering to the punishment schedule and atonement rituals, the people were keeping the Law despite transgressions of the Law itself.

There are also shining examples of people who broke the Law, and yet were still considered righteous by God. In Numbers 20, Moses transgressed Leviticus 22:32, but God still thought Moses was righteous enough to speak with him face-to-face (Deuteronomy 34:10). In 2 Samuel 11-12, King David had committed adultery Bathsheba and then had her husband, Uriah, killed, yet 1 Kings 15:5 says this of him:

For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. NIV

and David's lineage was given the Kingdom as an inheritance (1 Kings 11:38).

It seems that God is willing to forgive past transgressions for those who are truly repentant. As Ezekiel 18:21 renders it:

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die.” NIV

This repentant turn to God is allowed for individuals and nations, as we see from the example set by King Josiah in 2 Kings 23:24-25:

Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfill the requirements of the Law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the LORD. Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the LORD as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses. NIV

---

Leviticus 18:5
Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD. NIV

If you obey God's Law, will you live?
Leviticus 18:5, Deuteronomy 4:1-2, Deuteronomy 6:20-25, Nehemiah 9:29, Ezekiel 18:9, Ezekiel 18:17, Ezekiel 18:19, Ezekiel 18:21, Ezekiel 20:11, Ezekiel 20:13, Ezekiel 20:21, and Ezekiel 33:15 all say that if you obey the Law you will live. Ezekiel 18:21 and Ezekiel 33:15 even go so far as to add that a person who obeys the Law will “not die.”

Live, and not die? Is eternal life granted by obeying God's Law? Not at all. You have to look at other verses within the Bible to get the entire perspective. Consider Deuteronomy 4:40

Keep His decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time. NIV

Speaking of “your children after you” means that you will die even while obeying the Law. So you will not live forever, but take a look at 1 Kings 3:14:

“and if you walk in obedience to Me and keep My decrees and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.” NIV

Obedience will grant you a long (not eternal) life. If you obey God's Law, you will live long, and you will not die prematurely. This is what it means to live by the Law, and not die, but that is not all.

Living a long time would not necessarily be a good thing, which is why God also promises blessings for you, your posterity, and your nation; habitation of the Promised Land, a peaceful life, and great prosperity were all gifts for obedience (Leviticus 20:22, Leviticus 25:18, Deuteronomy 4:1-2, Deuteronomy 5:29, Deuteronomy 6:20-25, Deuteronomy 11:13-15, Deuteronomy 30:16, Joshua 1:7-8, 2 Chronicles 31:21, Isaiah 48:18-19).

According to Deuteronomy 17:18-20, kings who obeyed God's Law would be granted a ruling dynasty.

---

Deuteronomy 28:1
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all His commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

What worldly influence does God expect the Law to have?
Deuteronomy 4:5-6 gives us a hint at the influence God expected His Law to have:

See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” NIV

God's Law would show the surrounding nations how wise the Israelites were. From Deuteronomy 28:1-13, we can also see that obedience would not just grant the Israelites prosperity, but that God's blessing in return for obedience would make their nation the most prosperous nation in the entire world. It is from this perspective which we find Psalm 67:1-2 written:

May God be gracious to us and bless us and make His face shine on us— so that Your ways may be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations. NIV

The blessings the Israelites had received would make all other nations envious and curious. These other nations would try to figure out what makes the Israelites so prosperous. They would discover that the Israelites worship God and follow His wise ways (obey His Law). Naturally, they would try to emulate this success, obeying God's Law, and being led to the one true God in the process. That is precisely why we see the prophesy in Isaiah 2:3 and Micah 4:2 that:

Many nations will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us His ways, so that we may walk in His paths.” The Law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. NIV

---

Psalm 132:12
If your sons keep My covenant and the statutes I teach them, then their sons will sit on your throne for ever and ever.” NIV

What is the connection between the Law and the covenant of an eternal Kingdom?
In Deuteronomy 4:40, we find some rather interesting text:

Keep His decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time. NIV

God has given the Promised Land to the Israelites for all time, forever. This eternal gift is seen in Genesis 13:15 and Exodus 32:13 as well. However, whether or not the Israelites get to live in the Promised Land is determined by their obedience to God's Law. If they rebel, they will be expelled, but they will always be welcomed back to the Promised Land when they will obey God. This theme of prophesy can be seen in verses such as Ezekiel 11:17-21.

The same kind of situation exists for the Kingdom itself. The Promised Land must be ruled, and that ruling will be by that of a king. The dynasty of kingship for this eternal Kingdom belongs to those who will obey God completely. That is why we see in 1 Samuel 13:13 that Samuel told King Saul:

“You have done a foolish thing,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you; if you had, He would have established your Kingdom over Israel for all time.” NIV

That is why we see God's message to Solomon in 1 Chronicles 28:7 as:

I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out My commands and laws, as is being done at this time. NIV

and why we see Solomon plead in 2 Chronicles 6:16 to God:

“Now, LORD, the God of Israel, keep for Your servant David my father the promises You made to him when You said, ‘You shall never fail to have a successor to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your descendants are careful in all they do to walk before Me according to My Law, as you have done.’” NIV

By these verses, we can quite clearly see that ruling the Kingdom eternally meant having an unbroken dynasty of successors, and that such a dynasty was dependent on each descendant obeying God's Law.

When Solomon ultimately ended up drifting from obedience to God, God tore the Kingdom from his successor, giving it instead to Jeroboam and offering him the same kind of enduring dynasty which was given to David (1 Kings 11:29-39).

---

Isaiah 63:17
Why, LORD, do you make us wander from Your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes that are Your inheritance. NIV

Can you summarize all of this information concisely?
God gave the Promised Land to the Israelites for eternity, but they can only stay there, and kings can only rule there, while they obey the entirety of God's Law. God established the Law forever, perfect, and unchanging, just like Him. It is possible to obey the Law, and obedience does not need to be perfect in order to please God as long as you are truly repentant for your sins. Such obedience will be rewarded with long life and abundant prosperity, which will in turn lead others around you to seek God.