-10-

Is Cyrus the Messiah of Daniel 9:24-27?

(Considering Anti-Missionary Objections)

The Anti-missionary response to our position is multifaceted. They claim that Christian translators:

...disregard the Hebrew punctuation. The punctuation mark atnah functions as the main pause within a sentence. The atnah is the approximate equivalent to the semicolon in the modern system of punctuation. It has the effect of separating the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks: '...until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; then for1 sixty-two weeks it shall be built again'...The king James Version omits2 the definite article in Daniel 9:26, which should read: 'and after the threescore and two-weeks...' By treating the sixty-two weeks as a distinct period, this verse, in the original Hebrew, shows that the sixty-two weeks mentioned in verse 25 are correctly separated from the seven weeks by the atnah. Hence, two anointed ones are spoken of in this chapter, one of whom comes after seven weeks [Cyrus the ruler of Medo-Persia according to the anti-missionary] and the other after a further period of sixty-two weeks. (Sigal, pp. 110-11).

Sigal cannot resort to arguments based on punctuation since the original Hebrew did not have punctuation marks. Note the following quotation from a Jewish Encyclopedia:  “It has therefore been assumed that Hebrew nikkud [punctuation] having originated in the sixth and seventh centuries, was incorporated into the text of the Bible by the middle of the eight centuries as an indispensable aid to its study. 3

The Masoretes are the ones who accented the Masoretic text that underlies today's English translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. To this Sigal objects that there is: "...no proof that the Masoretes corrupted the text. Quite the contrary, the Masoretic text is the result of carefully handed down traditions. Only the written forms of the vowel signs and accent marks were devised sometime during the seventh or eight centuries C.E., but the oral tradition which these signs and marks represent goes back millennia" (Sigal, p. 115).

The "oral tradition" of the Jews is unscriptural (see Appendix D) and therefore wholly subjective. And this is one instance where I would side with the Babylonian Geonim (heads of the Babylonian academies at Sura and Pumbeditha) who rightly said: "The punctuation was not given at Sinai, but was introduced by the scholars as an external aid for the reading of the Bible. The prohibition against adding anything to the Torah (Deuteronomy 13:1) would be transgressed by adding the punctuation to the Sefer Torah."4

Punctuation being accepted as inspired for any book violates Deuteronomy 13:1. We cannot rest our whole case on uninspired punctuation of any scholar whether Jewish or Christian. Only the context and related passages of Scripture can determine what constitutes proper punctuation. When these are considered, the punctuation of the Christian scholars is vindicated for the following reasons. First, "Mashiyach Nagid" did not come 49 years ("seven weeks") after the command to restore and rebuild the temple. (I prove this later on.) Since this is the case, "Mashiyach Nagid" must appear, and be "cut off" after the "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." This would mean that there are not two Messiah's in view, but one, precisely as Daniel recorded it (9:26).

The Alleged Second Messiah

Second, if there are two "Mashiyachs" referred to in the text as Sigal suggests---one who comes after 49 years (seven weeks) and another who comes after 434 years (62 weeks), then who was this second "Mashiyach"? When did he appear? When was he "cut off" (Dan. 9:26)? The absence of a plausible answer to these questions proves fatal to the anti-missionary argument on punctuation. If we move forward 434 years from the time the anti-missionary claims the first forty-nine years ("seven weeks") expired (537 B.C.), we reach the year 103 B.C. There is absolutely no king or priest that came, was killed, and who ushered in any of the six blessings enumerated by the angel in Daniel 9:24! In the last chapter, we showed how Jesus did claim to be the Messiah and was indeed "cut off" to bring salvation from sin.

It is not surprising that most of the different Jewish sources that I am critiquing do not even comment on the cutting off of the alleged second "Mashiyach." I am convinced that this is because they cannot find a fitting candidate for their theory in history. Troki was the only anti-missionary who was bold enough to reveal the identity of the alleged "second Mashiyach." 

The termination of sixty-two weeks is remarkable for the cessation 'of an anointed king;' that is to say, Israel is according to that prophecy to be bereft of his last ruler... The cessation of a ruler over Israel is simultaneous with the fall of the Temple and, consequently, alluded to the conquest by Titus, when Israel ceased to exist as a nation, and was deprived of its Temple, its ruler, and its country (Troki, p. 204).

This happened in A.D. 70. But this interpretation cannot be true for the 434 years of the sixty-two weeks of Daniel's prophecy would have to be changed to 607 years to accommodate an A.D. 70 fulfillment. (B.C. 537 to A.D. 70 is approximately 607 years.) Moreover, Daniel states the city and temple were to be destroyed after, not "simultaneous with, "Mashiyach Nagid's" death (9:26). None of this fits Troki's candidate for "Mashiyach Nagid" (the ruler over Israel in A.D. 70), but all of it fits precisely with the chronology of Jesus' life and death and the temple's subsequent destruction.

Cyrus the "Mashiyach Nagid?"

The anti-missionary claims that the alleged first "Mashiyach Nagid" of Daniel 9:25 has already come. Sigal, Levine and Troki claim that the "Mashiyach Nagid" of (Dan. 9:25) refers to Cyrus "his anointed" [Mashiyach] (Isa. 44:8; 45:1). Sigal then concludes that "[Daniel 9:2] is obviously referring to Jeremiah 25:11-12, 29:10, 30:18, and 31:37-39, where the promise of restoration appears. Therefore, 'the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem' (Daniel 9:25) dates from the time when God related His message to Jeremiah" (Sigal, p. 112).

Then a page later, Sigal states: "We must conclude that the actual command to rebuild Jerusalem must be in accordance with the words of Isaiah, who said that this would be done by Cyrus: 'he [Cyrus] shall rebuild My city' (see also Ezra 1:1-8, 6:1-5). Indeed, it was Cyrus who issued a proclamation (ca. 537 B.C.E.) for the return and for the rebuilding to start forty-nine years after the destruction of Jerusalem" (Sigal, p. 113).

The contradiction between these two statements might be lost to the reader through a casual reading of Sigal's expositions. First, he states that the command to "restore and build Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25) starts when God related the "promise of restoration" to Jeremiah (Sigal, p. 112). But Jeremiah received this "promise (Jer. 25:11-12)"  from God in the "fourth year of Jehoiakim," king of Judah (Jer. 25:1)! The fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign is the year 611 B.C. Traveling forward 49 years from 611 B.C. brings us to the year 562 B.C. But this is too early for Sigal, seeing that Cyrus did not come to power for another 20 years! Remember, the anti-missionary believes that Daniel prophesied the coming of two Mashiyachs, one who comes after the first "forty-nine" years (the "seven weeks" of Dan. 9:25a) and another that comes after the four hundred and thirty-four years (the "sixty-two weeks" 9:26a). Now that we have shown that there is no correlation between the expiration of the "forty-nine" years and the coming of Cyrus to power, we must conclude that there is but one "Mashiyach" in the purview of Daniel 9:25-26. Therefore, the Christian translators are vindicated for connecting "..seven weeks and sixty-two weeks..." in Daniel 9:25. 

Secondly, Sigal later states that "forty-nine years" were to transpire from the "destruction of Jerusalem [586.B.C.E] " until Cyrus "...issued a proclamation (ca. 537 B.C.E.) for the return and for the rebuilding to start..." (Sigal, p. 113). This contradicts his earlier claim that the command to "restore and build Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25) starts when God related the "promise of restoration" to Jeremiah. (Sigal, p. 112).

The Greatest Point

The greatest point which refutes the idea that Cyrus is the "Mashiyach Nagid" of Daniel 9:25 is the context of Daniel 9. According to Daniel 9:2, Daniel was reading from the prophecy of Jeremiah:

In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

It is crucial to the understanding of "Mashiyach Nagid's" identity to recognize that Daniel's ensuing prayer (Dan. 9:3-20) was provoked by his reading of Jeremiah's prophecies particularly Jeremiah 29:10 which specified that God would restore Judah after 70 years. However, just a few verses later (remember chapter and verse demarcations did not come into being until many years later) God spoke of the Messiah:

For, lo, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will bring back the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the Lord: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it...for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and strangers shall no more make him serve. But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them (Jer. 30:3, 8-9).

Apparently Daniel did not understand that Jeremiah 29:10 referred only to a limited restoration during which they would not enjoy national sovereignty. (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12). Jeremiah 30:3-9 refers to the restoration of Judah and Israel under the sovereignty and headship of King David, whom both Christian and Jewish scholars agree has reference to Messiah Son of David. This is the same "Mashiyach" "the branch" whom God was to raise up according to Jeremiah 23:5-8. After reading through Jeremiah 23-31, we can understand why Daniel confessed the sins of all Israel hoping for the grand restoration. Thus the answer delivered by Gabriel dealt with the coming of "Mashiyach Nagid" "the righteous branch" not "Mashiyach" Cyrus. Cyrus is not mentioned in the book of Jeremiah from which Daniel was reading; he is spoken of in the book of Isaiah.

Making the Point Simple

The point we are establishing really boils down to a simple matter. Daniel prophesied that "Mashiyach Nagid's" death would come "after" the 483 years (9:26a) but before the destruction of the temple (9:26b) in A.D. 70. This would place the arrival of the Messiah at about the beginning of this era. Interestingly enough, the Jews of antiquity expected their Messiah to come precisely at that time, as Flavious Josephus records:

But Ananus the priest answered and spake to them: “I know all the books. When Herod fought beneath the city wall, I had never thought that God would permit him to rule over us. But now I understand that our desolation is nigh. And bethink you of the prophecy of Daniel: for he writes that after the return the city of Jerusalem shall stand for seventy weeks of years, which are 490 years, and after these years shall it be desolate.” And when they counted the years, (they) were thirty years and four. But Jonathan answered and spake: “The number of the years are even as we have said. But the Holy of Holies, where is He? For this Herod the blood-thirsty and impure can he (the prophet) not call Holy One.”5

This dialogue took place during the year of Herod's Arab campaign (approx. 30 B.C.). By their reckoning, the Messiah was to appear at the beginning of this era the approximate date of Jesus' birth! Sanhedrin (97a-97b)

The tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: 'The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation (i.e., no Torah). Two thousand years the Torah flourished, and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era (i.e., Messiah should have come at the beginning of the last two thousand years); the delay is due to our sins.'6

Rashi: 'Because after the second two thousand years, the Messiah must have come and the wicked kingdom should have been destroyed.'7

Sanhedrin (97a): Rab said, 'All the predestined dates (for redemption) have passed.'8

Indeed the dates have passed, but let all who love the truth take heart: Messiah has come!

< Chapter 9 | Chapter 11 >