Will this be "the Sign of the Son of Man"?

by a Christian 78 Replies latest watchtower bible

a Christian

Nark,
When I wrote, "I understand this wording to be anachronistic" I was not referring to the entire passage but only to the words "and he went" as opposed to "he had been going." You wrote: What you missed is that the whole main sentence egeneto rhema theou epi Ioannèn is clearly indicative, for any OT reader/hearer, of the start of a prophet's mission. Compare for instance Jeremiah 1:1 LXX: to rhèma tou theou ho egeneto epi Ieremian...
As I pointed out, I have no problem understanding this wording as the announcement of the start of a prophet's mission, providing we recognize that prophet to be Jesus Christ. "The word of God" which "came to John in the desert" may have been the word of God which heralded the beginning of Christ's ministry, as recorded in Matt. 3:17. Matthew tells us that at that time "a voice from heaven said, 'This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased.' "
You wrote: Secondarily what you also missed is, as I pointed out above, that Luke goes out of his way to disconnect John from Jesus' baptism, having John imprisoned (v. 20) before Jesus' baptism and the voice of heaven are mentioned ... In any case, in Luke's own text John is conspicuously absent as a potential witness of the voice of heaven.
Not if this was, as you seem to admit it might have been, nothing more than a purely innocent anachronism.
You wrote: if you apply the artificial apocalyptical pattern of 3 1/2 years to both John and Jesus (which no NT text ever suggests) you already have the symbolical "week" completed with Jesus' death: why bother with Cornelius then?
Because the "Seventy Weeks" prophecy tells us that the Messiah would "put a stop to sacrifices and offerings" "in the middle of" the seventieth week, not at the end of it. You wrote: it is very easy to show that the references to the Antiochus crisis are common to the different chapters of Daniel, e.g. the "abomination of desolation".
Certainly not to all chapters of Daniel. Is the Antiochus crisis referenced in Daniel 2? What about in Daniel 4? Why then do you insist that Daniel 9 cannot be a Messianic prophecy?
Artaxerxes began to rule the Persian empire in August of 465 BC. So, if Nehemiah was simply using the same system of reckoning quite often employed by historians, the accession year system which counted a king's first full calendar year of rule as his "first" year, then he would have counted 464 BC as Artaxerxes' "first" year as king and 445 BC as his 20th year as king. But there is more to this story.
Have you ever carefully studied the history books which tell us of the events which transpired during the first few years of Artaxerxes' rule? If you have not you may find the following information to be of interest.

Historians tell us that Artaxerxes came to the throne of Persia following the murder of his father Xerxes. To gain the throne for himself Artaxerxes blamed his father's murder on the rightful heir to the throne, his older brother crown prince Darius. He and his supporters, the real murderers, then had Darius unjustly executed. This much we know. And since we know it we can assume that many of Persia’s royal family then also knew it.

Under those circumstances, Artaxerxes' legal right to rule Persia during the first few years of his reign would have certainly been disputed by anyone who considered himself to be the legitimate heir to Persia’s throne. I have little doubt that immediately following Xerxes’ murder Artaxerxes' other older brother Hyspases, who was then away governing the Persian Province of Bactria, and Xerxes' own full brother Achamenes, who was then away governing Egypt, both would have felt that they then held the legal right to Persia's throne. At that time many of their friends and family would have certainly supported their claims to be the rightful heir to Persia’s throne.

If this was the case, then Artaxerxes did not did gain full unchallenged control of his empire until 459 BC. For it was in that year that Achamenes was killed in a battle in Egypt, and it was only shortly before then that Artaxerxes killed his older brother Hyspases in what is called the Bactrian revolt. So, with these things in mind, it appears quite likely that it was not until 459 BC, when both of his legitimate rivals for Persia's throne were finally out of the way, that Artaxerxes finally secured full legal control of Persia’s throne.

And from my study of the chronological information recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles I have learned that Bible writers did not count a king's years of reign in which his right to rule was being legally contested.
Because of the information I have here discussed I now believe that Nehemiah counted 459 BC as Artaxerxes' "first" year as king of Persia. ( The accession year system would not have been here employed since its purpose was to credit the previously ruling king with the last full calendar year of his rule. And Xerxes’ death had occurred years earlier.) And if he did so, Nehemiah would have then counted 440 BC as Artaxerxes' 20th year, not 445 BC. I believe that the year 440 BC was, according to the system of reckoning used by Nehemiah, the 20th year of Artaxerxes in which Nehemiah tells us a decree was issued by that Persian king to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. ( Daniel 9:25, Nehemiah 2:1)
This understanding, that Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem with Artaxerxes' decree in hand in 440 B.C rather than in 445 B.C. is also confirmed for us by the First Century Jewish historian Josephus, who tells us that Nehemiah "came to Jerusalem" not "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" as does Nehemiah, but in his "twenty and fifth year." (Ant. XI, 5, 7 ) I believe that Josephus was then quoting from a source which like today's history books, but unlike Nehemiah, counted Artaxerxes' first full calendar year of rule following his father's murder as his "first" year as Persia's king, even though his rule was then being legally contested.

With this understanding of Persian history in mind, I believe that we can now clearly understand how "The 70-weeks" prophecy was most likely meant to be understood. Consider the following:

I believe that Daniel's “70 weeks” prophecy indicates that the Messiah would be presented to Israel 69 weeks of years ( 483 years ) after "a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" was issued. But 483 years before A.D. 29 ( the year Jesus is believed to have been baptized ) yields the date of 455 BC, not the date of 440 B.C. just discussed.
How can this problem be resolved? By remembering that the Jews used a lunar calendar. Their years were lunar years not solar years. A lunar year contains 354.367 days. So 483 lunar years contain 171,159 days. And 171,159 days divided by 365.2425 (the # of days in a solar year) = 468.617 solar years. And 468.617 solar years after the month of Nisan (Neh. 2:1) in 440 B.C. brings us to the autumn of A.D. 29. Or, put another way, 483 lunar years after the spring of 440 B.C. brings us to the autumn of A.D. 29, the time Luke indicates that Jesus of Nazareth became God's anointed one, "the Messiah" spoken of in Daniel 9: 25.

Now, I am certainly well aware of the fact that the Jews added a second month of Adar to the tail end of their lunar calendars every few years to make sure that their lunar calendar never fell too far out of sync with the solar year. However, this does not change the fact that, to the Jews, "a year" normally meant 354 days. For that is the number of days which one of their calendars normally contained. Their calendars usually consisted of six 29 day months and six 30 day months. So, to the Jews a “year” was a lunar year, and a week of years (literally a “seven” of years) was seven lunar years. And “seventy” “sevens” of lunar years = 490 lunar years, none of which are by nature solar-adjusted.

With these things in mind, I believe we can now properly understand the rest of Daniel's "70 weeks" prophecy in the following way:

First, 7 weeks (49 lunar years, 47.54 solar years) from the spring of 440 BC brings us to the late autumn of 393 BC. By this time Jerusalem's rebuilding had been completed. (Dan.9:25)

Second, as already mentioned, after another 62 weeks (434 lunar years, 421.07 solar years) in the autumn of A.D. 29 Jesus of Nazareth became the “Messiah” spoken of in Dan. 9:25, 26 when he was anointed with the waters of baptism by John and Holy Spirit by God. Immediately following this event Jesus spent forty days fasting alone in the wilderness. During this time, in fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, Jesus was totally "cut off" from his people and quite literally "had nothing for himself." (Dan. 9:26)

Third, "in the middle of” this prophecy's 70th week, on April 3rd, April 5th and May 14th of 33 AD, Jesus' sacrificial death, resurrection and ascension to heaven successfully "put an end to sacrifice and offering." (Dan. 9:27)

Fourth, at the end of this prophecy's 70th week, in about mid-September of 36 AD, in further fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, God's Holy Spirit was poured out on the first non-Jewish people.(Acts 10) This was done in order to "confirm a covenant with many." (Dan. 9:27) The "many" here referred to were the "many nations" God promised Abraham that he would one day become the father of. (Gen. 17:4) For Jesus was Abraham's descendant. So when Gentiles call Jesus their Father they are also acknowledging Abraham as their spiritual ancestor.
a Christian

Mary,
You wrote: We can only hope and pray that when it gets reeeeally, really close, that Bruce Willis will be recruited by NASA to get a team together, fly out to this comet, drill a big giant hole in it, drop a nuke and blast it to Kingdom come, before it hits earth.
From Popular Mechanics (Dec. 2006) If the dice do land the wrong way in 2029, Apophis would have to be deflected by some 5000 miles to miss the Earth in 2036. Hollywood notwithstanding, that's a feat far beyond any current human technology. The fanciful mission in the 1998 movie Armageddon—to drill a hole more than 800 ft. into an asteroid and detonate a nuclear bomb inside it—is about as technically feasible as time travel. In reality, after April 13, 2029, there would be little we could do but plot the precise impact point and start evacuating people.
Leolaia

You wrote: What you missed is that the whole main sentence egeneto rhema theou epi Ioannèn is clearly indicative, for any OT reader/hearer, of the start of a prophet's mission. Compare for instance Jeremiah 1:1 LXX: to rhèma tou theou ho egeneto epi Ieremian...
As I pointed out, I have no problem understanding this wording as the announcement of the start of a prophet's mission, providing we recognize that prophet to be Jesus Christ.
No, that's entirely contrary to the literary form utilized in the passage (hence, special pleading). The stereotypical introduction to prophetic commissionings, i.e. the word of the Lord came to so-and-so in [insert time reference], always introduces the calling of the prophet to whom the "word of Yahweh" is addressed, not another individual altogether (cf. 1:76, which notes that John "will be called a prophet of the Most High"). The very specific time reference in Luke 3:1-2 dates the time when the "word of the Lord" came to John the Baptist, not Jesus, and thus dates the beginning of John's ministry, the crucial event when the "word of the Lord" directed John to "prepare the way for the Lord" (v. 4). Once John received the "word of the Lord" (v. 2b), he went forth into the entire region along the Jordan "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (v. 3). The narrative in v. 1-20 is John's story, the account of his whole ministry from commission to imprisonment. Then in v. 21 we pick up Jesus' story, which is presented as already embedded within John's story, as Jesus was one of the many baptized by John (v. 7), but it is not until v. 21 where the focus shifts to Jesus as the narrative subject.
We have exactly the same pattern of narration in ch. 1. The gospel begins its narration as the story of Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist, not until v. 26 does the narration shift to the story of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus (with Jesus not mentioned until v. 30). The narrative unit v. 5-25 is John's story -- we are not compelled to recognize that the unborn child in v. 5-25 is really Jesus Christ, no more than we are forced to regard the commissioning in ch. 3 (told within John's story) as really the commissioning of Jesus. The account of Mary and Joseph in 1:26-56 is introducted secondarily, as embedded already within the established Zechariah-Elizabeth narrative, for Mary is depicted as Elizabeth's relative. This parallels how the ministry of Jesus is only secondarily introduced, embedded as it was within the established narrative about John's ministry. The same thing is also obtained with the birth narratives. We have in 1:57-80 the story of John's birth, with John focused front and center as the narrative subject. And then ch. 2 gives the birth narrative of Jesus, shifting to an exclusive narrative focus on Jesus.
Here are other examples of prophetic calls that are preceded by the "word of the Lord" coming to that same prophet, dated to either a king's reign or a specific year in that reign:
"The word of Yahweh came to him [Jeremiah] in the days of Josiah son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign" (Jeremiah 1:2; the call of Jeremiah follows in v. 4-10, compare v. 5 with Luke 1:15).
"In the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, it was the fifth year of the exile for King Jehoiachin, the word of Yahweh came to the priest Ezekiel, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldaeans, on the bank of the river Chebar" (Ezekiel 1:1-3; the call of Ezekiel directly follows in ch. 2-3).
"The word of Yahweh that came to Hosea son of Beeri when Uzziah, Jothan, Ahaz, and Hezekiah were reigning in Judah, and Jeroboam son of Joash in Israel" (Hosea 1:1; the first prophetic call to Hosea occurs in v. 2-9).
"In the second year of Darius, in the eighth month, the word of Yahweh came to the prophet Zechariah (son of Berechiah), son of Iddo" (Zechariah 1:1; the initial summons to conversion follows in v. 2-6, followed by the first vision of Zechariah)
"And it happened in the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah, the king of Judah, that the word of the Lord came to Baruch, the son of Neriah" (2 Baruch 1:1; the first oracle to Baruch appears in v. 2-5 and Baruch is called as a prophet in the next verse).
"In the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, the word of the Lord came to me" (4 Ezra [5 Ezra] 1:3-4; the prophetic call of Ezra directly follows in v. 5-11).
Leolaia

there is no indication in the texts (and here I include the four canonical Gospels) that Jesus' ministry starts toward the end of John's (unless of course you take Luke's suggestion seriously, and infer that Jesus started after John had ended, but then it runs against the other Gospels).
Narkissos....How about the statement that "Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry" (Luke 3:23)? Since the author already gave indications on when John the Baptist's ministry started (3:1) and when Jesus was born (2:2), the approximation in 3:23 indicates that a span of several years intervened between the beginning of John's ministry and the start of Jesus' ministry. Either Jesus began after the cessation of John's ministry or after John had spent several years in his ministry. That's assuming of course that the author had a coherent chronological scheme. But if he did, it is interesting to note that -- since he otherwise indicates that he knows Josephus -- Josephus hints at a date of about AD 34 or 35 for the death of John, and that fits rather well with the author's scheme here.
Do you think the author of Luke-Acts is trying to tone down the Elijah/Elisha typology here by obscuring the role of John in the baptism of Jesus? This of course is a major element of the Markan construction of John as an Elijah figure, preparing his successor at the Jordan River.
a Christian

Narkissos and Leolaia,
Assuming you two are right, and that Luke is giving us the time when John's ministry began and not Jesus', why do you think Luke would have gone to such lengths to record the time John began his ministry and say nothing at all about the time Christ began his service to God? Certainly Luke considered Christ's ministry to be more important than John's, didn't he?
By the way, even if you are right about this matter it does not prove that Jesus did not begin his ministry in A.D. 29 after John finished a three and a half year long ministry of his own which began in the spring of A.D. 26. For Luke in referring to the 15th year of Tiberius may have reckoned his reign counting his regnal years "from his joint rule of the provinces, counted as Julian calendar years according to the non-accession-year system." If he did, year 15 would have run from Jan.1 - Dec. 31, A.D. 26. Or he may have done so counting his regnal years "from his joint rule of the provinces, counted as Jewish calendar years according to the non-accession-year system." If he did, year 15 would have run from Mar/Apr A.D. 26. - Mar/Apr A.D. 27. (See Finegan's "Handbook of Bible Chronology" - pgs 332 and 333.)
Narkissos

Because the "Seventy Weeks" prophecy tells us that the Messiah would "put a stop to sacrifices and offerings" "in the middle of" the seventieth week, not at the end of it.
The interruption of sacrifices is clearly described in 8:11-13 and it is not meant as a "good" thing. Guess who is supposed to do that in Daniel 9? The rejected and cut off "good" "messiah," i.e. "anointed one" (= the high priest Onias III, v. 26a), or the "evil" destroyer prince (= Antiochus IV, v. 26b)?
Your chronological development is amazing but completely irrelevant imo. As a complete reading of Daniel 9 clearly shows, the 70 weeks of years are meant as a reinterpretation and an extension of Jeremiah's 70 years. Their starting point is the same (from "Daniel"'s viewpoint, Jerusalem's destruction and promise of restoration) -- it has nothing to do with Nehemiah. In your reading there is absolutely no point to the singling out of the first 7 "weeks" in the text; with the right starting point they correspond to the duration of the exile, which makes a lot more sense.
Leolaia,
I have noticed your unusual suggestion that the "Herod, King of Judea" of Luke 1:5 may not be Herod the Great and allow for a deliberate Lukan datation of Jesus' birth by the time of Quirinius' census, i.e. 6 AD (which of course would put Matthew completely off-track). I'm not completely convinced (I'd still vouch for Luke's chronological inconsistency as a more economical explanation), but of course it would imply that, if the Lukan synchronism between John's and Jesus' births it to be taken seriously, John would have begun his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius around the age of 23 (against a Christian's and the Watchtower's assumption that he had to be 30). Then we might have a 28 year-old Jesus starting his ministry around 34 AD. No unsuperable problem I suppose, but it all remains very conjectural.
As to the Elijah-John/Elisha-Jesus typology (which I believe is only one of the contradictory interpretations in Mark), I do think it is dramatically toned down in Luke; the Elijah-John connection is "rationalised" to an extent by the expression "with the spirit and power of Elijah" in 1:17; as I pointed out above, the reference to Elijah in 4:25f points to Jesus, not John; the (also Markan) interpretation that Jesus is Elijah is mentioned (although not validated) in 9:8,19; and the transfiguration blending of Moses and Elijah into Jesus is maintained (9:30ff). On the other hand, the identification of Elijah to John in Mark 9:11-13//Matthew 17:10-13 is simply dropped, as well as the cry to Eloï / Elijah in the crucifixion story.
As to a Christian's question about why the chronological focus on John instead of Jesus, I might suggest, a bit provocatively: because John, not Jesus, is known and situated as a historical character in Luke's sources, including Josephus. And only by connecting Jesus to John can the Gospels hope to root the former into history.
Narkissos

Addition: as to the amazing variety of reckonings which, by a Christian's references, seem to allow for a 5-year uncertainty for "Tiberius' 15th year" (!), I readily admit my incompetence (as well as my general lack of interest for chronology): the dates I mentioned were simply picked from French reference works. However, before accepting other reckonings as plausible I would ask for evidence that those were effectively used by contemporary historians (late 1st or early 2nd century AD, Greek or Roman), not mere modern constructions.
a Christian

Nark,
You wrote: The interruption of sacrifices is clearly described in 8:11-13 and it is not meant as a "good" thing.
I agree. But that is chapter eight, not chapter 9.
You wrote: Guess who is supposed to do that in Daniel 9? The rejected and cut off "good" "messiah," i.e. "anointed one" (= the high priest Onias III, v. 26a), or the "evil" destroyer prince (= Antiochus IV, v. 26b)?
I am well aware of the actions of Antiochus IV. Here is how I now understand the prophetic and historical chronology of the time period:
Jewish history indicates that Daniel's various "day" prophecies very well fit events which took place between the years 174 and 164 BC. In those historical accounts we find strong reason to believe that the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14, as well as the 1,290 and 1,335 days of Daniel 12:11,12 were all literally and precisely fulfilled during the reign of Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. The following information can be easily obtained by reading a few Jewish history books and Bible commentaries.

In 174 BC Jason, the brother of High Priest Onias III, secured the High Priesthood for himself by bribing Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. Jason's actions thereafter, such as promoting Jewish participation in athletic competitions dedicated to the Greek god Hercules and sending silver from the temple treasury to be sacrificed to that false god, caused the temple priests to neglect the sacrifices which were required by Jewish law. History records the fact that this corrupted Jewish worship, which began with the appointment of Jason as High Priest, was not completely cleansed from the temple until mid December of 168 BC when it was forcefully removed by the military forces of the king of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, with the very willing and active assistance of Jason’s successor as High Priest, Menelaus.

Though history does not record the exact month and day of Jason's appointment as High Priest in 174 BC, I believe Daniel's prophesies and Jewish history combine to tell us that his appointment took place 2,300 days before the temple was cleansed of corrupted Jewish worship in mid December of 168 BC. Some 400 years earlier Daniel had prophesied, "After 2,300 days (or evenings and mornings) the sanctuary will be cleansed." (Dan. 8:14 KJV) Many Bible commentators believe that the "evenings and mornings” here spoken of refer to the evening and morning sacrifices which began to be neglected after the appointment of Jason as High Priest.

In 171 BC, Menelaus, a Jew not born of the line of Aaron, managed to have himself appointed as High Priest in place of Jason by offering Antiochus a larger bribe than Jason had previously paid. Since Menelaus was not of the line of Aaron, in fact not even a Levite, his being set up as High Priest was "an abomination" to God. And since he was not permitted by Jewish law, as were other High Priests, to "daily offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins and then the sins of the people" (Heb. 7:27), "the daily sacrifice" was then "abolished" in God's eyes.

Though history does not record the exact month and day of Menelaus' appointment as High Priest in 171 BC, I believe Daniel's prophesies and Jewish history combine to tell us that 1,290 days passed between the time Menelaus became High Priest and the time he finished assisting Antiochus Epiphanes in bringing about the total "desolation" of the Jewish religion. Some 400 years earlier Daniel had prophesied, "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up there will be 1,290 days." (Dan. 12:11)

History tells us that it was in mid December of 168 BC that Jerusalem's Temple was completely cleansed of corrupted Jewish worship brought about by the actions of Jason and Menelaus. This cleansing took place when Antiochus Epiphenes completely outlawed all practices of the Jewish religion. Jewish history indicates that some 2,300 days of corrupted Jewish worship then came to an end, a corruption which began with the appointment of High Priest Jason in 174 BC. Jewish history also indicates that some 1,290 days had also then passed since Menelaus, the "abomination" who had "abolished the daily sacrifice" and caused the "desolation" of the Jewish religion, had first been "set up" as High Priest.

Three years later, in mid December of 165 BC, the revolt of the Maccabees finally reestablished undefiled Jewish worship in Jerusalem's temple. In the year 164 BC Antiochus Epiphanes died and was succeeded by his son, Antiochus Eupator. Later that same year Antiochus Eupator made a peace treaty with the Jews which guaranteed them religious freedom.

Though history does not record the exact month and day that Eupator made that peace treaty with the Jews, I believe Daniel's prophesies and Jewish history combine to tell us that this peace treaty was made 1335 days after Antiochus Epiphanes, with the assistance of High Priest Menelaus, completely cleansed Jerusalem's Temple of all corrupted Jewish worship. Some 400 years earlier Daniel had prophesied, "Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days." (Dan.12:12)

History testifies that all of the "day" prophecies of Daniel very well fit very important events which took place in Jewish history between the years 174 and 164 BC.

Some have objected to this understanding because they feel God could not have considered the sanctuary to have been “cleansed” at the time the pagan alter was erected in the temple in 168 BC. For they say at that time the temple was more defiled than ever before. However, I disagree. For the temple was completely cleansed of the corrupted worship of the one true God at the time Menelaus assisted Syria's armies in removing all vestiges of Jewish worship from Jerusalem's temple. The fact that the temple was then converted into a temple of a false god, I believe, is totally irrelevant.

For, I believe God's only concern was to then "cleanse" Jerusalem's temple of corrupt Jewish religious practices. How and by whom Jerusalem's temple was used during the following three years is entirely beside the point. To illustrate this fact, I will remind you that cleaning solutions quite often contain ingredients which are poisonous. After being used to cleanse a vessel of filth these cleansers almost always leave behind residue which is itself harmful and must also be removed at a later time before the cleansed vessel is finally again fit for use. However, no one will deny that the dirty vessel was "cleansed" prior to the time that the cleanser's poisonous residue was itself removed.
You wrote: Your chronological development is amazing but completely irrelevant imo. As a complete reading of Daniel 9 clearly shows, the 70 weeks of years are meant as a reinterpretation and an extension of Jeremiah's 70 years. Their starting point is the same (from "Daniel"'s viewpoint, Jerusalem's destruction and promise of restoration) -- it has nothing to do with Nehemiah.
I often find myself doing what you have just done, saying that something or other "clearly shows" that one of my present understandings is correct. Lately I have been trying my best to humbly avoid using such language. Especially when I know that the vast majority of Bible readers and Bible scholars disagree with the understanding that now seems so "clear" to me. I also now try to avoid using such language because I know that I have changed my opinion on many things over the years that I once believed were "clearly" correct.
You wrote: In your reading there is absolutely no point to the singling out of the first 7 "weeks" in the text; with the right starting point they correspond to the duration of the exile, which makes a lot more sense.
I disagree. The first seven weeks pertain to the time it will take "from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" until that work was completed. Daniel had just finished praying to God because he was greatly concerned with "the desolation of the city" of Jerusalem. (Dan. 9:18) The "Seventy Weeks" prophecy was then given to him partly in response to his prayer containing his concerns for that city. The opening verse of the prophecy, verse 24, says in part that, "Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city." The prophecy is divided into "seven sevens and sixty-two sevens." The first event mentioned to take place during that time is the city being "built again, with plaza and moat, but in times of trouble." (vs 25) History indicates that Jerusalem was in fact completely rebuilt within forty-nine years of the time Artaxerxes issued the decree that permitted Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem to begin its rebuilding. As I wrote earlier, seven weeks of years (49 lunar years, 47.54 solar years) from the spring of 440 BC (Artaxerxes' 20th year, and his 25th year according to Josephus' reckoning) brings us to the late autumn of 393 BC. By this time Jerusalem's rebuilding had been completed. Verse 26 then goes on to describe events which will take place after the following "sixty-two sevens."
You wrote: As to a Christian's question about why the chronological focus on John instead of Jesus, I might suggest, a bit provocatively: because John, not Jesus, is known and situated as a historical character in Luke's sources, including Josephus. And only by connecting Jesus to John can the Gospels hope to root the former into history.
Or it could be that Luke viewed the tandem ministries of John and Jesus essentially as one, and he was noting the starting point of what he viewed as one very important seven year prophetic period.
You wrote: before accepting other reckonings as plausible I would ask for evidence that those were effectively used by contemporary historians (late 1st or early 2nd century AD, Greek or Roman), not mere modern constructions.
Though I cannot speak to the historical recording practices of 1st and 2nd century AD secular historians, I can give you much evidence that Bible writers often reckoned time in exactly the way Luke may have here done. That is, if indeed he did count the spring of A.D. 26 as falling in the 15th year of Tiberius. If Luke did so, he would have been counting the rule of Tiberius "from his joint rule of the provinces, according to the non-accession-year system," as Finegan tells us. Though you admit to having a "general lack of interest for chronology," I have long had a great interest in the subject and have studied it rather thoroughly. To support my claim that Bible writers often counted the years of a king's reign beginning with the partial calendar year in which he began to act as his predecessor's coregent (or as Finegan words it, "from his joint rule of the provinces, according to the non-accession-year system") I will direct you to The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings by Edwin R. Thiele, which is probably the most highly regarded book on the subject of Bible chronology ever written. In it Thiele gives several examples showing that Bible writers often reckoned the reigns of kings in just this way.
greendawn

No, people get workup and excited for no good reason, it is just getting carried away by sentimentalism triggered by anything that looks to be in the least way unusual. Similar to how the JWs go about eschatology (the last days issue).
Leolaia

What an interesting turn this thread has taken!
Narkissos....Indeed, we don't know if the author was being consistent in his chronological notices. But if we give him the benefit of the doubt, the results are quite consistent with the data provided by Josephus, who as we know was a possible source for Luke-Acts. Of course, the results are wholly inconsistent with Matthew, but that is to be expected -- as the infancy narratives are irreconcilable in other ways (cf. the two scenarios for the death of Judas in Matthew and Luke-Acts, which resist harmonization). There is also the odd replacement of Herod the tetrach with Herod Archelaus in later tradition (cf. the Epistula Apostolorum and Justin Martyr), so I would not be surprised that the identity of "King Herod" similarly shifted across the different nativity traditions.
On the matter of the Elijah/Elisha typology, notice also that the description of John as wearing a garmet of hair and a leather girdle around his waist in Mark 1:6 and Matthew 3:4 is omitted in Luke 3 (cf. 2 Kings 1:8 on Elijah wearing a garment of hair and a leather girdle around his waist).
Assuming you two are right, and that Luke is giving us the time when John's ministry began and not Jesus', why do you think Luke would have gone to such lengths to record the time John began his ministry and say nothing at all about the time Christ began his service to God? Certainly Luke considered Christ's ministry to be more important than John's, didn't he?
a Christian....Well, of course, he spends more than 95% of the gospel (from ch. 3 onward) on Jesus with just a brief narrative devoted to John. And yet he presents John's mission, starting with the commissioning of John as prophet in 3:2, as the proper beginning of the story on the proclamation of the good news (for John was the first herald of this good news), in much the same way that the author begins the gospel itself with a focus on John and his family. So I see no problem in the author's extravagent datings of the commission of John in contrast to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. That was when the good news began, and that is what was important for the author. And I would add that multiple datings is part of the literary trope described earlier; Hosea dates his call to prophecy to the reigns of both the kings of Israel and Judah, and Ezekiel reckons the date of his prophetic calling by both his age and the year of Jehoiachin's exile. Since the author viewed John as preparing the way for the Lord himself, it is understandable that he gives a far more detailed dating of John's commission than any of the earlier calls to prophecy in the OT.
Notice also what the author said later in a seldom-noticed parallel to Luke 3: "Before his [i.e. Jesus'] arrival (pro prosópou tés eisodou autou), John had previously preached (prokéruxantos) a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John was finishing his course (eplérou Ióanés ton dromon), he said, 'What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but after me one is coming (erkhetai met' eme), the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie' " (Acts 13:24-25). Twice the author indicates that the preaching of John was anterior to the arrival of Jesus, i.e. the beginning of his ministry, and this is followed by a quote from John (= Luke 3:16) that was delivered near the end of his ministry. This again indicates that the author presents the entirety of John's ministry in ch. 3, starting with his commissioning in the fifteenth year of Tiberius and ending with the vignette in v. 15-17 and the jailing of John in v. 18-20. The ministries are presented as sequential, not as overlapping.
It's also not necessarily true that he says "nothing at all" about when Jesus began his ministry, he does say that Jesus was "about 30" at the time and he previously indicated when Jesus was born. Why the imprecise figure? Could it simply be that the author just didn't know the precise year? Or maybe he knew that Jesus wasn't yet 30 years old so he used an imprecise "about 30" to maintain the parallel with Joseph and the Kohathite priests (cf. Genesis 41:46, Numbers 4:3).
I'm not going to really get into the whole Daniel thing, which I recall we've already discussed in detail, but I would mention again that -- among many other things -- the parallels between ch. 9 and 11 of Daniel militate against such an interpretation.

Will this be "the Sign of the Son of Man"?

Share this