1

Daniel 9:26 says that

And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

This passage seems to say that the Messiah would appear and be "cut off" before the temple is destroyed.

(I noticed that there was some other questions, such as this one and this one, but they were more general and did not address what I wanted to ask.)

Was this passage ever understood as meaning that the Messiah would have come before the destruction of the second temple?

user100487
  • 139
  • 4
  • 1
    Rashi says this not referring to The Messiah, but it indicates a great leader "משיח. אינו אלא ל' שר וגדול" (Rashi on Daniel 9.26.4) Messiah here, as in other places, indicates a "chosen one." Because the text says that there will be war after his death, it cannot be The Messiah found in Isaiah 2.4 and other places who will end all war.

    I don't know of a source that could prove that this verse has never been taken to to refer to The Messiah, but I think this interpretation is highly unlikely for any sage, due to the clear discrepancy with the Messianic prophecies.

     – BID Jan 05 '23 at 21:50
  • If each "seven" is seven years, making the "seventy sevens" 490 years, no matter which "decree" you start with (Cyrus: Ezra 1, 605 BC; Artaxerxes: 1st decree, Ezra 7, 458 BC; Artaxerxes 2nd decree, Nehemiah 2, 445 BC) none of them come out to AD 70 when the temple was destroyed. Therefore there must be some time delay factors or typology in play somewhere. – 1Sam1223 Jan 06 '23 at 05:33
  • @BID, what's the take on prophesies like in Isaiah 53 (verses 5, 8, 9, 12) where it talks about someone who would die, "wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities". Similar to the sacrifices at the Temple that were given to cover for sins, this describes a person who would die because of sins of others. If the Messiah was to cover the sins of mankind then perhaps he would have to die first instead of bringing immediate relief? – neo Jan 10 '23 at 04:33
  • @neo Isaiah 53 refers to the Jewish people, not the Messiah (or any other particular individual). This can be gleamed from the context (ie by reading Isaiah 52 and 54). I would recommend reading the verse with Rashi, if you have any questions about the verse or its meaning let me know. Understanding the meaning of the verse can be difficult, especially if you have encountered other religions' ideas about this verse, which most of us invariably have. – BID Jan 11 '23 at 02:00
  • @1Sam1223, where do you get the date "Cyrus: Ezra 1, 605 BC"? Looks like most sources place beginning of Cyrus rule at 539 BCE and the end of the Babylonian captivity (including the decree to build the temple) soon after that so maybe 538-537 BCE. Still the seven weeks may not have anything to do with the date of the destruction of the second temple but maybe just when the "anointed one be cut off". – neo Jan 24 '23 at 21:33
  • 1
    @neo Sorry, was looking at the wrong notes. 605 was the deportation to Babylon. The dating you've got seems to be the consensus. Also, it seems the destruction of the city and sanctuary in the second half of the verse must follow the cutting off of the anointed one-- however long after, who knows. – 1Sam1223 Jan 25 '23 at 23:36

0 Answers0