The Going Forth of the Word to Build Jerusalem
Farrell Till errancy@infidels.org
Mon, 31 May 1999 08:43:25 -0700 (00928183405, 2.2.32.19990531154325.008dd878@midwest.net)
TILL
Here is just one of several postings I sent to alt.bible.errancy in reply to
the effort of a prophecy-fulfillment buff to claim that Daniel 9:25 was an
amazing prophecy that was fulfilled in the coming of Jesus. It effectively
rebuts the part of Jason's posting that recycles this same prophecy claim.
***************************************************************
At 08:40 AM 7/30/98 GMT, RNM@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>II. JEREMIAH ISSUED A PROPHECY, NOT A "COMMAND."
>
>However, FT 's answers have not been at all convincing.
>What is more, they seem to be based upon a
>mistaken interpretation of several aspects of Bible
>texts.
>
TILL
RNM's problem here is that the prophecy in Daniel 9:25 does not speak of a
"command" to rebuild Jerusalem but of a "word" that would go forth. I have
discussed this at great length in previous postings, but RNM has ignored my
points. The original word translated "command" in some English versions was
"dabar," which meant "word." As I have also noted, many English translations
have used "word" for "dabar" in this verse, and Segond's French translation
used "parole," which means word in French. The Septuagint version used the
word "logos," which I'm sure that RNM knows meant "word" in Greek.
I pointed out that "dabar" was the word that Daniel used in 9:2 when he
spoke of the "word of Yahweh" that had come to Jeremiah the prophet.
"Dabar" is the word used consistently in the OT to speak of statements or
utterances that people made. Some examples would be the following:
1 Samuel 18:28, "Saul's servants spoke these words...."
Judges 11:11, "Jephthah uttered all of his words...."
1 Kings 5:7, "Hiram heard the words of Solomon...."
I could fill a posting with other examples to show that "dabar" was a Hebrew
word that just meant "word" without necessarily implying any official or
royal pronouncement. Therefore, if RNM is going to claim that the word
meant "commandment" in Daniel 9:25, it is his responsibility to show that
this was the writer's intention. I have already quoted the NAB version of
this passage: "Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that
Jerusalem was to be rebuilt until...." This verse has an asterisk by it to
direct attention to a footnote at the bottom of the page: "From the
utterance... to be rebuilt: from the time of Jeremiah's prophecy," so this
version recognizes that the probable reference in Daniel 9:25 was to
Jeremiah's prophecy that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. RNM asked me to name a
source that took the position that Daniel 9:25 was referring to Jeremiah's
"word" that Jerusalem would be rebuilt, as if the truth of my argument would
depend on whether any scholars have taken the same position. At any rate,
he asked for a source, and so now he has one. I suggest, then, that he try
to deal with the argument and not just dismiss it by saying that it is "not
at all convincing." After all, how convincing is an assertion for which no
supporting evidence has been given, and RNM has yet to offer any evidence
that Daniel 9:25 meant that a royal decree to rebuild Jerusalem would be
issued.
RNM
>Let us start with Daniel's Book.
>
>The 70-week prophecy (Chapter 9) mentions that from
>the "commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem"
>to the Messiah there would pass 69 weeks, which is
>equivalent to 483 years.
>
TILL
Excuse me, but RNM seems to be having trouble understanding a simple point.
Daniel 9:25 spoke of a "dabar" (word) about rebuilding Jerusalem. He keeps
insisting that this meant a "commandment" to rebuild Jerusalem, but this is
a claim that he must prove. I have shown why the verse cannot be pressed to
mean this, and all he has said is that my point is "not at all convincing."
If he thinks that it isn't convincing, he must show why "dabar" in this
verse has to be understood as a "commandment" or a "decree."
RNM
>FT interprets the original Hebrew as meaning "word",
>not "commandment". FT also believes that the author of
>Daniel was referring to Jeremiah's prophecy (issued
>around 597 BC, according to FT) that Jerusalem would
>be built.
>
TILL
I haven't just "interpreted" the word "Dabar" to mean "word." I have shown
that there are good reasons to so understand it. RNM can look in a
concordance and see that "word" in English translations of the OT is most
often derived from "dabar." I checked in Strong's and stopped counting when
I reached 200, and I was only to the book of Psalms. These were the entries
for the singular "word," and I noticed that there are hundreds of more
entries for the plural "words." Most of them too were translated from
"dabar." So this is not just a far-fetched interpretation that I am
suggesting out of desperation. It is a sensible view based on the
recognized usage of the word "dabar" in the OT.
RNM
>Yet from the context it is clear to me that even if we
>use the term "word" instead of "commandment" it
>refers to an ORDER, and cannot be interpreted as a
>neutral statement. If you say "when the word to do
>something is uttered, pronounced, or published" you
>mean an ORDER, a command, or even a law,
>
TILL
But when you say, "From the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be
rebuilt," as the NAB renders the verse, it certainly doesn't carry the
meaning of an order or command. If RNM will check my earlier postings, he
will see that other translations also convey this impression, so Daniel
could have meant only that from the "going forth" of the "word" that
Jerusalem would be rebuilt, 70 weeks would pass. This would carry the
meaning only of a statement that it would happen, and for RNM's position to
prevail, he must show that Daniel meant "command" or "decree" and that he
couldn't possibly have meant anything else. RNM can't seem to understand
that when one makes a prophecy fulfillment claim, it is his duty to
establish with certitude that the prophetic statement meant exactly what he
is claiming that it meant. RNM hasn't even come close to doing that.
RNM
>and Jeremiah never "ordered" anything, he issued a prophecy.
TILL
Yes, that's right, and when Jeremiah "issued" the prophecy, the "word went
forth" that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. Is RNM going to argue that
Jeremiah's prophecies about the rebuilding of Jerusalem did not constitute a
"going forth" of the "word" that Jerusalem would be rebuilt?
RNM
>But why does FT believe that the author of Daniel had
>Jeremiah's prophecy (that the Jews' Babylon captivity
>would last 70 years) in mind? The explanation is
>unclear, to say the least.
TILL
Whether RNM thinks my reason is clear for seeing that Daniel was speaking
about Jeremiah's prophecy is beside the point. I have argued that this is
what he meant, and so RNM must show that my interpretation isn't possible.
I don't want to keep him in the dark, however, so I will try to make clear
to him something that I have already explained in language that should have
been clear enough for him to understand. Daniel 9 opens with the claim that
the writer had come to understand from the "books" the number of years
"whereof the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah the prophet for the
accomplishment of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years" (v:2).
This establishes the subject that the writer was discussing in this chapter.
He was going to explain the meaning of Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy. When I
explained this before, I pointed out that Daniel immediately "set his face
to the Lord God" and in prayer and fasting made confession and intercession
to God for the sins of the nation of Israel (vs:3-19), after which the angel
Gabriel appeared to him to "instruct" him and give him "wisdom and
understanding" (vs:20-22). The first thing that Gabriel said was, "Seventy
weeks are determined upon your people and upon the holy city, to finish the
transgression, and to make and end of sins" (v:24).
What did Daniel say at the beginning of this chapter? He said that he had
come to understand the meaning of Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy? What was
Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy? That prophecy can be found in Jeremiah 25:11,
where the prophet said that the Judean Jews would be in bondage 70 years.
Daniel, however, put a special slant on this prophecy and claimed that
Gabriel told him that the 70 years were actually 70 weeks that had been
determined upon Daniel's people and upon the "holy city." So in this text,
Daniel was explaining what he thought that Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy had
really meant. What's so "unclear" about this, except that it presents a big
problem for the interpretation that RNM is trying to sell us?
So after telling Daniel that Jeremiah's 70 years were actually to be
understood as 70 weeks, Gabriel went on to further clarify the 70-year
prophecy. "Know and understand this: From the utterance of the word that
Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, until one who is anointed and a leader, there
shall be seven weeks" (vs:25). As Gabriel's explanation of Jeremiah's 70
years continued, he added weeks until he arrived at a total of 70 weeks as
an explanation for the 70 years. In other words, Gabriel was saying, "If
you want to understand Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy, you have to understand
that the 70 years were 70 weeks. Know therefore that from the "going forth"
[from Jeremiah] that Jerusalem would be rebuilt, 70 weeks must pass."
Is this just Till's far-fetched interpretation of this passage? The NAB has
a footnote for Daniel 9:2, which says, "Seventy years: the prophet Jeremiah
(25:11; 29:10) prophesied a Babylonian captivity of seventy years, a round
number signifying the complete passing away of the existing generation.
Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled in the capture of Babylon by Cyrus and the
subsequent return of the Jews to Palestine. However, the author of Daniel,
living during the persecution of Antiochus, sees the conditions of the exile
still existing; therefore in his mediation he extends Jeremiah's number to
seventy weeks of years (v:24, i.e., seven times seventy years, to
characterize the Jewish victory over the Seleucids as the ultimate
fulfillment of the prophecy." So there is nothing unusual at all about this
view of Daniel 9. It is widely accepted among scholars of the book of Daniel.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net