The Seventy Weeks PDF

The Seventy Weeks,
Leviticus,
And
the Nature of
Prophecy
DANIEL AND REVELATION
COMMITTEE SERIES
Volume 1 Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation
Volume 2 Symposium on Daniel
Volume 3 The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of

Prophecy
DANIEL AND REVELATION
COMMITTEE SERIES
Volume 3
The Seventy Weeks,

Leviticus,
and
the Nature of
Prophecy
Editor
Frank B. Hulbrook
Biblical Research Institute
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Washington, D.C. 20012
Copyright 1986 by the
Biblical Research Institute
6840 Eastern Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20012
Printed in the U.S.A. by the
Review and Herald Publishing Association
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Texts credited to NASB are taken from The New American Standard Bible, copyright
(©) The Loсkman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975. Used
by permission.
Texts credited to NIV are from The New International Version. Copyright (®) 1978 by
New York International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing
House.
The Scripture quotations throughout the volume are from the Revised Standard Version
of the Bible, copyrighted 1946, 1952, (©) 1971, 1973, unless otherwise stated.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ............................................v
Transliteration................................................ viii
Abbreviations................................................. ix
To the Reader ................................................ xi
I - EXEGETICAL STUDIES IN DANIEL
I. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE
SEVENTY WEEKS ...................................... 3
GERHARD F. HASEL
Amillennial and Dispensational Interpretations ....... 3
Historical-Critical and Historicist
Interpretations............................... 26
II. COMMENCEMENT DATE FOR THE SEVENTY WEEK
PROPHECY........................................... 64
ARTHUR J. FERCH
III. THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL 9-.24-27....................... 75
WILLIAM H. SHEA
IV. THE MEANING OF KIPPER IN DANIEL 9:24 ................. 119
PIERRE WINANDY
II - EXEGETICAL STUDIES IN LEVITICUS
V. LITERARY FORM AND THEOLOGICAL FUNCTION
IN LEVITICUS ......................................... 131

WILLIAM H. SHEA
VI. TRANSFER OF SIN IN LEVITICUS.......................... 169
ANGEL M. RODRIGUEZ
vi
VII. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT AS RELATED TO THE CONTAMINATION
AND PURIFICATION OF THE SANCTUARY....... 198
ALBERTO R. TREIYER
Contamination of the Sanctuary.................... 198
Purification of the Sanctuary ...................... 228
III
GENERAL STUDIES
VIII. CONDITIONALITY IN BIBLICAL PROPHECY WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO APOCALYPTIC ............... 259
WILLIAM G. JOHNSSON
IX. FULFILLMENTS OF PROPHECY........................... 288
GERHARD F. HASEL
X. THEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE PREADVENT

JUDGMENT........................................... 323
WILLIAM H. SHEA
XI. AN ALTERNATIVE TO HUMANISM......................... 333
SIEGFRIED J. SCHWANTES
XII. JUSTIFICATION AMD JUDGMENT ......................... 339
IVAN T. BLAZEN
Justification by Faith/Judgment by Works ........... 339
Christ: Saviour and Lord .......................... 369
Index........................................................ 389
vii
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
AJT American Journal of Theology
ASV American Standard Version
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament
Bib Biblica
BS Bibliotheca sacra
CHAL A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
CHR Catholic Historical Review
COL Christ's Object Lessons
EncJud Encyclopedia Judaica
ExpTim Expository Times
GC The Great Controversy
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IB Interpreter's Bible
ICC International Critical Commentary
IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JSJ Journal of the Study of Judaism
JSOT Journal of the Study of the Old Testament
JSS Journal o/ Semitic Studies
JTS Journal of Theological Studies

KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament E. Sellin and W. Rudolph, eds.
KJV King James Version
MB Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing
MLB The Modem Language Bible: The New Berkeley Version in Modem English
MPG Migne Patrologia, Greek
MPL Migne Patrologia, Latin
NASB New American Standard Bible
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIV New International Version
NKZ Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift
NTS New Testament Studies
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien
RB Revue biblique
RevExp Review and Expositor
ISM Selected Messages, book 1
ST Studia Theologica
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Kittel and Friedrich, eds.
ix
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Botterweek and Ringgren, eds.
TR Theologische Revue
TT Teologisk Tidsskrift
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTS Vetus Testamentum, Supplement
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die aittestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins
TO THE READER
With the publishing of The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy as
volume 3 in the DRC series, the Committee concludes its present activity on the book of
Daniel.
Four in-depth studies in Daniel 9 compose the first division of the volume. Pastors
and members who have occasion to meet exponents of the futurist system of prophecy
will find chapter 1 particularly helpful. In this essay the chronological interpretations of
the four major "schools" of prophetic interpretation are charted, analyzed, and
evaluated.
Exegetical studies in Leviticus form the second section. A unique study on the form
of Leviticus demonstrates that Moses took pains to underscore the significance of the
Day of Atonement in Israel's sanctuary ritual. The structure of Leviticus positions the
Day of Atonement at the literary center or apex of the book. Whether confessed sin was
transferred to the sanctuary in the daily rituals is addressed in another important essay.
A third essay deals with issues related to the contamination and purification of the
sanctuary. Altogether these essays provide a scriptural backdrop to the prophecies of
Daniel 7-9, especially with respect to the vision in chapter 8 and its focus on the
heavenly sanctuary.
Important chapters in the third and last portion of the volume deal with the
conditionality principle as it relates to Bible prophecy and the issue of single, dual, or
multiple prophetic fulfillments. Two essays explore the theological significance of the
preadvent judgment for Christians today. The concluding essay seeks to reconcile the
apparent conflict between the Bible's doctrine of justification by faith and its equally
clear teaching on judgment according to works.
Like volume 2, this work is also a symposium. While it shares the characteristic
unevenness of this approach, the method has enabled the Committee to share with the
church the expertise of many. It heartily recommends this third volume on prophetic
studies to all students of Bible prophecy.
As a Committee we wish to express our appreciation to chairman Dr.
xi
W. Richard Lesher who directed the course of these investigations in the book of
Daniel. We especially acknowledge the nine contributors to this third volume:
Ivan T. Blazen Siegfried J. Schwantes
Arthur J. Fereh William H. Shea
Gerhard F. Hasel Alberto R. Treiyer

William G. Johnsson Pierre Winandy
Angel M. Rodriguez
THE DANIEL AND REVELATION COMMITTEE
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS
EXEGETICAL STUDIES IN DANIEL
Interpretations of the Chronology
of the Seventy Weeks
Commencement Date of the
Seventy Weeks
Exegesis: Daniel 9:24-27
Meaning of Kipper
CHAPTER I
Interpretations
of the Chronology
of the Seventy Weeks
Gerhard F. Hasel
AMILLENNIAL AND DISPENSATIONAL INTERPRETATIONS

Editorial synopsis. There is general agreement among all schools of interpretation
that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are not to be construed as literal weeks. Other than
amillennial interpreters (who argue for a symbolic approach), most understand the
prophecy to deal with a period of 490 years.
Four major interpretations are presently being taught. In this section the author
discusses two of them: the symbolic interpretation (adopted by amillennial expositors)
and the futurist interpretation (advocated by dispen-sationalists).
The symbolic interpretation assumes that the numerical figures in Daniel 9:24-27
are to be understood symbolically. That is, they are not to be understood as defining
precise periods of time but are to be taken in a representative sense. Thus, the three
divisions of the 70 weeks (7, 62, and 1 respectively) are construed to symbolize three
periods of time. The first (7 weeks) is taken to represent the period extending from the
edict of Cyrus to the first advent of Christ. The second (62 weeks) stands for the era
stretching between the first and second advents. Finally, the third division (one week)
symbolizes the time of trouble caused by the antichrist and his ultimate defeat.
The author notes six reasons why this approach to the 70 weeks prophecy is unsound.
For one thing, there is no biblical basis for the assumption that the numerical data
should be taken in this representative sense. Furthermore, the interpretation is
inconsistent within itself. The
4
third division, which logically should extend beyond the end point of the second, is
made a part of the second division. That is to say, the one week period which involves
the antichrist is seen as occurring in the closing portion of the second era. In this manner
the prophecy is truncated to 69 weeks instead of 70. Also, whereas the interpretation
ends with the troubles created by, and the destruction of, the antichrist, the prophecy
itself actually ends with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
In contrast with the symbolic approach the futurist interpretation takes the numbers
of this prophecy seriously. However, there is not complete unanimity among the
interpreters of this school on some details. The interpretation runs into difficulty by
beginning the 70 weeks with the permission given Nehemiah by Artaxerxes I to repair
Jerusalem (correctly dated by some dispensationalists to 444 B.C., but dated by most of
them to 445 B.C.).
If the first two divisions of 69 weeks (7 + 62) were to be taken as 483 solar years
(69 x 7 = 483—the most natural way to compute these figures), this time period would
extend to about A.D. 40. Such a date would be far beyond the lifetime of Christ.
Consequently, the dispensationalist expositor assumes that these 483 days are to be
understood as "prophetic years" of 360 days each. This assumption gives him a total of
173,880 days (483 x 360 = 173,880) or 476 solar years plus some days. Thus the
attempt is made to shorten the length of the biblical data to fit the actual historical time
from Nehemiah to Christ.
One proposal by a prominent interpreter from this school of thought may be

summarized. First he notes that the period between 444 B.C. and A.D. 33 (the year date
selected for the crucifixion) is a period of 476 years. He then assumes that Artaxerxes
granted his permission to Nehemiah on Nisan 1 (March 5), 444 B.C. But 476 full years
(March 5, 444 B.C., to March 5, A.D. 33) yields only 173,855 days (476 x
365.24219879 days per solar year). Since he fixes the crucifixion date on April 5, A.D.
33, he must now to add 25 days (25 + 173,855 = 173,880) in order to reach March 30,
A.D. 33, which he supposes to be the date for the Saviour's triumphal entry into
Jerusalem (six days before the April 5 crucifixion).
5
One basic problem in the scheme is the assumption that the decree went into effect
on Nisan 1 (March 5), 444 B.C. There is no proof for this. Archaeological evidence in
favor of the year 444 B.C. has already undercut those futurist charts based on 445 B.C.
as a beginning date. Further research may place the 444 B.C. scheme in jeopardy as
well. The chronological problems of the futurist interpretation are yet to be resolved.
Common to all dispensationalist analyses of the 70 weeks prophecy is the Gap

Theory. This interpretation separates the seventieth or last week from the prophecy and
positions it at the end of the age. The era or "parenthesis" that is thus created by splitting
the seventieth week from the previous 69 is designated the "Church age." Such a
procedure, however, violates the integrity of the prophecy and is without biblical
precedent. Altogether the author summarizes ten arguments against the dispensationalist
interpretation of the chronology of this prophecy.
Section Outline
I. Introduction
II. Symbolical Interpretation (Amillennial)
in. Futurist Interpretation (Dispensational)
Introduction
The passage of Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most controversial in the entire OT. It
has been stated in 1980 that "in the history of the interpretation of Daniel no other
passage has been treated with greater care and with as much controversy as this one."1
Another writer summed up his assessment by pointing out that "there is no more
intricate problem in Old Tes-
1Klaus Koch unter Mitarbeit von Till Niewisch und

Jurgen Tubach, Das Buch Daniel (Ertrage der Forschung, Band 144; Darmstadt, 1980), p. 149.
6
tament study than the interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27."2 In concluding his survey of
interpretation in 1927 J. A. Montgomery stated, "The history of the exegesis of the 70
weeks is the Dismal Swamp of OT criticism."3 Although this prophecy is seen as one of
the most difficult in the OT, this fact should not cause us to shy away from endeavoring
to assess the major attempts to interpret the passage.
Our study is not designed to present major views of pre-Christian times4 the
5
patristic period and medieval times the Reformation period6 or the age of the
Enlightenment7 out of which comes the modernistic historical-critical interpretation. It
seeks rather to survey major current interpretations, attempting to assess the strong and
weak points of each.
In this nearly trackless wilderness of interpretations there is, however, one common
denominator. There is virtually unanimous agreement among interpreters of all schools
of thought that the phrase "seventy weeks" (sabuim sibim)8 means 490 years 9 There are
two approaches that have been used to derive the position that 490 years are intended by
the Hebrew expression sabu'im sibim,
literally "weeks seventy."
2 T. Francisco, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel," RevExp 57 (1960), 126.
3 J. A. Montgomery, A Commentary on Daniel, ICC (1927), p. 400.
4 See F. Fraidl, Die Exegese der siebzig Wochen Daniels in der alien und mittleren Zeit (Graz,
1883), pp. 3-25; E, W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, reprint (McDill AFB, FL, 1973),
vol. 1, pp. 811-919.
5 Fraidi, pp. 26-255; L. Knowles, "The Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel in the Early
Fathers," WTJ 7 (1945): 136-60.
6 0. Zoeckler, Daniel (New York, 1876), pp. 205-213.; Matthew Pole, Synopsis Criticorum
(Frankfurt, 1694).
7 Zoeekler, pp. 209-213; J. Knabenbauer, Commentarius in Danielem (Paris, 1891), pp. 262-75;
Montgomery, pp. 399-400.
8 On this phrase, see Montgomery, p. 373; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, 2nd ed. (Grand
Rapids, 1969), pp. 406-9; E. J. Young, rhe Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, 1949), p. 195; Questions
on Doctrine (Washington, DC, 1957), pp. 276-78.
9 The only known exceptions are C. Wieseler.Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten
Daniel (Gottingen, 1839), who suggests that in 9:24 literal weeks are intended but in vss. 25-29 weeks of
years. J. Sladen, The Seventy Weeks of Daniel's Prophecy (mimeographed; London, 1925), advocates that
literal weeks are meant.
One approach is to translate the first term Sabuim as "sevens, besevened, heptads,
hepdomads, seven of years" or the like. From this it is suggested that "years" are
directly implied in the numerical expression so that an extended translation such as
"seventy weeks of years" (RSV) or "seven times seventy weeks" (TEV) are intended.
The year-for-a-day principle is thus bypassed. This approach is utilized by the
historical-critical school, by the futurist/dispensational school as well as by the
amillennialist school.
The second approach translates the term sabuim with "weeks" so that the combined
expression sabuim sibim means literally "seventy weeks" KJV, JB, NEB, NAB, NASB,
etc.). The prophetic time period accordingly is derived from the "days" which compose
the "seventy weeks" on the basis of the year-for-a-day principle. Thus, the "seventy
weeks" are made up of 490 "days" which on the basis of the year-for-a-day principle are
490 years.
A recent investigation into the usage of the term sabuim and its singular form sabua
concludes, "From both Semitic sources and the LXX it may be concluded, therefore,
that the best linguistic evidence currently available supports translating sabua [that is,
the plural sabuim] as 'weeks' in Daniel 9:24-27. This word thus carries the year-day
principle along with it in the 70-weeks prophecy."10
Interpreters agree, even though two different approaches are employed, that the
period of 9:24 is 490 years. There is, however, no agreement as to whether this period is
to be understood as completely literal, or partially literal and partially symbolic, or
totally symbolic. Extreme divergency also exists on. the Question of the beginning
(terminus a quo) and end ("terminus ad quern), as well as on the subdivisions of the
time period as shall be seen in our discussion below.
Our study in this section and the following

one presents the four major schemes of Daniel 9:24-27: the symbolical (amillennialist)
scheme, the futurist with its gap theory (dispensationalist) scheme, the historical-
10 Wiiliam H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation (Washington, DC, 1982), p. 77.
critical (modernist) scheme, and finally the historical-messianic (historicist) scheme.
Symbolical Interpretation (Amillennial)

The consistent symbolical interpretation is propounded today primarily by
amillennialist interpreters. The key notion rests in the view that the numerical figures in
9:24-27 are not literal but symbolic in nature.
It is suggested that "the very nature of apocalyptic literature would tend toward
symbolical interpretation. The numbers 7, 3, and 10 are acknowledged as the principal
digits in symbolism."11 It is claimed that the Hebrew (vs. 24) says simply "sevens
seventy," and not "seventy weeks" (KJV, ERV, NEB, NAB, NASB).
The term usually rendered "weeks" is sabu'im. It carries the meaning "week," according
to all major lexicons.12 However, the LXX and Theodotion, the two oldest Greek
versions, render this term "hebdomads." On this basis the suggestion is made that the
key phrase sabuim sibim really means " 'seventy heptads'—7 x 7 x 10."13 In short, the
"seventy weeks" of 9:24-27 consist of a symbolic figure of "seventy sevens" or "seventy
hep-tads."14
11 Francisco, p. 135.
12 L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1957), p. 940: "period
of seven days, week"; W. L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (Grand
Rapids, 1971), p. 358: "seven days, a week"; G. Fohrer, et al., Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old
Testament (Berlin/New York, 1973), p. 275: "period of seven, week." The older BDB, pp. 988-89,
suggests "period of seven (days, years), heptad, week" for sabua generally and for 9:24 specifically
"heptad or seven of years."
13 Leupold, p. 409.
14 Supporters of this view include T. Kliefoth, Das Buch Daniel (1868), who is credited to be the first
among interpreters to have attempted to establish exegetically the symbolic interpretation. He is followed,
by and large, by C. F. Keil, "The Book of Daniel," Commentary on the Old Testament, eds. C. F. Keil and
F. Delitzsch (Edinburgh, 1891), pp. 399-402; Leupold, pp. 403-410; and J. Philip, By the Rivers of
Babylon. Studies in the Book of Daniel (Aberdeen, 1972), p. 134. P. Grelot, "Soixante-dix
The typical characteristic of this interpretation is the view that the total period is
symbolic and that the second of the three divisions of the prophecy (7, 62, 1) extends
from the first advent of Christ to the consummation at the end of time.
The "seventy heptads" are not to be understood as an exact chronological

computation, but as a "round figure" and "in terms of general seasons of divine
activity." However, their beginning is the edict of Cyrus in 538 B.C., which permitted
the Jews to return to Jerusalem (2 Chron 36:22-23 = Ezra 1:2-4).15 Accordingly, the first
division of 7 heptads begins in 538 and ends with the first coming of Christ.16
The second division of 62 "heptads" merely indicates a "relatively greater extent
than the first constructive period."17 It designates the period from the construction of
Jerusalem, namely "spiritual Jerusalem," or the church, down to the final consummation
at the end of time.18 The second division is the period of the Christian church in its
visible form.
E. J. Young suggests, against the supporters of the symbolical interpretation such as

T. Kliefoth and C. Keil, that "the 62 sevens therefore have reference to the period which
follows the age of Ezra and Nehemiah to the time of Christ."19 Young wishes to remain
tied to history, except in the last part of the seventieth seven, which he believes extends
into the future.
The third division of one "heptad" is, according to Keil and Leupold, the last period of
history, the time of tribulation, which begins with the
semaines d'annees," Bib 50 (1969): 169-86, also takes the 70 weeks as a symbolical number but applies it
differently from the former.
15 Keil, p. 352,- Kliefoth, ad loc.; Leupold, pp. 418-20; cf. B. H. Hall, "The Book of Daniel," The
Wesleyan Bible Commentary, ed. C. W. Carter (Grand Rapids, 1969), p. 547.
16 Leupold, pp. 420-21: "The first of these two constructive periods is the one that culminates in the
coming of an important personage, so important, in fact, that He needs merely to be mentioned by
significant names of His and one at once realizes who is referred to," Keil, p. 355.
17 .Leupold, p. 421.
18 Ibud., pp. 423-24.
19 Young, pp. 205-6.
10
advent of the antichrist and ends with his defeat.20 The objective of the destructive work
of the antichrist is "the city and the sanctuary," that is, "the visible aspects of the
kingdom of God insofar as they represent the visible institution called the church."21
The visible church disappears during: that last period of history before the second
advent of Christ- The following diagram depicts the consistent symbolical
interpretation:
Amillennial Arrangement of the Seventy Weeks

First Advent Second Advent 538 B.C. period of the Church 7 heptads 62 heptads .
visible church . 1 heptad . invisible . church
The immediate appeal of the consistent symbolical interpretaton is found in its

attempt to refuse to engage in any arithematic and time computations. It has also
emphasized generalities rather than details in history and interpretation.
On the negative side are serious shortcomings. First, there seems to be an internal
exegetical problem in the symbolical interpretation. Leupold, for example, speaks of the
first period (7 heptads) as extending from Cyrus to the time of Christ's first advent. The
second period, which consists of 62 heptads, he extends from the first advent to the
Second Advent. This means that the last heptad does not follow the 62 heptads. It is
viewed as being contemporaneous with the last part of the second
20 Keil, p. 375; Leupold, pp. 439-40.
21 Leupold, p. 428.
11
period—' The text speaks of "seventy sevens" and not of 69 "sevens" plus one "seven"
contemporaneous with the last part of the previous division.
Second, there is the matter of whether there is any justification for considering the
"seventy sevens" as symbolic in the first place. Just because the term sabuim is a
masculine plural noun instead of the expected feminine plural (sabuot), which normally
stands for "weeks," seems to be an insufficient grammatical reason to cite in support of
the symbolical interpretation.23 (In regard to grammar, the masculine plural ending in
sabuim, in comparison to the feminine plural ending in sabu'ot in other parts of the OT,
indicates that the singular sabbua could take either a masculine or feminine gender form
in the plural.24 This phenomenon is common in many Hebrew nouns of the OT and the
Qumran texts as well as in later Mishnaic Hebrew.)
The masculine plural seems to be used by intention,25 as is the position of this noun
before the numeral. The latter appears for the sake of emphasis, in order to contrast the
"weeks" with the "years" of Jeremiah (9:2).26 The notion of a "week" seems to have
been suggested implicitly on the basis of the seven-day and seven-year periods
culminating in a "Sabbath" (Lev 25:2-4; 26:34ff.).27 The designation of "three weeks"
(selosah sabuim yamim) in 10:2, which reads literally "three sevens [of] days,"
indicates on the one hand that three regular weeks are meant and seems to imply, on
22 Ibid., p. 431: "The preceding verse [26]

had told what would occur at the end of the sixty-two heptads only in a general, summary way. All the
things mentioned would, therefore, fall within the last heptad, although the point of view is primarily this,
that they would bring about the end of the sixty-two heptads. Only the wars and the desolations were
described as prevailing unto the end."
23 See the argument by Leupold, p. 409.
24 See the evidence provided by R. Meyer, Hebraische Grammatik (New York, 1969), 2:45; D.
Miehel, Grundlegung einer hebraischen Syntax (Neu-kirchen-Vluyn, 1977), 1:34-39; M. Ben-Asher, The
Gender of Nouns in Biblical Hebrew," Semitics 6 (1978): 9.
25 Montgomery, p. 376.
26 Hengstenberg, vol. 2, p. 808.
27 R. H. Charles, The Book of Daniel (Edinburgh, 1913), p. 104; Shea, pp. 69-72, 77-79.
12
the other hand, by the addition of yamim, "days," that these "weeks" are not identical
with the sabuim of 9:24.
Third, the consistent symbolical interpretation with its indefinite short-long-short
periods does not do justice to the interest of Daniel in finding an answer to the definite
70-year period of desolation.28 The context (9:2) requires an intentionally definite
designation of a period of time measured by the number 7 whose duration must be
determined to fit specific chronological time periods of history.
Fourth, the symbolical interpretation cannot find any support in the assertion that
the symbolism of numbers such as 7, 3, and 10 is typical of apocalyptic literature and
thus tends in that direction. The division of the "seventy sevens" into three subdivisions
of 7, 62, and 1 shows that both the second (62)29 and third (1) are rather unsymbolic.
Daniel 9:25a is especially formulated as a reference to a particular time. The division of
the last "week" into 31/2+3 1/2 is also totally unsymbolic.
Fifth, the symbolical interpretation "errs in having the seventy weeks end with the
defeat of the anti-Christ, whereas the Hebrew demands that it be marked by the
complete overthrow of Jerusalem."30 Even if one wished to understand Jerusalem as a
symbol of the visible church and the "sacrifice and oblation" to mean "the totality of the
cult" in the sense of "all worship,"31 one would still be faced with a major problem.
How can the antichrist bring to a complete end both church and worship when, in fact,
the people of the saints receive the eternal kingdom (Dan 7:13-14, 27; 12:1-3)?
Sixth, the symbolical interpretation is "liable to the charge of spiritualizing."32 There is,
for example, no exegetical evidence anywhere in the book of Daniel to support the view
that Jerusalem should stand for any
28 A. Bentzen, Daniel, HAT (Tubingen, 1952),

p. 66.
29 So. W. Baumgartner, "Ein Vierteljahrhundert Danielforsehung," TR 11 (1939): 81.
31 So Leupold, p. 432.
13
other entity than the actual city of Jerusalem. The suggestion that Jerusalem is a symbol
of the church is without exegetical and contextual foundation any place in the book of
Daniel.
The Jerusalem of 9:2 is the literal capital city of the Israelites. The "inhabitants of
Jerusalem" in verse 7 are physical Israelites. The Jerusalem and the "holy mountain," as
well as the "sanctuary" spoken of in verses 16-17 together with the "city" in verse 18,
can mean only the physical city of ancient Israel. Accordingly, the "holy city" of verse
24 and the Jerusalem of verse 25 cannot refer to anything other than that to which the
reader constantly has been pointed.
These weighty objections have drawn few interpreters in recent years to espouse the
consistent symbolical interpretation,
Futurist Interpretation (Dispensational)

The futurist/dispensational interpretation33 of the chronological scheme of 9:24-27
is very widely used today in the English-speaking world and beyond.34 It is often linked
with the teachings on prophecy by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)—from the 1830s
on—and the Plymouth Brethren of Ireland. C. I. Scofield (1843-1921) of the United
States was influenced by Darby and presented the view of seven dispensations from
Eden to the new creation. He incorporated these views in the notes of the widely used
Sсofield Reference Bible (1911; recent revision,
1967).
33 So by J. B. Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (New York, 19731 pp. 384-85.
34 Of the leading voices the following are representative: J. A. Seiss, Voices From Babylon
(Philadelphia, 1879); Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince (London, 1909); C. I. Seofield, ed.. The
Seofield Reference Bible (New York, 1911); L. S. Chafer, The Kingdom in History and Prophecy (Chi-
cago, 1936); A. J. MeClain, Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Grand Rapids, 1940); H. A.
Ironside, The Great Parenthesis (Grand Rapids, 1943);
J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids, 1958); G. R. King, Daniel (Grand Rapids, 1966); J. F.
Walvoord, Daniel the Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago, 1971); L. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel
(Grand Rapids, 1973) and many others.
14
It should be noted that the dispensationalist view on eschatology, including 9:24-27,
is held extensively today by evangelical Christians. Although these views are of recent
origin, their influence is widespread.
The futurist/dispensational interpretation of the time aspects of 9:24-27 is also

known as the "parenthesis" or "gap" interpretation. The 490 years are not viewed as
continuous. Instead the interpretation posits a "parenthesis" or "gap" between the first
69 weeks and the last or seventieth week of the total span. The last week is to come in
the future. In this sense the interpretation is "futurist" in nature.
This futurist/dispensational interpretation understands the "parenthesis" or "gap" as

the "Church age." The "Church age" forms a "parenthesis" between Christ's first advent
and a revived Roman empire whose prince is said to be the antichrist. According to this
view 9:24 is not a summary of what took place in the work of Christ on earth, but is a
program of the future. It was not fulfilled in the past. Indeed, 9:24 should be placed at
the end of 9:27. Although the dispensational approach claims to be established on the
"literal method of interpretation of prophecy,"35 it is unable to keep the 490 years
together. It arbitrarily separates the final seven years from its logical time frame and
puts them into the future.
The futurist/dispensatonal interpretation understands the term sabuim in 9:24 as "weeks"
of years,"36 totaling 490 years. It also understands the "word" (9:25) to build Jerusalem
to refer to the second decree of Artaxer-xes I Longimanus (Neh 1-2). This decree is
dated by most dispensationalists
to 445 B.C.37 Based on the reckoning of Sir Robert Anderson who takes the years as
"prophetic" years of 360 days each, the first 69 weeks are reckoned as 173,880 days (69
x 7 x 360 = 173.880).38 This period is extended from "14th March [1st of Nisan], 445
B.C." to "6th April [10th of
35 Pentecost, p. 239; cf. J. F. Walvoord, "Is

Daniel's Seventieth Week Future?" BS 101 (1944): 30; McCIain, p. 5; etc.
36 For example, McCIain, pp. 12-15; Pentecost, pp. 242-44; Walvoord, Daniel, pp. 217-20; Wood,
pp. 247-48.
37 Pentecost, pp. 244-45; Walvoord, Daniel, p. 225; etc.
38 Anderson, p. 128.
15
Nisan], A.D. 32,"39 alleged to be the date for the triumphal entry of Jesus on Palm
Sunday.
This reckoning can be held only on five problematical assumptions:
(l) The years are not solar years but "prophetic years" of 360 days. (2) The decree was
issued on Nisan 1, 445 B.C. (3) Christ died in A.D. 32. (4) The last week of the
prophecy may be moved to the future. (5) No synchronism between "prophetic" and
"solar" years can be achieved without the arbitrary and subjective addition of extra days.
On the basis of the problems connected with these five assumptions dispensationalists
recently have attempted various adjustments to solve certain major issues. L. Wood
suggests that the "best solution" is to accept "the earlier [first] decree of Artaxerxes,
given to Ezra in 458 B.C, Figuring on the basis of solar years, the 483-year-period ends
now in A.D. 26, and this is the accepted date for Jesus' baptism."40 R. D. Culver,
however, continues to favor the second decree and the date 445 B.C., but is forced to
abandon an exact fulfillment, allowing a variance of a few months.41
R. C. Newman attempts to calculate with the "Sabbath-Year Cycle," the sixty-ninth
of which extends from A.D. 27 to 34 and "brackets the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; in
fact, it extends over most of His public ministry also."42
43
H. W. Hoehner points to several problems with this view: First, the first
sabbatical cycle extends from 452 to 445 B.C. and thus terminates one /ear too early to
qualify for the year 444 B.C. in which the second decree by Artaxerxes was issued. This
would leave only 68 "Sabbath-Year cycles" between the terminus a quo and the death of
Christ, but this is contra-
39 Ibid.
40 Wood, p. 253. This shows that Wood is attempting to combine the chronological advantages of the
historical-Messianic interpretation with the exegetical procedures of futurist premillenarians.
41 R. D. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago, 1954), p. 145.
42 R. C. Newman, "Daniel's Seventy Weeks and the OT Sabbath-Year Cycle," JETS 16 (1973): 233.
43 H. W. Hoehner, "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Part VI: Daniel's Seventy Weeks and
New Testament Chronology," BS 132 (1975): 62-64.
16
dieted by the 69 weeks after which Messiah is to be cut off (Dan 9:26). Second, since
the sixty-ninth "Sabbath-Year cycle" comes to an end in A.D. 34, the Messiah would
have to be cut off after A.D. 34, several years after Christ's actual crucifixion.
New evidence not considered by either Newman or Hoehner indicates that the
sabbath-year cycle does not extend from 452 to 445 B.C. but from 457 to 450 B.C.44
This means that neither 444 B.C. nor 445 B.C. fits the sabbath-year cycle. Newrnan's
proposal to fix the beginning of the 70 weeks of chapter 9 at the second "decree" of
Artanerxes I (Neh 1-2) on the basis of the sabbath-year cycle has failed.
One of the most recent attempts to solve the calculation problems of the
dispensational interpretation is that proposed by H. W. Hoehner, who argues correctly
that the date of the second decree of Artaxerxes is 444 B.C. On the basis of the
assumption of a "prophetic year" of 360 days, he suggests that the 69 weeks are 173,880
days (69 x 7 x 360),45 as does Anderson.46 In Hoehner's calculation the beginning of the
69 weeks is Nisan 1 (March 5), 444 B.C.,47 and the conclusion is on Nisan 10 (March
30), A.D. 33,48 at which time he believes the triumphal entry of Christ occurred.
Obviously Hoehner follows Anderson in reckoning the beginning of the 69 weeks

as commencing on Nisan 1 when, in fact, Nehemiah 2:1 only
44 See B. 2. Wacholder, "The Calendar of

Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period," HUCA 44 (1973): 153-96.
Shea, p. 79, notes incisively, "The 70 weeks of Dan 9 are related to the sabbatical years of Lev 25 through
their fulfillment historically in the known postexilic sabbatical years of 457 B.C., A.D. 27, and A.D. 34."
45 Hoehner, p. 64. On Hoehner's redating of Christ's death and resurrection to a later period to make it fit
the chronological scheme of Daniel 9, see his essay in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, eds. R.
N. Longnecker and M. C, Tenney (Grand Rapids, 1974), pp. 41-54; and H. W. Hoehner, Chronological
Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, 1977).
46 Anderson, pp. 119-29.
47 Hoehner, BS 132 (1975): 64-65; id., Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, p. 138.
48 Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, p. 139.
17
states that it was the month of Nisan. Hoehner admits that he works on the basis of an
assumption49 He again follows Anderson in multiplying 69 weeks by 7 (years) for each
week by 360 days of the assumed "prophetic years" of Anderson,50 arriving again at the
figure of 173,880 days (69 x 7 x 360). Beginning on Nisan 1, 444 B.C. (March 5, 444
B.C.) the 69 weeks conclude on Nisan 10, A.D. 33 (March 30, A.D. 33) according to
Hoehner.
The "verification" of this chronological scheme is said to be arrived at in the

following way: "The difference between 444 B.C. and A.D. 33, then, is 476 solar years.
By multiplying 476 [years] by 365.24219879 or by 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes,
45.975 seconds, one comes to 173,855.28662404 days or 173,855 days, 6 hours, 52
minutes, 44 seconds."51 Does the "verification" work? Not really, for it does not indicate
a mathematical match. It leaves instead a discrepancy of 25 days. They need to be added
to the 173,855 days to reach 173,880 days. Hoehner laconically notes, "This leaves only
25 days to be accounted for between 444 B.C. and A.D. 33. By adding the 25 days to
[the assumed Nisan 1 or] March 5, one comes to March 30 (of A.D. 33) which was
Nisan 10 in A.D. 33. This is the triumphal
entry of Jesus into Jerusalem."52 While Hoehner shortens the gap of unaccounted days,
he is also unable to overcome the computational problem.
In typical dispensationalist fashion the seventieth week is moved to the future and
thus separated from the 69 weeks by the gap of the "Church age." Since Hoehner begins
with the only defensible year, 444 B.C., for the decree of his choice, a diagram
providing his adjusted dates is here presented (see next page). The dates chosen by most
dispensationalists are piaced in parentheses:
49 Ibid.. p. 138.
50 Anderson, pp. 67-75; Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life 0f Christ, p. 135.
51 Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, p. 138.
52 Ibid., p. 139.
Dispensationalist Computations of the Seventy Weeks

444 B.C. A.D. 33
(Nisan 1) (Nisan 10 = March 30)
445 B.C. A.D. 32
(Nisan 1) (Nisan 10 = April 6)
476 years Gap or Parenthesis
69 weeks Church Age 1/2 1/2
70 weeks
2nd Decree Triumphal 2nd Advent
of Artaxerxes entry
(Nehemiah)
19
The dispensational interpretation calls for a consideration of some major problems.
First, the year 445 B.C., which is chosen as the beginning ('terminus a quo) by the
majority of dispensational interpreters, is not acceptable for the year of Artaxerxes' so-
called second decree. The data supplied by Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1 requires that this
decree be dated to 444 B.C.53 Therefore, Anderson's calculation cannot be salvaged. It
should se noted also that this computation is off by several days because he disregards
the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars.54 But this might not prove a
major obstacle since, to make his system work, he has already supplied 130 days for
which no accounting is given.
Second, the calculations based on both Andersen's55 and Hoehner's56 systems are
built on the assumption, as noted above, that the decree of Nehemiah 2:1 was issued on
Nisan 1. Fellow-dispensationalist Newman criticized Anderson as follows: "But for him
to start even a week later would make it impossible to end the prophetic period before
the crucifixion, even granting the validity of 'prophetic years' and the year A..D. 32."57
The same applies to Hoehner. If he begins only five days later, his whole calculation
breaks down. Nehemiah 2:1 merely speaks of "the month of Nisan" without specifying
the precise day on which the decree was issued. "hat Nisan 1 was the date for the
issuing of the decree is purely hypothetical. It lacks historical support and is
necessitated only because the scheme needs more days than are possible to obtain.
Third, the 69 weeks are taken to be "prophetic years" of 360 days. However, this
computation gives a total of only 476 solar years and a few jays, in other words, seven
years less than the expected 483 years. If one
53 J. Neuffer, "The Accession Year of Artaxerxes I,"

AUSS 6 (1968): 60-i7; S. H. Horn and L. H. Wood, The Chronology of Ezra, 2nd ed., (Washington, DC,
1970), pp. 98-116, 124-27; H. H. Goldstine, New and Full Moons l00l B.C. toA.D. 1651 (Philadelphia,
1973), p. 47.
54 Horn and Wood, pp. 43-45.
56 Hoehner, BS 132 (1975), 64; id.. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, p. 138..
57 Newman, JETS 16 (1973), p. 231.
20
calculates on the basis of 483 solar years (69 x 7 = 483) and begins with 444 B.C., one
misses the target date of the lifetime of Christ by several years. He arrives at A.D. 40,
some years after the crucifixion of Christ.58 The solar-year calculation, which appears to
be the most normal, does not work in this scheme, so it is rejected by most
dispensationalists in favor of the "prophetic year" calculation.
If one should grant, for the sake of argument, the validity of the "prophetic year"
method and should extend from Nisan 1 (March 5), 444 B.C., 173,855 days (476 years
x 365.24219879 days),59 one would arrive only at March 5, A.D. 33. This is still 25
days short of the triumphal entry, which was reckoned to fall on March 30 of the same
year. It is 31 days (more than one "prophetic month"!) short of the crucifixion date,
which would fall on April 5, A.D. 33, according to Hoehner's chronology of the life of
Christ.60 it is apparent that Hoehner does not resolve Anderson's dilemma.
There is no way in which a synchronism between the 173,880 "prophetic days" (69
weeks x 7 years x 360 days) and the 476 years between 444 B.C. and A.D. 33 (or
173,855 "solar days") can be achieved. For Ander-son the discrepancy consists of 116
days added for leap years and 24 extra days—a total of 140 days—in order to arrive at
the supposed triumphal entry on April 6, A.D. 32.61 Hoehner's discrepancy in his
attempted synchronism consists of 25 days that he needs to get to the supposed
triumphal entry on March 30, A.D. 33.62
Hoehner admits, "it is obvious that a calculation using the solar year does not
work"63 with a beginning in 444 B.C. To this one must add that it is equally obvious that
a calculation using the ''prophetic year" does not work either, unless missing days are
supplied arbitrarily. But such a subjec-
58 This is admitted by Hoehner, BS 132 (1975): 61.
59 Ibid.. p. 64.
60 H. W. Hoehner, "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Part V: The Year of Christ's
Crucifixion," BS 131 (1974): 332-48.
62 Hoehner, BS 132 (1975): 64.
63 Ibid.. p. 61.
21
tive procedure runs counter to the obvious precision of 9:24-27.
Fourth, interpreters of the futurist/dispensational school calculate the 70 weeks on

the basis of what Anderson called "prophetic years" of 360 days each as noted above. 64
This is necessitated on account of the fact that the period of time from 444 B.C. to the
target date in Christ's lifetime, if reckoned by normal (solar) years is too short by almost
10 years.
While the 360-day lunar year was known in ancient Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon,
using a system of 12 months with 30 days each, it is of vital importance to recognize
that various devices were employed in these nations to bring about an approximation to
the 365 1/4 days of the solar year. Either five days were added every twelfth month, or
an additional month was added every six or seven years, or the needed extra days to
reach the 365 1/4 days were supplied by varying methods.65
Anderson also attempted to support the "prophetic year" scheme by supposing that
the ancient Egyptian used a 360-day year. G. C. Gleason points out, however, that "as
for Egypt, the 365-day year was followed, . . . the Egyptians never used a 360-day year,
as Anderson supposed; they simply used the fraction 1/360 as a rough estimate for daily
quotas."66
No ancient nation is known to have employed a 360-day year in complete disregard

for the solar cycle of 365 1/4 days. Regarding ancient Israel, the "numerous
chronological statements in Kings and Chronicles, [reveal that] the OT authors used
nothing but true solar years. This consideration alone ought to be decisive against
Anderson's theory [of 'prophetic years'of 360 days]."67
Fifth, dispensational writers who suggest 445 or 444 B.C. as the beginning point for
the 70 weeks are forced to argue for the death of
Christ in
64 Anderson, p. 128.
65 P. Van Der Meer, Chronology of Ancient Western Asia and Egypt (Leiden, 1963), p. 1; S. H. Horn
and L. H. Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC, 1970), pp. 33-43.
66 G. L. Archer, "Daniel," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids,
1985), p. 115, referring to A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. (New York, 1957), pp. 203-5.
67 Archer, "Daniel," p. 115.
22
A.D. 32 or 33, respectively. These late dates lead to a host of problems for NT
chronology, which is interlaced with the secular chronology of the period in which
Christianity began. Since the subject of the date of Christ's death will come up for
discussion again, it may suffice to state here that these two dates are off by one and two
years, respectively.
Sixth, the dispensational interpretation—the Parenthesis Theory (Gap Theory)—

claims that there is a large interval of time between the 69 weeks and the seventieth
week of the total 70 weeks prophecy. Since there is no gap between the first seven
weeks and the following 62 weeks (the first and second divisions of the total period), it
comes as a surprise to find an extraordinarily long gap posited to exist between the
second and the third divisions (the last or seventieth week of the prophecy). This
lengthy gap, or parenthesis, breaks the natural continuity of the prophecy (7 + 62 +
[gap] l).
Vitringa cautioned long ago "that the period of seventy hebdomads, or 490 years, is
here predicted as one that will continue uninterrupted from its commencement to its
close or completion, both with regard to the entire period of seventy hebdomads, and
also to the several parts (7, 62, and 1), into which the seventy are divided." And the
question has been raised, "How can one imagine that there is an interval between the
sixty-nine and the one, when these together make up the seventy?"68
Why is the last week placed in the future? If Christ were to be crucified in the
middle of that week, His death would take place in the fall of A.D. 36, a date totally
impossible. Another reason for placing the last week into the future is the attempt to
escape the difficult fact that Jerusalem's destruction did not fall within this one week of
years. In other words, futurist/dispensational interpreters seek to establish their interpre-
tation by comparing prophecy with its fulfillment and not by an impartial exegesis of
the text. We agree with E. J. Young that this "question must finally be resolved upon the
basis of exegesis alone."69
68 Vitringa, cited by Hengstenberg, p. 854, and

Hengstenberg, pp. 854-55
69 Young, p. 214.
23
Seventh, it has been suggested by H. A. Ironside and A. J. McClain, among others,70

that there are other gaps, or parentheses, in biblical prophecy. On this basis it is argued
that the alleged parenthesis of 9:27 finds its justification. On close examination,
however, it may be seen that the texts do not support their contention unless one
superimposes a dispensational scheme from the outside.71 But even if the passages to
which dispensationalist writers appeal did contain gaps, this would still be no proof that
there was a similar gap, or parenthesis, in 9:24-27.
In this connection the observation of P. Mauro is significant because he has shown

that there is "an absolute rule, admitting of no exceptions, [namely] that when a definite
measure of time or space is specified by the number of units composing it, within which
a certain event is to happen or a certain thing is to be found, the units of time or space
which make up that measure are to be understood as running continuously and succes-
sively."72
This is based on the observation that the 430 years of Genesis 15;13, Exodus 12i4t),
Galatians 3:17; the 40 years of wilderness wandering of Numbers 14:34; and the seven
years of plenty and of famine of Genesis 45:6 were respectively consecutive years. The
three days after which Jesus was to arise were also to be consecutive. Since these time
periods were consecutive, the natural thing would be to expect the 70 weeks of 9:24-27
likewise to be 70 consecutive weeks.
Eighth, the argument that the events of verse 27 occur after those of verse 26 rests
upon an unsupportable assumption. It is true that the events of verse 26, namely the
cutting off of the Messiah and the destruction of both city and sanctuary, are said to take
place after the 62 weeks, but it is
not stated that the events of verse 27 occur after those of verse 26.73
70 Walvoord, BS 101 (1944) pp. 47-48,

summarizing Ironside; McClain, pp. 29-33; Pentecost, pp. 247-48.
71 On the entire dispensational system, see 0. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia, 1945);
G. E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids, 1956).
72 P. Mauro as cited by Young, p. 216.
73 So correctly, Young, p. 215.
24
There is no contextual evidence whatsoever to support the hypothesis that verses 26-27
are to be understood in any other sense than as contemporaneous events. Detailed
exegesis indicates that verse 27 presents a major stumbling block to the interpretation of
dispensationalists. This is true because verse 27 is an explanation of verse 26 and cannot
be separated from it and assigned to events subsequent to it.74
Ninth, another serious problem concerns the assumption of an unprecedented

covenant-making by antichirst.75 The OT (and the NT) "contains no hint of any such
covenant at all, let alone some earlier one that he could confirm at this point in Dan.
9."76 The difficulty with this assumption is that it takes a lesser figure, namely "the
prince that shall come" (vs. 26), as the antecedent of the "he" in verse 27, rather than the
dominant figure, the "Messiah" (vs. 26). The word "prince" is a subordinate figure in
verse 26. It is not even the subject of the clause. The subject of the clause is "the
people." Therefore, the fitting grammatical antecedent of the "he" (vs. 27) is the
"Messiah" (vs. 26).
Tenth, the futurist interpreters transform the "prince" into "a future deputy of the
devil"77 and a "future enemy of the people of Israel."78 This interpretation overlooks the
fact that the emphasis in verse 26 is not upon the "prince" but upon the "people of the
prince." Young points out, "This prince, therefore, must be one who rules over these
people,... he mast be their contemporary, alive when they are alive."79 A prince living
1900 years later than the people is quite contrary to the text. L. Wood replies that the
phrase "the one coming" means "from whom will come." This makes the entire phrase
read "the people from whom will come a prince."80
74 See the important discussion by J. Barton Payne,

"The Goal of Dan-iel's Seventy Weeks," JETS 21/2 (1978): 97-115, esp. pp. 105-115.
75 A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, (New York, 1911), p. 142;
Walypord, Daniel, pp. 232-36.
76 Paysie, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 389.
77 Ibid.
78 Walvoopd, Daniel, p. 234.
79 Young, pp. 211-12.
80 Wood, p. 258.
25
However, such a reading is not supported by the Hebrew text.

Eleventh, recent study of the poetry of 9:24-27 indicates a very intricate literary
structure.81 Such a structure binds the entire section together in literary patterns that do
not permit the kind of chronological fragmentation demanded by the dispensational
system. The literary arrangement supports the idea that the three titles—Messiah Prince
(vs. 25), the Messiah (vs. 26a), and the Prince (vs. 26b)— refer to the same person who
is cut off in the middle of the last week.82
These chronological, historical, and exegetical obstacles to the acceptance of the

futurist/dispensational interpretation of 9:24-27 hardly commend this approach.
81 See J. Doukhan, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An

Exegetical Study," AUSS 17 (1979): 1-22; W. H, Shea, "The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. chap. 3, pp. 75-
118 in this volume.
82 Shea, "The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27," pp. 92-94 in this volume.
HISTORICAL-CRITICAL
AND HISTORICIST INTERPRETATIONS
Editorial synopsis. Expositions of the historical-critical interpretation of Daniel

9:24-27 by liberal scholars do not recognize any messianic import in this passage. It is
assumed that its setting is the pre-Christian, Maccabean age (second century B.C.).
Furthermore, it is presupposed that the material was written in the form of a prophecy
after the events had taken place. The historical-critical interpretation is widespread and
is the standard view of modern liberal scholarship.
It is asserted that the 70 weeks (that is, 70 weeks of years) form an interpretation of
the 70-year-captivity prophecy of Jeremiah, referred to in the same chapter (9:2; cf. Jer
25:1, 12). Consequently historical-critical interpreters begin the 490 years with the fall
of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 B.C. The first division (the seven weeks) of the three parts of
the total period is extended to 539 B.C. (the fall of Babylon) or by others to 538 B.C.
(the decree of Cyrus regarding the return of the Jews and the building of the temple).
The second division (62 weeks) is extended from either 539 or 538 B.C. to the
murder of the high priest Onias III in either 171 or 170 B.C. The third division (one
week) is laid out from the death of Onias to 164 B.C., the year the temple was
rededicated by Judas Maccabeus. The desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV is
placed three years earlier at 167 B.C.
Since it is the firm belief of this school of interpretation that 9:24-27 is just history
written down after the events in the form of prophecy, its data should dovetail with
actual history. But this is not the ease. A variety of problems are encountered by this
approach.
There is no unanimity on the starting point of the first division (7 weeks = 49 years).
One of the most recent writers suggests 589 B.C. to 536 B.C. (a period of 53 years !).
Others suggest 587 to 539 B.C. (the fall of Jerusalem to the fall of Babylon) or 587 to
538 B.C, (the fall of Jerusalem to the decree of Cyrus to release the Jews). Actually only
this latter sequence gives a true 49 years. New evidence now supports the date of
27
586 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem and 537 B.C. for the decree of Cyrus.
However, the fall of Jerusalem as the beginning date for the 490 years has no
support exegetically. Whereas "the word of the Lord" to Jeremiah (9:2) pertains to the
70 year captivity and indirectly to the fall of the city and nation, Daniel 9:25 refers to a
"word" calling for the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem. Thus, it is self-evident
that the 490 years were never intended to begin with the destruction of the city.
Another glaring weakness in the historical-critical scheme lies in the plotting of the
62 weeks or 434 years, the second division of the 490 year period. The selected span—
from 539/538 B.C. to 171/170 B.C.—is nearly seven decades too short. The 434 years
extend far beyond the intended termination at the death of Onias. In order to solve this
discrepancy some expositors begin the 62 weeks or 434 years with the date 605 B.C.
and run the second division concurrently with the seven weeks or 49 years that started
from 587 B.C. This gives the anomaly of providing two different beginning dates for
the passage. Other expositors simply dismiss the matter as a computational error on the
part of the writer or as due to the vague and faulty memory of the Jews in the second
century B.C.
Chronological problems likewise beset the dating of the last week from the death of
Onias to the rededication of the temple in 164 B.C. New evidence now places the death
of the priest at 170 B.C. which throws off the computation of those scholars who
located the 434 years in the span between 605 B.C. and 171 B.C. and shortens the last
"week" of the prophecy as well.
The computation of the years in which the temple was desecrated by Antiochus, a
period of three years (December 14, 167 B.C., to December 14, 164 B.C.) is also out of
harmony with the prophecy which calls for an event to happen in the midst of the week,
implying three and one-half years on either side. The fact that new research now argues
for the desecration of the temple in 168 B.C. with a renewal in 165 B.C. only
complicates the chronology of this period for the historical-critical interpretation. At
present there is no historical-critical scheme of chronological interpretation that can
harmonize 9:24-27 with actual history.
28
Jews (in pre-Christian times) as well as Christians have acknowledged the
messianic and predictive intent of Daniel 9:24-27. The majority of Christian expositors
have followed the historical-messianic interpretation of this passage. It is the only
scheme that can claim correlation and agreement with prophecy and history by its
extension of the 490 years from 457 B.C. to A.D. 34.
The beginning date for the 490 years is the seventh year of Artaxerxes I, now firmly
established as 458/457 B.C. With Ezra returning to Palestine in 457 B.C. the prophecy
finds its logical beginning with that year date. Rejecting the biased and late Masoretic
(A.D. 500 and onward) punctuation of 9:25 in favor of that found in the earlier Greek
and other versions, the interpreter of this school traces the 69 weeks or 483 years (the
first two divisions: 7+62 weeks) on the year-day principle to A.D. 27.
In A.D. 27 the baptism of Jesus occurred—noted by Luke as the fifteenth year of

the Roman emperior Tiberius (Luke 3:5)—and He began His ministry as the Messiah.
Three and one-half years later, "in the midst of the week" (the spring of A.D. 31), He
was crucified. The prophecy closes three and one-half years later in A.D. 34 with the
death of Stephen, the scattering of the Christians from Jerusalem, and with the gospel
going to the Gentiles. It is also possible that A.D. 34 marked the conversion of Paul.
The author examines major arguments raised against the historical-messianic

interpretation. For example, it is argued that the decree of Artaxerxes I to Ezra does not
refer to a rebuilding and restoration of Jerusalem. It may, however, be inferred that the
Jews understood such to be the king's intention. T-he biblical evidence is that the wall
and other aspects of the city were largely constructed by Ezra (Ezra 4:7-23; 9:9). The
fact that Nehemiah's building program was accomplished in only 52 days (Neh 6:15) is
mute evidence that the bulk of the rebuilding already had been done before Nehemiah's
arrival,
The argument that Ezra came to Palestine after Nehemiah does not appear to be tenable.
Masoretic punctuation that would prevent the span of 69 weeks (7 + 62) is not original
with the Hebrew text and shows its
29
Jewish bias. It cannot be used as an argument against the messianic focus of this
prophecy.
Some also argue that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (mentioned in the
prophecy) requires a termination in A.D. 70 rather than in A.D. 34. However, that may
be countered with the fact that it is the death of the Messiah (predicted within the
prophecy) that sealed the fate of the ceremonial system as well as of the national state.
The events of A.D. 70 are simply the subsequent external consequences of the advent
and death of the Messiah, the chief foci of the prophecy.
While objections can be made to all four of the major interpretations of Daniel
9:24-27, the historical-messianic interpretation does not appear to be subject to the
chronological, exegetical, and historical difficulties encountered by the other systems. It
thus recommends itself as the most adequate of the major interpretations.
Section Outline
I. Historical-Critical Interpretations (Modernist)
II. Historical-Messianic Interpretation (Historicist)
Historical-Critical Interpretations
The historical-critical interpretations of modern times are the most widely

employed chronological schemes. They reflect a date for the book of Daniel in the
second century B.C. That is, the historical-critical school of interpretation holds that the
final form of Daniel was written between 168/7 and 164/3 B.C.
The historical-critical school of interpretation does not recognize the Messiah in 9:24-
27. Furthermore, it "was introduced," writes the historical-critic J. A. Montgomery, "by
the Deists and Rationalists of the 17th and 18th centuries, with the premise that the
objective of the 70
30
Weeks is the Maecabean age and that the 'prophecy' is accordingly a vaticinium ex
eventu1. In other words, the passage was no prophecy at all, but was written in the form
of a prophecy after the events described had taken place.
The historical-critical school of interpretation developed in the Age of the
Enlightenment and was first adopted by two Englishmen. In 1697 John Marsham2 and
in 1726 Anthony Collins3 embraced the suggestion of the pagan Neoplatonist
philosopher, Porphyry (third century A.D.), that Daniel's prophecies were written after
the events and actually describe the times of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.4 The historical-
critical interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 became and is today the standard view of liberal
scholars throughout the world.
Since this school of thought presupposes a second century B.C. composition of

5
Daniel and denies the presence of genuine prophecy 9:24-27 is likewise treated as a
vaticinium ex eventu.6 This position holds that "the prophecies of Daniel were vaticinia
ex eventu, prophecies-after-the-event, and were used as a device by which to ensure
authority for an apocalyptic message.'7
The "seventy weeks" of 9:24 are considered as "seventy weeks of years."8 They are
regarded as a "secondary interpretation of Jeremiah's
1 J. A. Montgomery, A Commentary on Darnel, ICC

(1927), p. 400.
2 John Marsham, Canon Cftronicust Frankfurt, 1697), pp. 61 Off.
3 Anthony Collins, The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered in view of controversy, occasioned
by a late book entitled .. . (London, 1726). On Collins, see E. Hirseh, Geschichte der neueren
evangelischen TheologiOf 3rd ed. (Darmstadt, 1964), vol. 1, pp. 308-315 J. M. Schmidt, Die judische
Apo/caiyp£ifc(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), pp. 36-37.
4 See the informative discussion in E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp.
317-20.
5 See the standard introductions by 0. Eissfeldt (1965), G. Fohrer (1968), 0. Kaiser (1969), etc.
6 W. Baumgartner, TR 11 (1989): 208-9, 224; A. Bentzen, Daniel, HAT (Tubingen, 1952), p. 77.
7 B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia, 1979), p. 611.
8 L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City, 1978): 244.
31
prophecy"9 referred to in 9:2. This " 'inspired' reinterpretation"10 supposedly "shows the
way in which the prophetic books were read at the time [of Antiochus Epiphanes]."11
However that may be, the historical-critical school reads the "seventy weeks" as
"seventy weeks of years," extending for most critics from 587/586 B.C. to 164 B.C.
The beginning of the "seventy weeks of years" or 490 years in this scheme is the fall of
Jerusalem which is dated either to 587 B.C.12 or to 586 B.C.13 The "seven weeks" of
years, or 49 years (the first division of the 70 weeks), if reckoned from 587 B.C.
conclude in 539 B.C. In that case, writes N. W. Porteous, "it was almost exactly 49
years (7 x 7) between the fall of Jerusalem and the fall of Babylon."14
J. A. Montgomery, on the other hand, begins with the date 586 B.C. for the fall of
Jerusalem, and figures the 49 years to terminate in 538 B.C.15 K, Koch notes with
insight, "If the 49 years of the first part of the period are reckoned from 586 to the
decree of Cyrus in 538 (Ezr 1), then they prove to be absolutely exact."16 While the
arithmetic is exact, the events that are to take place after the 49 years are certainly not
so.
Montgomery himself points this out: "In this ease it must be admitted that the dating
[of 586 B.C.] is not exactly 'from the issue of the word,' i.e. the word of Jer. 25:2 [1] in
year one of Nebuchadnezzar."17 (Actually 586 B.C., the fall of Jerusalem was the
nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar.
9 N. W. Porteous, Daniel. A Commentary (Philadelphia,

1965), p. 141.
10. R. Hammer, The Book of Daniel (New York, 1976), p. 94.
11. g. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh, 1965), 2:313.
12 The date 587 B.C. is supported by Porteus, Daniel, p. 141; D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of
Jewish Apocalyptic (London, 1964), p. 196; cf. Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, p. 251; A. Lacocque.The
Book of Daniel (Atlanta, 1979), p. 195; D.S.Russell, Daniel (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 187; W. S.Towner,
Daniel (Atlanta, 1984), p. 42.
13 The date of 586 is supported by K. Marti, Daniel (Leipzig, 1901), p. 69; R. H. Charles, The Book
of Daniel (Edinburgh, 1913), p. 106; Montgomery. d. 391; Bentzen, p. 75, and others.
14 Porteous, p. 141.
16 Klaus Koch unter Mitarbeit von Till Niewisch und Jurgen Tubach, Da.? BuchDaniel (Ertrage der
Forschung, Band 144; Darmstadt, 1980), p. 150.
17 Montgpmery, p. 392.
32
See Jeremiah 52:12). The first year of Nebuchadnezzar is 605 B.C. We shall see below
that a few historical-critics attempted to begin with this date (or 604 B.C.) and then
figure the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah 25:1-11 and the 490 years of Daniel 9:24-27 to
be concurrent rather than eonsecu-
tive,18 a hypothesis without textual support,
In view of these problems 0. Ploger suggests that the starting point of the total
period is "the issue of the word" that Jeremiah has spoken, namely 587 B.C., but points
out right away that this date is to be chosen "no matter when the words of Jeremiah in
Jer. 25 and 29 were spoken.”19 This qualifier does not solve the problem of the date for
the beginning (terminus a quo), as will be shown below.
The 62 weeks, or 434 years, of the middle period (or second division of the 70
weeks) is said to begin with the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.,20 or Cyrus' decree in 538
B.C.,21 and is said to terminate with the death of the high priest Onias III in 171 or 170
B.C., respectively. The grave difficulty with this computation rests in the fact that the
period from 539/538 B.C. to 171/170 B.C. is too short by almost seven decades.
The final division of "one week," or 7 years, is reckoned from the death of Onias III
in 171/170 B.C. to the redediсation of the temple by Judas Maссabaeus in 164 B.C. The
middle of the last week is marked by the desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV
Epiphanes, which continued for three and one-half years from "the end of 168 to the
beginning of 164. ..."22 Having briefly sketched the standard historical-critical
interpretation, we may represent it by the following diagram:
18 See Koch, pp. 149-52.
19 O. Ploger, Das Buch Daniel (Gutersloh, 1965), p. 134.
21 Charles, p. 106; Marti, pp. 69-70; Montgomery, p. 391.
22 So Marti, p. 72. Bentzen, p. 75, is suggesting that the desecration took place between 167 and 164.
Montgomery, p. 386, thinks of 168-165 B.C.
33
Standard Historical-Critical Computation of the Seventy Weeks
587/6 B.C. 539/8 171/0 164

7 years :
49
years_____
___ 434 years______ _3 1/2 3 1/2
7 weeks 62 weeks 1 week

Fall of Fall of Babylon or Onias III Temple
Jerusalem decree of Cyrus murdered desecrated-rededicated
Some have also attempted to solve the problem that the scheme is too short (in the
middle division) by several decades. A. Lacocque is a recent interpreter who suggests
again that the first "seven weeks" are concurrent with the 62 weeks.
He states, "Of the seventy weeks (sic) from Jeremiah's oracle, seven have passed
from the beginning of the Captivity (587) to the enthronement of the High Priest Joshua
(538; see Hag. 1.1, 14; Zech. 3.1ff.). Sixty-two more weeks, or 434 years, correspond to
the lapse of time between 605, the date of the oracle in Jer. 25.1, 11, and 171, the year
of the murder of the second 'anointed one', the High Priest Onias III. Of the last week,
half of it passed, it encompassed the time between the death of Onias III and Antiochus'
coercive measures. A half week more (from 168 to 165), and 'the decreed destruction
will be poured out by the destroyer.''23
Lacocque's chronological scheme may be represented by the following diagram:
23 Lacocque, p. 178.
34
Lacocque's Variation on the Historical-Critical Computation of the Seventy Weeks
587. 5
38
49 years
I7 weeks
605 171 168 165
434 years 31/2 3 1/2
62 weeks 1/2 wk 1/2 wk
1 week
Joshua Onias III
Captivity enthroned murdered
The advantage of Lacocque's scheme is that there are exactly 434 years between
605 B.C. and 171 B.C.24 Among the insurmountable problems are the following:
1. The wording of 9;25 demands that from "the word to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem" until Messiah the Prince "there will be seven and sixty-two weeks," that is,
69 weeks and not just 62 weeks.
2. The concurrent reckoning of the seven weeks within the 62 weeks destroys any
possibility of ever having a total of 70 weeks or 490 years.
3. Lacocque actually has two different beginning dates, namely 605 B.C. for the 62
weeks (434 years) and 587 B.C. for the seven weeks (49 years) which do not correlate.
Since the 49 years remain outside of the reckoning of the total period of time, his
computational system reduces the 70 week "prophecy" to a 63 week prophecy in
sequential reckoning.
On the basis of very recent computations the year of the death of
24 J. G. Gammie, Daniel (Atlanta, 1983), p. 94, essentially agrees with Lacocque in beginning the
434 years before 587/586 B.C. Gammie suggests the year 606 B.C. on the basis of Daniel 1:1 and the
year of the death of Onias III correspondingly at 172 B.C. On the basis of the best chronological
information, the date 606 B.C, is wrong. It is 605 B.C. and Onias ni died in 170 B.C. See next note.
35
Onias III is now placed at 170 B.C. and not 171 B.C.25 If this is correct, the 434 years
reckoned from 605 B.C. do not come out correctly. This scheme hardly recommends
itself on the basis of its computational and exegetical problems.
Another historical-critical computation of the 70 weeks is that provided by L. F.

Hartman and A. A. Di Lella in the Anchor Bible Commentary. It is suggested that "the
whole period, which he [the author of Daniel 9] counts as beginning with 'the utterance
of the word regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem,' [9:25] i.e. as beginning with 594
B.C., and [it is] ending with the death of Epiphanes in 164 B.C., . . ,"26
"The first part of the 490-year period almost certainly refers to the time that ended
with the return of the first exiles from Babylonia to Jerusalem in 538 B.C."27 The
longest section of the 490-year period reaches from 538 B.C. "to the next mentioned
event, when 'an anointed one' was 'cut down' in 171 B.C., . .."28 The events of the
supposed death of Onias III in 171 B.C. down to 164 B.C. as the end of the 490-year
period follows the customary historical-critical scheme.29
The Hartman-Di Lella chronological scheme may be represented by the following
diagram:
25 Klaus Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und

tieligionsverfolgimg in Judaa. Eine Untersuchung zur judisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (Got-
tingen,1983), pp. 124-25.
26 Hartman and Di Leila, p. 250.
27 Ibid., pp. 250-51.
28 Ibid., pp. 251-52.
29 Ibid., p. 253. "The author of ch. 9 begins his last 'week* of years with the murder of Onias III in
171 B.C. At the middle of the seven-year period, i.e. approximately three and a half years after 171
B.C., or c&. 167/ 166 B.C., he places the profanation of the Temple by Epiphanes, and he expects
God to put an end to this profanation after another three and a half years, i.e. ea. 164/163 B.C."
36
Hartman-Di Leila's Variation of the Historical-Critical
Computation of the Seventy Weeks
594 B.C 538 B.C. 171 B.C. 164/63 B.C.

7 weeks 62 weeks 1 week
Jeremiah's Joshua ben Onias III Temple

letter Jozadak murdered rededicated
(Jer 29:10)
Temple profaned
The major difference of the Hartman-Di Lella chronological schema with the
standard historical-critical computation is its beginning date in 594 B.C. This is another
attempt to correlate the text of Daniel 9:25, which specifies that from the "going forth of
a word [or decree] to rebuild and restore Jerusalem," with the beginning date of the 490-
year period. Hartman and Di Lella correctly point out that a beginning date of 605 B.C.
(or 606 B.C.) will not work because Jeremiah 25:11-12 "does not really speak of the
rebuilding of Jerusalem at all."30 There is likewise no "word" or "decree" datable to
587/586 B.C., the year of the destruction of Jerusalem that speaks of a rebuilding of
Jerusalem.
Hartman and Di Lella attempt to be faithful to the text of Daniel 9:25 which speaks
clearly about a "word" to rebuild Jerusalem and suggest that it is found in Jeremiah
29:10 which states that when the 70-year captivity is completed, "I will visit you and
fulfill my good word to you, to bring you back to this place." Regardless whether this
prophecy was spoken in 594 B.C., as is suggested by Hartman and Di Lella, the passage
in Jeremiah 29:10 does not fit Daniel 9:25. The former speaks of bringing back exiles to
Judah, but Daniel 9:25 speaks of a "word to rebuild and restore
Jerusalem."
30 Ibid., p. 250
37
This difficulty is accented in the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2-4) of 538/537 B.C. which
ypeaks of the rebuilding of the temple (vs. 3) but not of the rebuilding of Jerusalem
which did not take place until the "word" went forth from Artaxerxes in 457 B.C. (Ezra
7:12-26).31 These problems indicate that the year 594 B.C. does not fit as the beginning
of the 490-year period on exegetical grounds.
Second, the date 594 B.C. does not fit as the beginning date on chronological and
computational grounds. The first section of the 70-week period, which is 49 years, is too
short by eight years to reach to 538 B.C. Seven weeks of 49 years, beginning in 594
B.C. reach only to 545 B.C., a year in which nothing happened regarding the
specifications of Daniel 9i24-27.
Hartman and Di Lella are aware of this discrepancy and attempt to cover up this
computational problem by suggesting that the interval of 56 years between 594 B.C. and
538 B.C. is "sufficiently close to the quasiartificial figure of 'seven weeks' of years (Dan
9-.25)."32 However, there is no evidence that the seven-week period of 49 years is
"quasi-artificial," particularly since the text of Daniel 9:25 demands a specific
fulfillment regarding the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem at the end of that
period.
Third, the period from 594 B.C. to 164 B.C. is only 430 years, or 50 years too short to
cover the 70-week period of 490 years. Hartman and Di Lella recognize this
discrepancy33 but note that even if one begins with 605 B.C. "the whole period would be
only 441 years"34 to reach down to 1.64 B.C. The implication is that the standard
historical-critical scheme (see above) has a computational problem as does the scheme
presented by them,
In either case, 490 years can never be reached by any historical-critical (modernistic)
scheme. Hartman and Di Lella note incisively that
31 G. L. Archer, "Daniel," The Expositor's Bible

Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, 1985), p. 114, and below.
32 Hartman and Di Lella, p. 251,

33 Ibid., p. 250.
34 Ibid.
38
the 62-week period of 434 years which reaches from 538 B.C. to 171 B.C. "amount to
only 367 years."35 Again the computation is incorrect and throws serious doubt on the
entire historical-critical interpretation.
Fourth, Hartman and Di Lella suggest that "the anointed leader" of Daniel 9:25 (that
is, "Messiah the Prince") is identified best with Joshua ben Jozadak, the first high priest
of the restored temple in Jerusalem and not with Cyrus or with Zerubbabel as other
exegetes of the historical-critical school have maintained.36 Again Hartman and Di Lella
are attempting to build on the text of Daniel 9:25,
But the designation "Messiah the Prince" (Heb. mastah. nagid) is rendered simply
and incorrectly as "the anointed leader" by Hartman and Di Lella. If this designation
would mean "the anointed leader," the Hebrew would have to be nagid mastah and not
the sequence the text has37 Furthermore, there is no evidence in Ezra 2:2, 36 or in
Nehemiah 7;7, 39 that this Joshua (or Jeshua) was the first high priest since he and his
brothers are simply called "priests" (Ezra 3:2, 8, 10; 4:2-3; 5:2). The temple was not
completed until 515 B.C. and no high priest was needed until that time.
Finally, the priest Joshua ben Jozadak does not fulfill the time specification of
Daniel 9:26 with the seven-week period or 49 years, because from 594 B.C. to 537
B.C., when he appears in history, a period of 57 years has elapsed, but it should have
been only 49 years.
One of the most widely published writers on the book of Daniel since the 1970s is
John J. Collins. In his 1981 commentary on Daniel38 the standard view of historical-
critical scholars is more or less adopted but no dates are supplied. Collins raises an issue
that is not usually addressed, namely, "the question of truth arises. The prophecy of the
seventy weeks of years cannot be reconciled with historical fact."39
35Ibid.,p.252.
36 Ibid., p. 251.
37 Archer, "Daniel," p. 120.
38 J. J. Collins, Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees (Wilming-ton.DE, 1981), p. 95.
39 Ibid., p. 96.
39
In his view the point, of departure is "the reign of the unhistoriсal Darius the
Mede,"40 that is, 539/538 B.C.41 This view is not held by any other scholar of this
school of interpretation. But whether it is this point of departure or the one in 605 B.C.
(606 B.C.), 594 B.C., or 587/586 B.C., it can in no ease be reconciled.
Another problem pointed to by Collins is the fact that "the time from the
profanation of the Temple by the Syrians [that is, by Antiochus IV Epiphanes] to its
purifications by the Maccabees was exactly three years, not three and a half (see 1
Maccabees 4:54; 2 Maccabees 10:3-5)."42 The time elements and calculations contain
errors but the truth communicated is that suffering does come to an end for the
persecuted Jews.43
Maybe the historical-critical schemes are too problematical to fit the text and there
are no errors in the prophecy* Before we attempt to present another historical-
consecutive scheme we need to analyze other facets of the standard historical-critical
interpretation because the alternative schemes of Lacocque and Hartman-Di Lella fit
neither history nor the text.
Let us turn our attention now to the sequential reckoning of the 490 years in the
view of the standard historical-critical scheme of our time, that is, those who begin
actually in standard fashion with 587/586 B.C. as our first diagram above indicated. Let
us begin by considering the first of the three time divisions.
One would rightly expect that a "prophecy" written after the fact would fit the
figures of 49 + 434 + 7 years (7 weeks + 62 weeks + 1 week) perfectly. However, this is
not the case. The beginning of 587/586 (namely the fail of Jerusalem) for the first
division of the 490 years runs into a twofold problem:
1. Exegetically the first division of 49 years begins with the "issue of the word"
(9:25), which is taken to refer to the word issued to Jeremiah as
40 Ibid.
41 J. J. Collins, Daniel With an. Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, 1984), p. 92.
42 Collins, Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, p. 96.
43 Ibid., p. 97
40
mentioned in 9:2, and therefore must have reference to the fall of Jerusalem.44 However,
9:25 clearly specifies that the object of "the word"45 is "to restore and to rebuild
Jerusalem."46 The word concerning: the 70 year period of the desolation of Jerusalem
(9:2; Jer 25:12; 29:10) cannot possibly be regarded as "the word to restore and to
rebuild Jerusalem."47
D. S. Russell makes the bold suggestion, "At that time [fall of Jerusalem] the
promise was given that God would bring back the captives and rebuild the ruined city
(cf. Jer 30:18; 31:38-40),"48 However, the two passages cited from Jeremiah do not
belong to the time of the fall of Jerusalem. They are dated early in the ministry of
Jeremiah, indeed several decades before the fall of Jerusalem.49 Furthermore, the two
passages from Jeremiah 30 and 31 contain "nothing whatever of a period of time, and in
this verse [9:25J before us there is no reference to this prophecy."50
In any ease the angel Gabriel refers to "the word to restore and to rebuild
Jerusalem" as the beginning point for the entire 490 year period, and can therefore only
be pointing to a word whose going forth is specifically "determined." In short, the fall of
Jerusalem has exegetically no support as the beginning for the 490 years.
2. There is also a computational problem connected with the first
44 Baumgartner, p. 224; Montgomery, p. 378; E. Konig, Die messiani-schen Weissagungen

des AT (Stuttgart, 1925), p. 323; Russell, p. 197.
45 Hebrew dabdr is poorly rendered with "commandment" in KJV and by "decree" in NASB.
46 This difficulty is recognized by PIoger, p. 134, who suggests that 587 is the terminus a quo "no
matter when the words of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 25 and 29 were spoken." It is evident that Jeremiah 25
and 29 were spoken before the fall of Jerusalem. Beyond this point, which has a bearing on Daniel 9:2,
there is also the fact that neither Jeremiah 25 nor 29 speaks of the rebuilding or restoration of Jerusalem
but merely of its desolation.
47 C. F. Keil, "The Book of Daniel," Commentary on the Old Testament, eds. C. F. Keil and F.
Delitzsch (Edinburgh, 1891J, p. 351.
48 D. S. Russell, The Method and. Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 197.
Curiously this suggestion has not been repeated in his more recent, The Jews from Alexander to Herod
(London, 1967), p. 239, although the two texts in Jeremiah are referred to.
49 See the discussion in J. Bright, Jeremiah, AB (1965), pp. 384-85.
50 Keil, p. 351.
41
division of 49 years. One of the recent commentaries on Daniel, the one by M. Delcor,
suggests that the first division of 49 years extends from 589 B.C. to 536 B.C., a period
extending 53 years.51 This calculation is off by more years than the suggestion of 587
B.C. or 586 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem as the beginning date of the first division and
539 B.C. for the fall of Babylon, or 538 B.C. for the decree of Cyrus, as the beginning
date for the second division of the 70 weeks. The only figures that could be considered
exact is the sequence of 587 B.C. to 538 B.C.. All other suggestions are only "circa 49
years,"52 as pointed out correctly by Montgomery.
The date of 538 B.C. for the decree of Cyrus is suggested53 constantly although the
year 537 B.C. is actually a date better supported by new evidence. It is also to be noted
that the destruction of Jerusalem did not take place in 587 B.C., but in 586 B.C. as new
evidence seems to support.54 If this is so, the only possibility of an exact computation of
the 49 years is ruled out, unless the year 537 B.C. is accepted by these interpreters for
the date of Cyrus' decree.
This means that scholars supporting the historical-critical interpretation cannot

avoid the fact that the first division of the 490 years fits the suggested dates only
approximately. Whether or not this does justice to the specific designation of 49 years,
each person has to decide for him/herself.
We turn now to the second time division. The acknowledged major
51 M. Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel (Paris, 1971), p. 197.
53 E. J. Bickerman, "The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra I," JBL 65 (1946): 244-75; J. M. Myers, Ezra-
Nehemiah, AB (1965), p. 6; J. Bright, A History of Israel, -2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1972), p. 361.
54 A. Malamat, "A New Record of Nebuchadnezzar's Palestinian Campaign," IEJ 6 (1956): 246-56;
E. Vogt, "Die neubabylonische Chronik liber die Sehlacht bei Karkemisch und die Einnahme von
Jerusalem," VTS 4 (1957):
67-96; S. J. De Vries, "Chronology of the OT," IDB (Nashville, 1962), I;597-98; S. H. Horn, "The
Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah," AUSS 5 (1967): 12-27; E. R.
Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 165-72; A.
Malamat, "The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem," IEJ 18 (1968): 137-56; K. S. F reedy and
D. B. Redford, "The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical Babylonian and Egyptian Sources," JAOS 90
(1970); 462-85.
42
problem of the historical-critical interpretation relates to the second division of the 70
weeks prophecy, namely the 434 year period (62 x 7). This division is said to begin in
539 B.C. or 538 B.C. and to terminate in 171 B.C. or 170 B.C. respectively. It is thus
too short by about 67 years. This crucial issue has received attention by scholars
supporting: the interpretation under discussion. A variety of suggestions have been
presented for its solution.
G. Behrmann (similarly by A. Lacocque as noted above) has suggested that the

beginning date of the 62 weeks, or 434 years, is the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, or
605 B.C. 55 (a date now confirmed by new evidence). This date he urged on the ground
that 605 B.C. was the date of the commencement of the 70 years of exile in Jeremiah
25:1, 11. It was then argued that 605 B.C. less "seven weeks," or 49 years, would bring
us down to approximately the accession of Cyrus (about 559 B.C.).56 This would make
Cyrus "the Anointed, the Prince" (9:25).57
The date of 605 B.C. as the beginning date of the 434 years (62 weeks) has found
supporters in E. Konig and M. Thilo."58 The chief attraction for this suggestion rests in
the fact that the span of time from 605 B.C. to 171 B.C. is exactly 434 years, or 62
weeks. Behrmann's hypothesis, nevertheless, has several difficulties:
1. If Jeremiah 25:1, 11 were exactly followed "there should have been a period of
70, not 49, years, these 70 years being described as years of service to the king of
Babylon."59
2. No word went forth in 605 B.C. to the effect that Jerusalem should be restored
and rebuilt as Daniel 9:25 specifies60
55 G. Behrmann, dos Buch Daniel (Gottingen, 1894), ad loc.

56 This date is suggested by J. M. Myers, The World of the Restoration (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968),
p. 43.
57 M. J. Dresden, "Cyrus," 1BD, 1:755, also thinks that Cyrus "is perhaps the "anointed one" of 9:25.
58 Konig, p. 311; M. Thilo, Die Chronologic des Daniel-Buches (Bonn, 1926^ p. 14.
60 Young, p. 202.
43
3. The first division of 49 years carries the time from 605 B.C. down to 556 B.C.,
but Cyrus' accession is dated to about 559 B.C. This means that the first division of time
is again inexact or approximate.
4. There is absolutely no exegetical, chronological, or other justification for starting

the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks at the same date.61 K. Marti objects rightly that it is a
"clever trick" to let the first divisions (7 + 62) of the three (7 + 62 + 1) run parallel to
each other rather than in sequence. There is nothing to support it.62 W. Baumgartner
joins others by stating that this telescoping of the 490 years into 441 years is an
"unjustified act of force."63 It has to be admitted that Benrmann's attempt at
solving this problem of the historical-critical interpretation is unconvincing and can be

rejected justly.
The other major suggestion toward a solution of this grave problem is the allegation
that there is a serious computational discrepancy. J. A. Montgomery writes, "We can
meet this objection only by surmising a chronological miscalculation on the part of the
writer."64 B. Duhm suggests that "in this instance the angel Gabriel does not show
himself well acquainted with chronology."65 K. Marti, in turn, speaks of "an error on the
part of the author."66
N. W. Porteous is a bit more cautious: "Whether or not the author was aware of this
discrepancy it is impossible to say."67 K. Koch notes that "one has to charge him [the
author] with a weighty miscalculation."68 In the final analysis the assessment of C. T.
Francisco seems to be to the point, namely that the supporters of the historical-critical
interpretation "prefer to say that he [the author] is mistaken, rather than they."69
61 Montgomery, p. 391, n. 2.
62 Marti. p. 72.
63 Baumgartner, p. 224.
64 Montgomery, p. 393; cf. Baumgartner, p. 223.
65 B. Duhm, Israels Propheten, 2nd ed. (Tubingen, 1922), p. 416.
66 Marti, p. 73.
68 Koch, Das Buch Daniel, p. 151.
69 C. T. Francisco, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel," RevExp 57 (I960): 134.
44
The supposition that "what we have here is a purely schematic number"70 seems to have
some appeal at first sight. It is, however, difficult to accept that such an exact number as
434 years (62 weeks) is "schematic."
The most widely held supposition is that the historical memory of the Jews at the
time of the writing of Daniel (supposedly at 164 B.C.) was very vague regarding facts
and spans of time. E. Schurer was the first to suggest that dates of Jewish historians,
such as Josephus and Demetrius, are untrustworthy in their chronology. Demetrius
(before 200 B.C.), for example, is said to have overestimated the interval between 722
B.C. and 222 B.C. by 73 years; and Josephus also miscalculated dates to the extent of
30-40 years.71 From these observations Schurer concluded that the author of Daniel
followed the chronology current in his time of around 164 B.C. This supposition has
been widely accepted as providing a solution to this computational discrepancy72
G. Behrmann, however, has justly criticized the alleged datum from Demetrius on
the basis that the text in Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I. xxi. 141) is uncertain.73
Therefore, it seems unsafe to build a case on Demetrius. Chronological discrepancies in
Josephus are evident,74 but he is centuries later than the book of Daniel.75
It should also be noted that the book of Daniel does indeed contain very accurate
historical information (although poorly known during the later pre-Christian centuries).
For example, the author of Daniel is correct in his description of Nebuchadnezzar as the
builder of Babylon (4:30 [27] ).76
70 Russell, Jews From Alexander to Herod, p. 239. This is said to

have originated with F. F. Bruce, so Russell, Jewish Apocalyptic, pp. 197-98.
71 E. Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1890), div. II,
vol. 3, pp. 53-54.
72 Charles, p. 107; Marti, p. 73; Montgomery, p. 393; Bentzen, p. 75;
Porteous, p. 141; Russell, Jewish Apocalyptic, p. 197; Koch, p. 152, to mention only a few.
73 Behrmann, p. 65.
74 Wars VI. 4. 8; Ant. XIH. 11. 1; XX. ii.
75 See the objections to Schurer's supposition by Thilo, pp. 15-16.
76 See F. D. Nicnol, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC, 1955).
45
Even R. H. Pfeiffer was compelled to concede, "We shall presumably never know how
our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30 [H.
4:27]), as the excavations have proved."77
The author was also correct in his knowledge that Belshazzar, mentioned only in
Daniel78 and in cuneiform records, was functioning as king when Cyrus conquered
Babylon in 539 B.C. On the basis of new cuneiform evidence the vexing chronological
problem between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25;1; 46:2 can be solved without any
discrepancyю80 These examples indicate that the author of Daniel knew history quite
well. Sehurer's suggestion made more than one hundred years ago can no longer be sus-
tained in view of new cuneiform evidence and modern scholarship's greater knowledge
of historical events from ancient sources.
Finally, we must consider briefly the last division of one week of 7 years. The end
of the 490 years in this scheme of interpretation is December 14, 164, the day of the
rededication of the temple. This date also marks the end of the "half week," or three and
one-half years, which commenced in June, 167. However, the period of the historical
desecration of the temple did not last three and one-half years, as the time specification
in 9:26-27 indicates, but only 3 years.
The "desolating sacrilege" was erected on 15 Kislev, 145 (1 Mace 1:54), and the
first sacrifice was offered on it on 25 Kislev, 145 (1 Mace 1:59). Three years later on
the same day on which the altar had first been profaned by heathen sacrifice, on 25
Kislev, 148, the temple was rededicated (1 Mace 4:52). Customarily the dates are
transferred from 25 Kislev, 145 to December 14, 167 B.C. and from 25 Kislev, 148 to
December 14, 164 B.C.81
77 R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the OF (New York, 1948), pp. 758-

59.
78 And in Barueh 1:1 which is dependent on Daniel.
79 R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar (New Haven, 1929), pp. 59ff.
80 D. J. Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel," in Notes on Some Problems in
the Book of Daniel, eds. D. J. Wiseman, T. C. Mitchell, et al. (London, 1965), pp. 16-18.
81 See now the new E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the
46
The dates of 167 B.C. and 164 B.C. have recently come under severe scrutiny by K.
Bringmann. He reaches the conclusion on the basis of recent historical information and
mathematical calculations that the temple desecration occurred in the year 168 B.C. and
its rededication in the year 165 B.C.82 If this dating is correct, there is from the death of
Onias III (now to be dated to 170 B.C. as indicated above), that is, from 170 B.C. to the
desecration of the temple in December 168 B.C., only two years, but three and one-half
years are required on the basis of 9:26-27. Furthermore, from the death of Onias III in
170 B.C. to the renewal/rededication of the temple in 165 B.C., there are only 5 years
rather than the 7 years required by 9:26-27.
There are also in the last division, that is, in the last 7 years, such insurmountable
discrepancies of calculations that no possible mathematical solutions are in sight.
Modern chronological research has increased the problems for the historical-critical
interpretation of the time elements in 9:24-27 with information hitherto unknown.
These considerations indicate that at present there is no historical-critical scheme of

chronological interpretation that can harmonize 9:24-27 with actual history. The
historical-critical schemes have such serious problems of calculation in all three
subdivisions of the 490 years (7 + 62 + 1), aside from numerous exegetical issues, that
they do not present themselves as commendable and sound positions, well supported by
history and ancient Near Eastern chronology.
Age of Jesus Christ, eds. M. Black, G. Vermes, and F. Millar (Edinburgh, 1973L vol. 1, p. 163;
Delcor, Daniel, p. 203.
82 Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judda, pp. 29-51.

47
Historical-Messianic Interpretation (Historicist)

The majority of Christian expositors over the centuries from the early Christian
times onward have followed the historical-messianic interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.
Even pre-Christian documents such as the earliest translation of the OT, the Septuagint
(LXX)83 and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (ca. 100 B.C.)84 contain Messianic
interpretations.85 Indeed, "the most usual interpretations [of 9:24-27] of Judaism until
after A.D. 70 ... were of the Messianic kind."86
There is now evidence that the Qumran community (Essenes) also interpreted the 70
weeks prophecy Messianically. It was worked out before 146 B.C., and its "Messianic
interpretation of the prophecy is one of the earliest interpretations of it on record."87 The
Essene calculation expected the last of the 70 weeks between 10 B.C. and A.D. 2.88
Among ancient Christian interpreters pursuing calculations of Messi-
83 So E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament (reprint; McDill AFB, FL, 1973),
2i824-25; C. von Lengerke, dos Buch Daniel (1835), p. 410. These show that 9:24 is understood as
referring to the Messiah, and the "seventy weeks" are understood as weeks of years which point to the
advent of Christ. F. Fraidi, Die Exegese derSiebzig Wochen Daniels in der alien und mittleren Zeit (Graz,
1883), pp. 4-11, suggests that the LXX refers to the period of Antiochus Epiphanes. He bases his
arguments on the translation of the phrase "one week" (vs. 27) as "many weeks (pollai hebdomades) in
the LXX which he interprets (p. 10, n. 1) as a week of normal days. Fraidl's interpretation of the key
phrase in verse 27 is difficult to maintain because the LXX keeps in verse 24 hebdomades, that is,
"weeks" as Fraidi himself suggests, but the LXX interprets these in all instances in verses 25-27 &s
"years" (ete) and "times" (kairoi.). This indicates that the "many weeks" in verse 27 could hardly be taken
to mean "many days." See Hengstenberg, p. 867, n. 1; C. Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel,
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, 1963), pp. 168-78.
84 Testament of Levi, chaps. 14-16; cf. Fraidi, pp. 27-29.
85 MPG 2:27; cf. Fraidi, pp. 26-27.

86 Roger T. Beckwith, "Daniel 9 and the Date of the Messiah's Coming in Essene, Hellenistic,
Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation," Revue de Qumran 40 (1981): 521.
87 Ibid., p. 525.
88 Roger T. Beckwith, "The Significance of the Calendar for interpreting Essene Chronology and
Eschatology," Revue de Qumran 38 (1979): 179-81.
48
anic import based on 9:24-27 are Clement of Alexandria (?-ca. 215),89 Tertullian (ca.
150-225),90 Hippolytus of Rome (170?-235),91 Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254),92 Eusebius (ca.
265-ca. 339),93 Jerome (ca. 349-ca. 419),94 and many others, down into the end of the
nineteenth century and well into our own time.
The Messianic interpretation of chapter 9 has been eclipsed almost completely in

historical-critical scholarship. Some support a Messianic interpretation but restrict it to
verse 24.95 On the other hand, there are still stout supporters of the Messianic
interpretation to the present among
both Catholic and Protestant scholars on both sides of the Atlantic "
89 Stromata, i, p. 21; MPG, 8:853.
90 Adv. Judaeos, p. 8; MPL, 2:612-16.
91 MPG.7, 9, 10.
92 MPG, 13:165ff.
93 Demonstr. Evang. Lib., vol. 8, chap. 2.
94 Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, tr. G. L. Archer, Jr. (Grand Rapids, 1977^ pp. 95-110.
95 Baumgartner, p. 224; M. J. Gruenthaner, "The Seventy Weeks," CBQ 1 (1939): 48.

96 This merely lists representative voices among exegetes of the last 150 years; Hengstenberg, pp. 803-
930; J. N. Andrews, The Commandment to Restore and to Rebuild Jerusalem (Battle Creek, MI 1865); E.
B. Pusey, Dame! the Prophet, 2nd ed. (New York 1885), pp. 184-269; J. Raska, "Zur Berechnung der
Siebzig Wochen Daniels," Theologisch-Praktische Quartal-schrift 54 (1904), pp. 13-27; J. Hontheim,
"Das Todesjahr Christi und die Danielische Wochenprophetie," Katholik 34 (1906): 12-36, 96-128, 176-
88, 254-81; Boutflower, pp. 168-211; 0. Gerhardt, "Die messianische Weissa-gung Daniel 9:24-27," NKZ
38 (1927): 561-87; G. M. Price, The Greatest of the Prophets (Mountain View, CA 1955), pp. 229-61;
"Daniel," Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, ed. F. D. Niehol (Washington, DC, 1955), 4:851-55;
D.Squillaei, "Profezia deUe 70 settimane (Daniele 9:24-27)," Paid 38/8 (1959): 408-412; J. B. Payne, The
Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids, 1952), pp. 377-78; id., Encyclopedia of Biblical Proph-
ecy (New York, 1973), pp. 383-89; G. L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago,
1964), p. 387; B. H. Hall, "Daniel." The Wesleyan Bible Commentary(Grand Rapids, 1969), 3:545-47; C.
M. Maxwell God Cares: The Message of Daniel (Mountain View, CA, 1981), pp. 194-228; G. L. Archer,
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, 1982), pp. 289-92; J. Doukhan, Drinking at the Sources
(Mountain View, CA, 1981), pp. 61-73; W. H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation
(Washington, DC, 1982), pp. 74-79; R.M.J. Gurney, God in Control. An Exposition of the Prophecies of
Daniel (Worthing, 1980), pp. 95-131 (with a primary
49
The beginning point for the "seventy weeks," according to the historical-Messianic
interpretation, is the "going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem" (vs. 25,
RSV). This took place in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7:7-8) when he issued
his first "decree" (vss. 11-26). The seventh year of Artaxerxes I now is established
firmly as 458/457 B.C., with the return of Ezra in 457, and not 458 B.C.97 Accordingly,
Artaxerxes' first regnal year in Jewish reckoning began on Tishri 1, 464 B.C.98
On the basis of the historical support for this date (457 B.C.) as the beginning of the
first two divisions of the 70 week period (7 + 62 weeks = 483 years), the conclusion of
the 483 years is A.D. 27, the year of the baptism of Jesus.99 The baptism marked the
inauguration of the public ministry of Jesus as the Messiah, the Anointed One.
There are at least two major reasons for the choice of the first decree of Artaxerses I
in 457 B.C. (Ezra 7) as the beginning of the 490 years. The first and primary reason is
both exegetical and historical.
1. Daniel 9:25a specifically identifies "the word" concerning the restoration and
rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem as the beginning of the
Messianic fulfillment); Gerhard Maier, Der Prophet Daniel (Wuppertal, 1983), pp. 338-54, also
holds to a Messianic interpretation but does not take the figures 7 + 62 + 1 as continuous and consecutive;
G. L. Archer, "Daniel," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, 1985),
pp. 114-17, begins the 69 weeks in 457 B.C. and reaches to the appearance of the Messiah Jesus Christ in
A.D. 27, but separates the last week, or seven years, which is to usher in the Second Advent.
97 Among those supporting this year are Pusey, Andrews, Boutflower, Hontheim, Archer, Seventh-
day Adventist Bible Commentary, Doukhan, Maxwell, Shea. Payne still supports 458 B.C., apparently
unaware of the new evidence in favor of 457 B.C., which is also discussed by G. R. Goss, "The
Chronological Problems of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel" (unpubl. Th.D.diss., Dallas Theol. Sem., 1966),
pp. 122-30.
98 See especially S. H. Horn and L. H. Wood, rhe Chronology of Ezra 7, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC,
1970), pp. 91-116. J. Neuffer, "The Accession Year of Artaxerxes I," AUSS 6 (1968): 60-87, has
provided an up-to-date discussion of the historical evidence for the accession of Artaxerxes 1.
99 For details, see J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Prince-ton, 1964), p. 265, who states
that it is A.D. 26 or 27, depending on the non-accession or accession year systems respectively.
50
70 week period. The issuing of "the word" is hardly to be understood to refer to a decree
from God.100 Rather, it seems to refer to a royal order of a king, just as the "royal
decree" (dat, 2:13, 15)101 to slay the wise men is said to have gone forth.102
This decree or "word" was to deal with the restoration and rebuilding of the city of
Jerusalem. Therefore, the royal decree of Cyrus issued in the year 538/537 B.C. (Ezra
103
1:1-4), which urged Jewish exiles to build "the house of God," that is, the temple,
cannot be meant. There is not a single word in the decree of Cyrus to restore and rebuild
the city, as a city. The royal decree of Darius I (Ezra 6;I-12) confirmed the decree of his
predecessor and related once more to the rebuilding of the temple. It likewise had
nothing to do with the city, as a city.
The third "decree" or command is the one issued by Artaxerxes I in his "seventh
year" (Ezra 7:7-8),104 that is, 457 B.C. This command cannot be concerned with the
rebuilding of the temple, because the temple was finished and dedicated in March, 515
B.C. (Ezra 6:13-18).105 The events recorded in the passage of Ezra 4:7-23 tell us of a
complaint by the Samaritans that the Jews are "rebuilding the rebellious and evil city,
and are
100 So Hengstenberg, pp. 829-30, and Boutflower, p. 187.
101 W. L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the O'i. (Grand Rapids, 1971), p.
403.
102 In Ezra 7:26 the same Aramaic term dot appears with reference to the royal (state) law or
decree of Artaxerxes.
103 A number of scholars have shown that this edict does not refer to the rebuilding of Jerusalem but
to the building of the temple: K. Galling, "Von Nabonid zu Darius," ZDPV 70 (1954): 11-32; J. Liver,
"The Return From Babylon: Its Time and Scope," Eretz Israel 5 (1958); 114-19; Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah,
p. 7; M. Noth, The History of Israel, 2nd ed. (New York, 1960),
P 308.
104 Some scholars have worked on the assumption that the "seventh year" (Ezra 7:7-8) is an error for
some other number, most plausibly the "thirty-seventh year." So W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period
From Abraham to Ezra (New York, 1963), pp. 93, 112-13, n. 193; J. Bright, "The Date of Ezra's Mission
to Jerusalem," Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 70-87; id., A History of Israel,
p. 402. For arguments against this emendation that lacks any textual or versional support, see A. Emerton,
"Did Ezra Go to Jerusalem in 428 B.C.?" JTS 17 (1966): 1-12. ""Bright, A History of Israel, p. 372.
51
finishing the walls and repairing the foundations" (vs. 12, NASB; cf. vss. 13, 16, 21). If
this report comes from a time later than the command of the seventh year of Artaxerxes
I, namely, a period of uncertain political conditions for the Persian monarch after the
Egyptian revolt of 448,l06 then one may safely conclude that the command issued in 457
B.C. related to the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem.
It should be noted that the "troublous times" (9:25) during which Jerusalem will be
built again is reflected clearly in the events recorded in Ezra 4:7-23. Although the actual
wording of the command of Artaxerxes I of 457 B.C. makes no explicit mention of any
order to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, this is actually what appears to have been the
intent so far as the understanding of the Jews to whom it was given is concerned.
Thirteen years after the issuing of the command of Artaxerxes I, that is, in the
twentieth year of his reign (445/444 B.C.), the report comes to Nehemiah by Hanani
that "the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire" (Neh 1:3,
NASB). This implies that the city had been rebuilt, a program which could hardly have
started before 457 B.C., because the decrees of both Cyrus and Darius related only to
the building of the temple. . .
Ezra himself confesses that permission had been granted by God through the
Persian kings "to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins, and give us a wall in
Judah and Jerusalem" (Ezra 9:9, NASB). That Ezra considered the third "decree" to be
the culmination of the three decrees is evident from his reference to the "decree of
Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia" (Ezra 6:14, NASB).
It should also be noted that of the four decrees known, only two are principal and
leading decrees. The decree of Cyrus figures as a principal decree, whereas the decree
of Darius simply confirmed that of Cyrus.107 The other principal decree was the
command of the seventh year of Arta-
106 See [S. H. Horn] in "Additional Note on Chapter 4," Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary,
3:347-50.
107 Pusey, p. 189.
52
xerxes, whereas that of his twentieth year is but an enlargement and renewal of his first
decree. "The decrees of Cyrus and Darius relate to their building of the temple; those of
Artaxerxes to the condition of Judah and Jerusalem."108
2. The second reason for the choice of the first "decree" of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C.
is based on the calculation of the 490 years. Only this command fits a 490-solar-year
computation. The principle of recognizing the fulfillment of prophecy also comes into
play. Here one should be reminded that the need to find a fitting end is shared equally
by the historical-messianic interpretation and its rivals.
The end of the first division of 7 weeks is 408 B.C.109 This first division of 49 years
is assigned to the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem. The paucity of information
surrounding the period of about 400 B.C. inevitably precludes any verification of the
accuracy of the date of 408 B.C. for the restoration of the city of Jerusalem.
The second division of 62 weeks, 434 years, completes the period up to the
appearance of the Messiah in A.D. 27.110 The traditional historical Messianic
interpretation follows the punctuation of the LXX, Theodotion, Vulgate, and Syriac
versions, which was taken over into English versions to the present (KJV, ASV, ERV
[margin], MLB, JB, NASB). This means that the clause reads, "Until Messiah the
Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again" (9:25,
NASB).
There are English versions that follow the punctuation of the Maso-retic text (ERV,
RSV, NEB) which has an athnach (the principal disjunctive divider within a verse) after
the words "seven weeks." Punctuation marks
108 Ibid.
109 Boutflower, p. 189.
110 Hengstenberg, p. 898; Pusey, p. 189; Price, p. 253. Boutflower, p. 185, gives the year as A.D. 26.
The date of the baptism of Jesus is closely linked with that of His death, which is dated variously from
A.D. 30 to 33, A discussion of this issue is provided in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary,
5:235-66; G. Amadon, "Ancient Jewish Calendation," JBL 61 (1942): 227-80; id., "The Crucifixion
Calendar," JBL 63 (1944); 177-90;
Finegan, pp. 264-65.
53
in Hebrew manuscripts did not come into general use before a flowering of Masoretic
activity between A.D. 600 and A.D. 930. Their use was crystallized in the present form
only in the ninth/tenth century while it continued in small matters of accentuation into
the fourteenth century111
Present evidence suggests that accents in the Greek versions are earlier than those of the
Hebrew manuscripts of the Masoretes.112 Contextual considerations have also been cited
in favor of the older punctuation,113 Furthermore, the literary structure of the poetry of
9:25 suggests also that the Masoretic punctuation is out of place.114
Qumran texts relating to 9:24-27 do not support the Masoretic or later punctuation.
All the ancient translations follow a non-Masoretic punctuation, namely the Septuagint
and those of Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila in addition to the Peshitta. They
treat,the 7 and 62 weeks as a single period at the end of which the Messiah would-
come.115
The non-Messianic punctuation of the Masoretic tradition seems to reflect a

"rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus and the disappointment of the other Jewish
Messianic hopes of the first and second centuries A.D."116 Accordingly, it reflects an
anti-Christian bias.117 It appears on the basis of the evidence cited that the traditional
punctuation in the old versions and reflected in English in the KJV, ASV, MLB, JB,
NASB, etc., should be maintained on the basis of historical, contextual, literary, and
versional evidence without doing injustice to the Hebrew text and context.
The third division of one week, the last seven years, begins in chrono-
111 E. Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1957), pp. 18-19» id., Der Text des
Alten Testaments, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, 1973), p. 29.
112 E. Werner, "Masoretie Accents," IDB 2:297.
113 See the essay "On Daniel 9:25," in Problems in Bible Translation (Washington, DC, 1954), pp.
178-83; Young, p. 205.
114 See J. Doukhan, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9: An Exegetieal Study," AUSS 17 (1979): 13; W.
H. Shea, "Poetic Relations of the Time Periods in Dan 9:25," AUSS 18 (1980): 59-64.
115 Beckwith, "Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah's Coming," p. 522 and ns. 1 and 2.
116 Ibid., p. 522.
117 Pusey, p. 190, n. 1, quotes Rashi to the effect "that on account of 'heretics,' i.e. Christians," the clause
was divided by an athnach.
54
logical succession to the 69 weeks (483 years) with the baptism and the beginning of the
public ministry of Jesus Christ. "In the midst of the week" (9:27)118 (that is, three and
one-half years later in A.D. 31) the Messiah would bring an end to the sacrifial system
by His death on the cross.119 The last half of the week comes to an end with (1) the
death of Stephen [Acts 7:60), (2) the scattering of the Christians from Jerusalem (Acts
8:1), (3) the carrying of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 8),120 and possibly (4) the
conversion of Paul.121 The following diagram provides an overview of the historical-
Messianic interpretation:
118 The translation of hasi as "middle" or "midst" is found in Theodotion, Vulgate, and many
English versions (KJV, ASV, NASB, MLB). See the essay, "On Daniel 9:27," in problems in Bible
Translation, pp. 184-87.
119 This is the unanimous view of all listed above in n. 96 and has been the dominant interpretation
since the Reformation. Among pre-Reformation exegetes, it was held by Julius Afrieanus, Eusebius,
Polychronius, Theodoret, Albertus Magnus, Nicholas of Lyra, Dionysius Carthusianus; see Fraidi, pp.
156-58. According to Jerome, even the Jews seem to have admitted a reference to Jesus Christ in the
death of the Anointed One but suggested that the kindgom of the Jews shall not be His, see Jerome's
Commentary on Daniel, tr. G. L. Archer, Jr. (Grand Rapids, 1958), pp. 108-9; Montgomery, p. 397.
120 Pusey, p. 193; Boutflower, pp. 197-98; J. B. Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ (Grand
Rapids, 1962), pp. 149-52.
121 Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 388, makes this suggestion and dates this event
with Finegan (Handbook of Biblical Chronology, pp. 320-21) to A.D. 33/34. Others date the conversion
of Paul to A.D. 35; see S. H. Horn, "Chronology," Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (Washington,
DC, 1960), p. 209. Cf. Maier, Der Prophet Daniel, p. 352.
55
Historical-Messianic Computation of the Seventy Weeks
457 B.C. 408 B.C. A.D.27 A.D. 34
A.D. 31
7 weeks_ _62 weeks__ 1 week

49 years 434 years 31/2 3 1/2
7 years
1st Decree Rebuilding Baptism

of of of Jesus Stoning
Artaxerxes Jerusalem of Stephen
Scattering of Christians
Gospels to Gentiles
Conversion of Paul (?)
The exact chronological correlation between 9:24-27 and the events in

history indicates the distinct superiority of the historical-Messianic interpretation over
any of the other schemes. The only scheme that can claim perfect correlation and
agreement between prophecy and history as regards 9:24-27, to the year and even to the
half year, is the one that synchronizes the 490 years from 457 B.C. to the termination in
A.D. 34.
Daniel 9:24-27 "is one of the most remarkable pieces of predictive prophecy in the
Old Testament."122 The critical K. Koch notes with interest that "the unique and
absolutely exact mathematical fulfillment of an OT Messianic prediction in the Christ
event of the NT has played in earlier centuries an immense role as a proof for the
truthfulness of Holy Scripture."123 The recent chronological correlations give an added
support to the "absolutely exact mathematical fulfillment" of 9:24-27.
This unusually precise chronological correlation may indeed be a major stumbling

block to the acceptance of the historical-Messianic interpreta-
122 Gurney,p. 131.
123 Koch, p. 150.
56
tion by the modern rationalistic mind124 It has also been stated with great insight that the
prophecy of the 70 weeks "with its accurate fulfillments turns out to be one of the
compelling arguments for the authenticity of Daniel."125 The historical-Messianic view
of 9:24-27 recognizes this passage as genuinely predictive in nature and Messianic in
content as well as historical in its fulfillment.
It is now appropriate to discuss major objections advanced against the historical-

Messianic interpretation. H. Junker argues that the decree indicated by the "issuing of
the word" (9:25) could not be the one from the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:7-8).
He contends that it has to be the decree of Cyrus, since it must relate, on the basis of
9:1-2, to the rebuilding of Jerusalem.126
Junker is correct in his insistence that the decree must relate to the rebuilding of
Jerusalem. However, his objection cannot be sustained, because the decree of Cyrus and
the supporting one by Darius (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:1-12) were only concerned with the
building of the temple and not with the rebuilding of the city as such.
New evidence indicates that the first decree, or edict, was made by Cyrus for the
rebuilding of the temple (2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-5) in the year 537 B.C. (Ezra
1:1). In this decree the king gives the order to build "a temple in Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:2),
namely, "to rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel" (vs. 3; cf. vss, 4-5). This
decree concerned the return of the captives and the rebuilding of the temple but not a
restoration of the city of Jerusalem.127
The second decree for the restoration of the temple was issued by Darius (Ezra 6:1-
12) and explicitly concerns the "rebuilding of the house of God" (vs. 8; cf. vs. 12), the
temple in Jerusalem. In response to the matters
124 G. L. Archer, Jr., "Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel," Bibliptheca Sacra 136
(1979): 129-47.
125 Ibid.,.147.
126 H. Junker, Untersuchungen iiber literarische und exegetische Problem edes Buches Darnel (Bonn,
1932), pp. 82-83, n. I.
127 H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, 1977), p. 122.
57
related by Tattenai, king Darius had a search made of the edict issued by Cyrus. On the
basis of Cyrus' decree, he issued one himself about 519/ 518 B.C. to reactivate it (Ezra
6:1-12). This decree is a confirming one and is limited explicitly to the rebuilding of the
temple. It does not refer to or imply a rebuilding of Jerusalem.
The third "decree" or command (Ezra 7:11, 13, 21)128 was that of Artaxerxes I
issued to Ezra in the king's seventh year (Ezra 7:7), the year 457 B.C. It has been
claimed, "There is not a bit of solid evidence to show that in 457 B.C. there was a royal
decree, or even one from God, ordering the rebuilding of Jerusalem."129
The fact is undeniable that there was indeed a royal decree in 457 B.C. by
Artaxerxes I as Ezra 7:1-26 states. There is an explicit reference to the command of
130
Artaxerxes under the designation of a "decree" (Ezra 7:11, NASB) and by means of
131
the Aramaic phrase "give a command" (sim teem) in Ezra 7:13 which has been
rendered into English also as "issue a decree" (NAB, NASB). The evidence whether this
decree included the rebuilding of Jerusalem is circumstantial.
It has been indicated above that Ezra 6:14 refers to "the decree of Cyrus, Darius, and
Artaxerxes king of Persia" (NASB). The inclusion of Artaxerxes is explained by some
as an "editorial mistake."132 But this removal of a name that does not fit one's
conception does not do justice to the Hebrew and Septuagint texts, both of which
include Artaxerxes.133
Furthermore, the argument that the whole of Ezra 6:14 "is talking about the completion
of the temple in March, 515 B.C., fifty years before
128 The Hebrew term is from the Aramaic nist wan, "decree." Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the OT, p. 414.
129 Dewey M. Beegle, Prophecy and Prediction (Ann Arbor, MI, 1978), p. 119.
130 The Hebrew term is nistân which is a loanword from the Aramaic where it means "decree.'' See n.
110.
131 Holladay, A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT, p. 406.
132 Beegle.p. 118.
133 Recent commentators kept this third king in the text; see D. Kidner, Ezra and Nehemiah (London,
1979), p. 59; F. C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT: Grand Rapids, 1982), pp. 92-93.
58
Artaxerxes came to the throne"134 is misconceived totally. Ezra fi:l-never refers to the
temple. This text speaks of the Jews building anc finishing without identifying what was
included in this activity.
F. C. Fensham states that up to Darius the decrees (of Cyrus anc Darius) refer to the
completion of the temple, "but with Artaxerxes the other thought pattern predominates,
viz., the divine process in which Persian kings were used in the service of God (of. also
Isa. 45:1)."135 The service of God which the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 B.C. effected
was to restore the national autonomy under Persia and to have the city rebuilt. The
temple had been completed already in March, 515 B.C. The fact is that the enemies of
the Jews complained about the rebuilding of the city, the finishing of the walls, and
repairing the foundations (Ezra 4:12) before Nehemiah received his support in 444 B.C.
(Neh 1-2). These opposers also refer to "the Jews who came up from you [Artaxerxesi"
(vs. 12).
Who were these Jews? "It is clear that they must have come to Jerusalem before the
coming of Nehemiah—and the only such group we know of is the group led by Ezra in
the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes" in 457 B.C. R. M. Gurney concluded
independently from our study that "it would appear therefore that the building of
Jerusalem was initiated by Ezra"137 in the seventh year of Artaxerxes.
The fourth and final "decree" is that of Artaxerxes I to Nehemiah in 444 B.C., the
king's twentieth year (Neh 2:1). Although this "decree" is never called a "decree" as
such (see Neh 1-2), "letters" were provided by Artaxerxes (Neh 2:7, 9) for safe passage
and apparently in support of the rebuilding of "the city of my fathers1 tomb" (Neh 2:5).
When Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem he inspected "the walls of Jerusalem which were
broken down and its gates which were consumed by fire" fNeh 2:13) and involved
himself in the process of rebuilding. However, the bulk of the work must have been
accomplished already under Ezra. The evidence is
134 Beegle,p. 118.
135 Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. 92-93.
136 Gurney, p. 192 (italics his).

137 Ibid.
59
that Nehemiah finished the walls and gates in only 52 days (Neh 6:15).
In Ezra's time the rebuilding of Jerusalem had begun (Ezra 4:7-23) under difficult
circumstances on the basis of the command of Artaxerxes I in 457 B.C. (Ezra 7:1-26).
This indicates that the fourth and final "decree" of 444 B.C. to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes
I was simply an extension of his earlier initiation of the building of Jerusalem.
The fourth "decree" of 444 B.C. cannot possibly be the fulfillment of the "word to
restore and rebuild Jerusalem" of 9:25 for at least two reasons: (1) The rebuilding of
Jerusalem was under way already in the time of Ezra. This is evident from Ezra 9:9 as
well as from Ezra 4:7-23. (2) The computation of the 490 years with a beginning
(terminus a quo) in 444 B.C. extends the 69 weeks (7 + 62) or 483 years to A.D. 39
after which the Messiah was to be cut off. But such a computation reaches far beyond
the actual year Jesus died. The usage of a "prophetic" year or supposed lunar year of
360 days (as proposed by the dispensationalist scheme) does not solve the
computational problem either, as we noted above. Thus the only time period that is
appropriate is the decree of 457 B.C. The historical-Messianic approach overcomes all
computational problems.
The attempt to suggest that Ezra'a statement "to give us a wall in Judah and in
Jerusalem" (Ezra 9:9) is to be regarded in a spiritual sense is not valid. The argument
that "there was no wall around Judea; therefore the verse cannot be interpreted in a
138
physical sense" is unconvincing. First of all Ezra 9:9 does not state that there was a
wall "around" Judea. It only speaks of a wall "in Judea and Jerusalem."
If there is a wall associated with Jerusalem (cf. Ezra 4:12), then there would be a
wall "in Judah" where Jerusalem is located. Secondly, the "wall in Judah and Jerusalem"
is just as physical and real as "the house of our God," the temple, which is also referred
to in the same verse. Both had been rebuilt according to Ezra. The attempt to ascribe a
spiritual interpretation to this text is contextually and linquistically unfounded. The
Hebrew word translated "wall" in Ezra 9:9 is gader. The term can denote a protec-
138 Beegle.p. 118.
60
tive wall built of field stones (Num 22:24), a temple wall (Ezek 42:7, 10), or it can refer
to a "city wall" (Mic 7:11).139
A "weighty objection against taking 458 [457] as the beginning (terminus a quo) of
the sixty-nine weeks"140 is brought forward by M. J. Gruen-thaner and concerns the
theory, first argued in detail by A. van Hoonacker141 and now fairly widely accepted. 142
The contention is that Ezra did not come to Jerusalem until after Nehemiah and under
Artaxerxes II (404-358 B.C.). Gruenthaner writes, "If this is true, then the Messianic
interpretation of vss. 25-27 becomes utterly impossible."143
This is indeed a "weighty objection," if van Hoonacker's theory can be sustained.

This is not the place to assess the merits and weaknesses of van Hoonacker's theory.
There are, however, serious objections to van Hoonaeker's theory of the arrival of Ezra
after Nehemiah. These objections (to which we refer the reader) seem to disprove his
arguments conclusively and make his position untenable.144
J. A. Montgomery suggests that the historical-Messianic interpretation "was sadly

misled by the original error of ... [Theodotion] in construing the '7 weeks' with the
following '62 weeks,' as though the 69 weeks were the first figure intended."145 This
issue of the punctuation in the Masoretiс
139 W. Baumgartner, Hebraisches und Aramdisches Lexikon zum Alien Testament (Leiden, 1982), p.
173.
140 Gruenthaner, p. 52.
141 A. van Hoonacker, "Nehemie et Esdras, une nouvelle hypothese sur la chronologic de 1'epoque de
la restauration," Le Museon 9 (1890): 151-84, 317.51, 389-401.
142 A comprehensive listing of literature is provided by H. H. Rowley, "The Chronological Order of

Ezra and Nehemiah," The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1965), pp. 135-68.
143 Gruenthaner, p. 52.
144 See especially J. S. Wright, The Date of Ezra's Coming to Jerusalem, 2nd ed. (London, 1958); C.
G. Tuland, "Ezra-Nehemiah or Nehemiah-Ezra?" AUSS 12 (1974): 47-62; J, Morgenstern, "The Dates of
Ezra and Nehemiah," JSS 7 (1962): 1-11; K. A. Kitchen, in Tyndale Student Fellowship Bulletin 29
(1961): 18-19; U. Kellermann, "Erwagungen zum Problem der Ezradatie-rung," ZAW 80 (1968): 55-87;
F. M. Cross, "A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration," JBL 94 (1975): 4-18; Kidner, Ezra and
Nehemiah, pp. 146-52; Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. 6-9.
61
text of 9:25a is also a "principal objection" in the discussion of C. T. Francisco.146
In view of the fact that the punctuation provided in the MT (Hebrew Masoretic text)
is of more recent origin than that of Theodotion, LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac, it is
unreasonable to speak of the "original error" of Theodotion. As indicated above, the
punctuation of the Greek versions is older than that of the MT. It seems possible to
speak of an "original error," only if one has on an a priori basis concluded that a
particular interpretation of this text is superior.
Sound exegesis proceeds with a meticulous study of the text without resorting to
dogmatic assertions as to which is a supposedly "original error."147 The fact remains that
all punctuation is secondary and not original. The tradition of the Masoretes and their
biases are reflected in their punctuation.148 This indicates that no argument of
importance can be built on the Masoretic punctuation. Internal and external evidences
against the Masoretiс punctuation were discussed earlier in this chapter.
A more substantial objection relates to the interpretation that the destruction of

Jerusalem took place in A.D. 70, and the "prince" of 9:26 who was to come is Titus. It is
argued that this data cannot be brought into chronological harmony with the "seventy
weeks" if they terminate in A.D. 34.149 This difficulty led E. J. Young to suggest that the
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple "is a detail of information which is added that
the Jews may know what will befall their city consequent upon the death of the
Messiah. Two events, therefore, are mentioned in vs. 26. One of these, as vs. 27 shows,
belongs to the 70th seven; the other does not."150
147 For a critical assessment of arguments put forth in favor of the punctuation of MT by Marsham,
Ewald, von Lengerke, and Hofmann, see Hervgstenberg, PP. 836-39, end above.
148 Keil, p. 356, states conrrectly that the athnach. "first was adopted by the Masoretes, and only shows
the interpretation of these men, without at all furnishing any guarantee of its correctness." !
149 Junker, pp. 82-83, n. 1.
150 Young, p. 215.
62
The first part of Young's argument may be considered to be in harmony with the
suggestion that the effect of Christ's death was symbolized at the moment of His death
by the rending of the veil in the temple (Matt 27:51;Mark 15:38).151 The fall of
Jerusalem with the burning of the temple is the external ratification of the
meaninglessness of outward sacrifices after the death of Christ, the consequent outward
manifestation of the state of affairs as they already existed.152
Although the Jewish sacrifices did not cease with the death of Jesus Christ, the
sacrifices offered after His death could no longer be regarded as legitimate and valid in
God's sight (Heb 7:11-12; 8:13; 9:25-26; 10:8-9). In short, the fall of Jerusalem and the
destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 do not need to be considered as terminating the
"seventy weeks."153 Rather, they are to be regarded as external manifestations dependent
on and subsequent to the achievement of the Messiah in causing the sacrifice and
oblation to cease.
It has been suggested that the "prince" of 9:26 is not Titus but is rather identical
with the earlier "Prince." In both instances the Hebrew term nagid is employed.154 This
view has antecedents among such church fathers as Tertullian,155 Isodore,156 and
Basil.157 If this application is correct, no major action in 9:24-27 falls outside the 490
years that commence in 457 B.C. and conclude in A.D. 34 except certain consequences
that result from those actions.
It is evident that each of the four major current schools of interpreta-
151 So already Theodoret (d. ca. 460) who provides the oldest extant Greek commentary on
Daniel (MPG, 81, pp. 1469ff.). Cf. Fraidi, pp. 94-97.
152 Hengstenberg, p. 858, writes succinctly, "When Christ was put to death, Jerusalem ceased to be the
holy city, and the temple was no longer the Jwuse of God, but an abomination."
153 This seems to have been suggested first by Josephus, Ant. X. 11. 7; Wars, IV. 6. 3, and has been
held, among others, by Clement of Alexandria, Isidore of Pelusium, Tertullian, and some medieval Jewish
interpreters, see Fraidi, pp. 156-58; Montgomery, pp. 396-97.
154 Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Jnterpretaton, p. 44.
155 Fraidi, p. 38.
156 Ibid., p. 91.

157 Ibid., p. 93.
63
tions of 9:24-27 has certain weaknesses. It will have to be admitted, however, that a
comparison of the exegetical, historical, and chronological strengths and weaknesses of
each indicates that the historical-Messianic interpretation is more unified. It does not
appear to be subject to the kind , of chronological, computational, exegetical, and
historical difficulties encountered by the other interpretations.158 Accordingly, the
historical-Messianic interpretation recommends itself as the most adequate of all major
current interpretations.
In this case Daniel 9:24-27 is a most profound Messianic prophecy. With an

absolutely exact mathematical fulfillment, Unking OT prediction with NT fulfillment, it
provides a unique proof that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the predicted Messiah. It adds
its affirmation to the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible in its predictive element.
158 This does not imply that there is absolute certainty about the date of the death of Christ or the stoning
of Stephen. But the other interpretations are faced with computational difficulties of such magnitude that
the relative uncertainty of an absolute chronology of the life of Christ and the events of the early church
appears to be insignificant.
CHAPTER II
Commencement Date
for the Seventy Week Prophecy

Arthur J. Ferch
Editorial synopsis. The messianic prophecy of the 70 weeks, which also forms the
first part of the longer 2300 day time span, finds genuine meaning only if its correct
commencement date can be established.
The angel interpreter clearly explained that the signal for its beginning would be
"the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem" (Dan 9:25).
Four "decrees" issued by three Persian monarehs are possible candidates for this
"word." They are reviewed in this chapter:
1. Cyrus, 538/537 B.C. Granted return of the Jews and rebuilding of the temple.
2. Darius I, about 520 B.C. Reaffirmed and expedited the order of Cyrus to rebuild the
temple.
3. Artaxerses I, 457 B.C. To Ezra. Reestablished the autonomy of Judah.
4. Artaxerxes I, 445/444 B.C. To Nehemiah. Granted permission to repair Jerusalem.

In light of the evidence of Ezra 4:7-23 the author argues in favor of the decree of
Artaxerxes I in 457 B.C. as the commencement date for the 70 weeks. This passage
provides the only direct comments in Scripture about the actual rebuilding of
Jerusalem—its walls and foundations—by the returned Jewish exiles. It notes that this
building activity took place in the reign of Artaxerxes, most likely under the supervision
of Ezra.
Nehemiah's activity was only a repair of the damage done by the Samaritans to the city
upon which Ezra and his fellow Jews had been laboring. Since it took Nehemiah only
52 days to accomplish the needed repairs, Artaxerxes' permission to this patriot (given
in the king's twentieth year) hardly qualifies for the fulfillment of the Daniel 9:25
prediction.
65
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction
II. Isaiah's Prophecies
III. Edict by Cyrus

IV. Edict by Darius I
V. Edict by Artaxerxes I
VI. Rebuilding Jerusalem—Ezra 4
VII. Artaxepxes' Permission to Repair Jerusalem
VIII. Conclusion
Introduction
Determining the commencement date for Daniel's 70 week prophecy (Dan 9:24-27)
has been one of the questions to challenge students of prophecy. According to verse 25a
the event marking its onset was to be "the going forth of the word to restore [or return]
and build Jerusalem. ..."1
Unfortunately, no explicit proclamation is known. The investigation is further

hampered by the sparseness of the information available for this segment of history.2
Interpreters, therefore, have been obliged to deduce from the biblical and historical
evidence which "word," that is, which of several decrees, should be regarded as the
appropriate one.
The question is significant. Conservative evangelical Christians throughout the

centuries have interpreted the issuance of the "word to restore and [re] build Jerusalem"
as the first in a chain of events which was to culminate in the coming of the Messiah (an
anointed one), that is, Jesus. But the majority of modern historical-critical scholars
assume that the 490-year prophecy terminated with the Syrian outrages against the
Jews, ending in 164 B.C. Furthermore, given the interpretative link Seventh-day
1 Direct biblical quotations in this chapter are taken from the RSV.
2 In this chapter we will not delay the reader with questions regarding the priority of Ezra and Nehemiah
(those interested in this issue may profitably read E. M. Yamauchi, "The Reverse Order of
Ezra/Nehemiah Reconsidered," Themetios 5 [May, 1980]: 7-13) and the chronological issues relating to
the date 458 B.C. or 457 B.C. (for this see S. H. Horn, "Elephantine Papyri and Daniel 8:14," Ministry,
August 1981, pp. 24-27).
66
Adventists have suggested between the prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9, the beginning of
this 490 year prophecy is of more than peripheral interest for reckoning the end point of
the 2300 evenings-mornings in Daniel 8:l43
At the time the events recorded in Daniel 9 occurred, the 70 year domination of
Judah by Babylon, foretold by Jeremiah (Jer 25:8-14; 29:10-14), virtually had ended.
Daniel did not stand in doubt as to the meaning of Jeremiah's oracle (9:2), and he prayed
that God would now be mindful of the desolated sanctuary and the city of Jerusalem
(9:17-18).
In response to the prophet's prayer, Gabriel, the angelic messenger he had

encountered in the previous vision (8:16), returned and gave him the prophecy of the 70
weeks. This period of time, according to Gabriel, was to begin with the "going forth of a
word to restore and build Jerusalem" and would encompass the arrival of "Messiah, a
Prince" (vs. 25, rendering mine).
What then is the starting point for this prophecy (the terminus a quo)? When did the
word go out to "restore and build Jerusalem?" Interpreters have suggested several events
as fulfillments of this sentence.
Isaiah's Prophecies
First, certain prophecies of Isaiah should be noted. Conservative scholars date these
to the late eighth or early seventh century B.C. In these oracles Isaiah predicted (more
than a century before the Persian monarch's birth) that Cyrus would say "of Jerusalem,
'She shall be built,' and of the temple, 'Your foundation shall be laid' " (Isa 44:28; cf.
also 45:13).
Edict by Cyrus
However, when we turn from the prediction to the available and explicit records
describing the relations between Cyrus and the Jews (these
3 For detailed discussion of this see W. H. Shea, "The Relationships Between the Prophecies of Daniel 8
and Daniel 9," The Sanctuary and the Atonement, eds. A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R. Lesher
(Washington, DC, 1981), pp. 228-50.
67
records are limited mainly to the biblical documents), we read only of a decree
permitting the Jews to return and to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:2-4; cf. 2 Chr 36:22-23).
In this decree, issued around 538/537 B.C., no order is recorded to authorize the
rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. Since the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem is
specified in Daniel 9:25, it would appear that the decree of Cyrus does not qualify as the
starting point for the 70-week prediction.
In response to Cyrus' edict the Jews slowly began to return to their homeland in
Palestine (Ezra 3). More than a decade and a half later Haggai and Zeehariah (their
dated ministry began about 520 B.C.) tell us that instead of making the rebuilding of the
temple their priority, the returnees had set about their own business. While the affluent
built luxury homes, the majority of the returned exiles lived in and around the ruined
city and suffered crop failures and droughts (Hag 1:1-11).
Edict by Darius I
Thus, 17 years after the decree of Cyrus the temple still lay in ruins. Temple
building finally began in earnest through the encouragement, rebuke, and active
cooperation of the prophets, Haggai and Zeehariah. A personal inspection by the local
governor in response to complaints leveled by the enemies of the Jews elicited a
confirmation of the decree of Cyrus by means of an additional edict from Darius I (ca.
520 B.C.).
Though surpassing the generous provisions of the first decree granted by Cyrus, this
second one likewise mentions only the restoration of the temple. It makes no reference
to the devastated city or plans for its restoration. Since the rebuilding of Jerusalem is not
mentioned in this decree, the edict of Darius I—as a fulfillment of the "word to restore
and [re] build Jerusalem"—is also ruled out.
Indeed, in the vision which Zeehariah received, probably sometime during the next 12
months, it is indicated that the cities of Judah and Jerusalem still needed to be rebuilt
(Zech 1:7-17). In response to a plea which recalls a similar prayer by Daniel (see chap.
9), the Lord assured Zeehariah that He would be " 'exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem
and for
68
Zion. ... I have returned to Jerusalem with compassion; my house shall be built in it, ...
and the measuring line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem. ... My cities shall again
overflow with prosperity, and the Lord will again comfort Zion and again choose
Jerusalem' " (Zech 1:14-17). Although Jerusalem still lay desolate. God assured the
prophet that the "measuring line" would once more plot out the scheme for the city's
reconstruction.
The temple structure was finally finished in 515 B.C. "in the sixth year of the reign
of Darius the king" (Ezra 6:15). However, the information given in verse 15 appears to
conflict with that given in the preceding verse. According to verse 14 the temple edifice
was constructed by "decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes." Yet, Artaxerxes I did
not even come to the throne for another half century after the date proposed in Ezra
6:15.
Possibly the best way to reconcile these two verses is to recognize that although the
temple was completed in 515 B.C., the benefits which Artaxerxes I bestowed upon the
temple in 457 B.C. were considered substantial enough to include this later Persian king
as a benefactor in the list with his predecessors (cf. Ezra 7:11-27). It would seem here
(as elsewhere in the book of Ezra) that the writer summarized the happenings
thematically and did not, therefore, always record them in chronological order.
A similar stylistic characteristic of the book of Ezra may be noticed in the

relationship between chapters 7 and 4. First, we give a brief survey of Ezra 7 and then
note its relationship with the record of chapter 4.
Edict by Artaxerxes I
Ezra 7 mentions a third decree, issued this time by the Persian king, Artaxerxes I.
According to the account Ezra and a group of Jews in response to this ruler's directives
went up from Babylon to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his reign (Ezra 7i6-7, 11-17).
Assuming that this king is Artaxerxes I, we note that Ezra and a considerable company
of people-priests, Levites, singers, gate-keepers, and temple servants—left Mesopo-
tamia in 457 B.C. and, after a journey lasting several months, arrived at Jerusalem.
69
Since the temple had been completed more than half a century earlier, it is
understandable why the decree of Artaxerxes says nothing about temple construction.
Instead, the edict specifies that: (l)Jews willing to return to Judea may do so. (2) Ezra is
to investigate the spiritual conditions of the people in Judea and to convey certain
entrusted treasures for the temple to the officials there. (3) These gifts together with
other amounts of silver and gold which might be given him in Babylon were to be used
to purchase sacrificial offerings and to care for other perceived needs in connection with
the temple worship. (4) Temple servants were to be exempt from taxation. (5) Ezra was
authorized to reorganize the judicial and civil system of Judea which was to enjoy
significant autonomy under the larger overlordship of Persia (vss. 12-26).
In a note of gratitude Ezra adds to the record his praise to the Lord for motivating
Artaxerxes to aid the little Jewish community and for beautifying "the house of the Lord
which is in Jerusalem" (vs. 27).
The decree (which may be accurately dated to 457 B.C.) mentions nothing about the
rebuilding of Jerusalem. However, it does provide for a measure of civil autonomy
unknown since the Babylonian desolation of Jerusalem and Judea (vss. 25-26). This in
itself would suggest that conditions in Judea had changed remarkably and that
autonomy was once again not only possible but was now being granted.
Rebuilding Jerusalem—Ezra 4
The return of Ezra and his group of fellow Jews described in Ezra 7 appears to be
related to the events recorded in Ezra 4:7-23. Verses 7 and 11-12 provide this linkage:
"And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their
associates wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; the letter was written in Aramaic and
translated." "This is a copy of the letter that they sent—'To Artaxerxes the king: Your
servants, the men of the province Beyond the River, send greeting. And now be it
known to the king that the Jews who came up from you to us have gone to Jerusalem.
They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city; they are finishing the walls and
repairing the foundations."
70
This passage (vss. 7-23) is part of a larger narrative which unfolds the theme of
persecution and frustration which the Jews encountered in their restoration of the temple
and city from the time of Cyrus (ca. 537/536-530 B.C.) on into the reign of Artaxerxes I
(465-423 B.C.).
The incidents recorded in Ezra 4 are not generally all in the chronological order of
the book. This poses no problem when we remember that Ezra wrote about a hundred
years after the return made possible by Cyrus. He was thus in a position to assess events
from a later perspective.
After describing the events of the earliest period of post-exilic Jewry, Ezra turns
from disturbances caused especially by the Samaritans in the time of Cyrus and Darius
(vss. 1-5) to the frustrations generated during the days of Ahasuerus, presumably
Xerxes I who ruled 486-465 B.C. (vs. 6), and in the days of Artaxerxes, presumably
Artaxerxes I, 465-423 B.C. (vss. 7-23). From verse 6 on Ezra disregards the
chronological development of the book in order to unfold the fact that the disturbances
continued for another half century. With verse 24 Ezra returns his readers to the point at
which he broke off his chronological order, namely, events pertaining to the time of
Darius I (cf. Ezra 3; 4:1-4, 24? 5).
According to Ezra 4:7-23 several lower state officials in the Persian province
known as "Beyond the River" of which Judah was a part wrote a letter against the Jews
to Artaxerxes. In the letter these officials complain that " 'the Jews who came up from
you to us have gone to Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city;
they are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations' " (vs. 12).
This communication seems to imply (l)a migration of Jews from Babylon to
Jerusalem, and (2) a royal consent to rebuild the foundations, city, and walls of
Jerusalem. The phrase, "from you to us," suggests a migration of Jews authorized by
Artaxerxes himself. This written scenario finds its best historical counterpart in the
migration of Ezra and his fellow Jews as recorded in Ezra 7 in the year 457 B.C.
Nehemiah's journey to Jerusalem 13 years later was a solitary trip and in no way
parallels the migrations of the Jews under Zerubbabel and Ezra.
Ezra 4:12 is the first clear reference to the actual rebuilding of Jeru-
71
salem since its destruction in 586 B.C. According to the complaint of the Samaritans the
Jews were rebuilding the foundations, walls, and city of Jerusalem. It is possible that the
Jews initiated this flurry of activity on their own accord. If that were the case, Ezra 4:21
would mean that no royal permit had as yet been issued by the king. However, several
considerations put this interpretation in question.
First, it is unlikely that such a large scale building activity would have proceeded
without authorization. Artaxerxes had already granted the Jews judicial and civil
autonomy under Persian overlordship. It would be, therefore, only natural for the Jews
to proceed with construction on Jerusalem, the national administrative center (cf. Ezra
7:25-26). Second, there is not the slightest hint—either in the accusation or the royal
response—that the city and its walls were being erected in contravention of the law or
without royal consent.
It would seem that if, in fact, the reconstruction was unauthorized or a sign of
rebellion, the Samaritan communication or Artaxerxes' letter would have noted, if not
stressed, the illegitimacy of the project and the perfidity of the builders on these
grounds. Yet, the issue of the complaint is not the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its walls
as being contrary to the law but the alleged harm that would come to emperor and
empire were the city and its walls to be completely restored. The Jewish community is
depicted as a potential rebel. It is not the rebuilding in itself which is depicted as rebel-
lion. The king is advised that a rebuilt city would rebel and withhold tribute, custom,
and toll.
The sequel to the Samaritan letter to Artaxerxes is puzzling. Why should the
monarch who had signally favored the Jews in granting them considerable religious and
civil privileges (under Ezra) suddenly reverse his decision? And then why should he
change his mind again some years later and give his blessing to Nehemiah's trip to
Jerusalem to repair the city?
Several points deserve consideration. Artaxerxes I, like his father Xerxes, was an erratic
and moody person who could be expected to change his mind at any time. Historical
sources indicate that a rebellion had taken place in Egypt (ca. 462-454 B.C.). This
Egyptian revolt may have provided
72
the political motivation for the king to grant Ezra several major concessions in order to
ensure the good will of the Jews who lived so close to Egypt.
It is possible that later, when the satrap and satrapy to which Judea belonged
rebelled, Artaxerxes shifted his favor to the Samaritans who feigned interest in the
welfare of the crown. This suggestion would account for the unusual political
procedures reflected in Ezra 4:17, According to the account it appears that the emperor
disregarded normal protocol in that he by-passes the satrap (the head of the province)
and deals directly with the lesser state officials of Samaria. Such circumstances also
would explain Artaxerxes' direct order to the Samaritans to cause the building
operations to cease in Jerusalem until he had given further consideration and sent word
(vs. 21).
The Samaritans were happy to oblige. "They went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem
and by force and power made them cease" (vs. 23). Although no explicit order had been
given to destroy what had been built, they apparently broke down some of the recently
erected walls and destroyed the city gates. These hostile activities probably are referred
to in a report Nehemiah received a little later in Susa (Neh 1:3).
Artaxerxes' Permission to Repair Jerusalem
In the year 445/444 B.C. Nehemiah, cupbearer to Artaxerxes I, received a report
from a group of Jews who had arrived in the Persian capital from Jerusalem. Nehemiah
inquired about the affairs of the returned nation and was told by his relative Hanani, "
'The survivors there in the province who escaped exile are in great trouble and shame;
the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates are destroyed by fire.' " (Neh 1:3; cf.
2:3).
Nehemiah reports his deep shock at the news of his brethren (Neh 1:4-11). The shock
Nehemiah received and the short time taken to repair the damage—52 days (Neh
6:15)—would eliminate the suggestion that the destruction reported to him refers to the
devastation of the city by Nebuchadnezzar more than a century and a half earlier.
Obviously the destruc-
73
tion Hanani alludes to was only partial. Furthermore, the devastation of 586 B.C. would
hardly have been shocking news to Nehemiah. The report which grieved the Jewish
patriot most probably refers to the Samaritan violence noted in Ezra 4:23.
Having heard the report, Nehemiah offers a prayer reminiscent of Daniel's petition
(9:3-19) and requests permission from Artaxerxes to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the
city and especially its walls (Neh 2:5). Nehemiah recognized, as had Ezra some years
before, that it was divine providence which had moved the erratic king to comply with
his request and to grant him special protection and royal letters of authority. Nehemiah's
journey was not part of a migration like that of Ezra. Nor was the permission to go to
Jerusalem which Artaxerxes granted in the twentieth year of his reign a part of a decree.
Indeed, the purpose of Nehemiah's journey was at first held secret. Only gradually
were his plans to rebuild made public (Neh 2:11-18). It is significant that the memoirs
of Nehemiah stress that the work concentrated primarily on the wall and gates of
Jerusalem, rather than on the city proper (Neh 2:17; 3:1-4, 20; 6:1-15). Although
battling constantly with opposition, a determined group of Jews and their governor,
Nehemiah, completed the repairs of walls and gates in only 52 days, a period less than
two months.
In comparison with the migration of Jews after the decrees of Cyrus (538/537 B.C.)
and Artaxerxes (457 B.C.) Nehemiah's journey was quite different. It was not part of a
migration. The decision of the king was not a publicized proclamation. The purpose of
Nehemiah's visit was kept secret, and its work consisted primarily in repairing the walls
and gates damaged only a few years earlier. Given these facts, it is evident that
Nehemiah's journey in 445/444 B.C. does not match the specifications of Daniel 9:25.
Conclusion
Our examination of the historical data available to us indicates that neither the decree of
Cyrus (538/537 B.C.) nor that of Darius (ca. 520 B.C.)
74
mentions the rebuilding of Jerusalem. While individual dwellings wer; erected here and
there in and around the ruined capital, no evidence exist: that the city proper was rebuilt
as the result of their decrees. The evidence is that as late as 519 B.C. God still promised
Zechariah in vision that plans would be laid for the reconstruction of the city.
Nehemiah's work ir, 445/444 B.C. was limited primarily to repair work on the walls and
gates damaged earlier through the Samaritan outrages. His task was accomplished in 52
days.
Hence, it would appear that although no explicit proclamation detailing the

restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem is available, the situation described in Ezra 4—
complemented by the events recorded in Ezra 7—best fits the historical setting
envisaged in Daniel 9:25.
Thus, in 457 B.C. Artaxerxes I granted the Jews by decree signal spiritual, civil, and
judicial privileges amounting to autonomy under the larger umbrella of the Persian
empire. Such privileges had been unknown to the Jews since their subservience to the
Neo-Babylonian empire. It would seem, therefore, that the rebuilding activity of the city
of Jerusalem proper (Ezra 4:12) which occurred in the wake of these favors, suggests
that the royal consent was implied in this decree to permit Judah to have a visible center
from which the newly granted civil and judicial privileges of the state could be
administered. Consequently, Artaxerxes' "word" or decree of 457 B.C. provides the best
commencement date for Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy and the longer time span of the
2300 day-years (Dan 8-9).
CHAPTER III
The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27

William H. Shea
Editorial synopsis. Four modern expositions of this important prophecy are current
in today's religious thought. They reflect the major "schools" of prophetic interpretation.
The reader is referred to chapter 1 in this volume for a review of these positions. In this
chapter the author takes the historicist approach in a careful verse-by-verse exegesis of
the passage.
Verse 24 with its introductory statement ("Seventy weeks of years are decreed
concerning your people and your holy city") and its six infinitival phrases ("to finish";
"to put an end to"; "to atone"; "to bring in"; "to seal"; "to anoint") constitutes a summary
of what was to occur during this time period.
The position is taken that the first two phrases describe the demands on post-exilic
Israel to develop a righteous society in preparation for the Messiah's advent. The second
two phrases describe what God would do through the Messiah: make atonement for sin
and bring in everlasting righteousness. The last two phrases portray certain results or
developments that would take place. Israel's failure would end the period and would
forever silence the prophetic voice that from time to time had urged the people to
repentance. On the positive side, however, the Messiah's atoning death would open the
way for the anointing of the heavenly sanctuary and His priestly ministry.
Verses 25-27 enlarge on the introductory statement (vs. 24) with details that focus on
the time for the Messiah's appearance, His confirmation and strengthening of the
covenant, and particularly upon His atoning death. The latter brought an end to the
sacrificial ritual, but it brought in everlasting righteousness, making possible the
Messiah's priestly mediation of His merits in behalf of penitent sinners in the heavenly
sanctuary.
76
The author examines the chronological data available in regard to the five events
predicted in the passage. Two of these dates, 457 B.C., the seventh year of Artaxerses I
(the starting point of the prophecy), and A.D. 27, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar
(the baptism of Jesus and beginning of His ministry) may be regarded as fully
established. A.D, 34 (the end of the period) represents the most reasonable date for the
stoning of Stephen. A.D. 30 or A.D. 31 (the year of the Messiah's death) represent an
accuracy of plus or minus one year. No sources are available to evaluate 408 B.C. (the
close of the first 49 years of the prophecy). The four time predictions in the prophecy
that can be evaluated offer their testimony to God's foreknowledge as He has seen fit to
reveal His will through prophecy.
A major position in the Adventist historicist interpretation is that this passage (vss.
24-27) is the angel Gabriel's delayed explanation and further elaboration of the 2300
day-year time prophecy of the previous vision (8:14, 26). In support of this position the
author adduces four time relationships between the two visions. These clearly indicate
that the 70 weeks and the 2300 days were intended to be understood as linked together.
It is this linkage that provides the 2300 days with both a starting point and a confir-
mation of its ending date.
Daniel 9:24-27 ties in with Daniel's other prophecies with its reference to the anointing
of a "holy of holies"—the heavenly sanctuary. Daniel 9 foresees the Messiah making
atonement for sin and bringing in everlasting righteousness. Thus the way is opened
into the heavenly sanctuary for His priestly mediation. Daniel 8 views the Messiah as
the Prince of the Host performing priestly service in the heavenly sanctuary, a ministry
that is attacked by the little horn. Daniel 7 depicts the Messiah as the Son of man—at
the close of the judgment in the heavenly sanctuary—receiving His everlasting
dominion and kingdom.
77
Chapter Outline
I. Exegesis (vss. 24-27)
II. Chronology
III. Time Relations Between Daniel 8 and 9
IV. Literary Structure of Daniel 9:24-27
V. Daniel 9:24-27 in the Literary Structure of the Book
VI. Theology of Daniel 9:24-27
Exegesis
Verse 24
"Seventy weeks are cut off upon your people and upon your holy city."1
The introductory phrase of this prophecy indicates that its contents are concerned
specifically with the post-exilic Jewish community that settled and developed in Judah
and Jerusalem. It does not belong to the same category of prophecy as the four great
prophetic outlines of world history that appear in chapters 2, 7, 8, and 11. Nor does it
end with their same conclusion, the final eschatological kingdom of God. Daniel 9:27
ends with Jerusalem in ruins. Thus the world history presented in those other lines of
prophecy was to extend far beyond the events of 9:27 before the final eschatological
kingdom would come.
The prophecy of 9:24-27 naturally divides into two sections. This introductory phrase
("seventy weeks are determined," etc.) and the six
1 For a discussion of the Hebrew word translated "week(s)" (sabu'a) in this prophecy and the
reaasons for interpreting it according to the year-day principle, see William H. Shea, Selected
Studies on Prophetic Interpretation (Washington, DC, 1982), pp. 74-79. For a discussion of the verb natak
and why it should be translated "cut off," see William H. Shea, "The Relationship Between the Prophecies
of Daniel 8 and Daniel 9," in The Sanctuary and the Atonement, eds. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W.
Richard Lesher (Washington, DC, 1981), pp. 241-46. See also pp. 107-8 in this chapter. For a review of
the arguments that the 70 week period composes a unit of continuous and successive time (as opposed to
the gap theory), see Gerhard Hasel, "Interpretations of the Chronology of the Seventy Weeks," chap. 1 in
this volume.
78
infinitival phrases which follow constitute a summary of what is to happen by the time
the 70 weeks end. This constitutes the first section of the prophecy. The details of this
summary are then spelled out in the second section (vss. 25-27). With this brief outline
in mind we turn to an examination of the six infinitival phrases.
1. "To bring to an end the rebellion." The verb written here as kala, "restrain,"
makes better sense if it is read as kalah, "finish, complete." (It is reasonable to infer that
Daniel's skill in Aramaic may have had an influence on his Hebrew. In Aramaic a final
letter aleph and a final he [h] can alternate).
The word used for "transgression" or "rebellion" (pesa) carries the particular
connotation of sin as rebellion against God. It can be translated somewhat freely but
more directly as "revolt, rebellion." The definite article ("the") is employed with this
term but is not used with the succeeding five nominal objects of this verse. This use of
the article places stress upon Jewish transgression and rebellion.
Jerusalem had been destroyed and was desolate—at the time Daniel prayed (9:1-
21)—because of the rebellion of the people of Judah. This was both a rebellion against
Nebuchadnezzar as their earthly suzerain and against God and the prophetic messengers
He had sent them. This prophetic phrase, therefore, warned them against following a
similar course of action in the future. Thus, the opening phrase of the prophecy delimits
a period of probation during which God's people are called to manifest their loyalty and
not their rebellion toward Him. As in Deuteronomy, two courses of action are set before
them, and they were exhorted to follow the positive course.
2. "To seal up sins." A form of the verb hatam ("to seal up") appears in this central
statement of the first three infinitives of the verse. It is balanced by the same verb in the
central statement of the second set of three infinitives in this same verse. In the derived
conjugations "to seal up" often means "to stop up, shut up, complete, bring to an end."
These extended meanings provide the best sense here. The Hebrew word for sin in this
instance (hatta't) is the common "miss-the-mark" type of sin. It is
79
used in the plural and without the article which means that it refers to sins in general
and not sin offerings.
This prophetic statement charged the residents of Judah to bring an end to the sinful
state of their society. Just as this prophecy later indicates that they were to build the city
of Jerusalem, so they were also to construct a righteous society—not a rebellious or
sinful one—to live in that city. This statement, and the previous one, point out the
responsibilities of the Jews, what they were to accomplish within the prophetic time
period allotted. However, when the Messiah finally came at the time specified by the
prophecy, they unfortunately had not fulfilled their responsibilities in developing that
type of society.
3. "To atone for evil." The word used for "atonement" in this phrase is kipper, the
term commonly used in the OT for this action. "Evil" may be defined broadly as
including all "wickedness." The services of the tabernacle and the first and second
temples required a continuing round of atoning sacrifices. But ritual activity does not
appear to satisfy the requirements of this prophetic statement.
What is predicted in the prophecy fits better with one final and ultimate atoning
sacrifice that far transcends what could be accomplished by the repetitious round of
temple sacrifices. The NT informs us that this ultimate atoning sacrifice was given by
Jesus Christ when He died on the cross. He can also be identified as the Messiah who
was to come and die at the time specified by this prophecy. His life was given then "to
atone for evil" as it was predicted.
4. "To bring everlasting righteousness." "To bring" or "to bring [in]" is a Hebrew
causative form of the verb bo ("to come"). The sense is that "righteousness" is caused to
be brought in. Sedeq or "righteousness" is a singular noun in construct relationship with
the plural form of 'olam, "age, everlasting." Literally this phrase translates, "to bring [in]
righteousness of ages." The absence of the article is not significant. The ages involved
obviously are the ages to come.
This everlasting righteousness follows directly after the phrase about the atonement that
was to be made. Given this relationship, it seems
80
reasonable to see the everlasting righteousness as a result flowing from the atonement.
It is Christ's atonement on the cross that has brought in this righteousness for ages and
ages to come.
Thus far in verse 24 we have seen that its first two phrases refer to the
repsonsibilities that were incumbent upon God's people. Its second two phrases refer to
works that God Himself was going to perform. The final two phrases of this verse refer
to consequences that were to result from those actions by God and His people.
5. "To seal up vision and prophet." The verb "to seal up" (hatam) is the same as
that which occurs three phrases earlier in this verse. Three meanings appear possible for
it here: (1) to validate or authenticate; (2) to close up (until a later opening); or (3) to
bring to an end.
If the second object of the infinitive ("to seal up") were "prophecy," either of the
first two meanings would be preferred. However, its objects are "vision" (hazon) and
"prophet" (nabi'), not "prophecy." Since this second word occurs without the article it
probably refers to "prophet" in a collective or corporate sense.
The third of these meanings ("to bring to an end") makes the best sense in this
phrase if it is applied to prophets as persons rather than to their words. This sense is
supported by the fact that it is the same as its parallel, used earlier in the verse ("to seal
up/to make an end of sins"). As far as Daniel's people and his holy city are concerned,
therefore, "vision" and "prophet" are to come to an end by the time this prophetic period
closes.
When did this happen and what does this mean? Since the final events of this
prophecy appear to extend half a prophetic week or three and one-half years beyond the
death of the Messiah, we must look to the NT for an answer. Consequently, Seventh-
day Adventist interpreters have usually examined the first chapters in the book of Acts
to find an event with significance sufficient to mark the end of the 70 weeks. The event
commonly selected is the stoning of Stephen (Acts 6:12—7:60).
What is so significant about the stoning of Stephen? Why is his martyrdom more
important than that suffered by others at that time? Why is a martyrdom and not some
other kind of event so significant in demarcating
81
the end of this prophetic period? When this event is evaluated in terms of the
experiences of OT prophets, several aspects of it can be seen as highly significant in this
connection.
The first point of significance has to do with Stephen's view of the heavenly court.
When Stephen broke off his speech before the enraged members of the Sanhedrin, he,
"full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing
at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55, RSV)." This he announced to his listeners. They in
turn cast him out of the city and stoned him to death.
When the Holy Spirit came upon Stephen, he was given a vision of heaven. By
definition Stephen became a prophet at this point in time. It is to prophets that God
gives visions of Himself like this. To cite but one parallel from the OT, the experience
of Micaiah ben Imlah may be noted (1 Kgs 22). Standing before Ahab, Micaiah looked
into the heavenly court and saw Yahweh sitting on the throne with the hosts of heaven
around Him. It is from this session of the heavenly court that sentence is pronounced
upon Ahab. The prophet serves as the messenger of the heavenly court who brings
sentence to the king. By virtue of his connection with the same heavenly court Stephen
stands in a similar position in this episode in Acts.
The second point of significance has to do with the nature of Stephen's speech. It
should be understood in connection with the covenant of the OT. Studies in recent years
have identified five main sections of the covenant formulary: (1) the preamble which
identified the covenant-making suzerain, (2) the prologue which recited past historical
relations between the suzerain and his vassal, (3) the stipulations of the covenant, (4)
the witnesses to the covenant, and (5) the blessings and curses for obedience to, or
violation of, the covenant. When the prophets came as reformers to call Israel back to
the Sinai covenant relationship, they did so by applying the covenant formulary to
situations current in their times. For a good example of this see Mieah 6.
In making this call to the people the prophets brought to them what is known in Hebrew
as a rib or "covenant lawsuit" (the word occurs three
82
times in Micah 6:1-2). As an introduction to their indictment the prophet cites God's
mighty acts on behalf of His people in the past (of. Mic 6:3-5). This portion of the rib or
"covenant lawsuit" thus parallels the prologue section of the original covenant (the
recital of past historical relations between ruler and subjects).
Stephen's speech (Acts 7) which began with Abraham and ended with Solomon
parallels this portion of the "covenant lawsuit." Looking at this experience through the
eyes of OT prophets, we can see this episode as another instance where the Spirit-
endowed prophet brings God's pib or covenant lawsuit against the representatives of His
covenant community.
If one regards Stephen as a prophetic messenger of the heavenly court who brings
God's covenant lawsuit to His people (in continuity with the prophets of the OT), his
death takes on much more theological significance. Hs is not one martyr more or less.
We can now look at this highly significant event in terms of the prediction of 9:24 about
sealing up vision and prophet.
Stephen is the last prophet to speak to the Jewish people of Judea as the elect people
of God. But his voice is silenced in death by stoning. In silencing him they also silence
the prophetic voice addressed to them with finality. The words and works of further
prophets are referred to in the NT (Acts 11:28; 21:19; 1 Cor 14; Rev 1:1), but the
difference is that these prophets may be identified as Christian prophets who address the
church.
As far as Daniel's own people are concerned "vision" and "prophet" were sealed up
or brought to an end with the rejection of this final prophet sent to them according to
Acts 7. As is pointed out in the chronological discussion below, Stephen's death was
also of significance because it occurred in the year the 70 prophetic weeks came to their
end: A.D. 34. Shortly thereafter, Paul was called (by a vision on the road to Damascus)
to be an apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9), and Peter was instructed (also in vision) that
Gentiles should be accepted into the fellowship of the church (Acts 10).
6. "To anoint a most holy." The Hebrew phrase translated "most holy" is qodes
qodasim. One interpretation of this statement (held since
83
the days of the early Church Fathers) has applied it to the anointing of Jesus Christ as
the Messiah. This interpretation, however, runs contrary to the way q5de5 qodasim
("holy of holies, most holy") is used in the OT. Outside of Daniel this phrase occurs
more than 40 times in the OT. In every instance it refers to the sanctuary or something
connected with it. (The only possible exception is 1 Chronicles 23:13, but this is
debatable. It seems to me that even in this passage the expression refers to the sanctuary
as well.)
If the "most holy" mentioned in verse 24 should be connected with a sanctuary, the
question arrises, Which sanctuary? It could not be the tabernacle or Solomon's temple.
They were already past history by the time this prophecy was given. It could not have
been the second temple built in Jerusalem, That temple was dedicated for use upon the
completion of its construction in 515 B.C. (Ezr 6:15-18), long before the coming of the
Messiah predicted in this prophecy. By a process of elimination, the potential
applications of this "most holy" object have been reduced to one: the heavenly
sanctuary, mentioned especially in the NT books of Hebrews and Revelation.
Temples were anointed to inaugurate their services (cf. Exod 40:9ff.). The anointing
foretold in this verse most naturally points to the inauguration of Christ's priestly
ministry in the heavenly temple following His ascension (Heb 9:21-24). The sanctuary
interpretation of this phrase is important because it ties the prophecy into the heavenly
realm just as 7:9-14 and 8:11-14 tie their respective prophecies into that same heavenly
realm.
Summary
Verse 24 functions as an introductory summation of the prophecy. Its six infinitival
statements describe what was to be accomplished by and for God's people in Palestine
by the end of 70 prophetic weeks or 490 calendar years. The first two statements
describe what God's people were to accomplish: the development of a righteous society.
The second two statements describe two aspects of a task that God took upon Himself:
to
84
provide a final atonement which would bring with it everlasting righteousness.
The last two statements portray two prominent effects that were to' result from these
actions. In the first instance, the failure of God's people; to develop the righteous society
He desired would result in the sealing up or silencing of the prophetic voice to them. In
the second instance, the atonement provided would result in a new high priestly
ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. From this summary of the prophecy's
opening statements we turn to the more specific historical details outlined in the
following verses (vss. 24-27). Verse 25 naturally divides into four parts,
Verse 25
1. "From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem." This event is
of particular importance because it fixes the time for the commencement of the 70
weeks. All subsequent calculations of dates for the subdivisions of the prophecy must
be measured from this starting point. Since the rebuilding of Jerusalem occurred as a
result of a decree issued by a Persian king, that decree may logically be taken as the
"word" referred to here.
The question then is. Which decree of which Persian king fulfills the prophecy? The
matter is complicated by the fact that four different "decrees," dealing with the return of
the exiles and the rebuilding of the temple and city, appear in the books of Ezra and
Nehemiah. One of these must be selected for this starting point, but which one?
The problem of determining which Persian decree is indicated here is simplified by the
fact that these decrees and the events that followed them occur in two basic cycles. The
first cycle has to do with the temple. The second is concerned with the city. Note the
following outline:
85
I. Cycle One: The Temple
1. Phase 1, from commencement to cessation, 538-536 B.C.

1. The first return, Ezra 1—2
2. The temple founded, Ezra 3
3. Opposition arises, Ezra 4:1-4
4. Building suspended, Ezra 4:4-5, 24

B, Phase 2, from cessation to completion, 521-516 B.C.
1. Work revived, Ezra 5:1-2
2. Official inquiry, Ezra 5:3—6:5
3. Official approval, Ezra 6:6-13
4. Completion of the work, Ezra 6:14-15

5. Celebration of completion, Ezra 6:16-22
II. Cycle Two: The City
A. Phase 1, from commencement to cessation, from 457 B.C.
1. The second return, Ezra 7—8
(2. Delay: Foreign marriages, Ezra 9—10)
3. The city founded, Ezra 4:12-13
4. Opposition arises, Ezra 4:14-15, Neh 1:1-3
5. Building suspended, Ezra 4:17-23
2. Phase 2, from cessation to completion, 444 B.C.
1. Nehemiah's return, Neh 1—2
2. Work revived, Neh 3

3. Opposition revived, Neh 4
(4, Delay: social reforms, Neh 5)
5. Continuing opposition, Neh 6:1-14
6. Walls completed, Neh 6;15-16

(7. Returned exiles, Neh 7 = Ezra 2)
8. Celebration of completion, Neh 8—10
86
The statement in 9:25 is concerned with the decree that resulted in the rebuilding of
the city of Jerusalem, not just the temple. The two decree present in the first half of this
outline can be omitted from further consideration, therefore, because they deal only with
the building of the temple.
A temple does not a city make. This maxim can be illustrated by archaeological
examples such as the temple on Mt. Gerizim and the temple found when the Amman
airport was expanded. No towns or cities have been found immediately adjacent to these
isolated temples. Thus, the two decrees of Artaxerxes I are the only real contenders to
fulfill the specification required by the prophecy.
Ezra and his colleagues were the persons who first started to rebuild Jerusalem.
This is revealed by the contents of the letter from the western governors to Artaxerxes I.
See Ezra 4:7-16. "The Jews who came up from you to us have gone to Jerusalem. They
are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city; they are finishing the walls and repairing
the foundations" (vs. 12). The purpose of this letter was to get the king to authorize an
interruption of this project, which he did. When the governors received his reply, "they
went in haste to the Jews at Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease" (vs.
23).
This episode obviously occurred before Nehemiah's arrival on the scene, since he
was successful in getting the walls of the city repaired in spite of opposition. What
group of Jews returned to Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes, but prior to the time
of Nehemiah? Ezra 8 provides the answer to this question by listing the 1,754 men who
returned to Jerusalem with Ezra 13 years before Nehemiah's mission there.
The logical conclusion from these correlations is that Ezra and the men who came
back with him were the ones who led out in the first efforts to rebuild the city of
Jerusalem. Their building activities were reported in the letter from the governors. Since
Ezra's return and the events that followed thereafter occurred as a result of the decree
Artaxerxes gave him (Ezra 7), that decree should be taken as the one fulfilling the
requirement of the prophecy (9:25).
Nehemiah was not actually given an official decree like the one given
87
to Ezra. He was only given letters of authorization to permit him to pass through the
western territories and to requisition the materials he needed for his project (Neh 2:7-9).
Nehemiah's work was complementary to that of Ezra. He was able to complete in 52
days the reconstruction that Ezra labored on but had been forced to stop (Neh 6:15).
Priority should be given to Ezra's decree in this case, therefore, because that was the
decree with which this whole process or cycle started. Ezra's was the more official
decree. Nehemiah only completed the work Ezra had already begun.
Several questions arise at this point. The first is, Why did Ezra start rebuilding the
city when the decree granted to him doesn't explicitly mention it (Ezra 7)? Here we can
only cite the possibilities: (1) He was given permission to rebuild the city orally along
with the decree; (2) Another supplementary, written decree (not recorded in the Bible)
conveyed such an authorization. For a possible parallel here compare the differences
present In the two decrees of Cyrus in Ezra 1:2-4 and 6:3-5; (3) Ezra understood the
authority to build to fall within the limits of what was accorded to him in the decree.
Lack of additional biblical information bearing on this point prevents us from narrowing
these possibilities down further. We can only observe what occurred historically: Ezra
did indeed begin to build the city according to the evidence from Ezra 4.
The second question is, Why does the decree appear in Ezra 7 when the rebuilding
is referred to in Ezra 4? The book of Ezra is not arranged in a strictly chronological
order. This is especially true of the material that appears in chapter four. Its purpose was
to record the on-going efforts of the enemies of the Jews to thwart both the rebuilding of
the temple and the city.
The contents of chapter 4 are not in strict chronological order. They have been
gathered here because they fit thematically. Their chronological relations are still clear,
however, because the names of the different Persian kings are present with them.
The final question is, If Artaxerxes gave permission for the building of Jerusalem with
the decree to Ezra, doesn't he appear rather capricious and
88
arbitrary to have withdrawn permission with the letter to the governor (Ezra 4)? The
answer to this question is, Yes. He does appear to be capricious in this case. But this is
not the only case in which Artaxerxes I acted in an arbitrary manner.
The lack of consistency in his character is illustrated by his handling of the case of
Inarus, the rebel from Egypt. He was captured and taken to the Persian capital. He had
received the word of the Persian general that he would be allowed to live, and
Artaxerxes honored that word for a while. But when the Queen-mother Amestris
prevailed upon him, he relented and had Inarus executed. The capriciousness of
Artaxerxes, reflected in the book of Ezra, is quite in character.
From this discussion it is concluded here that the decree or word that went forth for
the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem, as specified in Daniel 9:25, finds its
fulfillment in the decree given by Artaxerxes I to Ezra in the seventh year of his reign.
This decree provides us with the starting point for the 70 weeks. The date of 457 B.C.
for that year is discussed below in the chronological section.
2. "Unto Messiah [the] Prince" (own tr.). The end of the time period referred to
next is signaled by the appearance of this Person. He is described by two noun titles that
stand in apposition and translate literally as, "an anointed one, a prince [masiah nagid]."
The absence of the definite article ("the") with either term in verse 25 and with the word
"Messiah" in vers 26 has been emphasized by some to minimize the Messianic import
of this passage. This absence does not seem so significant when it is compared with
similar cases in Daniel where an expected article does not appear in the text. The
passage is poetic in form and the article was used less frequently in poetry. Daniel's
Hebrew may also have been influenced by the post-positive article of his Aramaic.
There is no verb in this prepositional phrase. It is reasonable, therefore, to take the
actual anointing of the Prince as the event to which this time period should extend,
rather than to some other event in His life. Prophets, priests, and kings were anointed
upon accession to office in OT times (1 Kgs 19:16; Exod 30:30; 1 Sam 9:16).
Something different is envi-
89
sioned here because his title is that of a prince and because his work, as described in the
succeeding statements of this prophecy, transcends that of ordinary prophets, priests,
and kings.
Historically this phrase was fulfilled with the identification of Jesus as the Messiah
at the time of His baptism in Jordan and His anointing by the Spirit in A.D. 27. This
date is discussed in the chronological section below. The Hebrew word used for
"prince" (nagid) is important because of its relations with 9:26b and 11:22, the only
other passages in Daniel where this specific title occurs.
3. "Shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" (own tr.). A translation problem
injects itself with these time periods. Should the seven weeks be connected with the
rebuilding of Jerusalem and the 62 weeks with the coming of the Messiah, or vice
versa? Following the punctuation of the Massoretes some modern translations and
commentaries have connected the coming of the Messiah with the seven weeks and the
rebuilding of Jerusalem with the 62 weeks. The LXX, on the other hand, has translated
these phrases in the opposite order. I have dealt with this problem in some detail in the
Spring 1980 (vol. 18, No. 1), issue of Andrews University Seminary Studies, pages 59-
63.2
In my opinion, this problem can be resolved most directly by noting that this
passage was written in poetry and then by analyzing its structure. In the lines below I
present a portion of such an analysis, first in the Hebrew consonants and then in
English.
2 Reprinted in The Sanctuary and the Atonement, eds. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard
Lesher (Washington, DC, 1981), pp. 251-276.
90
Stress Poetic
Verse Text Accents Units
25b mn-ms' dbr Two subjects: 2
A— From the going forth of City
the word Messiah
Ihsyb wlbnwt yrwslm 3 Tricolon
to restore and to build
Jerusalem
d-msyh ngyd 2
B— unto Messiah the Prince,
25c sbym sbh Two time Bicolon
A— (shall be) seven weeks periods: 2
wsb'ym ssym wsnym 7 weeks
B— and sixty-two weeks. 62 weeks 3
25d tswb wnbnth One subject: 2
A— It shall be restored and City
it shall be rebuilt,
rhwb whrws 2 Tricolon
square and moat,
wbswq htym 2
but in hard-pressed times.
26a w'hry hsb'ym ssym wsnym One subject: 4 Bicolon
B— Then after the sixty-two weeks Messiah
ykrt. msyh w'yn. Iw 4
the Messiah shall be cut off,
but no one shall be for him.
What we have here, according to this analysis, produces an A:B: :A:B: :A:B
arrangement in which the same lettered items deal with the same subject. This may be
noted above and in the following summary:
1. To restore and to build Jerusalem
B. Unto Messiah the Prince in the tricolon of vs. 25b
1. Seven weeks
B. Sixty-two weeks in the bicolon of vs. 25c
A. (Seven weeks for the) Rebuilding of Jerusalem in the tricolon of vs. 25d
B. Sixty-two weeks to the Messiah in the bicolon of vs. 26a
91
This poetic analysis rules out the Masoretic punctuation and those modern versions
(RSV, NEB, AB) which pattern after it. These versions construe the phrasing to mean
that the Messiah was to come at the end of the seven week period ("to the coming of an
anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks," RSV). On the other hand the
analysis confirms the ancient versions (Septuagint, Theodotion, Vulgate, Syriac) and
translations which pattern after them (KJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, MLB, JB). These under-
stand the phraseology to indicate that the Messiah was to come at the end of the second
or 62 week segment of the prophecy. (The 70 week prophecy has three time segments: 7
+ 62 + 1 = 70.)
For further discussion of this point see J. Doukhan, "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel
9: An Exegetical Study."3
4. "It shall be built again, square and moat, but in troublous times" (own tr.).
By applying the year-day principle to the seven weeks of this first segment, we extend
49 years (7 weeks x 7 days == 49 days/years) from 457 B.C. to 408 B.C. No biblical or
contemporary extra-biblical historical sources are available to tell us whether or not this
phase of rebuilding of the city was completed by then. This does not mean (from a
purely historical point of view) that this specification of the prophecy was not fulfilled.
We simply have no information. We do know from Ezra and Nehemiah, however, that
the city was indeed built in troublous times (Ezra 4; Neh 4, 6).
Verse 26
1."Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah shall be cut off" (own tr.). The
expression "cut off" is an idiom which refers to the Messiah's death. The fact that this
verb is used in the passive (Niphal) conjugation indicates that someone else would
cause His death. He was not to die naturally.
Historically this was certainly the ease in the death of Jesus Christ.
3 AUSS 17 (1979): 1-22; reprinted in. The Sanctuary and the Atonement, pp. 251-76).
92
The use of the preposition "after" ('ahare) in this statement suggests that the Messiah
was going to be killed sometime "after" the end of the 7+62 weeks, that is, in the
seventieth week. Thus this statement gives only an approximate time for His death.
2. "But no one shall be for him" (own tr.). Whatever this statement means, it was
to occur when the Messiah was cut off, or died. The Hebrew form of this enigmatic
statement is extremely brief—two words. Its first term consists of the negative particle,
''en." Since the term occurs in a prophetic statement, it applies to the future. It may,
therefore, be translated, "there shall not be."
The second element in the statement is the preposition "to," or "for" to which has
been added the third person singular masculine pronoun, "him." This the phrase
translates literally, "there shall not be to or for Him."
What shall not be "to/for Him"? The actual subject or subjects (whatever it is that
doesn't pertain to the Messiah) is supposed to be understood by the reader. Basically,
there are two possibilities here. Either the understood subject relates to things, material
possessions, or it involves people. The first possibility would depict the poverty of the
Messiah in His death. While this was true of Jesus Christ when He died. God is more
concerned with people than with things.
The first word of the subject in the next phrase in this passage is the word for
people. Following that interpretation, this statement would be translated, "but no one
shall be for Him." This describes the rejection of the Messiah in His death, which was
fulfilled so vividly in the experience of Jesus Christ (John 1:11? Matt 26:56, 74; Luke
24i21).
3. "And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary" (RSV). Historicist and futurist interpreters have commonly identified the
prince mentioned here as a Roman. This is because the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in
A.D. 70. However, this prince can be identified as Roman only at the expense of the
Hebrew term for "prince" in this passage.
If one looks at the structure of this passage in the Hebrew text and notes the titles
employed, it becomes apparent that there is a pattern to
93
the way these titles are used. That pattern clarifies whether one, two, or three
personages are under consideration. Note the arrangement:
1. vs. 25 Messiah (masiah) Prince (nagid) A + B

2. vs. 26a Messiah (masiah) — A -
3. vs. 26b — ' Prince (nagid) - B
This pattern may be described as the breakup of a dyad or word pair (Messiah
Prince). The original word pair has been broken up, and the individual terms
(Messiah/Prince) have been reused in verse 26. Thus the sense of this pattern is to
suggest that all three titles refer to the same person. This is in contrast with the preterist
position that opts for three different individuals in these titles (Cyrus or others, in vs. 25;
Onias III, in vs. 26a; Antiochus IV, in vs. 26b) or for those historicists and futurists who
see two (Christ, vss. 25, 26a; Roman prince, vs. 26b).
Jesus Christ fulfilled the specifications of this prophecy as the Messiah Prince who
was to come at the end of the 69 weeks (vs. 25). Jesus was the Messiah who was cut off
(vs. 26a). It follows then that He should also be the Prince of the people who were to
destroy the city and its temple (vs. 26b). The identification of Him as the "prince who is
to come" (vs. 26b) fits well with the reference to the time when He was to come in the
preceding verse (vs. 25). The Romans are present in this prophecy, but only as the
"desolator" that is mentioned after this.
While the Roman army was the military power that carried out the destruction of
the city and its temple, the Romans were not the ultimate cause that brought on that
destruction. The reason the Romans attacked Jerusalem was because the Jews there had
rebelled against them. Had the Jews remained loyal and subservient vassals, the
Romans would never have attacked Jerusalem.
It was the Jews themselves, therefore, who precipitated the chain of events which
ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. They rejected their true
Messianic Prince and revolted against their Roman overlords as well. The situation was
rather similar to that which occurred when Nebuchadnezzar, stimulated by Zedekiah's
rebellion, besieged Jerusa-
94
lem in the sixth century B.C. (cf. Jer 38:17-23). The leaders of the Jews in the first
century A.D. did not learn from the failure of their leaders in the sixth century B.C. And
history repeated itself.
Thus far the following sequence of events appears to be foreseen by the successive
statements of this verse: (1) the Messiah was to be put to death; (2) the Messiah's people
were going to reject Him when He was put to death; and (3) the people who rejected the
Messiah when He died were also going to bring upon themselves the destruction of their
city and temple.
4. "Its end shall come with a flood" (RSV). It is not clear what the antecedent is
for the expression, "its end." The antecedent could be the city or the sanctuary or both
collectively. It does not appear to refer to a person. The imagery draws upon the picture
of an enemy breaking into a besieged city. When a wall is finally breached, the
attacking troops pour through that opening like a flood.
This fits well with the manner in which the Romans penetrated the defenses of
Jerusalem in the summer of A.D. 70. The comparison of military forces to a flood
occurs elsewhere in the Bible (Isa 8:7-8; Jer 46:6-7; 47:2). In the parallel passage,
Daniel 11:22, the same word for "Hood" is amplified by describing it as one of "arms"
(zeroot), which conveys even more of the military character of this flood.
5. "At the end of the war desolations shall be decreed" (own tr.). Since the idea
of an end is rather definite, the preposition ad ("unto, until"), would be translated better
as "on," or "at" ("at the end"). "End" appears to stand in construct relationship with
"war." Thus, this phrase refers either to "an end of war" or (with the definite article
understood but not written) "at the end of the war." The participle "decreed" (singular in
number) and its plural subject, "desolations," do not agree in number. This disagreement
may be resolved either by repointing the participle as a plural or by taking this statement
as existential: "it is decreed [that there shall be] desolations."
The desolations predicted here were effected by the Romans when, after conquering
Jerusalem, they burned the upper and lower cities and
95
tore down its walls. Except for three towers of Herod's palace, all of Jerusalem was
destroyed. Epiphanius gave an account of what Jerusalem still looked like when
Hadrian visited there in A.D. 130: "He found the temple of God trodden down and the
whole city devastated save for a few houses and the church of God (Weights and
Measures, 14:540)."
Verse 27
1. "He will make strong a covenant for many one week" (own tr.).
Since the Prince of the previous passage is not a Roman prince (according to the
interpretation advanced here), the "He" in this verse refers to the Messiah Prince, or
Jesus Christ historically. It is unusual for the verbal root (gabar, "be strong, mighty"),
which appears here in the Hiphil causative form, to take the word "covenant" as its
object. The force of this particular verbal construction is that the Messiah would "make
a covenant strong," That is, He would strengthen a covenant that already existed. The
translation sometimes given—"he shall make a strong covenant"—would have been
more naturally expressed by an adjectival construction.
What covenant is referred to here in terms of historical fulfillment? The verbal

usage employed suggests the Sinai covenant is in view. The Messiah was to confirm
God's covenant with the people He originally elected from among the nations for this
final prophetic time period (cf. Rom 15:8). During this seventieth week He strengthened
a covenant that was already in existence. It does not appear to be the new covenant of
the NT that is primarily in view here, even though it also went into effect in this period.
This strengthening of the covenant spanned one whole week—the seventieth. It

did not begin, therefore, when Christ died on the cross in the middle of that week. That
takes the strengthening of the covenant back to the beginning of Christ's ministry in
A.D. 27. The sense here seems to involve more than just Christ's coming in His ministry
as a messenger of the covenant in a general sense.
When the early days of Christ's ministry are examined for a covenant-making or
strengthening event, the presentation of the Sermon on the
96
Mount stands out. Jesus took a selection of commandments from the old covenant and
amplified or strengthened them? He did not do away with them (Matt 5:21-48). Then
He added to them His new commandments (Matt 6:19—7:11). These sections of His
sermon were demarcated by references to the law and the prophets (5:17; 7:12). All of
this is set in the context of blessings (Matt 5:3-11) and the possibilities of receiving the
blessing or a curse (Matt 7:13-27).
This kind of presentation is thoroughly covenantal in character. Various NT

scholars have noted the relationship between Moses' covenant on Mount Sinai and
Jesus' covenant on the Mount of Blessing. This exposition of the covenant by Jesus at
the beginning of His ministry provides the most direct connection between His time and
the circumstances predicted here in 9:27.
2. "And for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease"
(RSV). That is, beginning with the approximate midpoint of the seventieth week. The
use of the definite article with "week" ("the week") in this phrase emphasizes that the
same week is meant as that referred to in the preceding phrase. The subject ("He")
should also be understood to refer to the Messiah Prince.
The Hebrew word for sacrifice (zebah) refers to animal sacrifices in general. The
Hebrew word for offering Cminhah) is used commonly in Exodus to refer to cereal
offerings. Here it probably refers to nonanimal sacrifices as a class. Together these two
words encompass all animal and nonanimal sacrifices—the sacrifical system as a whole.
Physically, the sacrificial system did not come to an end until the temple was destroyed
in A.D. 70. Spiritually, however, meaning had gone out of those sacrifices because
Christ the great Antitype fulfilled their ultimate significance with His death on the cross
(Matt 27:50-51; Luke 23:45-46). Since it is the Messiah who will bring the sacrificial
service to an end, according to the prophecy, its termination should be seen in the sense
of its loss of meaning. When Christ died, significance departed from the ritual. It
became a mere round of meaningless ceremonies. This happened in the midst of the
week when He was crucified, according to the
97
chronology of the prophecy which we will discuss further on.

3. "And upon the wing of abominations shall come a desolator" (own tr.). The verb
"shall come" is not written in the Hebrew text, but its presence may be implied from the
existential nature of this statement. Literally, the sentence reads, "Upon (the) wing of
abominations (there shall be) a desolator." Since "there shall be" is implied in order to
render the statement sensible, "there shall come" is a natural interpretation. The "desola-
tor" is a participle from the same root as the plural noun "desolations" which appears at
the end of the preceding verse. In this instance the participle is functioning as a noun.
This desolator can be identified as the cause of those desolations both lexically and
historically.
"Upon the wing of" appears to be an idiom to express immediate consequences, that
is, something that would follow shortly thereafter. Thus in contrast to the antigod
activities of the power in 8:12-13; 11:31; and 12:11, this desolator and his desolations
follow after or come on the scene of action after the abominations have appeared. The
abominations were to come first and the desolator was to follow thereafter, at least in
terms of time if not in terms of cause.
Historically this desolation was carried out by the Romans. The Jews were in
possession of the city until that time. Since the abominations were to precede that
desolation, the Jews—not the Romans—would have been the ones responsible for those
abominations. This may have been fulfilled (in one sense) through the continued
offering of the sacrifices after Christ's death. Not only had those sacrifices become
meaningless, but their continued use also denied the antitypical reality that had fulfilled
them. They served to deny the truth that they were designed to convey.
This is one possible fulfillment of these abominations. Another possible application

has to do with the final fate of the temple. In the Roman siege of Jerusalem the temple
was turned into a fortress, a final bastion of resistance against the Romans as they
seized the city. This polluted and perverted in a final manner the purpose for which the
temple was intended as a place for the worship and service of God.
98
4. "And at the end what is decreed concerning desolation shall be poured out"
(own tr.). This is a very difficult statement to translate and interpret. In several respects
the sentence parallels the last two clauses in verse 26 as shown below:
In verse 27 the opening preposition ('ad, "unto, until") probably should be' taken in the
sense of "at," or "when" as in the parallel clause in vs. 26 ("at the end"). The noun,
kalah ("end") which carries the nuance of "completion/complete destruction" is
synonymous with qs ("end") which occurs twice in the last part of verse 26. The
participle (hrs) here translated "shall be decreed," and "is decreed" is the same in both
verses, as is also the participle (gmm) rendered "desolation(s)." It differs only that in the
latter ease it is singular and is preceded by a preposition (al, "on, upon. concerning").
The verb "to pour out" (ntk) is thematically linked to the word "flood" (stp) in verse 26.
Although these several parallels appear to indicate that this last clause in verse 27 is
repeating the substance of the last two clauses of verse 26, some question remains on
how the participle "desolation" (smm) should be translated. Should it be taken to mean
"desolator" (as in the previous clause where it is written with a preformative mem in
verse 27) or simply "desolation(s)" as in verse 26?
There are two main ways our clause in verse 27 can be understood. The first is to take
this as a statement that describes the final fate of the (Roman) desolator. This
interpretation renders the participle (smm), the final word of this verse, as "desolator"
rather than "desolation." In doing so, the translator breaks the evident links between this
statement and verse 26 and introduces something else that is decreed here.
99
But there is a second way this clause may be understood. We have noted that the
main words or ideas at the end of verse 27 appear also at the end of verse 26. The
principal difference between them is that verse 27 lacks the word for "war." Given these
rather direct relations, it seems preferable to take the final statement in verse 27 as
applying to the fate of the city again. It does not appear to take off on a new idea in
regard to the fate of the desolator.
The interpretation of the end of verse 27 that is selected here takes this statement to
indicate that at the end of the war all that was decreed concerning the desolation of the
city would be poured out upon it. This statement parallels the clause at the end of verse
26 both in terms of its thought content and its position in the literary structure of this
prophecy.
This predicted destruction of the city raises the question why it did not occur at the
end of the 70 weeks in A..D. 34. From the preceding analysis it can be seen that the 70
week period was one of probationary time. The negative results from failing that
probation need not be expected on the same day that probation ended.
There is nothing in this prophecy to indicate the precise time the destruction would
take place. Thus, the delay of that destruction for 40 years (A.D. 70) does not contradict
any of its explicit statements. What was to take place by the end of the 70 weeks was
the decree concerning the city's destruction that is mentioned in both verses 26 and 27.
The results of that decree were to occur sometime after the end of the 70 weeks, and
historically they were not seen for another forty years.
Chronology
457 B.C.
On pages 84-88 we concluded that the decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem was
the one that Artaxerxes I gave to Ezra in the seventh year of his reign. Dates for the
reign of Artaxerxes have been firmly established by four different sources:
1. Olympiad dates. Classical historians accurately preserved Olym-
100
piad dates for Artaxerxes. These were transmitted from Xenophon and Thucydides
through Plutarch to the Christian chronographer Julius Africanus.
2. Ptolemy's Canon. This work produced by the Alexandrian astrono mer contains
a record of eclipses dated by regnal years of kings back to 747 B.C. His eclipses for the
Persian period cross the regnal years a Artaxerxes I and help fix their dates.
3. Elephantine Papyri. The papyri from the island of Elephantine in southern

Egypt were written in Aramaic by Jews who lived there in the Persian period. They
were double-dated by both the Persian-BabyIonian lunar calendar and the Egyptian
solar calendar. These two calendars shift in different ways in relation to the Julian
calendar. Thus calculations for the times when their dates intersect fix dates for the
regnal years of Persian kings, including Artaxerxes I.
4. Babylonian Cuneiform tablets. Such tablets provide a relatively complete

catalog of dates for the kings who ruled there from 626 B.C. to A.D. 75. These have
been compiled by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein in their Babylonian
Chronology.4 Julian dates for the regnal years of Artaxerxes I can be determined from
these tables.
All four of these lines of chronological evidence point unanimously and

harmoniously to the fact that the seventh regnal year of Artaxerxes I extended from
Nisan (month I) in the spring of 458 B.C. to Adar (month XII) in the spring of 457 B.C.
In view of the extensive amount of evidence available with which to establish these
dates we may consider them as firmly and irrevocably fixed.
The Jews who lived in this historical period, however, did not use the Persian-
Babylonian spring-to-spring calendar. They reckoned by their own calendar that began
with Tishri (month VII) in the fall. Specific biblical evidence for this may be seen by
comparing the dates found in Nehemiah 1:1 and 2:1.
The months mentioned at the beginning of these two successive narra-
4 Babylonian Chronology (Providence, RI, 1956).
101
tives ran from Kislev (month IX) of Artaxerxes' twentieth year to Nisan (month I) of
that same twentieth year. If Nehemiah had used a spring calendar, then Artaxerxes'
regnal year referred to in Nehemiah 2:1 would have changed to the twenty-first on the
first day of that month of Nisan. The fact that the regnal year number did not change is
direct evidence that Nehemiah employed his Jewish fall-to-fall calendar to count them.
The only way to avoid this conclusion is to emend these numbers. But ere is no
manuscript evidence available to indicate a necessity for such an alteration. Since Ezra
was a contemporary of Nehemiah, it is reason-able to apply the same fall-to-fall
calendar to the dates in Ezra. Pre-exilic evidence for the Jewish use of this calendar in
Judah is discussed in detail by S. H. Horn in his article, ''The Babylonian Chronicle and
the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah."5 Post-exilic support for the use of the
same calendar by the Jews is discussed by the same author in his Chronology of Ezra 7.6
These correlations indicate that the decree recorded in Ezra 7 was issued sometime in
the year that began in the fall of 458 B.C. and ended in the fall of 457 B.C. This is the
year in which the commencement of Daniels 70 weeks should be dated.
408 B.C.
For a discussion of this seven week period (49 years) and its date, see page 91 above.
A.D. 27.
As discussed under verse 25 (pp. 88-91), the coming Prince was to be

anointed as the Messiah at the end of the 69 weeks. This event can be dated to A.D. 27
when it is applied historically to the commencement of the ministry of Jesus Christ.
According to the NT Jesus was baptized and
anointed by the Holy Spirit in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1, 21).
5 AUSS 5 (1967): 12-27.
6 (Washington, DC, 1970).
102
Dates for Tiberius were reckoned in several different ways.7 What we have here in Luke
3:1 is a date formula written in an eastern style, in the Scriptures which are themselves
of eastern origin. It seems reasonable, therefore, to reckon this date in the manner date
formulae were employed in that region. Such a method dates Tiberius' fifteenth year to
A.D. 27/28, fall-to-fall.8
A.D. 30/31.
Daniel 9:26 does not prophesy the exact date of the Messiah's death. It only dates
His death "after" the 69 weeks, that is, sometime in the seventieth week (cf. pp. 91-92
above). The reference to His causing sacrifice and offering to cease has been connected
with His death.
That correlation narrows this date down to the "midst of the week" (see under vs.
27, pp. 96-97).
In Hebrew such an expression does not have to mean that precisely 50 percent of
the prophetic week would pass before this event could occur as we think in western
thought today. Regardless of how precise this language may or may not be, we may
expect the Messiah to die sometime around the middle of the prophetic week that
extended from A.D. 27 to A.D. 34.
Jesus died on a Passover Friday (Luke 23:56) in the spring. At first glance it would
appear to be a simple chronological procedure to locate (in the appropriate new moon
and Julian day tables) a fourteenth of Nisan that fell on a Friday in a year late in the 20s
or early in the 30s of the first century A.D. The search for such a date is complicated,
however, by two problems.
First, there is a superficial difference between the Synoptic Gospels and John as to
which day of the week Passover fell on in the year that Jesus died (Matt 26:17, Mark
14:12, Luke 22:7-8; John 18:28). The second difference is more serious
chronologically. At present we lack information on how the thirteenth or intercalated
month was inserted into the lunar
7 J. Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton, 1964), pp. 259-73.

8 Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 5:235-40.
103
calendar of Palestine every third year or so early in the first century.
Given these variables, the chronographer must he content to simply cite the range of
possibilities and their likelihood. After studying the relevant chronological materials in
some detail, I would estimate that the year of Jesus' crucifixion probably could be
narrowed down to either A.D. 30 or 31; other earlier or later dates seem considerably
less likely. In the absence of further chronological data with which to determine this
date more directly, it is difficult at the present time to choose between these two dates
on a purely historical and chronological basis.
These dates of A.D. 30 or 31 bring us to within an accuracy of plus or minus one

year in 490 for the chronological fulfillment of this prophetic datum. For an exhaustive
and excellent discussion on the year of Jesus' death, see the Seventh-day Adventist
Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 251-65. The dates for the beginning of the first and
seventieth weeks of this prophecy (A.D. 27, 34) are more important for fixing its
chronological pegs than is this date in the midst of the last week. The preceding
discussion has indicated that these dates have been fixed quite accurately.
A.D. 34.
For the exegetical and theological reasons already cited (under vs. 24, pp. 80-82)
the end of the seventy weeks has been connected most directly with the stoning of
Stephen. The passage in Acts which describes this event, however, does not date it. That
being the case, it must be dated through some other chronological avenue. The venue
most readily available is to relate it to the date for the conversion of Paul. Paul was not a
Chris-tian when he stood by and watched the stoning of Stephen, Thus, the stoning of
Stephen could not have taken place any later than the date of the conversion of Paul. On
the other hand, it probably occurred only a relatively short time before that event.
In order to determine the date for Paul's conversion it is necessary to establish a fixed
chronological point some time later in his career. It may then be possible to work
backwards from there to his conversion. Paul's appearance before Gallio, the proconsul
of Achaia, offers such a fixed point
104
(Acts 18:12). Gallio's proconsulship can be dated to A.D. 51-52 on the basis of an
inscription found at Delphi which mentions him.
Working backwards through the second missionary journey of Acts 16-17, we

arrive at the spring of A.D. 49 for the beginning of this journey that took Paul to
Corinth, the governing seat of Achaia. This would date the Jerusalem conference of
Acts 15 in A.D. 48/49. Since that visit to Jerusalem appears to be the one "after fourteen
years" mentioned in Galatians 2:1, earlier dates can be determined by projecting those
14 years back from A.D. 48/49 to A.D. 35/36. Galatians 1:18 refers to another period of
three years. These are best taken as preceding the 14 years, that is, from A.D. 33/34 to
A.D. 35/36.9
From this interpretation of the chronological evidence we may date the conversion
of Paul to A.D. 34. While earlier and later dates have been suggested for his conversion,
this date may well represent a median and a mean among those suggested.10
Stephen's stoning should be dated late in, or at the end of, Daniel's seventieth week
since, on this basis, it could not have taken place later than A.D. 34. While Acts is not
specific on this point, a few months would appear to be an adequate period to allow
between the martyrdom of Stephen and the conversion of Paul. Although the point may
not be proved with finality, the most reasonable date available for the stoning of
Stephen is sometime in A.D. 34.
Summary
We have examined the biblical and extra-biblical sources that bear upon
establishing the times of the five events predicted specifically by 9:24-27. Two of these,
457 B.C. and A.D. 27, can be established with considerable confidence in their
accuracy. One of these, A.D. 34, represents the most reasonable interpretation of the
data currently available. Another one, that of A.D. 30 or A.D. 31 (for the event that
occurred in the
9 Cf. J. Finegan, p. 321.
10 R. Jewett, A Chronoiogy of Paul's Life (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 1-2.
105
midst of the seventieth week), represents an accuracy of plus or minus one year in 490.
No historical sources, either biblical or extra-biblical, are available with which to

evaluate the date of 408 B.C. This renders it historically neutral when one comes to
determining how accurately this prophecy has been fulfilled. On the other hand, the four
remaining dates represent a rather remarkable collection of chronological and historical
fulfillments of the events predicted by this prophecy. These dated fulfillments of timed
predictions offer their testimony to God's foreknowledge revealed through this
prophecy.
Time Relations Between Daniel 8 and 9

Elsewhere I have discussed the evidence that the term "vision" (hazon), as used in
the question of 8:13 ("until when the vision . . ."), indicates that the 2300 days were to
begin in the Persian period.11 That historical epoch is delimited by the prophecies of
chapters 2, 7, and 11 to the period between Cyrus' conquest of Babylon and Alexander's
conquest of the Persian empire (539-331 B.C.).
Can the date for the comencement of the 2300 days (within these limits) be refined
any further? The prophecy of 9:24-27 provides that refinement by supplying the biblical
basis for combining the 70 weeks (chap. 9) with the 2300 days (chap. 8).
We now summarize in brief the data that indicates the linkage between the time
periods of these two chapters.
1. Technical prophetic terminology. When Gabriel came to Daniel (9:23), he

instructed him to "consider the word [which I bring to you now] and understand the
vision [which you saw previously]" (own tr.). Here Gabriel referred Daniel back to the
vision of chapter 8 in a very specific way. The word translated "vision" here is mareh, a
term that refers more specifically to the "appearance" of personal beings. Mar'eh is used
in
11 William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation (Washington, DC, 1982), pp.
80-84.
106
contrast to the word hazon, the more commonly used term for the symbolic visions in
Daniel. For one example of this contrast, see their occurrences in 10:7-8 (mar'eh), 14
(hazon).
The same distinction is maintained in 8:26 where Gabriel assured Daniel that "the . .
. [mare'eh] of the evenings and the mornings which has been told is true." But he was
instructed to "seal up the vision (bazon)." The first reference is to the appearance of the
personal (angelic) beings who discuss the 2300 days (8:13-14). The second reference is
to the symbolic vision he had seen up to that point (vss. 2-12).
When we come to 9:23, we find that Gabriel did not refer Daniel back to the
symbolic vision of chapter 8 in general by using hazon. Instead, the angel refers him
back specifically to the mare'eh of the two angelic beings in verses 13-14 and their
discussion of the time period of 2300 days. Since the next statement Gabriel makes is
about the 70 weeks, it is obvious that those 70 weeks are connected directly to the 2300
days. Thus the technical word for "vision" (mar'eh) clearly ties together these two time
periods.
2. Time element distribution. This link between these two prophetic time periods
complements our discussion above under prophetic terminology. The customary
location for time elements in Daniel's prophecies is toward the end of their visions or
the end of their interpretations (cf. 7:25, 8:14, and 12:7, 11-12). Chapter 9 is unique in
this regard since its prophecy begins with a time period, and time elements are
distributed all the way through it. This has the effect, in terms of literary structure, of
juxtaposing the 70 weeks (the beginning of the Daniel 9 prophecy) up against the 2300
days (the end portion of the Daniel 8 vision). This literary juxtaposition suggests these
time elements should be regarded as directly related to each other.
3. Persian period commencement. The 70 weeks began in the Persian period. It

was a Persian king who gave the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (9:24-25). I have discussed
elsewhere12 the reasons why the word "vision" (8:13-14) indicates that the 2300 days
also began in the Persian period.
12 Seen. 11.
107
This means that the time period of chapter 8 began in the Persian period in general,
while the time period of chapter 9 began in that same Persian period at a specific point.
Given these relationships, the date of the latter can be seen readily as supplying the
specificity required by the more general datum of the former.
4. the verb "cat off," The verb used by Gabriel in his first statement about the 70
weeks is a passive (Niphal) form of the root hatak ("seventy weeks are determined upon
thy people"). This root means either "to cut off" or "to determine, decree." Because this
is the only passage in the OT where the word occurs, its meaning here has been
disputed.
The meaning of "determine, decree" has been derived from Mishnaic Hebrew that
dates a millennium later than Daniel's time. However, even in Mishnaic writings the
term was more commonly used with the meaning of "cut off."
It is a recognized principle of Semitic philology that the extended meanings of
Semitic verbs develop from concrete meanings in the direction of abstract concepts.
Thus, it is sound to infer that the root meaning of this word involved the concrete idea
of cutting. The abstract ideas of determining or decreeing are the later development
from this root idea. In Daniel's time, therefore, this word already meant "to cut."
Whether the extended meaning of "decree, determine" had developed by then, cannot be
determined at present due to a lack of comparative evidence.
The only significant comparative material, from Ugaritiс Canaanite of the thirteenth
century B.C., lends some support to the idea that this root's basic verbal notion was that
of cutting, not decreeing or determining. Thus, these three lines of evidence—(1) root
meaning over extended meaning, (2) the case of a Ugaritic cognate, and (3) the
predominant meaning in later Mishnaic sources—all favor (but do not fully prove) that
this verb should be translated "cut off here. Its apparent meaning emphasizes the idea
that the 70 weeks were understood to be cut off from the 2300 days mentioned in the
preceding prophecy.
108
Summary
These two prophetic time periods of the 70 weeks and the 2300 days (chaps. 8-9)
can be related directly. They are linked by prophetic terminology (mar'eh), their
locations in the literary structure of Daniel (the juxtaposition of the time units), their
start in the same historical period (Persia), and by the opening verb used with the time
period of the second prophecy (batak, "cut off"). Supplementary support for the
meaning of hatak can be derived from its location within this prophecy as follows:
From a literary viewpoint this word for "cut" (hatak) is balanced by another verb for
"cut" (karat,) that occurs in verse 26a. The word used for "decree" in this prophecy
(haras) in verses 26b, 27b is balanced by its homonym "moat" (harus) in, verse 25c.
Those interested in further information on the relations between chapters 8 and 9 may
consult my more detailed study of this subject in The Sanctuary and the Atonement.13
Literary Structure of Daniel 9:24-27

A careful study of the literary structure of this prophecy indicates that it was written
in the form of poetry, as were many other prophecies in the OT. J. Doukhan has
demonstrated that this poetic passage is also arranged in chiastic form.14 While I differ
with Doukhan on some of the finer points in that structure, his basic idea that this
passage is organized chiastically has been verified in my study of it. My suggestion is
that there is not just one chiasm is this passage but that there are two.
The first chiasm is found in the overall summary of verse 24. The second is present
in the more detailed presentation of this prophecy in verses 25-27. The basic chiasm of
verse 24 can be seen in the following: outline with reference to a brief summary of the
chiasm in verses 25-27.
13 pp. 228-250.
14 J. Doukhan, AUSS 17 (1979): 1-22; reprinted in, The Sanctuary and the Atonement, pp. 251-76.
The outlines of these two сhiasms (vs. 24 and vss. 25-27) may now be joined with some
details. Note they are placed in reverse order, the detail (chiasm II) followed by the
summary (chiasm I).
Bible writer's who employed chiastic structures as a literary device were thereby
enabled to place a strong emphasis upon those statements placed at the central point of
the chiasm. In the second section of this prophecy (vss. 25-27) it is the death—the
execution—of the Messiah that appears at the central point or apex of this chiasm. Thus
the chiastic
111
structure of this prophecy emphasizes the importance of His death.
The poetic form of the central tricolon (three-line stanza) in which this
prediction is expressed contributes to the emphasis. Note that its form moves from a
long line of 13 syllables to a short, three-syllable line. This can be seen especially in the
Hebrew in the chart below. Read from bottom to top. This can be seen from the
transliteration, translation, and poetic analysis of the tricolon:
At the very summit of the literary structure of this prophecy the Messiah stands
alone in His death. The progressively decreasing number of words, accents, syllables,
and consonants (in the Hebrew text) culminates with the prophecy's shortest phrase to
focus on the aloneness of the Messiah in His death (literally, ''no one for Him'')
The chiasm of verse 24 can be tied together with that of verses 25-27. Just as the people
of God are charged with the construction of the city (chiasm II), so they are charged
with the construction of a righteous society to reside in that city (chiasm I).
Just as the death of the Messiah occurs at the center of the chiasm of verses 25-27, so
the real significance of His death is identified at the center of the chiasm of verse 24.
His death would make atonement for all evil, and as a result, would bring in everlasting
righteousness. The results of rejecting the Messiah appear at certain points in the
descending limbs of both chiasms.
112
Daniel 9:24-27 in the Literary Structure of the Book
The basic work on the literary structure of the book of Daniel was done by A.
15
Lenglet. In that work he suggested that the Aramaic section of Daniel (chaps. 2-7),
consisted of three pairs of narratives that should be related to each other in the chiastic
pattern of A:B:C: :C':B':A'.
In this arrangement the two prophecies outlining world history (chaps. 2, 7) have
been paired off (A and A'). The narratives of chapters 3 and 6, which tell of the
persecution of Daniel's friends and of Daniel himself, have been paired off too (B and
B'). The final pair of narratives (chaps. 4, 5) consists of the prophetic judgments
pronounced upon the two Neo-Babylonian rulers, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar (C
and C').
Once it is recognized, this structure is quite obvious. I believe it may be taken as a

basis for a literary analysis of the Hebrew section of the book which Lenglet did not
consider. If this book were written in its entirety by the same author, then one would
expect to find the same type of structure in the Hebrew half of the book. This appears to
be the case. See the following literary diagram of the historical and prophetic portions
of the book of Daniel:
15La Structure Litteraire de Daniel 2-7," Bib 53 (1972): 169-90.
In the second section of the book of Daniel we begin and end with two more major
prophecies that outline world history, in chapters 8 and 11-12a. The relations on the
next, or intermediate, level in this chiastic structure involve different trials which God's
people experienced. The trials described in chapters 3 and 6 were on a personal level.
Those described in the prayer of chapter 9 and the experience of chapter 10 were on a
more corporate level. Nevertheless, there is a similarity in the per-
114
sonnel immediately involved: Daniel's friends (chap. 3), Daniel alone (chaps. 6 and 9a),
and Daniel and his friends (chap. 10).
In Daniel 9 the prophet felt that the time had come for his people to return to their
land, but that had not yet happened. His expectancy provided him with good reason to
pray for the deliverance of his people from exile. In chapter 10 the prophet mourned and
fasted because some reversals had come to the people of God. These problems most
likely had to do with the suspension of the temple construction in Jerusalem due to
opposition (cf. Ezra 4:1-4).
At the top of the chiasm in the first half of Daniel two prophecies given personally
to two Neo-Babylonian monarchs appear. The second half of the book does not provide
full narratives of a similar nature. However, it does provide some prophetic statements
about the activity of certain foreign rulers. The action of a Persian king gave the orders
that sent Ezra and Nehemiah back to Jerusalem to commence and to carry out its recon-
struction, as predicted in 9:25. A Roman ruler launched the war which brought about
the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) as predicted in 9:27. Thus, these abbreviated
elements in this prophecy take the place of the more extended narratives about
individual kings in the first half of the book.
In spite of the various similarities between the contents of the chiastic structures in
the first and second halves of Daniel, one striking difference stands out. There is no cap
to the chiastiс literary pyramid in the first half of the book. But there is a cap to the one
in the second half,
The first сhiasm is made up of an even number of balancing elements (three pairs of
them). On the other hand, the second сhiasm is made up of an uneven number of
elements in its outline. This feature provides the second half of the book with an apex or
central block atop its chiastic pyramid that is supported by its three literary pairs. At this
apex the literary structure of the second half of the book concentrates upon the Messiah
and His death.
As we have observed previously, one of the main purposes for which chiastiс structures
were utilized was to accent their central elements.
115
Thus, the greatest emphasis of the book of Daniel (in terms of its overall literary
structure) comes out here. Towering over the wrecks of time, raised up between heaven
and earth, the Messiah is found here, dying alone and rejected but providing atonement
and everlasting righteousness in that solitary death. This is the Mount Everest, the
literary summit of the book, and here we meet Jesus Christ as the suffering and dying
Messiah.
Theology of Daniel 9:24-27

The preceding discussions of the literary structure of Daniel 9:24-27 have portrayed
the Messiah as the central focus of this prophecy. That same point can also be deducted
simply from the amount of information about Him that the passage provides. From our
exegesis of the prophecy eight points can be made about the Messiah.
1. The Messiah (by means of His death) would make final atonement for sin (vs.
24e).
2. By His atoning death, the Messiah would bring in everlasting righteousness to

mankind (vs. 24d).
3. The everlasting righteousness provided by that atonement was to be ministered to

its recipients from a new sanctuary—the heavenly sanctuary. The inauguration of that
sanctuary is referred to in verses 24-25 as the anointing of an holy of holies.
4. The Messiah was to appear and be anointed for the service of His public ministry
at a particular time—in A.D. 27—according to the chronology worked out above for
verse 25b.
5. Sometime during the seventieth week the Messiah was to die (vs. 26a). However,
His death would not be a natural one for He was to be cut off by some other person or
persons. He was to be killed.
6. The Messiah would die alone, abandoned and rejected (vs. 26b).
7. During the final week of this prophecy, the Messiah would strengthen the
covenant God had made with His people (vs. 27a).
8. In the midst of the final week, at the time when He was to die, the Messiah
would bring the sacrificial service of the temple to an end as far as its
theological significance was concerned (vs. 27b).
116
From this review it can be seen that the prophecy truly is, in Daniel's terminology,
Messianocentric. Looking at the events predicted in Daniel through the eyes of the NT,
we see their fulfillments in the career, death, resurrection, ascension, and present
ministration of Jesus Christ. Examined from this point of view, this passage can be
identified as a deeply Christocentric prophecy.
A prominent part of the experience of the Messiah described by this prophecy

points to His death: (1) the nature of that death (He was to be killed by somebody else),
(2) His experience in that death (abandoned and rejected), and (3) the results that were
to flow from that death (atonement, righteousness; an end to the old sanctuary
ministration, and the commencement of a new sanctuary ministration). The emphasis
upon the Messiah and His experience ranks this passage alongside the other great
Messianic prophecies of the OT that point to Him as the suffering servant of God (Ps
22. Isa 53).
But this prophecy is not just a statement about God's work through His suffering
Servant. His experience was not worked out in a vacuum; it was worked out in
relationship to God's people. Thus, 9:24-27 is a prophecy about both God and man.
On the manward side of this prophecy we see first that Daniel's prayer was to be
answered. God's people would return to their land and rebuild their temple and city. The
blessings of the covenant would return to them again. With a return to these more
favorable circumstances there would come upon them a new responsibility, a
responsibility to respond in obedience to the God who had kept His covenant with them.
This idea is expressed elsewhere in the OT by the analogy that the return from exile
would represent a new Exodus.
Part of their obligations would be physical responsibilities. They would be the ones
to rebuild the ruined temple and city. This work would not be easy. It would be
accomplished in troublous times, that is, with opposition. This was indeed the case in
the experience of the community of Judah under Ezra and Nehemiah.
Then we come to the Messiah in relation to His people. Just as the
117
references to the Messiah mark the center of this prophecy in terms of its literary
structure, so His coming demarcated a great divide in His people's experience. Two
opportunities faced them. At the beginning of this prophecy they were exhorted to
prepare for His coming by putting away sin and the rebellious spirit that had led to their
first exile. In short, they were to develop a righteous society that would be fit to
welcome Him.
Failure to develop a righteous society would result in dire consequences. The

outcome of this prophecy is very Deuteronomic in character. The avenues through
which God's people could avail themselves of either the blessing or the curse of the
covenant were open to them. Unfortunately, the prophecy ends on a negative and tragic
note.
The people of God are foreseen to fail to put away that rebellious spirit which
previously had afflicted them. There would still be a deep current of sin in the camp
when the Messiah came. These failures are foretold as resulting in their rejection of
Him. Other consequences would follow in the train of this unfortunate choice. They
would run their inexorable course until the city and the temple that were to be rebuilt
(according to earlier statements in this prophecy) would lie in ruins (according to
concluding statements in the same prophecy). It was not predestined by God to happen
in this way, but it was foreseen that this sequence would occur in the course of events.
A third party appears on the scene of action toward the end of this prophecy. This
party is known as the "desolator." Historically, this role was fulfilled by the forces of
Imperial Rome that brought the city and temple to an end and left them desolate.
Parallels to this kind of experience can be found elsewhere in the OT. Assyria was
sometimes looked upon by the prophets as an instrument God employed to judge the
northern kingdom of Israel. Babylon also was sometimes looked upon as an instrument
with which the southern kingdom of Judah was judged.
Just because they were allowed to fulfill God's purpose on occasion, however, these
nations were not to go unpunished. They too were to be judged, as is pointed out quite
clearly in the prophecies against the foreign
118
nations that are found in the writings of various OT prophets. One way the final phrase
of Daniel's prophecy has been interpreted would bring such consequences upon Rome
also.
Daniel 9:24-27 is thus a prophecy about God and a Man and men. The Man of
God's own choosing here was the Messiah who would come to do His work on earth
and then in heaven. The first group of men who come into view are God's own people.
A great opportunity is offered to them at the beginning of this prophecy. By the end of
the same prophecy it becomes evident, however, that they will not receive the blessings
that would have come from their fulfilling the responsibilities accompanying that
opportunity. As a result, a second group of men are seen coming on the scene. Their
actions would be adverse to the professed people of God since they would desolate their
city and temple.
This prophecy appears to end on a somber note. It should be recalled, however, that
the great provisions for the salvation of mankind provided through the work of the
Messiah were to continue in operation beyond that time. These include the
righteousness brought in by His atonement and His ongoing ministration in the
heavenly sanctuary.
It is this connection with the heavenly sanctuary that especially ties in the prophecy
with the other lines of prophecy in the book of Daniel. For parallels, we see a daily
ministration in the heavenly sanctuary that belongs to a Prince of the host (chap. 8). And
we see a Son of man figure bringing a judgment to a conclusion in that same heavenly
temple (chap. 7).
The Messiah who makes atonement for sin by His death (chap. 9), and who, as Prince of
the host, performs priestly service in the heavenly sanctuary (chap. 8), is also the Son of
man who receives universal dominion and a kingdom that will never pass away. The
apparent defeat recorded in chap. 9 is softened by the assurance of ultimate victory
recorded in chapter 7 which precedes it.
CHAPTER IV
The Meaning of Kipper in
Daniel 9:24
Pierre Winandy
Editorial synopsis. The Hebrew phrase, lekapper awon, stands at the center of the
literary structure of Daniel 9:24. "To make reconciliation for iniquity" is the rendering
of the KJV. Two modern versions with similar phrasing give: "to atone for iniquity"
(RSV); "to atone for wickedness" (NIV). In this manner the central fact of the Christian
faith was foretold in prophecy. When the coming Messiah should be "cut off," His death
would make atonement or reconciliation for iniquity and would thereby bring in
"everlasting righteousness."
The key word in this Hebrew expression is the verb kapar which appears in this
passage in its intensive or Piel form as kipper. The kpr root of this term occurs 139
times in the OT, mainly in the Piel form. Although nearly all occurrences appear in the
context of Israel's sanctuary worship system, older lexicons (and some later
authoritative works as well) have interpreted its religious meaning through one instance
of a secular use in Genesis 6:14. In this passage the verb (utilized only this once in the
Hebrew Qal form) is employed to describe Noah's task of coating the ark with pitch.
Thus, it has been inferred that the basic meaning of kpr is "to cover" and that its
religious use in the Piel form should carry the same meaning.
In the light of more recent studies the author dissents from this older view. Scholarly
study has focused on kipper in the context of numerous passages in the OT that employ
the term in connection with the sanctuary rituals and in the Hebrew designation of the
mercy seat of the ark. Parallel terms in the cognate languages and the use of kipper in
Jewish literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls have been examined also.
120
These studies demonstrate that in its cultic or religious usage kipper means to
expiate or to wipe away through sacrifice. It does not carry the idea of covering up
something. Thus, the focus of the central phrase in 9:24 is on the greatest of all
sacrifices, the death of the Lamb of God, that accompllshed a full expiation, a complete
wiping away of sin.
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction II. Non-Religious Use of Kpr
III. Religious Meaning of Kpr
IV. Kipper and Daniel 9:24

Introdaction
Various understandings of the meaning of kipper (from the three-letter root, kpr)
have led to variant theological interpretations. Dictionaries or lexicons do not provide
much help since they often apply arbitrarily the meaning of the Qal form of this root in
Genesis 6:14 (Kapar) to the Piel form (kipper) which is the usual form found in the
religious context of the sanctuary. Consequently, we must examine the religious use of
this term in order to determine more accurately its true meaning in such contexts. But
first we will note its meaning in a non-religious sense in the OT.
Non-Religious Use of Kpr

1. Genesis 6:14. Only a few examples of a non-religious use of this root occur in
the OT. We examine two examples. Genesis 6:14 is the only case where the root is
conjugated in the Hebrew simple active or Qal form: "So make yourself an ark of
cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat [kpr = kapar] it with pitch inside and out."1
As the NIV has rightly rendered, the ark is not "covered" with pitch (in the sense of
receiving a "cover" or a "covering"), but is "coated." In other words the pitch is
"smeared" upon the ark. This meaning of the Qal form
1 Citations are from the NIV.
121
introduces very well the notion of "rubbing" that is often found in the intensive active
Piel form of the verb in cognate languages. We shall come back later to this notion.
2. Genesis 32:20. "And be sure to say, 'Your servant Jacob is coming behind us.'
For he thought, 1 will pacify [kpr= kipper] him with these gifts I am sending on ahead.'
" The expression rendered by the NIV: "I will pacify him" could not be literally
rendered, "I shall cover his face." The context already excludes the literal rendering "to
cover" the face, for the simple reason that the sentence continues by saying (literally),
"and after-ward I shall see [or look at] his face."
It is interesting to note that the Targum of Samuel renders this: "I shall 'polish' his
face." Rashi explains (in the same place) that when the Hebrew word kapar precedes the
words, "sin," "iniquity," and "face," it should be translated "wipe away," as in Aramaic
and in the Talmud. The Arabs say in fact "to clear," "to whiten the face" if they wish "to
honor" or "to appease" someone.
These two texts, therefore, cannot be used as a basic proof that the first, literal
meaning of kapar, "to cover," should determine the applied idea of this same term when
it is used in its Piel form in priestly settings. The appearance of this verb in the OT is
almost always in the religious setting of the sanctuary and in the Hebrew intensive
active and passive forms of the verb (Piel and Pual)
Religious Meaning of Kpr

This verb root occurs 139 times in the OT. Since several exegetes2 have made
extensive investigation of its uses, we shall limit ourselves to summarizing the
conclusions suggested.
2 Among others, we may mention Baruch A. Levine, In the presence of the Lord
(Leiden, 1974); Pierre Winandy, Sens de ")kafar" dans la theologie biblique d'apres
I'etude philologique, Servir, ffl/IV (1977), pp. 11-16 (Publication of the Euro-Africa
Division of SDA; J.-M. de Tarragon, La Kapporet estelle une fiction ou un element du
culte tardif? Revue Biblique (1981), Tome LXXXVIII, pp. 5-12.
122
Insights From Context

It is recognized that one of the rare contexts which can clarify the meaning of the
root is Leviticus 17:11. B. A. Levine offers the following translation in which he inserts
the noun form of the verb (koper, sometimes translated "ransom," Exod 21:30) as the
intent of the infinitive form of the same verb which actually appears in the text
(lekapper).
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you to serve
as expiation (koper) for your lives (lekapper al napsotekem) on the altar, for the
"blood may expiate according to the value of life.
He explains further:
the Beth [the Hebrew letter for "b") in the word lyinnepes [for your souls/lives] is
Beth pretii "of price." The sense is that blood can [substitute] for life to the extent
required to ransom it, redeem it. ... The underlying conception here is the role of
blood as the life force. As such, blood can serve as a substitute for life, pars pro
toto. The second part of Leviticus 17tll, if properly understood, expresses this
notion clearly. . . .3
As Levine had earlier noted, "The koper is thus a substitute for a life (Exod 30:12;
Isa43:3)."4
Two other paragraphs summarize Levine's conclusions on the meaning of this root
in the Piel form (kipper) as it is used in many OT passages:
As we have seen, kipper means: "to perform rites of expiation. Its usage in the
priestly sources is almost always associated with the expiatory sacrifices, the
hattat and the asam. It follows that the use of blood in such activities must be
understood as expiatory or purificatory in purpose.5
Despite some persisting ambiguities in the classification of the Akkadian data,
it should be possible to demonstrate quite convincingly that biblical Hebrew
kipper and related forms do not reflect the motif of covering or concealing sins,
but" rgther the sense of cleansing, and the elimination which results from it.6
3 Levine, p. 68.
4 Ibid., p. 62.
5 Ibid., p. 73.
6 Ibid., p. 57.
123
While many texts could be cited, two others (in addition to Leviticus 17:11) should
be noted:
Ezekiel 43:20; "You are to take some of its blood . . . and so purify the altar and
make atonement [kipper] for it."
Leviticus 16:30: ". . . atonement will be made [kipper] for you, to cleanse you."
Not the slightest allusion to covering is made in these passages. On the other hand,
a clear relationship between atonement and purification is indisputably expressed.
Significance of the Kapporet (Mercy Seat)

The word kapporet is a feminine noun from the kpr root. It literally means
"performance of reconciliation/atonement," but is translated in our common version as
"mercy seat." The kapporet was the center of the important rites of the Yom Kippur
(Day of Atonement). It is in the light of these ceremonies that the significance of the
kapporet can be determined.
On the Day of Atonement the high priest twice approached the kapporet with
sacrificial blood: (l) "He [Aaron] is to take some of the bull's blood and with his finger
sprinkle it on the front of the atonement cover [kapporet ]" (vs. 14). (2) "He shall . . .
take its [goat's] blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull's blood:
He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover [kapporet] and in front of it. In this way he
will make atonement of the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion
of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been" (vss. 15-16).
God Himself spoke to Moses from "above the atonement cover" (Num 7:89). It
was, in this sense, the solemn seat of His holy, perfect, and pure divine majesty. Within
the ark and beneath the kapporet rested the tables of His Law, the Ten Commandments.
The Day of Atonement sacrificial blood was sprinkled upon and before the kapporet.
The kapporet was thus the receptacle for receiving the expiating blood, blood which
produced a cleansing, a wiping away, a purifying, a pardoning by redemption, of con-
fessed sins.
In all these ceremonies no allusion is made to an idea that sins would
124
be "hidden" in the ark so that the kapporet would be thought to "cover" sins. The
absurdity of such a situation is evident when pushed to its extreme application.
We would agree with the latest edition (1981) of the Brown Driver Briggs dictionary:
"the old explanation cover, ;lid has no justification in usage.''
Meaning of the Kpr Root in Cognate Languages
I summarize briefly my conclusions from previous research.8
The Assyrian kaparu. means (1) to wipe off; (2) to smear, kuppuru wipe off, clear
objects, to rub, purify magically, expiate.
In the first form the Arabic verb has the meaning to "cover, hide"; and in the
spiritual order, the unfaithful one "covers" truth in denying it or attempts to put a veil
upon his fault in such a way that the offended will not see anything that irritates him. In
the second form, however, kafara has exactly the meaning of the Hebrew kipper—
atone.9 It is known that the sacerdotal or priestly use of the Hebrew word is in the voice
corresponding to the second form of the verb in Arabic.
Medebielle10 observes that there exists:
Between kuppuru. [Assyrian] and kipper a much closer affinity than

between Arabic and Hebrew, not only the same verbal form is used, . . . but the
same ritual term is applied in the same circumstances expecting identical results.
Without doubt ceremonies differ; the Israelitic liturgy excludes all magical
procedure used by the Assyro-Babylonians. But nothing prevented to keep an
intensive expression which, by itself, simply described religious acts which used
to reestablish people and things in their primitive purity."
It is beyond the discussion of this short chapter to determine which language
borrowed the vocabulary and culture from the other. What should be noted is the
common meaning of the root.
7 p. 458.
8 Winandy, passim.
9 E. W. Lane, An Arabic Lexicon (London, 1863-1881), t. VII, pp. 2620ff.
10 A. Medebielle, "Expiation" in Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible (Paris: Le Fouze, t. III, col. 50,
n.d.).
125
Schrank,11 after establishing the possible connection between kipper and the
Babylonian kuppuru, a blotting away as a medical act (rubbing the body) or magical
(expulsion of demons), states that if facts do not permit an assimilation with biblical
expiation, the meaning of the root is common.
Dhorme12 comments that "from 'cubing' the meaning passed to 'purify' and 'free*
because friction used to purify the place soiled by sickness and sin, or freed from spirit
possession."
Incidentally, the same development of thought can be observed here as in the OT
between the Qal from the verb in Genesis 6:14 ("to rub") and the sacerdotal service. The
Akkadian verb kaparu has for its first meaning, "To wipe away, to erase, to clear" and
for derived meanings, especially with its D form, kuppuru, "to purify (through magic),"
"to wipe away."
Translation of Kpr by the Ancient Versions

The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, third-second
century B.C.) renders the kpr root by such verbs as hilaskomai ("propitiate"), katharizo
("cleanse, purify"), hagiazo ("to sanctify, purify"). These three terms relate to
propitiation or purification.
The Vulgate renders kapporet by propitiatorium. In Syriac, kafar signifies "to wipe,
to erase"; and at the Pael kappar: "purify, absolve, destroy"; and its derived form:
"purification, forgiveness."
Use of Kpr in the Dead Sea Scrolls
I have analyzed the 17 texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls13 where this root is used. No
instance was found with the connotation of covering. In each ease the meaning
pertained to purifying, expiation, the forgiveness of sin.
Use of Kpr in Jewish Literature

As noted above, Rashi held that kpr in front of the words "sin" and "iniquity"
should be translated "wipe away," as in Aramaic and the Talmud.
11 W. Schrank, Babylonische Suhnriten (Leipzig, 1908), pp. 81-87.

10. E. Dhorme, La religion assyro-babylonienne (Paris, 1935), p. 250.
11. The list is indicated in my article (see n. 2) and the complete texts are in my thesis, Etude
philologique de Daniel 9:24-27 (Paris, 1977).
126
Scholarly Opinion on the Meaning of Kpr

Three authoritative scholars will now be quoted:
1. Schotz:14 "Even if kafar at some places could be translated by 'to cover,' in the
ritual of sacrifice this meaning has no place ... in all eases where Jahweh himself is the
subject of the act of kafar, the meaning is to wipe away (wegwisehen)."
2. Moraldi:15 concludes his study on kipper by stating that the word has no
connection with the idea of ''to cover." The notion is to obliterate, wipe away through a
sacrifice. Such an expiation has for result the destruction of what is contrary to divine
holiness and the reestablishment of the union with the God of the covenant.
3. Von Rad:16 ''Even if it were absolutely certain that the fundamental meaning of
the root kafar is 'to cover,' the question would remain what is covered and how this
'covering' is operated. We have reached the point of observing (arrived to observe) that
kipper is a technical expression of cult. ... As technical cultural term it simply signifies:
*to accomplish an expiatory action.' . . ."
Summary
From the foregoing data we may safely say that in a context of priestly activity
kpr—or more directly its Piel form, kipper— never has the meaning of "covering."
Rather, the emphasis is on expiation realized by a redemptive sacrifice of divine origin
which wipes away the sins of the sinner, purifies him in such a way that he can maintain
his relationship with the holy God of the covenant.
However, it is correct to recognize that once sin has been pardoned by a priestly
ministration, it may be considered "covered." For example, the psalmist addresses God
by saying, "You forgave the iniquity of your people
14 p. Schotz, Dionys, Schuld-und sundopfer im Alton Testament (Breslau, 19301, pp. 103-4.
15 L. Moraidi, Espiazione sacrificale e riti espiatori nell' ambiente biblico e nelV Antico Testamento
(Roma, 1956), pp. 182-220.
16 G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh, 1962), 1:230-31.
127
and covered (kissah) all their sins" (Ps 85:2). But although kipper, "to wipe
away/purify," is often associated with such terms as mahah, "wipe away" (Neh 3:37? Ps
51:1, 9), nasa, "take away" (Exod 10:17; Lev 10:17), and sur, "put away" (Isa 6:7), it
never is associated with kasah, "to cover."
This brings us to the conclusion that if God, in His love, "covers" sin, it should not
be viewed as a priestly act. Such statements simply reflect an attitude of mercy toward
the sinner which should by no means be associated with, or confounded with, the
necessary expiation.
Kipper and Daniel 9:24

Gabriel's statement lists several matters that would be under focus during the 70
weeks. One of the most important of these was "to atone for wickedness" (lekapper
awon)." Three points in the general context can assist us in grasping the precise
implications of kipper in this expression.
1. The poetic structure of verse 24 has brought together three substantives having to
do with sin: transgression (pesa^), sins (hattot), and iniquity awon). These terms show a
linkage to the Levitical sanctuary system of types and indicates the moment has come in
the prophecy to deal with the sin problem in a final manner.
2. The vocabulary of the broad context (chaps. 8, 9) seems clearly to indicate a

cultic concern: sanctuary, holy city, covenant, righteousness, perpetual, Messiah, etc.
3. Verses 26-27 of the pericope refer to a particular moment in time for the "cutting
off" of a "messiah" when "sacrifice and offering" would be "put to an end."
These three complementary elements in the context seem to point to a precise
sacerdotal, salvific activity to solve the problem of sin. Therefore, if these premises are
accepted, the third expression of Daniel 9:24 ("to atone for wickedness") would involve
much more than a vague ethical aspect. It would definitely imply an act of sacrifice
when the expiation or the wiping out of human sin in a radical and definite manner
would take place. As Christians we believe that Calvary was that precise act which
became the basis of the Saviour's priestly ministry.
EXEGETICAL STUDIES IN LEVITICUS
Literary Structure:
Emphasizes Day
of Atonement
Transfer of Sin
Contamination/Pur
ification
of the Sanctuary
130
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The following essays form a trilogy of theological reflection on Leviticus, the third
book of Moses. The first emphasizes the implications of its literary structure on the
interpretation of the sanctuary ritual, especially on the interpretation of the Day of
Atonement legislation. The second examines the concept of the transfer of sin from the
penitent to the sanctuary. The third essay explores the issues involved in both the legal
and illegal contamination of the sanctuary and its purification on the Day of Atonement.
Thus, the three essays combine to provide the necessary biblical backdrop to the studies
on Daniel, particularly to its central prophecy that deals with the cleansing and
restoration of the heavenly sanctuary.
CHAPTER V
Literary Form
and Theological Function
in Leviticus
William II. Shea
Editorial synopsis. The thesis of this essay is that the literary form of a given
portion of inspired Scripture was designed to help explain its mes-age. So it is affirmed
that "form complements function."
Leviticus is a well-organized piece of Mosaic instruction. The evidence presented in

this essay suggests that the entire book has been written in a literary configuration
known as a chiasmus. A chiasmus (or ehiasm, as it is more commonly termed) is a
literary device that unifies a composition by arranging its corresponding parts in an
inverted relationship to each other.
In this instance Leviticus naturally divides into halves (chaps. 1-15, 16-27). In the
first half three discrete sections—cultic legislation (1-7), priestly history (8-10), and
personal laws of uncleanness (11-15)—are seen to balance in an inverted relationship
with three subject-related sections in the second half—personal moral laws (17-20),
priestly legislation (21-22), cultic legislation (23-25). Two additional chapters (26-27)
round out the book but stand outside the literary chiasm.
At the fulcrum of these two limbs (1-15 and 17-25) of the ehiasm lies the legislation
dealing with the Day of Atonement. A carefully thought-out literary arrangement such
as this strongly underscores the unity of the work and indicates single authorship. An
outline of the chiastic structure of Leviticus may be seen on page 148.
The fact that the Day of Atonement ritual lies at the literary center of Leviticus
emphasizes its importance in the sanctuary system. Furthermore, this central position
indicates its function as the capstone of the sacrificial rituals (presented in the first limb
of the chiasm) and as the
132
natural transition point to the subject of holy living (presented in the second limb).
Some insights suggested by the literary form may be summarized as follows:
1. The theological core of the first limb is oriented around the subject of
justification ("the priest shall make atonement for him," Lev 5:10). This is balanced
with the theological core of the second limb: sanc-tification ("You shall be holy; for I
the Lord your God am holy," Lev 19:2), This basic design for spiritual experience
offered to ancient Israel (in the setting of the earthly sanctuary symbolism) is still valid
for God's people in the Christian era.
2. The literary and thematic position of the Day of Atonement legislation endorses
the argument that the confessed sins of penitent Israelites were transferred to the
sanctuary by means of their sin offerings. It is explicitly stated that the Day of
Atonement ritual functioned to cleanse the sanctuary from the transgressions and
uncleannesses of the children of Israel (Lev 16:16). Transgressions (Lev 1-7) and
uncleannesses (Lev 11-15) are the two major concerns discussed in the first limb of the
chiasm. Offenses in both areas were atoned for through the sacrifice of sin offerings
during the year.
The Day of Atonement sin offering ritual (the Lord's goat)—the summary of all sin
offering rituals—is now directed toward the sanctuary to cleanse it from these confessed
offenses, a clear acknowledgment of a previous transfer from the people to the
sanctuary.
3. The central position of the Day of Atonement in the Levitical legislation also
places this ritual at the close of the book's major presentation on sacrifices. In such a
position it may be seen as a kind of summary to the sacrificial system. This is especially
true of the regular sin offerings since the main sacrifice on the Day of Atonement was
itself a sin offering (the Lord's goat).
Several comparisons may be made between the two sets of sin offerings (the regular and
the yearly). There are both similarities and differences. The Day of Atonement was
corporate activity rather than indi-
133
vidual. It appears to have been modeled after the regular sin offerings made in behalf of
priests or of the congregation as a whole. The Day of Atonement sacrifice was offered
in relationship to the corporate body of Israelites whose confessed sins and
uncleannesses rested in the sanctuary. Its symbolic significance, therefore, extended
beyond the individual.
4. The thematic link between the Day of Atonement sin offering (the Lord's goat)
and the regular sin offerings is augmented if the term hatta'ot in the key passages of
Leviticus 16:16, 21 is translated "sin offerings" rather than "sins" (as in our common
versions), A number of evidences are assembled in the essay to support this possibility.
If this translation is accepted, these verses indicate more clearly than otherwise that
atonement was made on this special day to remove from the sanctuary the
transgressions and uncleannesses repentant Israelites had transferred to it during the
year through the regular sin offerings.
5. The literary and thematic position of the Day of Atonement sin offering
(positioned last) in respect to the regular sin offerings (positioned first) in the
"sacrificial" limb of the chiasm (chaps. 1-15) raises an important question. At what
point in time did forgiveness and acceptance with God come to a repentant Israelite
participating in the sanctuary system? Was he forgiven when he brought his private sin
offering or when the Day of Atonement arrived?
The legislation in Leviticus 4-5 clearly indicates that when the penitent brought his
sin offering to the sanctuary, confessing his sin, he was forgiven. Repeatedly the
statement is made in substance: "the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin
which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven" (Lev 5:10).
By contrast, no statement about forgiveness is ever given in the Day of Atonement
legislation. The Day of Atonement had to do with forgiveness of the individual only in
an indirect sense. This was a special ritual for the cleansing of the sanctuary. The
individual who had accepted the divine provisions for forgiveness and who continued to
walk humbly with God (who, in effect, had assumed his guilt through the sanctuary
ritual) had done his part. He could trust that the cleansing of the sanctuary would be
134
accomplished by the special ministry of the high priest on the Day of Atonement as God
had instructed.
It is evident that the Day of Atonement ritual—by its capstone position in the
sanctuary system and underscored by its literary center in Leviticus—was designed to
focus attention of penitent Israel beyond the state of personal forgiveness and
acceptance to the closing aspect of the divine plan to resolve the sin issue: the final day
of judgment.
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction
II. Subject Content of Leviticus in. Literary Structure of Leviticus

(Chiasmus)
IV. Some Theological Insights
V. Conclusions
Introduction
At first glance the casual observer might suggest that the biblical books of Leviticus
and Daniel share nothing in common. Leviticus deals largely with legislation about the
sacrificial system and other laws. On the other hand Daniel contains historical narratives
and long-range outline prophecies describing the rise and fall of kingdoms down to the
end of time.
On closer inspection, however, the reader will note important links between these
two books. For example, according to the prophecy of Daniel 8 a prominent part of the
struggle described between earthly and heavenly powers focuses upon the heavenly
sanctuary and the ministration functioning therein. Since Leviticus contains more
information about the whole sanctuary system than any other OT book, one naturally
would expect it to shed some light upon the Daniel passage.
The purpose of this essay is to analyze the literary structure of Leviticus and to note
some of the theological implications arising from its form. Such a study may serve to
provide a useful backdrop to the book for further evaluation of its message.
135
The book of Leviticus is a rich treasure house of truth about the Israelite sanctuary
and the system of salvation it portrayed in type during the era it functioned. An
examination of this spiritual heritage should, therefore, offer assistance in studying the
working out of salvation themes in the later literature of the OT and in the grand
fulfillments of the NT.
Subject Content of Leviticus
Overview: Chapters 1-16

It is apparent from any review of the commentary literature on Leviticus that the
book is well organized. Apart from a few minor differences the outlines of Leviticus
printed by the Bible commentaries are similar. The book divides naturally into two
halves—chapters 1-16 and 17-27. The first 15 chapter block, dealing with various
apsects of the sacrificial system, is climaxed by the Day of Atonement legislation in
chapter 16. The second half of the book takes on a different character. The heart of this
section (chaps. 17-26) is referred to commonly as "the Holiness Code," because in these
instructions a holy God calls His people to holy living.
1. Cultic legislation (chaps. 1-7). We now turn to examine the contents of the
subsections of each half of Leviticus to discover what patterns may emerge. The initial
seven chapters deal with cultic legislation pertaining to sacrifice.
The legislation commences with a subsection touching on private burnt offerings

(chap. 1), the accessory cereal offerings (chap. 2), and a class of sacrifices known as
peace offerings (chap. 3).1
The next subsection (4:1—5:13) deals with the important subject of the sin offering
(hattat, singular; hattaot, plural). The categories of persons who will offer this particular
sacrifice are described in a descending order of rank beginning with the priests (4:3--! 2)
and followed by the congregation
1 These offerings are dealt with again in Leviticus 6:9-13, 6:14-18, and 7ill-21 (as the
thanksgiving offering). There the emphasis is upon the priestly administration of the sacrifices; here, the
legislation emphasizes more the role of the offerer.
136
as a whole (4:13-21), the tribal leaders (4:32-26), and finally the common people as
individuals (4:27-35). Specific procedures are laid out for each class. In general the
sacrificial animals used by the first two categories were young bulls; those offered by
the latter two groups were he-goats and she-goats respectively.
The guilt offerings (asam) are the final class of sacrifices discussed (5:14—6:7).
These appear to have had a more limited application than the previously mentioned sin
offering. The persons are not classified, only their offenses. These are limited to three:
defrauding the Lord in the matter of sacred things or gifts (5:15-16), inadvertent
transgression of the Lord's commands done unawares (5:17-19), and testifying falsely
under a solemn oath (6:1-7). The animals used in all three instances were young or adult
sheep.
The text now turns to priestly regulations regarding the handling of these same
sacrifices (6:8—7:38). The sequence is the same with the exception that the verses
dealing with the peace offerings appear last (7:11-21, 28-34). Added to this subsection
are special provisions for priests (7:8-10), some miscellaneous instructions for the
people (7:22-27), and a summary and conclusion (7:35-38). This finalizes the first
section of seven chapters dealing with sacrificial legislation. Its content forms a
logically arranged and cohesive whole.
2. Priestly history (chaps. 8-10). The second main section of Leviticus covers only
three chapters (8-10). It deals with the installation of Aaron and his sons as the priests
who will officiate in the sanctuary. The subject matter of the passage divides into four
parts: (1) a prologue of instructions (8:1-5); (2) a description of the commencement of
the installation ceremony (8:6-36); (3) a description of the conclusion of the ceremony
which came a week later (chap. 9); and (4) an epilogue (chap. 10).
This last chapter describes the inappropriate activity of the newly made priests, Nadab
and Abihu, and their summary execution by God (10:1-11). After a few verses of
priestly legislation (10:12-15), the passage closes with a historical narrative about
Moses' investigation into the matter of whether the sin offering had been handled in the
correct manner (10:16-20).
137
It is evident, therefore, that this entire three-chapter section deals with the main
topic of the installation of the high priest and his family into office. It follows that topic
through in logical steps.
Some commentators have been puzzled to find regulations dealing with the
sacrifices repeated in chapters 6-7 when they had been dealt with in the proceeding
legislation.2 I would suggest that the contents of chapters 8-10 provide a partial
explanation for this feature of the text. Chapters 6-7 have to do with how the priests
were to deal with the sacrifices in their ministry for the people. But the emphasis in the
preceding instruction was upon the people and the part they played in offering those
sacrifices. Furthermore, this emphasis on the priests in chapters 6-7 leads logically into
the topic of chapters 8-10.
In a sense, therefore, chapters 6-7 anticipate chapters 8-10. On the other hand they
look back on one special aspect of the contents of chapters 1-5. They are not repetitious
in a manner that detracts from the purpose of the book. Rather, they add a new
dimension to the subject under discussion and make possible a natural transition
between two parts.
3. Personal laws of uncleanness (chaps. 11-15). The third major section of

Leviticus takes up the subject of uncleanness (tame, verb) and its treatment. The
chapters in this section deal successively with unclean animals (chap. 11); uncleanness
arising from childbirth (chap. 12); unclean diseases (chap. 13); cleansing from such
diseases (chap. 14); and unclean discharges (chap. 15).
Since this section will be referred to again, some brief remarks will provide a
background. For coming in contact with unclean animals, the Israelite was unclean until
evening and was to cleanse himself by bathing and washing his clothes (11:27-28, 31-
32).
Purification from uncleanness arising in connection with childbirth or discharges

required the sacrificing of burnt offerings and sin offerings (12:6-8; 15:15, 30).
Purification from the state of leprosy involved the full
2 G. J. Wenham, "The Book of Leviticus," The New-International Commentary on the Old

Testament 3 (Grand Rapids, 1959), p. 117.
138
sacrificial spectrum: burnt offering, cereal offering, guilt offering (asam), and a sin
offering (hattot: 14:12-13, 19-23).
An important point to observe is that purification from uncleanness did not require
a different kind of offering from that previously prescribed for sin. Sin offerings and
burnt offerings were offered for both sin and the more serious kinds of uncleannesses.
Once again, this section of Leviticus can be seen quite clearly as a coherent whole.
4. Day of Atonement (chap. 16). With chapter 16, the instruction for the Day of
Atonement service, we reach the end of the legislation that presented the prescribed
sacrifices. In this manner the Day of Atonement ritual serves as the culmination and
climax to the sacrificial system outlined in Leviticus.
Chapter 16 also constitutes a major transition point in the book. Legislation now
shifts to the requirements and obligations incumbent upon the one who observes God's
laws. Thus the Day of Atonement capstone not only marks the apex of the sacrificial
service legislation, but also demarcates the thematic center and turning point in the book
of Leviticus.
Overview: Chapters 17-27
The second half of Leviticus has been called the Holiness Code. Its stipulations of
obligation extend from chapters 17 through 25. Chapter 26 pronounces blessings or
curses upon the obedient or disobedient. Chapter 27 concludes the book with certain
laws regarding dedicatory vows.
There has been some discussion among commentators on whether a logical

progression of instruction is present in the Holiness Code. For our present purpose we
will assume that it does. One thing, however, is evident: the second half of the book
contains a collection of similar kinds of legislation, and these are in contrast with the
sacrificial legislation found in the first half.
Two more features bind these collections of laws together in the second half of
Leviticus: (1) the use of the same type of introductory formulae for their respective
sections, and (2) the theological impetus for their observance that appears in the
recurrent statements, "You shall be
139
holy; for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev 19:2). Hence, the identification of this
reasonably well-organized collection of laws as the Holiness Code.
Although some authorities continue to view Leviticus as the result of an evolution
through successive stages"—a curious throwback to a past generation of scholarship—
the evidence of its succinct organization, integrated literary and thematic structure gives
support for its unity and single authorship.
Literary Structure of Leviticus (Chiasmus)

The present writer believes that the evidence makes it possible to go a step beyond
the present organized outlines of Leviticus to be found in the commentaries. By using
the content-units already identified by scholars in the past, we now are able to fit these
sections into a literary configuration that is architectured even more precisely and
aesthetically than has been appreciated previously.
This kind of literary form is called a chiasmus, a device that unifies a composition
(in part or whole) by arranging its corresponding parts in an inverted relationship to
each other. The present writer's suggestion is that the book of Leviticus (as a literary
piece) can be fitted into one grand chiasm, spanning the entire book.
The purpose for seeking the evidence that such a device actually was used by the
Bible writer is theological. The theological connection is that the form of a writing
complements its function. The medium definitely assists in conveying a message and
can contribute to its understanding.
The idea that chiasms may be found in the book of Leviticus is not new. A number
of examples have been isolated. Wenham notes four in his commentary on Leviticus (in
chapters 8, 15, 20, 24). His analysis of Leviticus 24:16-22 may be cited as
typical.4
3 M. Noth, Leviticus, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia, 1977), p. 12.

4 Wenham, p. 312.
140
A resident alien and native Israelite (vs. 16)
B take a man's life (vs. 17)
C take an animal's life (vs. 18)

D whatever he did, must be done to him (vs. 19)
D' whatever . , . must be done to him (vs. 20)
C' kill an animal (vs. 21a)
B' kill a man (vs. 2lb)
A' resident alien and native Israelite (vs. 22)
The use of the chiasmus as a literary device is common in the OT. It appears to
have been employed frequently to bring out the unity of a double-sided event. The large
chiasmus suggested for Leviticus would likewise emphasize the unity of the entire
book.
Procedures for Determining the Chiasmus
There are several different points from which one may proceed to determine a
chiastic structure: (1) from the opposite ends of a given passage, (2) from its middle, or
(3) from potentially balancing elements of a similar nature that may be distributed along
the parallel limbs of a chiasm.
In the ease of Leviticus we have a ready-made starting point from which to work,
namely, the central legislative piece dealing with the Day of Atonement (chap. 16).
Since this narrative ends the first major thematic section of the book (and thus
introduces the second), it can be used as the fulcrum from which to work to the opposite
ends of the chiasm. The location of the Day of Atonement legislation is thereby
significant both structurally and theologically.
The two halves of the book that extend in both directions from this central point
(Lev 16) consist of cultic legislation in the first instance (chaps. 1-15) and moral and
ethical legislation in the second (chaps. IT-27). Already these elements alone can be
seen to balance each other to some extent as the two limbs of the chiasmus, but now
they must be examined for further correspondences. We will begin by examining the
central block of material located in each of the proposed limbs of our chiasmus.
1. B’ Priestly legislation (chaps. 21-22). When the two halves of Leviticus (1-15; 17-
27) are examined individually, it becomes evident that neither is uniform in content. In
particular the eultic legislation of the
141
first half (chaps. 1-15) is broken up by the historical narrative depicting the priesthood
and the installation of Aaron and his sons in that office (chaps. 8-10). An examination
of the Holiness Code indicates that there is also a specific section within the second half
of the book that deals with the priesthood, namely, chapters 21-22. This material is
subdivided into three parts.
The first part (Lev 21:1--22:9) touches on the personal, social, and physical
requirements a priest had to satisfy in order to be acceptable for the office. He had to
avoid things that could defile him. He had to be circumspect in his marital life, and he
had to be physically sound.
The purity that the functioning priesthood was to maintain is underscored in this
passage by the terms used to designate impurity. For example, in these 33 verses the
Hebrew word for "defile(ment)" occurs five times; the word for "profane" appears four
times; and the word for "unclean (ness)" is attested three times. This terminology
sounds very much like that found in Leviticus 11-15. However, the aspects of
uncleanness identified there for the Israelite worshiper has been adapted now to meet
the eases of the priests.
The second part (Lev 22:10-16), on the other hand, has more connections with what
is found in Leviticus 5-7. For example, there is the ease of tampering with the sacred
gifts. This sounds a note similar to that given in the first of the three cases cared for by
the guilt offering in the first half of the book (Lev 5:15-16). Even the restoration of 20
percent more than what was defrauded is common to the two passages (ef. 5:16 and
22:14).
The final section (Lev 22:17-33) has to do with the qualifications of animals
acceptable for sacrificial offerings. Here is another set of instructions to regulate the
priestly conduct of the sacrificial system. This is much like Leviticus 6-7 where the
sacrifices are reviewed in order to describe in more detail how the priests should handle
them. .
So when we look for a passage from the second half of the book that would be parallel
content-wise with Leviticus 8-10 (priestly history), we encounter Leviticus 21-22
(priestly legislation). The first of these two chapters (21) deals with how the priest
should avoid becoming unclean, and
142
thus, is like those provisions that are applied to the Israelite worshiper in Leviticus 11-
15. The second (chap. 22) provides further instructions for the priestly management of
the sacrificial system and has similarity to the instructions found in Leviticus 5-7.
Leviticus 8-10 preserves the historical narrative describing the installation of the
first priests. Since the installation occurred only once, it is not repeated in the second
half of the book. What the author has done in terms of literary structure, however, has
been to locate in a parallel position in the last half of the book a block of legislative
material that dealt with the priests who had been installed and the conditions they
should meet in order to be consecrated.
It is of interest to note that not only does the priestly legislation in the second half
(Lev 21-22) have a parallel relationship to the priestly history in the first half (Lev 8-
10), but also there is an inverse relationship of this same block of material to chapters 1-
7 and 11-15. The issue of priestly uncleanness is dealt with first (Lev 21), because
uncleanness was the last topic discussed in the first half of the book (Lev 11-15). The
priestly supervision of sacrifices is discussed last (Lev 22), because matters of sacrifice
had been dealt with first in the earlier half of the book (Lev 1-7). These relationships are
chiastically related to each other as A:B: :B:A.
2. A' Cultic legislation (chaps. 23-25). We now turn our attention to the body of
legislation found in Leviticus 23-25 which we may identify as cultic in character. Here
we find laws for the observance of the festivals (Lev 23), for the priests' ministry in
connection with the sacred furnishings within the first apartment of the tabernacle (Lev
24:1-9), and for the observation of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years (Lev 25). In essence,
Leviticus 23-25 contains two subsections of eultic legislation. One section deals with
the Sabbath and festivals conducted throughout the year (Sabbath? spring and fall
festivals). The other dealt with periodic festivals that came every seventh and fiftieth
year (Sabbatical Year; Jubilee Year).
These two kinds of festival legislation (Lev 23, 25) are related in that the second is
modeled to some degree after the first. For example, the weekly Sabbath (Lev 23:1-3) is
expanded into the Sabbatical Year (Lev
143
25:1-7). Likewise, the Feast of Weeks—Pentecost (Lev 23:15-21)—is expanded into
the Jubilee Year (Lev 25:8-55). Similar ideas are repeated again, but they are given
different application.
This is also the kind of relationship existing between Leviticus 1-5 and Leviticus 6-
7 in the first half of the book. For example, five main sacrifices are given twice. But the
first time (chaps. 1-5) they are surveyed from the viewpoint of the person offering the
sacrifice; the second time (chaps. 6-7) they are looked at from the viewpoint of the
priest officiating at the sacrifice. Both groups of material are cultic inasmuch as they
deal with the sacrificial system.
In like manner, both groups of material found at the end of the book (chaps. 23-25)
are cultic in character, although the aspects of the cult that they deal with are quite
different. The extensive list of sacrifices offered at the festivals (see Numbers 28-29)
clearly illustrates the close connections between the sacrifices of Leviticus 1-7 and the
festivals of Leviticus 23-25.
Between these two chapters dealing with the two kinds of festivals is Leviticus 24.
Verses 1-9 contain some legislation dealing with the tabernacle; verses 10-23 record a
historical narrative. No literary unit is found between Leviticus 1-5 and 6-7 that
corresponds to these materials. However, some links or relationships may be detected if
the material is examined more closely.
Leviticus 24:1-9 provides instructions for the priestly care of the golden lampstand
with its seven lamps and the table with its bread, both located in the holy place. To
service these objects, it was necessary for the priest to enter the tabernacle on a regular
basis. He also had to enter the tabernacle in connection with certain sacrifices and to
sprinkle the blood before the inner veil and to impress some of it upon the horns of the
altar of incense (Lev 4:5-7, 17-18).
There were three articles of furniture in the holy place. The legislation of Leviticus 4
refers to the ministry of the priest in connection with the altar of incense, while
Leviticus 24 refers to his ministry in connection with the lampstand and the table. Thus,
the two passages in either half of
144
the book complement each other and fill out the picture. Although there is no directly
corresponding structural unit in Leviticus 1-7 to balance Leviticus 24, a thematic
correspondence is present in that both sections refer to the same location for ministry,
the holy place with its three articles of furniture.
Another aspect of the relationship between Leviticus 1-7 and Leviticus 23-25 is the
numerical progression they demonstrate. For example, in the sacrifices of Leviticus 1-7
five are listed in the first subsection (chaps. 1-5). Two more are added in the second
subsection (chaps. 6-7): the offering by the high priest on the anniversary of his
inauguration (Lev 6:20-23) and the praise offering (Lev 7:12-21).
In the Leviticus 23-25 passage seven festivals are mentioned in the first subsection
(Lev 23). These are not repeated in the second subsection (Lev 25); but two more
elements are added: the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year. Thus, the sacrifices start
with five and add two more to make seven. On the other hand, the festivals start with
seven and add two more. But the festivals were not repeated when those two were
added, so there is, in a sense, a decrease, not an increase. This results in a crescendo:
:decrescendo numerical pattern between these two blocks of material.
In Leviticus 24:10-23 the author briefly diverges from cultic concerns to recount an
event that occurred in Israel's migration involving a ease of blasphemy. A man of part
Israelite descent was found guilty of cursing God and was stoned for his crime. The
narrative appears to disrupt the cultic legislation recorded in Leviticus 23-25. In one
sense this is true, but the event also becomes the occasion for the giving of further
legislation,
Be that as it may, in terms of literary structure it is more important to notice the

nature of this material It is primarily a recital of a historical episode. Only secondarily
does it relate to the giving of laws on that occasion. Although Leviticus is cast in a
historical frame (as commentators have emphasized),5 the actual recital of historical
events is rare. It
5 Ibid., p. 6; Noth, p. 9.
145
has been pointed out that there are only two historical narratives recorded in the entire
6
book (Lev 8-10; 24:10-23) What should be emphasized here about these two
narratives is that they occur in different halves of the book and thereby balance each
other. They do not correspond directly in terms of their location within the book's
chiastic structure, but they do balance each other in making up the content of each half
of Leviticus with one historical narrative.
3, C' Personal moral laws (chaps. 17-20). The final elements of the book that
require comparison are the sections in Leviticus 11-15 (first half of the book) and
Leviticus 17-20 (second half). Whereas chapters 11-15 deal with personal laws of
uncleanness, chapters 17-20 touch on personal moral laws.
Both blocks of material start with legislation on food. Leviticus 11 deals with
different aspects of animals, fish, birds, etc., that make them unclean. After leading into
this subject by means of some concluding remarks on sacrificial animals, Leviticus 17
adds the prohibition that the blood of no animal should be eaten. The passage from
Leviticus 17:15-17 about contact with dead animals is almost a direct quote from
Leviticus 11:39-40. Also the penalty and the instruction for rectification are the same in
both cases.
The uncleanness section from the first half of the book continues then with laws
about childbirth (Lev 12). The moral laws in the second half of the book continue with
instruction on the related subject of marriage (Lev 18).
Leviticus 13-14:32 takes up the diagnosis and treatment (ritual) of 21 different skin
diseases of man and three more for garments, giving a total of two dozen miscellaneous
cases. Leviticus 19 takes up a series of two dozen different and miscellaneous laws
drawn from the Ten Command-
ments.7
6 Noth, p. 10.
7 Virtually all the Ten Commandments are represented here by way of extended applications, but they do
not necessarily occur in the order given in Exodus 20. My own personal division of this chapter to make
up a total
146
Another balancing of materials may be seen in Leviticus 15 and 20. Leviticus 15 is

taken up with uncleanness caused by discharges, mostly menstrual or venereal.
Likewise the bulk of legislation in Leviticus 20 (vss. 10-21) is taken up with sexual sins.
The subject of menstruation is common to these two chapters. Leviticus 15 deals with
the uncleanness of menstruation (vss. 19-30) while Leviticus 20 applies that situation to
sexual intercourse (vs. 18).
Prior to and following these sexual laws in Leviticus 20 some general injunctions to
observe the laws of the Lord appear (vss. 7-9, 22-26). The latter of these two passages
concludes with a strong exhortation to make a distinction between the clean and the
unclean, precisely the situation dealt with in Leviticus 11-15. Leviticus 14 contains a
section about the unclean house (vss. 33-57), while the first part of Leviticus 20 deals
with how the Israelites could make God's house unclean by their idolatry (Lev 20:3).
There appears, therefore, to be a reasonably direct correspondence between the

subjects of these two sections even though they treat different aspects of similar
subjects. The two bodies of legislation may be outlined as follows:
The pattern in this grouping is not chiastic within the sections themselves. Instead,
they follow each other like synonymous parallelism in the
of 24 principal laws comes in verses 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 9, II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26a, 26b,
27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35.
147
pattern of A:B:C:D:E: A':B':C':D':E'. However, these two blocks of material are located
in chiastic positions, inasmuch as they occur on each side of the Day of Atonement
legislation (Lev 16), the center of the book of Leviticus.
Blessings and Curses; Dedicatory Vows (Chapters 26-27)
The two final sections of Leviticus should be mentioned before we bring the
information together in chart form.
The first of these, the blessings and curses, are found in Leviticus 26. The material
stands apart from the laws of Leviticus 17-25 just as the blessings and curses of the
covenant comprise a separate section of Near Eastern covenant formulary.8 They serve
here as a fitting summary to all that has gone on before in the book.
These blessings and curses were not only for those who observed, or did not
observe, the laws of the preceding eight chapters. They were also for those who
participated, or did not participate, in the offering of sacrifices described in the first half
of Leviticus. This is a very covenant-like arrangement in which the preceding two
halves of the book, now viewed as a whole (chaps. 1-25), stand in the same position as
the stipulations of a covenant. The blessings and curses serve as a fitting conclusion to
the entire body of legislation. Consequently they appropriately stand outside the ehiastic
literary structure of the book, beyond the second limb of the chiasm.
Something similar can be said about chapter 27, a concluding statement dealing
with dedicatory vows. This is not just a random and idle appendix; it stands in this
position for a specific purpose. Just as one would enter into covenant with Yahweh by
taking a vow to be a faithful and loyal vassal to Him (cf. Exod 24:3-8), so this section
on vows in general stands as
8 The five main sections of the covenant were: (1) preamble, (2) prologue, (3) stipulations, (4)
witnesses, and (5) blessings and curses. For this outline see especially George E. Mendenhall, Law and
Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, 1955); Id., "Covenant," IDB (Nashville, 1962).
148
a natural conclusion to the whole covenant relationship posited by the book of
Leviticus. Since the response to the offered covenant relationship would be made in the
form of a vow, it is fitting for this collection of dedicatory vows to appear at this point
in the composition of Leviticus. Like the preceding chapter this body of instruction on
vows stands outside the chiastic structure of the book.
The relationship of the various parts of Leviticus may be summarized now in chart form
to indicate the book's chiastic structure. Note that chapter 16 (the Day of Atonement
legislation) has been placed in the center at the top of the chart to denote its central
position in the book. The left and right columns schematize the two limbs of the chiasm.
The left column should be read from bottom to top (chaps. 1-15), but the right column
should be read from top to bottom (chaps. 17-25). Note the six large groupings that are
parallel to each other (three groupings in each column) and the inverted order of the
smaller subsections (a, b, c, etc.) with their counterparts.
Some Theological Insights
Justification/Sanctification
Our first theological observation has to do with the nature of the materials found in the
two halves of Leviticus. In broad terms it may be
150
said that the first half of the book covers the sacrificial system; the second outlines the
way the people are to live. 0. T. Allis has observed that Leviticus may be viewed as the
most legalistic book in the OT inasmuch as it seems to govern by precept or principle
the whole of life. Yet no OT book more clearly enunciates the redemption which is in
Christ.9
The sacrificial system of the first half of Leviticus brings atoning sacrifices into
view. In the NT the atoning death of Christ made certain and sure the truth of
justification by faith. The sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus foreshadowed His vicarious
death. Thus we may infer that this is the section of the book that deals with the subject
of justification as it was mediated through the OT system. We have noted this point on
the chart by placing the term "Justification" over the first limb of the chiasm.
In both the OT and NT God's people are called to holy living. As we have
mentioned earlier, this particular emphasis has been given in the Holiness Code in the
second half of Leviticus. The Hebrew and Greek words used to describe holy living
may be summarized under the English term "sanctification." Consequently we have
labeled the second limb of our chiasm with this word.
With justification given extensive treatment in the first half and sane tifi cation
given similar treatment in the second half, we see the book of Leviticus forming a
harmonious whole in prescribing the total spiritual life for God's people in ancient time.
Although some of the individual stipulations have been revised for this present era, the
basic design for spiritual experience offered to the people of God in Leviticus is still
valid in terms of its broad outlines. In a sense it is remarkable that a book that is 3,500
years old could be so up to date !
Day of Atonement: Structural and Thematic Center of Leviticus
Chiastic structures such as we have observed in the literary arrangement of

Leviticus were used for a number of reasons in OT writings. One
9 O.T. Allis, "Leviticus," New Bible Commentary, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, 1954), p. 135.
151
chief reason was that it enabled the writer to emphasize the element he positioned at the
juncture or fulcrum of the chiasm.
In Leviticus that fulcrum is the legislative instructions dealing with the Day of
Atonement. This is one way of saying by literary form that the subject of the Day of
Atonement lies at the heart of the book of Leviticus. Consequently its importance as the
thematic and structural center of the message of Leviticus should be stressed.
Earlier in our chapter it was stated that the Day of Atonement narrative appeared to
be the culminating piece in the sacrificial legislation. Our later observations on the
literary structure of the book now tend to confirm that opinion. Leviticus 16 is the
thematic culmination and climax of the sacrificial system of the book. It is also the
center and climax of its literary structure. These two factors fit together and lend a
mutual emphasis to each other.
Literary Structure and Transfer of Sin to the Sanctuary

Recent studies have affirmed as a biblical concept that the sins of repentant
Israelites (guilt and accountability) were transferred to the sanctuary when they offered
the required sin offerings in faith.10 It would appear that such a transfer of
accountability would contaminate the sanctuary. However, it has been observed that
what might be termed "rightful" or "legal" contamination of the sanctuary is never
explicitly stated to bring defilement to it.
While there are no explicit statements to this effect, there are three ways by which it
may be inferred from our data in Leviticus that such was indeed the understanding of
the Israelite community.
1. Leviticus 16:16 states that on the Day of Atonement the high priest "shall make
atonement for the holy place [second apartment],
10 See Gerhard F. Hasel, "Studies in Biblical Atonement I: Continual Sacrifice, Defilement//Cleansing
and Sanctuary," The Sanctuary and the Atonement, eds. A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R. Lesher
(Washington, DC, 1981); Angel M. Rodriguez, "Sacrificial Substitution and the Old Testament
Sacrifices," The Sanctuary and the Atonement. See also chapter 6 in this volume by the same author,
"Transfer of Sin in Leviticus."
152
because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, and because of their transgressions,
all their sins; and so shall he do for the tent of meeting [holy place], which abides with
them in the midst of their uncleannesses." The results from this cleansing of the
sanctuary, including the altar of burnt offering (vs. 20), was a cleansed, people—"for on
this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be
clean before the Lord" (vs. 30).
If cleansing the sanctuary resulted in a cleansed people, it is evident that their

confessed sins (pardoned through the daily private or public sin offering sacrifices) had
been previously transferred to the sanctuary. Such an understanding" would have
recognized a legal contamination of the sanctuary as its ritual processes were carried
out.
2. Another approach is to recognize that Eastern thought patterns and reasoning are
not always the same as Western ways of thinking. Therefore recognition must be taken
of the fact that we are dealing with a ritual system of sacrifice in a Near Eastern setting.
What may be clear to Eastern thinking is not always readily apparent to the Western
mind-set.
In the third essay Dr. Alberto Treiyer gives consideration to the paradox of the
Hebrew sacrifice and the principle of substitutional interchange. In the Hebrew mind
sacrificial blood had simultaneously both a defiling/ / cleansing function. Thus while the
sacrificial blood cleansed the repentant sinner, it simultaneously contaminated the
sacred precincts with his confessed sins which in a sense the sanctuary assumed.
3. A third approach relates to the literary and thematic structure of Leviticus which
we have briefly surveyed.
It is stated in Leviticus 16:16 that the Day of Atonement ritual was intended to
cleanse the sanctuary "because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel," and
"because of their transgressions." Transgression and uncleanness are the two major
areas treated in the first fifteen chapters of Leviticus, Transgressions are dealt with in
Leviticus 1-7, and uncleannesses are treated in Leviticus 11-15.
The position of the Day of Atonement ritual as the capstone to these sections
dealing with sacrifices for these concerns indicates a close rela-
153
tionship with them. This close relationship implies that the Day of Atonement served to
cleanse the sanctuary of those transgressions and unclean-nesses that had been pardoned
and transferred to it throughout the year by means of the rituals prescribed in Leviticus
1-15. Thus the Day of Atonement function clearly implies a "legal" contamination of
the sanctuary by the sacrificial system outlined in the first half of Leviticus.
Daily and Yearly (Day of Atonement) Sin Offerings Compared (Lev 4, 16)
Since both sins and uncleannesses were treated in the daily service by individual or
private sin offerings, it is only logical to consider the "final" sin offering of the cultic
year (Day of Atonement) as culminating and encompassing these periodic and repetitive
actions. The location of the Day of Atonement legislation in Leviticus emphasizes this
final function.
In this connection we wish now to compare the Day of Atonement sin offering—the
Lord's goat (Lev, 16:8, 15)—with the first two classes of sin offerings in Lev 4—priest,
whole congregation (Lev 4:1-21). One possible reason why the closeness of this
relationship has not been perceived more readily in previous studies is that the
sacrificial animals used for the congregation were different. The animal chosen for
Yahweh to cleanse the sanctuary was a goat (Lev 16:8); that employed in the parallel
position for the whole congregation was a bullock (Lev 4:14-15). The purpose was the
same, however, in both instances—to make atonement for the whole congregation (Lev
4:13, 20; cf. Lev 16:17).
A bullock was used for the high priest, representing thus the entire priesthood on
the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:6, 33). Likewise a bullock was used for the priests in the
regular sin offerings (Lev 4:3). Furthermore, bullocks sacrificed as regular sin offerings
and bullocks and goats sacrificed as special sin offerings on the Day of Atonement were
all designated by the same term—sin offerings. Day of Atonement offerings were not
called "atonement" offerings! The fact that both sets of sacrifices were named sin
offerings indicates their similarity.
The identification of these two sets of sacrificial animals in Leviticus 4 and 16 can
be drawn even more sharply by observing the similarity in the
154
priest's manipulation of the blood. For example, the blood of regular sin offerings (for a
priest or the whole congregation) was taken into the sanctuary. Likewise the blood from
the bullock and goat sacrificed on the Day of Atonement was taken inside the sanctuary.
We may note four other correspondences by reviewing the two rituals:
1. Regular sin offering. The priest did four principal things with the blood drawn
from bullocks sacrificed as sin offerings for a priest or the whole congregation (Lev 4:5-
12, 17-20).
A. He took some of the blood into the holy place of the sanctuary and sprinkled it
seven times "before the Lord" in front of the veil that marked off the most holy place.
B. He put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of incense in the holy place.
C. He poured out the remainder of the blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering
in the courtyard of the sanctuary.
D. He had the carcass of the animal and its hide removed and burned outside the
camp. None of the flesh was eaten by the priest.
2. Day of Atonement sin offering. A number of similarities (and a few significant

differences) can be seen in the way the blood of the bullock selected for the priest and
his order and the blood of the Lord's goat was manipulated on the Day of Atonement
(Lev 16:11-19, 27-28).
A. The high priest took the blood of the bullock and then the blood of the goat into
the most holy place. Each was sprinkled upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat
seven times.
B. The high priest was to do the same for "the tent of meeting" (the holy place).
This part of the ritual is not spelled out, but the context implies that the procedure was
similar to what was done in the most holy place and in the court. Therefore, we may
assume that he applied some of the blood of the bullock and goat to the horns of the
altar of incense and sprinkled it seven times (cf. Exod 30:10).
C. The high priest then placed some of the blood from each of these sacrificial
animals upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering and sprinkled it likewise seven
times.
155
D. The carcasses of these two sacrifices together with their hides were removed
without the camp and burned. None of the flesh of either animal was eaten by the high
priest.
3. Further comparisons. From these descriptions further comparisons can be

drawn. At the outset it should be noted that both sets of rites took place in a reverse
direction. As his first step, the priest takes the blood into the sanctuary to the farthest
point he will go to perform the rites: to the interior veil for the regular sin offering; into
the most-holy place for the Day of Atonement sin offerings. Then he begins to treat
each successive area as he comes out from the innermost point. On the Day of
Atonement the process represents a progressive cleansing of the sanctuary from the
inside out as he works backwards with the sacrificial blood (second apartment, first
apartment, court).
While the precise location for the ministration of the respective first phases differs
(on each side of the inner veil), they are similar in nature. In both cases it may be said
that the blood was sprinkled before the mercy seat seven times. Sprinkling the blood in
front of the veil was equivalent to sprinkling it before the mercy seat. (It must be
remembered that the entire sanctuary was the dwelling place of God. The veil was not
an end in itself; it appears only to have provided protective covering for the priests
when ministering in the first apartment.) There is no evidence that the high priest
sprinkled blood before the veil on the Day of Atonement. The rite in the most holy place
would have taken the place of this first phase of the regular sin offering. Because of this
advancement in location, the blood of the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement was
brought one step closer to the Lord, that is, to His law which had been broken.
According to the way the prepositions are used in Leviticus 16:14-15 the blood was
sprinkled "over" ('al) the face of the mercy seat. The mercy seat formed the cover for
the ark and was therefore located over the "testimony"--the tables of the law (Exod
25:21). The sense appears to be that in sprinkling the blood over the mercy seat, the
priest was, in effect, sprinkling the blood upon the tables of the law. Had the mercy seat
not been there, the blood would have been sprinkled directly upon the law.
156
Thus the atonement was directed toward and was ultimately for the broken law.
This was the most direct approach and the closest that the blood could be brought into
relationship with the law to make expiation for its violation. Although the Lord was
veiled in the cloud over the mercy seat (Lev 16:2), the emphasis in the blood rite was
not on making an atonement in His presence but on applying the atoning blood to the
law—the expressed will of God—which the Israelites had violated by their transgres-
sions. The blood was applied directly to that broken law on the Day of Atonement, and
this day only.
Scarcity of detail prevents our making much of a comparison between the ministries
of the second phase of the regular sin offering and the second phase of the Day of
Atonement sin offerings. Since in the latter ease the high priest was supposed to do the
same thine with the blood in the holy place that he had done in the most holy, it may be
presumed that the rite involved another sprinkling of the blood seven times. This would
have been done over the altar of incense (cf. Exod 30:10). By comparison the horns of
the same altar of incense were impressed with blood in the rites of the regular sin
offering (Lev 4:7). Thus there was an identity of activity in the holy place between the
regular sin offering and those offered on the Day of Atonement.
The third phase of these two sets of sin-offering rites differed considerably. In the
regular sin offering leftover sacrificial blood was brought from the holy place and
poured out at the base of the altar of burnt offering. That is to say, it was disposed of in
a sacred place after some had been used for its intended purpose in the holy place of the
sanctuary.
In contrast, the blood of the Pay of Atonement sin offerings was first applied to the
horns of that altar and then was sprinkled over it seven times. In other words there was a
ministry of the blood at this altar rather than a mere disposal at its base. Thus the Day of
Atonement sin offering blood rite not only cleansed the altar of burnt offering (Lev
16:19), but also prepared it for the ministration of another year's round of sacrifices.
The basic differences between these two sets of sin offerings is that the blood of the
regular sin offering (for priest/entire congregation) was
157
used exclusively in the holy place; the Day of Atonement sacrifice was ministered in
both apartments and the outer altar. Also, the immediate objective differed. In the
regular sin offering the priest or congregation is atoned for and cleansed directly. On the
Day of Atonement the sanctuary is atoned for and cleansed; the people are cleansed
indirectly.
Although the fourth phase in either set of blood rites is not particularly important, it
should be noted that the removal of the carcasses and hides to a place outside the camp
and their subsequent disposal by burning was similar.
In this review of these two sin offering rites several similarities have been
identified. Each rite went through a four-phase procedure in essentially the same
locations in the sanctuary. Both sets of sacrifices are designated sin offerings, and both
are said to have made atonement. Some of the details in the manner the blood is
administered are also similar.
These similarities stand in sharp contrast to the manner in which the other offerings
in the sacrificial system were handled. Blood from the other kinds of sacrifices was not
taken into the sanctuary and their particular elements were not handled in the same
detailed manner as were the sin offerings.
The biblical writer's purpose in detailing these similarities seems to be that he

wanted to underscore the correspondences between the regular sin offering for the priest
and the whole congregation (Lev 4) and the sin offering for the priesthood and that
presented by the whole congregation on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16). The order is
even the same. The priest comes first in Leviticus 4, just as the high priest offered his
bullock first on the Day of Atonement. The offering for the whole congregation came
second in Leviticus 4, just as the goat presented by the whole congregation for the
cleansing of the sanctuary came second in order on the Day of Atonement. The Day of
Atonement sin offerings thus appear to be seen as an extension, identified with but
advanced beyond the sin offerings presented during the year.
There is a sense, therefore, in which the sin offerings of the Day of Atonement
came to stand for, to substitute for, to summarize all that had
158
been accomplished thus far up to the time of that festival by the regular sin offerings—
and even the other sacrifices too. Just as the offerings on the Day of Atonement were
corporate (for all the truly penitent in the camp of Israel), so they were also corporate in
standing for all the sin offerings that had gone before that time throughout the year.
Their capstone position in the sacrificial limb of the literary chiasm of the book also
suggests this.
The corporate nature of these sin offerings should be compared and emphasized.
Four categories of sin offerings (not two) are listed in Leviticus 4. The first two
involved the priest and the entire congregation; the latter two involved the individual
(rulers/common persons). The manner in which the rites for the last two classes were
conducted was also different. Thus the sin offering for the priest or for the whole
congregation is emphasized by the parallels with the Day of Atonement blood rites. The
Day of Atonement was not the time for dealing with individual sin (although, on the
practical side, forgiveness was available through the morning and evening sacrifice). In
a sense that day of opportunity had come and gone during the cultic year. Now, on the
Day of Atonement, it was time to deal with all the sins of the children of Israel as a
corporate activity.
For good reason then, the sin offering (the Lord's goat) sacrificed on the Day of
Atonement served for the entire congregation inasmuch as it appears to have been
modeled after the regular sin offering made in behalf of the whole congregation (Lev 4).
It was a corporate sacrifice for the sanctuary and the people. The same is also true of the
sin offering made by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. It too was a corporate
sacrifice made in behalf of the entire priesthood (Lev 16:6, II, 33).
"Sin Offerings"—A Suggested Translation

The application of the blood of the Lord's goat on and before the mercy seat of the
ark was obviously the high point of the services on the Day of Atonement. Leviticus
16:16 explains the significance of that act by the high priest. Here is my own literal
translation of the Hebrew text:
"Thus [the high priest] shall make atonement for the sanctuary from
159
the uncleannesses of the Israelites and from their transgressions for all their sin
offerings."
This rendering differs from others in that it translates the last word in this passage
(hattaot) as "sin offerings" rather than "sins." Since the translation of this Hebrew word
becomes quite important in understanding what occurred on the Day of Atonement,
some attention should be given to its translation. What creates the problem here is the
fact that the term in its singular (hatta't) or plural (hattaot) forms may be translated
either as "sin(s)" or "sin offering(s)." That leaves the matter of determining the correct
translation to considerations of syntax and context.
One way the meaning of this word can be examined is through a direct lexical
approach. That is, we can see how it is used elsewhere in Leviticus 16. Thus, a simple
survey of the chapter indicates that it is used ten times in the singular to refer to a sin
offering (vss. 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 25, 27). In addition, the term occurs twice in the plural
form where it indisputedly refers to sins (vss. 30, 34). So it could be argued from the
weight of the majority of occurrences that the singular form in this passage denotes the
sin offering, but the plural denotes sins.
Another way of looking at the meaning of this word is through an indirect lexical
approach. That is, we could seek to determine its sense in this passage by determining
the meaning of the verbs and nouns and other parts of speech contextually connected
with it. The crucial verse for this kind of examination is Leviticus 16:16.
1. Related verb. This verse begins with the verb "to atone" (kipper), followed by
the preposition "for" (W) and the object of that atonement, "the sanctuary" (haqqodes
means most holy place in this context). Grammatically speaking, the sanctuary (most
holy place) is the direct object of the action, that is, the act of atoning (not the sins and
uncleannesses of Israel). The preposition "for" (W) is linked with this verb in a well-
known formulation. It occurs also in Leviticus 16:18 and some two dozen times in
Leviticus outside this chapter.
Another type of grammatical formulation in which the verb "to atone" (kipper) is
used is with the preposition "for" (baad). This occurs four times
160
in Leviticus 16 (vss. 6, 11, 17, 24). Examples of this construction occur outside
Leviticus in Exodus 32:30; Ezekiel 45:7; 2 Chronicles 30:18-19.
A third type of formulation in which the verb "to atone" (kipper) is found is when it
is followed by a direct object marker (et) that identifies its grammatical direct object
(for example, in Leviticus 16:20 the direct object marker is used in front of "holy
place," "tent of meeting," and "altar," indicating three direct objects of the verbal
action).
But none of these three kinds of construction occur in Leviticus 16:16 to link the
verb "to atone" (kipper) with hattaot ("sins/sin offerings") at the end of the verse.
Whatever else this kind of statement may represent, it certainly is not a straightforward
statement about atoning for sins. The linkage is more indirect.
2. Related nouns. From the verb in this passage we may move on to an

investigation of its nouns. According to our passage the most holy place was atoned
"from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel and from their transgressions" (literal
rendering).
These two main nouns (uncleanness/transgression) provide a fitting summary of

what has been discussed earlier in Leviticus 1-15. It will be remembered that
transgressions were treated in chapters 1-7 and unclean-nesses in chapters 11-15. Thus
to translate hatta'ot which follows as "all their sins" would be redundant. It would seem
that the word would thereby provide only another shade of meaning for the term
"transgressions."
Further on in the chapter a shift is made in terminology (vs. 21). In verse 16 we

have the sequence, uncleannesses—transgressions—sins/sin offerings. In verse 21 the
sequence reads, iniquities—transgressions— sins/sin offerings. When the high priest
lays his hands on the head of the live goat, he confesses over it "all the iniquities
(awonot) of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions (pesaim)." The term
"iniquities" replaces "uncleannesses," and the term for "transgressions" retains its
second position in the sequence. The same word, hattaot, follows both these nouns in
the sequence. If it is translated "sins," it becomes even more redundant in verse 21 than
in verse 16, unless it is designed to indicate "sin offerings."
161
The final statement of this nature occurs in the reference to the live goat bearing
away "iniquity"— awonot (vs. 22). None of the other terms are repeated. The term for
"iniquities" is taken over from the lead word in the priest's confession over the head of
the goat (vs. 21). The terminology and concept of "bearing iniquity" is well-known
elsewhere in the OT.11
Thus, if hatt5^6t means "sins" instead of "sin offerings" in these passages (vss. 16,
21), then it is quite redundant. If on the other hand it means "sin offerings," then it
carries much more significance and would be more than just another synonym for
wrong doing. This apparent redundancy suggests (but does not prove) that this term
may have been designed by the writer to serve a more contrasting purpose, namely, to
indicate "sin offerings."
3. Related prepositions. The most important line of evidence pointing out the
function and meaning of hottest in verse 16 is the way the prepositions are linked with it
and the other words in context. There are several passages that are pertinent to this
study. They are listed in order and given in translation and partial transliteration with
the suggested rendering of "sin offerings":
1. Lev 16:3 Aaron may enter the most holy place with a young bullock for (ie)a.
sin offering (hattat).
2. Lev 16:5 From the congregation of Israel he shall obtain two he-goats for (1°) a
sin offering (hatta't).
3. Lev 16:16 And he shall make atonement for (kipper al) the most holy place
from (min) the uneleannesses (tumeot) of the children of Israel and from (min)
their transgressions (pisehem) for (le) all (kol) their sin offerings (hatto'tam).
4. Lev 16:21 And he shall place his two hands over the head of the living goat and
he shall confess upon it all the iniquities (}et-kol-l(tw7jn6t) of the children of Israel,
and all of their transgressions (w6 et-kol-piêhem) for (le) all their sin offerings
(kol-hatto•ltam).
5. Lev 16:30 On this day he shall make atonement to cleanse you from (min) all
your sins (kol hattotekem).
6. Lev 16:34 To atone for the children of Israel from (min) all their sins (kol-
hattotam).
11 In Leviticus alone see, for example, 5:1, 17; 7:18; 10:17; 18:25-26.
162
In the first two statements (Nos. 1 and 2) we have examples where the preposition
Is is used with our word under discussion (hatta't). In both instances the term clearly
refers to "sin offering"," This should then be compared with the preposition (le) that is
used with the plural form of the same word at the end of verse 16 (No. 3) which we
have rendered, "for all their sin offerings." Another similar use of le can be cited in
verses 6 and 11. Aaron was instructed to sacrifice a bullock for a sin offering which was
"for him" (16 equals I® plus personal pronoun "him").
By way of contrast, the last two cases (Nos. 5 and 6) provide clear-cut instances
where the plural of hattat is used to indicate "sins." This is the only translation possible.
But in both eases the preposition used is min ("from"), not le. This usage should be
compared also with exhibit 3, In this passage (vs. 16) the first two indirect objects
("uncleanness" and "transgressions") are also preceded by the same preposition min in
contrast with Is which precedes the last word, hattaot, which we are discussing. Another
case of a similar use of min can be cited from Leviticus 16. By applying the blood of the
Lord's goat to the courtyard altar the priest was to cleanse and sanctify it "from" (min)
the uncleannesses of the children of Israel (vs. 19).
Thus, the usage of these two prepositions (le and min) is not random in Leviticus
16. On the contrary it is clear and distinct. le is used with its common meanings of "to,
for." And it is used with sin offerings. Min is used with its common meaning of "from"
and is used with "sins." This distinction gives a preliminary indication that our word
would be translated best as "sin offerings" in Leviticus 16:16. This working hypothesis
leads to a more detailed examination of the passage itself,
4. Related conjunction. In addition to the use of these two prepositions (I6 and
min) two other points may be made with regard to our word (haattaot) in Leviticus
16:16. One of these has to do with the waw-conjunction ("and") which links the two
nouns "uncleannesses and transgressions" ("from the uncleannesses of ... Israel and
from their transgressions"). Conjunctions serve to couple things together. If hattaot was
intended to be linked with these two words to make a triplet, another
163
conjunction would have been added "(uncleannesses" and "transgressions" and "sins").
But this is not the case as can be seen by a simple reading of the verse.
5. Related adjective. The adjective "all'' (kol) is another term situated in the context
of our main passage. It is used with hattaott, but not with the terms "uncleannesses" and
"transgressions" which precede it. The contrast here is between "the uncleannesses of
the children of Israel" and "their transgressions" on the one hand and "all their hattaot
on the other. If the meaning of the latter word is "sin offerings" rather than "sins," then
that meaning could encompass very well all of that which has been treated from the
former two categories through their sacrifices. In this case the term would not be simply
another category for evil.
Thus there are three main distinctions made between the way "uncleannesses" and
"transgressions" are treated grammatically and the way hattaot is treated in the same
verse (Lev 16:18). (l) "Uncleannesses/ transgressions" are preceded by the same
preposition (min), while hatta'ot is separated from them by a different preposition (le).
(2) "Uncleannesses/ transgressions" are joined together by a conjunction ("and"), while
hattaot is separated from them by the absence of a conjunction. (3) Hattaot is more
encompassing by virtue of the addition of the modifier "all," while both
"uncleannesses/transgressions" lack such a distinction. These distinctions separate
hatta'ot from the foregoing pair and place it in a separate category, more remote and
isolated in meaning.
In summary we may say there are two meanings lexically possible for hatta'ot in
this verse—"sins" or "sin offerings." "Sins" would be very close in meaning to
"transgressions" which precedes it in the verse. Only a shade of difference in meaning
would separate them. If on the other hand the three distinctions noted do indeed separate
this word from the preceding words both grammatically and in terms of its meaning,
then we should look with more favor upon its alternate lexical meaning, "sin offerings."
It is the writer's opinion that the translation of the word as "sin offerings" should be kept
open as a possible option.
A similar relationship is borne out by the syntax of Leviticus 16:21 (see
164
No. 4 in the list of six translations listed above). The three terms involved in this
passage are, "iniquities," "transgressions," and hatta'ot. Three distinctions may be noted
here as well.
(1) There is a distinction made in terms of prepositions. Since "iniquities" and

"transgressions" are the direct objects of the verb in this verse, they are not preceded by
a preposition. However, hatta'ot retains the preposition le which sets it off from the
other two terms. (2) "Iniquities" and "transgressions" are both preceded by the direct
object sign (et). But no direct object sign precedes hattaot. (3) "Iniquities" and
"transgressions" are joined together with a conjunction ("and")- But hattaot is not linked
with them by another conjunction to make a triplet.
Given these syntactical separations between the two former words and the one latter
word, we may expect again that the meaning of the latter should also be distinct in sense
from the former. It is the meaning of "sin offerings" that supplies a more direct
distinction.
Our conclusion from these considerations is that it is possible that our word could
be translated as "sin offerings" in Leviticus 16:16, 21 rather than "sins." If that meaning
for this word is established, the question naturally follows, What particular sense does
such a meaning bring to these passages?
It was noted in our discussion that an identification may be seen between the
regular sin offering and the sin offerings sacrificed on the Day of Atonement. The latter
were intended to be identified with the former by way of serving as a substitute, a
summary and corporate climax of treatment for the former. Given that kind of
understanding about the relationship between the daily and the yearly sin offerings,
interpreting hattaot in verses 16, 21 as "sin offerings" would make good sense.
The regular sin offerings—sacrificed throughout the year—atoned for the two main
negative aspects of Israelite life: sin and uncleanness. Both of these kinds of offenses
were atoned for by sin offerings. Our suggested translation of "sin offerings" for
Leviticus 16:16, 21 would refer back to the regular or daily sin offerings made during
the previous year. The blood of the annual sin offering (the Lord's goat) then came
along and took up their
164
No. 4 in the list of six translations listed above). The three terms involved in this
passage are, "iniquities," "transgressions," and hattaot. Three distinctions may be noted
here as well.
(1) There is a distinction made in terms of prepositions. Since "iniquities" and
"transgressions" are the direct objects of the verb in this verse, they are not preceded by
a preposition. However, hattaot retains the preposition le which sets it off from the
other two terms. (2) "Iniquities" and "transgressions" are both preceded by the direct
object sign (et). But no direct object sign precedes hattaoot. (3) "Iniquities" and
"transgressions" are joined together with a conjunction (''and"). But hattaot is not linked
with them by another conjunction to make a triplet.
Given these syntactical separations between the two former words and the one latter
word, we may expect again that the meaning of the latter should also be distinct in sense
from the former. It is the meaning of "sin offerings" that supplies a more direct
distinction.
Our conclusion from these considerations is that it is possible that our word could
be translated as "sin offerings" in Leviticus 16:l6, 21 rather than "sins." If that meaning
for this word is established, the question naturally follows. What particular sense does
such a meaning bring to these passages?
It was noted in our discussion that an identification may be seen between the
regular sin offering and the sin offerings sacrificed on the Day of Atonement. The latter
were intended to be identified with the former by way of serving as a substitute, a
summary and corporate climax of treatment for the former. Given that kind of
understanding about the relationship between the daily and the yearly sin offerings,
interpreting hattaot in verses 16, 21 as "sin offerings" would make good sense.
The regular sin offerings—sacrificed throughout the year—atoned for the two main
negative aspects of Israelite life: sin and uncleanness. Both of these kinds of offenses
were atoned for by sin offerings. Our suggested translation of "sin offerings" for
Leviticus 16:16, 21 would refer back to the regular or daily sin offerings made during
the previous year. The blood of the annual sin offering (the Lord's goat) then came
along and took up their
165
work and record, as it were, and carried it through to completion.
The identification of the regular sin offerings and what they served for with the
ultimate purpose of the final sin offering on the Day of Atonement are borne out
strongly by the potential translation of hattaot in its context: "Thus [the high priest]
shall make atonement for the sanctuary [most holy place] from the uncleannesses of the
Israelites and from their transgressions for [on account of/on behalf of all their sin
offerings" (vs. 16).
The word for "transgressions" in this verse conveniently summarizes everything

dealt with in Leviticus 1-7. The word for "uncleannesses" summarizes everything that is
dealt with in Leviticus 11-15. And the word for "sin offerings" likewise would
summarize all the offerings sacrificed for both of these major conditions dealt with in
the first half of Leviticus (chaps. 1-15) and now crowned by the all-inclusive sin
offering of the Lord's goat on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16).
Such a translation strongly indicates that the Day of Atonement sin offering ritual
functioned to cleanse the sanctuary from only the confessed sins of the penitent
Israelites. That is, it functioned to remove the sins that had been confessed and
transferred to it by means of the sin offerings that had been offered previously during
the year.
These are some of the relationships that come to view with the translation of
Leviticus 16:16 suggested here and its position as the capstone of the sin offering rituals
and center of the literary structure of the book.
Personal Forgiveness and the Day of Atonement in Perspective

Another important comparison should be made between the daily and yearly sin
offering rituals. It may be pointed up by asking, At what point in time did forgiveness
and acceptance come to a repentant Israelite participating in the sanctuary system?
This question is answered emphatically in Leviticus 4-5. When such a person

brought his sin offering to the sanctuary, confessing his sin, he was forgiven.
Repeatedly the statement is made in these passages to this effect: "the priest shall make
atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven" (see Leviticus 4i20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13,
18).
166
In contrast, no such statement about forgiveness is ever given in the Day of
Atonement legislation. Different forms of the verb for making atonement appear in
Leviticus 16 more than a dozen times (vss. 6, 10-11, 16-18, 20, 24, 27, 30, 33-34).
However, never once do these passages indicate that forgiveness resulted for the
congregation as a whole or for individuals.
The Day of Atonement had to do with forgiveness only in an indirect sense. It was a
special ritual for the cleansing of the sanctuary. The individual Israelite was forgiven
when he sacrificed his sin offering and confessed his sin. By the process of the blood
rites his sin and accountability were transferred from him to the sanctuary where it
remained until dealt with on a final basis on the Day of Atonement. The repentant
believer in the divine grace was thus forgiven when he had taken care of his part of the
process. The rest remained for God to accomplish in cooperation with the priests who
managed the sacrificial system according to His instruction.
It is evident, therefore, that the Day of Atonement ritual by its capstone position in
the sanctuary system (underscored by its literary center in Leviticus) was designed to
focus attention of a penitent Israel beyond the state of personal forgiveness and
acceptance to the final aspect of the divine plan to resolve the sin issue. That aspect, all
symbolism aside, involves the phases of final judgment which culminates the plan of
salvation and, banishing sin and its instigator, upholds God's honor and completes the
redemption of His people.
Conclusion
It has been demonstrated by various commentators who have written on Leviticus
that it is a well-organized book. This essay extends the analysis to suggest the idea that
Leviticus was structured purposely along the lines of a grand chiasm in which the
various elements of chapters 1-1r), composing the first limb of the chiasm, are balanced
with the elements of the second limb, chapters 17-25, in a reverse order. At the literary
and thematic center of the book lies the legislation dealing with the Day of
167
Atonement. Among other things such a literary arrangement argues for the unity of
Leviticus and single authorship.
The first half of Leviticus is taken up essentially with the sacrificial system. Since it
was the mediation of the blood that made atonement for sin and brought the sinner
forgiveness and acceptance with God, we may refer to its basic theological core as
oriented around the subject of justification.
The second half of Leviticus elaborates upon the commandments by which Israel
was to live. The motivation for the observation of God's will was encapsulated in the
Lord's oft repeated statement: "You shall be holy;
for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev 19:2). For this reason the second half of the book
is sometimes referred to as the Holiness Code. This call to holiness was a call to
sanctified living. In this manner the second half of Leviticus centers on the general topic
of sanctification.
The focus of this essay has been largely on the Day of Atonement blood rites which
come as the ritual capstone to the sin offerings discussed in a portion of the first limb of
the chiasm. The importance of the Day of Atonement is underscored by its central
position in the literary structure of Leviticus. Several significant comparisons can be
made between the yearly sin offering (the Lord's goat) and the regular sin offerings
sacrificed in behalf of the priests and the whole congregation during the year. This is
especially true if "sin offerings" is accepted as a valid translation for hattaot in the key
passages of Leviticus 16;16, 21.
If this translation is accepted, these verses would indicate more clearly than
otherwise that atonement was made on this special day to remove from the sanctuary the
uncleannesses and transgressions of the children of Israel transferred there through the
sin offerings previously offered during the year. The Day of Atonement thereby dealt in
a final manner with the two areas of behavior discussed in the first limb of the
chiassm— transgressions (Lev 1-7), uncleannesses (Lev 11-15), both being atoned for
by sin offerings.
Leviticus is a clear-cut ease in which form complements function. Placed at the

center of the book by careful and theological design, the Day
168
of Atonement completed the symbolic sacrificial ritual of the sanctuary and
foreshadowed the reality of God's completion of the plan of salvation by final judgment.
Serving also as the literary fulcrum of the hook, the Day of Atonement narrative
provides an appropriate transition to the second half of Leviticus which tells how
forgiven people should conduct their lives in responsible living before the Lord. Form
complements function in an aesthetically appealing and theologically significant way in
the message and the medium of the message in Leviticus.
CHAPTER VI
Transfer of Sin in Leviticus

Angel M. Rodriguez
Editorial synopsis. The position taken by the present author is that, in the Israelite
system of worship, sin and guilt were transferred from the repentant sinner to the
sanctuary through the sacrificial offerings, particularly the sin offerings.
There is general agreement among scholars that the concept of transfer is explicit in
the scapegoat ritual (Lev 16:21). However, it is questioned whether a similar transfer
took place in connection with sacrificial offerings.
In counter to this stance the author observes that the ritual of the laying on of hands
occurred at the offering of every sacrificial animal. The evidence summarized by an
analysis of three non-ritual incidents—the laying of hands on a condemned blasphemer
by witnesses (Lev 24:14), by Moses on Joshua (Num 27:18-23), by Israel on the Levites
(Num 8:10)— clearly indicates that the act signified transfer to the Hebrew mind. But
what was transferred through the sacrificial offerings?
As a first step in finding the correct answer, the writer reviews those passages
which explicitly state that the sanctuary was defiled by open neglect of the rituals for
purification, by idol worship (without and within the temple), and by deliberate
rebellion against the covenant relationship. The sanctuary was contaminated when such
unclean and sinful persons hypocritically sought to worship the Lord in His temple.
This kind of defilement of the sanctuary, however, was not removed through a cleansing
ritual, but rather through the destruction of those who had contaminated it in this
manner.
On the other hand it is evident that another class of sins and impurities committed
by God's people did reach the sanctuary and were removed from
170
the sacred precincts once a year by the Day of Atonement ritual. It is the thesis of this
chapter that these were their confessed sins and impurities which had been transferred
previously to the sanctuary by means of sacrificial offerings.
A strong proof for this position is the fact that the priests were required to eat a
portion of the flesh of the sin offerings (for sins with which they were not involved
personally). As a result the priests were said to "bear the iniquity of the congregation"
(Lev 10:17) This indicates that sins and guilt were transferred to the sacrificial animal
by the laying on of the hands of repentant sinners and were passed on, in turn, to the
priests by their eating of the flesh. Sin was transferred by the blood rites as well.
Those who deny such a transfer of sin ask how it is possible for the sacrificial
victim to be contaminated in this manner and yet be regarded as "most holy" (Lev 6:25,
29). The writer explains that the phenomenon of having an instrument of atonement
bearing sin and being holy at the same time is a characteristic of Hebrew worship. The
transference of sin did not in reality annul the holiness of the victim, the priest, or the
sanctuary. This is possible only in the context of divine atonement. The Day of
Atonement cleansing- of the sanctuary demonstrated that holiness and sin/impurity are
essentially incompatible.
Editor's Note: In the ritual type, the penitent's confessed sin and accountability were
transferred to the sanctuary through the sacrificial victim and the priest. It may be said
that for the time being the sanctuary assumed his guilt, and he was forgiven. On the Day
of Atonement the sanctuary was cleansed, and thus God (in the sanctuary) was cleared.
Figuratively, ultimate accountability was placed on the scapegoat which was led away
to the wilderness,
In reality, when a sinner is drawn in penitence by the Holy Spirit to accept Christ as
his Saviour and Lord, Christ assumes his sins and accountability, though He Himself is
sinless (cf. 1 SM 392:2; Heb 7:26). The repentant sinner is forgiven freely. The perfect
obedience of Christ is accounted to him, and he stands justified before God. His name is
enrolled in the book of life and pardon is entered into his records. In the final judgment,
the
171
antitypical day of atonement, the genuine believer who is in union with Christ will be
reaffirmed before Heaven (Rev 3:5) and ultimate accountability will be placed upon
Satan, the originator and instigator of sin.
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction
II, Sin/Impurity and the Sanctuary
III. Transfer of Sin/Impurity and the Expiatory Sacrifice
IV. Transfer and Contamination
V. Conclusion
Introduction
There is not a single scholar who would deny that the concept of the transfer of sin
is present in the book of Leviticus. They agree that it is explicit in at least one passage,
namely, Leviticus 16:21.1 Apart from this passage, however, there is great disagreement
on whether the idea of the transference of sin/impurity is present in the Israelite cultus.
A rather large number of scholars would deny it in the expiatory sacrifices.2
1 Many scholars also find the concept of transfer in Leviticus 14:6-7;
e.g., Nathaniel Micklein, "The Book of Leviticus," in IB 2 (1953), 69; Martin Noth, Leviticus: A
Commentary (Philadelphia, 1965), p. 107; J. R. Porter, "Leviticus," The Cambridge Bible Commentary
(Cambridge, 1976), p. 108; D. J. Davies, "An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus," ZAW 89 (1977):
397; Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, 1979), p. 209; Bernard J. Bamberger,
Leviticus: The Torah, A Modem Commentary 3 (New York, 1979): 131; G.A.F. Knight, "Leviticus,"
Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 77.
2 E.g., G. F. Moore, "Sacrifice," Encyclopedia Biblica, eds. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black, voL 4
(London, 1903), eoL 4226; J. C. Matthes, "Der Suhnegedanke bei Simdopfern," ZAW 2y(1903)t 97-119;
Dionys Schdtz, Schuld und Sundopfer im Alten Testament (Breslau, 1903), pp. 111-12;
Adalbert Metzinger, "Die Substitutionstheorie und das alttestamentliche Opfer mit besonderer
Berucksichtigung von Leviticus 17:11," Bib 21 (1940);
159-87, 247-72, 353-77; Luigi Moraldi, Espiazione sacrificale e riti espia-tori nell'ambiente biblico e
nell'Antico Testamento (Rome, 1956), pp. 258-59; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Religious Institutions
(New York, 1961), p. 419; Stanislas Lyonnet and Leopold Sabourin, Sin, Redemption and
172
Sin/Impurity and the Sanctuary
Some scholars suggest that the sins of Israel—any sin—affected the sanctuary. This
means that whenever an Israelite sinned. God's dwelling was immediately contaminated
and in need of purification. Sin, somehow, reached the sanctuary. Luigi Moraldi has
argued that there is such an intimate relation between the land, the sanctuary, and the
people that whenever an Israelite sinned, the three were contaminated.3 Thus the
atonement made for the temple and the altar also cleansed the people and the land.4
Moraldi does not explain the nature of the relation existing between the sanctuary,
the people, and the land. He does not define satisfactorily the process, or the how, of the
contamination of the sanctuary through the sin of the people.
Recently it has been suggested that impurity is conceived, within the Hebrew
oultus, as dynamic. It is supposed that it possesses an aerial quality which makes it
possible for it to reach the sanctuary and to contaminate it. Thus, it is the sanctuary that
is purified through the daily expiatory sacrifices. The sinner brought his offering
because it was his responsibility to cleanse the dwelling of the Lord.5
Support for this view, that every sin and impurity occurring in Israel automatically
defiled the sanctuary, has been sought in a number of passages which speak about the
sins of the Israelites contaminating the sanctuary" 6 We will spend some time analyzing
these passages, even though
Sacrifice (Rome, 1970), p. 169; R. J. Daly, The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice
(Philadelphia, 1978), p. 30; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the OT 1 (Philadelphia, 1961): 165-66.
3 Moraldi, pp. 234-36.
4 Ibid., p. 237.
5 Jacob Milgrom, "Israel's Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray, " RB 83 (1976): 392-93.
6 Milgrom uses two more arguments to support his case. The first one has to do with the blood
manipulation. According to him the blood of the sin offering is always applied to that which needs to be
cleansed; that is, the altar and the horns. It is never applied to a person. Therefore, he argues, it cleanses
not the individual but the sanctuary. We will discuss the
173
they are not all found in Leviticus. The issue is important to address.
Leviticus 15:31. This passage clearly states that the uncleanness (verb, tame) of the
people contaminates the sanctuary. Yet we should be aware of the fact that the
contamination of the sanctuary and the contamination of the individual are not
simultaneous. This verse is addressed to the priests. They have the responsibility of
keeping the people of Israel separated from their uncleanness. This they could do by
performing the cleansing rituals, mentioned in the previous verses, for the people.
If these rituals were not performed, the Israelite was not to approach the sanctuary;
otherwise he would contaminate the holy dwelling. The contamination of the sanctuary
mentioned in this verse is the result of a person coming to the sanctuary in a state of
impurity.7 It is important to
blood manipulation below. Milgrom's second argument is based on the usage of the verb kipper
("to make atonement"). This verb is understood to mean "to purge," When it takes a non-human object it
simply means "to purge (the kapporet, the altar, etc.)." But when the object of kipper is a person, it is
never expressed as a direct object but requires the prepositions W or bâd, both signifying "on behalf of."
(Ibid., p. 391). Milgrom takes this to mean that "the purgation rite of hatta't is not carried out on the
offerer but only on his behalf." (Ibid.)
For a useful discussion on the syntax of kipper we refer the reader to Baruch A. Levine, In the
Presence of the Lord (Leiden, 1974), pp. 63-67. It cannot be denied that when the object of kipper is non-
personal, it is the object that is purified. It should be noticed that it is not the expression per se that
determines the recipient of the benefit, but the contest. In every case where the kipper rite is performed
upon a non-human object the context makes it clear that it is the object that is cleansed. Now, in the cases
where kipper takes a preposition plus a personal object, we should let the context determine who is
receiving the cleansing effect. In those cases the context makes it clear that the one who needs
forgiveness and cleansing is the offerer, not the sanctuary; and it is he who is cleansed. This is clearly
stated in Leviticus 12:7, "and he [the priest] shall offer it [the sin offering] before the Lord, and make
atonement for her; then she shall be clean." The kipper act cleanses her, not the sanctuary. Milgrom tries
to solve this problem, arguing that she is cleansed not through the kipper rite but by the ablutions required
from an impure person. He then mentions the ease of the leper (Lev 14:9, 20), where the ablution is
mentioned (p. 392). Yet, the fact remains that in Leviticus 12:7 the cleansing of the person is directly
related to the kipper act. No mention is made there of any ablutions.
7 This is the common interpretation given by most commentators. See, among others, Knight, p. 83;
Wenham, p. 221. This was also the interpreta-
174
observe that this sin is a rejection of the divine means of cleansing. Therefore, there is
no forgiveness available to the sinner; he is to die.
This same concept is also present in Numbers 19:13: "Whoever touches a dead
person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles [tame]
the tabernacle of the Lord, and the person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water
for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean." (Also verse 20.) The
sanctuary is not contaminated at the moment the individual touches the corpse, but only
if he does not avail himself of the cleansing instrument. By remaining in a state of
impurity he deprives himself of the privilege of coming to the sanctuary; if he comes he
will contaminate it. The result will be his death.
Leviticus 20:2-3. This injunction forbids the Israelites to offer their children to
Molech. The individual who would dare to participate in such an abomination was to be
put to death "because he has given one of his children to Molech, and so [le maan]
defiled my sanctuary." The sin consists of offering a child sacrifice; but it somehow
results (here the preposition le ma'an expresses result) in the defilement of the
sanctuary. The question is, How is the sanctuary defiled in this case?8
In an attempt to answer this question we should take into consideration verses 2-5.
The basic law, expressed in casuistic form, is found in 20:2— "Any man of the people
of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, who gives any of his children to
Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones."
The rest of the pericope deals with two possible situations which would require God
Himself to punish the sinner. In the first one it is stated that God will set His face
against the person who gives his children to Molech, and who thereby contaminates the
sanctuary (tame, 20:3). The Lord "will cut him off from among his people." In the
second possible situation we are informed that God Himself will cut off from His
people the family who
tion given by the rabbis (Tosefta, Shebuoth, I, 8).
8 See A, Noordtzij, Leviticus (Grand Rapids, 1982), p, 209. Bamberger is right when he states that
"the sanctuary would not be ritually defiled by pagan rites conducted elsewhere."—Lev., p. 220.
175
sacrifices their children to Molech but who are not stoned because of the indifference of
the people (20:4,5). Sacrificing to Molech is such a serious crime that if the people,
knowing what the person did, fail to punish the sinner, the Lord will punish him.
It is only in the first case discussed above that the sacrifice to Molech is associated
with the defilement of the sanctuary. We would suggest that this case has to do with a
person who sacrifices his children to Molech and nobody knows it. He visits the Lord's
sanctuary, contaminating it. Since only God knows what that person did, it is He who
will punish the sinner.
In the basic law (20:2), as well as in the second case (failure to stone the sinner),
nothing is said concerning the contamination of the sanctuary. The reason for this is
quite clear. Since what the person did is well known, the Levites could forbid him to
have access to the sanctuary. His sin, therefore, does not contaminate the sanctuary. He
himself is defiled (tame; Lev 18:21, 30), alienated from the Lord. If in that state of
impurity he has access to the sanctuary, he would contaminate it.
Support for our interpretation is found in Ezekiel 23:38-39. There it is stated that
God's people sacrificed their children to idols, and on the same day they visited the
sanctuary thus defiling it (tame'). By worshiping idols and sacrificing their children to
them the people became impure. In that state of impurity they went to the sanctuary and
contaminated it. Because of this flagrant violation of the covenant, Ezekiel announced
the destruction of the people (Ezek 23:46-49). The conclusion is clear: those who
sacrificed their children to Moleeh contaminated the sanctuary when coming to it in a
state of impurity. The sin of child sacrifice was aggravated by coming to the temple in
their uncleanliness.9
It is also Ezekiel who states that the sanctuary was defiled (tame) by
9 Leviticus 20:2 mentions also the sojourner (ger). They, too, can contaminate the sanctuary,
the ger was in Israel a permanent resident, a proselyte. He could have access to the sanctuary and to the
benefits of the Hebrew sacrificial system (Lev 22:17-33; Num 15:14-16). In terms of their relation to the
sanctuary, the Lord expected from the ger the same thing he expected from an Israelite; on the ger see
Diether Kellermann, "gur," TDOT 2 (1975) 439-49.
176
the abominations of the Israelites (5:11). These abominations are described in chapter 8
as consisting of the adoration of idols within the precincts of the temple in Jerusalem. 10
This very same accusation was raised also by Jeremiah (7:30). As a result both prophets
announced the destruction of the people (Jer 7:32-34; Ezek 5:11; 8:18). The chronicler
is addressing this same issue when he, at the end of his book, accused Israel of
contaminating the sanctuary by "following all the abominations of the nations" (2 Chr
36:14). It was precisely that which, according to the chronicler, raised the wrath of God
against His people.
There is one more passage where the contamination (tame') of the sanctuary is
mentioned. The punishment inflicted by God upon Israel through the pagans is
described as an act of contamination of the temple. In Ezekiel's vision (9;7) God
commands those who are to destroy the city of Jerusalem to "begin at my sanctuary"
(9:6). He orders them to "Defile [tame] the house, and fill the courts with the slain." The
sanctuary is then defiled by the blood of the slain bodies of God's people.
According to Psalm 79tl that is what happened: "0 God, the heathen have come into
thy inheritance; they have defiled thy holy temple; they have laid Jerusalem in ruins."
The heathen themselves did not contaminate the sanctuary. It was contaminated by the
slain bodies of the people of Israel (79:2-3). The pagans could only profane (halal) the
sanctuary by treating it as a common building (Ps 74:7).
The passages we have just discussed are very important for an appropriate
understanding of the sin/impurity relation to the sanctuary and the concept of
transference of sin. We can now draw several conclusions:
1. Not every sin of the Israelites is transferred to the sanctuary, thus contaminating
it. The sanctuary is said to be contaminated only when an individual enters into it in a
state of uncleanness, or when it is used to worship idols or false gods.
2. The sanctuary is contaminated when the people in open rebellion
10 See Walther Zimmerii, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 1
(Philadelphia, 1979): 179.
177
break the covenant, reject God's Torah, and still want to enjoy God's Messing.
3. It is the people of Israel who contaminate the sanctuary. This was to be expected
because only they had access to it. Their acts and their blood contaminate it.
4. Finally, the contamination of the sanctuary mentioned in these passages is not

removed through a cleansing ritual but through the destruction of the one who
contaminated it.11
None of these passages discusses the issue of cleansing the sanctuary, yet all of
them mention the fact that the individual or the nation will perish.
None of the passages under consideration should be used to support the concept of
the sanctuary as a kind of magnet which attracts to it every sin/impurity of the Israelites.
They address a particular type of sin.
Having said all that, it is, nevertheless, necessary to recognize that, according to
Leviticus 16, sin/impurity did reach the sanctuary. Somehow sin was transferred to the
sanctuary, making unavoidable an annual ritual of cleansing and atonement. Which sins
were expiated during the Day of
Atonement? Many answers have been given to this question.12 Yet it
11 This is also the case with the contamination of the land. The land could be contaminated
through sexual immorality (Lev 18:25, 28), murder (Num 35:33-34), etc. There is not a ritual for its
purification. In the ease of murder, atonement (kipper) is made on behalf (<al) of the land by executing
the murderer. The defilement of the land will result in the destruction of Israel (Lev 18:28; 20:22) because
God can no longer abide in it; see Mil-grom, "Atonement in the OT," in IDB, sup. vol, (1976), p. 81.
There is no biblical basis for Moraldi's statement that when sin is expiated cultically the land is also
expiated (p. 237),
12 Some examples will suffice. Moore, coL 4219, suggested that the "presence of the polluted man
requires" this kind of purification. Charles F. Pfeiffer, "Atonement, Day of," in the illustrated Bible
Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL, 1980), p. 150, states, "The sanctuary was also
cleansed, for it, too, was ceremonially defiled by the presence and ministration of sinful men"; see also J.
Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, III, IV (London, 1940), p. 453. Others identify the sins expiated that
day as sins "of accident, neglect or inadvertence." Harrison, Leviticus, p. 172; see also Bamberger, pp.
162, 167. Alex Medebielle, L'expiation dans I'Ancien et le Nouveau Testament (Rome, 1923), p. 102,
178
seems to us that in an effort to answer that question we should listen to what the chapter
itself is saying and see how it fits within the Israelite cultic system as a whole.
If our understanding of the sins which contaminated the sanctuary discussed above
is right, the purification of the sanctuary mentioned in Leviticus 16 has nothing to do
with those sins. In attempting to identify the sins expiated during the yom hakkippurim
(the Day of Atonements), there are at least four facts that should be taken into
consideration.
In the first place, there is a continuous emphasis throughout Leviticus 16 on all the
sins of the people of Israel (16:16, 21, 30, 34). We are informed that the sanctuary is to
be cleansed "because of the uncleannesses [tum'ah] of the people of Israel, and because
of their transgressions [pesa], all their sins (hattat]" (vs. 16). In verse 21 another term
for sin is added to the list—"iniquities" (awon). The combination of these terms for sin
is used in the OT to include all the other concepts of sin.13 This means that Leviticus 16
is not limiting the sins expiated in the Day of Atonement to any category of wrong. The
usage of the term pesa is of particular significance. This term "carries with it a
consistent sense of revolt or rebellion against an overlord; some of the offenses for
which atonement was to be made would have been committed despite the known will of
God."14
argues that the sins are those not expiated throughout the year because of negligence; Wenham, p.
228, argues that "the main purpose of the day of atonement ceremonies is to cleanse the sanctuary from
the pollutions introduced into it by the unclean worshippers." K. Koch, "hata ," TDOT, 4:318, on the
other hand, believes that the sin of the individual produces a sphere of sin which infects not only the
sinner but also the sanctuary, and which makes necessary the purification of the divine dwelling.
Milgrom, "Israel's Sanctuary," p. 393, argues that the sanctuary was polluted by the high-handed sinner,
the wanton sinner. This individual could not bring a sin offering to cleanse the sanctuary because he was
put to death. The sanctuary was cleansed from his sin on the day of atonement. For a criticism of this
interpretation see A. Manuel Rodrfguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (Unpublished dissertation,
Berrien Springs, MI, 1979), pp. 114-17. 13 So. Rolf Knierim, "ht, sich verfehlen," in THAT 1 (I971):
547. 14 Harrison, p. 173; also Porter, p. 130. We should remember that the expiatory sacrifices could be
used to expiate for intentional sins; see Rod-rfguez, pp. 89-100, 174-88.
179
Secondly, "all the sins" are the sins of the people of Israel, During the Day of
Atonement the Lord deals only with the sins of His people. The sins of those who were
"cut off" from Israel, or who perished because of their sins, are not taken care of during
this solemn day by sacrificial blood.
Thirdly, it is the sanctuary and the altars which are purified during the Day of
Atonement and not the people.15 The sanctuary is cleansed "because of" the sins and
impurities of the people (16:16). According to Leviticus 16:30, 33 the people were
benefited by the cleansing of God's dwelling. But notice that in this ease the expression
kipper al ("to atone for") is to be understood in a relational sense.16 Through the
cleansing of the sanctuary the cleansing of the Israelites is final before the Lord
(16:30).17
Fourthly, the fact that the yom hakkippurim (the Day of Atonements) was to be
celebrated only once a year suggests that the sins expiated on that occasion were those
committed by the people throughout the previous year.18 In other words, all the sins of
the people of God have somehow reached the sanctuary, and once a year they are to be
removed from that place.
The question still remains: How were all the sins of the people of Israel transferred
to the sanctuary? In order to answer this question, we should recall that the only sinner
who had access to the sanctuary was the repentant sinner. He could approach God,
seeking forgiveness and depending on His grace. But the penitent could not come alone
to the sanctuary. He was to be accompanied by a sacrificial victim.
We would like to suggest that it is the sin of the repentant sinner, the
15 Levine, p. 76; Gerhard F. Hasel, "Studies in Biblical Atonement n:
The Day of Atonement," in The Sanctuary and the Atonement, eds. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W.
Richard Lesher (Washington, DC, 1981), p. 115.
16 Levine, p. 65, writes, "The Sanctuary, tent and altar received physical action. Blood was dashed
upon them etc., and as a result, they became pure; whereas no acts were performed, in this instance
directly upon the Israelites. They were simply the beneficiaries of the expiatory rites which had been
performed."
17 See Hasel, p. 118.
18 So Porter, pp. 124-25.
180
confessed sin, which makes necessary the cleansing of the sanctuary once a year. It is
these confessed sins to which Leviticus 16 refers by the expression, "all their sins."
These sins were transferred there through the expiatory sacrifices. An analysis of the
ritual of the laying on of hands, the eating of the flesh of the sacrificial victim, and the
blood manipulation, will support our suggestion.
Transfer of Sin/Impurity and the Expiatory Sacrifices
Laying on of hands
The ritual of the laying on of hands was practiced on every sacrificial animal19 It is
connected clearly with the idea of the transference of sin in a sanctuary setting in only
one passage, namely, Leviticus 16:21. There it is stated that sin and impurity were
transferred to the scapegoat through the laying on of hands. In this case, the meaning of
the ritual is clear: the transference of sin. This understanding of the laying on of hands
hag been taken as being valid also in the eases of the daily sacrifices.20
Nevertheless, a large group of scholars will argue to the contrary.21 They do not
consider the scapegoat to be a sacrificial victim, especially since it is not slaughtered but
is only removed alive from the sanctuary. This group of scholars recognize that sin was
transferred to the animal. It is precisely this fact, they argue, which differentiates the
scapegoat from the sacrificial victims. The scapegoat cannot be sacrificed because it has
been contaminated by the sin/impurity of the people; on the other hand, the sacrificial
victim is considered holy, most holy, after the laying on of hands.
19 It is not mentioned in the case of the guilt offering but there are good reasons to believe
that even in this case the ritual was practiced; see Rodriguez, pp. 195-96; G. F. Hasel, "Studies in Biblical
Atonement I: Continual Sacrifice, Defilement//Cleansing and Sanctuary," in The Sanctuary and the
Atonement, p. 97.
20 E.g., H. G. Schutz, "Hand,Epitithemi," in New International Dictionary of NT Theology, ed. Colin

Brown, voL 1 (Grand Rapids), p. 151,
21 For references see n. 2. See also Antonio Charbel, ZBH SLMYM; II Sacrificio Pacifico (Jerusalem,
1967), pp. 34-42.
181
Once the interpretation of the laying on of hands found in Leviticus 16:21 is
rejected as valid also for the sacrificial victims, the exegete is left free to look for any
interpretation of the ritual he may consider appropriate. That is probably why there has
been a proliferation of theories on the meaning of the laying on of hands.
Thus, for instance, there is the identification, theory, which states that in the ritual a
strong and deep relationship is created22 between the offerer and the victim. Then there
is the consecration/dedication theory, which affirms that through the laying on of hands
the victim is set apart
for a sacred purpose.23 The appropriation and/or designation theory, emphasizes the
idea that the victim belongs to the worshiper who is designating it as a gift to the Lord24
The manumissio theory interprets the ritual as indicating that the individual is
renouncing his right of property.25 Within these different theories one finds many
variations.
Apart from Leviticus 16:21, there is not a single passage which would explain
clearly the meaning of the laying on of hands when performed on
22 For instance, H. Wheeler Robinson, "Hebrew Sacrifice and Prophetic Symbolism," JTS 43
(1942): 130-31; H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Forms and Meaning (Philadelphia, 1967),
p. 133; R. E. Clements, "Leviticus," in Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville, 1970), p. 10;
Helmer Ringgren, Israelite Religion (Philadelphia, 1966), p. 169; Eduard Lohse, "Cheir," in TDNT 9
(1974): 428-29.
23 See Massey H. Shepherd, "Hands, Laying on of," IDB 2:251; C. Maurer, "Epitithemi," TDNT,
8:160; Charbel, pp. 41-42; Scnotz, p. 112; H. P. Smith, "The Laying on of Hands," AJT 17 (1913): 56-57.
One would expect that sinner would consecrate something to the Lord after he has been forgiven, not
.before.
24 See Matthes. p. 105; C. R. North, "Sacrifice," in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, ed. Alan
Richardson (New York, 1950), p. 209; Moraldi, p. 262; Bamberger, p. 10; J. Coppens, "Handauflegung,"
inBibIisch histori-sches Handworterbuch, eds. B. Reicke and L. Rost, vol. 2 (Gbttingen, 1962), p. 632;
DeVaux, p. 416.
25 See E. Kautzsch, "Religion of Israel," in Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume, ed. J.Hastings
(New York, 1912), p. 270; B. J. van der Merwe, "The Laying on of Hands in the OT/' On Testamentiese
Verkge-meenskap in Suid-Afrika 5 (1962): 40; Eichrodt, 1:165. This theory does not explain why the
animal was brought to the sanctuary and sacrificed; see Hasel, p. 98. For a more complete discussion on
these theories, see Rodri-guez, pp. 201-8.
182
sacrificial victims. But the ritual was practiced also on some non-cultic occasions. Thus
it is appropriate to examine briefly those cases. Once we do that, we will discover that
the concept of transfer is common to all the non-cultic cases.
The laying on of hands is mentioned in connection with three non-cultic incidents.

First we note the rite in connection with a person who blasphemed the name of the Lord
(Lev 24:14). Those who heard him were to lay their hands upon the blasphemer before
stoning him. It cannot be denied that the ritual is here a means through which the
witnesses identify the guilty one.26
But it also had another purpose. According to Leviticus 5:1, the person who
witnessed a sinful act became involved to the extent that he could lose his own life.
Thus in this incident the ritual of the laying on of hands served the purpose of
transferring to the blasphemer the guilt which would have been attached to the hearers
had they concealed the sinful act.27
The second non-cultic incident in which the laying on of hands was performed is
found in the narrative of Joshua's installation as Israel's new leader (Num 27:18-23).
According to the biblical text, Moses transferred to him some of his authority and honor
through the laying on of hands (cf. Deut 39:9).28
The last passage is Numbers 8:10. It discusses the consecration of the Levites.
They, instead of the firstborn of the Israelites, were chosen by God to serve Him in the
sanctuary. The people laid their hands upon the Levites, transferring to them the
responsibility (which formerly belonged to the firstborn of the people) of serving at the
sanctuary.29
Thus it is evident that in the non-cultic passages the ritual of the laying on of hands
is used to express the idea of transfer. In one important
26 With Moraldi, pp. 256-57; Matthes, pp. 104-5.
27 See F. Mayrick, "Leviticus," in The Pulpit Commentary, eds. H.D.M. Spence and J. S. Exell, vol. 4
(New York, 1913): 384; Porter, p. 194; Wen-ham. d. 311.
28 See G. Warmuth, "hod," TDQT, 3:355,
29 See MedebieUe, pp. 148-49; Charbel, pp. 36-37.

183
cultic case the same ritual is performed on a cultic animal to transfer something to it* It
is quite understandable then why a group of scholars believes that the laying on of
hands upon a sacrificial victim also expressed the idea of transference.
Of course, they are not all agreed on what is being transferred. Some would argue that
through the ritual "man transmits his own characteristics, his personality to an
animal."30 Others would suggest that what is transferred to the victim is the sin and guilt
of the offerer31
It seems to us that the interpretation which best fits the facts is that one which takes
the laying on of hands as indicating the transfer of sin and guilt to the sacrificial victim.
However, this creates a serious problem: the problem of explaining the sanctity of the
victim after the laying on of hands.
In spite of this problem, to which we will return, the transferring of sin to the
sacrificial victim is indicated not only by the incident of the scapegoat and the non-
cultic eases already discussed, but also by the fact that the one who performed the ritual
was a sinner seeking forgiveness and cleansing. Furthermore, the ritual eating of the
flesh of the sin offering by the priest supports our view of the laying on of hands.
Ritual of the Eating of Flesh
According to the Levitical legislation, a portion of the flesh of the sin offering
belonged to the priest. He was to eat it in a holy place. The flesh was considered to be
most holy and could be eaten only by the priests (Lev S:17-19, 25-26, 29', 7:6-7).
It has been argued that this ritual served the purpose of providing food for the
priest.32 This is rather obvious. Yet the ritual seems to have a
30 E.g., M. Bernoulli, "Laying on of Hands ," A Companion to the Bible, ed. J. J. von Alien
(New York, 1958), p. 230.
31 E.g., W. R. Paterson, "Sacrifice," in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings, vol. 4 (New York,
1909), p. 340. Some would limit the transfer of sin only to the expiatory sacrifices; e.g., N. Adier,
"Imposicion de Manos," in Encyclopedia de la Biblia 4 (Barcelona, 1963): 132; Knight, p. 28.
32 Milgrom, "Two Kinds of rta^taVVT 26 (1978): 333.
184
more significant function. The very fact that he should not take it home to share the
food with his family indicates that we are dealing here with a very significant cultic act.
It may not be wrong to say that "the eating is apparently part of the expiatory process."33
The meaning of this ritual is stated clearly in Leviticus 10il7. Moses asks Aaron,
"Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing
most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation,
to make atonement for them before the Lord?"
It has been suggested that this verse is describing the function of the sin offering
and the role of the priest with respect to it.34 The expression "to bear the iniquity" is
considered to be an interpretation of the phrase "to make atonement," and is then
translated, "to take away the guilt." This interpretation of the text is reflected in the
Jerusalem Bible: " 'Why,' he asked, 'did you not eat this victim in the holy place? For it
is a most holy thing given to you to take away the fault of the community, by
performing the rite of atonement over it before Yahweh.' "
This understanding of the verse overlooks the fact that the passage is not talking
about the sin offering per se but about the portion of the sacrifice that goes to the priest.
In Leviticus, whenever the expression, "it was given to you" (or a similar phrasing: "I
have given it to you/to Aaron"), has the sacrifice/offering as a direct object and the
priest as an indirect object, the "it" always refers to the portion of the offering assigned
to the priest (Lev. 5:16; 6:26, 29; 7:34, 36; 10:14). In Leviticus 10:17 the expression is
referring to the same thing.
Furthermore, the question raised in the verse is not. What is the function of the sin
offering? but rather. Why did you not eat the flesh of the sin offering? Moses not only
raised the question, but also explained the significance of the ritual. By eating the flesh
of the sacrificial victim, Aaron
33 Bamberger, p. 51.
34 R. N. Whybray, Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet: An Interpretation of Isaiah Chapter 53

(Sheffield, 1978), p. 46.
185
bears the sins of the people. This is to be done for the purpose of making atonement for
them. In the process of atonement, therefore, it is very important for the priest to eat his
portion of the sacrifices.
The expression, "to bear iniquity" (nasa awon), is a very important one within as well as
outside the cultus. It has been studied carefully by W. Zimmerli.35 He, correctly,
suggests that in non-cultic passages God is always the subject of the verb, and it means
"to take away sin—to forgive." But when the expression is used in cuitic contexts, he
argues that it has three possible meanings: (l)It can mean to bear the sin of another
person vicariously (Exod 28:38; Lev 16:22; 10:17; Num 14:34; Ezek 4:4-6); (2) It can
mean, "to assume responsibility" (Num 18:1); (3) Or it may be used as a priestly verdict
to indicate that an individual is guilty of his sin and will be punished by God.
Two of the above usages of the phrase ("to bear iniquity") have been rejected by some
scholars. The suggested meaning, "to assume responsibility/to be responsible," lias been
questioned by R. N. Whybray,36 and rightly rejected by Rolf Kmerim.37 According to
Knierim, such a translation makes iniquity (awon) a neutral term, and that is never the
case. He suggests that the phrase should be translated, "to be responsible for the ^won/to
have to bear awon."38
Whybray has reacted strongly against the idea that "to bear iniquity" means to bear
the sin vicariously for someone. He discusses the case of the scapegoat (Lev 16:22) and
concludes that the idea of vicarious guilt is not present. He, rightly, indicates that the
39
phrase there means "to carry away.'' Neither is the idea of vicariousness present in
Ezekiel 4:4-6.
35 Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezekiel," ZAW 66 (1954): 9-12
36 Whybray, p. 43.
37 Die Hauptbegriffe fOrSimde im Alten Testament (Gutersloh, 1965), p. 220.
38 Id. This suggestion was accepted by Zimmerli, "Zur Vorgeschichte von Jes. LIII," in Congress
Volume Rom 1968 (Leiden, 1969). Milgrom, "Two Kinds," p. 333, has retained the translation, "to bear
responsibility," overlooking Knierim's criticism of it.
39 Whybray, p. 49; see also Rodnguez, p. 220.
186
Ezekiel is bearing symbolically the punishment of the people in order to assure them
that they certainly will bear their own sins.40 In Numbers 14:34 the people are also
receiving their deserved punishment because of their own sins.41
Concerning Exodus 28:38, it has been argued that the verb "to bear" (nasa) in this
instance means "to carry." The verb nasa is used several times throughout Exodus 28
with that meaning.42 For instance, Aaron is to "bear/carry" the names of the tribes
before the Lord when he goes into the holy place (28:12, 29).
In 28:38 we read, "It [the plate of gold] shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron
shall take upon himself any guilt [nasa awon] incurred in the holy offering which the
people of Israel hallow as their holy gifts; it shall always be upon his forehead, that they
may be accepted before the Lord." If we look carefully at this verse, it becomes clear
that nasa here does not mean "to carry." The verb has that meaning when it is followed
by an indirect object indicating destination (to carry something, somewhere). In verse
38 that is not the case.43 We are only informed that the priest "shall bear the iniquity of
the holy things."
We should not overlook the important fact that in verse 38 we are not dealing only
with the verb nasa, but with a technical expression, namely, nasa awon ("to bear
iniquity"). This phrase is used practically always in Leviticus in the sense of "to bear sin
and become responsible for it" (Lev 5:1, 17; 7:18; 10:17; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19; 22:16).
In Leviticus it has a
40 Ibid., pp. 50-52.
41 Ibid.. pp. 46-48.
42 Ibid., p. 35.
43 In an effort to retain that meaning for the usage of the verb in verse 38, Whybray, p. 39, has argued
that the plate of gold (sis) is here identified with the term sin (awon). Aaron carries, then, the plate/sin.
This equation is not real. The passage is talking about one piece of the priestly dress which Aaron was to
wear. The verse also explains the significance or symbolic nature of the plate. Aaron is to wear it (l) in
order to be able to bear the sin of the people, and (2) that they may be accepted before the Lord. These
two concepts are intimately related. The people are accepted because they have been cleansed. The priest
is bearing this sin. The 'awon of the people has been transferred to the priest.
187
negative meaning. To bear sin, to be responsible for it, means to be liable to punishment
(7:18, 20, 21; 19:8). The only exception to the usage is found in Leviticus 16:22. There
the expression "to bear iniquity" (nasa 'awon) is followed by an indirect object which
states where sin is taken. But whenever nasa awon is used in the absolute sense, it really
means to be responsible for sin and liable to punishment.44
It should be observed that Exodus 28:38 is talking about the sins of the "holy things
(qodosim)" which the people consecrated to the Lord. It is sometimes suggested that
these sins are the sins committed in connection with the offerings, that is, inadvertent
errors In the performance of the ritual.45 Yet this is not even implied by the context.
The expression, "sins of the holy things," is better explained by bringing together
the ideas expressed by Leviticus 10:17 and Exodus 28:38. What is of particular interest
in these two passages is the fact that both deal with priests and sacrifices. According to
Leviticus 10:17, sin is transferred to the priest by the ritual of the eating of the flesh of
the sacrifice, Exodus 28:38, on the other hand, explicitly states that one of the functions
of the priests was to bear the sins of the offerings and sacrifices of the people.46 Both
passages are saying exactly the same thing. The sin of the people was transferred to the
sacrificial victim and from it to the priest.
When an Israelite came to the sanctuary to offer an expiatory sacrifice, he was in a

state of sin and guilt. He had sinned and, according to Leviticus 5:1, he was bearing his
own sin (nasa awon)47 He was responsi-
44 There is another phrase, nasa' het' ("to bear sin"), which is used as a synonym for nasa
awon (Lev 19:17; 20:20; 22:9; 24:15,' Num 9;13; 18:22, 23, 32; Ezek 23:49; Isa 53:12). Nasa het' is used
to refer to a person bearing his own sin or to someone bearing the sin of somebody else; see Knierim, col.
548; Koch, pp. 313, 316.
45 Whybray, p. 43.
46 The term qodosim is used in Leviticus to refer to the sacrifices; see Jacob Milgrom, Cult
Conscience: The asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden, 1976), pp. 36-37.
47'On the meaning of nasa 'awon we should also mention Numbers 30:15. This pericope deals with
vows made by a married woman, and her husband's right to cancel them. If the husband, after hearing her
take the vow, remains silent, he confirms them. If he later makes them null "then he
188
ble for his own sin and therefore liable to divine punishment. The only thing that could
free the sinner from that state was a sacrifice. Therefore, the individual brought his own
sacrificial victim. The priest made atonement for him (5:6), and he was forgiven by the
Lord (5:10). He was no longer bearing his own sin. It was transferred to the sacrificial
victim and to the person of the priest.
It appears to us that the ritual of the eating of the flesh clearly indicates that there is
a transfer of sin in the Hebrew sacrificial system. Sin was transferred to the sacrificial
victim. How was it transferred? There is only one answer to that question. Through the
laying on of hands the sin of the offerer was transferred to the victim. By eating a
portion of the flesh of the animal the priest bore it also.
The fact that during the Day of Atonement the sanctuary was cleansed from all the
sins of the people of Israel suggests that the sin of the people was transferred, in the
person of the priest, to the sanctuary.48 The priest could not bear his own sin, or a sin in
which he was somehow involved (Lev 4:1-21). Had he borne his own sin, he would
have died (Lev 22:9). For this reason the priest could not eat of the flesh of his own
sacrifice. It is at this point (within the sacrificial system) that the blood manipulation
plays a very important role.
shall bear her iniquity." The sin-punishment nexus is so intimate in Hebrew thinking that this
expression could only mean here that the sin of the wife (breaking the vows) is now the sin of the
husband and he is liable to punishment. Whybray, p. 145, argues that what we have in Numbers 30:15 is a
genitive of nearer definition and translates the phrase, "he bears guilt which he has incurred with regard to
her, through his attitude toward her," He is pressing too much the genitive of nearer definition. As a
matter of fact, his suggestion does not fit the context. According to the pericope, if the woman takes a
vow and her husband or father cancels it, she is in need of forgiveness (30:5, 8). But in the situation
described in verse 15, when she breaks the vow, there is no forgiveness; her husband is to "bear her sin."
^Hasel, "Continual Sacrifice," pp. 105-6, has suggested that after the priest ate of the flesh of the
sacrifice, he "needed to bring the kind of sacrifice (hattat) that provided for the transfer of sin and guilt to
the victim whose blood was then sprinkled in the sanctuary (Leviticus 4:6)."
189
Blood Manipulation
It cannot be denied that the blood manipulation of the sacrifices is an extremely
important aspect of the expiatory process. Sacrificial blood was to be sprinkled, thrown
against the altar, put on the horns of the altar, and poured at the base of the altar.
The meaning of the sprinkling is stated clearly in Leviticus 15:14-15, 30. There we
are informed that the sprinkling results in cleansing. The objects which are sprinkled
receive the cleansing effect. There are scholars who would argue that the sprinkling
always cleanses that upon which the blood is sprinkled.49 It is then argued that when
some of the blood of the sin offering is sprinkled before the veil, the holy place is being
cleansed from the sin of the offerer.50
It cannot be denied that the sprinkling of blood results in cleansing. The question is
whether in the ease of the daily sacrifices the effect of the cleansing is received by the
sanctuary or the offerer. In looking for an answer, we should notice that it is only in the
case of the Day of Atonement that the sprinkling results in cleansing for the sanctuary
and the altar. In the second place, it is the context in Leviticus 16 which informs us that
the ritual of the sprinkling cleanses that which receives the sprinkling. In the third place,
the ritual itself, as well as the places where it is performed, differs significantly from the
daily sacrifices,51
Turning to Leviticus 4 we find that it is not the sanctuary which is in need of

purification in the daily rituals, but the individual. The priest, or the whole
congregation, has sinned, and the sacrifice is performed for them. We suggest that in
these cases the sprinkling cleanses not the object receiving it but the person who brings
the sacrifice.
We know that in non-sacrificial contexts the benefit of the sprinkling could be

received by other than the sprinkled object. Thus, for instance, the oil brought by the
leper is consecrated by sprinkling some of it toward
49 Milgrom, "Israel's sanctuary," p. 391.
50 Ibid., pp. 391-92.
51See Rodrfguez, pp. 125-26.
190
the sanctuary.52 In the ease of the red heifer, some of its blood is sprinkled toward the
sanctuary, consecrating not only the blood but the whole animal.53 In none of these
eases does the sanctuary receive the benefit of the sprinkling.
We should remember that the sprinkling of sacrificial blood was limited to the
blood of the sacrifices offered for the sin of the priest or of the congregation (Lev 4:1-
21). In both cases the priest was involved in the sinful act. He was not to eat of the flesh
of the victim; that is, sin could not be transferred vicariously to him. In that case sin was
transferred to the sanctuary through some other means. This was done through the
sprinkling of blood before the veil of the holy place. By coming into contact with the
offerer through the laying on of hands, sin was transferred to the sacrificial victim.
Through the blood sprinkling, it was further transferred to the sanctuary.54
As we have indicated already, the cultic function of the blood is not just limited to
the sprinkling. Blood was also to be put on the horns of the altar,55 or, in the case of the
burnt and peace offerings, to be thrown against the altar.56 In all this process the final
result is atonement for the persons involved.
The key role of blood in the expiatory process was assigned to it by
52 See Th. D. Vriezen, "The Term Hizza: Lustration and Consecration," OTS 7 (1950): 214;
Wenham, p. 211.
53 E.g., Noth, p. 140.
54 A Hittite text considers the blood as a means of transferring blood-guilt to the underworld: "Then
he consecrates (Sipant-) a lamb with the water. They slaughter (hatta-) it and let the blood run into a clay
auppar vessel and place it before the God of Blood, and say: 'Anunnaki, whatever blood-guilt is in (this
house), take it and give it to the God of Blood, let him take it down to the dark Underworld and there peg
it down fast.' "— Oliver R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (London, 1977), p. 29.
55 We have argued in "Sacrificial Substitution and the OT Sacrifices," in The Sanctuary and the
Atonement, pp. 143-44, that there are two different rituals having to do with the putting of blood on the
horns. One ritual consists of putting blood all around the horns to cleanse them and the other consists of
just putting some blood on the horns indicating that sin/impurity is being put under the controlling power
of Yahweh.
56 0n the significance of this ritual act see, pp. 145-46.
191
God Himself. Any magical interpretation of blood used to validate its expiatory value is
to be ruled out from the start. Leviticus 17:11 clearly indicates that God assigned to
blood its expiatory significance. Blood has no inherent power or virtue.57 Leviticus
17:11 establishes an interesting connection between blood and life. It equates them.58 It
is this identification of the two which explains why blood is so important in the
expiatory process.
Life, according to biblical understanding, is a gift from God. Life belongs to Him who
is its source.59 Human life, therefore, should not be destroyed by man (Gen 9:5). Animal
life also belongs to Him. Blood was considered to be the tangible manifestation of life
in Hebrew thinking.60
Since blood is life, it belongs to God. It is to be returned to Him. According to

Leviticus 17, this can be done in two forms. In the case of game, the blood was to be
poured out and covered with dust (17:13). In the case of sacrificial animals, the blood
was to be brought to the altar. Through the altar, life (as blood) was returned to God
(l7:ll).
The fact that the blood-life was returned to God via the altar gives to this blood a
ritual or cultic function. When blood was taken to the altar, it was not being returned
simply to God. The act of returning it to God is now part of the expiatory process and
comes to express at least two main ideas: (l) This sacrificial blood-life is accepted by
God as the blood-life of the sinner, the person. According to Leviticus 17:11, the
lifeblood of the sacrificial victim is accepted by Yahweh "in exchange for the person."61
(2) By accepting the blood-life of the victim. God also is taking care of the sin of the
person. Through the blood manipulation sin is transferred to the presence of God.
57 See G. Gerlemann, "dam Blut," THAT, 1:451.
58 See Rodriguez, pp. 235-36.
59 See Edmond Jacob, Theology of the OT (New York, 1958), pp. 177-80.
60 So, Alan D. Grad, Studies in Biblical Uses of the Word 'DAM' (Ann Arbor, MI, 1976), p. 8.
61 A justification for this translation is found in Rodrfguez, pp. 244-55.

192
Transfer and Contamination
By emphasizing the concept of the transfer of sin, we expose ourselves to what is
probably the most serious criticism raised against our suggestion. It is argued that a
transference of sin would contaminate the sacrificial animal; yet the Bible refers to the
victim as being "most holy" (Lev 6:25, 29-30). As indicated above, some scholars argue
that in the case of the scapegoat we have transference of sin and contamination. These
reasons, it is suggested, are why the scapegoat cannot function as a sacrifice. A similar
view is taken in regard to the sin offering for the priest. It is said that since sin was
transferred to it, its flesh was contaminated and it was necessary to burn the flesh.62
We have already argued that the sin offering for the priest was burned because his
sin was transferred to the sanctuary through the blood manipulation. The flesh of the
victim was not necessary. On the other hand, the scapegoat was not sacrificed as it was
not considered an offering. Elimination rites, were known in the ancient Near East
religions.63
Nevertheless, the force of the argument remains that a transference of sin would
have contaminated the victim and the sanctuary. Scholars who accept the concept of a
transference of sin have suggested different solutions to this problem. Here are some of
them:
1, What was transferred to the sacrificial victim was the penalty, not the sin. It is argued
that the victim was a substitute for the sinner; hence, while it received the judgment of
God upon the offerer's sin,64 it remained pure or clean itself.
It seems to us, however, that this kind of argumentation overlooks the fact that in
the OT the nexus between sin and punishment is so intimate that in order for the victim
to receive the penalty for sin, sin must have been transferred to it. The two cannot be
separated.
62 So, Milgrom, "Two kinds," 336; Porter, p. 38.
63 See for instance, Hans M. Klimmel "Ersatzkonig- und Sundenbock," ZAW80 (1968): 289-318; 0.
R. Gurney, pp. 47-52.
64 F. D. Kidner, Sacrifice in the OT (London, 1952), p. 25; A. Dillmann, Die Bucher Exodus und
Leviticus (Leipzig, 1880), p. 416.
193
2. "Holy" means belonging to God. This suggestion understands the expression
"most holy," when applied to the sacrifice, to mean that in spite of the fact that sin has
been transferred to it, it was still God's property 65
This suggestion really does not solve any problem at all. We still have the question,
How was it possible for a contaminated/impure animal to belong to God?
3. The blood and fat of the sacrificial animal were immune to the defilement of sin.
They were the only parts of the sacrifice offered to God. What made them immune was
the fact that in them resided the life force which opposed any contaminating agent.66
This suggestion is based on a misunderstanding of blood as life. We have indicated

already that blood has no power in itself. The power resides in God, not in the blood.
Apart from this it should be remembered that the flesh of the victim, and even the
victim as a whole, was considered most holy.67
4. Contact with the altar purified the victim from the sin transferred to it. It is
implied that the sacrificial victim became most holy when brought to the sanctuary. The
sins loaded upon it were eliminated when the animal came into contact with the altar.68
The biblical bases for this suggestion are still lacking. The altar itself was in need of
purification every year.
5. The death of the victim neutralized the infection of sin. In this way the victim
remaind most holy and the fat and blood could be taken to the altar.69
Here again we are dealing with an honest guess. We know that even
65 F. Koch, Die israelitische Suhneanschauung und ihre historischen Wandlungen.

Habilitationsschnft, (Eriangen, 1956), pp. 25, 29, quoted by R. J. Thompson, Penitence and Sacrifice
(Leiden, 1963), p. 18.
66 Porter, p. 38.
67 Porter was talking mainly of the sin offering for the priest. In this case the flesh was burned outside
the sanctuary. But he also believes that sin was transferred to the expiatory sacrifices. (See ibid. p. 19.)
68 A. Medebielle, "Le symbolisme du sacrifice expiatoire en Israel," Bib 2 (1921): 295.
69 R. J. Thompson, "Sacrifice and Offering."
194
after the death of the victim, the sin transferred to the flesh through the laying on of
hands was still present in it and could be transferred to the priest. The flesh of the dead
animal still seems to be "contaminated."
6. The holiness of the priest, acquired through his annointing, was of such a nature that
it could absorb the uncleanness of the offering.70
It is rather difficult to understand what is meant by "holiness absorbing

uncleanness." Does this mean that uncleanness is able to change its nature and become
holiness? What really happens to the sin/impurity transferred to the priest? This theory
provides no answer for these questions. By describing holiness as absorbing
uncleanness, it certainly creates more problems than it proposes to solve.
This brief survey of proposed solutions to the problem of the transference of sin to
the sacrificial victim indicates, at least, that we are dealing with a difficult problem. In
looking for a satisfactory solution, there are a number of things we should keep in mind.
In the first place, we ought to recognize that nowhere in Leviticus are we told that
the transference of sin which we found in connection with the daily sacrifices
contaminated (tame) the victim, the priest, or the sanctuary. In those eases the term
tame' ("to contaminate") was avoided. Its usage was limited, as we have seen already, to
sins which required the death of the sinner because of his contamination of the
sanctuary.
Tame" is, therefore, a very negative term. To use it in relation to the daily sacrifices
would have suggested the opposite of what those sacrifices were expected to achieve.
Instead of restoring the broken harmony between God and His people, the sacrifices, by
contaminating the sanctuary in the sense of tame would have separated the sinner once
and for all from Yahweh.
Secondly, we should keep in mind that even though the term tome is not used to
interpret the transference of sin, the ritual of the Day of Atonement indicates that
through the daily sacrifices the sanctuary was indeed "contaminated." During that day
the sanctuary was to be cleansed
70 This is another possibility suggested by Thompson, in ibid., p. 1366.
195
(taher), and atonement (kipper) was to be made for it because of the sins and impurities
of the people of Israel (Lev 16:16).
The fact that the sanctuary was cleansed shows that sin and impurity were in it. This
was the "contamination" which resulted from God's forgiveness. It had the purpose of
preserving the repentant sinner alive. In forgiving him. God allowed sin to come to His
very presence. Sin and impurity came under His controlling power.
Thirdly, we must recognize that sin was transferred to the sacrifice and to the
priests, yet they remained holy. Their holiness was not destroyed. The phenomenon of
having an instrument of atonement bearing sin and being holy at the same time is more
common in the Hebrew cultus than one might think.
Thus, for instance, the person who took the flesh of the sin offering outside the
camp to burn it was to wash his clothes and bathe his body before coming back to the
camp (Lev 4:12). Yet its flesh was described unambiguously as "most holy" (6:24). This
"most holy" sacrifice was a source of contamination requiring a ritual washing by the
individual who burned it.
Another interesting example is found in the case of the red heifer (Num 19:9-21).
The heifer was burned and its ashes mixed in water were to be used to remove sin
(19:9). Yet we read that the person "who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his
clothes, and be unclean until evening" (19:10). The ashes were mixed with water and
sprinkled on the person, who touched a dead body, to cleanse him (19:17-19). It is a
surprising thing to find that the ashes of the heifer had both contaminating and cleansing
qualities. The unclean person who was sprinkled by this ash-water mixture was cleansed
(19:17-19), but the clean person who administered the sprinkling was thereby
contaminated (19;2l). In this rite cleanness and unclean-ness were together. Something
similar is found in relation to blood in the cultus. In some respects it was a source of
impurity (Lev 12:7); in others, it was a means of purification.
Taking into consideration the evidence presented above, we should conclude that the
transference of sin does not destroy the holiness of the
196
sacrificial victim or the priest. We are confronted here with an unexplainable
phenomenon. Sin/impurity and holiness are brought together and both remain what they
essentially are.
This is possible only in the context of divine atonement. In the process of

atonement, holiness and sin, life and death, purity and uncleanness are brought together
in an unfathomable, paradoxical relation. Yahweh, the Holy One, is able to bring
together both purity and impurity for the benefit of His people. The holy instrument
could be touched by sin/impurity and yet remain holy.
During the Day of Atonement impurity is removed from the presence of God, from
His sanctuary. It then becomes clear that holiness and impurity have nothing in
common; that impurity is something foreign to Yahweh's nature; and that the Lord
Himself is now returning it to Azazel, its ultimate source. What we have here is a cultic
theodicy—a ritual justifying of God. In spite of the fact that Yahweh forgives the sin of
His people, He remains Holy and can, therefore, challenge Israel to be holy also (Lev
19:2).
Conclusion
The book of Leviticus indicates that the transfer of sin/impurity was practiced
within the Hebrew cultus.
This "legal" transfer of sin should not be confused with the "illegal" contamination
of the sanctuary when an Israelite came to the sanctuary in a state of impurity. In those
eases the sinner was to die. There was no expiation available to him because his
intention was to avail himself of the benefits of the cultus while at the same time
violating the covenant.
The biblical evidence, however, indicates that the confessed sins of the Israelites
contaminated the sanctuary. We have argrued that such a contamination was the result
of the transfer of sin from the sinner, via the sacrifices, to the sanctuary. The only sin
transferred to the sanctuary was the sin of the one who humbled himself before the
Lord, asked forgiveness, and brought a sacrifice.
This transference of sin did not contaminate the sacrificial victim. In the expiatory
process God was willing and able to bring sin/impurity to the
197
very presence of a holy object without affecting its holiness. Impurity was finally
transferred to the sanctuary. It contaminated the sanctuary in the sense that it was in the
sanctuary.
The practice of transferring sin to God's dwelling means that Yahweh was willing to
forgive the confessed sins of His people in order to continue dwelling among them. The
Day of Atonement made the cleansing, effected through the daily transfer of sin, final. It
also indicated that holiness and sin/impurity are essentially incompatible. Their sources
are infinitely apart.
CHAPTER VII
The Day of Atonement

as Related to the
Contamination and Purification
of the Sanctuary
Alberto R. Treiycr
CONTAMINATION OF THE SANCTUARY

Editorial synopsis. The purification rites performed on the Day of Atonement
presuppose a previous contamination of the sanctuary by the sins of Israel.
The author suggests that sins may be classified in two categories: pardonable and
unpardonable. By the term "unpardonable," he designates the hardened cases of
rebellion in which the sinner openly transgressed in defiance of God and sought no
pardon. Such sins as murder and idolatry are mentioned explicitly in the OT as defiling
both the land and the sanctuary and profaning God's name (Lev 20:3; Num 35:33-34; Ps
106:37-38).
The author demonstrates from the biblical data that the only solution specified in
the Israelite system for this kind of "illegal" contamination of the sanctuary was the
death sentence of the guilty person. Sacrifices were never offered for sins that could not
be pardoned. In the event of national apostasy this form of contamination could lead to
a total abandonment of the temple service, and consequently it brought the judgment of
God upon the nation. Thus the temple, initially contaminated by Israel's idolatrous
rebellion, would be profaned further by its destruction under alien armies.
But the Day of Atonement never functioned to cleanse the temple in order to
reestablish the worship thus terminated. Only inaugural rites were needed. Nor did the
blood rites of the Day of Atonement cleanse the impenitent who refused the methods
open to him to obtain forgiveness of sin or purification from ritual uncleanness (Num
15:30-31; Lev 15:31). The rites of the sanctuary on that special day did not benefit
them. Their
199
execution carried its own purifying significance (Num 35:33; Deut 17:7).
But there were on the other hand "pardonable" sins. The daily rituals transferred the
confessed sins and impurities of penitent Israelites to the sanctuary throughout the year.
The Day of Atonement ritual functioned on a yearly basis to remove this contaminating
deposit.
Section Outline
I. Introduction
II. Contamination of the Sanctuary and Suppression of Worship
III. Contamination of the Sanctuary and the Death Sentence
IV. Contamination of the Sanctuary and the Day of Atonement
Introduction
On the Day of Atonement two outstanding events occurred: (1) the purification of
the sanctuary, priesthood, and people (Lev 16:16-19, 30, 33-34), and (2) the expulsion
of the scapegoat with the sins of Israel (Lev 16:10, 20-22). Related to these transactions
was the death of the rebels who did not participate in the required spirit of contrition
(Lev 23:27-31). A correct understanding of these important acts is necessary for a
positive understanding of their theological implications in the OT as well as in the NT.
It is self-evident that the purification rites ordained for the Day of Atonement
presupposed a previous contamination of the sanctuary. On that day the
impurities/uncleannesses (tumah), the transgressions (pesa'), and the sins (hattat) of the
people of Israel were removed from the sacred precincts (Lev 16:16, 19, 33 = 'awon,
"iniquities," vss. 21-22).1 The problem comes in knowing what was the true nature of
these sins, how they con-
For a historical consideration on the Jewish use of the formula found in Leviticus 16:21,
see J. M. Baumgarten, Studies in. Qumran Law (Leiden, 1977), pp. 55-56.
200
laminated the sanctuary, and the role of the sacrificial rituals in securing the needed
purification.
Several explanations have been proposed to explain how the sanctuary came into
this state of contamination. For example, some authors hold that the Israelites brought
the contamination when they came to the sanctuary with their sins.2 According to others
the contamination of the sanctuary derived from the contamination of the earth3 or of
the encampment,4 since the sanctuary was located "in the midst of Israel." This would
suggest that the sanctuary could be contaminated without the physical presence of the
people in its courts.
It is also argued by some that sin has an "aerial" or "dynamic" quality and that on some
"magnetic"5 or "demonic"6 principle all inadvertent and deliberate sins were attracted to
the sanctuary, thereby contaminating it. Still other authors suggest that the sacrifices 7 or
the ritual condition of the people8 had a part to play in bringing about the
contamination.
A variety of views have also been expressed in regard to the specific category of
sins that was removed from the sanctuary on the Day of
2 A. A, Bonar, A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus (London, 1875), p. 308; C. F. Keil, Leviticus
(Leipzig, 1878), p. 117; A. Cohen, Leviticus (London, 1977), p. 708; J. H. Hertz, The Book of Leviticus
(London, 1978), p, 482; A. B, Levine, Jn the Presence of the Lord (Leiden, 1974), p. 74;
G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, 1979), p. 228.
3 L. Moraldi, Espiazione sacrificale e riti espiatori nell'ambiente biblico e nell'Antico Testamento (Rome,
1956), p. 325.
4 J. Milgrom, 'Two Kinds of HATTA'T," VT 26 (1976): 334-35.
5 J. Milgrom, "Israel's Sanctuary: The Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray,'" KB 48 (1976), p. 393; cf.
H, Ch. Brichto, "On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement," HUCA 47 (1976), p. 29.
6 Levine, pp. 77-91.
7 M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service (Washington, DC, 1937), p. 167; G. F. Hasel, "Studies in
Biblical Atonement I: Continual Sacrifice, Defilement//Cleansing and Sanctuary," The Sanctuary and the
Atonement (Washington, DC, 1981), p. 93.
8 K, Hruby, "Le Yom Ha-Kippurim ou Jour de 1'Expiation," OTS 10 (1965): 57; M. Noth, Das
dritte Buch Mose, Leviticus (Gottingen. 1978), p. 215; N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (London,
1967), p. 114; K. Aartun, "Studien zum Gesetz liber den grossen Versohnungstag Lv 16 . . .," ST 34
(1980), p. 103.
201
Atonement. Some authors suggest that the removal had to do with deliberate sins,9 or
sins of ignorance,10 or both.11 Some distinguish between purification for the sins of the
whole nation (annual) and individual purification (carried on during the year).12
According to some the Day of Atonement had to do with sins that were not atoned for
during the year,13 and that had accumulated until that day.14 According to still others the
annual rites purified the sanctuary of sins already forgiven during the year.15 The ritual
value "of the Day of Atonement is, therefore, understood differently by the several
writers.
Actually, it is surprising to see how little importance is given by the scholarly

community to the subject of the purification of the sanctuary.16 Considering the
diversity of positions taken on this point by those who at
9 Cf. L, Ligier, peche" d'Adam et Pechede Monde(Aubier, 1960), p. 95. Several Talmudic
declarations also go in the same direction. See also J. Milgrom, Cuit and Conscience . . . (Leiden, 1976),
pp. 118, 127-28; Id., "Sacrifices and offerings, OT," IDB, Sup. (Nashville, 1976), p. 767; Id.,
"Atonement, Day of," IDB, Sup, p. 83; Id., "Atonement in the OT," IDB, Sup, pp. 78-79.
10 S. G. Gayford, "Leviticus," A New Commentary in Holy Scripture (Society for Promoting

Christian Knowledge, 1937), pp, 114-15; 0. T. Allis, Leviticus (London, 1972), p. 154; D. Hoffmann, Das
Buch Leviticus (Berlin, 1905), p. 448; P. Schaff, "Day of Atonement," A Religious Encyclopaedia (New
York, 1891), p. 167.
11 Mishna, Sebout 1:6.
12 A. R. Fausset, "Day of Atonement," Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, 1975L p. 62; cf. Noth, 106.
13 T. K. Cheyne, "Day of Atonement" Encyclopaedia Biblica . . . (London, 1899), coL 385; S. H.

Kellog, The Book of Leviticus (London, 1891), p. 257; F. Meyrick, me Book of Leviticus (New York,
n.d.), p. 237; J. Milgrom. "Sacrifices and Offerings, OT," p. 766,
14 R. Song 1:5, cited by J. Milgrom, "Day of Atonement as Annual Day of Purgation in Temple
Times," EncJud (1971), col. 1382; Milgrom, Cuit and Conscience, p, 128.
15 G. F.Oehler, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart, 1891), p. 498; W. MoUer, "Day of
Atonement," The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, 1980), 1:326; G.
F. Hasel, "Studies in Biblical Atonement II: The Day of Atonement," The Sanctuary and the Atonement,
eds. A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R. Lesher (Washington, DC, l981lp. 119.
16 See A, Treiyer, Le Jour des Expiations et la Purification du Sanc-tuaire (doctoral thesis,

Strasbourg, 1982), chap. 2.
202
least mention it, perhaps other scholars consider it prudent not to say too much about
what does not seem clear. Furthermore, the idea that the Day of Atonement rituals
reflect a later epoch17 has discouraged all efforts to understand the ritual itself18 as a
unit,19 and this attitude has prevailed for more than a century. Due to this widespread
opinion the majority of authors have turned to the historical-literary critical approach as
the necessary method for understanding what appears to be confusing and poorly
understood by the biblical writers.20
In this chapter we will not attempt to respond directly to the diverse interpretations
briefly alluded to above. We will give consideration instead to the various factors
involved in the contamination and the purification of the sanctuary which will enable us
to draw sound conclusions. We begin with the matter of contamination.
Contamination of the Sanctuary and Suppression of Worship
Many modern authors deny the historical authenticity of the Day of Atonement
service because temple purification rites as recorded in the later historical books of the
OT differ from those described in Leviticus 16.21 Since the rituals found in Leviticus 16
are more complex than these, the conclusion is drawn that the Day of Atonement rites
represent a later
17 G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the OLd. Testament, Its Theory and Practice (Oxford, 1925), p. 308.
18 Hruby,p.60.
19 The first author to deny the literary unity of Leviticus 16 was Oort, TT 10 (1876), p. 155. From
that time on many authors argued similarly. Likewise the literary unity of the entire book of Leviticus has
been both denied and defended in scholarly works.
20 R. De Vaux, Les Institutions de I'Ancient Testament, CERP (Paris, 1967), 2:299.
21 J. Morgenstern, "Two Prophecies From the Fourth Century B.C. and the Evolution of Yom
Kippur," HUCA 24 (1952-1953): 21-22; E. Auerbach, "Neujahrs und Versoehnungs-Fest in den
Biblischen Quellen," VT 8 (1958);
341-43; H. J. Kraus, Gottesdienst m Israel (Munchen, 1962), p. 70; J. Mil-grom, "Day of Atonement,"
EneJud (1971), coL 1387; K. Aartum, "Studien zum Gesetifi uber den grossen Versohnungstag Lv 16 . . .
," ST 34 (1980), pp. 94-103: etc.
203
elaboration.22 However, a careful analysis of the historical texts reveals that not only the
rituals practiced at that time but also the worship situation of the nation was distinct.
These facts, therefore, should be kept in mind lest one make a quick judgment
concerning the historical validity of the Day of Atonement service.
The contamination of the sanctuary narrated in the historical books actually

describes general or national apostasy which resulted in a total abandonment of the
religious services of the temple (2 Chr 29:6-7; of. vs. 3). Except for some attempts to
bring about national repentance and for exceptional reforms that permitted the
reestablishment of the worship (cf. 2 Chr 29:35b), this type of sanctuary contamination
eventually became unsolvable (2 Chr 36:14, 16). As a result, it brought the punishment
of God upon the entire nation (cf. Lev 26:27-33).23 Thus, the temple, contaminated first
by Israel's idolatrous rebellion, lost its reason for existence and was defiled further by
the destruction wrought upon it by invading alien armies (Pss 74:7; 79:1; Ezek 7:22;
24:21; 25:3).
It is not surprising, therefore, at the subsequent reconditioning of the temple and

reestablishment of the interrupted worship, to find the ritual centering only on the outer
altar.24 Such a procedure was in total harmony with the sacrificial rites performed when
the sanctuary services were first inaugurated (Exod 29:12, 36-37; Lev 8:15; 9:9, 15;
Num 7:10-11, 84, 88).25
On the contrary the Day of Atonement (an established ritual) was designed to
complete a worship sequence which had not been interrupted during the year. The rite
was ordained as a "perpetual statute" to be held "each year" (Lev 16:29, 31, 34; 23:31;
Heb 10:3). It was not instituted to
22 R. De Vaux, vol 2, pp. 415-16; A. Ibanez, El Levitico (Victoria, 1974), p.13B.
23 See 2 Chr 36:14-16; Jer 7:30; 32:31, 34 (cf. Jer 2:7, defiled land);
Ezek 5:11; 22:26; 23:38; 44:7; Zeph 3:4; Mal 2:11.
24 2 Chr 29:22, 24; Ezra 6:16-18; Ezek 43:18, 20, 22, 26.
25 2 Chronicles 29:21-24 (reestablishment of temple worship by Heze-kiah) and Ezra 6:16-18 (post-
exilic reestablishment of temple worship) indicate that the same animals were used and essentially the
same kinds of sacrifices were made as in the initial inauguration of the sanctuary (Num 7).
204
initiate worship after a total spiritual collapse of the nation. Denying the historical
authenticity of the Day of Atonement on these grounds lacks a basis. It confuses the
inaugural rites of the religious year with those having to do with its conclusion.26
Contamination of the Sanctuary and the Death Sentence

The situation which we have just described dealt with the sins of rebellion which
reflected a general, national apostasy. We now ask, How did Israel solve the hopeless
cases of individual rebellion when the persons involved were a minority? Were the
worship services interrupted? Would the entire nation and its sanctuary be destroyed for
the unpardonable sins of a small group of rebels? The answer is, of course. No!
However, it should be asked if the rites of the Day of Atonement were designed to care
for this class of sins.
At the outset it must be said that the only solution specified in the Israelite cultus
for this type of contamination of the sanctuary was the death sentence for the guilty (Lev
15:31; 20:3-4; 21:12, 23; Num 19:13, 20; etc.). Actually, sacrifices were never offered
for sins that could not be pardoned (cf. Heb 10:26-27). To the contrary, in such cases
the execution itself of the guilty persons was considered a kind of sacrifice (Ezek 39:17-
20; Isa 34:6; Jer 46:10; Zeph 1:8). All of this is emphasized in a special manner by the
use of various Hebrew terms. We will now observe the theological value of some of
these words as they relate to the death sentence.
Death Sentence and the Term Kipper

Kipper is used mainly in connection with the sacrifice for sin (Lev 4-6, 16, etc.).27
Its commonly accepted meanings are "to rub" and "to erase,"28
26 See Treiyer, for a more complete discussion on the historical authenticity of the Day of
Atonement.
27 The term appears 16 times in Leviticus 16.
28 From the Accadian kuppuru. See Levine, p. 59. This author discounts completely the comparison of
this term with the Arabic kfr ("to cover")
205
expressing the ideas of "purify" and "expiate,"29 For further discussion sec chapter 4 in
this volume.
It is significant that the term could be used to describe the purification of the people
and of the land by the execution of the rebels.30 Thus it was taught that unpardonable
sins could not be expiated by a substitute animal (1 Sam 3:14; cf. Isa 47:11).31 This was
true as much for the guilty person as for the land or the people affected by the crime
(Mum 35:33). It is evident, therefore, that the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement did
not care for such sins. Rather, these rites purified the sanctuary and the congregation
from another kind of contamination, namely, that which had to do with pardonable sins
(cf. Lev 16:30).
It is also of interest to notice that the earth which was thereby contaminated by the
shedding of innocent blood was "the land in which ... I [God] dwell" (Num 35:34). At
times its atonement was described as being made "before Yahweh" (2 Sam 2i;3, 9).32
The principal expressions collected in Leviticus 20 to describe the death sentence for
those guilty of a variety of defiant sins also reveals that the sanctuary and the name of
God
made by J. Wellhausen, because it comes much later and does not reflect the true biblical
meaning. The same, he argues, may be said for the term in post-biblical Hebrew and in late Aramaic. Nor
does the Septuagint (LXX) ever translate kipper in the sense of "to cover." See S. H. Langdon, "The
Hebrew Word for 'Atone,'" ExpTim 22 (1911); 324, n. 2. While this may be true of kipper, it does not
mean that the idea of covering sin did not exist in the Bible. See Pss 32:1; 85:2; Prov 10:12; etc.
29 Kpr could thus come from the ancient noun kQper, "ransom, expiation, gift." Cf. E. Jacob, Theologie
de l'Ancien Testament (Neuchatel, 1968), p. 236.Levine, p. 61.
30 Num 16:47; 25:13; 35:33; Deut 32:43; 2 Sam 21:1, 3; cf. Deut 21;8-9. See the usage also of fcprin
Isaiah 22:14; 27:9; 28:18.
31 S. Lyonnet, " 'Expiation' in the Old Testament," Sin, Redemption, and Sacn/ice(Rome, 1970), p. i30, n.
31 (Isa 47:11).
32 It has been shown that the Hebrew expression translated literally, "I will appease [kipper] his face"
(Gen 32:20) or "a wise man will appease [kipper]" a king's wrath, is similar to an expression in Accadian
that carries the idea of "erasing the wrath from his face," See Levine, p. 60. The wrath of God would thus
seem to be erased either by a sacrifice or by the sentence of death executed upon the rebels. It is
interesting to read these expressions in connection with God's words in Isaiah 65:3—"a people who
provoke me to my face continually,"
206
could be profaned in the contamination of the land (vs. 3).33
If the congregation did not cleanse the land from these sins by carrying out the
capital sentence, the consequences would be worse (vss. 4-5), because sooner or later
the earth would vomit them out as it had vomited out the previous peoples through the
judgments of God (cf. Lev 20:3, 22-23; 18:24-30).
Death Sentence and the Term Ba'ar

This term is translated commonly "to burn."34 However, when it is placed in
relationship to the death sentence, it carries the meaning "to exterminate,"35 "to purge,"
or "to get rid of."36 In this manner the word is used to mean "destroy/take away" of
"evil" (ra)37 ' or the guilt of "innocent blood" (dam naqi).38
The association of baar with the term kipper can be perceived clearly in the testimony
of innocence required of the elders in a given area when it was not known who was the
perpetrator of a murder (Deut 21:8-9),39 The
33 In Numbers 35:34 it is noted that murder defiles the land; in Leviticus
20:3 gross idolatry defiles the sanctuary. The blood shed in the sacrificing of innocent children in
idolatrous rites also polluted the land (Ps 106:36-38), Although the relationship between these two places
which could be defiled is at times quite evident, care must be taken not to identify them completely. The
relationship is closer between the camp and the sanctuary than between the land and the sanctuary (cf.
Lev 13-14; Num 5:3). The limits of tolerance for the presence of impurity are not the same in each of
these places, as we will see further on in this study.
34 Botterweck and Ringgren, eds., "br,'' TDOT, 2:201.
35 Ibid., p. 203.
36 W. L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (Leiden, 1971), p. 44 ("get rid
of," "root out, extirpate"); A. Phillips, Deuteronomy (Cambridge, 1973), p. 95; P. Leclercq, Le
Deuteronome (Paris, 1963), p. 132; F. Brown, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and
English Lexicon (Indiana, 1978), p. 129 ("consume," "utterly remove");
L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebraisches und Aramdisches Lexikon zum Alien Testament (Leiden,
1967), p. 140.
37 Deut 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21-22; 24:7; Judg 20:13. "Evil" (ra') is related to "sin"
(hattat) in 1 Kings 14:22 and to idolatry in texts suchas Deuteronomy 4:25; 1 Kings 11:6; etc.
38 In the cases where there were crimes. See Deuteronomy 19:13; 21:9.
39 The breaking of the animal's neck does not redeem the assassin, but testifies to the innocence of the
people. See S. R. Driver, A Critical and
207
same ceremony that atoned (kipper) for the people also took away (baar) the guilt
acquired through the criminal shedding of innocent blood.40
Baar also appears in parallelism with the Hebrew word, /carat, "to cut off" (1 Kgs
14:10; 21:21).41 This association links us again with the Day of Atonement in that it
enables us to understand the significance of the death sentence ("cut off") which was
invoked against those who did not participate in the required spirit of contrition (Lev
23:29; cf. Ps 109;14-15 = karat)42 This Day of Atonement action was a putting away of
evil.
There is also a counterpart in the Day of Atonement death sentence with the series
of laws in Exodus 21il2-17 which similarly required that the offender "shall be put to
death" (mot yumat). Those condemned to death in reality would be "taken away" from
the altar to be executed (Exod 21:14). Such persons did not have any right whatsoever
in the worship of Yahweh.
Another detail in connection with baar relates to location. By means of the death
sentence the evil is "taken away/exterminated" "from the midst of you," miqqirbeka
(Deut 17:7; 19:19; 21:9, 21; 22:21; 24:7) or "from Israel," miyyisrael (Deut 17:12;
19:13; 22:22; Judg 20:13). The same idea is present when the term kipper is used as has
been noted earlier (Num 35:33-34). This is an important point since numerous passages
describe God as living "in the midst of His people,"43 and His sanctuary was viewed as
sanctifying all the land of Israel (ef. Num 14:21; Isa 6:3).
The land in which the Israelites lived was above all "the land of the possession of
Yahweh" (Josh 22:19; Lev 25:23; Ps 24:1; ef. Deut 23:14). For
Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh, 1896), p. 242; A. Phil-lips, pp. 138-39; J.

Rennes,, Le Deuteronome (Geneva, 1967), p. 98; H. Ring-gren- Sacrifice in the Bible (London, 1962), pp.
36-37.
40 J. Milgrom, "Blood guilt," EncJud (1971), IV, coL 1118.

41 This parallel use is seen by various authors. G. Von Rad, "Theologie des Alten Testaments," CHH
(Munchen, 1957), 1:263, n. 174; TDOT, p. 204. Karat indicates the idea of excommunication; ba'ar
denotes the purifying of the community.
42 For a recent study of karat, see G. Hasel, "karat," THAT, vol 4, (198-y, col., 382. A similar
construction is found in 1 Samuel 2:33—karat.
43 Exod 25:8; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Lev 26:11-12; Num 11:20; 14:42, 44; Deut 2:14-15; 4:3; 6:15; 7:21; 16:11;
19:17; 31:17; Isa 12:6; Hos 11:9; Zeph 3:15; etc.
208
this reason, although with different degrees of tolerance, the sins committed in the land
affected the sanctuary, and the extermination of the rebels was carried out "so that the
Lord may turn from the fierceness of His anger, and show you mercy" (Deut 13:17; cf.
19:17-20).
This description of the matter is presented also in many eschatological passages of

the OT, particularly in Isaiah 4:3-4 where the term ba'ar appears again. While a
remnant, whose names are inscribed among the living in Jerusalem, escape the
condemnation, the city is purified of "the bloodstains"—symbol of the crimes
committed there (Isa 59:3; cf. 1:15; Ezek 24:6; etc.) through the "extermination" (baar,
"spirit of burning") of the guilty. Thus we see that the basic idea in this use of (baar) is
the purification of the community. "The evildoer must be removed."44
Death Sentence and the Term Sur

Sur is generally translated "to separate,"45 "take away [one thing from another]," or
"remove." Some examples: dismemberment—Goliath's head is separated from his body
(1 Sam 17:46); one person from another—Saul is put away from David (2 Sam 7:15);
shame can be taken away (1 Sam 17:26); iniquity or blame may be removed (Isa 1:16;
6:7), etc.
Its use in connection with the death sentence is especially significant in the case of
Joab, David's former general (1 Kgs 2?31). The execution of Joab removes the guilt
from the Davidie monarchy that was incurred by his shedding of innocent blood. In this
instance the term bears the same meaning that has been observed in Deuteronomy
19:12-13; 21:9 with respect to the term baar. The guilt for the shedding of "the innocent
blood" is "taken away" in both cases by the sentence of death being carried out. This
shows once more that so long as the guilty one is not executed, accountability for the
crime remains, and only the execution of the truly guilty person can clear it.
In this context it should be observed that the innocent blood spilled by
44 TDOT.
45 W, Gesenius, HebrSisches und Aramai'sches Handworterbuch (Berlin, 1962), pp. 539-40.
209
assassination is to fall back upon the assassin. This is because the blood of an innocent
man is not accepted as a sacrifice (Gen 9:6; cf. Exod 20:13). In a certain sense, the shed
blood of the innocent provisionally charges the fault of the assassination to the land and
the people and thus contaminates them (Num 35:33; Deut 21:8-9; Ps 106:38). Due to
this, the evil should be ''taken away" from the innocent (whether they be living or
deceased) and placed upon the guilty one in a manner clearly indicating his
condemnation (1 Kgs 2:31-33; Ps 94:21, 23; cf. Josh 2:19).
The term itself, "innocent blood," denies the idea of substitution. Blood thus spilled
cannot atone or justify the assassin. Therefore, avenging the shedding of innocent blood
seems to suggest the taking away of the provisionally charged guilt from the land and
from the innocent community, causing it to fall back upon the head of the guilty (Joel
3:21; ef. vs. 7; Rev 6:10).
Death Sentence and the Term Nasa

The verb nasa means "to take, to charge," "to bear." It is often used in connection
with worship and sacrifice (usages we will give consideration to later). In relationship to
the death sentence it is linked with "iniquity"-— awon, "he shall bear his iniquity" (Lev
20:17, 19); with "sin"—hattat, "they shall bear their sin" (Lev 20:20); and with
"prostitution," as idolatry— zenut, "bear the consequences of your lewdness and
harlotry" (Ezek 23:35; cf. Num 14:33).
These unpardonable sins, therefore, were to be "borne" by those responsible, and by

no one else. Such persons could find no legal means to dispose of their evil. The
application of the sentence might be delayed (Num 14:34),46 but death ultimately would
be the result and would reach every rebel, as can be seen from the expression, "your sin
will find you out" (Num 32:23).
While the execution of the death sentence might be delayed, the
46 A sincere repentance would have averted the sentence as it did in the case of Nineveh (Jonah 3).
However, God did pardon the nation as a people (Num 14:19-20 f cf. vs. 12).
210
negative consequences of the sin might be "borne" sometimes by innocent persons
(Num 14:33). Although at times the destruction of the descendants was avoided, such
descendants could, in certain instances, "bear" the consequences of their fathers' sin in
being deprived of their blessings or special privileges (Ezek 44:10-14). This deprival
could last either during the lifetime of the guilty (Num 14:33)—three generations (Deut
23:8; cf, Exod 20:5), or ten (Deut 23:2-3),47 or indefinitely (Ezek 44:10-14).
This again indicates that the death of the rebels not only "atones," "exterminates,"
or "takes away" the evil or contamination from the land and people, but it also frees
(except in special cases) the innocent from the consequences of the sin committed,
Conclusion. The use of these four biblical expressions allows us, without danger of
error, to say that unpardonable sins (sins that contaminated the land and the people, in
the midst of which and among whom God dwelt) could not be atoned for, nor
exterminated, nor eliminated from the nation through a sacrifice for sin. The only
known solution was the death sentence executed upon the guilty, a sentence which (in
certain extreme cases) could have an effect also on the descendants through certain
penalties.
This is, in reality, the background for certain strange prayers in which it is asked
that the sins of the wicked not be atoned for (kipper) or blotted out from God's sight (Jer
18:23). Rather, "Let them be before the Lord continually" (Ps 109:14-15). That is, the
prayer is that such should remain open before God, until the death sentence should be
executed upon the guilty ones (Isa 22:14). The idea that the blood rites of the Day of
Atonement purified the people and their sanctuary from such unpardonable sins lacks a
biblical basis (1 Sam 3:14).
We should, however, define in a more suitable manner the nature of
47 In actual practice there seems to be some flexibility in tnese guidelines. Ruth the Moabite was
accepted into Israel (Ruth 1:4, 16-17, 22) and became a progenitor of the Messiah (Matt 1:5; Luke 3:22).
Isaiah 56 also announces an era of more general acceptance. If Nehemiah later applied these guidelines
(Neh 13:1-3) more rigorously, it was because at that time union with the Moabites and Ammonites was
separating the people from God. There was the risk of even losing the identity of Israel .
211
the sins which in Israel were punishable by death. This is a matter which often has been
misunderstood.
Unpardonable Sins
It has been thought that the Hebrew term pesa ("rebellion," "transgression"),48 was used
to describe unpardonable sins, although sins of this class were blotted out on the Day of
Atonement (Lev 16:16, 21).49 However, this term, like the larger number of terms found
in the Bible to define sin, describes pardonable as well as unpardonable sins (cf. Exod
34:7; Num 14:18; etc.).50
Due to the distinction made in Numbers 15:29-31 between inadvertent, unconscious

sins and high-handed sins (the last ones unpardonable), it has been thought that only the
former were permitted to be forgiven in the sanctuary ritual. Nevertheless, it may be
demonstrated that a distinction between involuntary and voluntary sins does not
correspond necessarily to pardonable and unpardonable sins. We will see that atonement
by sacrifice was not barred to the intentional sinner who repented.
Deliberate sins and repentance. Certain Levitical ordinances distinguish between

involuntary, inadvertent sins, hatta't (Lev 4) and deliberate, conscious sins, asam (Lev
5). Among the latter may be mentioned the false oath pronounced before Yahweh by a
thief (Lev 6:2-7; cf. 19:11-13). This fact is more surprising when we take into
consideration that commitments taken in the name of God were viewed as irrevocable
(Exod 20:7; Lev 19:12; Num 30:2; Deut 23:21-23; Josh 9:19; Judg 11:35; etc.).
Likewise, it would appear that the sin of blasphemy was never annulled or ameliorated
(Exod 22:28; Lev 24:11-17; 1 Kgs 21:10, 13). How then can it be that in Leviticus 6:2-7
atonement is being offered to the thief who swore falsely in the name of God?
It would appear that the circumstances themselves play a very impor-
48 Gesenius, p. 665.
49 Milgrom. "Sacrifices and Offerings, OT," p. 767; Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, p. 118; Yoma
86b.
50 See Treiyer, pp. 122-23.
212
tant part,51 and not only the sinful act itself. Here, for example, is a thief who uses the
name of Yahweh to hide his lie in a difficult situation where there are no clear proofs of
his sin. His voluntary repentance later on allows for the fault to be "reduced" to the
condition of an involuntary sin. Genuine repentance was, therefore, a definite factor in
securing the mitigation of divine retribution.52
Outside the Levitical codes there are other examples of deliberate sins that were reduced
by repentance to the status of involuntary sins.53 Among these may be mentioned the
sins of David (2 Sam 12:13; cf. Ps 51:1-4, 9-12; 2 Sam 24:10); the abominable
weakness of Ahab (l Kgs 21:25-29); the murdering apostasy of Manasseh (2 Chr 33:3-
19); Josiah's touch of conscience in the name of the nation (2 Kgs 22:18-20); and in a
more general way, the positive reaction of Nineveh (Jonah 3:4-10).54
Although the death sentence was applied only in the eases of conscious or
premeditated sins, it must not be deduced from this that all such sins were punished by
death. Among the deliberate sins, only those committed "with a raised hand," beyad
ramah (Num 15:30) in open rebellion, defiantly confronting God, could not be atoned.
And this was determined by certain special circumstances.
Special circumstances in which sin could not be atoned. It is not possible in a

short chapter to give consideration to all the elements that affected the application of the
death sentence"55 We restrict ourselves to
51 This is seen, for example, in certain vows which could be annulled when circumstances
surpassed the capacity of the individual to fulfill them [Num 6:12; 30:6-8, 13-14; cf. 1 Sam 14:24-30, 43-
45). In Leviticus 6:2-7, however, we are dealing with the vow of a thief.
52 Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, p. 119, cf; p. 71. See especially pp. 123-24
53 Ibid.,pp. 119-21, cf; p. 71,
54 In similar manner the prophets called the people to repentance for conscious sins that normally could
not be atoned for (Isa 1:5-6, 15-18; Ezek 33:10-11; etc.). The objective of such appeals was not only to
secure repentance and abandonment of sin but also the adoption of a new way of living which included
making reparation where possible (Isa 1:13-17; Mic 6:6-& Ezek 33:15). See Hasel, "Studies in Biblical
Atonement I," p. 104.
55 See A. Treiyer, "Toute 1'Assemblee le lapidera," Servir (January-
213
the relationship such punishable sins had with the sanctuary.
The apparently excessive severity of the laws of the Pentateuch may be understood
better if we note the situation or context in which they were ordained: during Israel's
Exodus travel. At that time the nation was either encamped beside a mountain or a tent
over which the presence of divinity was manifested.56 The privilege of being "neighbor"
to God, therefore, entailed a greater responsibility for Israel than if they had lived more
remotely from the sanctuary (Num 2:2; cf. Exod 33:5-7). There was a greater risk of
contaminating the divine sanctuary and the sacred character of the worship (Lev 15:31).
For this reason, it would appear that at times God hesitated between placing the tent
outside the camp or destroying His people for their rebellion57
For this reason also, the laws were much more severe for the priests than for the
people (cf. Lev 10:9; Ezek 44:21,' Lev 21:4, 17-23), and still more strict for the high
priests (Lev 21:10-15). No day was so charged with warnings and threats of death as the
day when the high priest entered the most holy place (Lev 16:1-2; 23:29-30).58
However, once they were in the promised land the risk of contaminating the
sanctuary was less direct (cf. Josh 22:19), and the consciousness of the divine presence
was more difficult to maintain. One of the purposes for required attendance at the three
principal feasts of the year would seem to have been the need to maintain alive (as a
reminder to the people) the reality of the presence of God in their midst (Exod 23:14-19;
34il8-26; Deut 16:1-17,' Lev 23,- Deut 31:10-13).
In this connection we may include the requirement to add certain
56 Exod 19:16; 20:18-19, 22; 34:1-2, 28; 40:34-38; Lev 1:1; 16:1; Num 1:1; 3:1; 7:1, 4; 9:1, 15-
23; etc.
57 Exod 32:10; 33:5, 7-10,- Lev 10:1-3,- Num 11:1-3, 33-34; 14:10-12, 37; 16:19-21, 31-35, 41-50;
17:12-13; etc.
58 Consider also the warning overtones in the sudden death of Nadab and Abihu, the priests who
approached God improperly (Lev 16:1; cf. 10:1-3) and the threat of the death sentence upon those who
had neglected to cleanse themselves in harmony with the rituals (Lev 15;31).
214
teaching devices to the domestic religious teachings of the children to stimulate the
memory (Deut 6:7-9; llil8-2l).59 Eventually the nation was directed by the prophets to
remember the blessings and curses that weighed upon them for the privilege of living in
"the land of the Lord" (Hos 9:3; Jer 16:18; ef. Lev 26; Deut 27:11-26; 28:1-68).60
In spite of all these adopted measures and stern warnings the conservation of the
religious and national ties to God were not maintained, and both the divine patience and
tolerance became more evident. The glory of God is then described as being asleep or
hidden from the nation (Ps 44:23-24; Isa 64;7; etc.).
Finally, God is described as forsaking "his dwelling at Shiloh" and delivering "his
power to captivity, his glory to the hand of the foe" (Ps 78:60-61; ef. 1 Sam 4:4-22),
That such a situation could develop is due in part to the fact that the nation did not have
a sufficient number of people of moral worth and courage to impose its will upon an
apostate majority. The death sentence could not be applied to the rebellious, and the
God of the Bible is portrayed as calling upon the pagans to punish His people.
Conclusion. Although certain unpardonable sins seem to be well defined in the

Pentateuch, it must be admitted that in actual practice the circumstances played an
important role in determining the seriousness of the fault and in administering the
punishment. When the people as a whole were on good terms with God, or when the
spirit of repentance was general, the continued disobedience and apostasy of the
individual or minority was punished by death. For that reason "all [kol] the
congregation" was, in principle, to participate in or consent to the punishment (Num
15:35). In such a situation even sins that could have been atoned might acquire the
characteristics of sins "with raised hand," and be punished by death.
59 This preoccupation is seen also in the establishment of the schools of the prophets (ef. 1 Sam
10:10-12; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15-16).
60 In addition to these reminders may be added certain severe ordinances to serve as preventative
measures so that the people would not defile themselves with the sins of the pagans who had formerly
occupied Canaan (Lev 18:20-29; Deut 7:1-6; 8:19-20; 12:29—14:2; 16:18--17:20; 18:9-14; etc.).
215
This is precisely the picture that is presented on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29;
23:27, 29-30; Num 29:7). Those who did not participate in the spirit of humiliation
manifested their contempt for the work of purification done in their favor in the
sanctuary and did not have the right to live. In other words, all the rebels—in the style
of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10; 16:1)— and all those who rejected the divine means for
purification (Lev 15:31) were not among those who were purified on the Day of
Atonement (Lev 16:30). The rites of the sanctuary in no way benefited them.
Contamination of the Sanctuary and Day of Atonement

Scholars have had great difficulty in determining" the reason why there should be a
new cleansing: on the Day of Atonement for sins already pardoned during the year.61
This is because the difference between the rites carried on during the year and the rites
conducted on the Day of Atonement at the end of the year has not been perceived.
Therefore, we snail examine in brief what was atoned for during the year and what was
atoned for on the Day of Atonement.
Use of the Term Kipper in Sacrifices for Sin
The verb kipper appears in the OT 101 times and is used most frequently in relationship
to worship.62 As we have observed earlier, the two meanings most commonly accepted
are "to rub, to erase" with the idea of "purification," or "atonement," alluding to the
means used to erase sin. It thus has a relationship with the verb mahah, meaning "to
erase" or "to blot out."63
In this connection we note the syntactical combinations of the verb kipper which
can shed light on the necessity for the Day of Atonement:
61 Milgrom, "Sacrifices and Offerings, OT," p. 767.
62 F. Maass, "/<pr pi. suhnen," THAT (1971), 1:844.
63 The relationship of tapper with mahah can be seen in such texts as Jeremiah 18:23. For the use of
mahah in the sense of "erase," see Isaiah 43:25; Psalm 51:3, 9; 109:14. See Levine, pp. 58-59.
An analysis of the passages employing kipper reveals that atonement for sin was not
simply an automatic process. The ritual acts resulted in the purification (Lev 12:7;
14:53) or the pardon of the one who made the offering (Lev 4:31, 35; 5:10, 13, 15, 16,
18; Num 15:28; etc.), but it was God who
granted his petitions and desires.67 Atonement was also related to persons or objects not
previously purified or consecrated (Exod 29:36-37; Lev 8:15, 33-34).
It is important to underscore the point, however, that neither the sacrifices for the
sins of the priests or people offered throughout the year, hattat (Lev 4), nor the
sacrifices for guilt, 'asam (Lev 5), nor those offered for physical impurities, tame (Lev
12:6-8), had the sanctuary itself as the direct object in view. Rather, it was the
individual who received the impact of the atoning act (see above No. 1, kipper + al,
"The priest shall
64 This construction occurs six times in Leviticus 16. It is used both in connection with persons (Lev
4:20, 26, 32, 35; 8:34) and with things (altar:
Exod 29:37; 30:10; Lev 8:15; sanctuary: Lev 16:16, 33).
65 Lyonnet, p. 130.
66 Ibid.
67 Levine, pp. 65-66.
217
make atonement for him," Lev 4:35; 5:6, 10, 13; 13:6-8, emphasis supplied).
The distinction between the daily ritual and that of the Day of Atonement is
emphasized further in the use of kipper and et, the sign of the direct object (see above
No. 5, kipper + 'et). The sign of the direct object is used only in the final purification or
cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.68 It clearly indicates that it is the
sanctuary itself that is to be cleansed on the Day of Atonement. In the daily sacrificial
rituals the sins and impurities of individuals were atoned for and transferred to the
sanctuary. The Day of Atonement now focuses upon the cleansing of that sanctuary.
The same idea is reenforced with the use of the preposition mm (see above No. 2,
kipper + al + min)- In the daily rituals sin was taken from the penitent who sacrificed a
sin offering ("the priest shall make atonement [kipper] for [al] him for [min = from] his
sin, and he shall be forgiven," Lev 4:26; 15!30-31). On the Day of Atonement a parallel
action transpired: the sins of penitent Israel were taken from the sanctuary ("thus he
shall make atonement [kipper] for [al] the holy place, [from, min] the uncleannesses of
the people of Israel, and [from, min J their transgressions, all their sins; and so shall he
do for the tent of meeting, which abides with them in the midst of their uncleannesses,"
Lev 16:16).
All of this allows us to make an important distinction between the atoning rites
carried on in the sanctuary throughout the year and those that were carried out on the
Day of Atonement. The daily rituals transferred sin and impurity to the sanctuary; the
yearly ritual (Day of Atonement) removed this deposit away from the sanctuary.
Now we turn our attention to review the way the sins of the people (confessed and
pardoned throughout the year) could contaminate the sanctuary.
68 Cf. G. F. Hasel. "Studies in Biblical Atonement II," The Sanctuary and the Atonement,
(Washington, DC, 1981), p. 118. Aside from the Levitical laws, in the contextual setting of the
inauguration, the direct sign is used twice in Ezekiel in connection with the sanctuary (Ezek
43:26; 45:20).
218
Criteria for Contamination and Purification in the OT

Another area of study (related to the preceding discussion) is concerned with the
nature of the contamination dealt with in Leviticus 16. Some view the blood of
sacrificial sin offerings (offered throughout the year) as functioning' like u "ritual
detergent"69 which would purge—not contaminate—the sanctuary. Hence, the view
would be that while "sin contaminates, blood purifies."70
A closer analysis of the criteria for contamination in the OT becomes necessary

now in order to see whether this conviction is as uniform as has been believed. It is
essential to endeavor first to understand the mind-set of the Israelite in his biblical, Near
Eastern context before we can draw valid applications in terms of our Western thought
patterns. Actions that resulted in some form of personal contamination (ultimately
relating to the sanctuary) may be classified within three general categories as follows:
First Category—Contamination by Contact With Dead Animals and Certain

Other Situations
1. Dead unclean animals (Lev 11:8, 10-20, 23-38, 41-43; 20:25).
2. Clean animals that died of themselves, the blood not spilled (Lev 11:39-40; 17:15-16;
cf. vs. 13; 22:8).
3. Clean animals sacrificed for sin, touched by a clean person or object of the sanctuary
(Num 19:7-10, 19-21; 6:26-30; 10:17; 16:24, 26-28).
4. Indirect contacts with that which had been contaminated by human impurity—see
second category (Lev 15:5-12, 16-23, 27; 22:4-6; Num 19:22; cf. Lev 5:3).
5. Normal flux qf human semen (Lev 15:16-18; cf. Deut 23:10-11; I Sam 21i4-5).71
6. Entrance into a leprous house closed by the priest for observation (Lev 14:46-47).
69 Milgrorn, "Sacrifices and Offerings, OT," p, 766.
70 E. Heppenstall, Our High priest (Washington, DC, 1972), pp. 58, 83.
71Deuteronomy 23:10-11 speaks of a war camp. The soldiers were to be in the best physical and spiritual
condition when they engaged in battles for Yahweh.
219
General characteristics of the first category of contamination:
1. The contamination may be termed as "light." Its duration was until nightfall72
2. The only purification required was the washing of the contaminated individual or
object.
3. There was contamination, but no charge of guilt; there was no threat of death, at least
not in the first case.
4. Results from not complying with required purification:
1. He "[bore] his iniquity" (Lev 17:16).
B. If an Israelite was unaware of his error, he was required to offer a sin offering
when the matter became known to him (Lev 5:2-3, 5-6).
It is evident that in these cases (in spite of the declaration that the individual was in a
state of uncleanness until evening) contact with a dead animal did not affect seriously
the spiritual life of an Israelite. This would seem to be alluded to in the expression, "I
wash my hands in innocence" (Pss 26:6; 73:13)73 The apostle Paul also found
inspiration in these laws and gave them a spiritual application when he said, "Be angry
but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger" (Eph 4:26; cf. Lev 22:7),
It should be noted that the carcasses of clean animals whose blood had not been
removed were treated the same as unclean animals. Their blood converted them into
something that could not be eaten; that is, it rendered them unclean.74 Persons or holy
objects coming in contact with animals offered in sacrifice for sin likewise did not
escape this rule of contamination.
Mention should also be made of the fact that contamination through contact with
the carcass of a clean animal whose blood was not spilled (Lev 11:39-40; 17:15) was
the same as it would have been if the same animal had been eaten. Something similar
occurred through the eating of, and by contact with, the sacrificial offerings for sin (Lev
10:17; 6:24-29; 16:24).75
From our analysis of this first category of contamination it may be
72 C. F. Keil, The Third Book of Moses [Leviticus] (Edinburgh, 1887), p.374
73 It is also possible to relate this expression to Deuteronomy 21i6-7.
74 Noth. p. 80.
75 Cf. Lev 11:31-35; 15:12; Mum 31:22-23.
220
seen that the blood of sacrificial animals did not always purify. This may serve as a
basis to suggest that the Israelite sanctuary was contaminated by the blood rites of the
year and not purified. This was, in effect, a legal contamination,76 very light, that did
not affect either the honor or the holiness of the sanctuary, but required its purification
after a certain time.
76 Hasel, "Studies in Biblical Atonement I," p. 93.
77 It is thought that this law describes a contagious, venereal disease, in this instance transmitted by
the male sexual organ. H. Gazelles, "Le LevUique," La Bible de Jerusalem (Paris, 1978), p. 144.
78 Keil, Leviticus, p. 375.

221
1. The risk of illegal contamination of the sanctuary (Lev 15:31;

Num 19:13, 20).
b. The explicit threat of death (Lev 15:31).
It can be seen that the second category of contamination was a great deal more
serious than the first. God did not accept human impurity (death in its various forms)
but only a substitution by the blood of an animal. Contamination by contact with the
dead seriously affected the sanctity of those who had consecrated themselves to God
(the Nazirite), although not irremediably if the prescribed rites of purification were
observed. The contamination derived by contact with the dead on the part of the high
priest was, on the other hand, fatal. No purification rites were prescribed in his case.
This was due to the fact that "the consecration of the anointing oil of his God ... [was]
upon him," and his profanation was placed in close relationship with the profanation of
"the sanctuary of his God" (Lev •21:12).
Ezekiel 9:7 states that the sanctuary was contaminated by the bodies of those who
were condemned by the judgment of God and was a factor in His withdrawal from the
temple and its destruction (at least as far as Ezekiel's vision is concerned). In the actual
events which later took place in Jerusalem under the Babylonians the desanctification of
the temple was complete. After the captivity only the inaugural rites of purification for
the temple were observed, and these were conducted in the court.
Nothing is said about the contamination of the sanctuary by the bodies of Nadab
and Abihu nor about the bodies of the princes who were destroyed in the rebellion of
Koran, Dathan, and Abiram. It is not recorded that any type of ritual was conducted for
purification in these instances.79 In Ezekiel 9 the bodies remained in the temple, and
God left. In the other cases the process was just the reverse: the bodies were removed
from the sanctuary, and God remained in it. The Day of Atonement rites of
purifi-
79 The silence in the Scriptures on this point may explain why the Jews tore down the temple
altar profaned during the Antiochan persecution but saved its stones until a prophet should arise to advise
on the matter. A new altar was erected and purified when Judns Maecabaeus recommenced the temple
services (1 M
222
cation described in Leviticus 16, therefore, had nothing to do with this kind of
contamination. The purification of the sanctuary on this special day obviously did not
last seven days (as did the instances in the second category), but only one.
Finally, it should be remembered that those persons who were condemned to death
in Israel for whatever reasons were not executed in the sanctuary nor in the camp (Lev
24:14, 23; Num 15:35-36; Acts 7:58; 21:28-30). The practice followed for dealing with
corpses, condemned criminals, and lepers was always the same: removal from the
temple and beyond the city limits (cf. Num 12:10, 14-15? 2 Chr 26:16, 19-21). They
were "cut off (karat) from the midst of their people (cf. Lev 23:29).
According to what has been noted already, the execution of the condemned person
had in itself a purifying value. The only thing that remained in the sanctuary complex
until the Day of Atonement was a record of the blood of animals that took the place of
human sin and impurity, and this was only in those cases where the purification of the
sinner was possible.
Third Category—Contamination by Leprosy (Lev 13-14):
1. Cultural and social death—total exclusion from Israel and from the temple (Lev 13).
2. The healing (resurrection) did not authorize the leper to participate immediately in the
social and religious life of the nation. Although it was declared four times, "he shall
be clean" (Lev 14:7-9, 20), there was a sequence of several rites in which he was
required to participate during the process of his integration into the life of the
nation.
3. The purification rites for the healed leper were distinctive, but they did have some
elements similar to the other purification rites. We note some comon points:
1. With purification from contact with a human corpse—use of cedar, scarlet, and
hyssop (Lev 14:4-7; Num 19:6).
2. With the Day of Atonement—two birds, one goes free; two goats, one goes free
(Lev 14:4-7b, 49-53; 16:5, 7-10, 15-22).
3. With purification of the Nazirite—shaving the hair (Lev 14:8-9; Num 6:9).
4. With purification of the first category—on the same day, washing his clothes
and himself (Lev 14:8; 11:40; etc.).
e. With all the cases of the second category—seven days (Lev14:9; sacrificing both a
sin offering and a burnt offering (Lev 14:19-20; etc.).
223
f. With the consecration of the priesthood at the inauguration of the sanctuary—

anointing" tip of right ear, right thumb, right toe with blood; anointing with oil (Lev
14:14-18; 8:23-24, 30; Exod 29:6-7).
Our Western logic runs into certain difficulties here. In the biblical pattern it is the
healed leper who must purify himself, not the one who continued in his leprous
condition. As soon as he was declared pure by the first rite, he had to proceed to purify
himself again and again in different stages, four times altogether and by all kinds of
purification rites. The similarity of these rites with all the other cases of impurities,
indicates once again that the healed leper had to undergo those steps to purification
which were related to the two previous categories. These rites were a part of the
integration process by which the ex-leper returned to the social and religious life of
Israel.
Conclusion. The reasons for the existence of such laws are not determined easily
inasmuch as the biblical text is silent on the matter.80 However, there is no doubt that a
very rigorous principle of hygiene is to be found at the base of these ordinances. These
were necessary at a time when such measures as we have to resolve problems of
pollution were not available (of. Deut 23:13-14) and where the climate also may have
had a part. On the other hand some of these laws seem to have been established as an
antidote against certain pagan rites of a sexual type which would have been excluded
totally from Israelite worship.81
Above these concerns we may perceive theological insights and teaching

procedures in the categories just summarized. These laws especially found their reason
for being in Israel's system of worship.82 In the Israelite religion the temple accepted
human impurity only when it was substituted
80 J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden, 1973), p. 20'

81 Ibid.
82 Ibid,
224
by the "lighter" impurity which a clean animal could contract and transmit. That is,
human impurity could only reach the sanctuary indirectly. The extreme ease, that of
leprosy, reveals on the other hand the loss of all spiritual life. The situation of the leper
was similar to that of Israel in captivity with its temple in ruins (Lam 4il5). At that time
the leper could only place his hopes on God in the heavenly sanctuary (cf. 1 Kgs 8:38-
39).
Areas and Degrees of Sanctity and of Contamination

It has been thought that the contamination of the sanctuary interrelated only with
the contamination of the camp or of the city, but not of the land, since the lepers were
banished from those areas83 This conclusion, however, is not shared by all authors.84 On
the other hand it is never said in the biblical records that the land was contaminated by
leprosy. It is evident that the expulsion had to do with the danger of contagion (ef. Lev
13; 14:33-48).
That which contaminated the land, as we have seen explicitly stated, was the blood
that was spilled upon it unjustly and the practice of idolatry. A causal relationship
between contaminated land and the illegal contamination of the sanctuary cannot be
denied (ef. Num 35:33-34; Lev 20:3, 22; etc.).85
Apart from these rebellious and defiant acts which naturally contaminated both the
land and sanctuary, there were some differences which had more to do with the degree
of tolerance than with the contamination itself. A closer consideration of these various
areas and their degree of sanctity will enable us to see in a more precise manner the way
the sins and impurities of Israel could reach the sanctuary in a legal manner without
provoking the unquenchable wrath of God who lived in it. The danger of direct
contamination could be measured (among other reasons) by the distance of the location
for a particular rite from the inner precincts of the sanctuary.
83 See n. 4.
84 Sec n. 3.
85 See n. 33.
225
1. The leper outside the camp. Among those who contracted physical impurities
the leper was removed the furthest from the temple. He was banished from the midst of
the congregation of Israel (Lev 13:45-46) regardless of his or her social standing (Num
12:14; cf. 2 Kgs 15:5; 2 Chr 26:21). In order to attest a lepers claim to be healed the
priest was obliged to leave the camp or city to examine him (Lev 14:3). If healing had
occurred, the first rites of purification were also applied in that location (Lev 14:4-8).
Nevertheless, these preliminary ceremonies did not free him from his state of impurity,
but only from his exclusion from the congregation.
2. The ritually impure outside the sanctuary court. The purified leper at the close
of his initial rites of purification retained at that point a state of impurity similar to those
cases of the ritually impure who were not required to be expelled from the camp or city
(Lev 14:8). For this reason certain further rites of purification by water had to be
performed (Lev 14:9; cf. 15:13, etc.) before he was able to present himself in the court
of the sanctuary for his final stage of purification by means of sacrifices (Lev 14:10-31;
cf. 15il4-15, 29-30).
These rites of purification by water had as their main objective the return of the
physically impure to the same level as those who had to be purified from their sins—
hattat, "sin," (Lev 12:6; 15:15, 30); asam, "guilt," (Lev 14:12-13).
3. The sinners in the court of the sanctuary. The laity who desired to be
reconciled to God could go no further into the sanctuary complex than the court (Lev
1:3; 4:24; 14:11). Eventually the corresponding temple area was divided into four
courts: the court of the Gentiles, the court of the women, the court of Israel, and the
court of the priests. Pagans were not permitted into the three interior courts under pain
of death (Ezek 44:7; Acts 21:28-31, 36; 22:22). Nevertheless, if they accepted the
religion of Israel, assurance was given that their sacrifices would be accepted upon the
altar of Yahweh (Lev 17:8-9; Isa 56:6-7; etc).
4. The priests in the holy place. In the very heart of the sanctuary were to be found
the holy places, separated by a curtain into two apart-
226
merits designated a "holy place" and a "most holy place" (Exod 26:33). The holy place
was the area where only the priests could present themselves before the Lord to obtain
their reconciliation—or that of the people when the sin that was committed had a
general complicity (Lev 4:5-7, 16-18).
Perhaps this was permitted because the priests could commit faults as human beings
in the court (cf. Lev 4:3) without necessarily suffering the sentence of death (Num
18:lb). Consequently, they would have to go farther inside to regain their purity, but
never to the most holy place. Of course, as representatives of the people (of. Lev 10:17),
they naturally interceded for them in the holy place.
5. The high priest in the most holy place. After the death of the two sons of
Aaron, burnt by God Himself because they improperly carried out the duties of their
office, Moses was instructed that only the high priest would be permitted to enter the
most holy place, and that entrance would be but once a year (Lev 16:1-4). This was the
climactic point, the only possibility of appearing in the presence of God Himself
without a curtain to hide Him and without being condemned to death (Lev 16:12-13). It
was the final expiation of the religious year that had the sanctuary as its main object.
We may now summarize in chart form the procedures Israel followed in order to
avoid direct contamination of the sanctuary by either the sinner or his sins.
227
Conclusion. The people could not approach the sanctuary like a priest without the
risk of death (Num 18:22; cf. 17:13). Nevertheless they could come with a substitute
animal. The priests and Levites were the only ones who could commit faults in the
temple area without being condemned by God (Num 18:1, 23). The divine tolerance
with the priests on this point in no way nullified the strict laws which governed the
qualifications for the priesthood and their conduct both in the rituals and in their private
lives.86
The insights gathered from the above survey indicate that the impurity or sin
contracted in or outside the camp reached the sanctuary either directly or indirectly. In
the case of the leper, if he were to present himself at the sanctuary without performing
the preliminary rites of purification, he would contaminate the tabernacle of Yahweh
and, therefore, would have suffered the death sentence (Lev 15:31).
On the other hand all the rites of purification performed by the people in the court
of the sanctuary—and by the priests for their personal sins in the holy place—truly
purified them. But at the same time these rites caused the sanctuary to be contaminated.
This legal type of contamination was, however, so attenuated that the honor and sanctity
of the divine Majesty could bear with it until the end of the year when the sanctuary
itself was purified. This contaminating//cleansing concept and process now deserves our
attention in some detail.
86 Cf. Lev 10:9; 21; Ezek 44:21.
PURIFICATION OF THE SANCTUARY
Editorial synopsis. One reason why modern Bible students have difficulty in
understanding the Israelite sacrificial system is because they examine it with Western
logic. But Israel's worship is appreciated better if the presence of Eastern thought
patterns are recognized. For example, the sanctuary system presents to the Westerner a
paradoxical concept: sacrificial blood has both a defiling//cleansing function! The writer
has chosen to name this paradox, "the principle of substitutional interchange."
Through the manipulation of sacrificial blood the sins and impurities move from the
penitent to the sanctuary and "legally" contaminate it. At the same time, however, the
atoning and cleansing function of the blood is directed toward the penitent, and he is
forgiven and purified. In this transaction God (in the figure of the sanctuary) takes upon
Himself the sins of the repentant sinner until the Day of Atonement, The assumption of
the sins God forgives is expressed clearly in His proclamation before Moses, which
translates literally, "Yahweh, Yahweh . . . who bears iniquity, rebellion, and sin . . ."
(Exod 34:6-7).
There are, therefore, sins that God takes upon Himself (those that have been
confessed and pardoned), and others that He rejects (those never confessed by the sinner
who spurns His mercy).
Thus it may be said that the sanctuary could be contaminated by the sins of Israel in
two ways: (l) legal contamination by means of the blood rites carried on during the year
in behalf of repentant sinners, and (2) illegal contamination by means of deliberate
sinning (especially the shedding of innocent blood, idolatry, and neglect of the rites for
purification) for which no forgiveness or purification was sought.
It is the author's view that the Day of Atonement dealt with both categories of sins
and sinners, but in two different ways. The Day of Atonement rites purified the
sanctuary of the formerly pardoned sins of the penitent (Lev 16). But impenitent
Israelites bore accountability for their own sins and were cut off from the congregation
of Israel (Lev 23:29-30),
Since the sanctuary assumed the responsibility for the forgiven sins
229
transferred to it during the year, it was obviously not the cause of those sins and
impurities. Thus, in a sense, the sacrifice of the Lord's goat on the Day of Atonement
was in favor of the sanctuary and vindicated the God who abode there. It may be said
that the sins which God did not bear (because they were not transferred to the sanctuary
by sacrifice) fell back upon the guilty to their eternal perdition. On the other hand the
sins which God had accepted to bear upon Himself (in the figure of the sanctuary) now
fell upon the one accountable for sin: the scapegoat for Azazel.
Editor’s Note
The sanctuary, designed as a ritual parable (Heb 9:9, "figure," "symbolic" = Gr.
parabole), illustrated the gospel or plan of salvation to ancient Israel (Heb 4:1-2). In its
broad emphasis it foreshadowed the atoning death and priestly ministry of Christ and
final judgment (Heb 10:1; 8:4-5).
Final judgment will consummate the plan of salvation and will bring to an end the
long reign of sin (Acts 17:31). Since the final judgment (in its three phases) clears God
and His people, brings Satan and his followers to account, and banishes sin and its
effects from the earth, it is the appropriate antitype of the Day of Atonement which did
the same in a ritual manner for the sanctuary and Israel. As the culminating ritual, it
restored the sanctuary and the camp/nation to a state of purification.
In this sense, the Day of Atonement type (Lev 16) is a microcosm of the final
judgment, the initial phase of which is depicted in the parallel passages of Daniel 7-8
(the preadvent phase in heaven). In the sanctuary type four entities are represented in
the Day of Atonement setting:
(1) God who (in the figure of the sanctuary) bore for a time the confessed sins of the
repentant; (2) believing Israelites who had participated in the saving provisions of the
ritual and who remained in a penitent relationship with God; (3) impenitent Israelites
whose idolatry, bloodshedding, open sinning and general neglect of the sanctuary
provisions had defiled illegally the sanctuary and who continued in that attitude; and (4)
the scapegoat, a symbol of Satan.
In the three phases of the final judgment similar entities will be
230
involved. A sentence of acquital will be given in favor of the saints whose union in
Christ will be reaffirmed, and the record of their sins will be blotted out (Dan 7:22; Rev
3:5). The Christian apostasy, symbolized by the little horn (Dan 7-8) which has attacked
the priestly ministry of Christ and substituted an altered form of worship—thus a form
of idolatry (Dan 8: It-12; cf. 2 Thess 2:3-4)—and has shed innocent blood (Dan 7:25;
Rev 17:5-6)» has thereby illegally profaned the heavenly sanctuary (Dan 11:31) and
will be cut off when the final judgment is concluded (Dan 7:26; 8:25).
Satan, now charged with accountability for sin as its originator and instigator, will
be banished (like the ancient scapegoat) to the wilderness of a ruined earth during the
millennial phase of the judgment (Rev 20:1-9; cf, 1 Cor 6:2-3). He will be destroyed
together with al] the impenitent in the fires that cleanse the earth at the close of the
executive phase of the final judgment (Rev 20:10-15). God will be vindicated before the
intelligent beings of His creation, and the redeemed will share in His eternal kingdom
(Dan 7:13-14, 27; Rev 2]:1-5? Matt 25:34).
Section Outline
I. Introduction: Paradoxical Nature of Sacrifices

II. Legal Transfer of Sin to the Sanctuary
III. High Priest Robes and Double Washing
IV. Three Great Periods of Atonement in Israel
V. General Conclusions
Introduction: Paradoxical Nature of Sacrifices

As studies of Israelite worship continue it is becoming clearer that the sacrificial
system had a paradoxical quality which must be understood in order to interpret its
types correctly. While a current of sin and contamination came from the people toward
the sanctuary, from the sanctuary
231
there flowed toward the people a stream of purification and sanctifica-tion.1
This Oriental logic, however, is not grasped easily by the Western mind,2 as can be seen
in scholarly opinions on how to translate certain key words pertaining to the sacrifices.
For example, take the term hattat ("sin"). When used in terms of sacrifice (Lev 4; Num
19:9), it is translated by some as "sacrifice for sin,"3 but by others as "sacrifice for
purification,"4 or simply "atonement."5 Another term is asam ("guilt"). This term has
been translated in the same context as "sacrifice for guilt"6 and as "sacrifice for
reparation" (Lev 5).7 Something similar also occurs with the expression nasa 'awon
("bear [carry]
1 A.. Ibanez, El Levitico (Victoria, 1974), pp. 139-40; A. B. Levine, In the Presence of the
;.ord (Leiden, 1974), p. 69, n. 37; G. F. Hasel, "Studies in Biblical Atonement Ii Continual Sacrifice,
Defilement//Cleansing and Sanctuary" The Sanctuary and the Atonement, eds. A. V. Wallenkampf and
W. R. Lesher (Washington, DC, 1981), p. 102; J, Milgrom, "The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num XIX),"
VT 31 (1981), p. 63.
2 The Greek syllogis tic-speculative culture affected the later understanding of the Jews concerning
the sacrificial rites. Cf. Milgrom, "The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num XIX)," pp. 62-63. This author
shows at the same time, however, that many rabbis did recognize the "paradoxical effect" of the
sacrifices.
3 This is the traditional translation and continues to be accepted today by a large number of scholars.
R. De Vaux, Les Institutions de I'Ancient Testament, CERF (Paris, 1967), 2;296. N. H. Snaith, Leviticus
and Numbers (London, 1967), pp. 37-38: By laying on his hand he transfers the sin, so that animal
becomes the hattat (literally, "the sin"). There is nothing in the ancient versions about an 'offering,' and it
would appear that the ancient translators went to some trouble to avoid the word.
4 J. Milgrom, "Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering, VT 21 (1971), p. 74; Id. "The Paradox of the

Red Cow (Num XIX)," p. 63.
5 In our judgment this rendering is the least appropriate inasmuch as it does not permit a clear
differentiation to be made from the more specific word fop "atonement" (kipper). It is translated
"expiation" in the French and Spanish versions.
6 It is the translation of the larger number of versions. Cf. R. J. Faley, "Leviticus," The Jerome
Biblical Commentary (Englewood, NJ, 1968), 1:67-85. The present writer likewise underlines the
position that the term may meaiL "guilt" as well as "guilt offering."
7 L. Moraldi, Espia2ione sacrificale e riti espiatori nell'amUente biblico e neu'Antico Testamento

(Rome, 1956), pp. 168-70, 179-80, 266; J. Mil-grom. Cult and Conscience . . . (Leiden, 1976), pp. 3-7,
232
iniquity"). It is translated "to remove [take away] the iniquity" (Lev 10;17),8 or simply
"pardon" (Exod 24:7). Finally, it may be noted that the term niddah ("impurity") is
likewise translated in two ways: "impurity [menstrual]"9 or "purification" (Num 19:9).10
Always debating this matter in accordance with Western logic, there are authors
who hold to one side of the problem and leave the other side without a solution. Or they
may prefer to claim that theologically contradictory currents are reflected in the biblical
text.11 As an example of this one-sided approach the following argument may be noted;
Inasmuch as the sin offering is stated to be "most holy" (Lev 6:25), it is not possible that
the flesh of such a sacrifice would bear sin (cf. Lev 10:7).12 In this manner some
scholars have gone to extremes by saying that an object which enters in contact with
holiness is "infected with holiness," and therefore, should be cleansed with water (ef.
Lev 6:27-23; 16:24).13 But, as we will see, sanctity or holiness is never purified or
removed by washing with water!
Contamination by Blood
How can blood appear to have both a defiling and a cleansing function? This is a
paradox. One solution which has been suggested in an attempt to harmonize what
appears to Westerners as a contradictory concept is as follows: the mystery may be
"unravelled" by making a distinction between the different elements of the sacrifice14
According to this opinion the blood would be the purifying element and the rest of the
victim (flesh, etc.) would be the contaminating element.15
8 Ibid., p. 119.
9 This word appears 30 times in the OT—13 times in Leviticus. Whether used in a literal or
figurative manner it is always related to contamination by blood.
10 Gesenius, p. 487.
11 Ibariez, pp. 139-40.
12 De Vaux, p. 297; E. Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning. Law as
Theology (New York, 1977), p. 63.
13 J. R. Porter, Leviticus (Cambridge, 1976), p. 124.
14 Milgrom, "The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num XIX)," pp. 63, 67,
15 For example, T. H. Gaster sees in the flesh of the sacrifice the negative element that receives the
impurity. In the blood he sees the positive
233
This solution, however, is artificial. Furthermore, it cannot be maintained within the
total context of the Israelite sacrifices, because contamination by blood is not
differentiated from contamination by the flesh of the sacrificed animal (Lev 6:27-28;
16:24, 26). Another example of the blending of blood and flesh is the production of "the
water for impurity" which was made from the ashes of a red heifer and was used for
cleansing purposes in certain purification rituals (Num 19:9, 11-22). The blood, as well
as the flesh, the skin, and the rest of the animal, including its excrements, formed a part
of the ashes which were used to prepare the niddah ("impurity") water. Outside of this
context (the production of this special water) niddah is always used in relation to
impurity, especially with that of the woman's menstruation or other occasions when
there was loss of blood such as at childbirth (Lev 12:2; 15:19, 24-26, 33, etc.).16
It is evident that the ashes mixed in water could not avoid the association of the
blood with impurity. Furthermore the red color of the cow is also meaningful. Its
linkage in the popular mind with blood is attested in primitive cultures. Consequently,
the red hide and the addition of the crimson yarn and red cedar strengthens the blood
aspect of the ashes.17 At this point it is easy to recall the familiar passage of Isaiah 1:18,
"Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red
like crimson, they shall become like wool" (cf. Isa 63;2-3).
The rite for the purification of the leper was different from the sprinkling of the
special water noted above, but several elements involved in the production of the ashes
were also used, namely, blood, cedar wood, hyssop, crimson, and water (Lev 14:4-6,
49-50).18 The procedure also had certain parallelisms with the two he-goats used on the
Day of Atonement. Although Leviticus 14:2-8 does not interpret explicitly the blood
rite, its analogy with the scapegoat (Lev 16:20-22) is sufficiently clear to infer
that
aspect which leads to the regeneration of the sinner. T. H. Gaster, "Sacrifices and Offerings, OT,"
IDB (Nashville, 1962), 4:147 B, 152 A.
16 See also Leviticus 18:19; Ezekiel 18:6; 22:10; 36:17.
17 Milgrom, "The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num XIX)," pp. 62-63.
18 Ibid., p. 67.
234
the live bird was contaminated by the blood of the slain one.19
To the above data may be added several expressions in which sin is placed in
parallel relationship with blood. For example, "Your hands are defiled with blood and
your fingers with iniquity" (Isa 59:3, emphasis added; cf. 1:15), Also such expressions
as "his blood is upon him" (Lev 20:9, 11-13, 16, 27, etc.) give the dark side, so to speak,
of this symbol. In these last expressions the term "blood" would carry the idea of "guilt"
(cf. Josh 2:17, 19-20; Matt 27:25; Acts 5:28).
It is clear, therefore, that sacrificial blood cannot be seen exclusively as a purifying

element. Actually, it would appear that in Hebrew thought the blood was viewed as
having a dual function. It could contaminate and purify,
Substitutional Interchange
The paradox of the Israelite sacrifice may be explained as operating on the principle
of substitutional interchange (cf. Isa 53:10-ll).20 The purity of the sacrificial animal was
transmitted symbolically through the blood rites (or through the entire body as in the
case of the ashes of the red heifer mixed with water) to the impure person. And the
impurity of the one who was contaminated was transferred to the animal which in turn
contaminated the sanctuary—-the pure objects it touched, whether the contact was with
its flesh or blood.
Thus, in the light of this principle it is not necessary to discuss whether me niddah
(literally, "waters of impurity") should be translated "impure water" or "water of
purification." The context reveals the fact that for the Hebrew mind the word could be
used with both meanings simultaneously. But what is still more interesting is that this
niddan-water (because of its composition) is also viewed as a hattat, that is, a
"burnt sin
19 See J. D. Prince, "Scapegoat (Semitic)," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh,

1974), 11:222.
20 Most authors take the idea of substitution in only one direction. But see E. Jacob, p. 236, who
emphasizes the concept of exchange. The sinner exchanges his sins for a new life in return .
235
offering" (Num 19:17) which suggests that all sin offerings carried this same
paradoxical concept of defilement//cleansing (Num 19:1-9, 17).
This principle of substitutional interchange can be seen also in the preliminary

procedure to cleanse the leper which took place outside the camp/city. The leper
transmitted his impurities to the sacrificed bird, but at the same time he received from
the bird the purity which he needed when its blood mixed with water was sprinkled
seven times over him (Lev 14:6-7; cf. 51-53). The living bird which was released,
however, carried its impurity by contact with the same elements that had purified the
leper.
Following the same principle of substitutional interchange we may observe that the
sin offering (blood/flesh) contaminated all that it touched in the "holy place" of the
sanctuary court thus requiring a sanctifying process by the indicated washings (Lev
6:25-29). The priest himself, being pure (cf. Lev 22:3-7), was required to eat the flesh of
the sacrifice "in a holy place" and thereby take upon himself the sins of the people (Lev
10:17; Num 18:1; cf. Lev 7:7), Nevertheless the sacrifice was regarded as "most holy"
(Lev 6:25, 29), separated for a very sacred purpose, for which reason those (the priests)
who had contact with it must be sanctified before eating.
The ultimate result of this substitutional interchange was that the sinner (Lev 4:20-
35) or the leper (Lev 14:13-14) was pardoned or purified while at the same time the
sanctuary (sanctified at its inauguration) was contaminated (cf. Num 7:1; Lev 8:10-12;
16:16, 33).
This paradoxical principle of defilement//cleansing is again illustrated by the divine

instructions regarding murder and the subsequent atonement required to cleanse the
land. The spilled blood of the innocent person who was murdered is said to contaminate
the earth. But the spilled blood of the murderer who is executed for his crime is viewed
as cleansing the land (Num 35:33, kipper). In a similar manner the divine vengeance
directed against the peoples who contaminated the earth is described as a "sacrifice" (Isa
34:6; Jer 46:10) which makes atonement or expiation (Deut 32:41-43 [vs. 43, dipper
means expiation]).
Conclusion. The blood of the sacrifice for the sins of Israel did not
236
have in itself a magic power for purification. Its purifying or contaminative value had to
be measured according to the place and the circumstances in which it was applied.
When it had to do with persons or things that were not consecrated, it purified them. On
the contrary, when it was applied to sanctified persons or objects, it contaminated them.
During the year the blood was deposited in the place which God had sanctified with
His glory—His sanctuary (Exod 29:43). In this manner sin was transferred to the
sanctuary complex and contaminated it. At the end of the year, on the Day of
Atonement, the paradox of the substitutional principle operated again, and the blood
became the element for the purification of the sanctuary from all the sins which had
contaminated it until that point. Then in the figurative ritual the sins were blotted out
totally from Israel.
Legal Transfer of Sin to the Sanctuary

It has been demonstrated already in our analysis of the "illegal" or "direct"
contamination of the sanctuary that sins worthy of death could be atoned for only by the
death of the guilty person. We now move to investigate whether, from a positive
perspective, there are additional evidences in the ritual laws themselves to indicate that
the rites of the Day of Atonement purified the sanctuary from those sins which had been
pardoned and transferred to it during the year.
Structural Evidences
The book of Leviticus. Practically all authors perceive two general categories of
law in the book of Leviticus:
1. The ritual laws: of sacrifice (chaps. 1-10); of purification (chaps. 11-16).

2. The laws of holiness (chaps. 17-27). This classification is so evident that
sometimes entire books have been written to deal exclusively with just one of these two
sections.
In the first part of Leviticus (chaps. 1-16) the manner in which the problems of sin
and of impurity may be resolved (without recourse to
237
capital punishment) is determined positively. The incident of Nadab and Abihu is an
exception (Lev 10). However, the incident did illustrate the need for faithful adherence
to the ritual codes lest a similar disgrace be repeated (Lev 10:9-11; 16:1). Leviticus
15:31, the contextual antecedent closest to Leviticus 16, appears to serve a similar
purpose. It does not establish the death sentence but serves a warning notice to prevent
it.
Thus, the laws dealt with in the first 16 chapters present, for the most part,
situations that are susceptible to being solved through sacrifice.
In the second part of the book (17-27), however, the laws deal in detail with capital
punishment.21 The focus is not on the ritual means for avoiding death, but upon the
death sentence itself. The warnings given make no appeal to the rituals as the means by
which the guilty may make amends (Lev 20:4-5, 22-23; 18:26-30). For this reason the
death sentence established for the Day of Atonement for unpardonable sins is located in
the second section of Leviticus (Lev 23:29-30). But the Day of Atonement solution for
cleansing' the sanctuary from pardoned sins is recorded in Leviticus 16, in the first
section of the book.
Inverted reference. Leviticus 16:16 may be translated literally as follows: "And he

will purify [kipper] the sanctuary of the impurities [tumah] of the children of Israel and
of their transgressions [pesa]; from all their sins [hattat]." The text seems to emphasize
that the purification of the Day of Atonement does not omit any of the sins of Israel
(described in chapters 1-15) which had been pardoned during the year. Syntactic
evidence may be presented to suggest that the two terms, "impurities" and
"transgressions" (connected by the conjunction "and"), are summed up in the
expression "all their sins."22
In this connection we may compare verse 21 with verse 16. In verse 21 the
statement is made that "Aaron shall . . . confess over . . . [the scape-
21 Lev 17:4, 8-10, 14; 18:24-30; 19:18; 20; 22:3, 9; 23:29-30; 24:10-23; 26:L4-43; 27:29. An
exception to this emphasis is Leviticus 7:20-21, 25, 27.
22 For a different translation of the expression "all their sins," see W. H. Shea, "Literary Form and
Theological Function in Leviticus," chap, 5, pp. 157-64, in this volume.
238
goatl all the iniquities ['awon] ... all their transgressions [pesa], all their sins [hatta't]; . .
." It will be seen in this second listing that the term "iniquities" has replaced the word
"impurities." This is quite understandable if we take into consideration that the two
terms are used synonymously in other passages of the book (cf. Leviticus 17:15-16
which notes that the person who chooses to remain unclean (impure) must bear his
iniquity).23
Whether we wish to see in Leviticus 16:16 the two principal terms ("impurities" and
"transgressions") included in the expression "all their sins," or to see three separate
words ("impurities," "transgressions," "sins") is not too important. It is the order in
which these items are listed as compared with the sequence in which they were
previously discussed in chapters 1-15 that is siginficent. The order is inverted; that is,
the sequence is reversed.
It may be questioned as to what in Leviticus 1-15 would match with

"transgressions" (pesa). It will be recalled that Leviticus 4-5 dealt with guilt offerings
(asam), These offerings involved conscious, deliberate sins. It is not difficult, therefore,
to see an allusion to the pardonable sins of this category in the term "transgressions"
(pesa) as listed in Leviticus 15:16, 21.
The following graph indicates the inverted relationships of the parallel passages
Leviticus 1-15 and 16:16, 21 in the two ways the term "sins" may be construed (see
examples 1 and 2):
23 Levine, pp. 76-77.
This type of inverted structure occurs frequently in the Bible, a fact which reinforces the
evidence presented here,24 and leads to this conclusion: The writer's description of the
purification of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) indicates that he had in
mind only those sins and ritual errors discussed in the previous 15 chapters for which
pardon had been granted through the prescribed procedures during the year.
Ritual Evidences (Substitution)

Up to this point we have not explained how sin was transferred to the sacrificial
victim. This understanding is inferred from the imposition of the hand(s) of the penitent
upon the head of the animal before it was slain.25 Since this point has been the subject
of many discussions even to the present time,26 it will be necessary to weigh the
principal evidences.
Transferal by imposition of hands. Almost all sacrifices offered in the
24 P. C. Beentjes, "Inverted Quotations in the Bible. A Neglected Stylistic Pattern," Bib 63 (1982): 506-
523.
25 See Moraldi, pp. 90-95, for the list of authors who assign a vicarious-penal substitutional role to
the sacrificial victim.
26 See A. M. Rodrfguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (Doctoral Dissertation, Andrews

University, 1979), p. 143. See also, essay in this volume by the same author, chap. 6, "Transfer of Sin in
Leviticus."
240
sanctuary ritual required the imposition of hands upon the head of the victim.27 This has
given rise to much discussion among Bible interpreters. It is thought that each class of
sacrifice may have had a different motivation for the act. Another point for debate has
been the alleged difference between the imposition of only one hand (the bulk of the
sacrifices)28 and the imposition of two hands in the scapegoat ritual.29 Furthermore, the
confession and consequent transmission of sin to the victim is stated explicitly only in
the scapegoat ritual (Lev 16:21).30
It has been suggested that if the ritual was carried on with only one hand (apart from the
Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:21), it was because the other hand was occupied with
a knife to slay the victim.31 Thus, the imposition of two hands upon the scapegoat
becomes a natural thing since the animal was not sacrificed.
Symbolism may have dictated this apparent distinction in form. For example, the
imposition of only one hand upon the victim may have symbolized the transmission of
one specific sin while the imposition of two hands may have corresponded to several
sins or to a collective transferal. In the case of the scapegoat the priest placed his two
hands upon the animal to transmit not an individual fault but rather the sins committed
by the people during the year. This act had to do with a plurality of sins. Again, it was
only one person who placed his two hands upon the scapegoat on the Day of
27 Explicitly stated are the private burnt offerings (Lev 1:4; 8:18); peace offerings (Lev
3:2, 8, 13); sin offerings (Lev 4;4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8:14); consecration/ordination offerings (Lev 8:22).
28 In Leviticus 4:15; 8:14, 18, 22, the Hebrew text (Masoretic) the word "hands" is grammatically
rendered in the dual form, although it has to do with multiple impositions at one time by several persons.
See the comparative chart in R. Peter, "L'imposition des mains dans 1'Aneien Testament," VT 27 (1977),
p. 50.
29 This observation comes from Catholic authors such as Moraldi, p. 259; S. Lyonnet, "De ritu capri
emissarii," VT 39 (1961), p. 36; S. Lyonnet and L. S,abourin, Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice (Rome,
1970), p. 183.
30 This has led some authors to conclude that the imposition of hands transmitted sin only in the
case of the Azazel goat ritual. See H. H. Row-ley, Worship in Ancient Israel, pp. 92-93; Peter, p. 52.
31 R. Dussaud, Les Origlnes Cananeennes du Sacrifice Israelite (Paris, 1921), p. 73.
241
Atonement—and this for the sins of all the people—while in Leviticus 4 it is only the
sinner himself who sought forgiveness.
It has been suggested also that the imposition of only one hand served to express
identification between the one who made the offering and the offered animal, whereas
the imposition of the two hands served to express only the idea of transferal 32 The
principle of identity, however, could be accepted without negating the idea of transferal.
If so, by contrast, the high priest would use both hands so that he would not identify
himself with the scapegoat, although the concept of transferal was evident.
There is, therefore, no real foundation for rejecting the idea of the transmission of
sins through the sin offering because it was done apparently by one hand rather than two
(cf. Num 27:18, 23). It may be that the confession and transmission of sins was stated
carefully in the rite of the scapegoat in order to prevent giving rise to a wrong
interpretation regarding the true role of this animal, charged with the sins of the people,
but not sacrificed.
Probably it would be more accurate to interpret the imposition of hands according
to the nature of each class of sacrifice. Thus the placement of the hand or hands was like
a prayer with a definite purpose in mind. The prayer could be for the atonement of the
life that was now being consecrated completely to Yahweh (Lev 1:4); the expression of
specific thanks (Lev 3:1); the confession of a definite sin (Lev 4:2-3, 13-14, etc.; Num
5:6-7; etc.); a special ordination (Lev 8.-22); or even more explicitly, the confession of
the sins of Israel taken from the sanctuary and placed upon the scapegoat on the Day of
Atonement (Lev 16:20-22).
Silence in the text on the imposition of hands. The description of the Day of
Atonement ritual (Lev 16) contains no statement regarding the imposition of hands
upon the Lord's goat, the blood of which was used for cleansing the sanctuary complex.
This omission has given rise to various explanations.33
32 See Peter; De Vaux, vol. 2, p. 292.
33 See Hasel, "Studies in Biblical Atonement II: The Day of Atonement,"
242
How much significance should be attached to the silence on this point in Leviticus
16? A survey of the chapters that touch on the sin and guilt offerings reveals the
following situation: No mention of the imposition of hands is made in Leviticus 5-7
which deal with the guilt offering. Nevertheless it is stated that the law for the guilt
offering is the same as the guideline for the sin offering (Lev 7:7). No reference is made
to the matter in Leviticus 6:25-30 or in Leviticus 9. However, Leviticus 10:17 indicates
that a transferal of sin was made through sin offerings. Reference to the imposition of
hands is also omitted when the sin offering is referred to in Leviticus 12, 14, 15, and in
Numbers 7, 15, 19, 28, 29.
The simplest explanation is that the Bible writer considered that his explanation was
sufficiently clear concerning the imposition of hands in the first description made in
Leviticus 4 about sin offerings. It was not necessary to repeat each time what was
understood to be the procedure when sin and guilt offerings were made. Consequently
the silence in subsequent chapters should not be overpressed,
The silence is broken once in Leviticus 8:14 where the writer describes the
inaugural consecration of the priesthood. Perhaps it was to indicate that even in those
rituals, which had nothing to do with specific sins, the imposition of hands also should
be practiced. The same imposition of hands is noted in Numbers 8 at the unique
ceremony for the consecration of the Levites (Num 8:10, 12).
If the silence with regard to the laying on of hands is significant in Leviticus 16, it
may be inferred that it was because the Lord's goat does not serve as a transfer victim to
bring sin into the sanctuary, but as a cleansing agent to remove sins from the sanctuary.
Conclusion. The imposition of hands taught Israel in a concrete manner that sin
could not be settled in some general, indefinite manner. Rather, they were shown that
the solution to their sin problem was exact and was of a penal character. The sinner had
to choose between offering a
The Sanctuary and the Atonement, eds. A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R. Lesher (Washington, DC,
1981), p, 117; Shea, p. 47.
243
substitute animal upon which he could place his sin or accepting sooner or later the
deserved punishment himself. If he chose the route of substitution, his sin was
transferred to the sanctuary. Eventually it was placed upon the live scapegoat and
blotted out.
Comparative Etymological Evidences (Bearing of Sin and Its Eradication)

When the blood of the sin offering was not sprinkled in the interior of the sanctuary,
the priest was to eat the flesh of the animal; thereby he was said to carry or to bear the
iniquity (nasa 'awon) of the people (Lev 10:17-18; cf. 6:26, 29-30). "Now Moses
diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering, ... 'Why have you not eaten the sin
offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given
you that you may bear the iniquity (nasa 'awon) of the congregation, to make atonement
for them before the Lord?' " (Lev 10:16-17).
Some writers who do not understand the paradoxical system of Israelite worship
find difficulty in translating this passage. The expression means literally "to carry or
bear the iniquity." In such a context it should not be translated "to take away the
iniquity,"34 because no explanation is given in regard to its disposal. In this setting the
expression "to bear iniquity" is parallel with the meaning "to be guilty" (Lev 5:1-3).
When nasa âwon is applied to the perpetrator of the sin, it always means that the
responsibility for the evil has not yet been, or cannot be, removed from him. He is
accountable.35 When the expression is used in regard to one who has not sinned
personally, it can mean that guilt has been removed from another and placed upon him
as an intermediary or substitute. He bears iniquity for, or in behalf of, another (Exod
28:38; Lev 10:17). This was the case of the priests in Leviticus 10:17.
When the expression has to do with a request or with a confession of sin to God, it
means that God Himself assumes the responsibility of the
34 H. Gazelles, "Le Levitique," La Bible de Jerusalem (Paris, 1978), p. 138
35 Lev 5;1, 17; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19; Num 14:34; 18:1, 23; Ezek 14:10; 44il2; etc.
244
guilt, and the penitent is thereby freed from his sin. (See Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18.
The expression, "forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" literally reads, "bearing
iniquity and transgression and sin".) 36
Sometimes other words such as "transgression" (pesa or "sin" (hattat) are
substituted for "iniquity" (awon) in this expression (thus: to bear transgression or to bear
sin). When the direct object of these expressions is the one who is attacked, it may mean
simply that he accepts the consequences of the evil without taking vengeance. For
example, Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers is asked to "forgive the
transgression," literally, "to bear the transgression" (Gen 50:17). On the other hand the
expression may be stated in such a manner as to imply punishment or vengeance. For
example, Israel is warned against rebellion because the angel of the Lord "will not
pardon your transgression" (literally, "he will not bear your rebellion," Exod 23:21; cf.
Josh 24:19).
As has been observed already, both the blood and the flesh of the sin offering were
"holy" (Lev 6:25, 29). They were the ritual means designed to take away the sins of the
people. Through the manipulation of the blood and the eating of the flesh the sins of the
penitent were transferred to the priesthood and the sanctuary.
But if a sacrifice was performed outside the sanctuary complex and apart from its
system, its blood was charged upon the offerer as guilt in the same way guilt was
charged to the murderer of innocent blood (Lev 17:4).37 The reason for this relationship
between the two kinds of blood shedding is evident. The individual who shed human
blood could not atone for his crime by means of sacrificial blood (Num 35:33).
Likewise, sacrificial blood-offered apart from the sanctuary—was not accepted as a
substitute for the life of a man.
Actually, such a sacrifice was an act of apostasy (cf. Lev 17:7), an act indicating a lack
of appreciation for the sanctuary of Yahweh which pro-
36 See also Psalms 32:5; 85:3; Hosea 14:2; Mieah 7:18.
37 H. Christ, Blutvergiessen im Alten Testament, Theologischen Disser-tationen (Basel, 1977), p. 12.
245
vided the only effective means for obtaining salvation, peace, and all other divine
blessings. The blood of this improper sacrifice would have to be imputed to the one who
sacrificed it, for the transferal of a substituted life could be done only in connection with
the sanctuary and its ritual (cf. Lev 17:6, 11).
It was necessary that the blood of every sacrifice should thus reach the sanctuary, for it
was there that the paradoxical interchange took place:
the transfer of sin and impurity from the penitent to the sanctuary and his reception of
forgiveness and cleansing in return. It could be said that the sanctuary was the center of
the relationship between God and Israel, and only through its ministries could the
penitent be accepted and his petitions heard.
At this point it is important to note that the sanctuary differed from the people
(including its human priesthood) in this sense: it never had faults of its own for which it
needed to be purified. The sanctuary assumed responsibility for the forgiven sins which
were transferred to it. It was never itself the cause of those sins and impurities.
In a real sense, therefore, the sacrifice of the Lord's goat on the Day of Atonement
was in favor of the sanctuary and was an act of vindication for it. In this manner the Day
of Atonement was an affirmation of innocence so far as the sanctuary itself was
concerned, because the sanctuary was in reality a representation of the throne and
government of God. The One who took on the responsibility of all the sins that were
deposited therein by sacrifice was the God who lived in it, and now He was being
vindicated.
All sin is an offense to God. To contaminate the sanctuary (legally or illegally), was, in
effect, to contaminate or to profane the name of Yahweh (Lev 30:3).38 To the Hebrew
mind the name of God represented His character, His attributes (Exod 34:5-7; Ps 111:9).
Hence, to love or to fear God's name was to love the way He represented Himself (Isa
56:6). To
38 See also Leviticus 18:21; I9.-12, 21:6, 12, etc.,- 33:32,- Ezekiel 36:20-23; 39:7; 43;7-8;
Amos 2:7.
246
praise and proclaim His name was to announce His character (Deut 32:3-4; Pss 113;
115:1). His name was linked to the temple (1 Kgs 8:16, 20; 9:3) and, by extension, to
the city of Jerusalem and Zion, the holy mount (Isa 18:7; 1 Kgs 14:21; 2 Chr 6:5-6).
Contamination of the sanctuary, therefore, brought reproach to the Deity. By the

purification of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, God made His name truly great
(cf. Ps 138:2-3). It is not difficult, therefore, to perceive the theological background
many passages have which speak of the purification of the people and of Jerusalem (Isa
4:2-6; Ezek 36:20-38; cf. Jer 50:20; etc.). Such purification redounded to God's honor
and glory.
Conclusion. Due to the general atonement offered in the daily morning and evening
burnt offering for the nation (Num 28:3-10; cf. Lev 1:4), the sins that were committed
by the people as individuals were tolerated for a time (cf. Job 1:5).39 The sinner,
therefore, had opportunity to reflect on his course of life, to repent, and to bring his
sacrifice for sin to the sanctuary.40 If he did not do this, his sin could not be transferred
to the sanctuary and God could not assume the responsibility of forgiving him. Such a
sinner stood liable for his own sins and for the penalty which would have to fall upon
him as in the ease of unpardonable rebellion (Josh 24:19; cf. Exod 23:21).
However, when the sinner repented, God took upon Himself the fault for a certain
time, until accountability fell upon its first cause: Azazel (according to the figure of the
scapegoat). The assumption of the sins which God forgives is expressed clearly in the
phrase: "Yahweh, Yahweh . .. nose awon wapesa wehatta'ah [Yahweh, Yahweh . . .
who bears iniquity, rebellion, and sini" (Exod 34:6-7; cf. Num 14:18; Ps 32:5;
etc.).
39 Some Jewish rabbis (school of Shammai) believed that the morning and evening sacrifices
attenuated the sins of Israel during the year until the Day of Atonement. Cf. K. Hruby, "Le Yom Ha-
Kippurim ou Jour de PExpi-ation.'OTS 10 (1965):413.
40 Those who could not present themselves at the temple with a substitute animal (for reasons of
health, distance, etc.) could take advantage of the sacrifices offered for sin at the time of the new moon
and at each feast (Num 28-29).
247
The sins which God refuses to bear are referred to in the declaration that follows in
the Exodus 34 passage: "but who will by no means clear the guilty" (vs. 7), Therefore,
there are sins that God takes upon Himself— those that have been confessed in
penitence—and others which He rejects— those never confessed by the sinner who
spurns His mercy.
It is worth noting that the words appearing here in Exodus 34:7 in the singular
number (iniquity, transgression, and sin) appear in the plural—and in the same
sequence—(iniquities, transgressions, sins) in Leviticus 16:21, the Day of Atonement
chapter. In the Exodus passage Yahweh is described as bearing patiently the
responsibility of the sins of the people. In the Leviticus passage there is illustrated the
way He discharges the accountability for them to the head of Azazel the scapegoat.
High Priest Robes and Double Washing

Another characteristic of the Day of Atonement appears in the instructions
concerning the high priest's double ablution. On this day he was to wash and put on the
required garments in preparation for the special ceremonies (Lev 16:4). After the
scapegoat ritual he was to remove his clothing and wash again, redressing this time in
the customary, high priestly attire (Lev 16:23-24). This second washing has been a point
of discussion even among the Jews themselves, some even questioning the location of
the passage.41 No reason can be seen why washing should be performed after the ritual,
especially since the high priest had only moments before appeared before God in the
most holy place of the sanctuary.
Apparel of the high priest. It has been recognized generally that the apparel of the
high priest was composed of eight pieces, four of which were worn by the other priests.
However, the simple linen (bad) garments that the high priests wore for a portion of the
time on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:4) differed in quality from the "fine" linen (ses)
garments normally
41 Snaith, p. 110; J. Milgrom, "Two Kinds of НАТAT," VT 26 (1976): 336. n.14.
248
worn by him and his associates during the year (Exod 39:27-28).
These simple linen garments were used every day by the common priests—but only
in connection with the removal of the ashes from the altar of burnt offering (Lev 6:9-
11). In a similar manner the simple linen garments had a limited use by the high priest
on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:23-24). On that day he wore them, not to remove
ashes, but to remove all the impurities deposited in the sanctuary through the medium of
the sin offerings made during the year.
Several authors suggest that the linen garments used by the high priest on the Day
of Atonement were a sign of mourning or of humiliation. However, the garments of the
common priests were not unworthy, for they too had been manufactured "for glory and
beauty" (Exod 28:40). A truer insight is afforded from the biblical use of linen.
Heavenly beings and the saints are described in the visions of the prophets as dressed in
linen (Ezek 9:2-3, 11; 10:2, 6-7; Rev 19:8; cf. 7:9, 13). The contexts suggest that the
linen garment is a symbol of holiness and purity.42 Thus the high priest was looked
upon by the people as a heavenly messenger.
The two sets of high priestly attire would seem to indicate the dual nature of the
high priest's ministry inasmuch as he was called upon to represent God to man and man
to God. On the Day of Atonement in certain aspects of the ritual the high priest would
appear before Yahweh Himself, and, therefore, would represent—as a man—the people
before the throne of God. This highlight of the ritual would seem to link with the
prophetic description of the "son of man" in Daniel 7:13 who appears before the
judgment throne upon which God is seated, portrayed as the "Ancient of Days."
Double washing of the high priest. No one seems to have any difficulty in
understanding the reason for the high priest's first ablution before dressing in his linen
robes on the Day of Atonement. Actually, the priests always washed their hands and
feet before entering the sanctuary or before
42 See F. Meyrick, The Book of Leviticus (New York, n.d.), p. 237; J. H. Hertz, The Book of
Leviticus (London, 1978), p. 480.
249
they offered sacrifices at the altar (Exod 30:18-21; 40:31-32). Anyone who entered into
contact with sacred things was first to place himself in a state of holiness. But how do
we explain the washing required after the scapegoat ritual?
Some authors think that both impurity and holiness were contagious and that the
washing was required after the scapegoat rite in order to purify the priest who had been
"infected with holiness"!43 However, as we have commented earlier, holiness was never
removed by washing.44 On the contrary, it was obtained by washing (Exod 19:10, 14;
Lev 11:44-45? cf, vs. 40; 22:6).
The simplest solution is to observe that the washing required in Leviticus 16;24 was
really similar to the washings required of those who had become impure through
handling sacrifices for sin (cf. Lev 6:27-28; 16:26-28; Num 19:7-10, 19-21).45 After
having purified himself, the priesthood, and the sanctuary, the high priest would bear
upon himself those sins taken from the sanctuary. In this manner he would be viewed as
being lightly contaminated. His hands, still bloodstained, would be placed upon the
head of the scapegoat. All the sins would be transferred in this way to the desert, blotted
out completely from sanctuary and people. He would then go to the sanctuary and
remove his linen robes, washing his body in the "separate place" of the court designed
for this purpose.
This final ablution required of the high priest (and those who removed the
scapegoat and the carcasses of the sacrifices) is an additional evidence indicating that
the Day of Atonement brought to a conclusion the liturgical year in Israel. 46 Just as the
calendar of feasts began with a sacrifice—the Passover—and a subsequent harvest feast
(Lev 23i5-14), so also the liturgi-
43 Porter.p. 131.
44 M. Haran, Temple and Temple Service . . . (Oxford, 1978), p. 17.
45 C. F. Keil, Leviticus (Leipzig, 1878), p. 405.
46 Among those authors who regard the Day of Atonement as the culminating rite for the year we
may mention, G. F. Oehler, Theologie des Alien Testaments (Stuttgart, 1891), p. 498; В. Baentseh,
Leviticus (Gottingen, 1903), p. 381; S. R. Driver and H. A. White, "Day of Atonement," Dictionary of the
Bible (Hastings, NY, 1908), 1:201; Gray, p. 321.
250
cal year closed with this special type of sacrifice on the Day of Atonement and a
subsequent final harvest feast—Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:27-43).
The second washing of the high priest, together with the washing of those who had
handled the animals after having been purified, indicated that all Israel was now clean.
No one bore the impurity of anyone. The sins and the impurities had been blotted out.
The sanctuary and the camp/ nation stood clean before God. Hence, a simple washing of
those who had touched the sacrifices after having been purified was sufficient to free
themselves of this kind of impurity.47
Three Great Periods of Atonement in Israel

A chart which sketches the essential sin offering rites in connection with the
sanctuary may help to clarify some important points for us. At the same time it will
offer the necessary data to correct the idea some Christians hold that the typical rites of
the Day of Atonement were completely fulfilled in the death of Christ. The texts of the
NT which apply the typology of the earthly sanctuary to the ministry of Christ in the
heavenly sanctuary really do not give a basis for such a conclusion." 48
47 The sins that were removed on the Day of Atonement already had been forgiven, and for the most
part would be sins for which neither the high priest nor the men who removed the remains from the camp
would be accountable.
48 See W. G. Johnsson, "The Significance of the Day of Atonement Allusions in the Epistle to the
Hebrews," The Sanctuary and the Atonement, eds. A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R. Lesher (Washington,
DC, 1Э81), pp. 380-93.
252
The above general summarization indicates that the only blood rites conducted
within the holy places of the sanctuary were those relating to sin offerings for the priests
or the congregation as a whole (during the year) and the special Day of Atonement rites.
The inaugural rites which initially consecrated the sanctuary or reconsecrated it (as in
the times of Hezekiah and Ezra) simply opened the gates, as it were, to the interior of
the sanctuary, but no blood was taken within.
In contrast with the inaugural rites the Day of Atonement ceremonies show a
movement that begins with the outer altar and moves to the interior of the sanctuary
(Lev 16:11-13). With the aspersions of blood in the sanctuary the movement is reversed
through the two apartments back to the exterior altar (Lev 16:16-20, 33). Only the
inaugural rites and the final aspects of the Day of Atonement rites purified the outer
altar of the sanctuary. It is further evident from our summarization that the only ones
benefited by the sin offering blood rites made during the year were the penitent priests
and people.
When the sanctuary was inaugurated the outer altar was not sprinkled seven times.
But atonement was made for it in connection with the inaugural consecration of the
priesthood for seven days which required daily sacrifices. In this case we see that the
term "atonement" was not simply restricted to rites of blood, but involved a whole series
of acts and sacrifices which qualified the priests as well as dedicated the sanctuary
complex, 49
During the year whenever the blood was ministered in the holy place, it was
sprinkled there seven times. The pardon which was thereby secured for the priests (or at
times for the whole congregation) was complete. The Day of Atonement only
vindicated the innocence of the priesthood and of the people from sins already
pardoned. The very fact that the blood rites were never performed in the interior places
when the sanctuary service was
49 See also Leveticus 4:26, 31, 35, etc., where atonement is indicated to
have occurred not immediately after the slaying of the sacrifice, but at the end of the entire ritual. It is
important to note also that the priestly eating of the sin offering had a part in the atonement (Lev 10:17).
253
inaugurated (or reestablished after a period of apostasy) proves that the Day of
Atonement blood rites dealt only with pardoned sins which had been transferred to the
interior by sacrifice during the year.
When the priest ate the sacrifice for the sins of the people, it was not necessary for
the sacrificial blood to be sprinkled seven times within the sanctuary. By the act of
eating, the responsibility for the confessed faults passed directly to the priesthood. "You
shall bear iniquity in connection with the sanctuary" (Num 18:1), the Lord had stated. It
must be remembered that the priesthood was an integral part of the sanctuary, whatever
affected the priesthood affected the sanctuary too.
For example, the inaugural consecration of the priests at the same time purified the
outer altar (Exod 29:35-37; Lev 8;14-15). The high priest was anointed when the
sanctuary was anointed (Lev 8;10-15), and his desecration profaned it (Lev 21:12).
Thus, sin was transferred by means of the priesthood to the holy place where the priests
appeared during the year to intercede for the people before God. Although the people
were forgiven and purified during the year, they waited (in confidence, for the sanctuary
had assumed their guilt) until the Day of Atonement to obtain their definitive
vindication.
On the Day of Atonement the high priest purified the priesthood from the "iniquity
of the sanctuary" which they bore (Num 18:la, KJV; cf. Lev 16:3, 6, 33). Immediately
after the blood rite for the high priest and the priesthood in general, the high priest
preceded to purify the sanctuary and people from all the impurities and sins resting in
the sanctuary by means of the blood of the Lord's goat.
As in the inaugural rites, so in the Day of Atonement closing rites: the priesthood
and the sanctuary were purified at the same time, suggesting that the Day of Atonement
was intended to be understood as the closing rite of the sacrificial year. This point is
underscored further in the number of sprinklings and the final direction the rituals took
(from the most holy place back to the outer altar). Actually, this was the only time when
the most holy place (Lev 16:15, 20a), the holy place (Lev 16:16b, 30b; cf. Exod 30:10),
and the outer altar (Lev 16:18-20e) were sprinkled with blood seven
254
times in each place. The outer altar was the last object of the sanctuary to be purified
from the sins committed and confessed during the year. In this manner the sanctuary
was reconsecrated for the new ritual year.
With this picture in mind we are better prepared to go to the NT and discover the
more precise typological applications made there, especially in the Epistle to the
Hebrews we may see a double movement into and out of the heavenly sanctuary as
Christ accomplishes the atonement processes. After having made the inaugural
purification by His sacrifice in the outer court (the earth), Christ moves to the interior of
the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 1:3; 10:12; 8:1-2). There He ministers the benefits of His
atoning sacrifice in favor of the people in correspondence to the work of the earthly
priests in the first apartment (Heb 2:17-18; 7:25). After He has purified the heavenly
sanctuary in the second phase of His ministry which corresponds with the work of the
high priest in the second apartment (Heb 9:23), He will appear "not to deal with sin,"
but to vindicate and to save His people who wait outside the sanctuary for Him (Heb
9:28).
General Conclusions
One of the basic reasons why modern authors have difficulty in understanding the
Israelite system of sacrifice is because they analyze it with Western logic. But the
Levitical worship can be appreciated only by recognizing the presence of Eastern
thought patterns. In this ease, the sanctuary system presents a paradoxical concept,
namely, that sacrificial blood was viewed as having simultaneously both a
defiling//cleansing function. This paradox we have chosen to call the principle of
substitutional interchange. Through the manipulation of sacrificial blood the sins and
impurities moved from the penitent to the sanctuary and thereby legally contaminated it;
but at the same time the atoning and cleansing function of the sacrificial blood was
directed toward the penitent, and he was forgiven and purified.
Another cause for misunderstanding is that in the NT special emphasis is placed

upon the cleansing, purifying value of the blood of Christ when applied to the sinner.
The problem comes when this NT fact is related directly to the ОТ sacrifices in a one-
sided manner, unaware of the para-
255
doxical, dual function of blood in the sanctuary system. In this instance it would seem
wiser to move first from the type to the reality rather than from the reality to the type.
Such a procedure would avoid misinterpreting the NT data about Christ and would
enable us to better understand the full significance of what Christ accomplished in our
behalf.
The Day of Atonement dealt with both pardoned and unpardoned sins. However,
both classes of sins were not included in the purification of the sanctuary as described in
Leviticus 16. Rather, various analyses, made from several angles, clearly confirm the
fact that the Day of Atonement rites purified the sanctuary only from formerly pardoned
sins. The Day of Atonement treatment of those persons who had not repented is
discussed in a later chapter (Lev 23). Such persons were cut off from the congregation
of Israel.
Thus it may be said that the sins which God did not bear—because they were not
transferred to the sanctuary by sacrifice—fell back upon the guilty to their eternal
perdition. The sins which God had accepted to bear upon Himself in the figure of the
sanctuary (because in penitence they had been transferred to the sanctuary during the
year) now on the Day of Atonement finally fall upon their prime source—Azazel, the
scapegoat.
We identify Azazel as Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. All the accusations
that the devil has launched against God and against His people fall back upon him.
Actually, there remains no one else responsible and accountable for the sins of a people
totally forgiven and purified. His definite expulsion from the community of the elect—
both in symbol and in reality—was and will be Justified completely.
It may be seen from our study, therefore, that the Day of Atonement was a day of
vindication of God and of His people. In this sense, such prophecies as the preadvent
judgment in the parallel passages of Daniel 7-8 are an exact replica of the rites of the
Day of Atonement.
In many eschatological passages, in both Testaments, we find the theme that God's
justice is vindicated either by the forgiveness of the penitent or by the condemnation to
death of the guilty. It becomes clear, therefore, that the divine honor and sanctity—
questioned since the appear-
256
ance of sin—will be reestablished fully when the phases of final Judgment are
accomplished. Either God is able to end sin and rebellion (the decisive battle was
already gained at the cross) or His reputation as a holy God, just and true, will be lost
before the universe. But the moment will come when the great hosts redeemed by the
Mood of the Lamb will sing:
"Great and wonderful are thy deeds,
0 Lord God the Almighty!
Just and true are thy ways,
0 King of the ages *
Who shall not fear and glorify thy name, 0 Lord?
For thou alone art holy.
All nations shall come and worship thee,

for thy judgments have been revealed" (Rev 15:3-4).
GENERAL STUDIES
Prophecy: Issue of Conditionality

Prophecy; Single/Multiple
Fulfillments?
Theological Significance of
Preadvent Judgment Justification and

Judgment
CHAPTER V1I1
Condidonality in
Biblical Prophecy
With Particular Reference
to Apocalyptic
William G. Johnsson
Editorial synopsis. Seventh-day Adventists always have believed that a principle
of conditionality operated in that kind of Bible prophecy which expected human
response. On the other hand they regard the grand prophecies of Daniel and Revelation,
depicting the struggle between good and evil and the ultimate victory and establishment
of God's eternal kingdom, as revelations of His foreknowledge and an evidence of His
sovereignty.
In recent years» however, it has been argued by some that all prophecy—including
not only general prophecy as it appears in the major and minor prophets but also the
apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation—should be regarded as conditional
prophecy. That is, it is suggested that the possible fulfillment of any prophecy in its
primary intent was conditional on the obedience of God's people. Such a position, were
it to be proved valid, would affect radically Adventist interpretation of the prophecies of
Daniel and Revelation.
The author of this chapter analyzes a variety of prophecies in both Testaments. He

concludes that although conditionality is a valid principle of interpretation, it cannot be
used indiscriminately. The evidence from Scripture is clear that all Bible prophecies are
not conditional.
Most predictions which have been viewed in the past by Seventh-day Adventists as
conditional on Israel's obedience are not prophecies at all in the real sense of the term.
They are based on the known promises and judgments (blessings/curses) which
naturally arise out of the covenant relationship God formed with Israel. Conditionality is
built into the promises and threatenings of the covenant; hence, it is misleading to
extend this term and perspective to non-covenantal predictions. When this body of
260
covenant "prophecies" are separated from the whole, it is noted that conditionality plays
a minor role in the remaining kinds of prophecy.
For example, the prophecies of the Saviour's first and second advents are predicated
on the divine intervention in history as God asserts His sovereignty to work out His
eternal purpose. No failure on Israel's part could have prevented the first advent of the
Messiah at the specified time God determined.
Some kinds of apocalyptic prophecy which emphasize the covenant setting with
Israel (such as appear in Zechariah) may have a conditional element because of that
fact. However, it is evident that the grand sweep of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel
and Revelation transcend Israel. They often involve the nations of the world as a whole
and have a cosmic, heavenly dimension as well. Such prophetic revelations are not
conditional on human response. Rather, they disclose the divine sovereignty and fore-
knowledge of the Creator, revealing for the encouragement of His people the shape of
things to come and the assurance of the ultimate victorious establishment of the eternal
kingdom of righteousness.
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction
II. Significance of the Topic
III. Conditional Prophecy in Recent Adventist Writings
IV. Classification of Biblical Prophecies
V. Conditionality and Apocalyptic
VI. Theological Aspects Affecting Interpretation Vu.

Conclusions
Introduction
In the ОТ we read of a reluctant prophet who was sent to preach to the city of
Nineveh. After a series of misadventures he arrived at the gate of the city and began to
proclaim the message of doom with which Yahweh had commissioned him; " 'Yet 40
days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown !' " (Jonah 3:4).
261
The words of the prophet were unequivocal: the destruction of the city was
announced without qualification. But 40 days passed and Nineveh still stood. What
happened? Was Jonah a false prophet? Did the prophecy fail? The fact that Nineveh
later did come to its end does not relieve the problem, since the message of doom was
linked to the 40-day period.
When we look closer at this story, additional facets begin to appear. First, it
emerges that Jonah himself had doubts about the fulfillment of his prediction. Jonah 4:2
is important: "And he prayed to the Lord and said, 1 pray thee, Lord, is not this what I
said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I
knew that thou art a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in
steadfast love, and repentest of evil.' "
This verse gives us the reason for Jonah's abortive flight in the boat to Tarshish and
his subsequent petulant behavior as he sat in the booth waiting to see if Nineveh would
hn destroyed. That is, Jonah's knowledge of the character of Yahweh—that He is
gracious, merciful, and forgiving—had led him to assume the possibility of a reprieve,
even though the message Yah-weh had given him seemed unrelenting.
A second clue is found in the reaction of the Ninevites to Jonah's preaching. Instead
of fleeing from the apparently doomed city, they repented. They, too, based their hope
in the character of Yahweh: " 'Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce
anger, so that we perish not?' " (Jonah 3:9).
The book of Jonah, therefore, seems to provide us with a clear example of

conditional prophecy. Nor does it stand alone among the data of biblical prophecy:
1. Isaiah 1:19—"'If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land.'
"
2. Isaiah 38:1-22—The revoking of the pronouncement of Hezekiah's imminent
death.
3. Jeremiah 18:7-10—" 'If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom,

that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which
I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of
262
the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a
kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my
voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.' "
4. The prophets'—"Who knows if . . ." or "perhaps" attached to warnings of

impending disaster (for example, 2 Sam 12:22; Zeph 2:3; Exod 32:30).
5. Luke 19:42—"'Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace !
But now they are hid from your eyes.' "
Further, some Adventists have seen in Ellen White's writings support for a
conditionality principle in biblical prophecy as they have underscored her statement
from MS 4, 1883: "The promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional." (See
Selected Messages, book 1, page 67.)
On tire face of the evidence, then, the Bible shows support for the idea of the
conditionality of prophecy. But such recognition in turn introduces new—and
weighty—questions: Is the Jonah example typical or atypical of biblical prophecy? Can
God's word be trusted to mean what it appears to say? Does God in fact know what will
happen? If prophecy is conditional, does divine sovereignty retain significant content?
Before examining the data, we will set out the scope of this paper, advancing
working definitions and identifying the critical questions calling for resolution.
It is not our intention to take up principles of biblical interpretation in general or of
prophetic literature in particular. Nor shall we canvass the areas of the nature of
prophecy and prophetism or the history of prophetic interpretation. Rather, we shall
zero in on one aspect of prophetic interpretation—conditional prophecy. This subject,
frequently mentioned, has not been dealt with in depth heretofore. We are concerned to
sharpen our precision in the use of the term, to become more discriminating in classify-
ing prophecy as conditional, to better understand the nature of such prophecy, and so to
become more accurate in its interpretation.
In this paper we shall adopt the following working definitions:

By prophecy we mean "prediction." We recognize that biblical proph-
263
ecy is a broad term, with prediction but one of its elements; however, for the purposes
of this paper we are focusing on that predictive element.
By conditional prophecy we designate those biblical predictions whose fulfillment

is dependent on the action or reaction of human beings.
Correspondingly, by unconditional prophecy we signify biblical predictions whose

fulfillment is independent of the action or reaction of human beings.
The principal issues that confront us in this paper are as follows:
1. Is all prophecy conditional?
2. If not, what elements may be identified as characterizing conditional prophecy?
3. Does conclitionality contradict divine foreknowledge and sovereignty?
4. Does apocalyptic modify conditionality?
5. What theological factors impinge on an understanding of conditional prophecy?
6. Does conditional prophecy call for its own unique scheme of interpretation?
Although we shall mal<e some reference to the writings of Ellen White, the
concern of the paper is with the biblical data.
We will proceed in five steps. First, we shall indicate the significance of the subject,
particularly within an Adventist and contemporary context. Second, we shall briefly
review and critique recent Adventist writings dealing with the subject. Third, we shall
examine biblical predictions in an endeavor to classify them and hence provide greater
clarity and understanding concerning the nature of conditional prophecy. Fourth, we
shall give specific consideration of conditional! ty with regard to biblical apocalyptic.
Fifth, we shall briefly reflect on the theological factors that impinge on the subject.
Thus, the final stage will lead us into conclusions that seem justified on the basis of the
data.
264
Significance of the Topic
Assuming that the Bible contains conditional prophecy, its interpretation will be
important to every Christian who takes the Scriptures seriously and seeks to be guided
by their messages. The issue of conditional prophecy is one that is of unusual
significance to Seventh-day Adventists, however.
Adventists, as indicated by our very name, are deeply concerned with eschatology
(final events in human history). We believe God has raised up this people to proclaim
the imminent return of our Lord. Accordingly, from the days of our pioneers we have
been alert to "the signs of the times," since events in the world around us may be
understood from Bible prophecy to be harbingers of the second advent.
During the nineteenth century Adventists and their message were like a voice in the
wilderness. More and more, however, we have been joined by evangelical Christians
proclaiming the end of all things.1 But we differ from them in our understanding of the
scenario leading up to the second coming and even of the event itself. In particular, the
role of literal Israel is perceived quite differently. At the heart of the dichotomy in
interpretations lies the question of conditional prophecy.
Within a uniquely Seventh-day Adventist context, conditionality is also of
contemporary importance. At issue is the historic Adventist interpretations of the time
prophecies of Daniel and Revelation—the 2,300 days, the 1,260 days and the 70 weeks.
Instead of understanding each of these periods as having fixed commencement and
closing points, as they mark off long periods in history according to the divine
unfolding of events, it is argued by some that they may be seen as coming under the
umbrella of complete conditionality. This stance renders these prophecies amenable to
multiple fulfillments or no fulfillment if the alleged conditions are not met. Specifically,
the date 1844 and its role in salvation-history are under-
In the U.S.A. those who believe in the imminent end of all things now number in the tens
of millions, for example, Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth has sold several million copies.
265
stood in a manner quite distinct from the views of Adventist pioneers.2
That the topic of conditional prophecy is of more than passing interest to Adventist
was underscored by the deliberations of the Sanctuary Review Committee at Glacier
View, Colorado. Several questions listed for discussion by the delegates, in fact,
centered in this issue. The consensus statement that emerged from the gathering, "Christ
in the Heavenly Sanctuary," also called for ongoing study of this specific topic.3
Conditional Prophecy in Recent Adventist Writings

The 1974 North American Bible Conferences briefly touched on the subject of
conditional prophecy in four of its presentations.4 It was affirmed that Adventists
always had held to the principle of conditional prophecy. Furthermore, it was observed
that the conditionality principle had protected the church from gauging the nearness of
the End on the basis of events that affected the recently established nation of Israel.
However, none of the expositions actually explored the biblical evidence for defining
the nature and function of conditional prophecy.
Probably the most thorough attempt by Adventists to explain the nature of
conditional prophecy is the article, "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy," in
the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary.5
2 For example, some have suggested that the primary fulfillment of the 2,300 days is to be
seen as a literal period of time during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, with A.D. 1844 as a valid re
interpretation after conditions necessary to bring about the Parousia (Second Coming) were not realized
in the first century A.D.
3 See Adventist Review, September 4, 1980, and the special issue of Ministry, October 1980.
4 Don F. Neufeld, "Biblical Interpretation in the Advent Movement," A Symposium on Biblical

Hermeneutics, ed. Gordon M. Hyde (Washington, DC, 1974), pp. 109-125; Hans К. LaRondelle,
"Interpretation of Prophetic and Apocalyptic Prophecy," A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 225-
49; W.G.C. Murdoch, "Principles of Interpretation of the Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature of the
Bible," Nort.h American Bible Conference Notebook (Washington, DC, 1974), pp^ 1-22; Herbert Б.
Douglas, "The Unique Contribution of Adventist Eschatology," North American Bible Conference Note-
book,pp. 1-33.
5 Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 4 (Washington, DC, 1955):
266
This unsigned essay sets out to interpret the divine promises made to ancient Israel by
the prophets and boldly states, "It is an undeniable historical fact that, to this day, the
majority of these predictions have not been fulfilled."6
The Commentary explanation is wholly in terms of conditional! ty. Rejecting other

schools of thought, it states: "Seventh-day Adventists believe that, generally speaking,
the promises and predictions given through the Old Testament prophets originally
applied to literal Israel and were to have been fulfilled to them on the condition that they
obey God and remain loyal to Him. But the Scriptures record the fact that they
disobeyed God and proved disloyal to Him instead. Accordingly, what He purposed to
do for the world through Israel of old He will finally accomplish through His church on
earth today, and many of the promises originally made to Israel will be fulfilled to His
remnant people at the close of time."7
The body of the article develops the five ideas of this principle: Israel as God's
chosen people, the ideal—how the plan was to operate, Israel's failure to carry out God's
plan, why Israel failed, and spiritual Israel as the replacement of literal Israel. As a
conclusion, the article sets out rules for approaching the study of ОТ prophetic
passages. Four suggestions are given: the prophecy is to be examined in its entirety that
its meaning to the people of its own time may be determined; conditional aspects of the
prediction should be ascertained; the application of the prophecy made by later inspired
writers must be observed; and the significance of the passage—its message for today—
is to be sought.
By far the most fascinating aspect of this article is its portrayal of the "w hat-might-
have-been." It pictures an obedient nation of Israel, even after the Exile, the focus of the
world's attention. This nation prepares the whole world for the coming of the Messiah.
Messiah comes, dies, rises again, with Jerusalem as a great missionary center to set the
earth "ablaze
25-38.
6 Ibid., p. 25.
7 Ibid., pp. 25-26.
267
with the light of truth in one grand, final appeal to those who had not as yet accepted the
invitation of divine mercy."8 After the final call, those who refused allegiance to God
would unite in efforts to take Jerusalem but God would wipe them out, leaving a world
of obedient subjects of Yahweh.
There is no Second Coming in this scenario. There is no millennial period or new

Jerusalem. The envisaged time span is short: the first advent is soon followed by the
establishment of Messiah's eternal kingdom. This portrayal of the future—the "might-
have-been"—forms the thrust of the entire article. It is the result of the rigorous
application of the conditionality principle.
It comes as a shock to the reader, then, to find at the very close of the article an
insertion of an explanatory sentence enclosed in parentheses to the effect that some
prophecies may apply exclusively to our own day. The sentence, standing in direct
contrast to the thesis of the essay, states, "This rule does not apply to the portions of the
book of Daniel that the prophet was bidden to 'shut up' and 'seal,' or to other passages
whose application Inspiration may have limited exclusively to our own time."9 Appar-
ently the conditionality principle has to be modified at some point!
Indeed, the major criticism to be raised against the article is that it has
oversimplified the interpretation of prophecy. Its hermeneutic is too wooden, too
speculative.10 It takes a valid idea but has pressed it to the point where the thesis no
longer becomes tenable.
Several other articles in the Commentary deserve brief mention. In "History of the
Interpretation of Daniel"11 the conditionality principle does not figure prominently. In
conflict with the thesis of the former article,
8 Ibid., p. 30
9 Ibid., p. 38.
10 The description of "the ideal" (ibid., pp. 27-30) is an amalgam of phrases and references put
together without references to the original setting of each. This account has inherent tensions, for
example, while "the whole earth would have awaited the coming of Messiah with eager expectancy" (p.
29), there is nevertheless a "great final call to the world to acknowledge the true God," followed by a
battle for Jerusalem (p. 30).
11 Ibid., pp. 39-78.
268
we read "of the determining hand of God in history and His control of world affairs," of
the "timetable of the centuries."12 The "sealed" portion of Daniel concerns the "last
days," and 1260 actual years in the Christian era are prophesied in Daniel 7.13
The comments on Deuteronomy 18:1514 suggest four classes of prediction: relating

to the immediate historical situation, exclusively to the Messiah, to the remote future
(the Christian era), or having dual application. This discussion also touches on the
matter of God's foreknowledge. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary article on
"prophet"15 gives general suggestions for interpreting Bible prophecy.
A document prepared more recently for consideration by the Sanctuary Review

Committee (1980) demonstrates a thoroughgoing application of the conditionality idea
to all Bible prophecy.16 Although the study involves several hermeneutical foci,
conditionality plays a major role. It builds on the SDA Bible Commentary article on the
role of Israel in ОТ prophecy but does not back off—as the Commentary article does—
from the book of Daniel. Old Testament and NT, general prophecy and apocalyptic,
2,300 days and the Second Coming—all predictions are treated consistently under the
rubric of conditionality.
It is not our purpose to embark on an extended critique of this document. We may

observe that the work does have the merits of a rigorous consistency, at least in
application of conditionality as a hermeneutical key to interpreting biblical prophecy. In
our study here, however, we have to ask the question that the study does not—whether
conditionality can be raised to such prominence, whether, in fact, it can bear the weight
of the biblical data.
We close our brief survey of recent Adventist writing pertinent to our
12 Ibid., p. 44.
13 Ibid.,?. 40.
14 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 1017-19.
15 Seventh-day Adventist Bible Students' Source Book, Commentary Reference Series, vol. 9
(Washington, DC, 1963), pp. 882-84.
16 Desmond Ford, "Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment" (1980).
269
subject by extracting a statement from another paper prepared for the Sanctuary Review
Committee (1980).17 "It is essential that we do not force upon apocalyptic [prophecy]
the dual-fulfillment, two-foci model that applies to various prophecies in the general-
prophecy category."18 General prophecy (sometimes designated as classical prophecy)
is concerned primarily with the prophet's own time and occasionally with the end-time.
On the other hand apocalyptic prophecy sees history as a continuum culminating in the
final events of earth. Although the paper just cited does not address conditional
prophecy specifically, the distinction drawn between these two kinds of prophecy is
important for establishing a sound hermeneutic for interpreting apocalyptic prophecy.
Several conclusions emerge from our study of Adventist literature on the

interpretation of Bible prophecy:
1. Conditionality as a principle for interpreting biblical prophecy is basic to

Adventist hermeneutics.
2. This principle in fact sets us apart from other Christians in the interpretation of
Bible prophecy.
3. While Adventists assume conditionality in their hermeneutics, there has been no

fully satisfactory elaboration of the principle.
4. The attempt to apply rigorously the conditionality principle as the key to Bible
prophecy runs into difficulties.
5. The relationship of conditionality to God's sovereignty and foreknowledge has

not been worked through.
6. The impact of the type of prophecy—general or apocalyptic—on conditionality

has not been taken up.
With these previous Adventist discussions as background, we may pursue our task
more intelligently. We are now ready for a more precise understanding of conditional
prophecy.
17 Kenneth H. Strand, "Apocalyptic Prophecy: A Brief Introduction to Its Nature and

Interpretation (With Special Attention to Daniel and Revelation)" (1980).
18 Ibid., pp. 20-21.
270
Classification of Biblical Prophecies
In an attempt to clarify our understanding of conditional prophecy, we first need to
classify biblical predictions. Leaving aside for the moment biblical apocalyptic, we
may, I think, discern at least four groups or categories:
Predictions to Israel That Arise Out of a Covenant Context

Probably the large majority of predictions that fall under general prophecy belong
here. The eighth-and seventh-century B.C. prophets rebuke the people of Israel for their
sins, calling them back to Yahweh, warning them of impending doom because of their
unfaithfulness to the covenant.
The first chapter of Isaiah provides a classic illustration. Israel is arraigned before
God, who calls heaven and earth to witness (vs. 2), Yahweh's complaint is that His
people are guilty of gross stupidity. Although He has nurtured them tenderly, they do
not display even the elemental gratitude of an ox or an ass (vss. 2-3). Their failure to
live within the covenant is demonstrated by their unethical practices (vss. 4, 15, 17, 21-
23) and religious observances that are merely formal (vss. 11-14). Because of Israel's
sins the land has been devastated (vss. 5-9), as Yahweh has punished national
transgression. Yet He has not cast them off utterly. He has left a remnant (vs. 9). Now
He calls them back to the covenant: "Corns now, and let us reason together, .. ." (vs.
18). Because Yahweh is a covenant-keeping God, One who remains faithful despite
mankind's unfaithfulness, because His lovingkindness (hesed) is at the heart of the
covenant, there is hope for Israel—forgiveness and restoration (vss. 25-27).
Israel's history through the ОТ thus exhibits an oscillatory pattern. Prosperity,

apostasy, decline, repentance, restoration—this is the cycle we find in Judges, Kings,
and Chronicles. The principle governing the pattern is, "If ye be willing and obedient,
ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with
the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it" (Isa 1:19-20, KJV).
It is therefore possible to view Israel's history in its various fortunes as
271
a reflection of the truth of Deuteronomy 28. This passage sets out the two ways that lie
before the young nation. If the people will "hearken diligently unto the voice of the
Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments/' they will be blessed
richly—materially, nationally, spiritually (vss. 1-14, KJV). If, however, they are
unfaithful to the covenant provisions, terrible curses will come upon them, until Israel is
a byword among the nations (vss. 15-68),
Over and over again the prophets speak to a sinful nation in terms of these blessings
and curses. Are their words, however, to be considered predictive prophecy?
That the element of conditional! ty is present is self-evident: the people's response

determines the outcome. That the words are "prophecy," in the sense of a message from
Yahweh, is also true—the prophets are conscious of a divine impelling. But we should
not consider such messages predictive prophecy in the sense of disclosing a future
otherwise unknown. Rather, they are applying the "law" of the covenant, something as
fixed as Yahweh Himself.
The element of prediction here is no stronger than in a NT parallel: "He that believeth
on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he
hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18, KJV), We
are dealing with certainties, with the very plan of God for mankind. It is laid down by
Him and cannot be negotiated.
I therefore suggest that we should regard predictions in this first class as covenant
promises or threats rather than as "conditional prophecy."19 To do so will clear the
ground immediately for more accurate understanding of those prophecies that truly
unveil the future. Furthermore, it will remove from the ОТ a large section of what has
been designated "unfulfilled prophecy."
19 Our remarks in this category also apply to the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant. Like the
promises of Deuteronomy 28, they presuppose an obedient response: ef. Gen 12:1-3; 13:14-18; 15:1-21;
17:1-27; 18il7-19; 21:1-13; 22:1-18 (esp. vss. 16-18).
272
Short-term Predictions
There are many short-term ОТ predictions which do not come within the
promises/threats of the covenant relationship. They involve surrounding nations and, in
some cases, individuals.
Although Yahweh has entered into covenant relation with one nation-Israel—He is
nonetheless Lord of the world. He does not condemn wickedness among His special
people only to wink at it among the surrounding nations. Therefore, they too come
under judgment (for example, Isa 13-23;
Jer 46-51; Ezek 25-32; Amos 1-2). The predictions concerning Israel's neighbors are not
as clearcut in interpretation as the covenant promises/ threats to Israel, however.
We must now consider conditionality in tension with divine sovereignty.
The Jonah case provides the sharpest example of conditionally, as we already have
seen. The change in the people leads to a change in the divine plan (3:9). The final verse
of the book underscores the character of Yahweh which ensures both justice and mercy
in all His dealings. "And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more
than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their
left hand; and also much cattle?" (4:11, KJV).
Yahweh does not destroy capriciously. Although Israel’s neighbors are outside the
covenant, the God of all the earth will deal justly in whatever He brings upon them. We
may he sure then when a nation goes down to ruin, it is ultimately because of its gross
wickedness.20
The example of Nineveh is not typical of the prophecies concerning the nations,
however. From Isaiah to Malachi there is no other instance of a prophet's being sent to
deliver in person the word of doom.21 How the nations heard the divine threatenings
(perhaps through ambassadors at
20 We should note that Jonah's prophecy concerning Nineveh is but one of a series delivered
against the city by messengers of Yahweh. Nahum predicts in graphic detail the final end of Nineveh. Cf.
also Zeph 2:13-15.
21 Jeremiah 44:30 may be another example, but the circumstances of delivering the prophecy are not
clear.
273
times; cf. Isa 21; Jer 27) or if they always heard, we are not told. The manner in which
we find these dire predictions is often in the setting of divine certainty Yahweh has
determined that retribution cannot be delayed.
Consider two striking examples from Isaiah's predictions about the nations. In
chapter 10 we meet the dramatic "0 Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in
their hand is mine indignation" (vs. 5, KJV)* Here Assyria is God's appointed
instrument to chastise Israel. But haughty Assyria itself will come to an end after the
divine purpose is fulfilled (vss. 12-19), With this prediction we have gone beyond
conditionality and are in the realm of divine sovereignty.
The second example is that of Cyrus (44:28; 45:1-6). Here is a heathen king called
by name (vs. 4) before his birth so that Yahweh's plan to restore Israel from Babylonian
captivity may come to fruition. Is this a conditional prophecy? Is it not rather to be
interpreted in terms of God's foreknowledge and sovereignty?
We do not find as many short-term predictions in the NT, but there are some.
Agabus foretells the famine (Acts 11:28); the friends of Paul foresee by the Spirit the
bonds that await him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:23; 21:10-11). The most significant short-
term prediction, however, is the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
(Matt 24: Mark 13; Luke 21).
Conditionality is mentioned in none of these predictions. With Paul, the only "if"
lies in the decision to go or not to go to Jerusalem. There is no hint that the impending
fall of Jerusalem is conditional. The question is only, "When shall these things be?"
(Matt 24:3, KJV).
It is obvious, therefore, that when interpreting short-term predictions outside the

covenant provisions, we cannot confine our consideration merely to the principle of
conditional prophecy. Indeed, conditionality may not in fact be a significant element in
the interpretation.
Long-term Predictions
Our remarks here are in the context of general prophecy; we consider later the
question of apocalyptic.
274
We agree with the observation that general prophecy focuses on the prophet's own
times.22 Occasionally, however, we find long-term predictions—those that have to do
with the very end of time. The expression "the day of the Lord" is a case in point. This
term signifies God's judgment on a city or nation: it is the day of retribution when
justice can no longer be withheld. While "the day of the Lord" usually refers to
impending doom for the nation of Israel, it gradually takes on a wider aspect. It comes,
in some prophecies, to indicate the end of all things, as Israel's punishment is extended
on a cosmic scale (Joel 1:15, 2:1, 3:14; Isa 2:2, 12; 34:8; Amos 5:18-20; Ezek 7:19;
Zeph 1;7, 14, 18; 2:2; 2 Pet 3:7-12).
It is out of such consideration that some passages in general prophecy may be seen
to have dual application. While in their original context they had a message that
addressed the people of Israel, they also apply to conditions at the close of human time,
when the judgments on Israel are painted on a worldwide canvas.
We cannot use a principle of simple conditionality in interpreting such prophecies.

The eschatological flavor takes them beyond the covenant promises/threatenings. If we
may hold rightly that such threats to ancient Israel were conditional, it is certain that
their application to the end-time is not conditional.
The NT contains many apparently long-term predictions. It is difficult to know how

long is the period envisaged by NT writers, since the NT contains such a strong note of
imminence.23 This question also draws us into the apocalyptic portions of the NT—an
area which we will take up shortly.
22 Strand, pp. 20-21.
23 For example, Matthew 24:34; Romans 13:11-12; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; Hebrews 10:37; Revelation
1:3; 22:20. The questions raised by an awareness of NT imminence have given rise to much discussion
among Christians of all persuasions. We cannot here attempt to canvass the various explanations offered
or to indicate a solution. We should note that Seventh-day Adventists face a parallel set of data in the
writings of Ellen G. White which predicted a speedy return of Jesus—well before our day. It is likely that
both sets or problems should be addressed from the same theological base. See Ellen White's discussion
of this issue. Selected Messages, bk. 1, pp. 66-69,
275
Leaving aside Mark 13 (Matt 24; Luke 21) and Revelation, however, it is .-•tear that the
NT predicts developments that will affect the church.
For example, the "man of sin" is to arise before the Second Coming {2 Thess 2:3);
there is to be a "falling away" (Acts 20:29-30); "perilous times" are to arise (2 Tim 3:1-
9); persecutions will increase (1 Pet 4:12). And the supreme happening, the event of all
events is the return of Jesus in the clouds (Acts 1:9-11; John 14:1-3; 1 Thess 4:14-18).
This event permeates the entire NT, not merely its apocalyptic parts, imbuing its
message with hope and expectation.
The conditionality principle is nowhere in evidence in these long-term predictions.

These prophecies come with the ring of the divine foreknowledge; as such they are
presented as inevitable. Although none but the Father knows the precise date of the
Parousia, the event is fixed, altogether sure. Only one passage suggests the possibility
that that day may be hastened, but the passage (2 Pet 3:12) itself may be translated as
"waiting for and earnestly desiring" instead of "waiting for and hastening the coming of
the day of God." (Ellen White's writings, however, do lend support to the idea of the
time of the second advent, but not the certainty of its occurrence, being subject to
human response.)
Predictions of the First Advent of Christ
Paul wrote to the Galatians: "When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth
his Son, . . ." (4:4, KJV). What do his words connote? That the first coming of Christ,
the Incarnation, was not by chance. Rather, it was according to God's own wisdom.
Even though sincere followers of God had awaited Messiah's appearance for centuries,
God had His own timetable; when the time had come fully. He appeared. Church
historians have often drawn attention to the way "the world" had been prepared for the
birth of Jesus; beyond this, however, we should recognize the divine outworking of the
plan of salvation.
The coming of the Messiah, the seed of Abraham in whom all nations of earth
would be blessed (Gen 12:3), is clearly part of the covenant promises made to Israel.
Yet it transcends the covenant, since the Messiah is
276
for all nations, not just Israel. In that transcending the conditional! ty principle that rules
the covenant promises and threatenings is subjugated. Was Messiah's coming delayed
because Israel had not prepared the world for Him? We have no hint of it. Surely such
preparation as they had made was feeble, but Messiah came. He had to come ! In the
fulness of the time God sent Him forth.
It seems impossible to apply the eonditionality principle to the prophecies of the

Messiah. That He would come of the line of Judah (Gen 49:10), that He would be the
son of David (Isa 11:1), that He would be born in Bethlehem (Mic 5:2), that He would
be the Saviour, the Substitute for our sins (Isa 53)—how can we speak of
"conditionality" in these predictions? Over and over Matthew quotes the ОТ with the
formula: "that the Scriptures might be fulfilled" (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4il4; 8tl7, etc.).
Even His name is told to Mary before His birth (Matt 1:21)--surely a microcosm of the
divine foreordering of Messiah's first coming! Beyond the specific prophecies which
usually we label "Messianic," the entire ОТ looks to Him. It is a work of expectation,
moving forward and narrowing in upon the birth which is celebrated in the NT.24
Conclusions
The implications of this classification of the non-apocalyptic portions of biblical
prophecy are profound for the conditionality idea. The analysis suggests that, far from
conditionality being a principle that may be, and indeed should be, applied to all biblical
predictions, the very term "conditional prophecy" is misleading in view of the biblical
data. Indeed, for the most part so-called "conditionality" is rather covenant promise or
covenant threatening. Remove the predictions that fall under the covenant with Israel
and conditionality occupies a minor place in the biblical material.
With this background we shall look specifically to the apocalyptic predictions of the
Scriptures.
24 We recognize that in some ОТ prophecies of the Messiah there is a merging of the two
advents, for example, Isa 11:1-9.
277
Conditionality and Apocalyptic
Despite the literary outpouring of scholars and learned conferences on apocalyptic,

no clearcut definition has found acceptance. Apocalyptic as a literary genre is more
readily identifiable, although even here we need to tread cautiously. Apocalyptic writing
in general is characterized by symbolic language, graphic portrayals, colors, numbers,
and secrets known only to the initiated. In terms of content, apocalyptic speaks of the
radical disjunction of the ages—of the eclipse of the old era and the break-in of the new.
Some scholars have emphasized the unique features of apocalyptic, seeking to

distance it from general prophecy of the Bible. On the other hand, others have drawn
attention to the ancient character of apocalyptic and downplay the differences with
general prophecy.
In this essay we do not presuppose one of these stances over against the other, nor
do we attempt to resolve such areas of scholarly debate. We do hold, however, that
biblical apocalyptic predictions are inspired by the same Spirit who called forth all the
predictions of the Rible. We further hold that the selfsame Spirit will guide the sincere
seeker for truth as he endeavors to determine the role of conditionality in apocalyptic.
When we begin to examine biblical apocalyptic, we soon sense that we have

entered another sphere. Though apocalyptic arises in Israel or Asia Minor, it burst the
confines of Israel or Asia Minor. Though it first speaks a message of God to a nation in
captivity (Daniel) or to churches undergoing persecution (Revelation), it transcends the
immediate setting in which it came to birth. Apocalyptic has a cosmic sweep, and it
rushes down the continuum of world history to focus on the end-time.
Obviously, we cannot examine every apocalyptic passage of the Bible in this paper.
Instead, we shall focus our attention on the outstanding books of apocalyptic of the
ОТ—Daniel and Zechan'ah, and on the most prominent literature of the NT—Matthew
24/Mark 13/Luke 21 and Revelation. Our concern throughout is with a single issue:
What place does conditionality have in these apocalyptic predictions?
278
Daniel
When we compare the prophecies of the nations in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 with those of
Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, we note a marked contrast. In Daniel, the place of Israel
has receded» as has the element of threatenings. Rather, we behold a panorama, a march
of the kingdoms leading on to the Eschaton (the End). We have become spectators to
events on a world stage;
we are seeing the divine foreknowledge unfold the course of the future.
Here are the ideas that rule the presentation of Daniel:
2:20-22 " 'Daniel said; 'Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever, to whom belong
wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets
up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have
understanding; he reveals deep and mysterious things; he knows what is in
the darkness, and the light dwells with him.' "
2:28 " 'There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King
Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days.* "
2:29 " 'He who reveals mysteries made known to you what is to be.' "
2:45 " The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.' "
2:47 " 'Your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries.' "
4:34-35 "For his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from
generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as
nothing; and he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among
the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What
doest thou?' "
5:21 "The Most High God rules the kingdom of men, and sets over it whom he will."
These ideas center in the divine sovereignty and divine foreknowledge-In this
presentation the human side of history, while portrayed in the ebb and flow of the
fortunes of the people of God, is gathered up within the
279
ruling conception of Yahweh as Lord of history. We search in vain for the element of
conditionality.
So we hear the prophetic time periods laid out before us. They are long ones. In
keeping with the panoramic scope of history in which they are given, they must be such.
We hear of 1,260 days for the reign of the blasphemous "little horn" power (7;25) and
of 2,300 days until the sanctuary shall be vindicated, after the evil work of the "little
horn" (8:14). Given the setting, these time predictions cannot be meant literally.25
Since our studies of general prophecy showed the importance of identifying any
covenant setting, we need to take note of this motif in the book-of Daniel. In fact, the
covenant idea does occur in two lines of prophecy-chapter 9 and chapter 11. Do these
occurrences suggest that conditionality is a "hidden agenda" of the book?
Not at all. We need, first of all, to distinguish clearly between Daniel's own hopes
and understanding and the unfolding of the future that Yahweh) Lord of history,
communicated to him. Daniel, though prominent in public life, is a captive—along with
his people. Jerusalem is in exile; the sanctuary is desolate. Out of this situation Daniel
prays for the restoration of his people, his city, his sanctuary (9:1-19). His prayer is
based on the covenant: the desolations have come in fulfillment of the threats "written
in the law of Moses" (9:13^; likewise that law provides hope of Yahweh's mercy.
But the predictions given to Daniel far outstripped the history of Israel. Indeed,
Daniel could not comprehend the vision of chapter 8, with its sanctuary references
(8:27). Likewise, the reply to his prayer went far beyond the restoration of city and
temple to the Messiah (9:24-27).
Israel and covenant are mentioned also in the prophecy of chapter 11 (11:22, 28,
30-35). It may be significant that, as in 9:24-27, the apocalyptic nature of chapter 11 is
much less evident than in chapters 2, 7, and 8, Even
25 For a discussion of the biblical basis of the year-day principle, see William H. Shea, Selected
Studies in Prophetic Interpretation (Washington, DC, 1982), pp. 56-88.
280
if we include chapter 11 under apocalyptic, however, two observations are valid.
1. The fortunes of Israel are treated in a relatively minor manner—the concern is

with the conflict between "the king of the north" and "the king of the south."
2. We find no hint of conditionality— indeed, the very nature of the prophecy,

detailed as it is and linked through many generations, speaks strongly against
conditionaiity as a factor in interpretation.
Zechariah
The book of Zechariah is among the most obscure of the Scriptures. Although, tike
Daniel, it contains apocalyptic, it has not attracted the careful study of Adventist
scholars. In making this observation we are not faulting necessarily Adventist
scholarship. Apocalyptic documents per se are not of equal value to us.
The portions of Zechariah that might be construed as apocalyptic are chapters 1-6
and 9-14. The first six chapters are disputable in terms of their apocalyptic character,
depending on one's definition of apocalyptic. However, they are highly symbolic and,
for the sake of completeness, we will include them in this paper. Chapters 9-14 seem
clearly apocalyptic.
Zechariah, like Haggai, was a prophet to the Jews who returned from exile. The two
messengers from Yahweh were instrumental in galvanizing the Jews to rebuild the
temple (see Ezra 6:14). Zechariah 1-6 reflect these national concerns. Through a series
of visions Yahweh conveyed His concern for Jerusalem (chap. 1), the rebuilding of the
city (chap. 2), His acceptance of Joshua the high priest (chap. 3), the certainty of the
success of the people's efforts (chap. 4), the removal of sin from the restored community
(chap. 5), and God's superintendence of affairs (chap. 6).
These chapters show a conditional element. The prophet's opening words are: " The
Lord was very angry with your fathers. Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord of
hosts: Return to me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of
hosts. Be not like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out, "Thus says the
Lord of hosts, Return
281
from your evil ways and from your evil deeds." But they did not hear or heed me, says
the Lord' " (Zech 1:2-4).
But this is not conditionality with respect to long-term predictions. Rather, the
setting is within the covenant made with the people of Israel. That is, Zechariah 1—6,
whether or not we classify the chapter as apocalyptic, is of the same order as the first
category in the classification of general prophecy.
Although Zechariah 9-14 looks beyond the immediate concerns of the prophet and
his people, the visions are still within the setting of the covenant. "As for you ... ,
because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the
waterless pit," promises Yahweh to Israel (9:11). God's wrath will fall upon Israel's
enemies (9:1-8), especially as they gather against Jerusalem in battle (l4i2-3). Though
Israel will suffer travail, God will deliver her: "I will strengthen the house of Judah, and
I will save the house of Joseph" (10:6).
In these chapters, then, it seems undeniable that (1) apocalyptic is present, and (2)
the center of the predictions is Israel (see, for example, 14:16, those who survive the
great battle against Jerusalem keep the feast of booths). These chapters belong among
the other ОТ prophecies to Israel which could not find realization because the nation
refused to walk within the provisions of the covenant with Israel.
Thus, chapters 1-6 and 9-14 are of a piece—conditional, inasmuch as the covenant
is conditional on the human response. Although these prophecies may be viewed as
apocalyptic in form, covenant clearly takes priority. Apocalyptic may be merely a
vehicle through which the covenant promises and threatenings to Israel are portrayed.
Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21
With our Lord's prediction we have left behind Israel and covenant. We need but
ask, Does His prophecy point to conditionality?
It does not. Instead of conditions we find signs—a series of signs in order that
herald the great return. The last of these is the preaching of the gospel throughout the
whole world (Matt 24:14).
282
The Prince of Prophets speaks here. He speaks, not in terms of human conditions
that must be met, but of events that unerringly presage His coming.
Revelation
The book of Revelation is of a similar order to Daniel. John is told to write "the
things which are, and the things which shall be [not may be] hereafter" (1:19, KJV,
emphasis supplied). He sees the struggles of the people of God, the final judgment
scene (chaps. 5, 20), a remnant people at the end of all things who stand faithful and
loyal to God—those who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus"
(14:12, KJV). As the world order comes to a total halt in the final outworking of the
confederates of evil and in the divine intervention of punishment, God's people stand
secure in Him. Beyond the turmoil, after the nightmare happenings preceding the
second advent, there emerges at last a "new heavens and a new earth," where
righteousness dwells.
So the great controversy, the agelong conflict between Christ and Satan, is ended. It
is ended because God has ended it. Its end is as sure as the lordship of God over time
and space.
Conclusion
We conclude, therefore, that, except in those passages where the covenant with
Israel is the leading concern, apocalyptic predictions, whether ОТ or NT, do not hinge
on conditionality. Rather, the divine sovereignty and foreknowledge are the leading
ideas.
During the course of our study of general prophecy and apocalyptic, we have
noticed various theological aspects that impinge on interpretation. We shall now give
brief attention to them.
Theological Aspects Affecting Interpretation

Four theological matters relevant to conditional prophecy call for discussion:
human freedom, divine sovereignty, the word of God, and divine foreknowledge*
583
Human Freedom
The strength of the conditionality principle is in its recognition of this biblical truth.
The God of the Bible, although Creator and Lord of all, is love. It is the obedience of
loving hearts that He seeks—hearts joined to Him in covenant relationship. In order to
make human freedom a reality, not merely fiction, He limits His own freedom.
Human freedom is not absolute. Men and women are creatures, dependent on
Yahweh even when they flaunt their freedom in disobedience. Yet God does not coerce;
He has given the ability to choose or reject—even Himself.
Human freedom comes into play in those circumstances where prophets bring
messages of correction and instruction. It is central to the promises and threatenings to
Israel. It sometimes lies at the heart of a prediction to a foreign nation, as in the case of
Jonah's prophecy against Nineveh,
Human freedom is grounded in the unchanging character of Yahweh. Human

freedom means that man may change, as free choice is exercised. Change affects the
relationship to Yahweh, bringing blessing or cursing. Yahweh, however, changes not: 26
His character is holy, His hatred of sin constant, His mercy long-suffering as human
freedom is exercised.
Divine Sovereignty
While Yahweh's love makes human freedom a reality, He remains sovereign.27

Throughout Scripture human freedom appears within this overarching concept; the
Bible is God-centered, not man-centered. So there are limits which only Yahweh
knows. Individuals, cities, nations pass beyond the invisible, silent point; their probation
closes. Yahweh destroys the world with the Flood; He sends Messiah in ''the fullness of
time;" He
26 The biblical language of the divine "repentance" does not signify capriciousness. Rather, it
indicates that a person, city, or nation has, because of a changed relationship to the divine will, come
within the purview of a different divine response.
27 That is, God also is free. Human freedom ultimately derives from divine freedom. Cf. Psalm
115:3, "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases."
284
eventually declares "It is done !" over the drama of the ages (Rev 16:17).
Throughout human history, apparently haphazardly, nations rise and fall, subject to
time, chance, change. That is the human, myopic perspective. But the Bible (and Ellen
White) shows God in control, superintending events on earth, working out His purposes
toward a beneficent end. He is the One who "removeth kings, and setteth up kings: . . ."
"The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will"
(Dan 2:21; 4:32, KJV).
It is interesting that Ellen White at times writes in terms of divine sovereignty rather
than human freedom. "Like the stars in the vast circuit of their appointed path. God's
purposes know no haste and no delay."28
In a biblical philosophy of history, therefore, human freedom must be held in
tension with divine sovereignty. To deny the former is to make history deterministic; to
repudiate the latter is to render it chaotic, uncertain, meaningless.29
Word of God
This is an important biblical idea, especially in the ОТ. Adventists have not given it
due place.
When God speaks, His will is carried out. His word carries with it authority and
power: it creates a world out of chaos (Gen 1:5-27; Ps 33:6, 9), it brings on the Flood
(Gen 6:3, 7, 13-21), it rescues a nation out of bondage (Exod 3:7-10), it dries up the Red
Sea (Exod 14:15-18).
The Word of God is dynamic. Because it comes out from God, it has the ability to
effect what it proclaims. That is why we read, "For as the rain cometh down, and the
snow from heaven, and returneth not thither,
28 The Desire of Ages, p. 32.
29 We cannot embark here upon the implications of divine sovereignty and human freedom.
Theologians have struggled with these concepts for centuries. Manifestly, it is easier to dwell upon either
divine sovereignty or human freedom; when we seek to maintain the concepts in tension the task is more
difficult. Then we must develop the idea of the infinite resourcefulness of God, who is able to respond
infinitely to every human action.
285
but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the
sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it
shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall
prosper in the thing whereto I sent it"(Isa 55:10-11, KJV).
God's Word does not abrogate human freedom. It does not nullify Yahweh's
compassion, His willingness to accept the turning back to Him. So the prophets add the
"Who knows if ... ?" of hope to their messages from the Lord to a stubborn, rebellious
people.
While the Word of God does not cancel human freedom, it is clearly in the direction
of the divine sovereignty. It is the dynamic assurance, the effecting factor that
guarantees that Yahweh will do what He has predicted,
Divine Foreknowledge
The biblical claim is specific and breathtaking: Yahweh can tell the future. This
ability sets Him apart from all other claims to deity: "Let them bring them forth, and
shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may
consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew
the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good,
or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together" (Isa 41:22-23, KJV; see
also 43:9; 44:7-8; 45:21; 46:9-11; 48:5; Rev 1:19).
Human freedom and divine sovereignty stand in tension; divine foreknowledge is a

third term, apart from both. It does not negate freedom. It in foresees choices;30 it does
not determine them. And it presupposes divine sovereignty.31 Therefore, human
freedom must never be isolated from
God's sovereignty; and both must acknowledge His foreknowledge.
30 Likewise, foreknowledge allows for God's choices as well as man's.
31 For a theological attempt to set forth divine sovereignty without foreknowledge, see R. Rice,
The Openness of God (Nashville, 1980). Dr. Rice, sensitive to the ethical problems involved in attributing
foreknowledge to God, suggests that God does not have absolute knowledge of the future; nonetheless He
remains God.
286
Conclusions
1. Conditionality is a valid principle of biblical interpretation. It arises from a due
regard for the concern with human freedom that under-girds the biblical accounts of
God's dealings with the human race*
2. Conditionality, however, may not be used indiscriminately in prophetic

interpretation. Just as human freedom stands in tension with divine sovereignty in the
Scriptures, so Conditionality must give way to the fixed predictions of God in many
prophetic passages. All biblical predictions are not conditional.
3. The prophecies made to Israel in a covenant setting are conditional. They are
applications of the law of the covenant rather than predictive prophecies per se. They
are the usual occurrence of conditional predictions in the Bible.32
4. Since Conditionality is found most frequently in the covenant setting, the term
"conditional prophecy" itself is misleading.
5. In prophecies of the first and second advents, Conditionality is not a major factor.
These predictions are predicated on the divine intervention in history as God asserts His
sovereignty to effect His will in working out the plan of salvation.33
6. Apocalyptic predictions are usually unconditional. Only where the covenant

setting with Israel predominates is Conditionality present; and then it indeed is present.
Elsewhere the divine sovereignty and foreknowledge portray history on the grand scale.
7. It is vital, therefore, that any biblical prophecy be studied carefully in

interpretation. We by no means rule out Conditionality; we merely suggest that we may
not without due consideration employ Conditionality as
32 Ellen White's statement, "The promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional/' is of this
type. It is not a dictum for interpreting predictive prophecy; instead, it is a summary of the principle of
human freedom in all God's dealings with us.
33 We should differentiate, however, between the fact of the second advent (unconditional) and the
time of it (conditional, from a human standpoint). The latter dimension points us to the idea that the
sovereign, infinitely resourceful One is also infinitely patient.
287
the key to interpretation. We must first study carefully the original context, noting the
type of literature. (Is it general prophecy or apocalyptic? Does it fall within the covenant
promises and threatening?) .Finally, we should see what application, if any, another
inspired writer makes of the prophecy.
Thus, by thorough investigation, by a truly biblical grasp of history, we may steer a

course between the Scylla of extreme conditionality and the Charybdis of
aconditionality. God's Word is not mysterious, nor is it obscure. It will reveal its truths
to those who earnestly seek to know His will. On the other hand, we must employ sound
principles of interpretation, avoiding the traps of subjectivism, oversimplification, or
sensationalism, it is as we rightly divide the Word of truth that we discern its messages
for us.
CHAPTER IX
Fulfillments of Prophecy
Gerhard F.Hasel
Editorial synopsis. Predictive matter comprises approximately 27 percent of the Bible's

contents. The figure includes typological predictions as well as straightforward
prophecy.
In this chapter the author is concerned with analyzing the nature or characteristics of
prophetic fulfillments. For example, the Bible writer may say, "this was to fulfill what
the Lord had spoken by the prophet," or this event occurred "according to the word of
the Lord," or some similar phrasing. On the other hand many fulfillments occur in the
biblical accounts without such formulas being stated. Formula-attendant fulfillments as
stated in the OT reveal the following characteristics:
1. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the particular event occurred "according to the
word of the Lord." The prediction did not fail or "fall to the ground."
2. Predictions are fulfilled in actual history and precisely according to the details of the
prophecy.
3. The time lapse between prediction and fulfillment varies. Some predictions meet
immediate fulfillment, some within a few years. Others are not fulfilled until decades or
centuries later.
4. Every prediction in this category that was examined met a once-for-all-time

fulfillment.
In the NT the Gospel of Matthew contains twelve fulfillment statements which shed
further light on the nature of prophetic fulfillments. These statements identify with three
kinds of general prophecy:
1. Straightforward prophecy. Micah foretold that the birth of the Messiah would take
place in a specific town: Bethlehem in Judah. (There were two Bethlehems—one in
Judah, the other in Zebulun. Josh 19:15).
289
Matthew records the exact fulfillment by the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in Judea (Matt
2:1, 6).
2. Typological prophecy. Hosea's statement, "I ... called my son out of Egypt" (Hos
11:1) is seen by Matthew to meet a fulfillment in Jesus' return to Palestine from Egypt
with His parents (Matt 2:14-15). This is best understood by an Israel-Messiah typology.
The Messiah embodies in Himself the ideal Israel. Matthew sees under inspiration a
typological correspondence and a predictive element in the type—the coming out of
Egypt of God's son, Israel; the coming out of Egypt of God's Son, the Messiah.
3. Dual prophecy. Some prophecies appear to have a divinely intended twofold

fulfillment. Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth provides an example (Isa 7:14). At first
this may appear to have some modifying influence on the numerous prophecies and
their fulfillments examined under point 4 noted above as far as the OT by itself was
concerned. However, genuine fulfillments of a prophecy intended to have a dual
fulfillment are not determined by the subjective imaginings of the interpreter.
A dual fulfillment may be recognized only if scripture demands an initial and partial
fulfillment and later scripture clearly indicates a final and complete fulfillment. In the
case of Isaiah's prophecy, the historical context and contemporary setting requires a
fulfillment in the time of King Ahaz and the prophet Isaiah. But the later inspired
statement by Matthew indicates a final and complete fulfillment in the virgin birth of
Jesus Christ (Matt 1:22-23).
Joel 2:28-32 may be cited also as an OT prophecy intended to have two fulfillments.
God promised to cause the early and latter rains to fall upon the devastated lands of a
penitent Israel (Joel 2:11-12, 23-27). As a spiritual counterpart to the rains, an
outpouring of the Holy Spirit also was promised at some point in the future (2:28-32).
The apostle Peter recognized the great Pentecostal operation of the Holy Spirit as
fulfilling Joel's prediction (Acts 2:16). However, the data in the original prophecy refer-
ring to certain celestial wonders that would occur before "the great and terrible day of
the Lord" as well as the biblical concept of the latter rain and the close of the harvest
clearly indicate a future, more complete ful-
290
fillment, of the original prophecy (Joel 2:30-31; Acts 2:19-20).

Thus, it is evident that a divinely intended dual fulfillment is under scriptural control.
Contextual specifications must be met, or a clear inspired fulfillment designation must
be present. Such prophecies provide no basis for speculating on possible multiple
fulfillments for either general/ classical or apocalyptic kinds of prophecy.
Apocalyptic prophecy. Apocalyptic prophecy, such as composes the books of Daniel

and Revelation, represents another body of predictive material that differs somewhat
from general/classical prophecy which the author discusses up to this point in the
chapter. In identifying genuine fulfillments of apocalyptic prophecy the following
principles must be kept in mind.
1. The context is a sound and indispensable guide. Each aspect within the prophecy
must be weighed and evaluated carefully.
2. A literal fulfillment is to be expected, unless there is clear inspired evidence that it

should be non-literal.
3. Every detail must be met in the fulfillment. It is not a genuine fulfillment if only
some specifications are met, but not others; nor can it be a genuine fulfillment if it is
such only in principle and not in detail. All aspects of an apocalyptic prophecy must be
met in order to have a true fulfillment of the prophecy.
4. Apocalyptic prophecies have neither dual nor multiple fulfillments. On the contrary
each symbol has but one fulfillment. For example, in the book of Daniel each metal and
each beast has only one fulfillment. The ten horns and the one horn in Daniel 7, the one
and the four and the one in Daniel 8, have only one fulfillment. Dual, or twofold,
fulfillments may be present in some general/classical prophetic predictions where
contextual scriptural indications make this clear and the details of the specifications are
met in each instance, nut apocalyptic prophecy, as found in the books of Daniel and
Revelation, has but one fulfillment for each symbol.
291
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction
II. Predictions With Fulfillment Statements
A. Predictions With Fulfillment Statements in the OT
B. Predictions With Fulfillment Statements in the NT
III. Fulfillment of Apocalyptic Prophecy
IV. Conclusions
Introduction
To raise the question of prophetic fulfillments is to raise a question on the nature of

prophecy.1 In popular usage today "prophecy" means more or
1 For major books from about the middle of the last century on biblical prophecy from a variety of
perspectives, conservative and liberal, Christian and Jewish, see particularly J.C.K. von Hofmann,
Weissagung und Erfiillung im Alien und Neuen Testament (Nordlingen, 1844); E. W. Hengstenberg, Die
Chris to logie des Alton Testaments, 3 vols. (Berlin 1829-35); C. von Orelli, The Old! Testament
Prophecy of the Consummation of God's Kingdom, Traced in Its Historical Development (Edinburgh,
1876); E. Riehm, Messianic Prophecy: Its Origin, Historical Character and Relation to New Testament
Fulfillment (Edinburgh, 1876); B. Duhm, Die Theologie der Propheten (Bonn, 1875); R. Hitzig,
Vorlesungen liber die biblische Theologie und messianische Weissagung des Alien Testaments
(Karlsruhe, 1880); J. J. Stahelin, Die Messionischen Weissagungen (Berlin, 1847); C. A. Briggs,
Messianic Prophecy: I'ne Prediction of the Fulfillment of Redemption , Through the Messiah (New York,
1886); F. DeUtzsch, Messianic Prophecies in Historical Succession (Edinburgh, 1891); A. B. Davidson,
Old Testament Prophecy (Edinburgh, 1903); R. B. Girdlestone, The Grammar of Prophecy (London,
1901); W. J. Beeches The Prophets and the Promise (New York, 1905); G. Holseher, Die Propheten
(Berlin, 1914); A. Guillaume, Prophecy and Divination (London, 1938); A. R. Johnson, The Cultic
Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff, 1944); M. Buber, rhe Prophetic Faith (New York, 1949); E. J. Young,
My Servants the Prophets (Grand Rapids, 1952); A. Edersheim, Prophecy and History in Relation to the
Messiah (Grand Rapids, 1955); A. J. Hesehel, The Prophets, 2 vols. (New York, 1962); B. D. Napier,
Prophets in Perspective (Nashville, 1963); H. H. Rowley, Men of God (Camden, NJ, 1963); G. C.
Oxtoby, Prediction and Fulfillment in the Bible (Philadelphia, 1966); J. B. Payne, Encyclopedia of
Biblical Prophecy. The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment (New York,
1973); R. H. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadel-?hia. 1980).
292
less "prediction of the future." Thus "prophecy" is history written in advance. This view
has been called into question vigorously not only in modern critical scholarship but also
in early times.
As far as is known, the first one to challenge prediction and fulfillment was Celsus, the
author of the first-known philosophical and religious criticism of Christianity (about
A.D. 180).2 He attacked the view that the biblical prophets truly had predicted the
future. He could not conceive that the detailed predictions in the book of Daniel about
Alexander the Great and his successors could be advance presentations. Thus Celsus
claimed that these predictions were based upon later knowledge of what actually
happened; that is, they were prophecy written after the events occurred (vaticinia ex
eventu).
A short time later the Neo-Platonic philosopher, Porphyry (A.D. 232 to about A.D.
305), devoted the twelfth volume of his monumental fifteen-volume work. Against the
Christians, to the book of Daniel. Porphyry denied "that it [the prophecy of Daniel] was
composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual
living in Judaea at the time of the Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes."3
The church father Jerome (about A.D. 345-419) notes in his refutation of Porphyry that
the latter recognized the accuracy of the predictions in the book of Daniel regarding
both the four empires and the coming of Christ. Jerome states that Porphyry saw "that
all these things had been fulfilled and could not deny that they had taken place." He
attempted to overcome this historical accuracy by "contending that whatever [was]
foretold . . . was actually fulfilled in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes [175-164 B.CJ, . .
."4 This striking reliability of the fulfillment of Daniel's predictions has remained a stone
of stumbling also in modern times.
It was during the age of the Enlightenment (eighteenth century) with
2 G.T.A. Angel, "Celsus," The New International Dictionary of the ChLtrch, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand
Rapids, 1974), pp. 206-7.
3 Porphyry as referred to by Jerome in Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, tr. G. L. Archer (Grand Rapids,
1977), p. 15.
4 Ibid.
293
its accompanying Deism that deists and others adopted the views of these pagan
opponents of Christianity.5 The English scholar Anthony Collins popularized the views
of Porphyry for critical biblical scholarship (1727). His endorsement included the
vaticinia ex eventu ("written after the c event") nature of the book of Daniel6 and its
corollary that it was a second century forgery .7
Collins' criticism of the fulfillment of prophecy8 was decisive for the rationalistic mind-
set. So also was his position on the late authorship of Daniel. Modern liberal scholarship
scarcely has improved on it.9 These links with the past are important for an
understanding of the intellectual climate in the modern period to which present-day
scholarship is indebted.
It is not our purpose to trace the history of the denials that biblical prophets are able to
predict the future. We present only a few highlights. One strange assertion is that
predictions have been fulfilled intentionally by persons who knew the predictions and
set out to fulfill them. Thus it has been claimed, for example, that Jesus intentionally
plotted His life, sufferings, and death according to OT messianic predictions so as to
give the appearance of being the predicted Messiah whom He believed He was.10 It is
evident nevertheless that there were too many matters of fulfillment in
5 See the informative essay regarding the changes relating to predictions of the conning of the Messiah by
R. E, Clements, "Messianic Prophecy or Messianic History?" Horizons in Biblical Theology 1 (1979); 87-
104.
6 A. Collins, The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered in View of Controversy, Occasioned by a Late
Book Intitled: A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (London, 1727), p. 155.
7 Ibid., pp. 151-55.

8 See H. W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics (New Haven, 1974), pp. 66-85.
9 L. Diestel, Geschichte des Alien Testaments in der christlichen Kirche (Leipzig, 1869), p. 541; J. M.
Schmidt, Die J'udische Apokalyptik (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), pp. 35-37.
10 This has been suggested most strongly by the British Jewish writer H. J. Schonfield, The Passover Plot
(New York, 1965). The idea that Jesus consciously proceeded to speak and act to bring about fulfillment
of the predictions of the Messiah in the OT is held by E. Hoskyns and N. Davey, The Riddle of the New
Testament (London, 1957).
294
Jesus' early and later life that were beyond His control to arrange so as to fulfill OT
prophecy.
An axiom of certain branches of modern historical-critical study of OT prophecy is that

prophecy and prediction are not identical.11 What this means is that the prophet is
actually not a "foreteller" who predicts events that are to take place in the future. This is
supposedly the business of apocalyptic as contained in the books of Daniel and
Revelation.12 In this view the primary task of the classical prophets (major and minor)
was to be "forthtellers" whose proclamation addressed the people of their own day and
not the future whether near or distant.13
The distinction between prophets as "forthtellers" and not "foretellers," as proclaimers

and not as predictors, is "now often rejected as facile."14 It is now noted that "while the
predictive element in apocalyptic is much greater than in true prophecy, numerous
predictions are to be found also in the words of the great [writing] prophets."15
This does not mean that the matter of long-range prediction is acknowledged very
widely in modern liberal scholarship. Whereas in older liberalism the biblical prophet is
seen as a pure "forthteller" or preacher to his own time and circumstances, the new
liberalism allows for short-range prediction in the prophet's own time. The rule of
thumb is as follows: "A prophecy is earlier than what it predicts, but contemporary with,
or later than, what it presupposes."16
This principle works on the basis of the presupposition that the OT prophet can predict
only for his own time and circumstances on the basis of his human insights, but this
cannot be done by him for a time later than his
11 R.B.Y, Scott, The Relevance of the Prophets, rev. ed. (New York, 1968L pp. 2-4.
12 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
13 E. W. Heaton, The Old Testament Prophets (Baltimore, 1964), pp. 17-18.
14 Ibid.,?. 125.
15 Scott, pp. 6-7; see also J. P. Hyatt, Prophetic Religion (New York, 1947L pp. 91-96.
16 G. E. Wright, Isaiah (London, 1965), p. 8.
295
own. This impinges, for example, on the prophecy about Cyrus (Isa 44:28; 45:1) which
"presupposes that Israel is in exile, that Jerusalem is in ruins, and that the most
important man on the horizon at the moment is Cyrus."17 Therefore the author of these
predictions must live at that l ft time.18 He cannot be the Isaiah of Jerusalem who
ministers for six decades (740/39 to ca. 680 B.C.), about 150 years before Cyrus.
In fact, it still is suggested by some that these predictions of an unknown prophet

(usually called Deutero-Isaiah) were written after the event had occurred (ex eventu.)19
Thus, there is not even short-range prophecy made about 150 years before the
fulfillment took place.20 Obviously the philosophical and theological perspectives of
each scholar come into play here. As one scholar stated some time ago, "No one who
believes in a living, personal, omniscient God, and in the possibility of His revealing
future events, will ever deny that He possesses the power to foretell the name of a future
monarch."21
There is one other instance in the Bible where the name of a king was predicted in
advance, even 300 years before he was born. An unnamed prophet predicted to
Jeroboam I (931-909 B.C.) that "a son [would] be born to the house of David, Josiah by
name" who would desecrate and destroy the king's idolatrous religious system (1 Kgs
13:2). This prophecy was fulfilled (2 Kgs 23:15-16). Josiah was born and reigned over
Judah (2 Kgs 22:1—23:30) from 640-609 B.C.22 This amazing detail in prophecy and
17 Ibid., p. 9; cf. J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB 20 (1968), pp. 73-79.
18 K. Elliger, Deuterojesaja (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978), pp. 465-66.
19 J. Becker, Jsaiah-Der Prophet und sein. Buch (Stuttgart, 1968), p. 38.
20 There is no lack of scholars accepting the unity of Isaiah and the genuineness of this prediction. See,
for example, 0. T. Allis, The Unity of Isaiah (Philadelphia, 1950), pp. 78-80; E. J. Young, The Book of
Isaiah (Grand Hapids, 1972), 3:192-94, 546-47; G. L. Archer, A survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago, 1964), pp. 322-23; H. D. Hummel, The Word. Becoming Flesh (St. Louis, 1979), pp. 185-86;
W. Moller, Grundriss fur alttestamentliche Einleitung (Berlin, 1958), pp. 182, 186.
21 Windisehmann quoted by F. Delitzseh, The Prophecies of Isaiah (Grand Rapids, 1949), 2:138.
22 For dates, see E. R. Thiele, A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, 1977), pp. 75-79.
296
fulfillment reflects the fact that God knows the inner workings of history, and on the
basis of His foreknowledge, Tie is able to reveal the future.
The book of Isaiah declares the superiority of God on this point. "I am God, and there is
no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My counsel will be
established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure' " (Isa 46:9-10, NASB).
Prediction is undeniably part of God's scriptural revelation. This does not deny that the
prophet invariably addressed also the present situation as well as the immediate future.
Prophets were spokesmen for the present as well as the near and distant future.
In biblical faith the understanding of history is not cyclical. Rather, history moves
forward to a goal, indeed, a final goal. The Creator of the world is all-powerful. He is
not a cosmic clock maker who made the universe to tick on its own. The living Creator
is also the Lord over history. History is meaningful because it is ultimately under the
control of God. The eternal God made the beginning of history in Creation. He knows
and controls the subsequent course of history and leads it forward to its final goal in a
new heaven and new earth. Part of this activity of God in history, taking it to its
appointed goal, is prediction and fulfillment.
Predictions With Fulfillment Statement
The Bible contains many predictions. The amount of predictive matter is said to consist
of 8,352 verses out of a total of 31,134 verses, or 27 percent (OT, 28.5 percent; NT,
21.5 percent) of both straightforward predictions (5,457 verses, or 17.5 percent of the
Bible) and typological predictions (2,895 verses, or 9.5 percent of the Bible).23
In a number of instances we discover that the OT as well as the NT refers explicitly to a

fulfillment of a prophecy by using a fulfillment statement or a formula quotation. It is
anticipated that the predictions
23
Payne,p.681.
297
followed by later fulfillment statements will provide basic principles for identifying the
fulfillment of those predictions where no fulfillment statements are found.
Another category is predictions without later fulfillment statements. These predictions,

by far the larger quantity of predictive material in the Bible, have fulfillment in OT
times, or in NT times, or beyond, or fulfillment may be expected yet to take place.
We must touch briefly on the matter of conditional prophecy. The principle of

conditionality is set forth clearly in Jeremiah 18:7-10. The prophecies that relate to
man's moral behavior potentially contain the element of conditionality. The concept of
conditionality is illustrated in Jeremiah 26.-12-13; 38:17-18; and 42:10-17. Insofar as a
prophecy was inherently dependent on man's moral behavior, the prophetic prediction
seemed to be conditional. The principle of human repentance or turning can modify the
prediction-fulfillment scheme in such a way as to bring about a change in God's
response (Jer 26:19; Jonah 3:9-10). Although the principle of conditionality is an
important element in predictive prophecy where moral behavior is involved, not all
predictions of the Bible are necessarily conditional. There are many unconditional
prophecies in Scripture (cf Gen 3:15; Amos 1—2:8; Dan 2, 7, 8, 11—12).
Predictions With Fulfillment Statements in the Old Testament
The necessity for fulfillment of a prophecy is stated clearly as a mark of a true prophet.
"When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or
come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it
presumptuously" (Deut 18:22, NASB). The criterion of the truth of the prophetic
predictions or judgments would lie in their fulfillment.
The Bible is explicit in its assertion of valid predictions. "1, the Lord, have spoken;
surely this will I do" (Num 14:35, RSV). Disbelief in prophetic fulfillment is countered
by God's assertion to Moses: " 'Ts the Lord's hand shortened? Now you shall see
whether my word will come true for you or not/" (Num 11:23, RSV). The prophet
Micah affirms, "Thou wilt show
298
faithfulness ... as thou hast sworn to our fathers from the days of old" (Mic 7:20, RSV).
In the writings of the prophet Zechariah a view is found that looks centuries into the
past in the words of the Lord? "my words and my statutes, which I commanded my
servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? ... As the Lord of hosts
purposed to deal with us for our ways and deeds, so has he dealt with us" (Zech 1:6).
The Bible makes clear on its own terms that there is predictive prophecy of short-range
and long-range which leads to genuine and valid fulfillment in history.
There are scores of prophetic predictions in various parts of the OT where the
fulfillment is designated plainly. At times the Hebrew expression beqim (the biphil form
of the verb qum)— meaning "fulfill, establish, confirm"—is the major term used to
indicate the fulfillment of an earlier promise or prediction. Or, fulfillment may be
pointed out in other ways by various expressions or phrases. Some of these call for our
attention.
In Genesis 12:7 God promises Abraham, "To your descendents I will give this land."
This prediction God repeats to him several times. (See Genesis 13:14-15, 17; 15:7, 18;
17:8.) It is also given to Isaac (Gen 26:2-4) and Jacob (Gen 28:13, 15; 35:12). It is
repeated early in Moses' experience (Exod 3:8, 17; 6:6-8) and again after the Exodus
(Exod 23:23-33; cf 34:24),
In Deuteronomy 9:5 God's graciousness in giving the land is emphasized. The gift of the
land is an act of grace and not reward. The promised land would be given to Israel "in
order to confirm [fulfill] the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to
Isaac, and to Jacob." God's action was "part of the fulfillment of the ancient promise
made to the patriarchs."24
The promise of the land theme continues throughout the Pentateuch.25 By the time of the
death of Joshua (Josh 23:1, 14), the Lord had given to Israel "all the land which he
swore to give to their fathers; and having
24 P. C, Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT(1978), p. 193.
25 See on this D.A.J. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (Sheffield, 1978), pp. 45-60.
299
taken possession of it, they settled there... . Not one of the good promises which the
Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass" (Josh 21:43-45,
RSV).26
At the time of the conquest of Jericho (Josh 6) the prediction was made (in the form of a
curse) that the man who "rises up and builds" for "re-fortifies")27 Jericho would suffer
loss. "With the loss of his first-born shall he lay its foundation, and with the loss of his
youngest son he shall set up its gates" (vs. 26, NASB). In the time of King Ahab some
700 years later, we are informed that Hiel rebuilt Jericho. True to the prediction, "he
laid its foundations with the loss of Abiram his first-born, and set up its gates with the
loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which He spoke by
Joshua the son of Nun" (1 Kgs 16:34, NASR).
Through the prophet Nathan God promised David subsequent to his death, "I wit! raise
up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his
kingdom. He shall build a house for My name'' (2 Sam 7:12-13, NASB). Solomon
succeeded his father David on the throne and built the temple specifically stating, "Now
the Lord has fulfilled His word which He spoke" (1 Kgs 8:20, NASB).28 The
conditionality of this prediction is emphasized twice (1 Kgs 2:4; 6:12).
Samuel, the prophet, predicted that after leaving him Saul would meet successively
"two men," then "three men," and finally a band of prophets (1 Sam 10:2-7). Details
about each group are given. The fulfillment is noted as follows: "And all those signs
came about on that day" fvs. 9, NASB).
The prophet Ahijah predicted that ten tribes would be taken from Solomon's kingdom,
because of unfaithfulness (1 Kgs 11:11-13, 26-40). The fulfillment is cited expressly: "It
was a turn of events from the Lord, that
26 The "remnant of the nations" (Josh 23:12) were still in the Promised Land in harmony with an earlier
announcement of gradual extermination (Exod 23:29-30; Deut 7:22; cf. Josh 13:1-6; Judg 2:1-2; 3:1-2; 2
Kgs 17:17-18)
27 So some commentators. 90
28 The Nathan prophecy is conditional both as David understood it (I Kgs 2:4) and as God told Solomon
(1 Kgs 6; 12).
300
He might establish [or 'fulfill']29 His word, which the Lord spoke through Ahijah the
Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat" (1 Kgs 12:15, NASB).
A threatening prophecy is directed against Jeroboam's altar at Bethel. A descendant of

David, named Josiah, would slay the priests of the high places on the altar and would
burn human bones upon it (l Kgs 13:2, 32). The fulfillment came about 300 years later
when king Josiah did what was predicted "according to the word of the Lord which the
man of God proclaimed" (2 Kgs 23:16, NASB).
It was predicted that the prophet, who ate at Bethel in disobedience to God's command,
would not be buried with his fathers (1 Kgs 13:22). Subsequently, he was killed by a
lion and buried in Bethel (vs. 30). His death and burial happened "according to the word
of the Lord which He spoke to him" (vs. 26, NASB).
Ahijah predicted the demise of Jeroboam's dynasty because of the evil he had instigated
(1 Kgs 14:10-14). This was fulfilled by the usurper Baasha who not only killed
Jeroboam's son Nadab (909-908 B.C.)30 who succeeded his father on the throne, but
also all the other male members of the house of Jeroboam, "according to the word of the
Lord, which He spoke by His servant Ahijah the Shilonite" (1 Kgs 15:29, NASB).
A long-range prophecy also was made by the same Ahijah. He predicted that because of
Jeroboam's sins the ten-tribe kingdom of Northern Israel would be uprooted "from this
good land" and scattered "beyond the Euphrates River" (l Kgs 14:15-16, NASB). This
was fulfilled by Assyria about 200 years later when Samaria fell in 722 B.C. to Assyrian
conquest and Northern Israel went into Assyrian exile (2 Kgs 17:6-7; 22-23).
Elijah predicted that Ahab's dynasty (like the house of Jeroboam) was to be swept away
totally and their corpses left unburied (1 Kgs 21:21-22,
29 We find here again the Hebrew term qum (Hiphil) which is properly rendered "fulfilled" (see
S. Amsler, "qdm aufstehen," Theologisches Hand-worterbuch zum Alton Testament, eds. E. Jenni und C.
Westermann [MUn-chen/Zurich, 1976], 2:640) as also in Deuteronomy 8:18; 9:5; 1 Samuel 3:12; 2
Samuel 7:25; 1 Kings 2:4; 6:12; 8:20; 12:15; Jeremiah 11:5; 23:20; 28:6; 29:10, 30:24; 33:14.
30 Thiele, p. 76.
301
24). The fulfillment came about 40 years later when Jehu (2 Kgs 9:24; 10:7) left "none
remaining" (2 Kgs 10:11, 17). It is emphasized, "Know then that there shall fall to the
earth nothing of the word of the Lord, which the Lord spoke concerning the house of
Ahab, for the Lord has done what He spoke through his servant Elijah" (vs. 10, NASB;
of. vs. 17).
Elijah also predicted that "the dogs [would] eat Jezebel in the district of Jezreel" (1 Kgs
21:23, NASB). The fulfillment is recorded in 2 Kings 9:36-37 and introduced with the
words, "This is the word of the Lord, which He spoke by His servant Elijah the
Tishbite" (2 Kgs 9:36, NASB).
This list could be continued. Additional examples use expressions of fulfillment such as
"according to the word of the Lord" (2 Kgs 4:44), or "as the man of God had said"
(7:17, 20), or "this is the word of the Lord which He spoke" (15:12, NASB), or
"according to the word of the Lord, the God of ]srae], which He spoke through His
servant Jonah" (l 4:25).
Several observations emerge when it comes to the fulfillment of predictions indicated

by a formula statement:
1. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that things "came to pass" (Josh 21:45, HSV) or
happened "according to the word of the Lord."31
2. The Lord "fulfilled" (heqim)32 His word that He predicted through His servants. That
is, His promise had not "failed" (napal)33 or fallen to the ground.34
3. The divine predictions were fulfilled in actual history as predicted. God's word is not
"vain" or "empty" (req).35 The word for Yahweh "once uttered, reaches its goal under all
circumstances in history. .. ."36
4. A comparison of prediction and fulfillment indicates that the fulfillment occurs

exactly according to the detail of the prediction. The fulfillment meets the
prediction point by point. Every detail of the predic-
31 1Kgs 13:26; 15:29; 16:34; 2 Kgs 4:44; 23:16; cf. 2 Kgs 9:36; 10:10.
32 I Kgs 8:20; 12:15. For additional texts see n. 29.
33 Josh 21:45; 23:14; 1 Kgs 8:56.
34 2 Kgs 10:10 with napal
35 Deut 32:47. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testament! Libros (Leiden, 1958), p.
890.
36 G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (London, 1953), p. 78.
302
tion counts in its fulfillment.37 It is this fact that elicits belief.
5. Some predictions are fulfilled immediately38 or within a few years 39 while others are
fulfilled decades40 or centuries later,41 but again with uncanny exactness.
6. Every fulfillment noted in the OT is a once-fop-all fulfillment. There are no dual

(twofold) or multiple fulfillments in this category in the OT.
Predictions With Fulfillment Statements in the New Testament
1, Quotations and allusions. An extensively researched phenomenon in the NT are

quotations used from the OT.42 When we speak of quotations in the NT, we must make
a sharp distinction between what is an explicit, formal quotation as such and what may
be only an allusion. An explicit, formal quotation may be introduced by a formula or a
special introductory
37 For example, the prediction is recited at length in 1 Kings 13:26; 14:18. 16:12-13; 22:38; 2 Kings
10:10, 17; 9:36-37; 15:12; etc.
38 Kgs 13:5; 13:24; 14:12-13, 17-18; 17:4-6. 14-15; 20:36; 2 Kgs 5:14; etc.
39 Kgs 18:1 (Luke 4:25; Jas 5:17), 45; 22:1, 35-36; etc.
40 2 Kgs 9:24; 9:35-36; 10:7; etc.
41 2 Kgs 17:6-7, 22-23; etc.
42 Some of the important studies may be mentioned: D. M. Turpie, The Old Testament in the New
(London, 1868); F. Johnson, The Quotations of the New Testament From the Old (London, 1896); E. E.
Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1957); id.. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early
Christianity (Tubingen, 1978); K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 2nd ed (Lund, 1969); L. Hartman,
Prophecy Interpreted (Lund, 1966); A. Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate . ., im
Markusevange-lium (Gutsrsloh, 1965); R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's
Gospel (Leiden, 1967); R.V.G. Tasker, The Old Testament in the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids,
1968); M. P. Millar, "Targum, Midrash and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament," JSJ 2
(1970): 29-82; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London, 1971); D. Patte, Early Jewish
Hermeneutic in Palestine (Missoula, MT, 1975); R. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic
Period (Grand Rapids, 1975); F. B. Holbrook, "New Testament Uses and Interpretation of the Old
Testament,"-A Symposium on Biblical Hermeneutics, ed. G. H. Hyde (Washington, DC, 1974), pp. 127-
41; G. L. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete
Survey (Chicago, 1983); W. C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses o/ the Old Testament in the New (Chicago, 1985).
303
statement, or it may be simply a direct quotation from the OT. It is suggested that there
are 312 formal quotations from the OT in the NT.43
Allusions are difficult to come by and are estimated to reach the number of 1,000 or
1,100.44 Allusions are clauses, phrases, and sometimes single words. It is a well-known
fact that the book of Revelation does not contain a single quotation, but it is very rich in
allusions to the OT. The book of Daniel is never quoted in the NT beyond the one
reference to it by Jesus (Matt 24;J5; Mark 13:14). But allusions or Danielic
phraseology45 appear without any hint that Jesus Christ or the NT period fulfills the
Danielic prophecies46 with the possible exception of Mark 1:15 as an allusion to Daniel
9:24-27.
In the NT the motif of fulfillment demonstrated with OT quotations is very strong.

Quotations of fulfillment have to do with both direct OT predictions of future events
and OT typological relationships. On account of the lack of space and time it is not
possible to investigate exhaustively the NT fulfillment quotations from the OT. We
restrict ourselves to some typical examples.
2. Fulfillment-quotations. The Gospel of Matthew is known to contain the so-called
"Reflexionszitate,"47 also designated as "formula-quotations,"48 or better, "fulfillment-
quotations."49 They are so designated because they contain the introductory formula,
"This was to fulfill
43 Archer and Chirichigno, pp. xxv-xxxiii.
44 K. Grobel ("Quotations." IDB [Nashville, 1962], 3:977) speaks of 1,100 while R. H, Gundry estimates
about 1,000 ("Quotations in the NT," Zonder-van Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible [Grand Rapids,
1977], 4:7).
45 Gundry, Use of OT, pp. 46, 52-53, 142-47.
46 Ibid.. pp. 48-49.
47 This term is standard in German scholarship. See Suhl, pp. l62ff.; S. Schulz. Die Stunde der Botschaft
(Hamburg, 1965), pp. 164ff.; R. Walker, Hei^geschichte im ersten Evangelium (Gb'ttingen, 1967), pp.
I32ff.
48 So recently among others, G, M. Soares Prabhu, The Formula-Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of
Matthew (Rome, 1976); R. T. France, "The Formula-Quotations of Matthew 2 and the Problem of
Communication," NTS^4 (1981): 233-51.
49 W. Rothfucns, Die Erfullungszitate im Matthaus-Evangelium (Stuttgart, 1969).
304
what the Lord had spoken by the prophet," or "that what was spoken might be fulfilled."
The Gospel of Matthew has twelve of these.50 They prove that the time of Jesus is the
time of the fulfillment of the OT prophetic predictions concerning the coming of the
Messiah.
A. Matthew 1:22-23. The reference in Matthew 1:22-23 to Isaiah 7:14 is the first such
fulfillment-quotation (or formula-citation):51 "Now all this took place that what was
spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Behold, the virgin
shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel;' which
translated means, 'God with us' " (NASB). This is taken almost purely from a
Septuagintal text, with the exception of a reading otherwise unknown to us from the
Greek.52
The use of parthenos ("virgin") in the Septuagint for the Hebrew almah ("young
53
woman" of marriageable age which is, of course, a virgin) has given rise to some of
the most famous debates in the history of interpretation.54 There is no OT evidence that
an 'almah was already married. The choice of parthenos (not neanis,55 "young woman")
by the Septuagint translator represented a preference for understanding the almah of
Isaiah 7:14
305
as a "virgin,"56 a concept which is by no means ruled out by the Hebrew term.
When it comes to the idea of fulfillment, there are several major views known today.
The first one claims that Isaiah 7; 14 is not a prediction given some 700 years before
and fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ. The fulfillment took place in the era of the
prophet Isaiah. The NT writer simply engages in a reinterpretation.
The modernistic view holds that it is "an indication of a Christian effort to supply the
story of Jesus with OT background and support"57 here and in the other fulfillment
quotations. Thus, this is a "proof-text" application to prove that Jesus was the foretold
Messiah58 and to confirm an established Christian tradition.59 It is argued that Matthew
follows the pesher style of treating the OT known from Qumran,60 or the midrash style
known from Judaism.61
In reaction to this modernistic view, several factors are important to note:
1. The fulfillment-quotations in Matthew (also in Mark and John)62 are without parallel
in Qumran.63 The Qumran community quotes OT Scripture often and writes pesher
materials, but does not know or use fulfillment-quotations. On this basis it is no longer
advisable to speak of pesher-type quotations, a pesher-type of interpretation, or a
rm'drash-type
56 It is to be noted that in Genesis 24:43 the LXX also renders almah as parthenos and Rebekah was an
unmarried virgin.
57 Brown, p. 97.
58 A. W. Argyle, The Gospel According to Matthew (CBC, Cambridge, 19631, p. 3.
59 Ibid., p. 28.
60 Stendahl, p. 203, followed by Longenecker, pp. 143-44.
61 On midrash and its complexities, see M. P. Miller, "Midrash," IDB, Supo. (Nashville, 1976), pp. 593-
97.
62 See Mark 1:2-3 = Isa 40:3; Mat 3:1; John 12:38 = Isa 53:1; John 19:24 = Ps 22:18; John 19:36 = Ps
34:20.
63 J. A. Fitzmyer, SJ, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Missoula, MT,
1974), pp. 54-55; B. Gartner, "The Habakkuk Commentary (DSH) and the Gospel of Matthew," ST 8
(1954): 1-24.
306
of OT usage.64 Although Matthew lived within the context of his world, there is
uniqueness in his usage that stands by itself.
2. The understanding of prophecy and prediction and its ranges of fulfillment in

historical-critical scholarship is conditioned by philosophical and resultant historical
categories predicated upon presuppositions alien to those of the Bible.
A second major view on Matthew's fulfillment statement of Isaiah 7:14 is best described
as a dual fulfillment. An initial fulfillment is believed to have taken place in the time of
Isaiah, followed later by a final fulfillment in Jesus Christ.65
We may be reminded that the dual meaning of prophecy—the dual fulfillment

concept—was developed particularly in the Age of the Enlightenment (eighteenth
century) in order to maintain both an original, literal fulfillment and a more complete
fulfillment when applied to Jesus.66 It was in this age that the Messiah Jesus Christ was
erased by historical-critical scholarship from predictions in the OT.67
We do not attempt to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or faults of dual
fulfillment.68 A dual fulfillment may be recognized, if the context demands an initial
fulfillment and later Scriptures indicate clearly
64 See Prabhu, pp. 15-16, 263-64; France, "Formula-Quotations," pp. 235-39. It was demonstrated by B.
M. Metzger, "The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the New Testament and the Mishnan,"
JBL 70 (1951): 297-307, that there is no real parallel to the fulfillment quotation in the Mishnah.
65 The Book of the Prophet Isaiah," Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 4:135: "The context of
Isa. 7:14, . . . makes it certain that the prediction here made had an immediate application within the
framework of the historical circumstances set forth in the chapter. Matthew's reference to the prediction
makes it equally certain that this prediction also points forward to the Messiah. Many OT prophecies have
a twofold application such as this, first to the more immediate future and then to the more remote future
(see on Deut. 18:15)."
66 W. Whiston, The Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies (London, 1724); T. Sherlock.The

Use and Intent of Prophecy (London, 1732); cf. Clements, pp. 87-89.
67 E. Sehmsdorf, Die Prophetenauslegung bei J. G. Eichhom (Gottingen, 1971). pp. 153-54.
68 See Payne, pp. 121-26.

307
a final fulfillment. In any case, a dual fulfillment is never to be confused with multiple
fulfillments. Multiple fulfillments are repeated fulfillments at different times and in
different places without the constraints and contextual guidelines provided by Scripture.
The evidence in the OT and the NT and in their respective biblical contexts makes clear
that dual fulfillments must meet the respective contextual controls. To recognize a
fulfillment means to be meticulous to the context of the prediction, because in each
instance of the dual fulfillment the contextual specifications must be met and/or a clear
inspired fulfillment designation must be present.
The third major view on Matthew's fulfillment statement is that it was fulfilled in Jesus
Christ and in Him alone.69 The contextual problem in Isaiah 7:14 that this single
fulfillment position has to solve is explained in the following manner: Isaiah 7:15ff.
described the situation in the immediate future, whereas "vs. 14 pointed to a single
event that would occur 700 years later." Thus, "each part of the prediction had a single
fulfillment."70
The problem of the nature of the "sign" for Ahaz which would not take place until
centuries later has been difficult to resolve.71 It has been suggested that the prophecy
relates to two distinct births and two different children. One child, mentioned in verse
14, refers to Christ.72 Another child, mentiond in verse 16, refers to a contemporary
fulfillment. However, it is said rightly that "nothing but extreme exegetical necessity
could justify the reference of vers. 15, 16 to any person not referred to in ver. 14."73
In summing up the whole, it may be stated that the suggestion that the
69 So most evangelical scholars, see E. J. Young. The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids, 1965), p. 291; W. T.
Purkiser in God, (Wan, and Salvation: A Biblical Theology (Kansas City, MO, 1977), p. 183; Payne, pp.
291-92; et al
70 A. A. MacRae, "Prophets and Prophecy," Zondervon Pictorial Ency clonedia of the Bible (Grand
Rapids, 1977), 4:902.
71 Payne, p. 292, speaks of the threat nature and of telescoping of proohecy. See also Kaiser, pp. 63-70.
72 So John Calvin, Bishop Ussher, and Junius.
73 J. A. Alexander, The Prophecies of Isaiah, reprint (Grand Rapids, 1971), p. 169.
308
prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 has no future but only a contemporary fulfillment is untenable
and does not meet the Matthean intention of fulfillment.74 The NT event took place in
order to fulfill the OT passage cited. The NT fulfillment verifies the conception of
predictive prophecy and indicates that God plans the whole saving history.
The choice then rests between a dual fulfillment with an initial fulfillment in the OT and
a final one in the NT and a single fulfillment in the NT only. The dual fulfillment
suggestion seems to have the most in its favor.75 It can account effectively for the
contemporary and contextual needs as well as a future and final fulfillment.
B. Matthew 2:15. Our attention shall go next to the fulfillment-quotation of Hosea 11:1
in Matthew 2:15. In this instance Matthew quotes directly from the Hebrew text and not
from the Septuagint.76 The context of Hosea 11:1 indicates that the phrase "out of Egypt
I called my son" refers collectively to the nation of Israel, which as a "child" was loved
dearly by God. In its contextual setting the first impression is that it is not even a
prophecy. Thus the question arises, if Hosea 11:1 refers to Israel's Exodus from Egypt,
how can Matthew apply it to Jesus coming back from Egypt?
Various suggestions are given. For example, "In applying the passage to Jesus, Matthew
seems to be thinking along the lines of corporate solidarity and rereading his Old
Testament from an eschatologically realized and messianic perspective ... he evidences
a pesher handling of the pas-
74 C.F.D. Moule, "Fulfillment-Words in the New Testament: Use and Abuse," NTS 14 (1967-
68): 293-320.
75 The objection that this would suggest that in Ahaz' time another "virgin" would have to give
miraculous birth to a son can be countered. While almah means a "young woman" who is de facto a
virgin (see R. D. Wilson, "The Meaning of Alma (A. V.'Virgin') in Isaiah 7:14," Princeton Theological
Review 24 [1926]: 316), the word 'almah also allows that a woman of marriageable age is meant not
necessarily a virgin (ef. Cant 6:8; Prov 30:19).
76 The LXX reads, "Out of Egypt I have summoned \metakalesa\ his children [tefcna]." Cf. Gundry, p.
93; Brown, p. 220; Archer and Chirichigno, p. 147.
309
sage [of Hosea 11:1]."77 However, more careful research into pesher and midrash usage
has demonstrated that Matthew does not follow these exegetical procedures in his
fulfillment quotations.
A much better suggestion comes from those who have recognized here an Israel-Jesus
typology.79 In this typological relationship Jesus Himself is the corporate existence of
Israel. He is the Israel personified. "As the Messiah, Jesus occupied the status of
antitype to national Israel under the Old Testament economy. . . . Therefore, in a very
real sense Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, was Israel represented and personified. As
such it was essential for Him to recapitulate, as it were, the career of His nation as it
experienced God's deliverance from centuries of bondage under Egyptian power. From
that perspective, the correlation between the Exodus of Israel and the return of Christ
from Egypt is completely justified."80 Once this typological relationship is recognized,
one can appreciate more fully that Matthew rightly sees both a typological
correspondence and a predictive element in the coming out of Egypt of the son of God,
Israel, and the Son of God, Jesus.
The question emerges, In what sense can Matthew refer to this typology of Israel-
Messiah as a fulfillment? Hid Matthew construe the Hosea passage as a predictive
prophecy? These questions are legitimate. It happens that in the type there is a
predictive aspect that can be discovered.81 "Within the historical allusion Matthew can
detect a predictive aspect in the correspondence contained in the two instances of God's
son being called out of Egypt.. ., They [the correspondences] are divinely intended. . .
."82 The typology has a built-in predictive element.
77 LongenecKer, p. 145.
78 Brown, pp. 557-62; cf. A. Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash (Staten Island, 1967).
79 W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Oxford, 1963), p. 78. This is elaborated by
France, "Formula-Quotations," pp. 243-44.
80 Archer and Chirichigno, p. xxx.
81 R. Davidson, "Typological Structures in the Old Testament," (Th.D. dissertation, Andrews University,
Berrien Springs, MI, 1981).
82 D. A. Hagner, "When the Time Had Fully Come,"Dreams, Visions and Oracles, eds. C. E. Amerding
and W. W. Gasque (Grand Rapids, 1977), p. 92.
310
A further aspect in the matter of prediction is the one relating to the often emphasized
point that a NT quotation of an OT text indicates that the whole context of that OT
quotation was involved.83 This means that Hosea 11:1 is not quoted as a "proof-text"
against or out of its context but within its context.
The fulfillment means that "the Exodus deliverance of national Israel was a prophetic
event for which the coining of the Messiah as personal Israel was the antitypieal
fulfillment. . . ,"84 "There is no distortion or abuse of the context of Hosea by Matthew;
nor has he added his own interpretation to the text."85
In short, the fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 is along a typological relationship between Israel
and the Messiah, the embodiment of all of Israel, both of whom were "sons" called out
of Egypt.
C. Matthew 2:6. In Matthew 2:6 there appears a quotation from Micah 5:1. Micah
makes reference to Bethlehem and predicts that from this town will come forth a ruler
who will shepherd the people of Israel.86 It is striking that in both Micah and Matthew
the Bethlehem is identified clearly. Micah, writing in poetry, calls it Bethlehem
Ephrathah, using the old name.87 Ephrathah was a clan, an ally of Caleb (1 Chr 2:19, 24,
50), which was settled in the region of the Bethlehem located in Judah. Their name
passed to the city. It appears that Micah employs Ephrathah as an identifier as to which
of the two Bethlehems, the one in the north near Nazareth or the one to the south of
Jerusalem, was to be the Messiah's birthplace. While Matthew does not use Ephrathah
but has "the land of Judah" as a modifier, this phrase brings out the implication of
Ephrathah which is located "in the land of Judah." Matthew does not use Ephrathah but
has "the land of Judah" as a modifier to identify Bethlehem.
83 See particularly C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London, 1952). p. 126; Kaiser, pp. 51-52.
84 Archer and Chirichigno, p. 147.
85 Kaiser, p. 53.
86 The citation does not reflect exactly the Masoretie text or the standard Greek (LXX) text. See Archer
and Chirichigno, p. 157.
87 Gen 35:19; 48;7; Ruth 4;11.
311
Matthew's identification is highly significant. Since there were two different places in
Palestine designated by the name of Bethlehem, the Messiah needed to be born at the
right Bethlehem. One was in Galilee (Josh 19:15), the other in Judah (Mic 5;1; Ruth
4:11; etc.).
This detail is significant for the precision of the fulfillment. Micah 5:1 was a prominent
Messianic passage in the time of Christ,88 accepted by the Jews as referring to the
birthplace of the Messiah.89
This survey of but three representative examples of the twelve fulfillment-quotations in
the Gospel of Matthew has provided us with some basic understanding of NT
fulfillments of OT predictions. In view of the complexity of the issues and the limited
sample, we wish to draw some tentative conclusions:
1. If we are not misled, we find a dual fulfillment of the prediction of Isaiah 7:14. The
initial fulfillment is suggested on the basis of its contextual setting. It is faithful to the
wording of the prediction and under the control of the wording and specifications in the
context* The second fulfillment is the final one. It is indicated in this instance by
Scripture. In this dual fulfillment the contextual and other specifications are met in each
instance. Scripture is the control for the fulfillment.
2. The prediction-fulfillment schema includes the type-antitype correspondence, or

typological fulfillments (Hos II ;1 = Matt 2:15). Even here attention to detail is
important. Both "sons," namely collective Israel as a national entity and corporate Israel
as personified in Jesus Christ, are called out of Egypt.
3. In straightforward prediction-fulfillment correspondences (such as Micah 5:1 =

Matthew 2:6) we continue to discover a clear insistance on detail. The Messiah is to be
born in one of the two Bethlehems, namely Bethlehem Ephrathah which is the one in
the land of Judah. Obviously detail counts in the prediction-fulfillment schema.
Generalities or fulfillment in principle at the expense of an exact matching of detail is
out of
88 Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, p. 206.
89 John 7:41-42; cf. Brown, p. 186.
312
order in fulfillments. Thus the Bible provides its own guidelines for fulfillments of
prophecies.
Various suggestions have been made regarding the purpose of the fulfillment
quotations. It appears that the phrase "in order to fulfill" in Matthew has a primary
purpose: to demonstrate that Jesus' life, down to the least detail, fulfilled the predicted
plan of God as foretold in the OT concerning the Messiah. The fulfillment was exact to
the detail, even in Jesus' birth and infancy. Such quotations of fulfillment must have
been useful for missionary and teaching purposes, particularly in discussions with Jews
who were steeped in the OT.
Fulfillment of Apocalyptic Prophecy
In the OT the expression "kingdom of God" or "kingdom of heaven," so characteristic

of the NT and the teachings of Jesus, never appears. The OT knows Ood (or Yahweh) to
be King, particularly the King of Israel (Deut 33:5; I Sam 12:12). Israel is the kingdom
of Yahweh (l Chr 17:14; 28:5; 2 Chr 13:8). The Lord could be addressed as "my King
and my God" (Ps 5:2; 44:4; 68:24; etc.). Nevertheless, in OT apocalyptic eschatology
the prediction is made that there will come an everlasting kingdom which will never be
destroyed (Dan 2:34-35, 44-45; 7:13-14; 12:1-3). This will call for attention now.
Fulfillment of the Kingdom of God Prediction in Daniel 2
The dream of Daniel 2 predicts that the "stone," which strikes and destroys the image, is
the kingdom of God. The question emerges, Is this the kingdom established at the first
advent of Jesus Christ or at His second coming, or does it refer to both? The context of
Daniel 2 and the details about the "stone-kingdom" carry the key for its fulfillment.
The context indicates that Daniel 2 is a dream about world history, presenting a
succession of four world empires of declining value but superior strength.90 The last
empire, symbolized by the legs of iron, divides
90 See the new archaeological evidence for the four world-empire schema in G. F. Hasel, "The
Four World Empires of Daniel 2 Against Its
313
itself into feet and toes of iron and clay, partly strong and partly weak. The kingdom
which God will establish will be set up when the iron-clay feet and toes exist (vss. 33,
41).
The following are major indicators regarding the appearance of the kingdom of God:
1. Time element. Daniel 2:34 states, "it [the stone] smote the image on its feet of iron
and clay." This indicates that the kingdom of God comes after the appearance of the
four world empires and not during the existence of any one of them. This is fortified
more explicitly in Daniel 2:44:
"In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom.'' The phrase, "in
the days of those kings," indicates the time element.
Who are these "kings"? Strictly speaking none except Nebuchadnezzar has been
mentioned. It is doubtful that "kings" refer to the four kingdoms absorbed in Rome.91
These kingdoms remain distinct in the dream. It is much more likely that the word
"kings" in verse 44 refers to the division of kings92 verse 43 implies and are represented
by the feet end toes.
On this contextual basis, it appears that the kingdom of God is established at a time after
the iron-and-clay phase had begun, which would rule out a fulfillment in Christ's first
coming. Furthermore, support is found in the fact that each empire or kingdom
succeeded the previous one. Accordingly the "everlasting" kingdom of God is expected
to succeed the earthly kingdoms or kings of the iron-and-clay phase at the change of the
aeons.93
2. Destruction of world kingdoms. The stone breaks all world king-
Near Eastern Environment," JSOT 12 (1979): 17-30.
91 E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, 1979), d. 79.
92 J.A.Montgomery, Daniel, ICC (Edinburgh, 1927), p. 177; L\ Smith, Darnel and Revelation
(Washington, DC, 1944), p. 57; G. M. Price, The Greatest of the Prophets (Nashville, 1955), p. 81; 0.
Ploger, Daniel, KAT (Gutersloh, 1965), p. 53.
93 M. Noth, "The Understanding of History in Old Testament Apocalyptic," in The Laws in the
Pentateuch and Other Studies (Philadelphia, 1966), p. 197, writes that in Daniel 2 "events on earth take
place in a succession of world dominions replacing each other, following a downward path, getting more
and more inferior until finally the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth suddenly brings the succession
of human kingdoms to an end."
314
doms into pieces: "All together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the
summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them
could be found" (Dan 2:35, RSV). The idea of total destruction by the stone is
emphasized again in verses 44-45 with the picture of the stone that "shall break in
pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, . . . and . . . broke in pieces the iron,
the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold" (RSV).
If the "stone" were to represent the kingdom established by the Maccabees after the
overthrow of the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes, then we would have to ask, (1) Did the
Hasmonean kingdom put an end to all kingdoms? and (2) Did it stand forever?
Likewise, if the "stone" were to represent the establishment of Christianity at the time of
Christ, we would have to ask. Was the destruction of the world kingdoms accomplished
at that time? The answer to all three would be, No.
Interpreters who favor a rise of Christianity as the fulfillment of the stone symbol are
forced to suggest that "the striking of the feet is symbolical"94 but not real. Consistency,
however, would require that the establishment of the kingdom of God likewise be
symbolical and not real. The rise of the Christian church was, however, a reality.
In short, the picture of the destruction of the world kingdoms by the everlasting
kingdom requires that the "end" (vs. 44) of the former be brought about at the end-time.
Then a new aeon with the everlasting kingdom of God emerges supernaturally.
3. Divine origin. The third key element in the identity of the fulfillment of the prophecy
of the stone kingdom of God relates to its origin. The text affirms that it "was cut out by
no human hand" (Dan 2:34) or "was cut from a mountain by no human hand" (vs. 45).
The expression "human hand" appears to refer to human agency or activity. The
everlasting kingdom, however, has an origin other than one by human hands. It is of
divine origin. The divine kingdom will be established in a cataelysmic way without
human hand or agency.
94 Cf. Young, p. 78, et al.
315
4. Eternal duration. The fact is that this kingdom of God "shall never be destroyed, nor
shall its sovereignty be left to another people" (2:44, RSV). In other words, "it shall
stand for ever" (vs. 44e, RSV). The everlasting or eternal duration of this kingdom
stands in sharp contrast to the transitoriness of the human world kingdoms. "Whereas
the world-kingdoms had been taken over by succesive conquerors, none will take this
kingdom by storm."95
5. Universal extent. The everlasting kingdom "became a great mountain and filled the
whole earth" (Dan 2t34). The activity of filling the "whole earth" cannot be said to have
taken place at the time of the establishment of Christianity. There is no hint that the
kingdom of God will exist contemporaneously with "all these kingdoms." To the
contrary, the stone kingdom puts a cataclysmic end to the world kingdoms.
The fact is that the universality of the eternal kingdom corresponds to the collapse of the
whole statue at one time. The annihilation of all the kingdoms of the world is a
prerequisite for the establishment of the kingdom of God on the "whole earth." The
removal of "all these kingdoms" (2:44) makes room for the universal filling of the
whole earth with the kingdom of God.
6. Instantaneous end and new beginning. The instantaneous end of the world
kingdoms is emphasized by the fact that all the metals and the clay were crushed "all at
the same time" (vs. 35, NASB; "all together," RSV).96 This concurrent and cataclysmic
end of the world kingdoms makes room for the establishment of the new age with the
eternal kingdom which "will itself endure forever" (vs. 44, NASB). The concluding
chapter of Daniel gives a glimpse of the new beginning by pointing to the resurrection
(Dan 12:1-3).97
It is evident from this brief survey of six details that the context of
95 J. G. Baldwin, Daniel (London, 1978), p. 93.
96 Aramaic reads literally "like one." Ploger, p. 44, translates "wie mit einem Schlage."
97 G. F. Hasel, "Resurrection in the Theology of Old Testament Apocalyptic," ZAW 92 (1980): 267-84.
316
Daniel 2 makes certain that the stone kingdom will meet its fulfillment only at the end
of the age, and not before.
As we continue our study we can see several principles of prophetic interpretation

emerging in regard to the identification of a fulfillment:
1. The context is a sound and indispensable guide.
2. The literal fulfillment is basic unless there is inspired evidence that it should be non-
literal.
3. Every point of identification and every detail must be met in the fulfillment, if it is to
he genuine and valid. It will not do to have certain aspects fulfilled and other identifiers
remain unfulfilled*
A fulfillment in principle for apocalyptic prophecy hardly can be a valid fulfillment. If

God designed a genuine dual fulfillment, each fulfillment must meet every point and
detail, otherwise it cannot be considered to be a valid and genuine fulfillment.
Fulfillment of the Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27
In the case of Daniel 9:24-27, for example, each element of the vision must be met by
the proposed fulfillment, if the fulfillment is to have biblical validity. For example,
some expositors have suggested that Daniel 9:24-27 is fulfilled in Antiochus IV
Epiphanes as a type of a greater fulfillment in the Antichrist. Aside from many points of
detail and identity that enter this question, we need only refer to one of the evident
problems of this view: the chronology specifications of the prophecy. If Antiochus
Epiphanes, who died in 164 B.C., is in view, then the beginning of the 490 years (the
time span of the prophecy) can never be found. Those who come up with the suggestion
that "the word" to restore Jerusalem" (Dan 9:25)began the prophecy in 594 B.C.98 have
to admit that it adds up to only 430 and not 490 years (594-164 = 430 years).99 Even if
the earliest date that has been suggested, namely 605 B.C., would be taken,100 the
"whole period
98 L. F. Hartman and A. A. Di Leila, The Book of Daniel, AB (1978), p.
99 Ibid.
100 E. Konig, Die Messicmischen Weissagungen des AT (Stuttgart, 1925),
317
would still be only 441 years" (605-164 = 441 years).101 Can Antiochus Epiphanes
qualify as a fulfillment when he can never fit the simplest chronological aspect of the
490 year prophecy?
If Antiochus is to fulfill Daniel 9:24-27, then the prophet must be charged with
"chronological miscalculation"102 or "error."103 Or, one is forced to make the claim that
"the angel Gabriel does not show himself well acquainted with chronology."104
Supporters of the Antiochus view prefer to say that the author or the angel is mistaken,
rather than they.
On the contrary, the literal, historical interpretation of this key prophecy in Daniel fits
perfectly from 457 B.C. to A.D. 34 with the Messiah Jesus Christ fulfilling the events
with uncanny exactness.105 No other fulfillment fits the data of the prophecy. All aspects
of the prophecy must be met in order to have a valid fulfillment of a prophecy.
Fulfillment of the Four World Empires
Daniel 2 introduces Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image with the head of gold,
breast of silver, belly of bronze, legs of iron, and feet/ toes of an iron and clay mixture.
Daniel's interpretation makes clear that the fourfold sequence of gold-silver-bronze-iron
represents four successive kingdoms (Dan 2:39-40).
Daniel 7 contains the account of a Danielic vision in which four great beasts come up
out of the sea. The fourth beast is nameless because it has no zoological likeness. It has
ten horns. Then an eleventh horn comes up among them. The angelic interpretation
declares the four beasts to be four "kingdoms" (Dan 7:23).106
p.311.
101 Hartman and Di LeUa, p. 250.
103 K. Marti, Daniel (Leipzig, 1901), p. 73.
104 B. Duhm,Jsraei5 Propheten, 2nd ed. (Tubingen, 1922), p. 416.
105 See G. F. Hasel, chap, 4, for a critical evaluation of the four major curceJit interpretations of Daniel
9:24-27.
106 In Daniel 7il7 the four beasts are "four kings." Both ancient Greek translations, LXX and Theolotion,
read basileiai, "kingdoms," which would involve the Aramaic ma^wan with only a change of the yod into
a waw, a
318
Both Daniel 2 and 7 speak of four world empires. There follows a disintegration of the
fourth empire into unstable divisions which, in turn, are brought to an end by an
everlasting kingdom of divine, supratemporal origin.
The vast majority of writers on the book of Daniel are agreed that the four world
empires of Daniel 2 and 7 are the same.107 The classical sequence from ancient times,
both Jewish108 and Christian,109 to the present is Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and
Rome. Interpreters agree (whether one follows this identification or another empire
sequence ending in Greece as is customary by modern historical-critical exegetes)110
that each metal in the image or each beast respectively stands for only one world
empire. In other words, these prophetic empire sequences have no
Vorlage which contained "kingdoms" instead of "kings" (malktn) or whether they interpreted "kings" as
"kingdoms." In any case, "die Konige reprasen-tieren die Reiehe" (0. Ploger, Das Buch Daniel
[Gutersloh, 1965], p. 105).
107 H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel: A Historical
Study of Contemporary Theories, 2nd ed. (Cardiff, 1964), pp. 61-66.
108 Ezra (2 Esdras) 11:1; 12:10-30 (dated to ca. A.D. 100); Apocalypse of Baruch, chap. 39; Josephus,
Ant. x. xi. 4 (x. 210); x. xi. 7 (x. 276). See also Rowley, p. 75, n. 12, for Rabbinic traditions.
109 Irenaeous, Contra Haer. v. xxvi. 1; Hippolytus in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 9:108; Origen in
Migne, PG, 1 vol. 12, col. 60; Eusebius, (Dem. Evang, bk. 15 in Ferrar, vol. 2, p. 237), Chrysostom in
Migne, PG, vol. 56, cols. 208, 230; Jerome, in Commentary on Daniel, pp. 32, 75; Theodoret in Migne,
PG, vol. 81, col. 1304, et al.
110 The most common view in modern times is that the second empire is that of the Medes and the third
is that of the Persian and the fourth that of Alexander and his successors. This view bcame prominent in
the nineteenth century, but faces exegetical and historical problems. Among the exegeti-cal ones is that
Daniel 8:20 identifies the world empire as Media and Persia, followed by Greece (vs. 21). Among the
historical problems is that Media never was a world empire (see J. C. Whitcomb, Darius the Mede
[Philadelphia, 1963], pp. 68-72). Another modern view, first suggested by Porphyry, is that the second
empire is Medo-Persia, the third is Alexander's Greece and the fourth is the Greece of the successors of
Alexander the Great (Diadochs). The obvious exegetical problem is that the last two empires are really
one empire, namely Greece. It cannot be held on historical grounds that the four divisions of Greece that
followed after Alexander's death formed a separate world empire.
319
dual fulfillment much less multiple fulfillments. They each have but a single fulfillment
(Dan 2:38; 8i20-21).
Fulfillment of the Little Horn
The "little horn" makes its appearance in Daniel 7:8. It is described further in verses 20-
21, 24-25. Commentators usually are agreed that the details provided in the
spcifications of the "little horn" have to match the historical figure point by point (detail
by detail), in order to have the correct identification. These criteria of detailed
specifications cannot be neglected or disregarded. If only a principle or major idea is
selected for the historical identification, then the whole process of historical identifica-
tion is torn out of the biblical control and moved into the realm of subjectivity where
individual imagination can run wild.
Certain writers on Daniel have identified the "little horn" with AntiochusIV Epiphanes
(175-164 B.C.), the persecutor of Jews in Palestine and the one who defiled the temple
(1 Mace 1;44-59ff.; 4:42-58). Other expositors have suggested that Antiochus IV
Epiphanes is an initial fulfillment foreshadowing the true fulfillment in a later antichrist.
The single Antiochus fulfillment and also the dual Antiochus/later antichrist fulfillment
encounter serious problems, several of which need to be mentioned:
1. The "little horn" is said to uproot three horns (Dan 7:8). Porphyry suggested that they
were Ptolomy VI Philometer, PtoZomy VH Euergetes, and Artaxias, king of Armenia.111
However, the facts are that they were not uprooted by Antiochus IV,112 although he
fought against them. Each king- remained on his throne. The efforts of scholars to come
up with three kings that were uprooted by Antiochus have been fruitless.113
2. The "little horn" is the "eleventh" one because it arose after the ten horns were in
existence (Dan 7:8, 20). If Antiochus IV is to fulfill the "little horn symbol," he should
be the "eleventh" king in the Seleucid line.
111 Quoted in Jerome, p. 77.
112 E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet (Oxford, 1886), pp. 152-54.

113 See Rowley. pp. 108-115; Hartman and Di LeUa, p. 216.
320
But the fact is that he is the eighth king on the Seleueid throne.114 The search for ten
Seleueid kings preceding Antiochus has been fruitless.
3. The time element for the horn's supremacy over the saints was to be three and one-
half times (Dan 7:25). If this expression is taken as literal years, then Antiochus IV
needs to have persecuted the Jews for three and one-half years. But the fact is that
according to 1 Maccabees the persecution with the defilement of the temple lasted only
three years.115 The period of time is too short by six months. Thus, it is admitted that a
literal fulfillment does not fit Antiochus IV.116
The only recourse, therefore, is to suggest that "one time, two times and half a time,"
that is, three and one-half literal years, is really just "a symbolic term for a period of
evil."117 This suggestion will hardly do, because the figures three and one-half in the
time specification lack the character of symbolical numbers such as four, seven, and ten.
4. When the "little horn" power comes to an end, the kingdom of God is established,
following the judgment (Dan 7:17-18, 21-22, 25-27). If Antiochus IV is identified as the
"little horn," then the kingdom following will have to be the kingdom of God. Judas
Maceabeus overthrew the yoke of Antiochus IV in 164 B.C.,118 but it was not until 22
years later that the Hasmonean rule of high priests began.119 It ended in 63 B.C. when
Rome occupied Palestine. 120
114 Seleucus I Nicator (312-281), Antiochus I Soter (281-261), Antiochus II Theos (261-246), Seleucus u
Callinicos (246-225), Seleueus in Ceraunos (225-223), Antiochus III the Great (223-187), Seleucus IV
Philopater (187-1751, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164), Antioehus V Eupator (164-150), etc.
115 Mace 1:44-59; 4:42-58. At most it can be three years and eight days but not three and one half years.
See B. Reicke, The New Testament Era (Philadelphia, 1968), p. 58.
116 Hartman and Di Leila, p. 215: "If taken literally, these passages must be regarded as genuine, but
unfulfilled predictions, and not as prophetiae post eventum."
117 Ibid.
118 l Mace 13:41-42.

119 The year 142 B.C. was the base for a new chronology (1 Mace 13:42), In that year tax exemption was
achieved for the Jews (l Mace 13:39; Jose-phusÂnt. xiii. 213).
120 Reieke, pp. 84-90.
321
Is the Hasmonean Kingdom which lasted from 142-63 B.C. the "everlasting kingdom"
(Dan 7:27) which the saints of the most high will possess "for ever and ever" (vs. 18)?
This is hardly possible. If we follow the identity of the "little horn" with Antiochus IV,
we are faced again with another unfulfilled prediction.
Obviously these difficulties, aside from others, do not recommend the hypothesis that
Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the fulfillment or even one fulfillment of the prediction of
the "little horn." In this instance, as in the other instances in the book of Daniel,
apocalyptic prophecy has but one fulfillment.121 This is mandated by both the
specifications provided in the apocalyptic visions as well as by the pragmaatic test of
history that matches the details of the specifications with a proposed identification.
In the book of Daniel there is no evidence for multiple fulfillments or even dual
fulfillment. With respect to the latter, namely dual fulfillment, it should be noted that a
single fulfillment is required for each world empire and each horn in the ease of the ten
and the one in Daniel 7 and the one, the four and the one in Daniel 8. The "little horn"
has but one fulfillment.
Furthermore, one must not overlook the fact that where there is prediction and
fulfillment in the book of Daniel as in the case of the "Vision of the Tree" (Dan 4:4-37)
or the "Handwriting on the Wall" (Dan 5:1-31), only a single fulfillment is indicated.
These evidences from within the book of Daniel provide sure guidelines for the
fulfillment of the visions that reach into the distant future to the eschaton at the end of
time.
Conclusion
This investigation into the matter of fulfillment of prophecy has been guided by explicit
fulfillments noted in Scripture. We have applied a pragmatic test by examining the
historical fulfillments of the specifications
121 This applies to both the ten horns in chapter 7, the one horn in 8:5-8, the four horns of 8:8 as well as
the "little horn" in 8:9-12 which has again but one fulfillment in Rome which has two phases (pagan and
papal).
322
required by the biblical predictions. The representative samples investigated have led to
the conclusion that usually there is but one fulfillment to a prophecy.
Dual, or twofold, fulfillment may be present in some biblical predictions where

contextual scriptural indications make this clear, and when the details of the
specifications are met in each instance. On the other hand, apocalyptic prophecy, as
found in the books of Daniel and Revelation, has but one fulfillment for each symbol.
CHAPTER X
Theological Importance of the

Preadvent Judgment
William H. Shea
Editorial synopsis. Far from being a museum piece of pioneer theology to be

relegated to books of Adventist history, the biblical teaching of the preadvent,
investigative phase of the final judgment is of vital importance to the believer today. It
is a concluding portion of salvation history and is an integral component of the
Adventist message of warning and invitation which the church is commissioned to
preach "to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people."
In this chapter the author elaborates on 12 significant propositions concerning this

second phase of Christ's priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, ongoing since
1844:
1. The preadvent judgment is a present activity of God.
2. The preadvent judgment constitutes a major turning point or juncture in the

history of salvation.
3. The preadvent judgment demarcates the "time of the end" from the end of time.
4. The preadvent judgment occupies the first of three great phases of God's final
work of judgment that will end with the establishment of His eternal kingdom.
5. The preadvent judgment focuses on Christ and says something about Him at its
climax.
6. The preadvent judgment says something about the wicked and their fate.
7. The preadvent judgment says something about the righteous and their destiny.
324
8. The preadvent judgment provides an answer to the problem of the current state of
the righteous dead.
9. The preadvent judgment provides a demonstration of the character of God.
10. The preadvent judgment provides a logical conclusion to the first phase of
Christ's priestly ministration in heaven.
11. The preadvent judgment places a strong emphasis upon the ethical demands of
the gospel.
12. The preadvent judgment emphasizes our responsibility to observe all of God's
commandments, including the observance of the Sabbath.
Introduction
In a number of recent studies, both in the DRC volumes and elsewhere, Seventh-
day Adventist scholars have reaffirmed the biblical basis for the teaching that a
judgment is conducted in heaven prior to the time that Christ will return to the earth.
Because this judgment occurs prior to the second advent of Christ, it is known as the
preadvent judgment. Because records in heaven are examined during this judgment, it is
known as the investigative judgment. One of these titles refers to its time; the other
refers to its nature.
Since recent studies have determined that the foundation for this teaching is based
soundly in Scripture, it is not necessary to cite the different lines of evidence examined
in those studies. That conclusion can be accepted as the starting point for the particular
emphasis placed upon that judgment here: its theological importance.
There are some things taught in Scripture, such as those about the factual nature of
some historical event in the past, which do not seem to be especially important to
Christians today. Should the biblical teaching about the preadvent judgment be
relegated to that lower level of importance? Is this doctrine, for example, just a
theological position inherited
325
from the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church which no longer holds for this
present generation the importance that it did for them?
A number of reasons are listed below to explain why this teaching still is of great
importance to the church and the individual Christian today. These reasons are listed as
individual propositions, and a brief discussion of the point made by each proposition
follows. This list is not Intended to be exhaustive; it is intended only to be
representative of biblical thought on this subject.
1. The preadvent judgment is a present activity of God. The correct applications

determined for the great time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation indicate that we are
now living in what is known by them as the "time of the end." It is in the "time of the
end," but prior to the second advent of Christ, that this work of judgment is to be taken
up in heaven. Since we are now living in that prophetically demarcated time, it mean?
judgment is going on at the present time in heaven.
Of all the things that Christians should be interested in knowing about God, one of
the most important concerns what He is doing now. As a present activity of God,
therefore, this preadvent judgment should be a subject of great interest for the
contemporary Christian.
2. The preadvent judgment constitutes a major turning point or juncture in

the history of salvation. In the vision of Daniel 7 the prophet is shown the rise and fall
of a series of major kingdoms in earthly human history and the career of a religious-
political entity. After having seen the activity of the last of these powers, the prophet's
attention is directed to the court of heaven in which he sees the Ancient of Days and the
heavenly hosts begin to engage in the activity of final judgment.
As a result of that judgment an entirely new order of human history opens up, an
order that extends into an eternity in God's great kingdom. The judgment which Daniel
sees in vision, therefore, stands at the juncture between the present order of human
existence and the eternal order that will follow.
3. The preadvent judgment demarcates the "time of the end" from the end of
time. The "time of the end" is known from Daniel's prophecies
326
as a time period during which several events will occur. People will search the scroll of
Daniel then, the king of the north will do certain things then, etc. The most prominent of
the events to occur in the "time of the end" is the judgment in heaven.
When the judgment concludes, the "time of the end", during which it was in
session, will come to a close. When that occurs God will set up His own eternal
kingdom. Human history as we now know it will come to a close. That is the end of
time. Thus the "time of the end" begins approximately when the preadvent judgment
begins, and the end of time comes when it concludes.
4. The preadvent judgment occupies the first of three great phases of God's
final work of judgment that will end with the establishment of His eternal
kingdom. The preadvent judgment described in Daniel is not the only judgment of
cosmic scope that is known to us from the Bible. It is followed by the judgment
conducted in heaven by Christ and His saints during the millennium (Rev 20:4-6; 1 Cor
6:2-3). A third judgment is to be carried out before the great white throne of God at the
end of the millennium (Rev 20:11-15). Since these three judgment scenes flow from one
into another in an uninterrupted succession, they can be thought of as three phases of
the same work of final judgment. With the third and last of these phases the plan of
salvation is brought to a close.
Each of the phases of the final judgment has its own special object of attention. In
the preadvent judgment phase the final account is summed up of all the saints of all ages
who will enter God's eternal kingdom. During the millennial judgment phase those
saints will judge or evaluate the records of those who were not accepted into that
kingdom. Then at the end of the millenium, in the third executive phase, the final
verdict on the wicked will be rendered to them and the righteous will be admitted to
their final reward.
Thus all three of these phases of final judgment can be seen as complementary. The
preadvent judgment commences this sequence that will end with the Judgment scene
from which the righteous go forth to take possession of the earth made new.
327
5. The preadvent judgment focuses on Christ and says something about Him at
its climax. According to the description of the vision in Daniel 7 the prophet sees two
different scenes from this judgment. In the first view he is shown the commencement of
the work of judgment in the court scene presided over by the Ancient of Days, God the
Father.
The conclusion to the judgment is shown to the prophet in a second scene. In that
concluding scene the Son of man, Jesus Christ, is awarded final rulership over all the
earth and its inhabitants. The great climax to this judgment is thus shown to the prophet,
and at its center it focuses on Jesus Christ.
This does not mean of course, that Christ has had to wait until the final judgment to
find out whether or not He is going to rule over the eternal kingdom. Instead, the work
of review and summary conducted through the course of this judgment results in one
great and final reaffirmation of all that He has accomplished through the plan of
salvation. In the same way this judgment represents a summary and affirmation of the
salvation that individual saints have obtained previously through their relationship to
Christ.
6. The preadvent judgment says something about the wicked and their fate.
The corporate entity of those especially opposed to God is represented in the prophecies
of Daniel 7 and 8 under the symbol of the little horn. Even these who share the fate of
the little horn can be assured of receiving sentence from a just God, however. The
decisions reached in their cases are not the result of an arbitrary act on His part. Rather,
they will result from an examination of their own records. This examination is not
conducted in secret; it is carried out with the angelic host looking on as witnesses.
7. The preadvent judgment says something about the righteous and their
destiny. An event which immediately follows the conclusion of this judgment is the
entrance of the saints of the Most High into His eternal kingdom. Given this close
relationship, these two events should be seen as cause and effect. Thus, it is evident that
one of the functions of this judgment is to serve as a final review to sum up the total
membership of
328
the saints of all ages who may, through God's grace, enter that kingdom. The records of
heaven attest that God is acting in a just and righteous manner to receive these saints
into His kingdom.
From time to time some of these saints have been adjudged guilty of various crimes
by earthly tribunals when actually they were serving God and man faithfully. In the
preadvent judgment these unjust sentences by earthly courts will be reversed by the
court of heaven. In this way God will vindicate His saints. Daniel 7:22 refers to this fact
by indicating that the heavenly court will give judgment "for" (on behalf of, in favor of)
the saints. In order to render the more accurate verdict the court of heaven obviously
must be better acquainted with the lives and eases of the individual saints than were
their earthly persecutors and prosecutors like the little horn.
In considering such a course of action it is well to keep in mind that if God is for
His people, no one can offer any significant opposition to them (Rom 8:31-39). As a
part of the plan of salvation the object of this judgment is to save as many as possible,
not to exclude as many as possible. The false follower who is not genuinely in union
with God understandably will have to be rejected in this judgment (Exod 32:33; Matt
22;10-]4). Rut the desire on the part of God to save is represented graciously in the
appeal given through His prophet: "Turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why
will you die. . . ?" (Ezek 33:11, RSV).
A beautiful illustration of this work of mercy, grace, and justification is given to us

in the vision which dealt with Joshua the high priest in the time of Zechariah (Zech 3).
This case is set in the sanctuary, and it involves a decision or judgment on the part of
God in behalf of the priest. The angel of the Lord orders, " 'Remove the filthy garments
from him.' " And he assures the penitent Joshua, " 'Behold, I have taken your iniquity
away from you, and I will clothe you in rich apparel' " (Zech 3:4, RSV).
8. The preadvent judgment provides an answer to the problem of the current

state of the righteous dead. According to a correct biblical understanding of the nature
of man, he is mortal. He is not naturally immortal. When he dies he sleeps in the grave.
This means that the righteous dead of
329
all ages are still sleeping in their graves, and the final solution to their problem in this
state has yet to be carried out.
When Christ comes again He will awaken His sleeping saints and bestow upon
them their just rewards. Thus rewards are determined before He comes. An appropriate
occasion upon which to make such a final determination is when they are reviewed in
the preadvent judgment.
It has been difficult for non-Adventists to understand the preadvent judgment

teaching held by the Adventist Church. A major reason for this lack of understanding
derives from their presupposition about the nature of man. When one espouses the view
that man is naturally immortal, the point at which judgment upon the individual's life
takes place is at his death. At that time he is awarded a future life in either heaven or
hell.
Consequently, an end-time preadvent judgment, such as is brought to view in the

Bible, cannot be reconciled with the presupposition about man's immortality. But, if on
the other hand the matter is viewed from the biblical perspective of the nature of man,
this preadvent judgment is a natural and logical consequence or requirement of that
better understanding of the Bible.
9. The preadvent judgment provides a demonstration of the character of God.
Eventually, by virtue of the way He conducts this preadvent judgment, the
righteousness, justice, and mercy of God will be proclaimed by all earthly and heavenly
intelligences (Isa 45:23; Rom 3:2fi; 14:10-11; Phil 2:10-11; Rev 15:3-4; 16:5, 7; 19:2,
11). In this way the loving character of God, which has been in dispute through the
controversy with Satan (Rev 12;7-9), will be vindicated. This ultimate vindication of
God can give us a present confidence in the kind of Judge and Advocate we now have
in the heavenly court.
10. The preadvent judgment provides a logical conclusion to the first phase of
Christ's priestly ministration in heaven. God's plan of redemption has been in
operation since the fall of man. During this period of its operation it has accomplished
great results. It is only natural and logical, therefore, that the cumulative achievements
of the plan of redemption should be demonstrated as it is concluded. The preadvent
judgment offers the oppor-
330
tunity for just such a demonstration. This demonstration is accomplished by providing a
review and summary of those accomplishments before the loyal, unfallen intelligencies
of the universe. It is thus a logical conclusion to it.
A parallel can be drawn here with the course of ministration in the ancient
tabernacle/temple sanctuary of the Hebrews. During the course of the cultic year a
round of sacrifices was carried on. These served the purpose of making atonement or
providing reconciliation between the sinner and God. This round of ceremonies
culminated in the services conducted on the Day of Atonement.
The services on the Day of Atonement served two main purposes as far as the
people were concerned: (1) They accomplished the final atonement for all of their sins
which had been confessed, repented of, and sacrificed for through the course of the
year. And (2) it served as a day of judgment for unrepentant and stiff-necked sinners.
They were to be cut off from the camp. (The Day of Atonement also served to purify the
sanctuary and its equipment to prepare it for the next year's round of services.) Thus this
cultic day of judgment served as a fitting conclusion to the round of ministry that went
on in the camp and sanctuary throughout the year.
In the same way the preadvent judgment can be looked upon as a final phase in
Christ's heavenly ministration. That ministry of reconciliation and intercession began at
His ascension (Heb 8-9). It also served as the validation of what had been accomplished
through the services of the earthly temple and tabernacle in OT times (Heb 9tl5). With
the preadvent judgment the time has come for the final summary and accounting of
what has been accomplished by this ministry. It serves, therefore, as a fitting conclusion
to it.
It should be noted here in passing that just because Christ entered upon this second
phase of His ministry in 1844, it does not mean that He has ceased to perform the
functions of the first phase. Salvation is still available to repentant sinners. On the basis
of the ancient parallel in the types one can say that in the antitypical Day of Atonement
both phases of Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary-intercession and judgment—
can
331
be and are carried on at the same time while human probation lasts.
11. The preadvent judgment places a strong emphasis upon the ethical demands
of the gospel. To be living in such a time, when this judgment is transpiring in heaven,
is a sobering thought. It should have an effect upon the way the people of God live, not
in terms of efforts to demonstrate righteousness from our own works, but in terms of a
deep and abiding faith in God who justifies and sanctifies us and enables us to do His
work in the world.
The knowledge that we are living in such a solemn time is thus a call to: (1)
worship the true God and reject the worship of all that is false (Rev 14:6-14), (2) receive
the gospel or good news of salvation through Jesus Christ and to exercise saving faith in
Him (Acts 4:12), (3) live the sanctified life through the power of the Holy Spirit (1
Thess 5:23), and (4) witness to one's neighbors and the world at large about the
character of God, what the plan of redemption has accomplished, and the
responsibilities of the individual Christian toward God (Matt 28:19).
With the gospel comes a call to holy living (Matt 5-7). Christians cannot, therefore,
continue in complacent living, because all are accountable before God. This
accountability is emphasized by the judgment that is going on in heaven at present. By
locating this judgment in a prophetic framework, and localizing this part of that
framework to our own time, Christ has placed a particular sense of urgency in His call
to mission by His people at this time.
12. The preadvent judgment emphasizes our responsibility to observe all of

God's commandments, including the observance of the Sabbath. Christ's call to
observe the ethical demands of the gospel in this prophetic time cannot be separated
from His charge to keep His commandments because we love Him. To conduct a
judgment some sort of standard must be observed as the rule for judgment. For God this
is His law, the Ten Commandments (Jas 2:9-12). The function of the final judgment
naturally calls attention to a much neglected aspect of the Ten Commandments, the call
to observe the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth precept. In the same "time of the end"
in which the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation locate
332
the preadvent judgment will be found on earth a people who express their loyalty to
God by observing all His commandments (Rev 12:17; 14:12).
This is a prophetic time when men and women are called especially to worship God
as their Creator (Rev 14:6-7). The most directly appropriate way to worship God as
Creator is to worship Him on the day He set aside, sanctified, and blessed as a memorial
of His creation, the seventh-day Sabbath (Gen 2:2-3).
A prophetic link between the Sabbath and the preadvent judgment can thus be
forged. This link calls mankind to the observance of the Sabbath as a present truth about
their Creator and Redeemer.
CHAPTER XI
An Alternative to Humanism
Siegfried J. Schwantes
Editorial synopsis. The emphasis on humanism in modern society, developing as

a by-product of the Renaissance, together with the striking advancements of science and
technology, has given rise to man-centered theologies in the West and an ever-
diminishing role for God.
The recovery of the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary in the nineteenth century
providentially redresses this imbalance. It redirects human attention back to God—"Fear
God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come" (Rev 14:6)—by
pointing to Christ's priestly ministry in heaven where human destiny will be decided.
The biblical doctrine of Christ's priestly ministry both in intercession and Judgment
underscores anew the heavenly dimension, in God's plan to redeem sinners. The
doctrine of the sanctuary is a timely reminder that the ultimate decisions relating to
salvation are made in heaven, not on earth.
Tourists in Europe are fond of visiting the medieval cathedrals that rise skyward in
many cities. The towers of these gothic structures, as in Cologne or Strassburg, with
their spirals and stained-glass windows, speak of the human aspiration for communion
with heaven.
When we realize that some of these cathedrals required one or two centuries of
patient and loving labor, we can understand better how much heaven and its glory filled
the builders' imagination. These structures, representing the quintessence of the artistic
abilities of thousands of
334
anonymous workers, render mute testimony to the otherworldliness of an age that knew
little of the comforts of life.
Many of these cathedrals today stand empty and dilapidated, clear evidence of a
change in European values since the fourteenth century. That century marked the
dawning of the Renaissance and humanism that turned attention to man as the chief
actor on the stage of history. Heaven and eternity soon were relegated to a secondary
plane, while man and his earthly happiness became the focus of attention.
If the humanistic movements positive aspects were a wholesome reaction against

an overwhelming preoccupation with the beyond, it also had its negative effects. If it
drew attention to the beauty of the world in which we live and to our task of improving
our lot, it also dimmed interest in the life beyond.
We cannot escape current ideologies, anymore than we can escape the air we
breathe. Theologians are no more immune than others; consequently the Reformers
suffered under the influence of this humanistic ideology gaining currency everywhere.
Humanistic bias marked even the thinking of Luther and Calvin.
Under the guidance of the Spirit, the Reformers recovered precious Bible truths
that lay forgotten during the Middle Ages, among them the doctrine of justification by
faith. But in the intellectual climate of the sixteenth century the Reformers were not
prepared to appreciate the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary. The times were not
favorable for theologians to see the Scripture passages on this topic in the proper light.
In contrast with the man-centered theology current in the West since the
Renaissance, stands the biblical teaching that no phase in the experience of salvation is
merely an earthly affair. Jesus makes it clear that religious experiences such as
repentance, confession, and forgiveness have repercussions in heaven.
Consider repentance, which would seem to be merely a subjective experience

taking place in the heart. Jesus concluded the parable of the lost coin by saying, "I tell
you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:10).
Even though repentance wells up
335
from the depths of the heart, it is not self-generated, but a response to God's love. The
goodness of God leads us to repentance (Rom 2:4). Divine compassion evokes a
response in the heart, but that response has no saving value unless ratified by Heaven.
What is true of repentance is even more evident with confession, the audible
expression of repentance. Proceeding from the bottom of his heart, the humble
confession of the tax collector found a joyful echo in heaven. "I tell you," said Jesus,
"this man went down to his house justified rather than the other" (Luke 18:14).
Confession Registered in Heaven

Confession unrelated to sin, that is, public confession of faith in Christ, likewise
has repercussions in heaven. "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also
will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven" (Matt 10:32). More accurately
than in any earthly computer, every sincere confession is registered in the books of
heaven.
Is forgiveness of sin merely an earthly transaction? "Whatever you bind on earth

shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
(chap. 16il9). Forgiveness, like repentance, has no saving value unless it is sealed in
heaven. The church may forgive; the offended person may forgive; but unless God
forgives, that sin shall witness against the sinner in the final judgment. Thus, pardon is
never merely an earthly affair.
Given these considerations, it should be clear why the doctrine of the heavenly
sanctuary is timely. It obliges theologians to take seriously the heavenly dimension of
God's redemption. The initiative in the work of saving the lost, as the parables of the
lost sheep and the lost coin show, belongs to God and not to man. Divine love reaches
down from heaven to redeem us from our hopeless predicament.
The doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary reminds one that the ultimate decisions
relating to salvation are made in heaven, not on earth. Far from inviting self-pitying
introspection, the Scriptures encourage us to look to heaven where God waits to show
grace. "Turn to me and be saved, all the
336
ends of the earth!" (Isa 45:22). The author of Hebrews exhorted believers whose
attention still centered on the earthly sanctuary to look heavenward: "Now the point in
what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right
hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven" (Heb 8:1). Those living this side of the
cross should fix their eyes upon Jesus Christ, our heavenly mediator.
In the heavenly sanctuary Christ performs at present His priestly ministry in our
behalf, a ministry as vital for salvation as His earthly ministry culminating with His
death on Calvary. Without the Incarnation and Christ's blood shed on the cross, there
could be no heavenly ministry, since a priest must have something to offer (vs. 3). And
without the heavenly mediation of Christ, sinners could derive no benefit from Christ's
sacrifice. There would be no link connecting what was done on Calvary with the need of
pardon and reconciliation here and now (chap. 7:25).
This intercession proves to unfallen heavenly intelligences that God is righteous,
while He "justifies him who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26). In heaven's august tribunal,
attended by a multitude of angelic witnesses, God's righteous judgment must be above
every suspicion. When the last ease shall be examined, and the sentence pronounced for
life or death, a myriad of voices will proclaim: "Great and wonderful are thy deeds, 0
Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are thy ways, 0 King of the Ages !" (Rev 15:3).
Only those oblivious to the questions at stake minimize the relevance of what goes
on in heaven. While our salvation is important, it is even more important to demonstrate
God's righteousness before the universe. Begun at the cross, this demonstration will not
be ended until the heavenly court has pronounced the last sentence.
The doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary comes as a timely antidote to neutralize the
humanistic bias in modern theological thought. The fact that this bias is as old as the
Reformation does not make it less dangerous. The focus of attention, for so long on
humans and their sin, will at last be upon God, the Alpha and Omega of the plan of
redemption. For the Reformers the statement of Habakkuk 2:4, "The righteous shall live
by
337
his faith," seemed to comprise the whole gospel. Though this declaration must retain its
full value, it is but a partial expression of the gospel. By it? side should stand Habakkuk
2:20 as a counterweight: "The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence
before him."
Even though the humanistic emphasis was necessary after centuries of medieval
other worldliness, it does not represent the last word in man's search for truth. If the
human dimension of salvation was neglected by the scholastic theologians, the
pendulum swung to the opposite extreme with the humanistic reaction, when the
heavenly dimension of redemption became equally neglected. Recovery of the doctrine
of the heavenly sanctuary in the nineteenth century providentially redressed the balance,
redirecting attention to Christ's ministry in heaven, where human destiny will be
decided.
Emphasis on Heavenly Dimension
That God in His providence willed the new emphasis on the heavenly dimension of
salvation may be seen in the message of the first angel of Revelation 14: "Fear God and
give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come" (vs. 7). The temptation since the
Renaissance, and even more since the scientific revolution, has been to glorify human
accomplishments to the neglect of God, to whom scientists and philosophers give an
ever-diminishing role.
That we should aspire to ever greater mastery over the earth and its resources was
part of the divine plan since Creation (see Gen 1:26-28). But man acted presumptuously
in allowing this inebriation with science and technology to blind him to his dependence
on God.
The connection between the first angel's message and the doctrine of the heavenly
sanctuary may be seen by the announcement that the hour of His judgment has come. In
Revelation the final judgment is often associated with the temple in heaven. "The time
for the dead to he judged" (chap. 11:18), precedes the announcement "Then God's
temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple"
(vs. 19). The ark of the covenant in the earthly sanctuary contained the tables
338
of the Decalogue (Deut 10:5), and upon it the ceremony of the Day of Atonement was
centered (Lev 16:15, 16). Thus the judgment involves the Decalogue, and the
Decalogue relates to the ark of the most holy place.
The judgment becomes the final stage in the eradication of sin from the universe;
so the Day of Atonement clarifies the relationship between the sanctuary and the
judgment. The ceremonies detailed in Leviticus 16 may be regarded as the judicial
capstone of the religious year. In the ceremonial cycle of 12 months were typified
various aspects of reconciling man to God. The Day of Atonement cleansed the
sanctuary and the people from the accumulated sins of the year. Those who lost their
faith in God's forgiveness had their sins retained and were excluded from the religious
life of the community. For Israel this day became identified with the day of judgment,
since their eternal destiny depended on their acceptance hy God on that day. The
sanctuary could not fail to be associated with the final judgment in their minds.
In this day of pseudogospels founded upon humanistic premises, the doctrine of the
heavenly sanctuary comes as a timely reminder that salvation derives from God alone.
Every step in the process of reconciling us to God has its repercussions in heaven.
Reprinted by permission of Adventist Review, June 6, 1985, pp. 8-9.
CHAPTER XII
Justification and Judgment

Ivan T. Blazen
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH/JUDGMENT
ACCORDING TO WORKS
Editorial synopsis. In this and the following section the author examines two biblical
doctrines especially emphasized by the apostle Paul: (1) justification by faith, and (2)
jjudgment according to works. A variety of explanations have been offered by Bible
students to reconcile what appears as a tension between these two doctrinal positions of
the Christian faith.
Some argue that the concept of final judgment is a leftover from Paul's Judaism and
is irrelevant for Christians. Others suggest that NT judgment passages are designed only
to prompt the sinner to turn to Christ for justification, but have no further significance
for believers. Some teach that the sinner is justified initially by faith but ultimately by
his attainment through grace of the standard of perfection. And still others see the
judgment so far as professed believers are concerned as unrelated to their salvation or
loss but only as an assignment of rewards among God's people.
None of these views, however, give full value to these two scriptural teachings.
Since they are topics of inspired revelation, neither doctrine can be minimized or
weakened in favor of the other.
The author's resolution of these two truths may be termed "the dynamic, salvation-
historical view." It stresses the "already" of salvation begun in the here and now and the
"not yet" of salvation completed. The essence of this view is that there is only one
justification. It accompanies the believer from the time of faith's inception (the
"already") all the way into the final judgment where its reality and vitality are tested and
attested by its fruits (the "not yet"). At the end—the judgment—God asks for
justification with its fruit. He does not ask this in the sense of the
340
formula—-"faith plus works saves"—but in the sense that justification is the source of
sanctified fruit.
Although the blessing of acquital in the future judgment becomes operative even
now, Scripture is clear that what God desires to see in the final judgment is justified
believers who through His grace have entered into genuine union with Him and have
borne fruit to His glory.
Section Outline
I. Introduction
II. Reason and Revelation
III. Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Works

IV. Justification and Assurance
V. Judgment and Assurance
VI. A Tension Resolved
Introduction
This study seeks to clarify the relationship between justification by faith alone,
which brings assurance of salvation, and judgment according to works. Varied attempts
have been made to resolve what was seen as a tension or contradiction between these
two doctrines. Often these attempts have taken the form of minimizing or negating one
or the other of these teachings. It is my contention that both are to be maintained
strongly, for Scripture teaches both, and that there is an inner unity between them, like
the unity that exists between Christ as Saviour and Christ as Lord.
Since so much of the discussion on Justification and judgment is carried on with

respect to the thought of the apostle Paul, my attention will he focused there. However,
there is reference to other passages and to certain statements in the Spirit of Prophecy.
As a presupposition for the discussion, this study first considers the
341
relation between reason and revelation. It continues by discussing in turn the occurrence
and significance in Paul of (1) justification by faith apart from works and (2) judgment
according to works. This leads us to an evaluation of various attempts to harmonize the
two doctrines. Then we shall examine the relation between Christ as Saviour and Christ
as Lord, between the gift of God and the claim of God (section 2). Our objective is to
place the discussion of the relation between justification and judgment in a new key.
The study concludes with an application of the discussion to Seventh-day Adventist
teaching on the judgment and with a consideration of aspects of the judgment in the
theology of John.
Reason and Revelation
At the outset it is necessary, on the basis of Scripture, to deal with a fallacious way
of reasoning that mistreats the data of divine revelation. Such reasoning if unchallenged
and allowed to stand would make impossible a biblically balanced resolution to the
relationship between justification and the judgment.
A text appropriate to this discussion, one germane to the thematic concerns of this
study, is Romans ,1:1-8. In this passage Paul is carrying on a debate with Judaism over
the subject of the faithfulness of God. In Romans I and 2 Paul has shown that human
beings have been unfaithful to God. All people alike, not only Gentiles but also Jews,
many of whom have condemned the Gentiles, are sinners before God, under His
judgment (Rom 2:2), and liable to His wrath. The question becomes—and it has special
relevance with regard to the Jew, who was a recipient of the oracles of God (Rom 3:l-
2)--Does not human unfaithfulness cancel the faithfulness of God (vs. 3)? This is to say,
Does not human sin, and in particular Jewish sin, make of no effect the promises of
God? Paul's answer to this is a resounding No! God is true, though every human being
is false. He prevails when He is judged concerning His word and faithfulness (vs. 4).
With this the question takes a new direction, an opposite twist. The question no
longer concerns the maintenance of God's faithfulness—that is now presumed to be
true—but the maintenance of human unfaithfulness..
342
The issue now is not about man's judgment upon God, but about God's judgment upon
man. If the divine faithfulness cannot be canceled, should not human unfaithful ness be
canceled as something liable to the judgment? If God's faithfulness remains, even
though every person has been unfaithful, then perhaps human unfaithfulness is not
undesirable but desirable, in any case not really punishable, for such unfaithfulness only
throws into bold relief the faithfulness of God. Would not God be unjust to inflict wrath
upon (vs. 5) or judge as a sinner one whose lie has caused God's truth to abound to His
glory (vs. 7)? In fact, is it not a commendable course to do wrong "that good may come"
(vs. 8)? The "good" in such a ease probably refers first to the favorable light in which
human badness places God's goodness, and second to the good, or grace, that comes
from God to human beings who have sinned (see Romans 5:20 and 6:1).
This kind of argumentation was designed, by those who employed it, to discredit
Paul's doctrine of the justification of the ungodly by showing that it would lead to a
perpetuation of, even an invitation to, sin rather than its demise.
Paul Responds
Paul responds by saying that if the reasoning referred to of letting sinful humans off
the hook were valid, "then how could God judge the world?" (Rom 3:6). By this
question Paul negates the logic of his opponents, not by a discussion—this will come in
Romans 6 after Paul has fully developed his view of justification by faith (Rom 3:21—
4:25) and its consequences (Rom 5)—but by an appeal to a dogmatic datum of divine
revelation—God will Judge the world.
If this is true, as both he and his Jewish opponents believed, then no kind of
reasoning that would minimize or do away with this judgment could be valid. Divine
revelation supersedes ordinary human logic. (Note how the Jewish objection presented
in Romans 3:5 is accompanied by Paul's comment: "I speak in a human way.")
Reason must function as the servant of revelation. It is revelation that enlightens

reason, and thus it is reason's task to explicate revelation,
343
not contradict it. Once the reality of the judgment is established on the basis of
revelation, reason must operate to explain its significance, not to lessen or destroy its
import.
Justification by Faith and Judgment According to Works

Two elements inherent in Romans 3:1-8 emerge clearly. First, God is faithful, that
is. He keeps His promises to human beings, even though they have broken their
promises to Him (vss. 1-4). Second, there is no excuse in God's faithfulness for human
sin, no encouragement to its continuance (vss. 5-8). These two points may seem to be in
tension with each other, but for Paul they exist in unity and must be said together. Paul
will develop the first point in his teaching- on God's Justification of the ungodly by
faith, and the second point in terms of his teaching on judgment according to works.
These two elements are pillars in Paul's theology. For Paul they stand together, each
helping to explain the full significance of the other and to guard the other from
misunderstandings and false deductions.
Justification by faith helps to guard the judgment from the false ideas that human
beings never will be able to stand in God's judgment or that standing there self-
goodness will place God's righteousness under obligation. In other words, justification
contradicts the concept that humans cannot make it in the judgment or that they make it
by themselves.
On the other hand, judgment according to works guards the doctrine of the
justification of the ungodly from meaning the justification of ungodliness. If there is a
judgment according to works, then justification must mean that the lives of the justified
are claimed by Christ and that they are called to live for Him who died for them (2,Cor
5:14-15).
When either of these pillars is weakened or removed by the desire for a quick, easy
unity of thought, we end up, not with a half-truth, but with no truth. In terms of the
actual data of Scripture, it is a fiction to believe that justification does not relate us to
the rule of Christ as Lord or that the judgment does not relate us to the work of Christ as
Saviour.
Paul became very angry with those who attempted in any way, either by thought or
deed, to move either of these pillars. As we see from Gala-
344
tians 1:8-9 and Romans 3:8, those who advocated either position—working for
justification or the justified not working—were alike condemned by Paul in strong
language. If, as Hebrews says, "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God" (Heb 10:31) one also can be sure that it was a fearful thing to fall into the hands of
God's servant, the living and often livid Paul'
Since both justification by faith and judgment according to works are elements of
divine revelation, it belongs to Christian reason to accept both, to proclaim both, to
interpret both, and to seek to correlate both. One teaching should not be made to yield to
the other so that its inner essence and unique contribution are denied.
While only a brief suggestion can be made here, 1 would affirm that the need for
and the unity between justification and the judgment are not to be sought in some
formal, deductive logic, but are connected with salvation-history. To speak of
justification and the judgment is to speak about realities that exist in the continuity of
salvation-history.
Only in the framework of the unfolding drama of God's salvation, as revealed in

Scripture, can justification and the judgment be evaluated rightly. Isolated from
salvation-history and made the objects of logical debate, justification and the judgment
may drift into collision with each other.
It belongs to Christian reason to assess the place and function that justification and
judgment have in the revealed flow of God's redemptive plan. According to that plan,
God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ, His Son, and offered justification, a
right relation with Himself, to all who would place their faith in the crucified, risen
Christ. Those whom God justified through Jesus Christ He called to witness to Jesus
Christ in word and deed until the consummation of all things. When the end comes, the
judgment assesses and testifies to the reality of justification evidenced by the faithful
witness of God's people. In this flow, justification and the judgment do not stand in the
relation of tension or contradiction, but in that of inauguration and consummation.
God's plan has run its full course when His people, the justified, stand
345
before Him at the end of time with the fruit of their personal (ethical) and evangelistic
labor in the power of the Spirit. To be without fruit is to be not a part of, but apart from,
God's redemptive process in this world.
The point I am making about the relation between justification's and the judgment's
being that of the relation between inauguration and consummation finds elements of
support in Philippians 1:5-11. Paul says that he is "thankful for your partnership in the
gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure that he who began a good work in
you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. It is right for me to feel thus
about you . . . , for you are all partakers with me of grace. . . . And it is my prayer that
your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you
may approve what is excellent, and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
filled with the fruits of righteousness which come through Jesus Christ, to the glory and
praise of God."
I would affirm that the rubrics and content of our theology must be large enough to
accommodate all the data of divine revelation. In this regard justification and judgment
should be conceived as integral elements of the ongoing movement of salvation-history.
Neither must be weakened or rejected. Both must be accepted and integrated. These
pillars must stand together, supporting the edifice of God's 's redemptive purpose and
activity.
Justification and Assurance

Justification is by faith, apart from works. This is asserted so frequently by Paul that
it is not necessary to give a catalog of texts. Galatians 2:16 alone makes the point
several times. Two texts, however, are worth special mention because they supply the
rationale and perspective from which Paul's many assertions are made. I refer to
Galatians 2:21 and Romans 3:27.
On the basis of these texts, if Paul were asked how he knew that justification could
not be by works, his first reply would not be, "Because the works of humans have been
evil," though in fact Paul is capable of painting a very dark picture of the universal
sinfulness of human actions, as he does
346
in Romans 1:18—3:20. Rather, his primary reply would be given in the terms of
Galatians 2:21.
Paul's logic in this text is Christological and runs like this: "If righteousness were
through the law, then Christ died for nothing." Implied: "But it is inconceivable that
Christ died for nothing? He died to save. Therefore, righteousness cannot be by the
law." In other words, righteousness cannot come by works of the law because revelation
indicates and faith confesses that righteousness comes from Christ.
The same basic point is registered in Romans 3:27. When Paul denies that works
exclude boasting, this is not the argument we would expect, having read the story of
mankind's evil works in Romans 1:18--3:20. But then Romans 3:21-26, which
emphasizes the manifestation of God's grace and righteousness at the cross, comes
before the question posed in verse 27. Paul answers that what ultimately excludes
boasting is not the presence of evil deeds, but faith in Christ's atoning deed. The
teaching that righteousness is not by works is therefore a Christological deduction.
Having made this observation, we may find it of some value to summarize some of
the main elements in Paul's understanding of justification. Romans, with other related
texts, supplies the best guide.
Over against the sordid specter of human unrighteousness described in Romans

1:18—3:20, with all mankind "under the power of sin" (Rom 3:9), every mouth stopped,
and the whole world guilty before the judgment bar of God (vs. 19), the righteousness
of God (His redemptive activity whereby He restores human beings to a right relation
with Himself), which leads to salvation, is being revealed through the proclamation of
the gospel (see chapter 1:16) and is effective for faith and faith alone (the significance
of "from faith to faith" [vs. 17, KJV]).
What is announced in verses 16 and 17 is developed more fully in Romans 3:21-26.
The righteousness of God that is being revealed or offered personally in the gospel
(Rom 1:17) was revealed (Rom 3:21) historically in the blood sacrifice of Christ on the
cross (vs. 25), Human beings, all of whom have sinned and hence are short of God's
glory (vs. 23), are justified (put right with God, "rightified") by God's grace through the
redemp-
347
tion (liberation or freedom from sin) effected by Christ's sacrifice (vss. 24-25). This
justifying activity of God creates a new "now" for believers (vs. 21), which stands over
against the old eon of sin and death (Rom 1:18— 3:20).
The understanding of the nature of justification is clarified in other sections of

Romans. Romans 5:16, 18 and 8:33-34 are of help, for here justification is contrasted
with condemnation (see 2 Cor 3:9) and the bringing of charges against God's elect. It is
clear—God's justification of the sinner means that his condemnation is removed and all
charges against him are dropped. This happens because God is "for us," not "against
us," as evidenced by the fact that "he . . . did not spare his own Son but gave him up for
us all" (Rom 8:31-32).
This significance for justification is in accord with what is revealed in Romans 4:1-
8, probably the most important passage for understanding justification. Here, after
showing what Abraham did not find, that is, a reason to boast before God because of
justification by works (vs. 2), Paul shows, by his usage of Genesis 15:6, what in fact
Abraham did find, namely a reckoning of righteousness on the basis of faith.
What this reckoning involves is expanded in Romans 4:6-8 by the application of

Rabbi Hillel's second principle of biblical interpretation, gezerah shawah ("equivalency
of expressions"). According to this principle, a word or phrase found in one text of
Scripture may be explained by the meaning it bears in another biblical text. Since the
word reckon appears not only in Genesis 15:6 but also in Psalm 32:2, Paul, in good
rabbinic fashion, but in harmony with the gospel, uses the latter text to illumine the
former. When this is done, justification, or the reckoning of righteousness, comes to
mean the forgiveness of sin or what amounts to the same thing, the covering of sin or its
nonreckoning to the believer (with the latter idea see 2 Corinthians 5:19). Forgiveness,
full and free—this is justification. The reality of it is so marvelous that the one who has
experienced it is called "blessed," or happy (Rom 4:7).
In Romans 5:9-10, two verses parallel each other, justification is coordinated with
reconciliation. Both terms refer to the same reality and
348
are made possible in the same way—through the death of Christ—and lead to the same
result—final salvation. The synonymity between Justification and reconciliation is seen
also in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21, where reconciliation is tied together with the
nonreckoning of sin, as in Romans 4:8, and with the righteousness of God. Interestingly,
these concepts are in turn related to that of the new creation spoken of in 2 Corinthians
5:17. The idea of the new creation is also found in Romans 4:17, where God, who
justifies, is described as one "who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the
things that do not exist."
Generally when the concept of the new creation is introduced, people think first in
terms of sanctification, in the sense of moral growth. But, as we see from 2 Corinthians
5 and Romans 4, the new creation is related most immediately to justification and
reconciliation. However, as 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 shows, the purpose of Christ's
reconciling death is that those who live as a result of it might live no longer for
themselves, but for Him who died and rose again. The new creation involves no
bifurcation between the new life granted and the new life lived.
There are other concepts and realities that shed light on justification. As Paul argues
his case for justification in Galatians he comes to the place where he explains the new
situation created by the justifying activity of God in terms of adoption or sonship (Gal
4:5-7; see Gal 3:24-26). The meaning of justification comes to poignant expression in
the exclamation in Galatians 4:6, "Abba! Father!" ("My Father, my Father"). This
exclamation is made possible by the Spirit of the Son flooding the heart of the believer.
Indeed, justification involves the reception of the Spirit, as is clear here and in
Galatians 3:1-5, where, immediately after one of Paul's greatest arguments for
justification by faith and not works of law (Gal 2:15-21), Paul asks whether the
Galatians received "the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith." Without
question, the reception of the Spirit belongs with the event of justification. In this
connection 2 Corinthians 3 may be noted again. Not only is "ministration of
righteousness" contrasted with "condemnation" (vs. 9, KJV) but "the ministration of the
349
spirit [Spirit]" is contrasted with "the ministration of death" (vss. 7-8, KJV). It is
obvious that God's ministration of righteousness (referring here to His justifying action)
belongs with the presence of the Spirit. In Romans 5:5 the Christian's future hope of
sharing the glory of God is based upon the present experience of the love of God, given
through the Spirit. What that love is that the Spirit brings home to the believer is that
while we were yet ungodly and helpless (vs. 6), sinners (vs. 8), and enemies (vs. 10)
"Christ died for us" (vs. 8), and this made possible our justification (vs. 9), or
reconciliation (vs. 10).
Assurance
In consequence of the reception of God's justification, with all the facets it contains
and all the metaphors and realities associated with it (redemption, expiation, grace,
reckoning, forgiveness, covering, reconciliation, creation, adoption, sonship. Spirit,
freedom, life, peace, joy), the Christian has the confident hope of final salvation. This is
spelled out fully in Romans 5.
This chapter is built on a how-much-more conceptuality. The specific phrase "much

more" occurs three times (vss. 9-10, 17), but the idea suffuses the chapter. In short, for
the first part of the chapter (vss. 1-11), if believers have been justified now, how much
more will they be saved finally and fully in the judgment at the end.
For the second part of the chapter (vss. 12-21) the argument is that if the race
through Adam has been affected with sin, unrighteousness, and death, how much more
through Christ is it affected with grace, righteousness, and life. If Adam has brought
ruin, how much more has Christ brought victory. With the appearance of the law on
Sinai, sin only multiplied (vs. 20) instead of being suppressed, as Judaism held. But
where sin increased, grace superincreased "so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also
might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (vss.
20-21).
Thus, the order in Romans 5 leads from the reality of justification to the "how much
more" of glorification. (See verses 1-2.) Such a movement
350
harmonizes with the progressing chain of salvation mentioned in Romans 8:29-30. Here
once more justification is followed by glorification. And, as in Romans 5, suffering is
the prelude to glory. According to Romans 8:17-18, we are "fellow heirs with Christ,
provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."
Furthermore, says Paul, "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth
comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Sufferers are bidden to be
confident that "in everything God works for good with those who love him" (vs. 28).
They are granted the assurance, derived from God's offering of His Son and the
justification effected thereby (vss. 32-34), that nothing in heaven or earth will be able to
separate them from the love of God in Jesus Christ their Lord (vss. 35-39). Thus, the
reality of justification involves the reality of complete and lasting assurance.
The righteousness that brings assurance of final salvation to the believer is based on
faith. Paul's doctrine is righteousness by faith, not righteousness by fate. What Christ
has done for humankind must be appropriated. God's righteousness, which is provided
for all through Jesus Christ, is personally efficacious only by faith.
And what is the basic significance of faith? Though many of Paul's statements are
valuable, perhaps no better answer can be found than that contained in Romans 4:19-21.
From this text, which speaks of Abraham and his faith, the elements of true faith emerge
clearly. According to Paul, notwithstanding Abraham's great age and the barrenness of
Sarah's womb, "no distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God." In
contrast to distrust, Abraham was "fully convinced that God was able to do what he had
promised."
Rather than disbelieving as a result of the apparent hopelessness of the situation,

Abraham believed that the word of God expressed in His promise was the ultimate
reality for him, and this caused him to grow "strong in his faith." To use another biblical
writer's words, Abraham did "not live by bread alone," that is, by empirical reality, "but
by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4).
351
Gave Glory to God
Finally, the whole faith event is summarized by, and finds its true direction and
ultimate significance in, this, that Abraham "gave glory to God" (Rom 4:20). In the
strength of God's promise Abraham's faith grew strong as he gave glory to God. Such a
glorification of God stands in stark contrast to, and reverses (l) the sinful reality of, the
Gentiles who, according to Romans 1, refused to glorify God or be thankful to Him (vs.
21), but "worshiped and served the creature" (vs. 25), and (2) the sinful reality of the
Jews who, according to the implications of Romans 2, gloried in their own self-
righteousness. Abraham's stance of faith, taken prior to his circumcision, creates the
possibility of a new humanity and makes Abraham the father of both Gentiles and Jews
who follow his example (Rom 4:9-12).
We see from Abraham, then, that faith accepts God as God and totally trusts in and
depends upon His word. That word becomes, in the argument of Romans 4, the word of
the gospel, which tells about Jesus. As Abraham's faith in God's promise was "reckoned
to him as righteousness," so "it will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised
from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our
justification" (vss. 22, 24-25). Faith becomes acceptance of and trust in the gospel. Faith
also becomes confession of the gospel, as Romans 10:9-10 makes clear: "Because, if
you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised
him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is
justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved."
In view of the direction the scriptural data gives to the meaning of faith, it is
correct, but incomplete, to call faith, as some do, a passive receptacle. The value of this
conception is that it emphasizes our receiving God's accomplishment and thus negates
self-accomplishment as a means of justification.
After this truth has been acknowledged, however, the fuller picture should be
painted, and the dynamic element of faith should be stressed. Faith is a reaction to God's
initial action and promise. Faith is divinely
352
stimulated by hearing the word about Christ (vs. 17), but it is to be exercised by the
recipient of that word. That Abraham did not weaken in faith (Rom 4:19), that "no
distrust made him waver," that "he gave glory to God" (vs. 20), that he was fully
convinced (vs. 21), that the Christian is to confess Christ as the risen Lord (Rom
10;9>— these are all action ideas in which the energy of faith is underlined. In faith,
people are involved directly and personally with the promise of God.
In fact, Paul understands faith so dynamically that he can describe it as obedience,

meaning surrender to God's word in the gospel. To heed the gospel's call for faith is to
obey God. Such is the case in Romans 1:5 (cf. Rom 16:26), where Paul declares that the
very purpose of his apostleship is to bring all nations to "the obedience of faith,"
meaning the obedience that is faith.
In other words, the purpose of the gospel commission is to lead all nations to
believe in Christ. When they believe in Christ they are doing what God through the
gospel wishes them to do. This thought is corroborated by Jesus' words in John 6. In
response to the people's question "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"
(vs. 28), Jesus replied, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has
sent" (vs. 29). Further evidence that faith is obedience appears in Romans 10:3 where it
says of the unbelieving Jews, "They did not submit to [obey] God's righteousness." The
same is true of Romans 10:16 which again speaks of unbelieving Israel: "They have not
all obeyed [heeded] the gospel; for Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has
heard from us?' " Romans 10 is the great faith chapter, and yet it speaks of Israel as not
obeying the gospel. One also may compare Romans llt23 with Romans 11:31-32, the
former text stressing unbelief and the latter disobedience. Also compare Romans 1:8
with Romans 15:18, the former emphasizing faith and the latter obedience.
The dynamic character of faith also is seen in 1 Thessalonians 1:3, where Paul
commends the Thessalonians for their "work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness
of hope." Faith, hope, and love are what God asks of man through the gospel. According
to Galatians 5:6 what really matters to God is "faith working through love."
353
Does this make of faith a meritorious work? Not at all. Faith is made possible only
through Christ, and it has significance only because it is directed toward Christ. Thus
faith's possibility and efficacy is Christ. That is why salvation by faith means salvation
by grace. Faith moves us to Christ and lays hold of grace.
Paul's total theology of faith may be summarized by saying that faith is surrender to
the verdict, gift, and claim of God. Faith surrenders to God's verdict upon man: "All
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). It surrenders to God's gift to
man: "They are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ
Jesus" (vs. 24). And it surrenders to God's claim upon man: "If we live, we live to the
Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. . . . For to this end Christ died and lived again,
that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living" (chap. 14:8-9).
Judgment and Assurance

The apostle Paul strongly supported belief in a coming judgment. Let us look at his
major passages.
2 Corinthians 5:9-10. "So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to
please him. For we must all appear before the Judgment seat of Christ, so that each one
may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body."
Romans 14:10, 12. Here the theme that Christians universally must appear before
the divine tribunal is stated and given a particular application. In the significant setting
of Christ's death and resurrection to be Lord of the dead and the living (vs. 9), Paul asks,
"Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or ... why do you despise your brother?
For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God" (vs. 10). Just as the ultimate fate
of the Christian is affected by the judgment in 2 Corinthians 5:10—those who are
judged receive "good or evil" - so also here.
The implication is obvious—being judgmental of others or despising them (or, as in

Romans 14:15, causing "the ruin of one for whom Christ died") will affect one's destiny
in the judgment. This is a reassertion of
354
Christ's teaching that with what judgment we judge we shall be judged. Instead of the
believer judging and despising others, his attitude should be, "We who are strong ought
to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves; let each of us please
his neighbor for his good, to edify him. For Christ did not please himself" (Rom 15:1-
3). In any ease, Paul instructs Christians not to entertain unfavorable judgments on
others, because "each of us shall give account of himself to God" (Rom 14:12).
Romans 2:16. This text speaks of the day when, as Paul's gospel teaches, God will
judge the secrets of human beings by Jesus Christ. And, as Romans 2:6-10 portrays,
God Will render to every person according to his works. There will be wrath and fury to
those who do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness instead; and eternal life for those
who, by patiently doing good, show that they seek for glory, honor, and immortality.
Because this is true, one must not take refuge in merely hearing the law, for only "the
doers of the law will be justified" (vs. 13). While Romans 2 has as its purpose to show
that the self-righteous Jew who criticizes the evils of the Gentiles and yet sins himself
(vss. 1-3, 21-24) cannot be justified by his works, the chapter still contains the actual
standard of the judgment.
The standard of the judgment should not be confused, however, with the method by
which the standard is reached. Paul spends the rest of Romans, from 3:21 on, explaining
the method. His explanation, I would contend, encompasses not only the theological
portion of the book (through Romans 11), where the indicative of God's saving grace is
presented as the foundation of redemption, but also the ethical portion of the book, com-
mencing with chapter 12, where the divine imperative, arising out of the redemption
offered in the gospel, is presented. This is not to mix justification and sanctification, but
to show that true justification always issues in sanctification.
New Conformity to God

Only when the grace of God, which to the end continues as the basis for eternal life,
leads to a new conformity to God (see Romans 12:1-2) is the Christian prepared to stand
in the judgment. The ethical portion of
355
Romans is not extraneous or a mere appendage to the picture of the mercies of God in
Romans 1-11. Grace always unfolds and interprets itself in a new way of life, and only
this total movement is acceptable to God. We cannot doubt that the Christian will
require the mercy of God to the end, but this mercy must always bear fruit. The life
received from God is to be the life lived for God.
Among Seventh-day Adventists and by Seventh-day Adventists, the gospel

message of Romans must be heard today in its entirety, both as indicative (the reality of
God's gift) and imperative (the reality of God's claim). (Note again how Paul says in
Romans 2:16 that his preaching of the gospel includes the message of the judgment.)
Only in the living conjunction of gift and claim is realized the full potentiality of "being
restored to a right relation with God," (See Romans 2:17.)
I Corinthians 3:13. "Each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will
disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work
each one has done." Later we will look at the function of this text in its context.
I Corinthians 4:5. "Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before
the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will
disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from
God."
Although Paul stresses "commendation" in the last part of the verse, it is clear that
the disclosure of "things hidden in darkness" may, in the case of some people, bring the
opposite result. It is not Paul's purpose here to spell this out, but it is a legitimate
inference from his language. The reason for his emphasis upon commendation alone is a
personal one. This commendation stands in contrast to Paul's concern in verse 3 that he
should be judged by the Corinthians or by any human court. He is not concerned about
their commendation, but about God's.
The primary point of the verse, then, has to do with the ultimate vindication of
Paul's apostolic ministry. However, the implications of the fact that God will "bring to
light the things now hidden in darkness" extend more broadly. Manifestly, Paul has
applied language belonging to a larger
356
concept of the judgment to his own ministry. (See Romans 2:16.)
Colossians 3:5-6. "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication,

impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these
the wrath of God is coming."
1 Thessalonians 4:6. In respect to his exhortations on sexual purity Paul says, ". . .
that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in the matter, because the Lord is an
avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you."
Galatians 5:21. The strong emphasis upon forewarning in 1 Thessalonians 4:6 is

also made here. After another list of vices, Paul says, "I warn you [now], as I warned
you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9. This is another text with a list of vices. Paul's manner of
emphasis is instructive. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived." Surely you ought to know this, says Paul. But it
is a matter, he admits, over which one could be deceived. He warns against such a
deception.
Ephesians 5:5-6. This carries a similar warning on not being deceived. "Be sure of
this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is an idolater), has
any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty
words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of
disobedience."
Galatians 6:7-8. Here, not being deceived is coupled with another thought. "Do not
be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he
who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the
Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life."
This text makes an important contribution when it says that "God is not mocked."
Surely it would be a mockery of God for a person to receive His acceptance and then
refuse to live acceptably through His Spirit. A life lived deliberately by the flesh can
never accord with the reality and intent of God's justifying grace.
Every Christian ought to ask himself whether his way of life mocks the
357
God who has given him life. The accent in Galatians 6:7-8 on being deceived and
mocking God finds an outstanding parallel in Jeremiah 7:8-10: "Behold, you trust in
deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely,
burn incense to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come
and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, 'We are
delivered "—only to go on doing all these abominations?"
Romans 8:5-13. This text makes the same contrast between flesh and Spirit. Verse
13 says, "For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put
to death the deeds of the body you will live."
Hebrews 2:1-3. "Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard,
lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every
transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we
neglect such a great salvation?"
Hebrews 10:26-31. What is briefly mentioned in Hebrews 2:1-3 is fully developed

in this text from Hebrews 10. The text speaks for itself: "For if we sin deliberately after
receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a
fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A
man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or
three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man
who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he
was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said,
'Vengeance is mine, I will repay.' And again. The Lord will judge his people. It is a
fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
Summary of Main Truths of Judgment Texts

While those who remain committed to Christ need to have no fear of God's
judgment or anxiety concerning salvation, three things, at least, are clear from these
judgment passages. What is said here will be clarified later on in this essay and set in
relation to God's rich salvation. (1) Christians, all those justified by faith, come into the
judgment. (2) The judg-
358
ment is made according to their works. (3) Two destinies are possible to those who have
professed Christ; eternal life on the one hand, death on the other. In other words, people
can be saved or lost as a result of this judgment.
.No one need be lost—to prevent this is the reason for all the warnings in the
judgment texts—but one can be lost if he is indifferent to God's word and will.
As the biblical texts on grace do not allow for the false view "Never quite saved at
all, no matter what Christ has done," so the judgment texts disallow the erroneous vie>v
"Once saved, always saved, no matter what I may do." Salvation is always a gift, but the
gift does not remain when the Giver is rejected as Lord of our life.
A Tension Resolved
Various attempts have been made to resolve the tension between justification and
judgment.
1. Some people claim that the texts on judgment according to works arc an
appendage from Paul's Jewish past in which apocalyptic played an important role. The
judgment texts, they would say, are a kind of apocalyptic hangover. They must
therefore yield to Paul's view on justification.
According to this position, then, there is really only one, not two, foci to Paul's
preaching. The judgment idea, therefore, is pronounced nonfunctional for Paul. This
apocalyptic-rejectionistic view is completely unacceptable as an interpretation of Paul.
It flies in the face of the frequency of Paul's judgment-texts, the stringency of his
thought, and the centrality of the judgment for his argument.
2. Some advocate what may be called the imperfectionistic view. They argue that
since people can never be perfect because of indwelling sin, faith is the only operative
principle in the judgment, just as at the original bestowal of justification. For this reason
the only real function of biblical statements about judgment according to works is to
cause people to flee to justification by faith, where the mercy needed may be found.
Judgment according to works, then, is not really a future actuality except
359
for the person outside of Christ, for the Christian, judgment according to works comes
to mean according to Christ's works rather than the Christian's works.
This view contains a positive clement when it stresses the primacy of righteousness
by faith, but in an effort to gain easy harmony with justification, it does despite to the
judgment texts. Clearly, the scriptural data indicate that the Christian's works—made
possible through Jesus Christ, to be sure—are in view in this judgment and that
forfeiture of eternal life can result if grace has not given birth to discipleship. Further,
this view does not take seriously the fulfillment-of-the-law motif found in Paul's
writings (Rom 8:4; 13:8-10; Gal 5:13-14; 6:2). Where this motif occurs, it does not refer
to imputation of the righteousness of the law but to the actualization of its righteousness
in the life of the Christian through the power of the Spirit. We recognize that this
fulfillment lacks the character of absolute perfection, but we affirm that God's will
comes to concrete expression in the life of the Christian. Moreover, the
imperfectionistic view misunderstands the imperative in Paul. It perceives the
imperative as functioning only to speak of our undoing before God rather than—what it
really is in Paul and elsewhere—of our doing the will of God.
Indeed, Scripture asks of us so much, so uncompromisingly, that it takes our breath

away. However, it remains true that through the power of the Spirit (which came to
believers together with God's justifying grace in the first place; cf. Galatians 2:16, 21
with 3:1-3) believers actually may "walk in newness of life" now (Rom 6:4).
Through Christ and like Christ, it can be said of the Christian that the life he lives,
he lives to God. (See Romans 6ill.) The biblical ethic not only leads a person back to
justification but is the living fruit of justification. If we must flee back continually to the
cross because of the stringency of God's demand, it is also true that we must move into
the world with the cross, as disciples of Christ who follow His way.
3. A third understanding may be called the partitionistic, or perfectionistic, view.
(Let us distinguish at the outset between "perfection," which the Bible ever directs us to,
and "perfectionism" which is the claim
360
to have arrived.) According to this view, justification by faith refers to the beginning of
Christian existence, and at the end we find judgment according to works. We are
justified initially by faith but finally by the attainment through grace of the standard of
perfection. According to this, there really is no need for mercy in the judgment because
the believer has put away every imperfect deed.
The perfectionistic view has positive elements: It recognizes that God calls us to
perfection, it takes discipleship seriously, and it points up God's purpose to fulfill the
law in experience, not to destroy it.
However, this view has serious shortcomings. First, it leaves justification and faith
behind, whereas Paul does not. For Paul, faith taking hold of the righteousness of God is
the foundation of right relations with God in all time—past, present, and future. This is
inherent in the phrase "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 and is explicitly taught in
Galatians 5:5, where it is through the Spirit, by faith, that we await "the hope of
righteousness" (meaning the hoped-for righteousness). In other words, faith grasps the
future righteousness of God as well as its present manifestation. According to Romans
5:1-2, justification by faith leads us to glory.
Again, Paul, the very one who powerfully presents both justification by faith alone
and judgment according to works, refused to claim perfection even at the possible close
of his life, as we see in Philippians 3:12-14. He knew that Christ had made him fully
His own but that he had not yet made the infinite riches of Christ fully his own (3:12b).
Shallow Understanding of Perfection

Finally, this view has a shallow understanding of perfection. It does not seem to
comprehend adequately the significance of the "more and more" of Paul's teaching.
According to Paul, we may be pleasing God and loving one another, as God has taught,
but we are not to be content with this, but to do so more and more (1 Thess 4:1, 9-10).
The standard of perfection is always ahead of the Christian and can never be said to
have been realized fully. This is so because the gift of Christ is so infinite that His claim
must be infinite as well. As totally as He gives Himself for and
361
to us, so He totally claims our lives for His service. To say that one is on the way, as
Paul did (Phil 3:12-14), is one thing, but to say one has arrived at perfection is another.
This position Paul rejects, even when he counsels us to "hold true to what we have
attained" (vs. 16). Something has happened, but more is to come. Heaven itself has been
described rightly as a ceaseless approaching to God.
4. Another view declares that the judgment only assesses ranks of blessedness for
the redeemed but does not determine salvation or lostness. A caption in a recent
religious periodical article calls attention to this view: "The cases of believers are not in
jeopardy in the judgment for their representative has already sealed their justification."
The following explanation and support is given in the text of the article:
"What about the texts that indicate Christians will be judged according to their
works? Doesn't the Bible teach that believers will be held accountable for the way they
lived? It is true that 'we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ' (2 Cor 5:10).
But while the Bible says we shall be judged according to our works, it does not teach
we shall be justified on account of our good works (Rom 3:20). Believers will be rec-
ompensed at that time for the good they have done through God's grace (Eph 6:8i Matt
25:32-40). Because we have already been Justified in Christ this final reckoning will in
no way jeopardize our acceptance with God. George Ladd, in A Theology of the New
Testament, explains it like this:
" 'The believer will be judged for his works. Our life will be laid bare before the
divine scrutiny that each one may receive the proper recompense for the things done
through the life of the body, in accordance with the things that he has done, whether that
life record is good or bad. This judgment is not "a declaration of doom, but an
assessment of worth," involving not condemnation or acquittal, but rewards or loss on
the basis of the worthfulness or worthlessness of the Christian's life. The same principle
of judgment is expounded in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Paul is here speaking of the work of
Christian leaders, but the principle is valid for all believers. The only foundation upon
which anything permanent can be built is Jesus Christ. However, not all build alike.
Some erect structures with
362
gold, silver, or precious stones; others will build worthless houses of wood, hay, or
stubble.. . . Their works, like wood, hay, and stubble, will be consumed in the flames of
judgment so that nothing remains as a result of their life on earth. This does not mean
loss of salvation: "he himself will be saved," but he will suffer loss of the "well done,
good and faithful servant." Those who have built faithfully and effectively will be
rewarded for their love and devotion. Paul does not indicate what the reward will be.
The principle involved in this judgment is that while salvation is altogether of grace, the
Christian is left in no doubt that he is regarded by God as fully answerable for the
quality of his present life.' “1
The major problem with this view, aside from the fact that it seems to imply that
there will be a kind of caste system in the kindgom to come, is that it is not in harmony
with the clear import of the biblical passages on the judgment. It omits consideration of
the significance of all these texts. From the judgment statements it is clear that ultimate
destiny indeed is determined in the judgment, and works (works stemming from faith,
of course) do have a significant part to play in the determination.
Not only does this view, represented in the article quoted above, omit much of the
biblical evidence, but it also commits the error of misusing some of the passages it does
cite. For example, Matthew 25:32-40 is summoned to support the contention, made only
on the positive side, that "believers will be recompensed ... for the good they have done
through God's grace." (What of the evil they have done apart from God's grace?)
Unless the assumption is that among the lost of this parable none had been
believers, the parable teaches unequivocally that a mere profession of faith does not
pass the judgment, but only doing the will of the Father in terms of deeds of mercy.
Unless Christ told this parable to Justify the Jewish nation and condemn all the
Gentiles—and it seems rather to show that being a Jew, a professed believer, without
deeds of kindness affords no advantage but only loss in comparison with "unbelieving"
Gentiles who do
1 The Gospel and the Judgment," Evangelica,

February, 1981, pp. 7-9 (italics supplied).
363
the will of God—it clearly teaches the principle that "believers" may be lost when they
do not represent the essential character of the kingdom.
Without "Well Done" No One Enters the Kingdom

Also using Matthew 25, in this case verse 23, George Ladd says that "Well done,
good and faithful servant" will not be said to those who, according to 1 Corinthians
3:12-15, have built poorly on the foundation of Christ. These persons will be saved, but
they will lose the reward that salvation gives to those who have built well. Ladd misuses
both the Matthean and the Corinthian passages. It must be noted that in Matthew 25:23,
" 'Well done' " is followed by, and is the presupposition for, " 'Enter into the joy of your
master.' " This joy is not only one aspect of the kingdom reserved for some people
(good builders) who enter the kingdom and not fop others (poor builders) who also
enter the kingdom. Rather, joy is a summary term for the kingdom as a whole. Without
"Well done" no one enters the kingdom at all or participates in any of its joy.
As for 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, this passage is misunderstood if it is used to teach that

no matter what a believer does in his personal life, he still will be saved at the end of
time. The statement, "he himself will be saved, but only as through fire," is not so much
an overt promise as it is an implied warning. It challenges those in positions of
leadership who may be building the temple of God poorly because they encourage
factions rather than unity in the church—this is the subject of 1 Corinthians 3, not the
personal sins of each member of the congregation, as Ladd would have us believe. It
challenges them to be careful, for in the fires of the divine judgment they will i escape
only "as through fire," that is, by "the skin of their teeth."
The picture is of one running through the burning edifice he has built to escape for
his life. No responsible leader in the church could rest comfortably in view of such a
conception as this. The intensity of Paul's thought and the fatefulness of the judgment
come to climactic expression when Paul says in the verses immediately following 3:12-
15 that the church constitutes the temple of God and that "if any one destroys God's
temple, God will destroy him." No unconditional "he will be saved" here! Let all
364
take heed. Poor builders will barely make it; destroyers will not make it at all.
The view that the judgment determines only ranks of blessedness fails because it
conflicts with one of the pillars of Paul's thought. The actual meaning of Paul's
statements on the judgment is circumvented because of a certain view of justification.
Mere human logic is involved here, operating without all the data of Scripture.
5. In my opinion the view that best recommends itself by reason of the total data of
Paul's thought is what might be termed the dynamic, salvation-historical view. This
view contains the two poles, so prominent in Paul, of the "already" of salvation begun
and the "not yet" of salvation completed. The "already" and "not yet" are operative both
in God's salvation-history and in individual human experience as it is linked to that
history. The essence of this view is that there is only one justification, and it
accompanies the believer from the time of faith's inception (the "already") all the way
into the final judgment, where its reality and vitality are tested and attested by its fruits
(the "not yet").
The Bible teaches that justification belongs to "last things," for it brings the hoped-
for verdict of acquittal in the last judgment into the present. Interestingly, however,
according to Scripture, last things themselves have a beginning and an end. The
principle is "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of
Christ Jesus" (Phil 1:6). Therefore, the testimony of Scripture is contradicted when
human logic concludes that since justification, a present reality through faith, belongs to
last things, nothing further can be asked of the believer in the final judgment. Though
the blessing of acquittal in the future judgment indeed becomes operative even now,
Scripture is clear that what God desires to see in the final judgment is justified believers
who through His grace have borne fruit to His glory (vss. 9-11).
The new history God gives each believer is not over when he comes to Christ and is
justified; it is just begun. At the end God asks for justification with its fruit—not in the
sense of the formula "Faith plus works saves," but in the sense that justification is the
source of sanctified fruit.
365
In the final judgment Christ as Saviour and Lord can ask- legitimately of those He
has justified, "Have you, in the strength of My grace, been My disciple?" Reality should
answer, "Yes!" This answer could not have been given when believers first came to
Christ and received His justification. Discipleship can begin only when one meets Jesus,
the justifier, but it indeed begins as the believer yields his entire future life to the
sovereignty of God's already-present love.
From "Already" to "Not Yet"

For Paul the consummation of God's plan arrives when justification, first
objectively revealed at the cross and subjectively appropriated by faith, has run its
course and manifested its complete intent through sanctifiсation, and it arrives fully at
the destination of eternal life. This is the order of salvation found in Romans 6:15-23
and summarized in verse 22:
"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the
return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life."
The movement from justification to eternal life is a movement from "already" to

"not yet," But for each reality itself, both justification and life, there is also an "already,"
and a "not yet." The righteousness of God has already been received; yet believers await
that hope (Gal 5:5). What joins what has been and what will be is faith working by love
(vs. 6). Only when the faith of Christians has worked by love can the final verdict be
"Righteous!" As for eternal life, it will one day be full possession (Rom 5:21), but it is
now experienced as anticipation. (See, for example, Romans 6:4, "walk in newness of
life" [RSV] and 6:13, "as those that are alive from the dead" [KJV].) Sanctificaton, or
maturation of life in Christ, is a connecting link between life as anticipation and life as
full possession.
In the "already"-"not yet" theology of Paul judgment according to works is a

fulfillment of the "not yet" aspect of justification by faith. Grace, which accompanies
the believer to the end, reaches its goal in goodness, and this the judgment finds certain.
The saviorhood of Christ for us is manifested fully in His lordship over us. The
judgment asks if this has become reality. To fail to take due account of the judgment
according to
366
works is, in a word, to discount the "not yet" element of Paul's theology of salvation.
What is being said here is that last events do not climax at the cross and faith's
reception of it, but begin there. What happened at the cross and to those who accept the
cross continues to unfold its significance and application through the continuing
ministry of Jesus until the cross has achieved its ultimate victory and Christ is Lord of
all.
Under the Lordship of Christ
The judgment according to works teaches that the cross, as a saving event, puts us
under the lordship, or reign, of Christ. To reject disсipleship or to refuse to walk in
sanctification, which, according to Romans 6, is inseparable from justification, is to
reject Christ as both our Saviour and our Lord. Judgment according to works asks not
simply about isolated works, but about the relation of the believer to Christ in the
duality and unity of His saviorhood and lordship.
If Paul had been asked to illustrate in a parable his teaching on justification and
judgment, he might well have chosen the type of parable represented by the story of the
unmerciful servant (Matt 18:23-35). This parable represents very well what Paul in fact
teaches. Like the unmerciful servant, sinners are called to account the first time by the
king and forgiven an insurmountable debt. Justification operates in this way. However,
when those who are forgiven, as the servant was, refuse to extend merсy to others, as
the servant refused, they are called to account again by the king and sentenced to prison.
The pardoned are now the penalized! This accords with Paul's teaching on judgment
according to works.
If it is asked on the basis of this parable if works are the ultimate ground of
salvation or damnation, the answer is "No!" The ground of salvation is the mercy of the
king. The absence of merciful deeds on the part of the servant only confirmed that he
had no conception of what mercy really was and that he had rejected it as an operative
principle for the whole life.
Mercy can never be only for oneself and guarded as a means of aggran-
367
dizement instead of an instrument of healing. Indeed, if God is king, our king, is it not
clear that the character of His rule must characterize us? This is not to save ourselves by
our works but to let God's works fully save us. We are not saved by our mercy, but
God's salvation produces merciful people. "For we are his workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in
them" (Eph 2:10).
What is at stake in the parable is the gracious rule of the king. In testing us in terms
of our mercy, what is proved is that the ultimate reality that defines and influences all
things, including ourselves, is the mercy of God. That is why the final resolution of the
Great Controversy is the universal testimony that God is love.
A final point in this parable that represents the spirit and thrust of Paul's thought
resides in the paradoxical truth that mercy is for the merciful. Unlike Judaism's teaching
that mercy would flee away in the final judgment and only justice would remain. (See 2
Esdras 7:33.) Christ taught that God's mercy would be fully operative in the final
judgment. But it would function only for those who had showed mercy in response to
God's mercy.
Here the question arises: If one has shown mercy in this life, why does he need
mercy in the judgment? In the light of Jesus Christ the only answer is that while the
character of Christ can be imitated and approximated, the infinite character of His
goodness can never be equaled. Consequently, two things must remain true for the
judgment: (l)the sanctified fruit of justification must be present, but (2) justification
itself must continue its function of pardon. Grace is not in contradiction with fruit, nor
fruit with grace. In the judgment the two elements coexist. "You have been faithful over
a little; I will set you over much" (Matt 25;23).
The conclusion of our discussion about the question of assurance is to say that if
justification grants assurance, judgment guards it, It guards it from the illusion that
assurance is possible without a fundamental relationship to Christ and a committed
following of Christ. Our works do not give us assurance, but the One whom we in
grateful response follow in our works
368
does. Thus the question of works and assurance is the question of Christ. The believer
can always be assured of salvation if his answer to Christ is "Yes." There is no
assurance in saying "No" to Him who first said "Yes" to us. Paul illustrates this point in
his exposition in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13. All was well with Israel—and will be will with
the church, Israel's counterpart— as long as it followed the Rock, which was Christ. But
when it desired evil it was destroyed by the destroyer.
The judgment upon spiritually privileged Israel proves that those who think they
stand, those who are assured of their salvation apart from concern for the will of God,
should take heed lest they fall (vs. 12). But no one need fall, for God can always make a
way of escape from temptation (vs. 13). Therefore, belivers have the security of sonship
only as those who are tempted. The biblical teaching on the judgment would remind us
of this and give a proper foundation for true assurance—adherence to Christ.
CHRIST: SAVIOUR AND LORD
Editorial synopsis. In the sphere of God's redeeming grace the gift of God
(salvation) and the claim of God (obedience to His commandments) are inseparably
connected. The gift and claim reflect the fundamental truth that Christ is both Saviour
and Lord of the believer. Christ's relationship to the believer serves to illustrate the
relationship between justification and judgment.
By looking for works as the fruit of faith, the judgment testifies to the reality of the
penitent's salvation. This must be so because genuine forgiveness results in a new
creation, a transformation and a continuing restoration of the image of God within the
trusting believer. Thus the judgment according to works in relation to justification by
faith underscores the wholeness and unity of the plan of salvation since Christ is Lord as
well as Saviour.
It is evident, therefore, that judgment by works does not stand in a contradictory

relationship to justification, but in a relationship of fulfillment. To reject judgment
according to works would be to reject the totality of God's redemptive intention. The
Christ of the cross who justifies always says as Lord to the justified, "Take up the cross,
and follow Me." The judgment attests and witnesses to the reality and genuineness of
that following.
Seventh-day Adventists see the preadvent judgment portrayed in the prophecies

(Dan 7-9) as an integral part of the final judgment. The investigative judgment in
heaven inaugurates the final judgment that is consummated when Christ returns the
second time and again after the millennium. This initial phase of final Judgment
discloses the true relation of believers to Christ, and the closing phase rewards believers
in accordance with the true nature of their service for Christ.
At times the writings of John have been used to make of no effect the NT teaching
on the final judgment and the issues involved. An analysis of John's teaching, however,
demonstrates that his thought is in complete agreement with the testimony of the rest of
Scripture.
370
In His dual office as Saviour and Lord, Christ judged sin at the cross, justifies the
sinner on the basis of his faith response, and judges the justified by his works. The cross
is the means by which justification is effected. Faith is the means by which justification
is accepted. Good works are the means by which justification is manifested. Works of
righteousness testify to the reality and vitality of justification. Their absence indicates a
broken relation with Jesus.
Section Outline
I Introduction
II. Christ: Saviour and Lord
III. Preadvent Judgment
IV. Judgment in the Writings of John

V. Conclusions
Introduction
We must now develop an element mentioned previously. The relation-ship between
justification and judgment can be seen better by placing it in the setting of a discussion
on the relation between Christ as Saviour and Christ as Lord, between the gift of God
and the claim of God.
Jesus once said, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder"
(Matt 19:6). While the context is a discussion of marriage, the substance of His remark
seems appropriate regarding salvation.
In the sphere of God's redeeming grace the gift of God and the claim of God are
inseparably connected. The more we exalt His gift to us, the more we at the same time
magnify His claim upon us. The more radically one perceives and receives the love of
God, the more radically there is created a new ethic of love, a new life of discipleship
and service.
Christ: Saviour and Lord

One can no more separate God's gift and claim than he can divide Christ as Saviour
from Christ as Lord. The confession that Christ is
371
Saviour and Lord belongs to the very essence of NT Christianity. One cannot have
Christ only as Saviour or only as Lord; Christ comes to us as both. There is the most
intimate bond between the two realities.
The saviorhood of Christ is revealed in particular at the cross, where the love of
Christ, already manifested during His earthly life, receives its climactic expression. But
it is at the cross that His lordship also is revealed. His lordship is established precisely
through His love. Christ's lordship is the rule of His love.
Many people are afraid of the idea of lordship. The concept seems to suggest to
them the thought of a hard, oppressive, and perhaps arbitrary authority. But this is not
the NT picture of Christ. Christ as Lord can be understood only in the light of Christ as
Saviour. As Lord, Christ rules from the cross. The self-giving love of Christ revealed in
His life and death is the very heart of His reign over us. There is no other principle in
His crown than that manifested in His cross. To speak of His lordship is only to say that
His sacrificial love is meant to prevail in all the earth. As Lord He claims our entire life
for His love.
With the indivisibility of Christ as Saviour and Lord in mind we can readily see that
there is an inner connection between what Christ gives to us and what He claims of us:
He comes to us in love—in the light and strength of it He asks that we be loving.

He comes to us in mercy—in the joy and power of it He asks that we be merciful.
He comes to us in forgiveness—He asks that we be forgiving.
He comes to us in kindness—He asks that we be kind.
He comes to us in gentleness—He asks that we be gentle.
He comes to us in sacrifice—He asks that we live sacrificially.
He comes to us as our servant—He asks that we serve others.

All that the Christian is to do is revealed in, and is the product of, what Christ has
done for him. His gift is both the content of His claim and the strength to fulfill it,
There are a number of texts that ground what believers are to do in the gift,
strength, and example of what Christ has done for them. For example:
373
giving our discipleship was revealed. To see and accept what Christ has done for us is to
know what He wishes to do through us.
To live in harmony with His claim, as a consequence of the reality of His gift, is not
to save oneself by one's own works. It is rather to accept the Messiah truly and to have
one's life shaped by His deliverance. Not to live in accord with His claim is to reject the
Messiah and the kingdom He brings, the rule He establishes. How can Christ be our
king if we are not His servants?
Complete Assurance Necessary

At this point let us consider a further word about assurance. Without complete
assurance that God forgives and accepts us we cannot possibly live for Christ and in
harmony with His claim. If we do not realize fully our acceptance we cannot be freed
from preoccupation and anxiety over self to have sufficient interest and time to
concentrate on others. Furthermore, without this personal assurance we will not have
the insight or strength needed to accept others fully. How can I understand acceptance
and really accept others if I do not know Christ's acceptance of me?
What we receive in Christ determines what we do for Christ. The gift of Christ can
be passed only when it has been experienced. First John 1:1-3 is relevant in this regard:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with
our eyes, . . . and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life ... [we] proclaim
to you."
According to the NT, the event that secures our acquittal also secures our renewal.
Forgiveness is linked with a new creation.
I remember a telephone call I received after preaching a sermon that dealt with
forgiveness and new creation. The caller said, "During the first half of your sermon I
thought, Here we go again; just another sermon on forgiveness. But when you got to the
second part, on being created anew, then you were preaching the gospel!" I appreciated
the fact that someone would take the time to call me about the sermon, but somehow I
felt that the main point had been lost.
What 1 was trying to say was that renewal is born of forgiveness.
374
Without forgiveness renewal is not possible, and without renewal forgiveness is

truncated, ineffective, misunderstood.
Ellen White grasped the matter well in two statements on forgiveness. Written from
different perspectives, they are united in the vision they afford of what salvation in
Christ includes:
"The religion of Christ means more than the forgiveness of sin; it means taking
away our sins, and filling the vacuum with the graces of the Holy Spirit. It means divine
illumination, rejoicing in God. It means a heart emptied of self, and blessed with the
abiding presence of Christ. When Christ reigns in the soul, there is purity, freedom from
sin. The glory, the fullness, the completness of the gospel plan is fulfilled in the life.
The acceptance of the Saviour brings a glow of perfect peace, perfect love, perfect
assurance. The beauty and fragrance of the character of Christ revealed in the life
testifies that God has indeed sent His Son into the world to be its Saviour."3
"But forgiveness has a broader meaning than many suppose. When God gives the
promise that He 'will abundantly pardon,' He adds, as if the meaning of that promise
exceeded all that we could comprehend: 'My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are
your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are
my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.' Isaiah 55:7-9.
God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from
condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin. It is the
outflow of redeeming love that transforms the heart. David had the true conception of
forgiveness when he prayed, 'Create in me a clean heart, 0 God; and renew a right spirit
within me.' Psalm 51:10. And again he says, 'As far as the east is from the west, so far
hath he removed our transgressions from us.' Psalm 103:12."4
Relevant to the discussion of God's gift and claim is Paul's attitude toward, and
argument against, two classes of people who falsified the
3 COL 419-20 (italics supplied),
4 MB 114 (italics supplied).
375
gospel. Paul threatened judgment against both classes. The first class felt that their
works of law could contribute to justification, and the second reasoned that the justified
could or would continue in the works of sin.
The first class is described in the letter to the Galatians. They are those who would
subtract from Christ by adding to Him their own works. According to Paul, justification
by works in any sense spells the end of justification by grace in every sense. "If
justification were through the law," argued Paul, "then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal
2:21). The inference is plain: since Christ died for a redemptive purpose, those who
would be justified by works of law are severed from Christ and fallen from grace (chap.
5:4). Against those who would alter the gospel of the sole sufficiency of Christ, Paul
hurls an anathema (1:8-9).
There is another group that comes under the ire of the apostle. They are those who
claim that Paul's doctrine of the justification of the ungodly by faith apart from works of
law leads only to continued life in sin. If grace superabounds where sin abounds, as Paul
claims, continued sinning is good—it gives God's grace a chance to work ! This
objection is reflected in Romans 6:1-2, where Paul says, "What shall we say then? Shall
we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid." Paul was especially sensitive
to the objection. In Romans 3:8 he condemns such a view with utter seriousness: "And
why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with
saying. Their condemnation is just."
As Romans 6 shows, while Paul teaches the justification of sinners, he does not
teach the justification of sinfulness. Far from it, he shows that the Christian is united to
Christ in His death and risen life (vss. 3-8). Therefore, just as Christ died to sin and
henceforth lives for God (vs. 10), so also does the person united to Christ through
baptism.
Real Forgiveness Leads to Freedom

It is difficult to see how such an objection as that referred to in Romans 6:1 could
have arisen. Surely the consideration of God's radical goodness to us is the foundation
of a new ethic and not its demise. Can we truly be forgiven and then go on hurting God
and fellow humans all the
376
more? Is it not true instead that real forgiveness leads to real freedom not only from the
penalty of sin but also from its power?
It is clear and sad that behind the objection that grace spells sin rather than service
stands one who by the very question he asks—"Shall we continue in sin, that grace may
abound?"—shows that he has a wrong relation to the gospel. The objection envisions
one who affirms his acceptance of grace but for whom grace is not the definitive power
of his life, the power that defines and gives substance and shape to his entire life. Such a
position places grace merely at the perimeters of life and makes Christianity to be the
bearer of a legal fiction, namely the pardon of criminals who continue in their
criminality as the habitual pattern of life. (This was the charge against Paul's theology.)
This view is not merely the reduction of Christianity to the message of forgiveness
alone, but it is the reduction of forgiveness to an act devoid of the creative element,
devoid of the power of renewal. Forgiveness, which is the essential meaning of
justification (see Romans 4:6-8), comes to mean only freedom from penalties, and not
positive reconciliation and commitment to and service for God—a new orientation in
life and a new life principle. In this view the gospel provides a way to extend life
quantitatively in the eternal world, but not a way to live new lives qualitatively in the
present world.
One who ascribes this kind of position to Paul or espouses it himself transposes the
categories of sin and grace into personal experience in such a way as though sin were
not conquered fundamentally by grace in salvation-history, as Romans 5:12 and
following verses asserts it was. According to this passage, sin, which came into the
world by Adam, was so strong that even the revelation of God's holy law on Sinai could
not stop it. The problem was not diminished but aggravated, and sin multiplied as
transgression (vs. 20). But what the law could not do, because it was weak through the
flesh, God did through Jesus Christ (Rom 8:3). By His obedience, in contrast to Adam's
disobedience, He won the victory over sin.
The Christian is called upon to participate in this salvation-history victory of

Christ's life, death, and resurrection, not to create in his experi-
377
ence once again the conditions that made Christ's historical victory over sin a necessity.
To allow sin to reign in experience that grace may come is, for Paul, to reject what God
in His grace has done historically in Christ.
The person who utters this objection does not understand the sovereignty of grace
either as making possible a new morality or as making it necessary. Grace is not seen as
God's radical claim to the whole person of the believer. Something blocks the passage to
this recognition, for one would think that he who is forgiven much would love much in
return (see Luke 7:42, 47), that he would try to serve and please the injured party.
It is clear that, from the Pauline standpoint, we have here a cheap understanding of
grace in which there is no call to discipleship. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is right when he says
that "the only man who has the right to say that he is justified by grace alone is the man
who has left all to follow Christ.''5
As a matter of fact, in respect to the reality of discipleship, is it gift or claim when

Christ says, as He did to Matthew, "Follow me"? Is this not both gift and claim in one?
Is not Christ's call grace, and can this grace ever be received truly if we will not follow
the Saviour? Similarly when Paul speaks of "the fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5i22), is he
referring to a gift or a claim? Surely the fruit of the Spirit must be gift and claim in one.
In response to those who accuse or abuse God's grace, Paul protests in Romans 6:2
and 15 with a resounding "God forbid" (KJV). This "God forbid" finds its full meaning
in Romans 6 in the fact that just as Paul has shown in the previous chapters of Romans
that God's righteousness spells grace and life for the believer, now he will show that
God's grace spells out in the believer righteousness and a new kind of life. If human sin
requires God's righteousness. God's righteousness also requires human obedience to our
Lord, with whom we participate in death and resurrection. In contrast to the objector's
"Let us continue in sin" (see vs. l), Paul says, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal
bodies" (vs. 12).
Paul shows that it is precisely the person justified
by grace, apart from
5 The Cost of Discipleship, p. 43.
378
works, who dies to sin so as to live for God. According to Romans 6:2, "How can we
who died to sin still live in it?" This dying to sin is not a second stage after justification,
but is a reality that coheres with justification itself.
What does Paul mean by dying to sin? He means, in brief, an exchange of lordships.
Previously sin had been lord, and now Christ is. To have a new Lord is at once to be
freed from the old lord (this is the gift) and to be enlisted in the continuing service of
the new (this is the claim).
Far from this exchange being a static state of sinlessness, Paul contends that under the
new lordship of Christ, the Christian wages waragainst sin (vss. 12-13), the old lord of
his life. It is precisely because the shackles of sin are off that he is free to struggle, and
because sin still continues to pose a challenge, it is necessary to struggle.
The Risen Christ Rules

The challenge in Romans 6:12 not to let sin reign means that freedom gained by the
gift of Christ is the freedom to be used in the cause of Christ. Obeying Christ as Lord is
a part of belonging to Christ as Saviour. The risen Christ rules from the cross over all
who have been baptized into His death.
In a word, according to Romans 6, death to sin means freedom from sin's

sovereignty so as to resist sin's solicitation. It is deliverance from sin as one's ruler so as
to fight against sin as one's enemy.
Regarding the judgment, the relevance of all that has been discussed in this section
may be summarized as follows. By looking for works as the fruit of faith, the judgment
testifies to the reality of salvation. The judgment according to works in relation to
justification by faith gives expression to the wholeness and unity of salvation seen in the
relation between Christ as Saviour and Christ as Lord, between the gift of God and the
claim of God, between freedom from sin's authority and warfare against sin's appeal.
When one sees the nature of the connection existing between these relations, it can
be said of the judgment as related to justification that it
379
does not stand in the relation of antithesis or contradiction, but of complementarity and
fulfillment. To reject the judgment according to works, then, would be to reject the
totality of God's redemptive intention. The Christ of the cross never leaves a person
where He found him. The Christ of the cross always says to the one He justifies, "Take
up the cross, and follow me." The judgment tests and witnesses to this reality.
Preadvent Judgment
Seventh-day Adventists believe the Bible teaches a process of judgment that takes
place prior to the second advent of Christ. Traditionally this judgment has been known
as the investigative judgment. What is the significance of this preadvent Judgment?
Does it stand in conflict with the scriptural teaching on justification by faith and
judgment according to works? Does it take away the assurance of salvation that
justification by faith brings? Critics of Adventism have said Yes. At times inadequate
presentations of the investigative judgment may have suggested that such a "yes" was
warranted.
It is my contention, however, that the investigative judgment, rightly understood, is

in harmony with justification by faith and judgment according to works. It encompasses
within itself the ingredients of these two fundamental teachings.
A correct understanding of the investigative judgment will not view it as an

independent event, something apart from the flow of salvation history, for that would
make it another track of salvation. Such would be a grievous error. Rather, the
investigative judgment can be understood properly only when it is seen in relation to the
final judgment on the one hand and, on the other hand, Christ's judgment on sin at the
cross leading to His justification of the sinner by faith.
Some have wished to say that in Ellen White's depiction of the investigative
judgment in the book The Great Controversy (pp. 479-91) she misused the Bible, for
she applies texts about the final judgment to the investigative judgment. Another and
better interpretation is possible. Ellen White uses final judgment texts because in her
thought and the thought of
380
the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the investigative judgment is an integral part of the
final judgment.
Two major considerations support this view. First, pioneer Seventh-day Adventists,
including Ellen White, foresaw Christ's second advent as very soon. The ending of the
investigative judgment and the appearance of the Saviour with His reward were on the
horizon. In such a setting it was impossible to separate the investigative judgment from
the final judgment, with its divine recompense, which would take place at the coming of
Christ. In fact, the period of the investigative judgment was a time of
special preparation to meet Christ and in peace pass the execution of His just decision.
They believed in the most intimate continuity between the opening of the books and the
rendering of the decision in the preadvent judgment and the execution of the decision,
for good or ill, at the Advent judgment. It was all part of one symphony of the
judgment, and the finale soon would be reached.
In the second place, the investigative judgment and the final judgment deal with a
basic question common to both: Is the believer's life one of continuing faith, repentance,
confession, and obedient service in love? These terms summarize the many expressions
Ellen White uses in her Great Controversy chapter on the investigative judgment to
describe what God expects in the life of those who have claimed His justification. They
are the same in essence as those in which Scripture represents the divine Judge as
expecting of His people in the final judgment. The two judgments are really one, but the
one judgment has two phases.
But there is one other element considered in the investigative judgment—a primary
element—and it corresponds to the reality of God's manifestation of His righteousness
at the cross (Rom 3i21, 24-25) and His justification of the sinner by faith (Rom 3:22,
25-26).
According to Adventist thought, when the repentant sinner comes to Christ and
confesses his faith in the Saviour's atoning sacrifice, pardon is registered next to his
name in the heavenly books.6 When the books are
6 See GC 483.
381
opened in the judgment this record of forgiveness can be seen. Plainly, the investigative
judgment does not deal merely with the sins of mankind hut with the forgiveness of
Christ.
Consequently, when the whole package is put together, and justification by faith
and future judgment according to works are seen as the eon-tent of the investigative
judgment, it can be stated that there are two questions this judgment answers. First, has
the sinner sought and received Christ's forgiveness of his sins? Second, has this
forgiveness brought forth good fruit in his life?
To expand the combined content and effect of these two questions so fundamentally
pertinent to the investigative judgment, the following questions may be asked in the
form of direct address, detailing the concerns of this judgment toward believers. Has
Christ been both your Saviour and your Lord? What have you done with the cross of
Christ and the grace revealed therein? Have you affirmed the cross for the whole of
your existence or for only part of it? When the crucified Christ came to you with His
gift and claim, did you submit to Him and follow Him, taking up your cross, or did you
go your own way—the same way you went before you met Him? Have you let your
thoughts and actions be taken captive to Christ? Or have you—God forbid—separated
yourself from His grace by denying with your life what you have professed with your
lips? Has your freedom from the condemnation of God's law led you to a new
faithfulness to that law in the strength of Christ's grace? Have Christ's love and for-
giveness to you become the basis of your forgiveness and love to others?
Only when the answer to such questions is a fundamental Yes can the final
revelation of God's forgiveness and mercy be extended to believers, in accordance with
Christ's words: "Forgive us our debts Fin the future judgment] as we also have forgiven
our debtors [in this world ]" (Matt 6:12).
If such an approach of God to man in the investigative judgment takes away

assurance of salvation, as some have alleged, then the same must be true of the final
judgment as well. One can hardly claim to hold to the biblical view of the final
judgment and then raise objection to the appearance of the same issues in the
investigative judgment. One cannot main-
382
tain fairly that God's claim is not contrary to the believer's assurance in the final
judgment, but that it is contrary to the believer's assurance in the investigative judgment.
The only way this could be done is by viewing the final judgment in terms of a once-
saved-always-saved theology. Such a theology and the automatic assurance it brings
obviously would be contrary to the investigative judgment and the assurance it
supports—assurance by continual adherence to Christ.
However, the biblical passages on judgment, such as those adduced in this article,
make it abundantly evident that the once-saved-always-saved theology is indefensible.
If this is so, the issue of the true nature of assurance arises with full force for everyone
who confesses that believers "must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that
each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body" (2 Cor
5:10).
If we say that the investigative judgment's call to perfection takes away the
believer's assurance, then it must be replied that Scripture makes the same call. First
Thessalonians 3:13 and 5:23 are sufficient to illustrate the point. But believers can
rejoice that no matter how great the stringency of God's appeal, "He who calls you is
faithful, and he will do it" (1 Thess 5:24). And, believers can "give thanks to the Lord,
for he is good; for his steadfast love endures forever" (Ps 106:1).
The relationship of the investigative judgment to justification and the final

judgment may be represented in its totality in this way. On the one hand, the
investigative judgment ratifies and confirms the justification procured by Christ at the
cross and received by believers through faith. On the other hand, the investigative
judgment inaugurates the final judgment that is consummated when Christ returns the
second time and again after the millennium. The initial phase of the final judgment
exposes the true relation of believers to Christ, and the closing phase rewards Delivers
in accordance with the true nature of their service for Christ.
Purpose of Investigative Judgment

When Seventh-day Adventists speak of an investigative judgment, it should not be
understood as meaning that God seeks information He does
383
not have. After all, God is the Author of the books which His judgment opens. The
books stand not for new knowledge that God has yet to acquire but for old knowledge
that God now will expose. So the purpose of the investigative judgment on God's part is
not to discover reality but to unmask it, not to find out the truth but to reveal it.
As a result of this process of exposure and disclosure, the redeemed cry:
Great and wonderful are thy deeds,
0 Lord God the Almighty'
Just and true are thy ways
0 King of the ages!
Who shall not fear and glorify thy name, 0 Lord?
For thou alone art holy.
All nations shall come and worship thee,
for thy judgments have been revealed (Rev 15:3-4).

As Paul writes, "0 the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How
unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the
mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?' 'Or who has given a gift to him that
he might be repaid?' For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be
glory for ever. Amen" (Rom 11:33-36).
Judgment in the Writings of John
It will be helpful now to turn to certain aspects of the apostle John's teaching on the
judgment. His teaching has been used at times to make of little or no effect the general
NT teaching on the judgment to come and the issues involved in that judgment. So what
will be said here will be relevant both to the preadvent and Advent phases of the final
judgment.
The fact is, according to John, that the cross is God's judgment on sin (John 12:31-
33; 16:11) and that the Judgment of the believer, as well as the unbeliever, is in the past.
This depends upon acceptance or rejection of the light that Christ brings (John 3:18-
21)—and these truths should be gratefully acknowledged. They contribute significantly
to the overall NT understanding of judgment.
384
However, these Johannine truths must not be allowed to override what Paul and the
rest of the NT clearly teach, that is, that a day of judgment for the world is yet coming,
and even believers will be called to account before the King. In other words, the
pastness of the judgment in John should not be utilized to negate the futurity of the
judgment elsewhere.
However, to speak this way is to speak too simply, for it is not the case that the
judgment in John is only past and the judgment elsewhere is only future. Paul, for
instance, teaches a past judgment as well as a future one. This is explicitly taught in
Romans 8:3, where he says that God sent His Son and "condemned sin in the flesh." It
also is the obvious implication of justification by faith. Justification by faith means that
the verdict of the future judgment has moved into the present, initiating Christian exis-
tence (but without negating the future judgment according to works, as we saw earlier in
our studies).
John, on the other hand, can speak of a future judgment as well as a present.
According to John 12:43, "He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a
judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day." John 5:29 speaks
of those who will be raised "to the resurrection of judgment." In 1 John 4;17 we read
about Christian "confidence for the day of judgment." We see that both Paul and John
have an "already/not yet" theology. But in Paul's teaching the "not yet" of the judgment
involves believers, and it can lead to a negative result if Christ has not been honored in
the body. How is it with John? Do believers come into the future judgment, and
especially one with the possibility of a negative result?
Some have answered this question with an emphatic No, basing their answer upon
John 5:24 where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and
believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has
passed from death to life." While this text contains the wonderful news of an already-
accomplished movement from death to eternal life on the part of those who hear and
believe Jesus' word, several considerations show that it would be wrong to use this text
to teach that John thought believers have no relation to a future judgment.
1. The text does not say necessarily that believers do not come into
385
judgment in any sense. The Greek noun for judgment here sometimes bears the meaning
"condemnation" in John (John 3:19; 5:29; see the same use of the Greek verb in 3:17-
18; cf. Acts 13:27; Rom 14:22; and 2 Thess 2:12).
Since judgment is the opposite of eternal life in John 5:24, the text must be saying
that the believer does not come into a judgment of condemnation, meaning a judgment
which issues in condemnation. How does the believer avoid such a judgment? This
brings up the second point.
2. What makes it possible for the believer to escape a judgment of condemnation

and come into possession of eternal life is that he hears and believes Jesus' word. The
Greek words for hearing and believing are in the present tense, hence they refer to a
continuous action and not a mere one-time hearing or believing.
It is by continually hearing and believing that one continually has eternal life and
avoids the judgment of condemnation that comes upon those who have done evil (John
5:29). Deny the one reality (hearing and believing), and one necessarily denies the other
(having eternal life and avoiding condemnation). After all, does not John 3:18 teach that
he who believes in Christ is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned
already? The presence of "already" in the second half of this verse does not restrict the
meaning of this verse to the past. If a person stops believing~and John nowhere denies
its possibility—the "already" becomes operative. John 3:36 is applicable: "He who
believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey [believe in] the Son shall not
see life." Unless John operates with a once-saved-always-saved mentality, cessation of
belief must mean cessation of life. We see that eternal life is contingent upon continual
belief.
When John 5:24 uses the Greek perfect tense to picture the transfer from death to
life, this does not mean the text is talking about an irrevocable transfer that even
unbelief could not alter. The believer, as a result of transfer, is in a state of life (the
significance of the perfect tense of the Greek verb) only as long as he keeps on hearing
and believing. The text indeed talks about permanence, but not a permanence separated
from the permanence of faith.
386
In like manner, the fact that in John 10:28-29 Christ's sheep shall never perish and
no one shall snatch them from Christ's or the Father's hand is contingent upon their
hearing the Shepherd's voice and following Him. Nothing suggests that this hearing and
following are by necessity (preparing the way for the concept of the necessity or
automatic permanency of eternal life) rather than by choice.
We Are to Abide in Christ

3. Other texts in John strongly support the fact that believers can be adversely
judged. John 15 urges believers to abide in Christ and bear fruit. The branch that bears
no fruit , the Father "takes away" (vs. 2). Or in more dramatic form, "If a man does not
abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered,
thrown into the fire and burned" (vs. 6).
4. In 1 John we find several tests for the presence of life:

a. Believing in and confessing Christ (l John 2:22; 4:2-3, 15; 5:9-13).
b. Abiding in Christ (1 John 2:24-25, 28).
c. Keeping God's commandments (1 John 2:3-5, 17; 3:21-24; 4:21; 5:2-3).
d. Walking as Christ walked (1 John 2:7).
5. Doing the right and avoiding sin (1 John 2:29; 3;6-7, 10),
f. Loving one another (1 John 2:7-11; 3:11-17; 4:7-8, 11, 16-17,
20-21; 5:2-3).
g. Not loving the world (1 John 2:15-16).

These are tests of life because, according to John, by their presence or absence it is
shown that a person has or does not have life. Notice, for example, 1 John 3:14 (which
may be compared with John 5:24): "We know that we have passed out of death unto
life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death." According to
1 John 4:16-17, "he who abides in love abides in God," hence has "confidence for the
day of judgment." The implication seems obvious: He who does not abide in love can
have no confidence for the day of judgment.
In light of the larger patterns of Johannine thought, as well as the more immediate
exegetical particulars of John 5:24, we cannot conclude that for John there is no
relationship of the believer to the future judg-
387
ment. This conclusion is strengthened when one makes inquiry of John 5:28-29, a
passage that is related intimately to John 5:24. Are those who have done good here,
hence are resurrected to eternal life, those who have only believed—doing good being
equivalent to believing in John 5:24? Or are these they who have done good in
consequence of believing, the inference being that if faith has not issued in good works,
there is only a resurrection to judgment (condemnation)? Surely the second option is
best. More than likely the kind of doing of good spoken of in John 5:29 refers, at least
in part to loving other people as in 1 John 3:14, a text which, like John 5:24, speaks of
passing from death to life.
Conclusions
The main considerations of this study now have been presented. We need to be
clear: Justification and assurance of salvation are not achieved by human works or by
faith plus human works. Justification and assurance come only by the all-sufficient
work of Jesus Christ as Saviour.
But Christ our Saviour also is our Lord. Only by beholding Him and seeing the
inseparable connection between His saviorhood and lordship can we explain rightly the
relationship between Justification and judgment, faith and works. As Christ cannot be
divided, so these realities that relate to Him cannot be separated from each other.
Through the power of the Spirit faith always leads to fruit in the lives of the justified.
In His dual office as Saviour and Lord, Christ judged sin at the cross, justifies the
sinner by faith, and judges the justified by works. The cross is the means by which
justification is effected; faith is the means by which justification is accepted; and good
works are the means by which justification is manifested. Works of righteousness testify
to the reality and vitality of justification. Their absence indicates a broken relation with
Jesus.
As Saviour, Christ obeyed God for our sake; as Lord, He summons us to obey God
for His sake. As Saviour, Christ gave His life for us; as Lord, He bids us live for Him.
The more deeply one understands the riches of Christ's grace, the more He hears
Christ's call to obedience. The believer heeds the call, however,
388
not as stern obligation but as heartfelt appreciation. In the context of Christ's infinite
love, obligation ceases to be hard duty and becomes the easy yoke of Christ. The apostle
Paul captured the beautiful balance in God's salvation when he said:
"I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle. . . . But by the grace of
God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I
worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which was
with me" (1 Cor 15:9-10).
As a result of your receiving the gift of God's justifying grace, Paul's words apply to
you: "It is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all
discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and may be pure and blameless
for the day of Christ, filled with the fruits of righteousness which come through Jesus
Christ, to the glory and praise of God" (Phil 1:9-11).
The above chapter was prepared originally for the Daniel and Revelation
Committee. It is here reprinted by permission of the Adventist Review, July 21, 28;
August 4, 11, 18. 25, 1983.
INDEX
Amillennial, interpretation of, the 70 weeks chronology, 3-4, 8-13 chart of, 10
evaluation of, 10-13
symbolic interpretation, numbers not literal, 8 Anderson, Sir Robert, 14
"Anoint a most holy" (Dan 9:24), inauguration of heavenly sanctuary, 82-83
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, claims for his presence in Daniel analyzed, see vol. 1, chap. 2
Apocalyptic prophecy, not conditional unless related to covenant, 276-81

Artaxerxes I, decree of (457 B.C.), reasons for acceptance as commencement date, 49-
52, 68-74, 84-88
"Atone, to," (Dan 9:24), prophetic reference to Messiah's death, 79-80 kipper (Hebrew
word), religious meaning of, 119-27 significance in Dan 9:24, 127
Assurance, and justification, 344-52 and judgment, 352-57 Atonement, three great
periods of, in Israel, 249-53 chart of, 250
Atonement, Day of, relating to contamination/purification of sanctuary, 197-255

concluded Israel's liturgical year, 248-49 focused on culmination of plan of
salvation, 165 high priest's robes and double washings on, 246-49 how related to
daily contamination of sanctuary, 214-17 literary center of Levitical legislation, 130,
137, 149-50 position endorses transfer of sin to sanctuary concept, 131, 151-52
raises question as to when forgiveness was granted, 132-33, 164-65 relates only to
confessed sins/impurities, 164, 175-79 rites of, presupposes previous contamination
of sanctuary, 197-98 sin offering (Lord's goat\ compared with daily sin offerings,
131-32, 152-57 a corporate sacrifice, 157
Babylonian Cuneiform tablets, 100
Blood, priestly manipulation of, 188-90 defiling//cleansing function of, 229-35 OT and
NT views, care needed in comparing, 253-54
* Major contents of Selected Studies on Prophetic

Interpretation (vol. 1, DRC Series) are included in this index.
390
C
Contamination in OT, criteria for and purification of, 217-26 Chiasm, see Literary
Structure
Christ, as Saviour and Lord (gift of God/claim of God), 368-87
Chronology, interpretations of the 70 week prophecy, 3-63 basis for establishing c. of

457 B.C., 99-101 basis for establishing c. of A.D. 27, 31, and 34, 101-5
Conditionality, principle of, and Apocalyptic prophecy, 276-81 issue of, in prophecy,
258-86 little used in non-eovenantal predictions, 275 most often related to covenant
with Israel, 269-70 recent Adventist writings on, 264-68 significance of, 259-64 tension
with divine sovereignty, 271-75 theological aspects relevant to, 281-84 human freedom,
282 divine foreknowledge, 284 divine sovereignty, 282-83 Word of God, 283-84
Covenant, Sinaitic (Dan 9:27), 95 strengthened by Messiah, Sermon on the Mount, 95-
96
Cuneiform tablets, Babylonian, 100
Daniel, literary structure of, 108-115
Dan 7, exegesis of, see vol. 1, chap. 5 8-9, time-relationships between, 105-8 9:24-27,
dates of, 99-105 exegesis of, 75-118 literary structure of, 108-111 theology of, 115-18
Darby, John Nelson, 13
Dispensational, futurist, interpretation of 70 weeks chronology, 4-5, 13-25 assumptions

of, 15 begins with "decree" to Nehemiah, 14 chart of, 18 evaluation of, 19-25
gap/"church age" feature, 14 leading xponents, views and problems of, 14-25 linked
with Darby, Scofield, and Plymouth Brethren, 13
Eating of flesh, priestly ritual of, 182-88
Elephantine papyri, 100 391 F
F
Faith, justification by, assurance of, 344-r)2 relationship to judgment by works, 342-44,
357-67 Forgiveness, leads to freedom, 374-77 brings renewal, new creation, 372-73
essential meaning of justification, 375
Fulfillments, prophetic, nature of, 287-321
Futurism, interpretation of 70 weeks chronology, see Dispensational
Hands, laying on of, significance of, 168, 179-82, 238-42
Hatak (''cut off/determine"), meaning of, 107; see also vol. 2, 229-30
Hazon ("vision"), 105-6
High priest, robes of, double washing of, on Day of Atonement, 246-49
Historical-critical, interpretations of, 70 weeks chronology, 29-46 charts of, Hartman-Di

Lella, 36 Lacocque, 34 standard, 33 evaluation of leading exponents and interpretations,
30-46 impossible to harmonize with actual history, 46 Maccabean age setting, 29-30
passage regarded as non-messianic and non-prophetic, 29-30 standard interpretation of
liberal scholarship, 30
Historical-messianic, interpretation of, 70 weeks chronology, 47-63 adopted by majority

of expositors, from early Christian times onward, 47-48 arguments for accepting decree
of Artaxerxes I (457 B.C.) as starting point, 49-52, 64-74, 84-88 chart of, 55 description
of, 49-54 objections to, answered, 56-63 only schema claiming perfect correlation
between prophecy and history, 56 punctuation (Dan 9:25), Masoretie, evaluated, 52-54,
88-91
History, biblical understanding of, 295
Humanism, sanctuary doctrine offers alternative to, 332-37
I
Iniquity, to bear, meaning of, 182-87
Investigative judgment, theological importance of, 322-37 biblical basis for, 378-82; see
also vol. I, chap. 5 October 22, 1844, verification of, see vol. 1, chap. 6 parallels to, see
vol. I, chap. 1 preadvent judgment, 378-82 392
Jerusalem, destruction of (A.D. 70), prophetic references to, 97-99 Judgment, according
to works, 342-44, 357-67 and assurance, 352-57 investigative, in Dan 7, see vol. 1,
chap. 5 parallels to, see vol. 1, chap. 1 preadvent, 378-82 tension ith ustification
resolved, 357-67 theological importance of, 322-31 writings of John on, 382-86
Justification, by faith, assurance of, 344-52 Leviticus (first half) oriented to, 131, 148-
49 relationship to judgment by woyks, 338-87 tension with judgment resolved, 357-67
Kipper ("atone"), meaning of, 119-27 in Dan 9:24, 127
Leviticus, book of, chiastic format, 130, 138-47
chart of, 148
literary form affects its theology, 130-67
subject contents of, 134-38
theological insights from, 148-67
transfer of sin, in, 168-96 Literary structure, book of Daniel, chart and explanation,
112-15
Dan 7, see vol. 1, 98-115
Dan 9:24-27, 108-111; see also vol. 2. 176, 241-44, 248-51
Leviticus, book of, 130-48
Mar/eh ("vision"), 105-6 Messiah, death of, apex of Daniel's literary structure, 112-15
central focus of Dan 9;24-27, 115-18
poetic emphasis on, 110-11
Olympiad dates, 99-100
393
Perfection, distinguished from perfectionism, 158-60 Preadvent judgment, 378-82
"Prince" (Dan 9:24-27), identification of, 92-94
Prophecy, conditionality principle, 258-86 as related to Israel's covenant, 269-70 non-

covenantal Apocalyptic, not affected by, 276-81 theological aspects, relevant to, 281-84
human freedom, 282 divine foreknowledge, 284 divine sovereignty, 282-83 Word of
God, 283-84 Prophecy, fulfillments of, 287-321 Apocalyptic, 311-21 has only one
fulfillment, 320-21 Liberal scholarship, denial of, 290-95 predictions with fulfillment
statements, 295-311 OT examples analyzed, 29R-301 NT examples analyzed, 301-311
"Prophet," not "prophecy" (Dan 9:24), implies collective/corporate sense,
80-82 Ptolemy's Canon, 100 Punctuation (Dan 9:25), Masoretic, 52-53
poetic analysis rules out Massoretie bias, 88-91
Reason, its relationship to revelation, 340-42
Sacrifices, paradoxical nature of, 229-35
"substitutional interchange" principle, 233-35 Sanctification, second half of

Leviticus oriented to, 131, 148-49 Sanctuary, contamination of, "legal" and "illegal,"
171-79, 197-226
doctrine of, alternative to humanism, 332-37
heavenly, inaugurated near close of 70 weeks prophecy, 82-83
purification of, 227-55
people cleansed indirectly, 156 Seofield, C. I., and Reference Bible, 13 Seventy
weeks (Dan 9), chronological interpretations of, 3-63
amillennial, 3-4, 8-13
futurist-dispensational, 4-5, 13-25
historical-critical, 26-27, 29-46
historical-messianic, 28-29, 47-63

Seventy weeks (Dan 9), evaluation of "decrees" proposed as commencement dates, 49-
52, 64-74, 84-88
394
edict by Cyrus, 66-67
edict by Darius I, 67-68
edict by Artaxerxes I (to Ezra), 68-69
rebuilding of Jerusalem, understood (Ezra 4), 69-72
permission by Artaxerxes I (to Nehemiah), to repair Jerusalem, 72-73 Seventy weeks

(Dan 9), translation issue ("weeks" or "sevens"), see vol. 1,
74-77
Sin, confessed, transfer of to sanctuary, 150-52, 168-96, 235-46 Sins, unpardonable,

210-14
Sins/sin offerings," discussion of correct translation (Lev 16), 132, 157-64 Sin offerings,
daily and yearly, compared, 152-57
offered for uncleannesses or sins, 137 Stephen (deacon), last prophetic voice to the
Jews, 80-82
final speech in form of "covenant lawsuit" (rib), 81-82
Theology, of Dan 9:24-27, 115-18
of Leviticus, 148-67
Time elements, their distribution in symbolic prophecy, 106 Transfer of sin, to
sanctuary, 131, 150-52, 168-96
does it contaminate a "holy sacrifice"? 191-95
Works, judgment by, 342-44, 352-67, 369-78
Year-day principle, 7; see also vol. 1, chaps. 3-4

The Seventy Weeks PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Seventy Weeks PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Seventy Weeks PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Seventy Weeks,

Volume 1 Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation

Volume 2 Symposium on Daniel

Volume 3 The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of

The Seventy Weeks,

Biblical Research Institute

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Washington, D.C. 20012

Copyright 1986 by the

Biblical Research Institute

6840 Eastern Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20012

Printed in the U.S.A. by the

Review and Herald Publishing Association

Hagerstown, Maryland 21740

To the Reader ................................................ xi

I - EXEGETICAL STUDIES IN DANIEL

I. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE

SEVENTY WEEKS ...................................... 3

Amillennial and Dispensational Interpretations ....... 3

Historical-Critical and Historicist

II. COMMENCEMENT DATE FOR THE SEVENTY WEEK

III. THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL 9-.24-27....................... 75

IV. THE MEANING OF KIPPER IN DANIEL 9:24 ................. 119

V. LITERARY FORM AND THEOLOGICAL FUNCTION

IN LEVITICUS ......................................... 131

VI. TRANSFER OF SIN IN LEVITICUS.......................... 169

VII. THE DAY OF ATONEMENT AS RELATED TO THE CONTAMINATION

AND PURIFICATION OF THE SANCTUARY....... 198

Contamination of the Sanctuary.................... 198

Purification of the Sanctuary ...................... 228

VIII. CONDITIONALITY IN BIBLICAL PROPHECY WITH

PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO APOCALYPTIC ............... 259

IX. FULFILLMENTS OF PROPHECY........................... 288

X. THEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE PREADVENT

XI. AN ALTERNATIVE TO HUMANISM......................... 333

XII. JUSTIFICATION AMD JUDGMENT ......................... 339

Justification by Faith/Judgment by Works ........... 339

Christ: Saviour and Lord .......................... 369

AJT American Journal of Theology

ASV American Standard Version

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English

Lexicon of the Old Testament

CHAL A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

CHR Catholic Historical Review

COL Christ's Object Lessons

EncJud Encyclopedia Judaica

ExpTim Expository Times

GC The Great Controversy

HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society