✪ Questionable: Ps. 68:22 (?);
✪ "The treasure [Mat. 13:45-46] represents the Jews, so it is natural that the pearl [Mat. 13:45-46] would represent the Gentiles. Furthermore, the pearl comes from the sea, and the sea symbolizes the Gentile world (Dan. 7:2-3; Rev. 17:1, 15). Finally, the pearl comes from the oyster, which itself was unclean in the Law of Moses [Lev. 11:10-12] but made clean by the Law of Messiah." Ref-0219, p. 676. "Christ's inheritance is not only the Church which is the pearl of great price for which He sold all that He had, but it also includes Israel which is the treasure hidden in the field and which He purchased with His own blood and which He hid again." Ref-0224, 103. Questionable: Isa. 57:20 (?);
✪ Questionable: Isa. 33:21 (?);
✪ "It was perhaps no coincidence that Shackleton chose the following day, April 20, to gather his company to make a momentous announcement: A party of men under his command would shortly set out in the James Caird and make for the whaling stations of South Georgia. The stupendous difficulties of this journey required no elaboration to the men who had just arrived on Elephant Island. The island of South Georgia was 800 miles away--more than ten times the distance they had just travelled. To reach it, a twenty-tow -and-a-half-foot long open boat would have to cross the most formidable ocean on the planet, in the winter. They could expect winds up to 80 miles an hour, and heaving waves--the notorious Cape Horn Rollers--measuring from trough to crest as much as sixty feet in height; if unlucky, the would encounter worse. They would be navigating towards a small island, with no points of land in between, using a sextant and chronometer--under brooding skies that might not permit a single navigational sighting. The task was not merely formidable; it was, as every sealing man of the company knew, impossible." Ref-1513, pp. 132-133.
✪ Questionable: Rev. 6:6 (?);
✪ "This [Dan. 9:24] we take to mean the sealing up of God's word of prophecy to the Israelites, as part of the punishment they brought upon themselves. The word “seal up” sometimes means, in a secondary sense, to make secure, since what is tightly sealed up is made safe against being tampered with. Hence some have understood by this item merely that vision and prophecy were to be fulfilled. But we are not aware that the word “sealed up” is used in that sense in the Scriptures. For when the fulfillment of prophecy is meant, the word “to fulfill” is used. We think the word should be taken here in its primary meaning; for it was distinctly foretold, as a prominent feature of Israel's punishment that both vision and prophet — i.e., both eye and ear — were to be closed up, so that seeing they would see not, and hearing they would hear not (Isaiah 6:10)." Ref-0896, p. 16.
✪ "In [Mat. 5:1], Matthew conjures the picture of a master of the Torah who now teaches the Torah to his disciples. Jesus sits down, which, we know from later writings about rabbis, was the customary indication that serious teaching was going to commence. Indeed, taking one's seat marked the beginning of the lesson. The disciples surround him, round about, and fall silent. The scene is one of dignity and formality." Ref-0137, p. 21.
✪ Sudan
✪ "For some time, Cotton Mather and others had been on the lookout as well for the Second Coming. Given the calamities that had visited New England, it felt imminent. Witchcraft in Salem further proved that time was short; Mather calculated the golden age to be five years in the future." Ref-1406, p. 100. "The Mathers would go on prophesying the Second Coming and calculating its date, which in mid-1693 Cotton Mather promised was but a few years in the future." Ref-1406, p. 361. "While talk of evil angels quieted, the Apocalypse remained imminent. Mather forecast it for 1715." Ref-1406, p. 409.
✪ "Israel must first look unto (not upon, as in the KJV) the One Whom they have pierced and to plead for His return." Ref-0219, p. 310. "Yet the strong inference is that this humiliation would eventually yield to a glorious reversal of circumstances since Jesus continued, "For I tell you, you will never see Me again until you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!' " (Matt 23:38-39). So in this regard Alford described that day, the subject of all prophecy, when your [Jerusalem's] repentant people shall turn with true and loyal Hosannas and blessings to greet "Him whom they have pierced:" (Deut. 4:30-31; Hos. 3:4-5; Zech. 12:10; 14:8-11). Stier well remarks, "He who reads not this in the prophets, reads not yet the prophets aright."" Ref-1263, pp. 95-96 "God declares how he would withdraw from them [Hos. 5:15]. "I will go and return to my place;" when I have torn as a lion. I will go away; I will leave them in that condition. I will depart from them, and they shall see no more of me. Here God reveals what God will wait for in them before he returns to them to show them mercy. There are three things here signified. 1. That they should be sensible of their guilt. "Till they acknowledge their offense." It is in the original, "till they become guilty." That is, till they become guilty in their own eyes, till they are sensible of their guilt; in the same sense as the same expression is used in Rom. 3:19. 2. That they would be sensible of their misery, implied in the expression, "in their affliction they shall seek me." Their calamity was brought upon them, before God had torn them, and left them. But in their pride and perverseness, they were not well sensible of their own miserable condition, as this prophet observes in [Hos. 7:9]. 3. That they should be sensible of their need of God's help, which is implied in their seeking God's face, and seeking him early; that is, with great care and earnestness. Before, they would not seek God; they were not sensible of their helplessness, as we learn in the verse but one preceding the text." Ref-1289, pp. 49-50 "Jesus’ statement that “all the tribes of the earth will mourn” is best translated “all the tribes of the land will mourn” and has specific reference to the tribes of Israel that repent in connection with the Messiah’s return and kingdom. The Greek term ges (gh/j) can be translated as “earth” or “land.” Since the context of Matthew 24 focuses heavily on the land of Israel and Jesus quotes OT passages involving the gathering of Israel from foreign lands for kingdom blessings, the better understanding is that Jesus is referring specifically to the tribes of Israel and the land of Israel, and not universally to all people groups. This understanding is bolstered by the fact that Jesus quotes a cluster of OT prophetic texts that foretell a rescue of Israel after a time of scattering and persecution. His reference to “all the tribe of the land will mourn” refers to Zechariah 12:10, which speaks of Israel’s salvation as the people look unto the Messiah." Michael Vlach, Israel’s Repentance and the Kingdom of God, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 2, Fall 2016, 161-186, p. 184.
✪ "There may be a suggestion here [Acts 7:13] that a greater than Joseph, who also was not recognized by his people when he came to them the first time, will be aqcknowledged by them as their divinely appointed deliverer when they see him the second time." Ref-0653, p. 137.
✪ "Without a clear proclamaition of the second advent, Christians have no common ground on which to meet the Jew; that to spiritualize this doctrine, as many do, is fatal, since the predictions are so clear of a glorious and conquering Messiah as well as a suffering Messiah. If you spiritualize the second advent, you must allow the Jew to spiritualize the first, as he is always ready to do, and you have no basis on which to reason with him." Gordon, A.J., "Three Weeks with Joseph Rabinowitz" in A. C. Gaebelein, Hath God Cast Away His People? (New Yourk: Gospel Publishing House, 1905), p. 277, cited by 2001122201.doc, p. 31.
✪ "We are told here [Isa. 32:2] that "a man shall be a hiding place from the wind," etc. There is an emphasis in the words, that "a man" should be this. If these things had been said of God, it would not be strange under the Old Testament; for God is frequently called a hiding-place for his people, a refuge in time of trouble, a strong rock, and a high tower. But what is so remarkable is that they are said of "a man." But this is a prophecy of the Son of God incarnate." Ref-1289, pp. 156-157.
✪ "The business of searching out the mind of God where God has remained silent is dangerous business indeed. Luther put it this way, “We must keep in view His Word and leave alone His inscrutable will; for it is by His Word and not by His inscrutable will that we must be guided.”" Ref-0237, p. 52.
✪ "Most Christian commentators interpret Genesis 3:15 as the first revelation and prediction of the work of Messiah; for this reason, it is referred to by theologians as the protevangelium (‘the first proclamation of the gospel’)." Ref-0146, p. 188. "Thus He was indeed born in the Jewish people, but without, in the purely human meaning of the word, being a ‘Jew.’ As ‘God manifest in the flesh’ (1Ti. 3:16) He is super-racial, super-national, to all sinners alien by nature, and at the same time, as Redeemer of the world, for all races the Savior and Lord. Thus His virgin birth (Isa. 7:14) has to do not only with His holiness (freedom from inherited sin), but also with His word as the Savior (freedom from racial limitation)." Ref-0197, p. 110. ". . . David Kimchi even recognized [Gen. 3:15] as messianic when he wrote, "Messiah, the Son of David, who shall wound Satan, who is the head, the King and Prince of the house of the wicked." Rashi, however, interpreted Gen 3:15 naturalistically to refer to conflict between snakes and humanity . . . A few centuries later, reformer John Calvin followed Rashi's naturalistic approach, saying, "I interpret this simply to mean that there should always be the hostile strife between the human race and serpents, which is now apparent."" Ref-1272, p. 123. "It seems that the classic understanding of Gen 3:15 as the protevangelium, or the "first gospel," has eroded dramatically, even among those who hold to inspiration and inerrancy. Is the messianic interpretation really exegetically untenable? Did the author of this text intend it to be read only of the perpetual hatred between snakes and people? The trend in Old Testament interpretation is to answer these questions affirmatively." Ref-1272, p. 129. ". . . R. B. Chisholm Jr. . . . takes writers to task for espousing a messianic interpretation. He finds it “disappointing” that B. K. Waltke and C. J. Fredericks offer “the traditional interpretation of [Gen 3:15] without interacting with approaches that challenge this interpretation as being pure allegory that is unsubstantiated linguistically or contextually.”" Ref-1272, pp. 130-131n3. ". . . it is not the serpent’s seed that will be crushed by the woman’s seed after a long conflict but the serpent itself, indicating a longevity not normal for mere snakes." Ref-1272, p. 136. "Although in Gen 3:14 the Lord addresses the actual serpent, in the following verse (3:15), He appears to address the dark power animating it. I believe this is similar to the way the king of Tyre is addressed in Ezek 28:1-19 followed by an oracle against Lucifer, the anointed cherub, as the power behind the throne (cf. Ezek 28:11-19), yet with no textual indication of a change of addressee." Ref-1272, pp. 137-138. "This messianic reading of Gen 3:15 is evident in the Septuagint and the rabbinic literature of the Targumim Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofit, Onqelos and the midrash Genesis Rabbah 23:5." Ref-1272, p. 137. "Nevertheless, this curse [Gen 3:14] should not be understood as changing the actual physical condition of all snakes but more likely declaring the meaning of their normal characteristics. Thus, when God proclaimed that the serpent would crawl on its belly, it does not mean that serpents previously had legs. Rather, crawling would now forever be understood as a sign of defeat. . . . Unlike the rest of creation, when the effects of the fall are reversed, the curse on the serpent will remain forever [Isa 65:25]. In this way, the serpent will remain an eternal outward symbol of the spiritual defeat of the dark force behind the fall." Ref-1272, p. 138, 138n39. "prot-evan-gel-i-um: a messianic interpretation of a text (as Gen 3:15 RSV) presaging man's ultimate triumph over sin through a coming Savior —used as the first anticipation of the gospel" Merriam Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protevangelium] accessed 20141219. Questionable: Jer. 31:22 (?); Tit. 1:2 (?);
✪ See Messiah - line preserved. Historic evidence of Satan's attempt to thwart the Messianic promise is abundant: Cain's murder of Abel (Gen. 4:8); the pollution of the offspring of men by the "sons of God" with the "daughters of men" (Gen. 6:2); Pharaoh's attempt to kill all male Hebrews (Ex. 1:16, 22; Acts 7:19); Haman's attempt to wipe out the Jews (Est. 3:6); Athaliah, Ahaziah's mother, attempts to wipe out all the royal heirs of Judah (2Chr. 22:10); Herod's slaughter of the babes in his attempt to murder Jesus (Mat. 2:16).
✪ See seed - singular. ". . . there is an ambiguity to the term “seed” in that it can oscillate from the collective to the individual usage. Walter Kaiser writes that the word “is deliberately flexible enough to denote either one person who epitomizes the whole group . . . or the many persons in that whole line of natural and/or spiritual descendants.”" Ref-1272, p. 139. "Jack Collins has demonstrated that when a biblical author has a collective sense for “seed” in mind, he uses plural pronouns and verbal forms to describe it. However, when he has an individual in mind, he uses singular verb forms and pronouns to describe the “seed.”" Ref-1272, p. 140.
✪ See seed - plural. "In response to the lexical argument that the word “seed” [in Gen. 3:15] is limited to a collective sense, this is simply incorrect. The word can also be used with an individual meaning as well. For example, the word “seed” is used of an individual in the very next chapter (4:25) when Eve identified Seth as the particular seed (translated “child”) given in place of Abel." Ref-1272, p. 132.
✪ Four different "seeds" of Abraham are in view biblically: 1) the physical descendants of Abraham (the nation of Israel), 2) the covenant believing seed (the remnant, the "Israel of God" -- the subset of the physical seed which believe), 3) the spiritual seed which is not physical -- Gentile believers who are Abraham's seed by faith, 4) the promised Seed (singular) -- the Messiah.
✪ "According to R. Laird Harris, nowhere else is the word that is translated ‘back’ in Exodus 33:23 used ‘for the back of a person's anatomy.’ In all other instances, it means ‘back’ in the sense of direction. . . .Moses saw the afterglow of God's glory ‘behind the Lord as he passed by,’ not God Himself." Ref-0057, July/August 2001, p. 37.
✪ "Whence this distaste for the ordinary services of the sanctuary? I believe that the answer, in some measure, lies in a direction little suspected. There has been a growing pandering to sensationalism; and, as this wretched appetite increases in fury the more it is gratified, it is at last found to be impossible to meet its demands. Those who have introduced all sorts of attractions into their services have themselves to blame if people forsake their more sober teachings, and demand more and more of the noisy and singular." Ref-1324, p. 241. "The Great Commission was never intended to be an exercise in public relations." -- Alf Cengia, Standing up for the Gospel, [http://www.zeteo316.com/standing-up-for-the-gospel/] accessed 20160514.
✪ "Blessed are the inquirers who inquire not concerning the Eternal but for the Eternal." Ref-0197, p. 15.
✪ See invisible - God.
✪ Comes from two roots: salah, to pause; and salal, to lift up. Serves to connect two subjects together. Swallow today-chew tomorrow and the next day. Picture of an old cow chewing cud. "There are seventy-one instances where the word selah is used. The word selah was not actually spoken but was used as ‘a musical notation signaling an interlude or change of musical accompaniment.’" Steve Herzig, "Jewish Culture & Customs", Ref-0057, March/April 2003, p. 25.
✪ Saints = separated ones. "If we, too, are to understand the Scriptures, I believe that we must travel the path of separation from the world. Nothing more destroys spiritual intelligence than merely floating with the stream of men’s opinions and ways. . . . Nor is there any advantage greater for the enemy, short of destroying the foundations, than the mixing up of the saints of God with the world, and the consequent darkening of all spiritual intelligence in those who ought to be its light." Ref-0414, pp. 25-26.
✪ "What seems to be foremost in Paul's mind here [in the book of Galatians], and the way they would have taken him, is the morning prayer of Jewish men of the time, ‘I thank God that Thou hast not made me a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.’" Eric Peterman, Galatians 3:28 and Evangelical Egalitarianism, Ref-0055, December 2001, p. 291. "Paul further illustrates this unifying work of the Savior by referring to the fence (soreg in Hebrew) in the Herodian Temple that kept Gentiles from entering into the more sacred area of the Temple (ναος naos) whree only Jews could enter and worship." William C. Varner, "Do We Need Messianic Synagogues?", Ref-0164, 14/1 (2003):47-62(54). "The reader of Acts will remember that on Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, a riot arose in the temple because the rumour got around that he had polluted the sacred precincts by taking Gentiles into them. Gentiles might enter the outer court, which was not really part of the temple buildings proper; but they might not penetrate farther on pain of death. . . . That none might plead ignorance of the rule, notices in Greek and Latin were fastened to the barricade separated the outer from the inner courts, warning Gentiles that death was the penalty for trespass. One of these Greek inscriptions, found in Jerusalem in 1871 by C. S. Clermont-Ganneau, is now housed in Istanbul, and reads as follows: “No foreigner may enter within the barricade which surrounds the Temple and enclosure. Anyone wo is caught doing so will have himself to thank for his ensuing death.” When Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:14 of ‘the middle wall of partition’ between Jew and Gentile which is broken down in Christ, it has been thought that his metaphor was drawn from this temple barrier, which forbade Gentiles to trespass on ground reserved for Jews alone." Ref-0239, pp. 94-95. "Within the confines of the platform was the temple structure itself. It was surrounded by a low wall warning Gentiles to go no further8. Three open-air divisions lay within the temple, the Court of the Women, the Court of Israel (of the Men), and the Court of the Priests. Sacrifices and other acts of worship were conducted in the last-named area. [8] Josephus mentions this wall in Jewish Wars 5.5.2 (193-94); 6.2.4 (124-26); Antiquities 15.11.5 (417). Archaeologists have found two occurrences of the inscription. It read, “No foreigner is to enter within the forecourt and the balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his subsequent death.”" Ref-1200, p. 52. "A stone fence, the soreg, served as the main barrier which Gentiles and the ceremonially unclean were forbidden to pass. According to Josephus, it stood 5 feet 2 inches (1.57 m) high. To insure this boundary was not improperly breached, large stone inscriptions in Greek and Latin that threatened death to violators were posted at each entrance to the courts. . . . It reads, “No foreigner shall enter within the balustrade of the temple and whoever shall be caught shall be responsible for his own death that will follow in consequence [of] his trespassing.”" Ref-1326, p. 78.
✪ "The Hebrew word for Spain, Sepharad, apparently comes from the twentieth verse of the one-chapter Biblical book Obadiah. . . There it seems to refer to Sardis in distant Asia Minor. The name subsequently came to be used for the far-away western land we now call Spain." Ref-0150, p. 332.
✪ "For the Church did not, in spite of the breach with Judaism, repudiate the authority of the Old Testament, but, following the example of Christ and His apostles, received it as the Word of God. Indeed, so much did they make the Septuagint their own that, although it was originally a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ, the Jews left the Septuagint to the Christians, and a fresh Greek version of the Old Testament was made for Greek-speaking Jews." Ref-0239, p. 21. "From a Bible honoring frame of reference, there is strong internal evidence that challenges the authenticity of the existence of a pre-Christian era Septuagint or, more precisely, if such an entity had existed Jesus and His apostles did not use it. That is, there are various references in the New Testament which clearly demonstrate that the Lord Jesus referred to the Hebrew Old Testament rather than to the Greek LXX or any other version." Ref-0186, p. 15. "What is abundantly clear is that if such an entity existed, it does not necessarily follow that it read anything like the LXX preserved for us today. That is, the one at our disposal represents a very corrupted form of the LXX of their day. This is especially true if in fact the Apostles and the early church made extensive use of it as we are so often assured by nearly all theologians, for it flagrantly contradicts the Hebrew." Ref-0186, p. 17. "In addressing the question as to whether there had been a pre-Christian era Septuagint and whether the Apostles actually cited Scripture from it, Terence Brown - who was for some years Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, England and a scholar in his own right - took a Bible-honoring frame of reference (quoted from Moorman's, Forever Settled, op. cit., p. 16). Brown comments: “. . . if we observe the manner in which the Apostles refer to the Old Testament Scripture, we see a striking indication of the inspiration under which they themselves wrote. When they referred to the Septuagint, they were doing so under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Divine Author of the original revelation. Their authority is therefore higher than that of a translator.” This would have been even more especially true since there is not the slightest indication that God had called for the undertaking or in any way sanctioned the translation in question. Brown continues: “This higher authority would be manifested in three ways. Firstly, where the LXX translators were correct, the Apostles would quote verbally and literally from the Septuagint, and thus remind their readers of the Scriptures with which they were already familiar in that particular form. Secondly, where the LXX is incorrect, the Apostles amend it, and make their quotations according to the Hebrew, translating it anew into Greek, and improving upon the defective rendering. Thirdly, when it was the purpose of the Holy Spirit to point out more clearly in what sense the quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures were to be understood the Apostles were guided to restate the revealed truth more fully or explicitly. By the hands of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit thus delivers again His own inspired message, in order to make more clear to later generations what had been formerly declared through the prophets in an earlier age. By giving again the old truth in new words, the Holy Ghost infallibly imparted teaching which lay hidden in the Old, but which could only be fully understood by a later generation if given in a different form.”" Ref-0186, p. 17n2. An inconsistency with the former position of Mr. Brown is found in asking how God was providentially preserved His word for the Apostle's generation if the “familiar” (predominant) translation in use at that time was the Septuagint which is so flawed? "It is generally asserted that the LXX was the “Bible” actually used by the Lord Jesus and the Apostles and that Christ Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Greek version at times in preference to the Hebrew Bible. However one cannot even be certain that the LXX which is extant today (c.350 A.D.) represents a faithful reproduction of the c.260 B.C. original, if such a translation ever existed before the time of Christ. The irrefutable fact is that the divine oracles of the Old Testament were given to the Jews and the Jews only to both write and preserve (Rom. 3:1-3), never to the Greeks. It is therefore the Hebrew writing that is the true infallible Word of the Living God. The devastating and unanswerable question for the supporters of today's LXX is: if the Savior, the apostles and the early church used the Septuagint for their Bible, why would the true believers have ever left it and why did they return to the Hebrew Test? The answer is obvious, they would never have done so. Furthermore, why are not the early translations simply rife with readings from the LXX, moreover nearly word for word the same? Since these early works are not so constructed, it follows that if the translators of these early versions did use a Greek Old Testament, it was certainly not the one containing the many perverted readings which we have today." Ref-0186, p. 19. "The LXX was the Bible for most writers of the NT. Not only did they take from it most of their express citations of Scripture, but their writings -- in particular the Gospels, and among them especially Luke -- contain numerous reminiscences of its language. The theological terms of the NT, such as “law,” “righteousness,” “mercy,” “truth,” “propitiation,” were taken over directly from the LXX and must be understood in the light of their use in that version (cf. C. H. Dodd, Bible and the Greeks [1935]; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings [1967])." S. K. Soderlund, Septuagint, Ref-0008, p. 4:400.". . . the doctrines of orthodox Christianity were hammered out with exegetical appeals to an Old Testament that was written in Greek, not Hebrew. While no point of orthodox Christian doctrine rests on the Greek text in contradiction to the Hebrew, it is also true that the Septuagint text was the Word of God for the church in its first three centuries. Moreover, the Eastern Orthodox churches -- Greek, Russian, and Syrian -- inherited the Greek text as their Bible." Ref-0838, p. 25. "The LXX has also vitally influenced the titles, order, and number of books in the Christian OT canons (Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox). Several of the familiar titles of OT books -- especially those of the Pentateuch -- derive from the LXX rather than from the Hebrew. Likewise, the standard order of books in the Christian OT is largely a Greek rather than a Hebrew inheritance. Although it must be emphasized that the LXX MSS and the patristic and synodical lists seldom arrange the books identically (see the lists in Swete, intro, pp. 201-214), in essence the Hebrew threefold division of Law, Prophets, and Writings was replaced with the Greek fourfold division of Law, History, Poetry, and Prophets, which is apparently based on literary character and chronological sequence. Modern printed editions of the LXX follow (with slight variations) the order of books found in Codex Vaticanus. The same pattern is basically adopted in the Bibles of Western Christendom, although with certain further modifications, e.g., the Minor Prophets follow rather than precede -- as in the LXX -- the Major Prophets." S. K. Soderlund, Ref-0008, p. 4:400. "In any case, the Bible in Greek was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews, but evidently not highly regarded by some of the more strict Jews in the land of Israel. Most early Christians adopted the Greek Scriptures as their own. By the second century A.D., Jewish scholars produced their own editions in reaction to the Christians’ use of the Greek Old Testament. These editions sought to correct apparent mistranslations used by the Christians in promoting their faith and generally to conform the Greek to the Hebrew text that was most widely used in the land of Israel." Ref-1200, p. 134. "As Christianity moved out of a strictly Jewish environment, the Septuagint became the Bible of the early church. Further, it was through this channel that the Apocrypha became a part of the debates about the canon of Scripture." Ref-1200, pp. 135-136. "The quotations in the N. T. from the O. T. show the use of the LXX more frequently than the Hebrew, sometimes the text quoted in the Synoptics is more like that of A than B, sometimes more like Theodotion than the LXX.2 In the Synoptic Gospels the quotations, with the exception of five in Matthew which are more like the Hebrew, closely follow the LXX. In John the LXX is either quoted or a free rendering of the Hebrew is made. The Acts quotes from the LXX exclusively. The Catholic Epistles use the LXX. The Epistle to the Hebrews “is in great part a catena of quotations from the LXX.”3 In Paul’s Epistles more than half of the direct quotations follow the LXX. Here also the text of A is followed more often than the text of B. Swete even thinks that the literary form of the N. T. would have been very different but for the LXX. The Apocalypse indeed does not formally quote the O. T., but it is a mass of allusions to the LXX text. It is not certain that the LXX was used in the synagogues of Galilee and Judea, but it is clear that Peter, James, Matthew and Mark, Jewish writers, quote it, and that they represent Jesus as using it. In the Hellenistic synagogues of Jerusalem it would certainly be read." Ref-1236, pp. 99-100. "The only Bible known to most of the Jews in the world in the first Christian century was the LXX. The first complete Bible was the Greek Bible. The LXX was the “first Apostle to the Gentiles” and was freely used for many centuries by the Christians." Ref-1236, p. 102.
✪ See Septuagint - chronology - problems - Pierce. "One point where the LXX and the Hebrew Text differ in the Pentateuch is with regard to the ages of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs relevant to the birth of their sons. . . . It is simple to demonstrate which list is correct. The majority of LXX manuscripts give 167 as the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son, Lamech (the Hebrew reads 187, Gen. 5:25). However, if Methuselah were 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood (as recorded in the LXX), Methuselah would have been 955 at the date of the Flood. Since he lived to be 969 (the life span given in both) the LXX becomes entangled in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years! Yet Genesis 7-10 and 2 Peter 3:20 are adamant in proclaiming that only Noah, his three sons and their wives; that is, only 8 souls survived the Deluge." Ref-0186, pp. 12-13. "The LXX translators attempted to harmonize various readings of the Hebrew that seemed to be contradictory, and in doing so, they produced various readings that cannot be assembled into a coherent chronology without postulating multiple arbitrary emendations. See Edwin Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Kregel, 1983) 89-94., for a discussion of the unreliability of the LXX in chronological matters. For an example of the emendations and assumptions that are necessary when trying to use the various texts of the LXX traditions, see M. Christine Tetley, The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005) chap. 2." Rodger C. Young, Inductive and Deductive Methods as Applies to OT Chronology, Ref-0164, Vol. 18 No. 1 Spring 2007, 99:116, p. 103n15. ". . . devout Jews who translated the Old Testament into Greek in the immediately pre-Christian centuries . . . altered the dates given in the Hebrew text, apparently in an effort to smooth out the supposed inconsistencies. Josephus, writing in the first century of our era, did the same, though with results different from those of the Greek translation." Ref-0839, p. 28. "The Septuagint was at that time translated from the Hebrew. It contains a number of striking variations from the chronological data in the Masoretic Text, variations that were introduced to make possible a more harmonious pattern of the lengths of the Hebrew kings' reigns and the synchronisms." Ref-0839, p. 39. "Still another indication was the double synchronism for the accession of Ahaziah, given in one place as the eleventh year of Joram of Israel (2K. 9:29) and in another place as his twelfth year (2K. 8:25). Here we have the interesting possibility of one scribe continuing to give the year of Ahaziah's accession according to the old accession-year system, the eleventh year of Joram, and another given it according to the newly adopted nonaccession-year method, Joram's twelfth year. The valuable clue to this change found in the Masoretic Text of 2 Kings 8:25 has been lost in the Lucian (Greek) text, whose editor changed the “12” to an “11” to correspond to 2 Kings 9:29." Ref-0839, p. 58. "Wide divergencies from the Masoretic Text in the regnal data of the Septuagint and the Lucianic recension show that misunderstandings concerning dual-dating procedure already prevailed in the pre-Christian centuries. Since evidence shows that many Greek variants go back to still earlier Hebrew Vorlagen (manuscripts that are the basis of later material), the variant numbers found in the Greek in all likelihood go back to very early Hebrew manuscripts from which the Greek translations were made." Ref-0839, p. 62. For a more detailed discussion of the Greek vs. the Masoretic Text, see Ref-0839, pp. 89-94. "It must not be thought that all the variations in the Septuagint were the original productions of those who first translated Kings from Hebrew into Greek in the third century B.C., for they would have been found in some earlier Hebrew text not now extant. [Presents list of variant numbers between LXX and MT.] A careful study of these variations reveals that they are not the result of scribal errors but constitute editorial changed made with the object of correcting what were regarded as errors in the early Hebrew text." Ref-0839, p. 209. . . . ". . . it is interesting to note the specific details of the struggles early students of the Old Testament were having with the data of the Hebrew kings only a few centuries after the kingdoms had ended and very shortly after the Old Testament canon had been brought into being. In no instance is a Greek variation an improvement over the Hebrew. The fallacies of the Greek innovations may be proved by the wide divergence of the patterns of reigns they call for from the years of contemporary chronology." Ref-0839, p. 210. "Eusebius notices that there are differences in the figures in the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan texts. In general, he things that mistakes and inconsistencies are evident in the extant Hebrew text and that the Septuagint was translated from ancient and accurate copies of the Hebrew text and was therefore to be preferred. The Septuagint text used by Eusebius must have differed from that available now, however, as may be noted for example in its omission of Elon in the list of Judges. From Adam to the flood the figures given by the several texts are: LXX -- 2,242 years; Hebrew -- 1,656 years; Samaritan -- 1,307 years. . . . From the flood to Abraham, . . . the several texts give these figures: LXX-942; Hebrew -- 292; Samaritan -- 942. . . . The several totals from Adam to Abraham are therefore: LXX -- 3,184; Hebrew -- 1,948; and Samaritan -- 2,249." Ref-0840, p. 169. ". . . there were at least three systems of biblical chronology in the main biblical texts of the last few centuries B.C., namely, those of the Hebrew text, which was later standardized by the Masoretes and is normally translated in modern Bibles (the MT); that of the Septuagint, which was the Bible used in Egypt (the LXX); and that of the Hebrew Pentateuch preserved by the Samaritans. A comparative study of these concludes that the system found in the MT is original as compared with the Septuagint and that the differences in the LXX are rational alterations at points when the chronology in the MT is difficult to understand or appears to be self-contradictory; while the Samaritan system mainly follows the MT until the flood and then the LXX although with several modifications." Ref-0840, p. 195. For a comparison of chronological data from Adam to Abraham for the MT and LXX, see Ref-0840, p. 195. "That the variations in the Septuagint are due to contrivance or design, and not due to accident, is plain from the systematic way in which the alterations have been made. It is simple to demonstrate which list is correct. The majority of LXX manuscripts give 167 as the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son, Lamech (the Hebrew reads 187, Gen. 5:25). However, if Methuselah were 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood (as recorded in the LXX), Methuselah would have been 955 at the date of the Flood. Since he lived to be 969 (the life span given in both) the LXX becomes entangled in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years! Yet Genesis 7-10 and II Peter 3:20 are adamant in proclaiming that only Noah, his three sons and their wives; that is, only 8 souls survived the Deluge. Discordances of a similar nature and magnitude are found with regard to the Post-diluvian Patriarchs except that here the life spans also differ, often by more than 100 years. The Patriarchal chronology of the LXX can be explained from the Hebrew on the principle that the translators of the former desired to lengthen the chronology and to graduate the length of the lives of those who lived after the Flood so as to make the shortening of the life spans gradual and continuous, instead of sudden and abrupt. This fit into their philosophic concept of gradual and uniform change (pre “Uniformitarianism”), which philosophy embraced the basic precepts of evolution. That is, they were primeval evolutionists. Thus, the dramatic life span changes, which manifested the historic results of the sudden catastrophic transformations upon the earth and all life due to the worldwide Deluge, were altered to eliminate such positive evidence which was contrary to their religious-philosophic beliefs. The constructor of the scheme lengthens the chronology of the Patriarchs after the Flood unto Abraham's leaving Haran by 720 years. He also graduates the length of the lives of the Patriarchs throughout the entire register, both those before and after the Flood. The curious result is that with the three exceptions of Enoch, Cainan (whose life exceeds that of his father by only 5 years) and Reu (whose age at death is the same as that of his father), every one of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham is made to die a few years younger than his father. Could anything be more manifestly artificial?" Ref-0186, p. 13. "Thus, the interval from Creation to Abraham is 1306 years longer in the LXX than in the Hebrew." Ref-0186, p. 20. "That the principal divergences of both texts [LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch] from the Hebrew are intentional changes, based upon chronological theories or cycles, is sufficiently evident from their internal character, viz., from the improbability of the statement, that whereas the average duration of life after the flood was about half the length that it was before, the time of life at which the fathers begot their first-born after the flood was as late, and, according to the Samaritan text, generally later than it had been before. No such intention is discernible in the numbers of the Hebrew text; consequently every attack upon the historical character of its numerical statements has entirely failed, and no tenable argument can be adduced against their correctness." Ref-0175, 1:78 (Genesis 5). "Finally, Larsson notes that a comparison of Pentateuchal chronologies between MT and LXX reveals that LXX translators tended to alter the Hebrew text’s chronology where the text is difficult to understand or was viewed as self-contradictory. This appears to be the case at Exod 12:40, since LXX adds “and in the land of Canaan” after “in Egypt” when chronologically the Patriarchs’ sojourn in Canaan came before Jacob’s entry into Egypt. Moreover, both MT and LXX have “400 years” at Gen 15:13, making LXX Exod 12:40 likely a LXX alteration that thereby unwittingly created a conflict between LXX Exod 12:40 and LXX Gen 15:13." Ref-1307, p. 70 "The LXX puts the earth significantly older than the Masoretic: including 586 additional years before the Flood and 780 additional years from the Flood to Abraham’s grandfather, Nahor. This is mostly due to the LXX including 100 more years in the ages of various Patriarchs at the birth of their son. The LXX also includes a Patriarch named Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah in Genesis 11:13. This name does not appear at that point in the Masoretic or Samaritan Pentateuch. Most Greek texts of Luke 3:36 agree with the LXX on that point. From Terah forward, the primary date-relevant conflict is 1 Kings 6:1, in which the LXX dates the beginning of Solomon’s temple to 440 years after the Exodus vs. 480 in the Masoretic." Chris Hardy and Robert Carter, The biblical minimum and maximum age of the earth, Ref-0784 28(2) 2014, 89-96, p. 95.
✪ "1) In 20th (24th in the LXX) year of Jeroboam, Asa reigned for 41 years. [1Ki 15:9,10] 2) Baasha reacted to the defection of his subjects to Asa and started to build Ramah in the 36th (38th in the LXX) year from the start of the divided kingdom [2Ch 15:9,16:1] 3) In the 26th (omitted in the LXX) year of Asa, Elah reigned two years, part of one year and part of another. [1Ki 16:8] 4) In the 27th (omitted by the LXX) year of Asa, Zimri murdered Elah, reigned 7 days and committed suicide to avoid being killed by Omri. [1Ki 16:10,15] 5) In the 38th year of Asa, Ahab reigned for 22 years. [1Ki 16:29] (The LXX has 2nd year of Jehoshaphat instead of the 38th year of Asa.) 6) In his 39th year, Asa became diseased in his feet until he died in his 41st (40th in the LXX) year. [1Ki 15:23,24 2Ch 16:12,13] 7) In the 2nd year of Jehoram (SK), Jehoram (NK) started to reign. [2Ki 1:17] This was the 18th year of Jehoshaphat in the LXX and verse is 18 not 17. 8) In the 12th year of Jehoram (NK), Ahaziah at 22 years of age, reigned for part of a year. [2Ki 8:25,26 2Ch 22:2] In [2Ch 22:2] his age was given as 42 and it was 20 in the LXX. 9) Athaliah reigned over Judah for 6 years and was killed in her 7th year. (8th year [2Ch 23:1] and 7th year in [2Ki 11:4 2Ch 24:1] in the LXX). [2Ki 11:3,4,16 2Ch 22:12 23:1,15] 10) Jeremiah’s prophecy was in the 5th year of Jehoiakim. [Jer 36:9] In the LXX it was the 8th year in the 9th month. 11) Nebuchadnezzar at the beginning of his 8th year just before the Jewish New Year in Nisan, captured Jehoiakim. At the end of his 7th year, 3023 Jews were deported. [2Ki 24:12 Jer 52:28] Jer 52:28 was omitted in the LXX. 12) Ezekiel’s vision of Jerusalem, was in the 6th year, 6th month and the 5th day of Jehoiachin’s captivity. The LXX had 5th month. [Eze 8:1] 13) Ezekiel’s vision of Israel was in the 7th year, 5th month and the 10th day of Jehoiachin’s captivity. The LXX omitted the month and had the 15th day. [Eze 20:1] 14) In the 9th year, 10th month and the 10th day of Zedekiah’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem for 3 years. The LXX omitted the month in Jer 39:1,2. In Jer 52:4, the LXX had 9th month instead of 10th month. [2Ki 25:1,2 Jer 39:1,2 52:4] 15) In the 18th year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar deported 832 Jews. This was omitted in the LXX. [Jer 52:29] 16) Ezekiel’s vision of Pharaoh was in the 10th year, 10th month and the 12th day of Jehoiachin’s captivity, the LXX had the 12th year, 10th month, 1st day. [Eze 29:1] 17) In the 11th year, 4th month and the 9th day of Zedekiah and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, Jerusalem fell. The LXX omitted the reference to the 4th month in Jer. 52:6 and the 19th year in Jer. 52:12. [2Ki 25:3,8 Jer 39:2 52:5,6,12] 18) Ezekiel’s vision of Israel was in the 12th year, 12th month and the 1st day of Jehoiachin’s captivity. The LXX had the 10th month. [Eze 32:1] 19) Ezekiel’s vision of Israel was in the 12th year, 12th month and the 15th day of Jehoiachin’s captivity. The 12th month was supplied from the context. The LXX incorrectly had the 1st month. [Eze 32:1,17] 20) Ezekiel told of the destruction of Jerusalem in the 12th year, 10th month and the 5th day of Jehoiachin’s captivity. The LXX had the 10th year and 12th month which is an obvious transposition error. [Eze 33:21] 21) In the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan deported 730 of the remaining Jews. The LXX omitted this verse. [Jer 52:30] 22) Ezekiel’s vision of the temple was in the 25th year, 1st month and the 10th day of Jehoiachin’s captivity, in the 14th year after Jerusalem fell. The LXX correctly supplies “1st month” which was not in the Hebrew text but was clearly implied. [Eze 40:1] Of the 22 differences, seven are critical. 1,3,4,5,7,8 and 9 would throw the chronology off if the LXX was used instead of the Hebrew text. Hence our admonition is justified that the chronology must be based on the Hebrew text." Larry Pierce, "Appendix C: Ussher's Timeline for the Divided Kingdom", Ref-0222, p. C:22. [2008060101.pdf] "There are three major textual traditions for the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11: the Masoretic text (MT), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Septuagint (LXX). Comparisons of the three texts side-by-side show some important differences. The number and types of changes made to the texts by ancient scribes is most easily explained if the SP and LXX deliberately manipulated the chronological numbers in specific ways, causing date inflation and downstream chronological difficulties. Many changes are demonstrably deliberate, for they involve changing two numbers simultaneously, and all the differences occurred within the chronogenealogies themselves, not in the data for the individuals that link the two or for those that extend beyond the second. Most significantly, a single change to Jared's age when Enoch was born from 162 to 62, shared by the SP and proto-LXX, appears to have had a cascade effect, causing multiple patriarchs to be recorded as living past the Flood. The scribes involved in copying these texts were aware of the problem. The LXX translators seem to have inflated their text and left only the death of Methuselah post-Flood. The SP tradition seems to have truncated the lifespans of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech to make them all die in the Flood year. Taking the various text types into consideration, the Masoretic seems to most closely reflect the original reading in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies." Lita Cosner and Robert Carter, Textual traditions and biblical chronology, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 99-105, p. 99. "Even though it is widely acknowledged that the term ‘Septuagint' does not refer to a single monolithic entity, the various LXX texts do not have significant variants in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies." Lita Cosner and Robert Carter, Textual traditions and biblical chronology, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 99-105, p. 99.
✪ "The Pentateuch, the earliest and the fundamental part of the Old Testament Canon, was translated first of all, and, according to the letter of Aristeas, this took place during the rule of Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.). . . . The translation of the Pentateuch was followed by that of the other books. The translation of these latter was evidently the work of a great number of different hands. . . . As the prologue to the Book of Ecclesiasticus shows, there was in existence towards the end of the 2nd century B.C. a Greek translation of the whole, or at least of the essential parts of the OT. There is no reason for us to doubt that the LXX text of that period was in general agreement with our present-day LXX text." Ref-0227, p. LVI. "The LXX refers to a family of ancient Greek texts of the Old Testament. The earliest and most complete copies are preserved in the Christian ‘great uncials' Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, though there are LXX fragments dating as far back as the first century bc, and the New Testament gives many quotes of LXX passages, testifying that those particular readings date at least to the first century ad." Lita Cosner and Robert Carter, Textual traditions and biblical chronology, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 99-105, p. 99.
✪ "Many reject out of hand the Septuagint’s primeval chronology because some LXX manuscripts contain 167 for the begetting age of Methuselah, putting his death 14 years after the flood. However, other LXX manuscripts (such as Codexes Alexandrinus, Cottonianus, and Coislinianus) contain Methuselah’s correct begetting age of 187, putting his death six years before the Flood." -- 20170429175848.pdf
✪ "There are numerous examples where the writers of the New Testament follow the Septuagint translation rather than the Hebrew text. Four examples will suffice: 1) For Genesis 47:31, where the Hebrew text says “Israel worshipped as he leaned on top of his bed,” it is rendered “on top of his staff” in the Septuagint and Hebrews 11:21. 2) Where the Hebrew text of Ps.8:5 has “You made him a little lower than God and crowned him with glory and honor,” the Septuagint and Hebrews 2:7 have “You made him a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor.” 3) In Ps.16:10, where the Hebrew text has “Because you will not abandon me to Sheol, nor let your Holy One see the pit,” the Septuagint and Acts 2:27 have “Because you will not abandon me to Hades, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.” 4) “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced” in Ps. 40:6 becomes “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me” in the Septuagint and Hebrews 10:5. Here the Septuagint translators are explaining the metaphor, not just in terms of the ear, but in terms of the whole body of the LORD’s servant listening and obeying the LORD’s command." -- 20160331194951.pdf "There are some who believe the LXX preserves a superior text because the New Testament authors often quote from it. However, this is no different from an English-speaking pastor quoting from an English translation when he is preaching. The audience of the New Testament overwhelmingly spoke Greek and so it makes sense that the NT authors would use the Bible to which their audience had access." Lita Cosner and Robert Carter, Textual traditions and biblical chronology, Ref-0784, 29.2 2015, 99-105, p. 104.
✪ "In Luke 4:18, for instance, Jesus is reported to have quoted Isaiah 61:1. While this citation is textually complicated, one thing is certain: the LXX phrase “recovering sight to the blind” is used instead of the Hebrew reading, “opening of the prison to those who are bound.” The LXX reading was consistent with the healing miracles Jesus was performing. Did Jesus himself quote LXX Isaiah 61 to give prophetic fulfillment to his healing of the blind? Or did Luke see that the Greek reading was more appropriate to Jesus' ministry than the Hebrew reading? Or did Luke perhaps use LXX Isaiah simply because it was the only version of Isaiah he could read, and thus he was unaware that it was more apt than the Hebrew?" Ref-0838, p. 194. Concerning Stephen's use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:13-18, see Ref-0838, p. 194. ". . . when Paul describes the law as having been ordained through angels (Galatians 3:19; cf. Acts 7:53 and Hebrews 2;2), we should take into account LXX Deuteronomy 33:2, which speaks about the Lord's coming from Sinai σὺν μυριάσιν καδησ, ἐκ δεξιῶν ἀυτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετˊ ἀυτοῦ (“with myriads of Cades, [and] on his right hand his angels were with him”). The Hebrew text does not have the word מַלְאָךְ at all, and the last clause is very problematic." Ref-0838, pp. 199-200. "The Greek text here [Php. 1:19] is . . . a verbatim quotation from LXX job 13:16." Ref-0838, p. 200.
✪ "On that very day, at Ecbatana in Media, it so happened that Raguel’s daughter Sarah also had to listen to reproaches from one of her father’s maids. For she had been given in marriage to seven husbands, but the wicked demon Asmodeus* kept killing them off before they could have intercourse with her, as is prescribed for wives. The maid said to her: “You are the one who kills your husbands! Look! You have already been given in marriage to seven husbands, but you do not bear the name of a single one of them." Tobit 3:7-8.
✪ "This tendency in Jewish circles to see the seventy weeks fulfilled in Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 is even more strongly affirmed in the Jewish chronological work, Seder Olam Rabbah, which, according to tradition, was composed about A.D. 160 (though it may have been supplemented and edited at a later period). This work provides a chronological record that extends from Adam to the Bar Kokhba revolt of A.D. 132-135. The significance of Seder Olam Rabbah is that the chronology espoused therein became commonly accepted in subsequent Jewish writings, including the Talmud and the consensus of Jewish rabbinical scholars (e.g., Rashi, A.D 1040-1105). Seder Olam Rabbah says that the seventy weeks were seventy years of exile in Babylon followed by another 420 years until the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. The latter figure of 420 is achieved by assigning 34 years for the domination of the Persians, 180 years to the Greeks, 103 years for the Maccabees, and 103 years for the Herods. The problem of course, is that these figures are simply unacceptable to modern historians, especially the significantly low figure of 34 years for the Persians." J. Paul Tanner, Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1 Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 662 April-June 2009, 181:200, pp. 184-185. "‘Whenever we are urged to use our understanding, the meaning is shown to be mystical. But we read in Daniel this only: ‘And for half a week my sacrifice and offering will be removed, and the abomination of desolation shall be in the temple until the end of time, and the end will be given in abandonment.’ [Super solitudinem; see Dan 9:27] The apostle also said in this regard that the man of iniquity, the enemy, would rise up against everything uttered by God and would dare to stand in the temple and be worshiped as though he were God. After Satan’s work is finished, however, Christ’s coming will destroy all who raised themselves against him and will return them to the state of divine abandonment. This man of iniquity can be interpreted either simply as the antichrist, or as the image of Caesar which Pilate put in the temple, or as the statue of Hadrian the equestrian which still today stands in the Holy of Holies. Because the Old Testament normally calls the abomination an idol, the word desolation is added here to indicate that the idol shall be placed there resulting in the temple’s abandonment and destruction.’" Jerome, ‘The Abomination of Desolation,’ Commentary on Matthew 4.24.15, in Manlio Simonetti, Matthew 14- 28 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 1b. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 193. [CCL 77:225-26] cited by H. Wayne House, "The Understanding of the Church Fathers Regarding the Olivet Discourse and the Fall of Jerusalem", Pre-Trib Conference 2009, p. 19. [http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/House-TheUnderstandingofth.pdf] accessed 20100217. See 2010021701.pdf .
✪ "The ninth year of Zedekiah, which was in the seventeenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, began with the month Nisan in 590 B.C. In that year Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah and its cities, and in the tenth day of the tenth month of that year he and his army besieged Jerusalem (2K. 25:1; Jer. 34:1; 39:1; 42:4). From this time to the tenth month in the second year of Darius Hystaspes are just seventy years . . . (Zec. 1:7,12)" Ref-1507, p. 104.
✪ "[The Puritans] had for a long time taught the future conversion of the Jews, as evidenced in the annotations of Romans 11 in the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible. . .in the seventeenth century, Moses Wall sought to persuade the English Parliament to readmit Jews to England. He provided eight reasons for doing this, one of which was that God's covenant with the descendants of Abraham is not canceled; rather it is suspended and will begin to operate again in the last days. One is almost startled by a sort of ‘postponement theory’ at such an early date!" Ref-0031, p. 145. "In the third century Hippolytus placed ‘the final week at the end of the world and divides it into the period of Elijah and the period of Antichrist so that during the first three and a half years the knowledge of God is established. . .during the other three years under the Antichrist the sacrifice and offering shall cease. But when Christ shall come and slay the Wicked One by the breath of his mouth, desolation shall hold say till the end.’ (Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, 400 A.D.)." Ref-0049, p. 109. "This Hippolytus, a famed church father, was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was in turn a follower of Polycarp, the personal disciple of John the Apostle." Ref-0049, p. 133. The following is Dr. Randall Price's explanation and defense of a gap preceding the final week of Daniel's famous prophecy . . . "The sixty-ninth week has already been set off as a distinct unit comprised of the seven and sixty-two weeks. This would imply in itself that the events of the seventieth week are to be treated separately. Further, the events in verse 26-'the cutting off of Messiah,’ and of the ‘people of the prince’ -- are stated to occur after the sixty-nine weeks. If this was intended to occur in the seventieth week, the text would have read here ‘during’ or ‘in the midst of’ (cf. Daniel's use of hetzi, ‘in the middle of,’ v. 27). This language implies that these events precede the seventieth week but do not immediately follow the sixty-ninth. Therefore, a temporal interval separates the two. It is also important to note that the opening word of verse 27 (higbbir, ‘confirm’) is prefixed by the waw consecutive, a grammatical connective that indicates a close consequential relationship to a preceding verb. This use indicates that the events of verse 27 are subsequent to those of verse 26. Furthermore, the very language of these two verses, first speaking of ‘the prince [nagid, ‘leader’] who is to come’ (v. 26), and then of that prince that later comes (the ‘he’ of v. 27), implies that a separation of time exists between these events." Ref-0078, p. 86. "In the very passage involved, Daniel 9:24-27, it is indicated that there would be a time interval. The anointed one, or the Messiah, is cut off after the sixty-ninth week, but not in the seventieth. Such a circumstance could be true only if there were a time interval between these two periods." Ref-0081, p. 228. "When Knowles deals with the next major contributors -- Irenaeus (130-200) and his disciple Hippolytus (170-236) -- he describes their views as ‘undoubtedly the forerunners of the modern dispensational interpreters of the Seventy Weeks.’ Knowles draws the following conclusion about Irenaeus and Hippolytus: ?. . .we may say that Irenaeus presented the seed of an idea that found its full growth in the writings of Hippolytus. In the works of these fathers, we can find most of the basic concepts of the modern futuristic view of the seventieth week of Daniel ix. That they were dependent to some extent upon earlier material is no doubt true. Certainly we can see the influence of pre-Christian Jewish exegesis at times, but, by and large, we must regard them as the founders of the school of interpretation, and in this lies their significance for the history of exegesis.’ In fact, Hippolytus refers to a gap or, in his words, ‘division,’ multiple times. . . . LeRoy Froom grudgingly admits that ‘Hippolytus. . .arbitrarily separates by a chronological gap from the preceding sixty-nine weeks, placing it just before the end of the world.’ . . . Eusebius (270-340),. . . teaches a historial view, but he places a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks." Thomas Ice, "The 70 Weeks of Daniel", Ref-0209, pp. 350-352. "The completion of the first seven weeks is apparently related to the temple, for Clement stated, “That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras.” The sixty-two weeks them lead up to the first advent of Christ, but for Clement the final week encompasses both Nero’s erection of an “abomination” in Jerusalem as well as the destruction of the city and temple in Vespasian’s reign. Although Clement’s interpretation is essentially messianic-historical, his associating the final week with the events of A.D. 70 is significant. As Adler has noted, “Moreover, by establishing a chronology of the seventy weeks that comprehended both Christ’s advent as well as the destruction of the temple, he is the first to posit what becomes conventional in later interpretations: a presumed hiatus between the first 69 weeks, and the final week.” [Adler, "The Apocalyptic Survey of History Adapted by Christians: Daniel’s Prophecy of Seventy Weeks," in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, ed. James C. VanderKam and William Adler (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 210-16]" J. Paul Tanner, Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1 Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 662 April-June 2009, 181:200, p. 186. ". . . it was Rashi’s opinion that the destruction of the desolator at the end of the Seventieth Week was expected to be the promised King-Messiah, who would wage the final wars and the war of Gog and Magog. This accords with the futurist perspective of almost all of the rabbinic commentators that the redemption depicted for the seventy weeks was yet to be realized." J. Randall Price, Daniel's Seventy Weeks, Rabbinic Interpretation, Ref-0114, 78-80, p. 80. "One of the most striking elements of Hippolytus’s exposition of Daniel is the placement of a chronological gap between the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy . . . and the Seventieth Week (see Daniel 9:24-27). That final week he reserved for the “end of the whole world” (Christ and Antichrist, 43) and “the last times” (Appendix to Works of Hippolytus, 21); cf. 36)." Larry V. Crutchfield, Hippolytus, Ref-0114, 171-172, p. 171. "There are five major schools of interpretation surrounding the issue of Daniel’s Seventieth Week. Pretribulationists are futurists in interpreting this passage [Dan. 9:24-27]. Walvoord summarizes the other views: “In opposition to the futurist interpretation, at least four other views have been advanced: (1) the liberal view that the seventieth seven is fulfilled in the events following the Maccabean persecution just as the preceding sixty-nine sevens were; (2) the view of Jewish scholars that the Seventieth Week is fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; (3) the view that the Seventieth Week of Daniel is an indefinite period beginning with Christ but extending to the end, often held by amillennarians such as Young and Leupold; (4) that the seventieth seven is seven literal years beginning with the public ministry of Christ and ending about three and a half years after His death." Elmer L. Towns, Rapture, Posttribulational View of, Ref-0114, 349-354, pp. 353-354.
✪ See seventy years - servitude, indignation, fasts - Anstey. "Yet another period of 70 years, the 70 years of the fasts (B.C. 586-517) is referred to two years later in Zec. 7:5. The foundation of the house had been laid on the 24th day of the 9th month of the 2nd year of Darius (Hag. 2:20,15,18,20). About two years later, on the 4th day of the 9th month of the 4th year of Darius (Zec. 7:1), Bethel sent Sharezer and Regem-melech to enquire whether they should continue to fast on certain days now that the foundation of the House had been laid. In his answer to these men, Zechariah first asks (Zec. 7:5), “When ye fasted and mourned in the 5th and 7th month, even these 70 years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?” He then goes on to direct (Zec. 8:19) that “The fast of the 4th month (commemorating the city smitten on the 9th day of the 4th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah), and the fast of the 5th month (commemorating the burning of the Temple on the 7th day of the 5th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah), and the fast of the 7th month (commemorating the slaying of Gedaliah in the 7th month of the 11th year of Zedekiah), and the fast of the 10th month (commemorating the siege of the city on the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of Zedekiah), shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness and cheerful feasts.” These 70 years are not quite the same as the 70 years of the indignation referred to in Zec. 1:12. They begin with the fall of the city of Jerusalem in the 11th year of Zedekiah in B.C. 586, and they end with the 5th year of Darius. The enquiry was made in the 9th, i.e. the last month of the 4th year of Darius (Zec. 7:1) and the answer, though given immediately (in the 4th year) respecting two of the fasts, was delayed into the 5th year respecting the other two (Zec. 7 and 8)." Ref-1299, p. 236. "The 70 years of the fasts, from the fall of Jerusalem to the 5th year of Darius, B.C. 586-517." Ref-1299, p. 237.
✪ See seventy years - servitude, indignation, fasts - Anstey. "There is another period of 70 years, referred to in the Old Testament, quite distinct from the 70 years of servitude, in part coinciding with it and in part going beyond it. This is the period of the 70 years’ indignation (B.C. 589-520) which begins with the epoch of the boiling cauldron so graphically described by Ezekiel (Eze. 24:1-14), dating from the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin . . . (Eze. 24:2). This period is referred to in Zec. 1:7-12, from which we learn that it came to a close in the 2nd year of Darius. . . . To which enquiry the answer was (Zec. 1:16), “I am returning to Jerusalem with mercies, my house shall be built in it.”" Ref-1299, pp. 235-236. "The 70 years’ indignation from the 9th year of Jehoiachin’s captivity to the 2nd year of Darius, B.C. 589-520 . . ." Ref-1299, p. 237.
✪ ". . . Ezekiel 10 & 11 shows the departure of YHHW’s glory from the Temple. In Ezekiel 8 this event is dated as the 6th year of Ezekiel. By the preceding chronological evidence this is the 6th year of Ezekiel’s captivity circa. 590 BC. Really neat confirmation of this period of Divine anger is found [in] Zechariah . . . “Therefore thus saith YHWH; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith YHWH of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem” (Zec. 1:16). The second year of Darius Hystaspes was 520 BC. The 70 years of divine anger mentioned by Zechariah then began with the departure of YHWH’s glory as recorded by Ezekiel. They ended with YHWH’s return to Jerusalem “with mercies”. Notice in the text above YHWH gave a Divine commandment to restore and build the temple and Jerusalem (Zech. 1:16). This commandment to restore was also given to the prophet Haggai (Hag. 1). In Ezra 6:14 these prophecies are recorded as follows: “And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and [even] Artaxerxes king of Persia.”" -- William Struse, Comment on the Forgotten Covenant, [https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/the-forgotten-covenant-pt-2], accessed 20160314.
✪ See seventy years - servitude, captivity, desolations - Anderson. "The Servitude began in the third year of Jehoiakim, B.C. 606 (that is, the year beginning with Nisan, B.C. 606 and ending with Adar, B.C. 605). It ended in B.C. 536 when Cyrus issued his decree for the return of the exiles." Ref-0745, 22, 22n1.
✪ See seventy years - servitude, indignation, fasts - Anstey. "That it begins with the 3rd year of Jehoiakim is clear from Jer. 25:1-12 with Dan. 1:1. That it ends with the 1st year of Cyrus is clear from 2Chr. 36:22. . . . In issuing this proclamation, Cyrus says (Ezra 1:2) :-- “The Lord God of Heaven hath charged me to build Him a House at Jerusalem.” This is a reference to the prophecy of Isa. 44:28-45:13. . . . The whole of the prophecy is not quoted in Ezra 1:2, but enough is quoted to enable us to identify it, and to learn therefrom that the will of God concerning Cyrus had reference to the building of the city as well as the building of the Temple. Also Daniel’s prayer based on the prophecy of Jeremiah respecting this period of 70 years has reference to “they city Jerusalem,” as well as to “they sanctuary that is desolate,” and ends in the plea “for they city and they people are called by they name” (Dan. 9:16-19). We may therefore identify “the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem” (Dan. 9:25) with the commandment issued two years later by Cyrus in which mention is made of the House as the central feature of the city, but in a way that implies the restoration of the city as well as the rebuilding of the walls." Ref-1299, p. 235. "The 70 years’ servitude, from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim to the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 605-536." Ref-1299, p. 237.
✪ See seventy years - servitude - Anderson. "The failure to distinguish between the several judgments of the Servitude, the Captivity and the Desolations, is a fruitful source of error in the study of Daniel and the historical books of Scripture. And it is strange that the distinction should be ignored not only by the Critics, but by Christians. Because of national sin, Judah was brought under servitude to Babylon for seventy years, this was in the third year of King Jehoiakim (B.C. 606). But the people continued obdurate; and in B.C. 598 the far severer judgment of the Captivity fell on them. On the former capture of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar left the city and people undisturbed, his only prisoners being Daniel and other cadets of the royal house. But on this second occasion he deported the mass of the inhabitants to Chaldea. The Jews still remained impenitent, however, in spite of Divine warnings by the mouth of Jeremiah in Jerusalem and Ezekiel among the exiles; and after the lapse of another nine years, God brought upon them the terrible judgment of “The Desolations,” which was decreed to last for seventy years. Accordingly in B.C. 589, the Babylonian armies again invaded Judea, and the city was devastated and burned. Now both the “Servitude” and the “Captivity,” ended with the decree of Cyrus in B.C. 536, permitting the return of the exiles. But as the language of Daniel 9:2 so plainly states, it was the seventy years of “The Desolations” that were the basis of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. And the epoch of that seventy years was the day on which Jerusalem was invested—the tenth Tebeth in the ninth year of Zedekiah—a day that has ever since been observed as a fast by the Jews in every land. (2 Kings 25:1.) [cf. Eze. 24:2] Daniel and Revelation definitely indicate that the prophetic year is one of 360 days. Such moreover was the sacred year of the Jewish calendar; and, as is well known, such was the ancient year of Eastern nations. . . . Now seventy years of 360 days contains exactly 25,200 days; and as the Jewish New Year’s day depended on the equinoctial moon, we can assign the 13th December as “the Julian date” of tenth Tebeth 589. And 25,200 days measured from that date ended on the 17th December 520, which was the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month in the second year of Darius of Persia—the very day on which the foundation of the second Temple was laid. (Haggai 2:18, 19 . . .) Here is something to set both critics and Christians thinking. A decree of a Persian king was deemed to be divine, and any attempt to thwart it was usually met by prompt and drastic punishment; and yet the decree directing the rebuilding of the Temple, issued by King Cyrus in the zenith of his power, was thwarted for seventeen years by petty local governors. How was this? The explanation is that until the very last day of the seventy years of “the Desolations” had expired, God would not permit one stone to be laid upon another on Mount Moriah." Ref-0762, x-xii.
✪ See seventy years - fasts - Anstey. See seventy years - servitude - Anstey. See seventy years - indignation - Anstey. "We have therefore three periods of 70 years to help us in determining the Chronology of this period :— 1. The 70 years’ servitude, from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim to the 1st year of Cyrus, B.C. 605-536. 2. The 70 years’ indignation from the 9th year of Jehoiachin’s captivity to the 2nd year of Darius, B.C. 589-520, and 3. The 70 years of the fasts, from the fall of Jerusalem to the 5th year of Darius, B.C. 586-517. The first period of the 70 years’ servitude enables us to bridge the gulf between the 1st year of Evil-merodach and the 1st year of Cyrus. Here we have the names of some of the monarchs who reigned during these years, Evil- merodach, Darius the Mede and Belshazzar, but not the number of the years they reigned, and consequently no connected, continuous Chronology. The Chronology, is however, given in the Babylonian clay tablets, the true interpretation of which is in entire agreement with the Chronology of the Old Testament. The second period of the 70 years’ indignation enables us to bridge the gulf between the 3rd year of Cyrus and the 2nd year of Darius. The third period of the 70 years of the fasts duplicates and corroborates the Chronology of the second period of 70 years. Here again we have the names of the monarchs who reigned during these years, Cyrus, Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, but not the number of the years they reigned, and consequently no continuous, connected Chronology. In either case the gulf is bridged over and the chronological connection is maintained by means of these long numbers." Ref-1299, p. 237.