The People of the Prince, the Coming One (3 of 4)

.

The Prince That Shall Come

So, what about this “prince that shall come”? The cat has already been let out of the bag somewhat with regards to whom this individual is. But Charles Boutflower, in his commentary on Daniel, makes a remarkable observation concerning this coming prince which we will soon just see. I say “remarkable,” because the Jews were in anticipation of the coming Messiah, the Prince—the coming Prince and Ruler heralded by Micah in chapter five, verse two (cf. also Mat. 2:6), and “the Coming One” who would take his seat on the throne of David and rule and reign over all the kingdoms of men.

The Hebrew word nagid used for “prince” here in Daniel, in verses 25 and 26, is also used of chiefs among Israel’s officials, for nobles, as well as for “princes.” It was also used as an early title for Saul as the first king of Israel in 1Sam. 9:16 (translated “prince” or “ruler” in many trans.), and for many of Israel’s kings thereafter (2Sam. 7:8;1Kin. 14:7;1Chr. 28:4). And it was a word used to describe foreign kings as well (Psm. 76:12; Ezk. 38:2). Christ is likewise often referred to as a “Prince” in the Scriptures (Isa. 9:6; Acts 3:15; 5:31; Rev. 1:5, KJV).

In Mat. 2:6, referred to above, the cognates of the Greek Septuagint's “Hegoumenou/ Hegoumeno” (for “prince”) that are used to translate the Hebrew word “Nagid” in Dan. 9:25 and 26, are used by Matthew to speak of the “princes” of Judah (the “hegemosin”) and of Christ Himself (the “Hegoumenos,” or “Governor” in KJV), and reads as such in the NIV:

But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers [hegemosin, “princes”] of Judah; for out of you will come a Ruler [Hegoumenos, “Prince”] who will be the Shepherd of My people Israel. (Mat. 2:6)

What is also of interest here, is that the Greek Septuagint uses the Greek “arkonta” (for “Prince” or “Ruler”) in its translation of Micah 5:2 (which is also used of Christ in the new testament in Acts 3:15; 5:31 and Rev. 1:5), whereas Matthew uses the Greek “Hegoumenos” in his translation of Micah 5:2 from the Hebrew. Evidently Matthew thought “Hegoumenos” to be synonymous with “arkonta,” with both referring to Christ. And what this clearly intimates to us here is that it is no stretch of the imagination to say that the “Hegoumenous” in Daniel is quite likely the same “Hegoumenous” mentioned by Matthew, and of no doubt the “arkonta” of Micah 5:2. This “Prince” or “Ruler” is indeed the One who was known by all as the long Expected One, or the Anointed Coming One that was to appear unto Israel as their “Messiah, a Prince” (or Ruler). Don't believe me? Let's read on.

While in prison, John the Baptist sent two of his disciples to ask of Jesus, “'Are you the Coming One, or is there another that we are to expect?” (Lke. 7:20, WEY trans.). The NAS says, “Are you the Expected One…?” The margin in the NAS reads, “lit., Coming One.” In the Greek it is: “Are You O Erkomenos?” (pronounced, “ho erkomenos”). This is significant for us to understand here. The Jews knew of, and were expecting, a “Coming One” announced in their OT Scriptures who would be none other than the Messiah, the Prince of all princes. And when Christ entered Jerusalem in His triumphal entry, the people acknowledged the Messianic Psalm that bespoke of this “Coming One,” exclaiming, “Blessed is He Who Comes in the name of the Lord” (118:26), which literally reads in both the Greek New Testament and the Greek Septuagint as, “O erkomenos”, or “the Coming One.” And here in Psalm 118, this is the first time that the Greek is written this way to introduce a “Coming One” as a proper name for an individual, and not just as a verb, as is noted by use of the use of the definite article “ho” placed before “erkomenos.” In Luke 19:38, Luke takes this Messianic Psalm of Jesus as “the Lord” coming, and writes: “eulogēmenos ho erkomenos ho basileus en onomati kuriou,” or, literally, “blessed [is] the Coming One, the King, in the name of the Lord.” This notation by Luke is extremely significant for us to realize here as we will soon just see. Elsewhere in the NT, Jesus is also referred to as: “the Messiah, the Coming One” in John 4:25; “the Prophet, the Coming One” in John 6:14; and “the Messiah, the Son of God, the Coming One,” in John 11:27.

John MacArthur once wrote an article on this phrase entitled: Are You The Coming One?” It can be accessed online at his website called Grace To You (gty.org). But John MacArthur never quite caught on to the fact that when the Septuagint translation uses the Greek word (ho erkomenos) for the coming of Messiah throughout the OT Scriptures―and even as used in the NT Scriptures―that he overlooked the fact that this word was also used of Christ as, “the prince that shall come,” in Daniel 9:26. John MacArthur missed this important usage in Daniel, because instead of seeing this “Prince” as the Christ (or Messiah), he has mistakenly viewed him as the antichrist. John's a priori theological bias blinded him to the realization that this “Coming One” is none other than the Christ, not an antichrist. Clearly this phrase (“the coming one”) is reserved unequivocally and without question in the Scriptures, in contexts which have to do strictly with the Messiah, to none other than Jesus himself.

So it is along these lines of thought, that Charles Boutflower makes his “remarkable” observations that I hinted on earlier in these pertinent passages in Daniel:

“…of the Prince that shall come”: lit. according the Hebrew usage, “the Prince, the Coming One,” Nagid habba[1]…..is to be identified with “Prince Messiah” in the previous verse. The picture there is of Christ coming to save; here, of His coming to inflict judgment. This, then, is one of the passages [along with Psm. 118:26 and Hab. 2:3] from which Messiah appears to have received the appellation “the Coming One.” “When John heard in the prison the works of Christ,…he sent by his disciples and said unto Him, Art thou he that cometh?”—better, “Art thou the Coming One?”—Gr. o EpXomenos=Heb. habba—“or look we for another,” a different person? John seems to have doubted for the time being whether the Coming One and the Messiah were one and the same person….The thought of the Messiah was associated with works of mercy and love….: [whereas] the thought of the Coming One, with the sterner work of justice and judgment. Could it be then [in John’s mind] that they were two different persons? This passage in Daniel might seem at first sight to lend itself to supposition, seeing that Mashiach Nagid comes to suffer, whilst Nagid Habba comes to inflict judgment. In this connection it is noticeable that in Heb. 10. 37..."the Coming One" [see AMP. Bible], is actually used of Christ’s coming to put an end to the Jewish state and polity [to judge them for their persecution of the saints]. The passage is an adaptation of Hab. 2:3 in the LXX version, and runs thus: “For yet a very little while, he that cometh”—or better, “the Coming One”—“shall come, and shall not tarry.” To this part of Daniel’s vision our Savior refers in the parable of the marriage of the King’s Son, Mat. 22:7: “But the King was wroth; and He sent His armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city”….The Lord refers precisely to this passage in Daniel…As at chap. 24:15, He…“sent forth His armies,” which corresponds to “the people of the prince that shall come” in Daniel….Just when Messiah the Prince appears as the Messiah cut off, He comes as the Prince to destroy the city and sanctuary. The Romans as hostile hosts, serve the Judging Lord and God of Israel, as angels [messengers] of judgment….[Even] the character of [Stephen’s] preaching as described by his enemies is suggestive that he not only understood the details of Daniel’s vision, but that it gave the tone to his public addresses: “We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place” [Acts 6:14]—compare [with] v. 26 [in Daniel], “the people of the coming Prince shall destroy the city and sanctuary”;—“and shall change the customs that Moses delivered unto us”—compare [with] v. 27 [in Daniel], “In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.” [2]

Commentator Leupold agrees with Boutflower’s keen analysis on “the Coming One.” He writes,

Israel does not appear to be utterly in the dark as to who [the ruler in v. 26] was to be expected, for a participial modifier follows with the article habba’, “the one that is to come.” [3]

But then for his own private reasons, Leupold rejects the idea that this “one that is to come” is the Messiah. Again, he writes,

The mashi(a)ch nagidh used in the preceding verse [v. 25] cannot be referred to because the important feature of that double expression was the first word, “Anointed One.” This “prince” [in v. 26] has no anointing. [4]

But Leupold entirely misses the point here. Even if this prince were an evil king or antichrist, as he mistakenly with many others assumes, then this individual would have no power unless it were given to him from above (cp. Jhn. 19:11). And in Isaiah 45, Cyrus, the ungodly king of Persia, is said to actually be an “anointed one” by God no less (v. 1). In other words, Cyrus received his ability and kingship directly from God. It was only because of the Lord’s “anointing” upon Cyrus that Cyrus could do what he did. Of course, this “anointing” didn’t make him holy. It only “consecrated” him for the purpose in which God had called him to. All in authority are “anointed” by God as such. Romans 13 establishes the fact that they are all God’s “servants,” enabled or empowered by Him to do what they are doing, and they bear not the sword in vain. So, could such an “anointing” be any less true of Jesus who is also a Prince or Ruler? And even more so than such individuals as Cyrus? Leupold’s argument based upon the absence of the word “anointed“ before “the ruler” in verse 26 proves nothing. All rulers are “anointed” by God to do their task at hand. All Leupold really does here is buttress the fact that this “ruler” is called “the Coming One,” which is a very significant admission and pertinent to our study here. And according to the analogy of Scripture, it was a term that the early Jews in Jesus’ day understood of their coming Messiah, an “Anointed One, a Prince,” no less mentioned in verse 25. If you want an “anointing” before the word “Prince,” then there you have it in verse 25! In verse 26, this “anointed” “Prince” is now further described as “a Prince” who is also “the Coming One.” Let all other voices to the contrary be silenced.

As Boutflower noted above, the Hebrew “habba” is synonymous with the Greek “ho erkomenos.” Like the Hebrew verb “ba” (or “come”) attached with the Hebrew definite article “ha” (or “the”), habba and ho erkomenos (also, “the coming”) thus become nouns, or names, that are descriptive terms of a certain individual that is known to be coming. I can’t speak for all languages, but I do know this to be true in the Hebrew, Greek and English languages. Even in English, the screen actor Jet Li played the leading role in the title of the film called: “The One.” Keanu Reeves was “the One” or “the Coming One” in all the Matrix trilogy films. In the April, 2011 issue of R. C. Sproul’s, Tabletalk, it has an article that emphasizes the Messiah as: Not one of, but the One. This topic of Christ/Messiah as “the One” who is repeatedly referred to in the Old Testament, permeates April's issue of TableTalk. For example, Kevin DeYoung writes:

You may think you are saying very complementary things about Jesus when you call Him [just] one of the prophets, a great man, or an enlightened teacher, but you’re not actually complementing Him at all….By not saying what is most important and most unique, you’re actually saying something very misleading. When it comes to identifying Jesus, partial truths that miss the biggest truth end up telling a lie. True, Jesus is a prophet…But…He is not merely one of the prophets. He is the One to which all the other prophets were pointing” (pp. 51-52).

Again, DeYoung writes, “…if you say Jesus is only one of [many] and not the One, you haven’t understood Him. You don’t see who He really is. He is the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Ibid, brackets and emphasis mine).

This definite article “the” plays a big role in describing the Messiah as not just being anyone, but “the One” in which every Jew was in anticipation of. The Messiah was to be the Anointed Coming One of all anointed ones, bar none!

We can see the importance of the usage of this word in our everyday language by the fact that “a sting” can become “the sting” that you do not want to get from “the stinger” of all stingers; someone who is “a mover” can become “the mover” that everyone knows about and wants to use; “a ride” can be “the ride” of a lifetime that everyone knows of and remembers; “a house” can become not just any old house, but “the house” that everyone wants to have; “a king” is not just any king, but “the king” that everyone is familiar with; “a book,” that can be just any old book, now becomes “the book” that everyone must read and is known about; “an elder” becomes “the elder” that everyone is talking about; “a seed” becomes not just any seed, but “the Seed” which is Christ; and so on and so forth.

One more example should suffice: The original Hebrew term in the OT for the name Satan has become a noun from the verb meaning primarily to, “obstruct, oppose,” as it is found in Num. 22:22, 1Sam. 29:4 and Psm. 109:6. And the Hebrew definite article “ha” + satan is traditionally translated as “the Accuser,” or “the Adversary.” The definite article “ha” (as in English with the word “the”), is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a particular being that is known, rather than it being descriptive of just anyone. Thus, in English, this being in the Hebrew would be correctly transliterated as “the Satan.” In English though, we leave out the definite article “the” and just capitalize it with the capital “S” so that all who are acquainted with English know that we are talking about a particular subject and an individual who is known by all here. Ha + Satan with the definite article occurs three times in the Hebrew OT: Job 1-2; 1Chr. 21:1 and Zech. 3:1.

Once we have established that this coming is the coming of a particular individual which was clearly established and recognized by the Jews in Psm. 118:26, then, as in Hebrew, so too in English these verbs take on a nounal form. And with all things being equal, “Like English, [Hebrew] nouns can be either definite or indefinite. For example, ‘a king’ is indefinite while ‘the king’ is definite—the reader knows which king.”[5] This “prince” is not just anyone coming, but “the coming [one].” He was an indefinite “prince” (lit., “a prince” in both vv. 25, 26), but “a prince” no less who was definitely understood as “the long Expected One,” or “the Coming One”—and an “Anointed” One at that. He is the Hebrew’s “Mashiach” (or “Messiah”), the Christ, which many so–called Jews today, and some in the past, are saying was Cyrus in Daniel 9:26, the Lord’s “anointed” ruler referred to in Isa. 45:1. I tell you, once an unregenerate Jew (or even a born–again unenlightened Jew) gets a hold of the Scriptures, there is just no telling what they will say or do with them. And yet we still have Christians today no less who would rather listen to how they understand and interpret the Scriptures, rather than letting God teach us what is Truth. And we even have Christians today lending financial support to support Zionism and the rebuilding of the natural Jews city and temple as if God were still behind such building programs. It’s a travesty to the Truth as taught by Christ and His apostles, and it is an embarrassment to Christianity. In the end, it is a “transgression” that is to be judged by God for all of these idle words and ideals that have been upheld or spoken (see Mat. 12:36 and Gal. 2:18).

If Leupold, and many others in the same boat with him, would have linked this Hebrew phrase “the coming one” with the Septuagint translation’s rendering of it, and then looked at it from the Greek New Testament writer’s perspective, then he, and others like him, would not have been so quick to assume that the Jews were in expectation of an individual called “the Antichrist,” or even less, the "little horn" of Daniel 7. If this were the case, then we would have expected for John to have understood by asking of Jesus, “Are You the Coming One,” as if he should have really had asked, “Are You the Antichrist, or should we expect another?” The Jews were in “expectation” of a "Coming One" alright, but not an “Antichrist” figure, and definitely not as the “little horn” of Daniel 7!

The woman at the well had said to Jesus,

I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming [Gk., ho erketai; lit., “the Coming One”]. When He comes, He will explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I Who speak to you am He [Gk., eyo eiui ho lalwn soi; lit., I am the One speaking to you. (NIV)

Could anything be more clearer? Jesus told the woman at the well that “He” was the Expected One, “the Coming One”—“I am He!” And Christ is the same “He” that was sent by God to “confirm” and cut the new covenant with “many” for one week no less in Mat. 26:28 and Daniel 9:27, by His being “cut-off” through the shedding of His blood.

J. C. Ryle, after commenting on Lke. 7:19 that Christ is to be understood there also as “the Coming One,” applies the same thoughts to these words of the woman at the well described above. He writes,

The view now set forth is maintained by Hilary, Augustine, Crysostom, Theophylact, and the great majority of the best commentators. [He that should come.] This expression might be rendered more literally, ‘the Coming One.’ It seems to have been an expression specially applied to the Messiah. John. 4:25, and 11:27. Chemnitius says, that the word in Hebrew signifies not merely one who comes to a place, but one who comes to an office, and occupy a position. [6]

Similarly, of the Greek “ho erketai” noted above, Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek lexicon validates that this Greek wording here, which is a derivative of the root erkomai, and akin to erkomenos, that it is an expression used “especially of the Messiah, Lke. 3:16; Jhn. 4:25; 7:27, 31, who for this reason (on the basis of passages like Psm. 117 [118]:26; Hab. 2:3; Dan. 7:13, Theod.) is called ho erkomenos, Mat. 11:3; Lke. 7:19f; Heb. 10:37 (Hab. 2:3)…” [7]

Now the question that is also often raised is: “How can the subject of verse 26, “the people,” that are said to destroy the city and sanctuary, and are the Roman armies no less in 70 AD., be the “the people” of the Messiah who is the Prince or Ruler? Can they honestly be said to be His armies that were to destroy Jerusalem and the temple? Rest assured that the Scriptures are replete with such examples of God using and sending ungodly nations upon other nations to mete out His judgments, including upon the nation of Israel, and also calling them “His armies.” And you will see this in part four.

To be sure, the very testimony of Christ on all of this should silence all who would oppose such a notion. In the Parable of the Wedding Banquet, Jesus tells the chief priests and Pharisees who paid no attention to Him, mistreated His servants, and even killed them: “The king was enraged. He sent His armies and destroyed those murderers and burned their city” (Mat. 22:7). Should there be any doubt as to what He was talking about? Just earlier in the Parable of the Tenants, He says of these same individuals who even killed the Son, “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard COMES, what will He do to these tenants?” The listeners standing by replied, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” (21:40-41). And verse 45 says of these chief priests, Pharisees, and elders who were listening, “they knew He was talking about them.”

In the Parable of the Ten Minas, Christ similarly says to these same individuals, “But those enemies of Mine who did not want Me to be King over them—bring them here and kill them in front of Me” (Lke. 19:27). How was He going to do this? Again, later in verses 43-44, Christ says, “The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” This was no less done by these Roman armies in 70 AD, and with Christ no less at the helm leading them all, as God everywhere claims in the Scriptures that He does. They were His armies no less that He used to mete out His judgments upon these Christ rejecting Israelites. Jesus was only affirming what all the testimony of the OT Scriptures had already affirmed: That the Father, via His currently exalted and enthroned Son as King of kings and Lord of lords, through the power of the Holy Spirit, would overthrow the people and the city using the Roman armies with their swords as “His armies.” What could be more clearer for us than all this?

When Stephen was no less persecuted by the same Jews as Jesus was persecuted by, these individuals had claimed through false witnesses, “We have heard him [Stephen] say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us” (Acts 6:14). Now there was nothing “false” about this testimony of Stephen’s. Such “false witnesses” were not always raised up to claim as “false” what others in and of themselves had truly believed in and had stated as true. But the very words from those being accused were often used against them, by turning them around as evidence against them. In this particular case, Stephen was making claims that were true. But the Jews did not believe this (after all, Jesus to them was dead), so they used Stephen's own words against him in order to judge him according to their own understanding of how things were to be. As such, Stephen's words became a “false” testimony or witness against him. Again, what was “false” about their testimony was not Stephen’s words, but how they misunderstood and misappropriated what he had said, as a testimony against him, and in order to condemn him. Because of their ignorance as to what God was really going to do, they “falsely” made claims about what they thought should or should not happen. In other words, they turned Stephen's true testimony against him as if it were false. But it was their testimony that was “false,” not his. And thus the reason for the term “false witnesses” as being ascribed to them.

F. F. Bruce has some excellent commentary with regards to this idea of the Jews sometimes using false witnesses in this way. This brief statement by him below encapsulates all that he has to say with regards to this idea,

…the falseness of their testimony consisted not in wholesale fabrication but in subtle and deadly misrepresentation. [8]

Lenski adds,

…no effort is made to understand what the person charged actually said, and what his words really mean, but only to use his words against him….The devil knows no other way than to lie and pervert and interpret in the worst fashion what has been said well and properly. [9]

For example, in Mat. 26:61, the false witnesses said of Jesus, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’” Jesus, indeed, in understanding His body to be God’s temple, had said that if they destroyed it, that He would raise it up in three days (Jhn. 2:19). And except for the words “of God,” everything these false witnesses said of what Jesus had said, was true! But because of their misunderstanding and misappropriation of His words, they thought He was referring to the literal temple. They were using Jesus’ own true testimony about Himself, as a testimony against Him. But they were “false witnesses” in that they misappropriated what He had said in order to use His own statement against Him, and to condemn Him as someone that should not be believed in. Of course, there were some wholesale fabrications of what Jesus had indeed said, such as in Mark 14:57-58, but because many of these false witnesses could not agree with one another’s statements the Sanhedrin could not charge Jesus with any false claims (see vv. 56, 59).

In Stephen’s own particular case, they were taking his own words and saying that such claims were false. They were false witnesses, not him. As I said before, how could Jesus according to Stephen “destroy” the temple and “change the customs of Moses handed down” to them, if, according to the Jews' understanding, Jesus was dead? In their minds, for anyone to make such claims was absolutely ludicrous, blasphemous, and only the words of an insurrectionist at best who was worthy of death. I have even heard some dispensationalists argue with regards to Christ being the Prince of the people in Dan. 9:26: “How can He be? He’s just been 'cut-off' (or killed) earlier in verse 26?” Are they serious? You bet they are! And they are just as guilty no less of making the same mistake as the Jew’s in Stephen’s day who falsely accused him of making, according to their own carnal analysis, an absolutely preposterous and absurd claim.

The question raised by Christian brethren today, no less, of whether or not Jesus made such statements about the desolation of the temple shouldn’t even be raised. And the argument that He prophesied about the temples desolation, but wasn’t in any way responsible for it occurring, is absolutely unwarranted, as has been already demonstrated earlier—and as we will soon further see in part four.

Indeed, God, in Christ, through His Holy Spirit is truly behind the scenes of all the worlds events that occur. He says to this one, “go” and he goes; and to that one “come” and he comes, and no one can stay His hand or say to Him “What are you doing?” The first two chapters in the book of Job, and even 1Ki. 22:19–22, clearly portray who is the controlling factor in all the events that occur in the world throughout history. It is God! Indeed Proverbs even says, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He [God] turneth it withersoever He will” (21:1 KJV). Even Herod, Pilate, and the Jews could only do what God’s purpose and will had determined beforehand to be done with regards to Christ being crucified (cf. Act 2:23; 4:27–28). And Jesus told Pilate the same thing in John 19:11.

Even Satan’s statement to Christ in Luke 4:6 that the kingdom’s belong to him, and that he gives them to whomsoever he wills, is an absolute lie. The above chapters in Job and 1Kings 22 alone should settle the matter that this statement of Satan's just wasn’t true. And if that were not enough, it is even Jeremiah who affirms that it is God who gives the kingdoms to whomsoever He wills, not the other way around (cf. Jer. 27:5; see also Job 12:16, 23; 24:22–24; 34:29; 1Chr. 29:11–12; Psm. 22:28; 24:1; 47:7–8; 50:12; 75:6–5; 106:41–42; 135:6; Dan. 2:21; 4:17, 25, 32). Any statements that argue to the contrary, need to be reevaluated in the light of all of these verses above.

In getting back to the statement asserted by Stephen, we discovered that Christ indeed had said that “the King” would send “His armies,” destroy “those murderers” and “burn their city.” And furthermore, “those enemies of Mine who did not want Me to be King over them—bring them here and kill them in front of Me.” And so to speak of God as King, is to speak of Christ as King; the two are one and the same. To argue otherwise is to rob Christ of His deity, undermine the doctrine of the Trinity, and undermine Christ's sovereignty as the King of kings and Lord of lords. To speak of One in the Trinity as doing something, is to understand that all three persons in the Triune Godhead are doing it all together in unison. There is no conflict of interest between them. They all move towards the same intent and purposes with unity of thought and action.

But what about Jesus changing the customs? Let’s consider the fact that He said He was the “Lord of the Sabbath.” He created it. And He could abrogate it if He so pleased! And this is exactly what He eventually did do. But if that won’t do for some Christian sabbatarians, then let us consider what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem….a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks” (Jhn. 4:21-24). By this time, Jesus was already intimating a change in the customs of Moses. And according to Heb. 7:12, “with a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.” Jewish “customs” and practices were indeed “changed.” It was all mandated at the cross by Christ, and eventually realized in the destruction of “those murderers” and the burning up of “their city.” God’s former temple, now became their temple that was to be left unto them desolate! (Mat. 23:38). God now dwells in temples made without hands. Previously, the Lord had required all Jews to gather for worship with their sacrifices at the place of God’s choosing, which was eventually at the temple at Jerusalem (cp. Deut. 12:4-5; 26:1-2). But now, in Christ, all true worshippers of God would no longer be required to worship at Jerusalem, but everywhere in the world, in spirit and in truth.

So, with all that has just been said, I too must concur with F. F. Bruce and others of like-mindedness, that the statement that was said of Stephen that Christ would destroy the temple and change the customs of Moses, was indeed all true!

Click here for part four.



Footnotes:

[1] In the LXX, the translation for “Nagid, Habba” is tw hegoumenw, tw erkomenw, or “the Prince, the Coming One.” “Tw” is the dative form of the article “the,” while “ho” is the nominative form. Either way it makes no difference, they are both translated “the” in English.
[2] In and Around the Book of Daniel, by Charles Boutflower, pp. 194-195, 197. Bracketed words mine.
[3] Exposition of Daniel, p. 428.
[4] Ibid.
[5] http://ftp.gac.edu/~avaughn/REL120/Textbook/Hebrew_chap02_new.pdf (see section: “Three: definite article”).
[6] Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, vol. 2, p. 219. Brackets his.
[7] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pp. 310-311.
[8] TNICNT, The Book of Acts, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 135.
[9] The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, Augsburg Pub. House, 1961, pp. 255-256.