Matthew 5:17 -- Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. -- The "or" conjunction makes it clear that the Law and the Prophets are two different issues under discussion. As for the Law, I think He was referring primarily to the requirement for blood sacrifice as atonement for sin. Jesus's innocent life and coming death were literally the fulfillment of that central element of the Law. As for His fulfillment of "the prophets," I see the primary meaning to be, quite simply, that He was indeed the fulfillment of their Messianic prophecies. And as already noted, I think it's also a reminder to future Christians that the entire Bible is important.
Daniel 9:25 -- Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times.
This is one of the coolest verses in all the Bible to me. Using 360-day (12 x 30-day months) biblical years and seven-year "weeks" yields...
7 x 7 x 360 = 17,640 days
62 x 7 x 360 = 156,240 days
Total = 173,880 days
Exactly 173,880 days after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued, Jesus rode triumphantly into Jerusalem on what we now celebrate as Palm Sunday. It was the one and only day during which he allowed Himself to be treated like royalty. Gives me goosebumps.
How do you interpret/calculate Daniel 9:25?
Interesting trivia question that you probably know the answer to: What ultra-common phrase of our modern lexicon came down through the ages from Daniel 5?
MM
Okay, I located an online MKJV, so I can use that as a baseline for comparison.
First, in the Hebrew text, mashiach is a title, not a proper name. Translating it as "Messiah, the Prince" renders a much different reading than the more literal "an anointed, a prince".
There is neither logic, precedent nor scriptural foundation for using a so-called 360 day "prophetic year". It is a deus ex machina introduced to force the desired result.
Christians commonly begin their "counting" from the "decree to rebuild Jerusalem" in 444 BCE, again in order to make the dates work out. The decree by Artaxerxes, though, is not the original one. Jewish interpretation of the passage favors the decree of Cyrus in 537 BCE, forty-nine years after the destruction of the temple. The scriptural basis for this is:
who says of Cyrus, He is My shepherd, and shall do all My pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, You shall be built; and to the temple, Your foundation shall be laid.
So says the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1 MKJV)
Continuing the Jewish interpretation, the 'anointed' of verse 25 and the 'anointed' of verse 26 are two different people. A Jewish translation of verse 25 reads:
Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. (1917 JPS translation -- I don't have access to my new JPS at the moment).
As you'll note, the punctuation is rendered slightly differently, making the difference between the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks more clear.
Counting, then, from the destruction of the temple in 586 BCE, to the decree of Cyrus in 537 BCE, is 49 years, or "seven weeks" of years. The end of the 62 weeks coincides with the accession to the high priesthood of Alexander Yannai (or Jannaeus), the last significant figure of the Hasmonean line. Being high priest, he was 'anointed', and was indeed "cut off" as punishment for his violent and corrupt rule. The "but not for himself" of verse 26 is a mistranslation. A more accurate rendering would be "and be no more" or "and shall have nothing".
Interesting trivia question that you probably know the answer to: What ultra-common phrase of our modern lexicon came down through the ages from Daniel 5?
Are you thinking of "weighed in the balance, and found wanting"?
As for the Law, I think He was referring primarily to the requirement for blood sacrifice as atonement for sin. Jesus's innocent life and coming death were literally the fulfillment of that central element of the Law.
Well, blood sacrifice was normative for many types of sins, but it wasn't absolutely required in all circumstances, nor could all sins be atoned for through blood sacrifice. Even so, there were commandments concerning what could be sacrificed, and where.
To me, "fulfilling the Law" makes sense only in the context of obeying it. The problem being that one can obey the Law for oneself, but cannot do so on another's behalf.
Well, that's probably more than enough fodder for now! ;o)