To fully understand Jesus's first, and indeed what is commonly called his "Second Coming," we need to understand the book of Daniel. This prophetic books give many details and glimpses into the future about coming kingdoms, rulers and above all, the Messiah. I'm going to be focussing on just one part of the book, chapter nine, often referred to as "Daniel's 70 Weeks". But just what is "Daniel's 70 Weeks" you might be asking as you read this. For those unfamiliar with Old Testament prophecy, it is a prophetic vision that Daniel was given from God, and interpreted by the angel Gabriel. You can read the prophecy in full below:
Dan 9: 20-27 (NRSV)
While I was speaking, and was praying and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God on behalf of the holy mountain of my God— while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen before in a vision, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. He came and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding. At the beginning of your supplications a word went out, and I have come to declare it, for you are greatly beloved. So consider the word and understand the vision:
“Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.”
Now, in this prophecy, it speaks of "weeks" (or literally, "sevens") – 70 in total, which if taken at face value would only be just over a year in length. This would be a very short time to do all that is spoken of by the angel — especially the rebuilding of a city!
The prophecy in Daniel gave the time span for the rebuilding of the city and even mentions that it will be in a "troubled time" as Gabriel told Daniel, which we can see happen in the book of Nehemiah in about 444 BC (around 94 years later):
Nehemiah 4:7-8
But when Sanballat and Tobiah and the Arabs and the Ammonites and the Ashdodites heard that the repairing of the walls of Jerusalem was going forward and the gaps were beginning to be closed, they were very angry, and all plotted together to come and fight against Jerusalem and to cause confusion in it. (cf. Neh 4:16-18; Ezra 3:3)
The is a prophetic metaphor for years – each day equals one year. You may wonder how the "sevens" or "week" equals 7 years, and by looking at other examples of prophetic language in the Bible, we can find two other places where one day is equal to one year in a prophetic sense: Ez 4:6 and Num 14:34. There's also two other places where one day is equalled with one thousand years: Ps 90:4 and 2 Pet 3:8 – unlike the previous examples, these aren't spoken of in a prophecy or vision as to have a specific time meaning, but are rather hyperbole to make a point, as the surrounding context of those verses will show.
If we were to calculate Daniel's prophecy based on 1000 years to each day, it would cover a timeframe of 70,000 years instead of 490 – which is just slightly ridiculous!
So lets break down the prophecy to see what's going on and being said:
"Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city" — 70 weeks, or 490 years (70x7), have been decreed by God as the time set for the following things to take place for the Jews and Jerusalem. These things can be split up into six parts:
The angel Gabriel then gives a brief overview of how all of these things will happen, when the seventy week countdown begins, and the timescale for each part. The nation of Israel were basically on probation from God to get their act together; they have 490 years to get right with God, which is point 1. Then follows points 2-6. This prophecy is actually very precise and specific!
...from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
I'm going to include this same quote from the NIV translation too (all other quotes are NRSV), as it keeps the original wording of "sevens" instead of using "weeks", which I find makes the grammar of the sentence flow a little better:
From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
This in total means that there are to be 483 years from when the word "goes out" to start restoration on Jerusalem. I point this out because of the way the English translations make the initial seven and the sixty-two sevens appear as separate events, as in the NRSV ("there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks...") whereas the NIV quote doesn't come across that way, and neither does it in some other versions, such as the KJV. I looked this up in a Hebrew interlinear (since I can't read ancient Hebrew) and the flow of the sentence is more akin to the NIV, KJV etc., with a Sof passuk (ie. a full stop/period) marking the end of the sentence at the end of verse 25. But I'm not a Hebrew expert so I may be overlooking other aspects of grammar here.
Now you may be asking, what has all this got to do with the "Second Coming?" Well, in order to fully understand when the return and "the end" is to take place, we must first understand the timing of Daniel's prophecy about the Messiah as his first coming and death, and then what's oftern thought to be his return are all wrapped up in this 70 weeks.
"From the time the word went out" is often related to King Cyrus, who gave the initial decree that allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem to begin rebuilding their temple (cf. 2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1:2-5). This is assumed because Cyrus was prophesied about by Isaiah 150-200 years before he was born. The amazing thing about this prophecy is that Isaiah actually named Cyrus and that he would do this! Check it out:
Isaiah 44:28
...who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd,
and he shall carry out all my purpose”;
and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,”
and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”
But what is often overlooked in this is that Cyrus only gives a decree to rebuild the temple. We see this fulfilled in Ezra 3:8-13 which tells of when the foundations were laid after the Jews returned to Jerusalem following Cyrus's decree. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, gives a nice little insight into this aspect of Jewish history (Antiquities 11:1,2) when he recounts that King Cyrus didn't realise this was written but when it was shown to him, he then had a desire to go about and fulfil it - despite being a Persian king who didn't even know nor worship the God of the Jews (Isa 45:5)!
So when did the seventy week clock begin ticking, if not with Cyrus? There are four decrees by three kings to the Jews concerning the rebuilding of the temple and the city, over a period of time: Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes (twice, although there is some dispute over whether there was a second king with the same name later on).
But is it the decree of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-26) in which the Jewish people were allowed to go back to Jerusalem with the blessing of the king, so that they may restore it fully. This happened in the 7th year of his reign (Ezra 7:8), which according to historical records, would have been 457 BC.
As a point of interest, there is another way in which these initial 7 weeks and 62 weeks can be read which could also explain why the "weeks" are phrased in two parts ("until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks..."). This first anointed price could well reference Cyrus (as "anointed" doesn't always mean the Messiah in the Saviour sense), and the "word" that went out could be a reference to Jeremiah's prophecy about the Babylonian captivity (which is during the time that Daniel was written). Jeremiah prophesied about Jerusalem about 587 BC, which would in fact be 49 years before Cyrus gave his decree, around 538 BC. The break in the time, and then continuing with "and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built..." would still begin when the rebuilding actually took place, in the reign of Artaxerxes, still leading us up until the time of Jesus.
It is generally accepted that Jesus was baptised around 26 or 27 AD, given the timescales and points in history the authors of Scripture give us (eg. Luke 3:1). This now brings us from "the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" right up until "after the sixty-two weeks" when the next "anointed one" appears in the prophecy, as when Jesus was baptised it was then he was anointed by the Holy Spirit to begin his ministry (Matt 3:16-17; Acts 10:38). As an aside for those reading who may not realise the connection: Messiah is the Hebrew word for "anointed," and Christ is the Greek version of that Hebrew word – hence Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Messiah (although, not all who were anointed were thought or expected to be the promised Saviour-Messiah).
This timescale brings us perfectly up to the 69 "weeks" of Daniel's prophecy, which is 483 years leaving only the remaining "week" to go.
There is a 'pause' here, similar to the first 7 weeks, in the way the angel Gabriel phrases the prophecy to Daniel in verse 26: "After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing" – so the initial 483 years brings us up to the next appearance of the Anointed One, and then after this he shall be "cut off", ie. killed. Jesus was crucified after about 3 years of ministry.
Before getting into that last 7 year period, I'd just like to point out some aspects of the Gospels and Galatians which should hopefully make more sense now in light of Daniel's prophecy and its timing:
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law... (emphasis mine)
Mark 1:14-15 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” (emphasis mine)
Jesus began his ministry at that time because it was when the "time [was] fulfilled", referencing Daniel's prophecy (which would also "seal both vision and prophet" about this event; v.24) , which his original audience would have understood. The Jewish people had that time while Jesus was with them to repent and turn back to God and enter his eternal kingdom which was promised to the Messiah – the kingdom which Daniel also prophesied about in Daniel chapter two, that would be founded not by human hands, and which would last forever. That was the time which God had given his people, and those who rejected it would suffer what was prophesied about in the final "week".
Dan 2:44
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever
2 Peter 1:11
For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you
Jn 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.
There is some contention about this final seven years. The details about what happens during that time are divided in half: a ruler will come to destroy for the first half (3.5 years), and then war will ensue until the end, which will also be this ruler's end too when the final 3.5 years are complete.
Some say that it is still yet to come, in some far-flung future, as the "prophetic clock" stopped when Jesus was killed. I suspect if you've ever been taught anything about the "End Times," that is what you believe or expect, especially if you have read or watched the Left Behind books or films which are based heavily on a futurist interpretation of Daniel, Revelation and the Olivet Discourse.
But it may surprise you to know that this isn't the only interpretation or school of thought, despite how popular this view is. I used to believe that this was what was going to happen, that it could happen at any moment as "Jesus is coming soon!" along with great tribulation and "armageddon" as people often proclaim. But after studying this topic for quite some time now, I've found that it doesn't reconcile with what the Scriptures say, or what Jesus taught, nor what history shows, and thus have had to adjust my views.
Lets have a look at what is to happen in the final seven years:
Dan 9:26-27
After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.
Now some say that since Jesus' ministry was about 3 and a half years long, that this was the final week and why the sacrifices were ceased. On the face of it this seems to make sense, as the sacrificial death of Jesus was the be the final sacrifice for sins for all time in the eyes of God, thus any other animal sacrifices aren't accepted. While Jesus's death did fulfil other aspects of this prophecy: "an anointed one shall be cut off ... to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness" which the New Testament authors were clearly aware of and saw fulfilled in Jesus, I won't write them all out here but will give references – John 1:29; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:17-19,21; Romans 3:21-22 ; Romans 5:17-19; Heb 13:12; Heb 9:15; 1 Peter 2:24; Col 1:20, plus many more.
I will quote one passage though, which I think summarises the fulfillment of Jesus in Daniel's prophecy:
Heb 9:26b-25
But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Not only does this state that the early Christians saw Jesus as being the ultimate sacrifice to remove sins for all time, and give those who believe in him everlasting righteousness, but that they also recognised the times as being "the end of the age". I will be going more into that topic later in this series.
So while I do see a fulfillment here in part, and agree with the New Testament authors that Jesus's sacrifice did put an end to the need for animal sin sacrifices, however I don't believe that this is what Dan 9:26-27 is all about, as the Jews will have continued to sacrifice in the temple as they always did, even after Jesus's death.
No, this part is also what Jesus prophesied about in Matt 24:15 "So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel" and also in verse 30, "they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’" which is also a reference to the book of Daniel chapter seven: "As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven."
Here, Jesus also says that the temple will be destroyed too, which is what this final week in Daniel is also saying: "the prince ... shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" – contrast this with Matt 24:1-2.
Some reading this now may be thinking of something else Jesus said, "But about that day and hour no one knows" — this can still be true despite the preciseness of Daniel's prophecy, simply because the 70 weeks appear to have some time breaks which leave it open to happen only when certain events are in play – by which point the signs of what's coming will be obvious yet still not definite.
"After the sixty-two weeks ... the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city..." – there's an indefinite period of time here, which is why Jesus told his disciples, "when you see all these things, you know that he is near..."
I'll be discussing Matthew 24-25 in more detail in Part 3 of this series; the next part will be looking at what exactly "coming on the clouds of heaven" means in terms of it's usage in the Old Testament prophetic texts, and how the disciples and those listening to Jesus would have understood it, as all these phrases link the New to the Old Testament. As 1st century Jews who knew their Scriptures, they would have undoubtedly have heard it differently to how we do in a 21st century context with all of our "End Times" baggage and bias.
Feel free to leave a comment below and share your thoughts!
Further reading:
Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!
Order my new book today from Amazon or lukejwilson.com/amazon
Luke J. Wilson | 23rd December 2023 | Early Church
A common modern perception of the inspiration of Scripture often portrays it as a rigid, divine dictation of words from God to be written down verbatim. This perspective leads to concerns among some religious communities, such as Muslims, who view any alteration or addition to the text as a potential threat to the entire faith. The Islamic understanding of inspiration emphasises direct and unalterable divine dictation, contributing to their scepticism of multiple Bible translations, which they falsely label as “corruption”. In contrast, the Biblical inspiration of the Scriptures has never been viewed as a literal divine dictation, as if the apostles were under a holy spell ensuring word-for-word accuracy. Dr Michael Heiser emphasises that the writers were influenced by God through the circumstances of providence, with God guiding them to write what was deemed necessary for posterity. This perspective shifts the focus of inspiration from the writers to the ultimate, providential guidance of God. The canonisation of the New Testament was not a straightforward process. The authority of the authors played a crucial role, and texts were included based on their ability to teach the fullness of salvation and faith. Noteworthy texts, like the Didache, were highly regarded, read, and taught to new converts but did not meet the specific criteria for canonisation. The canon was a dynamic concept, and some New Testament books faced scepticism before gaining widespread acceptance. These texts were known as “antilegomena” (from Greek ἀντιλεγόμενα) literally meaning “spoken against”. In the Early Church, the antilegomena enjoyed widespread readership, encompassing works such as the Epistle of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. Within the Early Church, there existed differing opinions on whether these particular texts merited canonical status, though. Eusebius, who wrote Church History (~325), used the Greek term “antilegomena” to refer to the group of disputed writings. He uses this word in two places when speaking about these texts: It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed [αντιλέγεσθαι] by the Church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. (3.3.5) Among the disputed writings [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων]. (3.25.3–5) Delving into specific biblical references, such as 1 Corinthians 5:9 and Colossians 4:16, these verses shed light on the existence of letters by apostles that did not make it into the New Testament. Paul’s mention of an earlier letter in 1 Corinthians and the reference to a letter from Laodicea in Colossians raise questions about missing apostolic letters. However, these omissions should not be a cause for concern. Bart Ehrman, a notable agnostic New Testament scholar and textual critic, says in his book Misquot...
Luke J. Wilson | 01st December 2023 | Christmas
It’s that time of year when Christmas lights and decorations go up, things start to look a little more sparkly, and kids are getting ready to open their Advent Calendars. But what exactly is “Advent”? You may be from a Church tradition which recognises this each year so are more familiar, but if not, you may be curious to know more about this ancient Christian tradition. Advent, derived from the Latin “adventus,” signifying “coming” or “arrival,” stands as a sacred season deeply entrenched in the hearts of many Christians globally. This period of expectant waiting and preparation marks the initiation of the liturgical year in Western Christianity, embodying a profound anticipation of both the Nativity of Christ at Christmas and the eagerly awaited Second Coming. Historical Origins The origins of Advent, though veiled in the mists of time, can be traced back to around 480, with the Council of Tours in 567 introducing a distinctive element to this season. Monks were instructed to observe a fast every day in December until Christmas, adding an element of penitence and preparation to the weeks leading up to the joyous celebration. The roots of Advent delve deep into the historical fabric of Christian tradition, and as J. Neil Alexander, a bishop in the Episcopal church notes, providing a definitive explanation of its origin remains a challenging endeavour. “[it is] impossible to claim with confidence a credible explanation of the origin of Advent” Associated with Advent’s penitential aspect was a period of fasting known as St Martin’s Lent or the Nativity Fast. This fast, initiated by Bishop Perpetuus in the fifth century, required believers to abstain from certain indulgences three times a week from St. Martin’s Day on 11 November until Christmas. This practice initially found traction in the diocese of Tours, France, gradually extending its influence over the sixth century. The essence of Advent extends beyond mere historical observance; it encompasses a multifaceted anticipation of the “coming of Christ” in three distinct ways: from the physical nativity in Bethlehem to the reception of Christ in the believer’s heart, and to the eschatological hope of the Second Coming. Advent encapsulates the diverse aspects of Christian hope. The Liturgical Calendar The liturgical calendar, particularly in the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Moravian, Presbyterian, and Methodist traditions, designates Advent as commencing on the fourth Sunday before Christmas, concluding on Christmas Eve. This period of roughly four weeks becomes a sacred journey marked by readings and teachings that emphasise not only the anticipation of Christ’s first coming but also the profound reflection on the Second Coming and the Last Judgement. Advent is recognised as a late inclusion in the liturgical calendar during the late fourth and early fifth centuries. The Council of Saragossa in 380 AD, particularly in its fourth canon, laid the foundation for the observance of Advent, emphasising the importance of daily attendance in church during the twenty-one days leading up to December 17th. Traditional Advent Wreath The symbolism of Advent is poignantly captured in the Advent wreath, a practice dating back to 16th-century German Lutherans but taking its modern form in the 19th century. Johann Hinrich Wichern, a Protestant pastor, conceived the idea of a wreath adorned with candles representing the Sundays of Advent. The lighting of these candles, especially the pink one on Gaudete Sunday, adds a visual dimension to the spiritual journey of waiting and rejoicing (Gaudete means rejoice in Latin). Focused on Christ The theological roots of Advent find expression in the Latin term “adventus”, embodying both the Incarnation and the glorious Parousia of the Son of God. The tension between these two meanings was resolved as Advent came to signify a moment of preparation for the coming of Chri...
Luke J. Wilson | 23rd November 2023 | General Interest
The Bible can be a complex thing, with many interwoven connections not always immediately apparent, linking topics and themes together across the ages. One such intriguing relationship lies between Exodus 30:14 and Matthew 17:24–27, offering valuable perspectives on the age dynamics among Jesus’ disciples with a hidden clue in the brief encounter about paying temple tax. Exodus 30:14 — The Age of Accountability Exodus 30:14 establishes a significant criterion for temple tax payment: “Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the offering to the Lord.” This biblical guideline sets what might be considered a standard for adulthood in ancient Israel, signifying the age of accountability and responsibility within the community. Matthew 17:24–27 — A Taxing Encounter Turning to the Gospel of Matthew, a peculiar incident involving Jesus and the temple tax unfolds. Verse 24 introduces the narrative with the phrase “When they came to Capernaum.” The subsequent context implies the presence of Jesus and his disciples, yet attention narrows to Jesus and Peter when the temple tax collectors inquire about payment and question Peter about whether Jesus pays the tax. This seemingly ordinary event takes an intriguing turn. Jesus, perceiving the situation, engages Peter in a dialogue. “What do you think, Simon?” he asks, underscoring the financial responsibilities tied to temple worship. Jesus then asks where do kings take their tolls, from their own children or from others? Peter answers the obvious question, “from others”. Jesus responds with, “Then the children are free”, which has implications for his own Sonship which is something that passed me by when reading this story in past times. God is the King, the temple is his, and therefore the tax is being imposed by God on the people (via his Law). But Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore should be free from paying the temple tax, since “the children are free” from this obligation. But to not cause an offence and as a way to prove himself Lord of all creation, Jesus instructs Peter to go to the sea, cast a hook, and retrieve the first fish caught. In its mouth, Peter discovers a coin that covers the temple tax for himself and Jesus only. Unravelling the Connections The discerning reader may now understand the link between Exodus 30:14 and Matthew 17:24–27. If the temple tax applied to those “twenty years old and over,” the specific focus on Jesus and Peter being singled out suggests a thought-provoking possibility — the age of the disciples. The use of the phrase “when they came” in Matthew 17:24 implies the collective presence of Jesus and his disciples. However, the subsequent emphasis on Jesus and Peter for tax payment hints at a more intriguing narrative. Could it be that, among the disciples, only Peter had crossed the threshold of twenty years? The rest could be anywhere between 13–19! Another clue is that it appears only Peter was married, since his mother-in-law is mentioned in Luke 4:38–39, implying that he was possibly older than the others too. Peter, and others, are often depicted as quite old.Saint Peter, by Peter Paul Rubens, 1610 Implications for Discipleship This age dynamic may offer insights into the behavioural nuances observed among the disciples throughout the Gospels. Instances of immaturity, such as the disciples’ arguments about greatness (Mark 9:32–34), the way John and Peter race each other to the tomb (John 20:3–10), and Peter’s impulsiveness (John 18:10–11), could find resonance in their potential youthfulness. The designation of Peter as a leader, entrusted with the care of Jesus’ sheep (John 21:15–17), takes on added significance in this context. If Peter, by virtue of age and experience, stood out among the disciples, it provides a rationale for his prominent role in the early Christian community. Understanding the age dynamics among the di...
Luke J. Wilson | 21st November 2023 | Christmas
It’s nearly Christmas time again, and like clockwork, the internet memes come out all over social media about Saint Nicholas giving the heretic Arius a slap across the face at the Council of Nicaea! As it’s almost the end of November and coming up soon is the feast day of St. Nicholas on December 6th, the original inspiration behind Santa Claus, I thought I’d address this long-standing myth about Nicholas of Myra (present-day Demre, Turkey), the fourth century bishop. St. Nicholas is often humorously portrayed in social media memes which playfully recount the infamous incident during the Council of Nicaea when the good bishop, provoked by Arius’s blasphemies, supposedly delivered him a slap across the face! Memes abound about St Nicholas and Arius While some of these memes offer undeniable amusement, they starkly contrast with the conventional image of Santa Claus — known for his jovial and indulgent nature — as well as the expected decorum of a bishop and leader in the Church. Moreover, the sentiment challenges the teachings of Jesus on how to deal with our enemies. Jesus advocated for practices such as loving and praying for your enemies, turning the other cheek (Mt 5:38–45), overcoming evil with good (Rom 12:21), being gentle and not violent (1 Tim 3:3), avoiding quick-temperedness (Titus 1:7), and recognising that a soft answer turns away wrath (Prov 15:1). In this time marked by safe spaces, trigger warnings, and microaggressions, the straightforward honesty and tough demeanour attributed to St. Nicholas in these memes may resonate with those who appreciate a departure from the perceived niceties of modern discourse. The image of St. Nicholas allegedly striking Arius can be seen as a politically incorrect rebuke to what some Christians might see as the Church or society being too “soft” nowadays. Historical Basis However, historical inaccuracies abound in this narrative. The story lacks credibility, as historical records of the bishops present at the Council of Nicaea do not include St. Nicholas. Hagiographical works written centuries after his death connect him to the Council, with the account of the violent incident appearing over a millennium later, in a 14th-century work by an anonymous writer. Moreover, medieval versions of the story describe Nicholas slapping, not punching, an Arian heretic (not specifically Arius). This action is portrayed as a medicinal slap or rebuke, aimed at bringing the individual back to his senses rather than expressing contempt or a desire to harm. In Greek iconography, this moment is celebrated. Icon of St. Nicholas and Arius In the original tale, however, Nicholas’s actions were not lauded at the Council; instead, he faced consequences. Reportedly, he was deprived of his mitre and pallium for striking the Arian heretic. A later version of the story, which identifies the heretic as Arius, amplifies Nicholas’s punishment by having him thrown into jail. In this narrative, Nicholas is vindicated by a divine intervention involving Jesus and Mary, who appear to him in prison and release him, and giving him back his bishop vestments. WWJD? It is crucial to approach this anecdote with caution, recognising that celebrating St. Nicholas’s supposed act of aggression may inadvertently justify short-tempered tendencies. Similar to those who fixate on Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple as “permission” to act brutishly towards those they disagree with, to the exclusion of Jesus’ teachings on love and forgiveness. WWJD? Reflecting on the Arius memes, it’s essential to strike a balance. While humour has its place, some jokes may lead those weaker in the faith, and unbelieving onlookers, to assume that some acts of violence are OK and ‘approved’ by Jesus and the Church, and understanding the legendary aspect to this particular story about Saint Nick and Arius could help to alleviate that. Further Reading Who was the real Santa C...
My new book is out now: Available on Amazon in paperback, hardcover or Kindle!
“I cannot imagine there is a better way to get familiar with 350 of the most important years of church history in seven hours spread over 40 days.” — Paul Pavao, author of Decoding Nicea