Biblical Significance of 120 Days/Years

Biblical Significance of
120 Days/Years

Numerous prophecies in the Bible make the point that a day can be prophetic of a year. Consider these examples:

For their unfaithfulness after the forty days that the Israelites spied in the Promised Land, they had to wander in the desert for forty years
Ezekiel had to lie on his side for forty days in prophecy of the forty-year period before Jerusalem would be destroyed (Ezekiel 4:6)
The prophesies of the ‘Seven Times’ and the ‘Seventy Weeks’ as found in the Book of Daniel, count each day as a year in their fulfillments.

120 days of Commandments and Fasting

One important prophetic 120-day period mentioned in the Bible started when Moses went up Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments. He spent forty days on the mountain (Exodus 24:18), then on his return, he found that the Israelites had built a golden calf to worship, upon which Moses broke the tablets. Apparently shortly thereafter, Moses started a forty-day fast to beg God to forgive the people (Deuteronomy 9:18). And then he went back up the mountain to create duplicate stone tablets, where he stayed for another forty days (Exodus 34:28). Following that, the Sacred Agreement was ratified by the people.

What was the significance of this 120-day period? Well, it does have to do with the creation of God’s Sacred Agreement with His people – from its inception to its acceptance – and it was a time of turmoil and testing. Does this 120 days symbolize a significant 120-year period? Time will tell.

120 Years of Moses

There’s also a 120-year period, which had to do with Moses. It started at his birth in Egypt – when the Pharaoh decreed the death of all the newborn Israelite male children in the land (Exodus 1:15, 16). Then, when he was about forty years old, he killed an Egyptian and fled the country to live in the land of Midian. It was there, approximately forty years later, that God spoke to Moses from the burning bush and gave him the commission that led to the Israelites being set free and the establishment of God’s Sacred Agreement with them. And finally, there was the last 40-year period, which the Israelites spent wandering in the desert. So, at the end of exactly 120-years (see Deuteronomy 34:7), Moses died and the Israelites entered the Promised Land.

Joshua (Moses’ successor) also played a part in that 120-year period. He was forty-years old when he served as one of the spies in the Promised Land; he survived the 40-year trek in the desert; and he led God’s people into the Promised Land. However, he lived for just thirty years after that. Still, as Moses’ successor (and someone who pictured Jesus), it shows the rulership extending into the Promised Land after the 120-year period.

What is the possible significance of the 120-years of Moses’ life? Well, if you haven’t read it already, consider the observations made in the Note included on this site titled ‘Armageddon – When?’ As it points out, this could be the same time period as ‘the last days’ of this ‘age.’

Now, the fact that the 120-years of Moses’ life started with an attempt to kill him as a newborn baby is quite interesting, for we read of a similar event at the time of Jesus’ birth, and once again of a symbolic birth in Revelation 12:4. For there, when speaking of God’s Kingdom, it speaks of a time when the Slanderer will try to devour the ‘seed’ (or baby) of God’s ‘woman.’ So, could the start of the last days have been symbolized by the 120 years of Moses? If so, it appears significant that Moses’ life ended with God’s people entering the Promised Land.

Is Moses a fitting symbol of Jesus, or more specifically, of his Kingdom? Well, Moses was God’s appointed ruler over His people during that entire 120-year period, for he served in that position first as a member of the household of Pharaoh, and then as God’s leader of the nation of Israel. The Israelites were also ‘baptized’ into Moses at the Red Sea (see 1 Corinthians 10:2). In addition, he was the mediator of God’s Sacred Agreement with His people (Hebrews 12:24). So, there could be no one more fitting to symbolize Jesus than faithful Moses.

Questions Raised

If any of the above is significant, it raises many other questions that deserve further investigation. Some of these are:

Exactly what does the 40-year period ‘in the desert’ signify for God’s people today?
What events mark(ed) the beginnings or ends of the other forty-year periods?
And what were the significant features that mark(ed) each of these periods?

One view that has been offered about the last 40-year period is; since the number forty represents a period of cleansing and qualifying (which is what the 40-day Downpour of Noah’s time, the Israelite’s 40-year trek in the desert, and the 40-days that Jesus spent in the desert before starting his special ministry pictured), so the last forty years may be symbolic of the unnumbered years of trial that each of us must undergo from the time of our baptism until we reach ‘the promised land’ or a cleansed condition.

However, 40-years is also the typical length of the life of a single adult generation, as the 40-year trek in the desert shows. So, when Jesus said ‘that generation will not pass away,’ he may have been speaking of one of the 40-year periods in the 120-year total that appears to lead up to (or surround) Armageddon.

The 120 Years of Kings Over United Israel

Another interesting (but usually overlooked) 120-year period that is broken into three 40-year parts, is the combined reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. Each reigned for exactly forty years.

Since the 40-year reign of King David was one of turmoil, war, and the defeat of Israel’s enemies, this period is thought to be prophetic of the 40-years of cleansing that leads up to Armageddon. Then the peaceful 40-year reign of Solomon (during which God’s Temple was built) is thought to picture 40-years of cleansing following Armageddon. But if this is true, then what did the first 40-year reign (that of Saul) picture?

This is surely significant, because Saul was selected and anointed by God (although he wasn’t of the kingly tribe of Judah), and his reign lasted for exactly 40 years. There is too much that is prophetic and planned here for it to be unimportant history. So, it must picture a period of imperfect rulership that leads up to the second in the 40-year periods… the coming of the greater David, Jesus.

Also, notice how the second of the three 40-year periods in Moses’ life ended with the release of the Israelites and the destruction of Pharaoh and his army (Armageddon?). So this indicates that Armageddon could come at the end of a second 40-year period, and thereafter we will see a final 40-year period. For, if the destruction of Pharaoh and his army pictured Armageddon, then the last 40-year period must be one of cleansing of the survivors… but (if it follows the type), it is also a period of peace and relying on God for our sustenance. So, it appears as though a third 40-year period comes after the Battle of Armageddon. For more information, see the linked document Similarities between the Exodus and the Events of Revelation.

And if these conclusions prove true, then perhaps the suggested 120 year mentioned in our linked document Armageddon - When? is wrong… or, perhaps (as in the case of Noah) there is a 120-year period that leads up to Armageddon, and the three 40-year periods we just discussed are a refinement of what will actually happen both before and after Armageddon.

To return to the previous document, select the Back arrow on your browser

Home Page

Note: We found the above reply that we received on a questionnaire we sent out to our many advisors about the meaning of Saul’s 40-year reign, compelling and in line with other prophecies, so we offered it as a suggestion above. Since the events he quoted have to do with one specific religious group and their views, we have chosen not to publish the details but just offer the dates as one person’s view.

However, we received the following note from a contributor who feels there is no prophetic significance at all to the reign of Saul:

‘Interesting question you pose that I also pondered a few years ago. After some research, I came to the conclusion that there was no prophetic significance to Saul’s reign. Here are the reasons for my conclusion:

‘Although God had allowed for the possibility that his people would one day want to have a king, he was not in favor of it. (Deuteronomy 17:14-20; 1 Samuel 8:4-9) He eventually told his people, I proceeded to give you a king in my anger, and I shall take [him] away in my fury. (Hosea 13:11)

‘Although Jacob prophesied on his deathbed concerning Judah, that The scepter will not turn aside from Judah, neither the commander’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him the obedience of the peoples will belong, this was a Messianic prophecy and had nothing to do with Jehovah giving the nation of Israel a king according to their demands. (Gen. 49:10) This was shown when God personally chose Saul as first king, from the tribe of Benjamin.

‘Did God have it in mind all along to replace Saul with a king of the line of Judah? That cannot be, according to what he told Saul after Saul’s first disobedient act, Samuel said to Saul: You have acted foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of Jehovah your God that he commanded you, because, if you had, Jehovah would have made your kingdom firm over Israel to time indefinite. (1 Samuel 13:13)

We see that had Saul proved to be an obedient and faithful king then Jehovah would have made his kingdom firm over Israel to time indefinite, although he was not of the tribe of Judah. Perhaps, if Jehovah would have blessed his faithful reign then it might have become a prophetic picture of the Messiah’s future reign.

‘When God chose David, a man agreeable to his heart, to replace unfaithful king Saul, it so happened that David was of the tribe of Judah, although I do not believe that it played a role as to why Jehovah chose David, seeing what He had told Saul. (1 Sam. 13:14) But because David was of the tribe of Judah, Jehovah could make a covenant with David that he would not have made with Saul, had he proved faithful, namely that the Messiah would come from his line.
’Due to what I have just pointed out I do not believe that Saul’s rule had any prophetic significance, otherwise we must come to the conclusion that God wanted matters to play out the way they did, Israel getting a king while Jehovah pretended that he was against it, and then choosing one from the tribe of Benjamin, all along purposing to replace him with a king of the tribe of Judah. That would make God wicked, telling Saul that he would have made his kingdom firm, when he had no intention of doing so. (Psalm 15:4).’