DANIEL 9 24-27 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

THE SEVENTY WEEKS24 “Seventy ‘sevens’[c] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish[d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.[e]

BARNES, "Seventy weeks are determined - Here commences the celebrated prophecy of the seventy weeks - a portion of Scripture Which has excited as much attention, and led to as great a variety of interpretation, as perhaps any other. Of this passage, Professor Stuart (“Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy,” p. 104) remarks, “It would require a volume of considerable magnitude even to give a history of the ever-varying and contradictory opinions of critics respecting this “locus vexatissimus; “and perhaps a still larger one to establish an exegesis which would stand. I am fully of opinion, that no interpretation as yet published will stand the test of thorough grammatico-historical criticism; and that a candid, and searching, and thorough “critique” here is still a “desideratum.” May some expositor, fully adequate to the task, speedily appear!” After these remarks of this eminent Biblical scholar, it is with no great confidence of success that I enter on the exposition of the passage.

Yet, perhaps, though “all” difficulties may not be removed, and though I cannot hope to contribute anything “new” in the exposition of the passage, something may be written which may relieve it of some of the perplexities attending it, and which may tend to show that its author was under the influence of Divine inspiration. The passage may be properly divided into two parts. The first, in Dan_9:24, contains a “general” statement of what would occur in the time specified - the seventy weeks; the second, Dan_9:25-27, contains a “particular” statement of the manner in which that 1

would be accomplished. In this statement, the whole time of the seventy weeks is broken up into three smaller portions of seven, sixty-two, and one -designating evidently some important epochs or periods Dan_9:25, and the last one week is again subdivided in such a way, that, while it is said that the whole work of the Messiah in confirming the covenant would occupy the entire week, yet that he would be cut off in the middle of the week, Dan_9:27.In the “general” statement Dan_9:24 it is said that there was a definite time - seventy weeks - during which the subject of the prediction would be accomplished; that is, during which all that was to be done in reference to the holy city, or in the holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, etc., would be effected. The things specified in this verse are “what was to be done,” as detailed more particularly in the subsequent verses. The design in this verse seems to have been to furnish a “general” statement of what was to occur in regard to the holy city - of that city which had been selected for the peculiar purpose of being a place where an atonement was to be made for human transgression. It is quite clear that when Daniel set apart this period for prayer, and engaged in this solemn act of devotion, his design was not to inquire into the ultimate events which would occur in Jerusalem, but merely to pray that the purpose of God, as predicted by Jeremiah, respecting the captivity of the nation, and the rebuilding of the city and temple, might be accomplished. God took occasion from this, however, not only to give an implied assurance about the accomplishment of these purposes, but also to state in a remarkable manner the “whole” ultimate design respecting the holy city, and the great event which was ever onward to characterize it among the cities of the world. In the consideration of the whole passage Dan_9:24-27, it will be proper, first, to examine into the literal meaning of the words and phrases, and then to inquire into the fulfillment.Seventy weeks - שבעים shâbu‛ıym שבעים shıb‛ıym. Vulgate, Septuaginta

hebdomades. So Theodotion, Ἑβδομήκοντα ἑβδομάδες Hebdomēkonta hebdomades. Prof. Stuart (“Hints,” p. 82) renders this “seventy sevens;” that is, seventy times seven years: on the ground that the word denoting “weeks” in the Hebrew is not שבעים shâbu‛ıym, but שבעות shâbu‛ôth. “The form which is used here,” says he, “which is a regular masculine plural, is no doubt purposely chosen to designate the plural of seven; and with great propriety here, inasmuch as there are many sevens which are to be joined together in one common sum. Daniel had been meditating on the close of the seventy “years” of Hebrew exile, and the angel now discloses to him a new period of “seventy times seven,” in which still more important events are to take place. Seventy sevens, or (to use the Greek phraseology), “seventy heptades,” are determined upon thy people.

Heptades of what? Of days, or of years? No one can doubt what the answer is. Daniel had been making diligent search respecting the seventy “years;” and, in such a connection, nothing but seventy heptades of years could be reasonably supposed to be meant by the angel.” The inquiry about the “gender” of the word, of which so much has been said (Hengstenberg, “Chris.” ii. 297), does not seem to be very important, since the same result is 2

reached whether it be rendered “seventy sevens,” or “seventy weeks.” In the former ease, as proposed by Prof. Stuart, it means seventy sevens of “years,” or 490 years; in the other, seventy “weeks” of years; that is, as a “week of years” is seven years, seventy such weeks, or as before, 490 years. The usual and proper meaning of the word used here, however - שבועshâbûa‛a is a “seven,” ἐβδομάς hebdomas, i. e., a week. - Gesenius, “Lexicon” From the “examples” where the word occurs it would seem that the masculine or the feminine forms were used indiscriminately.

The word occurs only in the following passages, in all of which it is rendered “week,” or “weeks,” except in Eze_45:21, where it is rendered “seven,” to wit, days. In the following passages the word occurs in the masculine form plural, Dan_9:24-26; Dan_10:2-3; in the following in the feminine form plural, Exo_34:22; Num_28:26; Deu_16:9-10, Deu_16:16; 2Ch_8:13; Jer_5:24; Eze_45:21; and in the following in the singular number, common gender, rendered “week,” Gen_29:27-28, and in the dual masculine in Lev_12:5, rendered “two weeks.” From these passages it is evident that nothing certain can be determined about the meaning of the word from its gender. It would seem to denote “weeks,” periods of seven days - “hebdomads” - in either form, and is doubtless so used here. The fair translation would be, weeks seventy are determined; that is, seventy times seven days, or four hundred and ninety “days.” But it may be asked here, whether this is to be taken literally, as denoting four hundred and ninety days? If not, in what sense is it to be understood? and why do we understand it in a different sense? It is clear that it must be explained literally as denoting four hundred and ninety “days,” or that these days must stand for years, and that the period is four hundred and ninety “years.” That this latter is the true interpretation, as it has been held by all commentators, is apparent from the following considerations:(a) This is not uncommon in the prophetic writings. See the notes at Dan_7:24-28. (See also Editor’s Preface to volume on Revelation.)(b) Daniel had been making inquiry respecting the seventy “years,” and it is natural to suppose that the answer of the angel would have respect to “years” also; and, thus understood, the answer would have met the inquiry pertinently - “ not seventy years, but a week of years - seven times seventy years.” Compare Mat_18:21-22. “In such a connection, nothing but seventy heptades of years could be reasonably supposed to be meant by the angel.” -Prof. Stuart’s “Hints,” etc., p. 82.(c) Years, as Prof. Stuart remarks, are the measure of all considerable periods of time. When the angel speaks, then, in reference to certain events, and declares that they are to take place during “seventy heptades,” it is a matter of course to suppose that he means years.(d) The circumstances of the case demand this interpretation. Daniel was seeking comfort in view of the fact that the city and temple had been desolate now for a period of seventy years. The angel comes to bring him consolation, and to give him assurances about the rebuilding of the city, and the great events that were to occur there. But what consolation would it be to be told that the city would indeed be rebuilt, and that it would continue seventy ordinary weeks - that is, a little more than a year, before a new

3

destruction would come upon it? It cannot well be doubted, then, that by the time here designated, the angel meant to refer to a period of four hundred and ninety years; and if it be asked why this number was not literally and exactly specified in so many words, instead of choosing a mode of designation comparatively so obscure, it may be replied,(1) that the number “seventy” was employed by Daniel as the time respecting which he was making inquiry, and that there was a propriety that there should be a reference to that fact in the reply of the angel - “one” number seventy had been fulfilled in the desolations of the city, there would be “another” number seventy in the events yet to occur;(2) this is in the usual prophetic style, where there is, as Hengstenberg remarks (“Chris.” ii. 299), often a “concealed definiteness.” It is usual to designate numbers in this way.(3) The term was sufficiently clear to be understood, or is, at all events, made clear by the result. There is no reason to doubt that Daniel would so understand it, or that it would be so interpreted, as fixing in the minds of the Jewish people the period when the Messiah was about to appear. The meaning then is, that there would be a period of four hundred and ninety years, during which the city, after the order of the rebuilding should go forth Dan_9:25, until the entire consummation of the great object for which it should be rebuilt: and that then the purpose would be accomplished, and it would be given up to a greater ruin. There was to be this long period in which most important transactions were to occur in the city.Are determined - The word used here (נחתך nechettak from חתך châtak)

occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures. It properly means, according to Gesenius, to cut off, to divide; and hence, to deterinine, to destine, to appoint. Theodotion renders it, sunetmeetheesan - are cut off, decided, defined. The Vulgate renders it, “abbreviate sunt.” Luther, “Sind bestimmet” - are determined. The meaning would seem to be, that this portion of time - the seventy weeks - was “cut off” from the whole of duration, or cut out of it, as it were, and set by itself for a definite purpose. It does not mean that it was cut off from the time which the city would naturally stand, or that this time was “abbreviated,” but that a portion of time - to wit, four hundred and ninety years - was designated or appointed with reference to the city, to accomplish the great and important object which is immediately specified. A certain, definite period was fixed on, and when this was past, the promised Messiah would come. In regard to the construction here - the singular verb with a plural noun, see Hengstenberg, “Christ. in, loc.” The true meaning seems to be, that the seventy weeks are spoken of “collectively,” as denoting a period of time; that is, a period of seventy weeks is determined. The prophet, in the use of the singular verb, seems to have contemplated the time, not as separate weeks, or as particular portions, but as one period.Upon thy people - The Jewish people; the nation to which Daniel belonged. This allusion is made because he was inquiring about the close of their exile, and their restoration to their own land.And upon thy holy city - Jerusalem, usually called the holy city, because it was the place where the worship of God was celebrated, Isa_52:1; Neh_11:1,

4

Neh_11:18; Mat_27:53. It is called “thy holy city” - the city of Daniel, because he was here making special inquiry respecting it, and because he was one of the Hebrew people, and the city was the capital of their nation. As one of that nation, it could be called “his.” It was then, indeed, in ruins, but it was to be rebuilt, and it was proper to speak of it as if it were then a city. The meaning of “upon thy people and city” (על ‛al) is, “respecting” or “concerning.” The purpose respecting the seventy weeks “pertains” to thy people and city; or there is an important period of four hundred and seventy years determined on, or designated, respecting that people and city.

To finish the transgression - The angel proceeds to state what was the object to be accomplished in this purpose, or what would occur during that period. The first thing, “to finish the transgression.” The margin is, “restrain.” The Vulgate renders it, ut consummetur proevaricatio. Theodotion, τοῦ συντελεσθῆναι ἁμαρτίαν tou suntelesthēnai hamartian - to finish sin. Thompson renders this, “to finish sin-offerings.” The difference between the marginal reading (“restrain”) and the text (“finish”) arises from a doubt as to the meaning of the original word. The common reading of the text is כלא kallē', but in 39 Codices examined by Kennicott, it is כלה. The reading in the text is undoubtedly the correct one, but still there is not absolute certainty as to the signification of the word, whether it means to “finish” or to “restrain.” The proper meaning of the word in the common reading of the text (כלא kâlâ') is, to shut up, confine, restrain - as it is rendered in the margin.

The meaning of the other word found in many manuscripts (כלה kâlâh) is, to be completed, finished, closed - and in Piel, the form used here, to complete, to finish - as it is translated in the common version. Gesenius (“Lexicon”) supposes that the word here is “for” - כלה kallēh - meaning to finish or complete. Hengstenberg, who is followed in this view by Lengerke, supposes that the meaning is to “shut up transgression,” and that the true reading is that in the text - כלא - though as that word is not used in Piel, and as the Masoretes had some doubts as to the derivation of the word, they gave to it not its appropriate “pointing” in this place - which would have been כלא keloh - but the pointing of the other word (כלה kalēh) in the margin. According to Hengstenberg, the sense here of “shutting up” is derived from the general notion of “restraining” or “hindering,” belonging to the word; and he supposes that this will best accord with the other words in this member of the verse - “to cover,” and “to seal up.”

The idea according to him is, that “sin, which hitherto lay naked and open before the eyes of a righteous God, is now by his mercy shut up, sealed, and covered, so that it can no more be regarded as existing - a figurative description of the forgiveness of sin.” So Lengerke renders it, “Ura einzuschliessen (den) Abfall.” Bertholdt, “Bis der Frevel vollbracht.” It seems most probable that the true idea here is that denoted in the margin, and that the sense is not that of “finishing,” but that of “restraining, closing, shutting up,” etc. So it is rendered by Prof. Stuart - “to restrain transgression.” - “Com. on Daniel, in loc.” The word is used in this sense of 5

“shutting up,” or “restraining,” in several places in the Bible: 1Sa_6:10, “and shut up their calves at home;” Jer_32:3, “Zedekiah had shut him up;” Psa_88:8, “I am shut up, and I cannot come forth;” Jer_32:2, “Jeremiah the prophet was shut up.”The sense of “shutting up,” or “restraining,” accords better with the connection than that of “finishing.” The reference of the whole passage is undoubtedly to the Messiah, and to what would be done sometime during the “seventy weeks;” and the meaning here is, not that he would “finish transgression” - which would not be true in any proper sense, but that he would do a work which would “restrain” iniquity in the world, or, more strictly, which would “shut it up” - enclose it - as in a prison, so that it would no more go forth and prevail. The effect would be that which occurs when one is shut up in prison, and no longer goes at large. There would be a restraining power and influence which would check the progress of sin. This does not, I apprehend, refer to the particular transgressions for which the

Jewish people had suffered in their long captivity, but sin (הפשע hapesha‛) in general - the sin of the world.

There would be an influence which would restrain and curb it, or which would shut it up so that it would no longer reign and roam at large over the earth. It is true that this might not have been so understood by Daniel at the time, for the “language” is so general that it “might” have suggested the idea that it referred to the sins of the Jewish people. This language, if there had been no farther explanation of it, might have suggested the idea that in the time specified - seventy weeks - there would be some process - some punishment - some Divine discipline - by which the iniquities of that people, or their propensity to sin, for which this long captivity had come upon them, would be cohibited, or restrained. But the language is not such as necessarily to confine the interpretation to that, and the subsequent statements, and the actual fulfillment in the work of the Messiah, lead us to understand this in a much higher sense, as having reference to sin in general, and as designed to refer to some work that would ultimately be an effectual check on sin, and which would tend to cohibit, or restrain it altogether in the world. Thus understood, the language will well describe the work of the Redeemer - that work which, through the sacrifice made on the cross, is adapted and designed to restrain sin altogether.And to make an end of sins - Margin, “to seal up.” The difference here in the text and the margin arises from a difference in the readings in the

Hebrew. The common reading in the text is חתם châthēm - from חתם châtham -“to seal, to seal up.” But the Hebrew marginal reading is a different word -התם hâthēm, from תמם tâmam - “to complete, to perfect, to finish.” The “pointing” in the text in the word חתם châtēm is not the proper pointing of that word, which would have been חתם chetom, but the Masoretes, as is not unfrequently the case, gave to the word in the text the pointing of another word which they placed in the margin. The marginal reading is found in fifty-five manuscripts (Lengerke), but the weight of authority is decidedly in favor of the common reading in the Hebrew text - “to seal,” and not to “finish,” as it is in our translation.

6

The marginal reading, “to finish,” was doubtless substituted by some transcribers, or rather “suggested” by the Masoretes, because it seemed to convey a better signification to say that “sin would be finished,” than to say that it would be “sealed.” The Vulgate has followed the reading in the margin - et finem accipiat peccatum; Theodotion has followed the other reading, σφραγίας ἁμαρτίας sphragisai hamartias . Luther also has it, “to seal.” Coverdale, “that sin may have an end.” The true rendering is, doubtless, “to seal sin;” and the idea is that of removing it from sight; to remove it from view. “The expression is taken,” says Lengerke, “from the custom of sealing up those things which one lays aside and conceals.” Thus in Job_9:7, “And sealeth up the stars;” that is, he so shuts them up in the heavens as to prevent their shining - so as to hide them from the view. They are concealed, hidden, made close - as the contents of a letter or package are sealed, indicating that no one is to examine them.

See the note at that passage. So also in Job_37:7, referring to winter, it is said, “He sealeth up the hand of every man, that all men may know his work.” That is, in the winter, when the snow is on the ground, when the streams are frozen, the labors of the farmer must cease. The hands can no more be used in ordinary toil. Every man is prevented from going abroad to his accustomed labor, and is, as it were, “sealed up” in his dwelling. Compare Jer_32:11, Jer_32:14; Isa_29:11; Son_4:12. The idea in the passage before us is, that the sins of our nature will, as it were, be sealed up, or closed, or hidden, so that they will not be seen, or will not develop themselves; that is, “they will be inert, inefficient, powerless.” - Prof. Stuart. The language is applicable to anything that would hide them from view, or remove them from sight - as a book whose writing is so sealed that we cannot read it; a tomb that is so closed that we cannot enter it and see its contents; a package that is so sealed that we do not know what is within it; a room that is so shut up that we may not enter it, and see what is within.It is not to be supposed that Daniel would see clearly how this was to be done; but we, who have now a full revelation of the method by which God can remove sin, can understand the method in which this is accomplished by the blood of the atonement, to wit, that “by” that atonement sin is now forgiven, or is treated as if it were hidden from the view, and a seal, which may not be broken, placed on what covers it. The language thus used, as we are now able to interpret it, is strikingly applicable to the work of the Redeemer, and to the method by which God removes sin. In not a few manuscripts and editions the word rendered “sins” is in the singular number. The amount of authority is in favor of the common reading - sins -though the sense is not materially varied. The work would have reference to “sin,” and the effect would be to seal it, and hide it from the view.And to make reconciliation for iniquity - More literally, “and to cover

iniquity.” The word which is rendered to “make reconciliation “ - כפרkâphar - properly means “to cover” (from our English word cover); to cover over, to overlay, as with pitch Gen_6:14; and hence, to cover over sin; that is, to atone for it, pardon it, forgive it. It is the word which is commonly used with reference to atonement or expiation, and seems to have been so understood by our translators. It does not necessarily refer to the means by

7

which sin is covered over, etc., by an atonement, but is often used in the general sense of “to pardon or forgive.” Compare the notes at Isa_6:7, and more fully. See the notes at Isa_43:3. Here there is no necessary allusion to the atonement which the Messiah would make in order to cover over sin; that is, the word is of so general a character in its signification that it does not necessarily imply this, but it is the word which would naturally be used on the supposition that it had such a reference. As a matter of fact, undoubtedly, the means by which this was to be done was by the atonement, and that was referred to by the Spirit of inspiration, but this is not essentially implied in the meaning of the word. In whatever way that should be done, this word would be properly used as expressing it. The Latin Vulgate renders thus, et deleatur iniquitas. Theodotion, ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀδικίας apaleipsai tas adikias - “to wipe out iniquities.” Luther, “to reconcile for transgression.” Here are three things specified, therefore, in regard to sin, which would be done. Sin would be

Restrained,Sealed up,Covered over.These expressions, though not of the nature of a climax, are intensive, and show that the great work referred to pertained to sin, and would be designed to remove it. Its bearing would be on human transgression; on the way by which it might be pardoned; on the methods by which it would be removed from the view, and be kept from rising up to condemn and destroy. Such expressions would undoubtedly lead the mind to look forward to some method which was to be disclosed by which sin could be consistently pardoned and removed. In the remainder of the verse, there are three additional things which would be done as necessary to complete the work: -

To bring in everlasting righteousness;To seal up the vision and prophecy; andTo anoint the Most Holy.And to bring in everlasting righteousness - The phrase “to bring in” -literally, “to cause to come” - refers to some direct agency by which that righteousness would be introduced into the world. It would be such an agency as would cause it to exist; or as would establish it in the world. The “mode” of doing this is not indeed here specified, and, so far as the “word” used here is concerned, it would be applicable to any method by which this would be done - whether by making an atonement; or by setting an example; or by persuasion; or by placing the subject of morals on a better foundation; or by the administration of a just government; or in any other way. The term is of the most general character, and its exact force here can be learned only by the subsequently revealed facts as to the way by which this would be accomplished. The essential idea in the language is, that this would be “introduced” by the Messiah; that is, that he would be its author.The word “righteousness” here also (צדק tsedeq) is of a general character.

The fair meaning would be, that some method would be introduced by 8

which men would become “righteous.” In the former part of the verse, the reference was to “sin” - to the fact of its existence - to the manner in which it would be disposed of - to the truth that it would be coerced, sealed up, covered over. Here the statement is, that, in contradistinction from that, a method would be introduced by which man would become, in fact, righteous and holy. But the “word” implies nothing as to the method by which this would be done. Whether it would be by a new mode of justification, or by an influence that would make men personally holy - whether this was to be as the result of example, or instruction, or an atoning sacrifice - is not necessarily implied in the use of this word. That, as in the cases already referred to, could be learned only by subsequent develop. ments.It would be, doubtless, understood that there was a reference to the Messiah - for that is specified in the next verse; and it would be inferred from this word that, under him, righteousness would reign, or that men would be righteous, but nothing could be argued from it as to the methods by which it would be done. It is hardly necessary to add, that, in the prophets, it is constantly said that righteousness would characterize the Messiah and his times; that he would come to make men righteous, and to set up a kingdom of righteousness in the earth. Yet the exact mode in which it was to be done would be, of course, more fully explained when the Messiah should himself actually appear. The word “everlasting” is used here to denote that the righteousness would be permanent and perpetual. In reference to the method of becoming righteous, it would be unchanging -the standing method ever onward by which men would become holy; in reference to the individuals who should become righteous under this system, it would be a righteousness which would continue forever.This is the characteristic which is everywhere given of the righteousness which would be introduced by the Messiah. Thus in Isa_51:6-8 : “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be forever, and my salvation from generation to generation.” So Isa_45:17 : “But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded, world without end.”Compare Jer_31:3. The language used in the passage before us, moreover, is such as could not properly be applied to anything but that righteousness which the Messiah would introduce. It could not be used in reference to the temporal prosperity of the Jews on their return to the holy land, nor to such righteousness as the nation had in former times. The fair and proper meaning of the term is, that it would be “eternal” - what would “endure

forever” - עלמים tsedeq צדק ‛olâmıym. It would place righteousness on a permanent and enduring foundation; introduce that which would endure through all changes, and exist when the heavens would be no more. In the

9

plan itself there would be no change; in the righteousness which anyone would possess under that system there would be perpetual duration - it would exist forever and ever. This is the nature of that righteousness by which men are now justified; this is what all who are interested in the scheme of redemption actually possess. The “way” in which this “everlasting righteousness” would be introduced is not stated here, but is reserved for future revelations. Probably all that the words would convey to Daniel would be, that there would be some method disclosed by which men would become righteous, and that this would not be temporary or changing, but would be permanent and eternal. It is not improper that “we” should understand it, as it is explained by the subsequent revelations in the New Testament, as to the method by which sinners are justified before God.And to seal up the vision and prophecy - Margin, as in the Hebrew, “prophet.” The evident meaning, however, here is “prophecy.” The word seal is found, as already explained, in the former part of the verse - “to seal up sins.” The word “vision” (for its meaning, see the notes at Isa_1:1) need not be understood as referring particularly to the visions seen by Daniel, but should be understood, like the word “prophecy” or “prophet” here, in a general sense - as denoting all the visions seen by the prophets - the series of visions relating to the future, which had been made known to the prophets. The idea seems to be that they would at that time be all “sealed,” in the sense that they would be closed or shut up - no longer open matters - but that the fulfillment would, as it were, close them up forever. Till that time they would be open for penusal and study; then they would be closed up as a sealed volume which one does not read, but which contains matter hidden from the view.Compare the notes at Isa_8:16 : “Bind up the testimony; seal the law among my disciples.” See also Dan_8:26; Dan_12:4. In Isaiah Isa_8:16 the meaning is, that the prophecy was complete, and the direction was given to bind it up, or roll it up like a volume, and to seal it. In Dan_8:26, the meaning is, seal up the prophecy, or make a permanent record of it, that when it is fulfilled, the event may be compared with the prophecy, and it may be seen that the one corresponds with the other. In the passage before us, Gesenius (“Lexicon”) renders it, “to complete, to finish” - meaning that the prophecies would be fulfilled. Hengstenberg supposes that it means, that “as soon as the fulfillment takes place, the prophecy, although it retains, in other respects, its great importance, reaches the end of its destination, in so far as the view of believers, who stand in need of consolation and encouragement, is no longer directed to it, to the future prosperity, but to what has appeared.”Lengerke supposes that it means to confirm, corroborate, ratify -bekraftigen, bestatigen; that is, “the eternal righteousness will be given to the pious, and the predictions of the prophets will be confirmed and fulfilled.” To seal, says he, has also the idea of confirming, since the contents of a writing are secured or made fast by a seal. After all, perhaps, the very idea here is, that of “making fast,” as a lock or seal does - for, as is well known, a seal was often used by the ancients where a lock is with us; and the sense may be, that, as a seal or lock made fast and secure the contents of a writing or a book, so the event, when the prophecy was

10

fulfilled, would make it “fast” and “secure.” It would be, as it were, locking it up, or sealing it, forever. It would determine all that seemed to be undetermined about it; settle all that seemed to be indefinite, and leave it no longer uncertain what was meant. According to this interpretation the meaning would be, that the prophecies would be sealed up or settled by the coming of the Messiah. The prophecies terminated on him (compare Rev_19:10); they would find their fulfillment in him; they would be completed in him - and might then be regarded as closed and consummated - as a book that is fully written and is sealed up. All the prophecies, and all the visions, had a reference more or less direct to the coming of the Messiah, and when he should appear they might be regarded as complete. The spirit of prophecy would cease, and the facts would confirm and seal all that had been written.And to anoint the Most Holy - There has been great variety in the

interpretation of this expression. The word rendered “anoint” - משחmeshocha - infinitive from משח mâshach (from the word Messiah, Dan_9:25), means, properly, to strike or draw the hand over anything; to spread over with anything, to smear, to paint, to anoint. It is commonly used with reference to a sacred rite, to anoint, or consecrate by unction, or anointing to any office or use; as, e. g., a priest, Exo_28:41; Exo_40:15; a prophet, 1Ki_19:16; Isa_61:1; a king, 1Sa_10:1; 1Sa_15:1; 2Sa_2:4; 1Ki_1:34. So it is used to denote the consecration of a stone or column as a future sacred place, Gen_31:13; or vases and vessels as consecrated to God, Exo_40:9, Exo_40:11; Lev_8:11; Num_7:1. The word would then denote a setting apart to a sacred use, or consecrating a person or place as holy. Oil, or an unguent, prepared according to a specified rule, was commonly employed for this purpose, but the word may be used in a figurative sense - as denoting to set apart or consecrate in any way “without” the use of oil - as in the case of the Messiah. So far as this word, therefore, is concerned, what is here referred to may have occurred without the literal use of oil, by any act of consecration or dedication to a holy use.

The phrase, “the Most Holy” (קדשים qôdesh קדש qādāshıym) has been very variously interpreted. By some it has been understood to apply literally to the most holy place - the holy of holies, in the temple; by others to the whole temple, regarded as holy; by others to Jerusalem at large as a holy place; and by others, as Hengstenberg, to the Christian church as “a” holy place. By some the thing here referred to is supposed to have been the consecration of the most holy place after the rebuilding of the temple; by others the consecration of the whole temple; by others the consecration of the temple and city by the presence of the Messiah, and by others the consecration of the Christian church, by his presence. The phrase properly means “holy of holies,” or most holy. It is applied often in the Scriptures to the “inner sanctuary,” or the portion of the tabernacle and temple containing the ark of the covenant, the two tables of stone, etc.

See the notes at Mat_21:12. The phrase occurs in the following places in the Scripture: Exo_26:33-34; Exo_29:37; Exo_30:29, Exo_30:36; Exo_40:10; Lev_2:3, Lev_2:10, “et al.” - in all, in about twenty-eight places. See the “Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance.” It is not necessarily limited to the 11

inner sanctuary of the temple, but may be applied to the whole house, or to anything that was consecrated to God in a manner peculiarly sacred. In a large sense, possibly it might apply to Jerusalem, though I am not aware that it ever occurs in this sense in the Scriptures, and in a figurative sense it might be applied undoubtedly, as Hengstenberg supposes, to the Christian church, though it is certain that it is not elsewhere thus used. In regard to the meaning of the expression - an important and difficult one, as is admitted by all - there are five principal opinions which it may be well to notice. The truth will be found in one of them.(1) That it refers to the consecration by oil or anointing of the temple, that would be rebuilt after the captivity, by Zerubbabel and Joshua. This was the opinion of Michaelis and Jahn. But to this opinion there are insuperable objections:(a) That, according to the uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy oil was wanting in the second temple. In the case of the first temple there might have been a literal anointing, though there is no evidence of that, as there was of the anointing of the vessels of the tabernacle, Exo_30:22, etc. But in the second temple there is every evidence that there can be, that there was no literal anointing.(b) The “time” here referred to is a fatal objection to this opinion. The period is seventy weeks of years, or four hundred and ninety years. This cannot be doubted (see the notes at the first part of the verse) to be the period referred to; but it is absurd to suppose that the consecration of the new temple would be deferred for so long a time, and there is not the slightest evidence that it was. This opinion, therefore, cannot be entertained.(2) The second opinion is, that it refers to the re-consecration and cleansing of the temple after the abominations of Antiochus Epiphanes. See the notes at Dan_8:14. But this opinion is liable substantially to the same objections as the other. The cleansing of the temple, or of the sanctuary, as it is said in Dan_8:14, did “not” occur four hundred and ninety years after the order to rebuild the temple Dan_9:25, but at a much earlier period. By no art of construction, if the period here referred to is four hundred and ninety years, can it be made to apply to the re-dedication of the temple after Antiochus had defiled it.(3) Others have supposed that this refers to the Messiah himself, and that the meaning is, that he, who was most holy, would then be consecrated or anointed as the Messiah. It is probable, as Hengstenberg (“Christ.” ii. 321, 322) has shown, that the Greek translators thus understood it, but it is a sufficient objection to this that the phrase, though occurring many times in the Scriptures, is never applied to “persons,” unless this be an instance. Its uniform and proper application is to “things,” or “places,” and it is undoubtedly so to be understood in this place.(4) Hengstenberg supposes (pp. 325-328) that it refers to the Christian church as “a” holy place, or “the New Temple of the Lord,” “the Church of the New covenant,” as consecrated and supplied with the gifts of the Spirit. But it is a sufficient refutation of this opinion that the phrase is nowhere else so used; that it has in the Old Testament a settled meaning as referring

12

to the tabernacle or the temple; that it is nowhere employed to denote a collection of “people,” anymore than an individual person - an idea which Hengstenberg himself expressly rejects (p. 322); and that there is no proper sense in which it can be said that the Christian church is “anointed.” The language is undoubtedly to be understood as referring to some “place” that was to be thus consecrated, and the uniform Hebrew usage would lead to the supposition that there is reference, in some sense, to the temple at Jerusalem.(5) It seems to me, therefore, that the obvious and fair interpretation is, to refer it to the temple - as the holy place of God; his peculiar abode on earth. Strictly and properly speaking, the phrase would apply to the inner room of the temple - the sanctuary properly so called (see the notes at Heb_9:2); but it might he applied to the whole temple as consecrated to the service of God. If it be asked, then, what anointing or consecration is referred to here, the reply, as it seems to me, is, not that it was then to be set apart anew, or to be dedicated; not that it was literally to be anointed with the consecrating oil, but that it was to be consecrated in the highest and best sense by the presence of the Messiah - that by his coming there was to be a higher and more solemn consecration of the temple to the real purpose for which it was erected than had occurred at any time. It was reared as a holy place; it would become eminently holy by the presence of him who would come as the anointed of God, and his coming to it would accomplish the purpose for which it was erected, and with reference to which all the rites observed there had been ordained, and then, this work having been accomplished, the temple, and all the rites pertaining to it, would pass away.In confirmation of this view, it may be remarked, that there are repeated allusions to the coming of the Messiah to the second temple, reared after the return from the captivity - as that which would give a peculiar sacredness to the temple, and which would cause it to surpass in glory all its ancient splendor. So in Hag_2:7, Hag_2:9 : “And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts. - The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the Lord of hosts.” So Mal_3:1-2 : “The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap,” etc.Compare Mat_12:6 : “But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.” Using the word “anoint,” therefore, as denoting to consecrate, to render holy, to set apart to a sacred use, and the phrase “holy of holies” to designate the temple as such, it seems to me most probable that the reference here is to the highest consecration which could be made of the temple in the estimation of a Hebrew, or, in fact, the presence of the Messiah, as giving a sacredness to that edifice which nothing else did give or could give, and, therefore, as meeting all the proper force of the language used here. On the supposition that it was designed that there should be a reference to this event, this would be such language as would have been not unnaturally employed by a Hebrew prophet. And if it be so, this may be

13

regarded as the probable meaning of the passage. In this sense, the temple which was to be reared again, and about which Daniel felt so solicitous, would receive its highest, its truest consecration, as connected with an event which was to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and the prophecy.(D) Simultaneously with this event, as the result of this, we are to anticipate such a spread of truth and righteousness, and such a reign of the saints on the earth, as would be properly symbolized by the coming of the Son of man to the ancient of days to receive the kingdom, Dan_7:13-14. As shown in the interpretation of those verses, this does not necessarily imply that there would be any visible appearing of the Son of man, or any personal reign (see the note at these verses), but there would be such a making over of the kingdom to the Son of man and to the saints as would be properly symbolized by such a representation. That is, there would be great changes; there would be a rapid progress of the truth; there would be a spread of the gospel; there would be a change in the governments of the world, so that the power would pass into the hands of the righteous, and they would in fact rule. From that time the “saints” would receive the kingdom, and the affairs of the world would be put on a new footing. From that period it might be said that the reign of the saints would commence; that is, there would be such changes in this respect that that would constitute an epoch in the history of the world - the proper beginning of the reign of the saints on the earth - the setting up of the new and final dominion in the world. If there should be such changes - such marked progress - such facilities for the spread of truth - such new methods of propagating it - and such certain success attending it, all opposition giving way, and persecution ceasing, as would properly constitute an epoch or era in the world’s history, which would be connected with the conversion of the world to God, this would fairly meet the interpretation of this prophecy; this occurring, all would have taken place which could be fairly shown to be implied in the vision.(E) We are to expect a reign of righteousness on the earth. On the character of what we are fairly to expect from the words of the prophecy, see the notes at Dan_7:14. The prophecy authorizes us to anticipate a time when there shall be a general prevalence of true religion; when the power in the world shall be in the hands of good men - of men fearing God; when the Divine laws shall be obeyed - being acknowledged as the laws that are to control men; when the civil institutions of the world shall be pervaded by religion, and moulded by it; when there shall be no hinderance to the free exercise of religion, and when in fact the reigning power on the earth shall be the kingdom which the Messiah shall set up. There is nothing more certain in the future than such a period, and to that all things are tending. Such a period would fulfill all that is fairly implied in this wonderful prophecy, and to that faith and hope should calmly and confidently look forward. For that they who love their God and their race should labor and pray; and by the certain assurance that such a period will come, we should be cheered amidst all the moral darkness that exists in the world, and in all that now discourages us in our endeavors to do good.

14

CLARKE, "Seventy weeks are determined - This is a most important prophecy, and has given rise to a variety of opinions relative to the proper mode of explanation; but the chief difficulty, if not the only one, is to find out the time from which these seventy weeks should be dated. What is here said by the angel is not a direct answer to Daniel’s prayer. He prays to know when the seventy weeks of the captivity are to end. Gabriel shows him that there are seventy weeks determined relative to a redemption from another sort of captivity, which shall commence with the going forth of the edict to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, and shall terminate with the death of Messiah the Prince, and the total abolition of the Jewish sacrifices. In the four following verses he enters into the particulars of this most important determination, and leaves them with Daniel for his comfort, who has left them to the Church of God for the confirmation of its faith, and a testimony to the truth of Divine revelation. They contain the fullest confirmation of Christianity, and a complete refutation of the Jewish cavils and blasphemies on this subject.

Of all the writers I have consulted on this most noble prophecy, Dean Prideaux appears to me the most clear and satisfactory. I shall therefore follow his method in my explanation, and often borrow his words.Seventy weeks are determined - The Jews had Sabbatic years, Lev_25:8, by which their years were divided into weeks of years, as in this important prophecy, each week containing seven years. The seventy weeks therefore here spoken of amount to four hundred and ninety years.In Dan_9:24 there are six events mentioned which should be the consequences of the incarnation of our Lord: -I. To finish (לכלא lechalle, to restrain), the transgression which was

effected by the preaching of the Gospel, and pouring out of the Holy Ghost among men.II. To make an end of sins; rather ולהתם חטאות ulehathem chataoth , “to make

an end of sin-offerings,” which our Lord did when he offered his spotless soul and body on the cross once for all.III. To make reconciliation (ולכפר ulechapper, “to make atonement or

expiation”) for iniquity; which he did by the once offering up of himself.IV. To bring in everlasting righteousness, צדק עלמים tsedek olamim , that is,

“the righteousness, or righteous One, of ages;” that person who had been the object of the faith of mankind, and the subject of the predictions of the prophets through all the ages of the world.V. To seal up (ולחתם velachtom, “to finish or complete”) the vision and

prophecy; that is, to put an end to the necessity of any farther revelations, by completing the canon of Scripture, and fulfilling the prophecies which related to his person, sacrifice, and the glory that should follow.

15

VI. And to anoint the Most Holy, קדש קדשים kodesh kodashim , “the Holy of holies.” משיח mashach, to anoint, (from which comes משיח mashiach, the Messiah, the anointed one), signifies in general, to consecrate or appoint to some special office. Here it means the consecration or appointment of our blessed Lord, the Holy One of Israel, to be the Prophet, Priest, and King of mankind.

GILL, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city,..... Or, "concerning thy people, and concerning thy holy city" (s); that is, such a space of time is fixed upon; "cut out" (t), as the word signifies; or appointed of God for the accomplishment of certain events, relative to the temporal good of the city and people of the Jews; as the rebuilding of their city and temple; the continuance of them as a people, and of their city; the coming of the Messiah to them, to obtain spiritual blessings for them, and for all the people of God; who also were Daniel's people and city in a spiritual sense, to which he belonged; and likewise what was relative to the utter ruin and destruction of the Jews as a people, and of their city: and this space of "seventy" weeks is not to be understood of weeks of days; which is too short a time for the fulfilment of so many events as are mentioned; nor were they fulfilled within such a space of time; but of weeks of years, and make up four hundred and ninety years; within which time, beginning from a date after mentioned, all the things prophesied of were accomplished; and this way of reckoning of years by days is not unusual in the sacred writings; see Gen_29:27. The verb used is singular, and, joined with the noun plural, shows that every week was cut out and appointed for some event or another; and the word, as it signifies "to cut", aptly expresses the division, or section of these weeks into distinct periods, as seven, sixty two, and one. The first events mentioned are spiritual ones, and are not ascribed to any particular period; but are what should be done within this compass of time in general, and were done toward the close of it; and are first observed because of the greatest importance, and are as follow: to finish the transgression; not the transgression of Adam, or original sin, which, though took away by Christ from his people, yet not from all men; nor the actual transgression of man in general, which never more abounded than in the age in which Christ lived; but rather the transgressions of his people he undertook to satisfy for, and which were laid on him, and bore by him, and carried away, so as not to be seen more, or to have no damning power over them. The word used signifies "to restrain" (u); now, though sin greatly abounded, both among Jews and Gentiles, in the age of the Messiah; yet there never was an age in which greater restraints were laid on it than in this, by the ministry of John the Baptist, and of Christ in Judea and by the apostles in the Gentile world: and to make an end of sins; so that they shall be no more, but put away and abolished by the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for them, as to guilt and

16

punishment; so that those, for whose sins satisfaction is made, no charge can be brought against them, nor the curse of the law reach them, nor any sentence of it be executed, or any punishment inflicted on them; but are entirely and completely saved from all their sins, and the sad effects of them. Our version follows the marginal reading; but the textual writing is, "to seal up sins" (w); which is expressive of the pardon of them procured by Christ; for things sealed are hid and covered, and so are sins forgiven, Psa_32:1, and to make reconciliation for iniquity: to expiate it, and make atonement for it; which was made by the sacrifice of Christ, by his sufferings and death; whereby the law and justice of God were fully satisfied, full reparation being made for the injury done by sin; and this was made for all kind of sin, expressed here by several words; and for all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the Lord's people; to do which was the grand end of Christ's coming into the world; see Heb_2:17, and to bring in everlasting righteousness; which is true only of the righteousness of Christ, by which the law is magnified and made honourable, justice satisfied, and all that believe in him justified from all their sins: this Christ, by his obedience, sufferings, and death, has wrought out, and brought into the world; and which phase designs, not the manifestation of it in the Gospel; nor the act of imputation of it, which is Jehovah the Father's act; nor the application of it, which is by the Spirit of God; but Christ's actual working of it out by obeying the precept and bearing the penalty of the law: and this may be truly called "everlasting", or "the righteousness of ages" (x), of ages past; the righteousness by which the saints in all ages from the beginning of the world are justified; and which endures, and will endure, throughout all ages, to the justification of all that believe; it is a robe of righteousness that will never wear out; its virtue to justify will ever continue, being perfect; it will answer for the justified ones in a time to come, and has eternal life connected with it: and to seal up the vision and prophecy; not to shut it up out of sight; rather to set a mark on it, by which it might be more clearly known; but to consummate and fulfil it: all prophecy is sealed up in Christ, and by him; he is the sum and substance of it; the visions and prophecies of the Old Testament relate to him, and have their accomplishment in him; some relate to his person and office; others to his coming into the world, the time, place, and manner of it; others to the great work of redemption and salvation he came about; and others to his miracles, sufferings, and death, and the glory that should follow; all which have been fulfilled: or, "to seal up the vision and prophet" (y); the prophets were until John, and then to cease, and have ceased ever since the times of Jesus; there has been no prophet among the Jews, they themselves do not deny it; Christ is come, the last and great Prophet of all, with a full revelation of the divine will, and no other is to be expected; all that pretend to set up a new scheme of things, either as to doctrine or worship, through pretended vision or prophecy, are to be disregarded:

17

and to anoint the most Holy; not literally the most holy place in the temple; figuratively, either heaven itself, anointed, and prepared for his people by the Messiah's ascension thither, and entrance into it; or rather most holy persons, the church and people of God, typified by the sanctuary, the temple of God; and in a comparative sense are most holy, and absolutely so, as washed in the blood of Christ, clothed with his righteousness, and sanctified by his Spirit; and by whom they are anointed, some in an extraordinary and others in an ordinary way, and all by the grace of Christ: or it may be best of all to understand this of the Messiah, as Aben Ezra and others do; who is holy in his person, in both his natures, human and divine; sanctified and set apart to his office, and holy in the execution of it; equal in holiness to the Father and the Spirit; superior in it to angels and men, who have all their holiness from him, and by whom they are sanctified; and of whom the sanctuary or temple was a type; and who was anointed with the Holy Ghost as man, at his incarnation, baptism, and ascension to heaven; and Abarbinel owns it may be interpreted of the Messiah, who may be called the Holy of holies, because he is holier than all other Israelites.

JAMISON, "Seventy weeks — namely, of years; literally, “Seventy sevens”; seventy heptads or hebdomads; four hundred ninety years; expressed in a form of “concealed definiteness” [Hengstenberg], a usual way with the prophets. The Babylonian captivity is a turning point in the history of the kingdom of God. It terminated the free Old Testament theocracy. Up to that time Israel, though oppressed at times, was; as a rule, free. From the Babylonian captivity the theocracy never recovered its full freedom down to its entire suspension by Rome; and this period of Israel’s subjection to the Gentiles is to continue till the millennium (Rev_20:1-15), when Israel shall be restored as head of the New Testament theocracy, which will embrace the whole earth. The free theocracy ceased in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and the fourth of Jehoiakim; the year of the world 3338, the point at which the seventy years of the captivity begin. Heretofore Israel had a right, if subjugated by a foreign king, to shake off the yoke (Judges 4:1-5:31; 2Ki_18:7) as an unlawful one, at the first opportunity. But the prophets (Jer_27:9-11) declared it to be God’s will that they should submit to Babylon. Hence every effort of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah to rebel was vain. The period of the world times, and of Israel’s depression, from the Babylonian captivity to the millennium, though abounding more in afflictions (for example, the two destructions of Jerusalem, Antiochus’ persecution, and those which Christians suffered), contains all that was good in the preceding ones, summed up in Christ, but in a way visible only to the eye of faith. Since He came as a servant, He chose for His appearing the period darkest of all as to His people’s temporal state. Always fresh persecutors have been rising, whose end is destruction, and so it shall be with the last enemy, Antichrist. As the Davidic epoch is the point of the covenant-people’s highest glory, so the captivity is that of their lowest humiliation. Accordingly, the people’s sufferings are reflected in the picture of the suffering Messiah. He is no longer represented as the theocratic King, the Antitype of David, but as the Servant of God and Son of man; at the same

18

time the cross being the way to glory (compare Dan_9:1-27 with Dan_2:34, Dan_2:35, Dan_2:44; Dan_12:7). In the second and seventh chapters, Christ’s first coming is not noticed, for Daniel’s object was to prophesy to his nation as to the whole period from the destruction to the re-establishment of Israel; but this ninth chapter minutely predicts Christ’s first coming, and its effects on the covenant people. The seventy weeks date thirteen years before the rebuilding of Jerusalem; for then the re-establishment of the theocracy began, namely, at the return of Ezra to Jerusalem, 457 b.c. So Jeremiah’s seventy years of the captivity begin 606 b.c., eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for then Judah ceased to exist as an independent theocracy, having fallen under the sway of Babylon. Two periods are marked in Ezra: (1) The return from the captivity under Jeshua and Zerubbabel, and rebuilding of the temple, which was the first anxiety of the theocratic nation. (2) The return of Ezra (regarded by the Jews as a second Moses) from Persia to Jerusalem, the restoration of the city, the nationality, and the law. Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his reign, gave him the commission which virtually includes permission to rebuild the city, afterwards confirmed to, and carried out by, Nehemiah in the twentieth year (Ezr_9:9; Ezr_7:11, etc.). Dan_9:25, “from the going forth of the commandment to build Jerusalem,” proves that the second of the two periods is referred to. The words in Dan_9:24 are not, “are determined upon the holy city,” but “upon thy people and thy holy city”; thus the restoration of the religious national polity and the law (the inner work fulfilled by Ezra the priest), and the rebuilding of the houses and walls (the outer work of Nehemiah, the governor), are both included in Dan_9:25, “restore and build Jerusalem.” “Jerusalem” represents both the city, the body, and the congregation, the soul of the state. Compare Psa_46:1-11; Psa_48:1-14; Psa_87:1-7. The starting-point of the seventy weeks dated from eighty-one years after Daniel received the prophecy: the object being not to fix for him definitely the time, but for the Church: the prophecy taught him that the Messianic redemption, which he thought near, was separated from him by at least a half millennium. Expectation was sufficiently kept alive by the general conception of the time; not only the Jews, but many Gentiles looked for some great Lord of the earth to spring from Judea at that very time [Tacitus, Histories, 5.13; Seutonius, Vespasian, 4]. Ezra’s placing of Daniel in the canon immediately before his own book and Nehemiah’s was perhaps owing to his feeling that he himself brought about the beginning of the fulfillment of the prophecy (Dan_9:20-27) [Auberlen].determined — literally, “cut out,” namely, from the whole course of time, for God to deal in a particular manner with Jerusalem.thy ... thy — Daniel had in his prayer often spoken of Israel as “Thypeople, Thy holy city”; but Gabriel, in reply, speaks of them as Daniel’s(“thy ... thy”) people and city, God thus intimating that until the “everlasting righteousness” should be brought in by Messiah, He could not fully own them as His [Tregelles] (compare Exo_32:7). Rather, as God is wishing to console Daniel and the godly Jews, “the people whom thou art so anxiously praying for”; such weight does God give to the intercessions of the righteous (Jam_5:16-18).

19

finish — literally, “shut up”; remove from God’s sight, that is, abolish (Psa_51:9) [Lengkerke]. The seventy years’ exile was a punishment, but not a full atonement, for the sin of the people; this would come only after seventy prophetic weeks, through Messiah.make an end of — The Hebrew reading, “to steal,” that is, to hide out of sight (from the custom of sealing up things to be concealed, compare Job_9:7), is better supported.make reconciliation for — literally, “to cover,” to overlay (as with pitch, Gen_6:14). Compare Psa_32:1.bring in everlasting righteousness — namely, the restoration of the normal state between God and man (Jer_23:5, Jer_23:6); to continue eternally (Heb_9:12; Rev_14:6).seal up ... vision ... prophecy — literally, “prophet.” To give the seal of confirmation to the prophet and his vision by the fulfillment.anoint the Most Holy — primarily, to “anoint,” or to consecrate after its pollution “the Most Holy” place but mainly Messiah, the antitype to the Most Holy place (Joh_2:19-22). The propitiatory in the temple (the same Greek word expresses the mercy seat and propitiation, Rom_3:25), which the Jews looked for at the restoration from Babylon, shall have its true realization only in Messiah. For it is only when sin is “made an end of” that God’s presence can be perfectly manifested. As to “anoint,” compare Exo_40:9, Exo_40:34. Messiah was anointed with the Holy Ghost (Act_4:27; Act_10:38). So hereafter, God-Messiah will “anoint” or consecrate with His presence the holy place at Jerusalem (Jer_3:16, Jer_3:17; Eze_37:27, Eze_37:28), after its pollution by Antichrist, of which the feast of dedication after the pollution by Antiochus was a type.

K&D, "The divine revelation regarding the seventy weeks. - This message of the angel relates to the most important revelations regarding the future development of the kingdom of God. From the brevity and measured form of the expression, which Auberlen designates “the lapidary style of the upper sanctuary,” and from the difficulty of calculating the period named, this verse has been very variously interpreted. The interpretations may be divided into three principal classes. 1. Most of the church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters find prophesied here the appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 2. The majority of the modern interpreters, on the other hand, refer the whole passage to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. 3. Finally, some of the church fathers and several modern theologians have interpreted the prophecy eschatologically, as an announcement of the development of the kingdom of God from the end of the Exile on to the perfecting of the kingdom by the second coming of Christ at the end of the days.

(Note: The first of these views is in our time fully and at length defended by Hävernick (Comm.), Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. 1, p. 19ff., 2nd ed.), and Auberlen (Der Proph. Daniel, u.s.w., p. 103ff., 3rd ed.), and is adopted also by the Catholic theologian Laur. Reinke (die messian. 20

Weissag. bei den gr. u. kl. Proph. des A.T. iv. 1, p. 206ff.), and by Dr. Pusey of England. The second view presents itself in the Alexandrine translation of the prophecy, more distinctly in Julius Hilarianus (about a.d. 400) (Chronologia s. libellus de mundi duratione, in Migne's Biblioth. cler. univ. t. 13, 1098), and in several rabbinical interpreters, but was first brought into special notice by the rationalistic interpreters Eichhorn, Bertholdt. v. Leng., Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, and the mediating theologians Bleek, Wieseler (Die 70 Wochen u. die 63 Jahrwochen des Proph. Daniel, Gött. 1839, with which compare the Retractation in the Göttinger gel. Anzeigen, 1846, p. 113ff.), who are followed by Lücke, Hilgenfeld, Kranichfeld, and others. This view has also been defended by Hofmann (die 70 Jahre des Jer. u. die 70 Jahrwochen des Daniel, Nürnb. 1836, and Weissag. u. Erfüllung, as also in the Schriftbew.), Delitzsch (Art. Daniel in Herz.'s Realenc. Bd. iii.), and Zündel (in the Kritischen Uterss.), but with this essential modification, that Hofmann and Delitzsch have united an eschatological reference with the primary historical reference of Dan_9:25-27 to Antiochus Epiphanes, in consequence of which the prophecy will be perfectly accomplished only in the appearance of Antichrist and the final completion of the kingdom of God at the end of the days. Of the third view we have the first germs in Hoppolytus and Apollinaris of Laodicea, who, having regard to the prophecy of Antichrist, Dan_7:25, refer the statement of Dan_9:27 of this chapter, regarding the last week, to the end of the world; and the first half of this week they regard as the time of the return of Elias, the second half as the time of Antichrist. This view is for the first time definitely stated in the Berleburg Bible. But Kliefoth, in his Comm. on Daniel, was the first who sought to investigate and establish this opinion exegetically, and Leyrer (in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. p. 383) has thus briefly stated it: - ”The seventy שבעים, i.e., the καιροὶ of Daniel (Dan_9:24.) measured by sevens, within which the whole of God's plan of salvation in the world will be completed, are a symbolical period with reference to the seventy years of exile prophesied by Jeremiah, and with the accessory notion of oecumenicity. The 70 is again divided into three periods: into 7 (till Christ), 62 (till the apostasy of Antichrist), and one שבוע, the last world - ἑπτά, divided into 2 x 3 1/2 times, the rise and the fall of Antichrist.”

For the history of the interpretation, compare for the patristic period the treatise of Professor Reusch of Bonn, entitled “Die Patrist. Berechnung der 70 Jahrwochen Daniels,” in the Tüb. Theol. Quart. 1868, p. 535ff.; for the period of the middle ages and of more modern times, Abr. Calovii Εξετασις theologica de septuaginta septimanis Danielis, in the Biblia illustr. ad Daniel. ix., and Hävernick's History of the Interpretation in his Comm. p. 386ff.; and for the most recent period, R. Baxmann on the Book of Daniel in the Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken, 1863, iii. p. 497ff.)

In the great multiplicity of opinions, in order to give clearness to the interpretation, we shall endeavour first of all to ascertain the meaning of the words of each clause and verse, and then, after determining exegetically 21

the import of the words, take into consideration the historical references and calculations of the periods of time named, and thus further to establish our view.The revelation begins, Dan_9:24, with a general exhibition of the divine counsel regarding the city and the people of God; and then there follows, Dan_9:25-27, the further unfolding of the execution of this counsel in its principal parts. On this all interpreters are agreed, that the seventy weeks which are determined upon the people and the city are in Dan_9:25-27divided into three periods, and are closely defined according to their duration and their contents.

Daniel 9:24Seventy weeks are determined. - שבעים from שבוע, properly, the time

divided into sevenths, signifies commonly the period of seven days, the week, as Gen_29:27. (in the sing.), and Dan_10:2-3, in the plur., which is usually in the form ת שבעים cf. Deu_16:9., Exo_34:22, etc. In the form ;שבעthere thus lies no intimation that it is not common weeks that are meant. As little does it lie in the numeral being placed after it, for it also sometimes is found before it, where, as here, the noun as the weightier idea must be emphasized, and that not by later authors merely, but also in Gen_32:15., 1Ki_8:63; cf. Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 698. What period of time is here denoted by שבעים can be determined neither from the word itself and its form, nor from the comparison with ימים ימים Dan_10:2-3, since ,שבעים is in these verses added to שבעים, not for the purpose of designating these as day-weeks, but simply as full weeks (three weeks long). The reasons for the opinion that common (i.e., seven-day) weeks are not intended, lie partly in the contents of Dan_9:25, Dan_9:27, which undoubtedly teach that that which came to pass in the sixty-two weeks and in the one week could not take place in common weeks, partly in the reference of the seventy שבעים to the seventy years of Jeremiah, Dan_9:2. According to a prophecy of Jeremiah - so e.g., Hitzig reasons - Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years, and now, in the sixty-ninth year, the city and the temple are as yet lying waste (Dan_9:17.), and as yet nowhere are there symptoms of any change. Then, in answer to his supplication, Daniel received the answer, seventy שבעים must pass before the full working out of the deliverance. “If the deliverance was not yet in seventy years, then still less was it in seventy weeks. With seventy times seven months we are also still inside of seventy years, and we are directed therefore to year-weeks, so that each week shall consist of seven years. The special account of the contents of the weeks can be adjusted with the year-weeks alone; and the half-week, Dan_9:27, particularly appears to be identical in actual time with these three and a half times (years), Dan_7:25.” This latter element is by others much more definitely affirmed. Thus e.g., Kranichfeld says that Daniel had no doubt about the definite extent of the expression שבוע, but gave an altogether

22

unambiguous interpretation of it when he combined the last half-week essentially with the known and definite three and a half years of the time of the end. But - we must, on the contrary, ask - where does Daniel speak of the three and a half years of the time of the end? He does not use the word year in any of the passages that fall to be here considered, but only עדן or עד ,מtime, definite time. That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters, but a satisfactory proof of such a meaning has not been adduced. Moreover, in favour of year-weeks (periods of seven years) it has been argued that such an interpretation was very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the Exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, inasmuch as the seventy years' desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the sabbatical years: 2Ch_36:21(Hgstb., Kran., and others). But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law שבעים or ת ,שבעtherefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Lev_25:2, Lev_25:4-5; Lev_26:34-35, Lev_26:43; 2Ch_36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Lev_25:8.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be called שבעים. Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark that שבעים does not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds. The ἁπ. λεγ. חת means in Chald. to cut off, to cut up into pieces, then to decide, to determine closely, e.g., Targ. Est_4:5; cf. Buxtorf, Lex. talm., and Levy, Chald. Wörterb. s.v. The meaning for נחת, abbreviatae sunt (Vulg. for ἐκολοβώθησαν, Mat_24:22), which Wieseler has brought forward, is not proved, and it is unsuitable, because if one cuts off a piece from a whole, the whole is diminished on account of the piece cut off, but not the piece itself. For the explanation of the sing. נחת we need neither the supposition that a definite noun, as עת (time), was before the prophet's mind (Hgstb.), nor the appeal to the inexact manner of writing of the later authors (Ewald). The sing. is simply explained by this, that שבעים שבעים is conceived of as the absolute idea, and then is taken up by the passive verb impersonal, to mark that the seventy sevenths are to be viewed as a whole, as a continued period of seventy seven times following each other.

Upon thy people and upon thy holy city. In the על there does not lie the conception of that which is burdensome, or that this period would be a time of suffering like the seventy years of exile (v. Lengerke). The word only indicates that such a period of time was determined upon the people. The people and the city of Daniel are called the people and the city of God, because Daniel has just represented them before God as His (Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Kliefoth). But Jerusalem, even when in ruins, is called the holy

23

city by virtue of its past and its future history; cf. Dan_9:20. This predicate does not point, as Wieseler and Hitzig have rightly acknowledged, to a time when the temple stood, as Stähelin and v. Lengerke suppose. Only this lies in it, Kliefoth has justly added, - not, however, in the predicate of holiness, but rather in the whole expression, - that the people and city of God shall not remain in the state of desolation in which they then were, but shall at some time be again restored, and shall continue during the time mentioned. One must not, however, at once conclude that this promise of continuance referred only to the people of the Jews and their earthly Jerusalem. Certainly it refers first to Israel after the flesh, and to the geographical Jerusalem, because these were then the people and the city of God; but these ideas are not exhausted in this reference, but at the same time embrace the New Testament church and the church of God on earth.The following infinitive clauses present the object for which the seventy weeks are determined, i.e., they intimate what shall happen till, or with the

expiry of, the time determined. Although ל before the infinitive does not mean till or during, yet it is also not correct to say that ל can point out only the issue which the period of time finally reaches, only its result. Whether that which is stated in the infinitive clauses shall for the first time take place after the expiry of, or at the end of the time named, or shall develope itself gradually in the course of it, and only be completed at the end of it, cannot be concluded from the final ל, but only from the material contents of the final clauses. The six statements are divided by Maurer, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others into three passages of two members each, thus: After the expiry of seventy weeks, there shall (1) be completed the measure of sin; (2) the sin shall be covered and righteousness brought in; (3) the prophecy shall be fulfilled, and the temple, which was desecrated by Antiochus, shall be again consecrated. The masoretes seem, however, to have already conceived of this threefold division by placing the Atnach under עלמים צדק (the fourth clause); but it rests on a false construction of the individual members especially of the first two passages. Rather we have two three-membered sentences before us. This appears evident from the arrangement of the six statements; i.e., that the first three statements treat of the taking away of sin, and thus of the negative side of the deliverance; the three last treat of the bringing in of everlasting righteousness with its consequences, and thus of the positive deliverance, and in such a manner that in both classes the three members stand in reciprocal relation to each other: the fourth statement corresponds to the first, the fifth to the second, the sixth to the third - the second and the fifth present even the same verb חתם.

In the first and second statements the reading is doubtful. Instead of לחתם(Keth.), to seal, the Keri has להתם, to end (R. תמם, to complete). In לכלא a double reading is combined, for the vowel-points do not belong to the Keth., which rather has לכלא, since כלא is nowhere found in the Piel, but to the Keri, for the Masoretes hold כלא to be of the same meaning as כלה, to be ended. Thus the ancient translators interpreted it: lxx, τὰς ἀδικίας σπανίσαι; Theod., συντελεσθῆναι, al. συντελέσαι; Aquil., συντελέσαι τὴν ἀθεσίαν; Vulg., ut

24

consummetur praevaricatio. Bertholdt, Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, Hitzig, Maurer, have followed them in supposing a passing of הinto .א But since כלה occurs frequently in Daniel, always with ה htiw(cf. v. 27; Dan_11:36; Dan_12:7), and generally the roots with הtake the form of those with אmuch seldomer than the reverse, on these grounds the reading לכלאthus deserves the preference, apart from the consideration that almost all the Keris are valueless emendations of the Masoretes; and the parallel להתם, decidedly erroneous, is obviously derived from Dan_8:23. Thus the Keri does not give in the two passages a suitable meaning. The explanation: to finish the transgression and to make full the measure of sin, does not accord with what follows: to pardon the iniquity; and the thought that the Jews would fill up the measure of their transgression in the seventy year-weeks, and that as a punishment they would pass through a period of suffering from Antiochus and afterwards be pardoned, is untenable, because the punishment by Antiochus for their sins brought to their full measure is arbitrarily interpolated; but without this interpolation the pardon of the sins stands in contradiction to the filling up of their measure. Besides, this explanation is further opposed by the fact, that in the first two statements there must be a different subject from that which is in the third. For to fill up the measure of sin is the work of God. Accordingly the Kethivalone is to be adopted as correct, and the first passage to be translated thus: to shut up the transgression. כלא means to hold back, to hold in, to arrest, to hold in prison, to shut in or shut up; henceכלא, a prison, jail. To arrest the wickedness or shut it up does not mean to pardon it, but to hem it in, to hinder it so that it can no longer spread about (Hofm.); cf. Zec_5:8 and Rev_20:3.

In the second passage, “to seal up sin,” the ת חטא are the several proofs of the transgression. חתם, to seal, does not denote the finishing or ending of the sins (Theodrt. and others). Like the Arab. chtm, it may occur in the sense of “to end,” and this meaning may have originated from the circumstance that one is wont at the end of a letter or document to affix the impress of a seal; yet this meaning is nowhere found in Hebr.: see under Exo_28:12. The figure of the sealing stands here in connection with the shutting up in prison. Cf. Dan_6:18, the king for greater security sealed up the den into which Daniel was cast. Thus also God seals the hand of man that it cannot move, Job_37:7, and the stars that they cannot give light, Job_9:7. But in this figure to seal is not = to take away, according to which Hgstb. and many others explain it thus: the sins are here described as sealed, because they are altogether removed out of the sight of God, altogether set aside; for “that which is shut up and sealed is not merely taken away, entirely set aside, but guarded, held under lock and seal” (Kliefoth). Hence more correctly Hofmann and Kliefoth say, “If the sins are sealed, they are on the one side laid under custody, so that they cannot any more be active or increase, but that they may thus be guarded and held, so that they can no longer be pardoned and blotted out;” cf. Rev_20:3.

The third statement is, “to make reconciliation for iniquity.” כפר is 25

terminus techn., to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin-offering, i.e., to forgive.These three passages thus treat of the setting aside of sin and its blotting

out; but they neither form a climax nor a mere συναθροισμός, a multiplying of synonymous expressions for the pardoning of sins, ut tota peccatorum humani generis colluvies eo melius comprehenderetur (M. Geier). Against the idea of a climax it is justly objected, that in that case the strongest designation of sin, הפשע, which designates sin as a falling away from God, a rebelling against Him, should stand last, whereas it occurs in the first sentence. Against the idea of a συναθροισμός it is objected, that the words “to shut up” and “to seal” are not synonymous with “to make reconciliation for,” i.e., “to forgive.” The three expressions, it is true, all treat alike of the setting aside of sin, but in different ways. The first presents the general thought, that the falling away shall be shut up, the progress and the spreading of the sin shall be prevented. The other two expressions define more closely how the source whence arises the apostasy shall be shut up, the going forth and the continued operation of the sin prevented. This happens in one way with unbelievers, and in a different way with believers. The sins of unbelievers are sealed, are guarded securely under a seal, so that they may no more spread about and increase, nor any longer be active and operative; but the sins of believers are forgiven through a reconciliation. The former idea is stated in the second member, and the latter in the third, as Hofmann and Kliefoth have rightly remarked.

There follows the second group of three statements, which treat of the positive unfolding of salvation accompanying the taking away and the setting aside of sin. The first expression of this group, or the fourth in the whole number, is “to bring in everlasting righteousness.” After the entire setting aside of sin must come a righteousness which shall never cease. That צדק does not mean “happiness of the olden time” (Bertholdt, Rösch), nor “innocence of the former better times” (J. D. Michaelis), but “righteousness,” requires at present no further proof. Righteousness comes from heaven as the gift of God (Ps. 85:11-14; Isa_51:5-8), rises as a sun upon them that fear God (Mal. 3:20), and is here called everlasting, corresponding to the eternity of the Messianic kingdom (cf. Dan_2:44; Dan_7:18, Dan_7:27). צדק comprehends the internal and the external righteousness of the new heavens and the new earth, 2Pe_3:13. This fourth expression forms the positive supplement of the first: in the place of the absolutely removed transgression is the perfected righteousness.

In the fifth passage, to seal up the vision and prophecy, the word חתם, used in the second passage of sin, is here used of righteousness. The figure of sealing is regarded by many interpreters in the sense of confirming, and that by filling up, with reference to the custom of impressing a seal on a writing for the confirmation of its contents; and in illustration these references are given: 1Ki_21:8, and Jer_32:10-11, Jer_32:44 (Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Ewald, Hitzig, and others). But for this figurative use of the word to seal, no proof-passages are adduced from the O.T. Add to this that the word cannot be used here in a different sense from that in which it is used

26

in the second passage. The sealing of the prophecy corresponds to the sealing of the transgression, and must be similarly understood. The prophecy is sealed when it is laid under a seal, so that it can no longer actively show itself.The interpretation of the object ונביא ן חז is also disputed. Berth., Ros.,

Bleek, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler, refer it to the prophecy of the seventy weeks (Jer 25 and 29), mentioned in Dan_9:2. But against this view stands the fact of the absence of the article; for if by ן חז that prophecy is intended, an intimation of this would have been expected at least by the definite article, and here particularly would have been altogether indispensable. It is also condemned by the word נביא added, which shows that both words are used in comprehensive generality for all existing prophecies and prophets. Not only the prophecy, but the prophet who gives it, i.e., not merely the prophecy, but also the calling of the prophet, must be sealed. Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy ceases, no prophets any more appear. The extinction of prophecy in consequence of its fulfilment is not, however (with Hengstenberg), to be sought in the time of the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; for then only the prophecy of the Old Covenant reached its end (cf. Mat_11:13; Luk_22:37; Joh_1:46), and its place is occupied by the prophecy of the N.T., the fulfilling of which is still in the future, and which will not come to an end and terminate (καταργηθήσεται, 1Co_13:8) till the kingdom of God is perfected in glory at the termination of the present course of the world's history, at the same time with the full conclusive fulfilment of the O.T. prophecy; cf. Act_3:21. This fifth member stands over against the second, as the fourth does over against the first. “When the sins are sealed, the prophecy is also sealed, for prophecy is needed in the war against sin; when sin is thus so placed that it can no longer operate, then prophecy also may come to a state of rest; when sin comes to an end in its place, prophecy can come to an end also by its fulfilment, there being no place for it after the setting aside of sin. And when the apostasy is shut up, so that it can no more spread about, then righteousness will be brought, that it may possess the earth, now freed from sin, shut up in its own place” (Kliefoth).

The sixth and last clause, to anoint a most holy, is very differently interpreted. Those interpreters who seek the fulfilment of this word of revelation in the time following nearest the close of the Exile, or in the time of the Maccabees, refer this clause either to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering (Wieseler), which was restored by Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ezr_3:2.), or to the consecration of the temple of Zerubbabel (J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, Steudel), or to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering which was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, 1 Macc. 4:54 (Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others). But none of these interpretations can be justified. It is opposed by the actual fact, that neither in the consecration of Zerubbabel's temple, nor at the re-consecration of the altar of burnt-offering desecrated by Antiochus, is mention made of any anointing. According to the definite, uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy anointing oil did not exist during the time of the second temple. Only the Mosaic sanctuary of the tabernacle, with its altars and vessels, were consecrated by 27

anointing. Exo_30:22., 40:1-16; Lev_8:10. There is no mention of anointing even at the consecration of Solomon's temple, 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chron 5-7, because that temple only raised the tabernacle to a fixed dwelling, and the ark of the covenant as the throne of God, which was the most holy furniture thereof, was brought from the tabernacle to the temple. Even the altar of burnt-offering of the new temple (Eze_43:20,Eze_43:26) was not consecrated by anointing, but only by the offering of blood. Then the special fact of the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering, or of the temple, does not accord with the general expressions of the other members of this verse, and was on the whole not so significant and important an event as that one might expect it to be noticed after the foregoing expressions. What Kranichfeld says in confirmation of this interpretation is very far-fetched and weak. He remarks, that “as in this verse the prophetic statements relate to a taking away and כפר of sins, in the place of which righteousness is restored, accordingly the anointing will also stand in relation to this sacred action of the כפר, which primarily and above all conducts to the significance of the altar of Israel, that, viz., which stood in the outer court.” But, even granting this to be correct, it proves nothing as to the anointing even of the altar of burnt-offering. For the preceding clauses speak not only of the כפרof transgression, but also of the taking away (closing and sealing) of the apostasy and of sin, and thus of a setting aside of sin, which did not take place by means of a sacrifice. The fullest expiation also for the sins of Israel which the O.T. knew, viz., that on the great day of atonement, was not made on the altar of burnt-offering, but by the sprinkling of the blood of the offering on the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies, and on the altar of incense in the most holy place. If משח is to be explained later the כפר, then by “holy of holies” we would have to understand not “primarily” the altar of burnt-offering, but above all the holy vessels of the inner sanctuary, because here it is not an atonement needing to be repeated that is spoken of, but one that avails for ever.

In addition to this, there is the verbal argument that the words קדשים קדשare not used of a single holy vessel which alone could be thought of. Not only the altar of burnt-offering is so named, Exo_29:37; Exo_40:10, but also the altar of incense, Exo_30:10, and the two altars with all the vessels of the sanctuary, the ark of the covenant, shew-bread, candlesticks, basins, and the other vessels belonging thereto, Exo_30:29, also the holy material for incense, Exo_30:36, the shew-bread, Lev_24:9, the meat-offering, Lev_2:3, Lev_2:10; Lev_6:10; Lev_10:12, the flesh of the sin-offering and of the expiatory sacrifice, Lev_6:10,Lev_6:18; Lev_10:17; Lev_7:1, Lev_7:6; Lev_14:13; Num_18:9, and that which was sanctified to the Lord, Lev_27:28. Finally, the whole surroundings of the hill on which the temple stood, Eze_43:12, and the whole new temple, Eze_45:3, is named a “most holy;” and according to 1Ch_23:13, Aaron and his sons are sanctified as קדשים .קדש

Thus there is no good ground for referring this expression to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering. Such a reference is wholly excluded by the fact that the consecration of Zerubbabel's temple and altar, as well as of that which was desecrated by Antiochus, was a work of man, 28

while the anointing of a “most holy” in the verse before us must be regarded as a divine act, because the three preceding expressions beyond controversy announce divine actions. Every anointing, indeed, of persons or of things was performed by men, but it becomes a work of God when it is performed with the divinely ordained holy anointing oil by priests or prophets according to God's command, and then it is the means and the symbol of the endowment of equipment with the Spirit of God. When Saul was anointed by Samuel, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, 1Sa_10:9. The same thing was denoted by the anointing of David, 1Sa_16:13. The anointing also of the tabernacle and its vessels served the same object, consecrating them as the place and the means of carrying on the gracious operations of the Spirit of God. As an evidence of this, the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle after it was set up and consecrated. At the dedication of the sanctuary after the Exile, under Zerubbabel and in the Maccabean age, the anointing was wanting, and there was no entrance into it also of the glory of the Lord. Therefore these consecrations cannot be designated as anointings and as the works of God, and the angel cannot mean these works of men by the “anointing of a most holy.”Much older, more general, and also nearer the truth, is the explanation which refers these words to the anointing of the Messiah, an explanation

which is established by various arguments. The translation of the lxx, καὶ εὐφράναι ἅγιον ἁγίων, and of Theod., τοῦ χρῖσαι ἅγιον ἁγίων, the meaning ofwhich is controverted, is generally understood by the church Fathers as referring to the Messiah. Theodoret sets it forth as undoubtedly correct, and as accepted even by the Jews; and the old Syriac translator has introduced into the text the words, “till the Messiah, the Most Holy.”

(Note: Eusebius, Demonstr. Ev. viii. 2, p. 387, ed. Colon., opposes the opinion that the translation of Aquila, καὶ ἀλεῖψαι ἡγιασμένον ἡγιασμένων,may be understood of the Jewish high priest. Cf. Raymundis Martini, Pugio fidei, p. 285, ed. Carpz., and Edzard ad Abodah Sara, p. 246f., for evidences of the diffusion of this interpretation among the Jews.)

But this interpretation is set aside by the absence of the article. Without taking into view 1Ch_23:13, the words קדשים קדש are nowhere used of persons, but only of things. This meaning lies at the foundation of the passage in the book of Chronicles referred to, “that he should sanctify a קדשים anoint him (Aaron) to be a most holy thing.” Following ,קדש קד Hävernick, therefore, Hengstenberg (2nd ed. of his Christol. iii. p. 54) seeks to make this meaning applicable also for the Messianic interpretation, for he thinks that Christ is here designated as a most holy thing. But neither in the fact that the high priest bore on his brow the inscription ה ליה nor ,קדשin the declaration regarding Jehovah, “He shall be למקדש,” Isa_8:14, cf. Eze_11:16, is there any ground for the conclusion that the Messiah could simply be designated as a most holy thing. In Luk_1:35 Christ is spoken of by the simple neuter ἅγιον, but not by the word “object;” and the passages in which Jesus is described as ὁ ἅγιος, Act_3:14; Act_4:30; 1Jo_2:20; Rev_3:7, prove nothing whatever as to this use of קדש of Christ. Nothing to the purpose also can be gathered from the connection of the sentence. If in what

29

follows the person of the Messiah comes forward to view, it cannot be thence concluded that He must also be mentioned in this verse.Much more satisfactory is the thought, that in the words “to anoint a קדשים the reference is to the anointing of a new sanctuary, temple, or ”קדש

most holy place. The absence of the article forbids us, indeed, from thinking of the most holy place of the earthly temple which was rebuilt by Zerubbabel, since the most holy place of the tabernacle as well as of the temple is constantly called הקדשים But it is not this definite holy of .קדשholies that is intended, but a new holy of holies which should be in the place of the holy of holies of the tabernacle and the temple of Solomon. Now, since the new temple of the future seen by Ezekiel, with all its surroundings, is called (Eze_45:3) קדשים Hofmann (de 70 Jahre, p. 65) thinks that the ,קדשholy of holies is the whole temple, and its anointing with oil a figure of the sanctification of the church by the Holy Ghost, but that this shall not be in the conspicuousness in which it is here represented till the time of the end, when the perfected church shall possess the conspicuousness of a visible sanctuary. But, on the contrary, Kliefoth (p. 307) has with perfect justice replied, that “the most holy, and the temple, so far as it has a most holy place, is not the place of the congregation where it comes to God and is with God, but, on the contrary, is the place where God is present for the congregation, and manifests Himself to it.” The words under examination say nothing of the people and the congregation which God will gather around the place of His gracious presence, but of the objective place where God seeks to dwell among His people and reveal Himself to them. The anointing is the act by which the place is consecrated to be a holy place of the gracious presence and revelation of God. If thus the anointing of a most holy is here announced, then by it there is given the promise, not of the renewal of the place already existing from of old, but of the appointment of a new place of God's gracious presence among His people, a new sanctuary. This, as Kliefoth further justly observes, apart from the connection, might refer to the work of redemption perfected by the coming of Christ, which has indeed created in him a new place of the gracious presence of God, a new way of God's dwelling among men. But since this statement is closely connected with those going before, and they speak of the perfect setting aside of transgression and of sin, of the appearance of everlasting righteousness, and the shutting up of all prophecy by its fulfilment, thus of things for which the work of redemption completed by the first appearance of Christ has, it is true, laid the everlasting foundation, but which first reach their completion in the full carrying through of this work of salvation in the return of the Lord by the final judgment, and the establishment of the kingdom of glory under the new heavens and on the new earth, - since this is the case, we must refer this sixth statement also to that time of the consummation, and understand it of the establishment of the new holy of holies which was shown to the holy seer on Patmos as ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, in which God will dwell with them, and they shall become His people, and He shall be their God with them (Rev_21:1-3). In this holy city there will be no temple, for the Lord, the Almighty God, and the Lamb is its temple, and the glory of God will lighten it (Rev_21:22). Into it nothing shall

30

enter that defileth or worketh abomination (Rev_21:27), for sin shall then be closed and sealed up; there shall righteousness dwell (2Pe_3:13), and prophecy shall cease (1Co_13:8) by its fulfilment.From the contents of these six statements it thus appears that the termination of the seventy weeks coincides with the end of the present course of the world. But Dan_9:24 says nothing as to the commencement of this period. Nor can this be determined, as many interpreters think, from the relation in which the revelation of the seventy weeks stands to the prayer of Daniel, occasioned by Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem. If Daniel, in the sixty-ninth year of the desolation, made supplication to the Lord for mercy in behalf of Jerusalem and Israel, and on the occasion of this prayer God caused Gabriel to lay open to him that seventy weeks were determined upon the city and the people of God, it by no means thence follows that seventy year-weeks must be substituted in place of the seventy years prophesied of, that both commence simultaneously, and thus that the seventy years of the Exile shall be prolonged to a period of oppression for Israel lasting for seventy year-weeks. Such a supposition is warranted neither by the contents of the prophecy of Jeremiah, nor by the message of the angel to Daniel. Jeremiah, it is true, prophesied not merely of seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah, but also of the judgment upon Babylon after the expiry of these years, and the collecting together and bringing back of Israel from all the countries whither they were scattered into their own land (Jer_25:10-12; Jer_29:10-14); but in his supplication Daniel had in his eye only the desolation of the land of Jeremiah's prophecy, and prayed for the turning away of the divine anger from Jerusalem, and for the pardon of Israel's sins. Now if the words of the angel had been, “not seventy years, but seventy year-weeks, are determined over Israel,” this would have been no answer to Daniel's supplication, at least no comforting answer, to bring which to him the angel was commanded to go forth in haste. Then the angel announces in Dan_9:24 much more than the return of Israel from the Exile to their own land. But this is decided by the contents of the following verses, in which the space of seventy weeks is divided into three periods, and at the same time the commencement of the period is determined in a way which excludes its connection with the beginning of the seventy years of the Exile.

CALVIN, "This passage has been variously treated, and so distracted, and almost torn to pieces by the various opinions of interpreters, that it might be considered nearly useless on account of its obscurity. But, in the assurance that no prediction is really in vain, we may hope to understand this prophecy, provided only we are attentive and teachable according to the angel’s admonition, and the Prophet’s example. I do not usually refer to conflicting opinions, because I take no pleasure in refuting them, and the simple method which I adopt pleases me best, namely, to expound what I think delivered by the Spirit of God. But I cannot escape the necessity of confuting’ various views of the present passage. I will begin with the Jews, because they not only pervert its sense through ignorance, but through shameful impudence. Whenever they’re exposed to the light which shines from

31

Christ, they instantly turn their backs in utter shamelessness, and display a complete want of ingenuousness. They are like dogs who are satisfied with barking. In this passage especially, they betray their petulance, because with brazen forehead they elude the Prophet’s meaning. Let us observe, then, what they think, for we should condemn them to little purpose, unless we can convict them by reasons equally firm and certain. When Jerome relates the teaching of the Jews who lived before his own day, he attributes to them greater modesty and discretion then their later descendants have displayed. He reports their confession, that this passage cannot be understood otherwise than of the advent of Messiah. that perhaps Jerome was unwilling to meet them in open conflict, as he was not fully persuaded of its necessity, and therefore he assumed more than they had allowed. I think this very probable, for he does not let fall a single word as to what interpretation he approves, and excuses himself for bringing forward all kinds of opinions without any prejudice on his part. Hence, he dares not pronounce whether or not the Jewish interpreters are more correct than either the Greek or the Latin, but leaves his readers entirely in suspense. Besides, it is very clear that all the Rabbis expounded this prophecy of Daniel’s, of that continual punishment which God was about to inflict upon his people after their return from captivity. Thus, they entirely exclude the grace of God, and blame the Prophet, as if he had committed an error in thinking that God would be propitious to these miserable exiles, by restoring them to their homes and by rebuilding their Temple. According to their view, the seventy weeks began at the destruction of the former Temple, and closed at the overthrow of the second. In one point they agree with us, — in considering the Prophet to reckon the weeks not by days but by years, as in Leviticus. (Leviticus 25:8.) There is no difference between us and the Jews in numbering the years; they confess the number of years to be 490, but disagree with us entirely as to the close of the prophecy. They say — as I have already hinted — the continual calamities which oppressed the people are here predicted. The Prophet hoped the end of their troubles was fast approaching, as God had testified by Jeremiah his perfect satisfaction with the seventy years of captivity. They say also — the people were miserably harassed by their enemies again overthrowing their second Temple; thus they were deprived of their homes, and the ruined city became a sorrowful spectacle of devastation and disaster. In this way, I shewed how they excluded the grace of God; and to sum up their teaching shortly, this is its substance, — the Prophet is deceived in thinking the state of the Church would improve at the close of the seventy years, because seventy weeks still remained; that is, God multiplied the number in this way, for the purpose of chastising them, until at length he would abolish the city and the Temple, disperse their nation over the whole earth and destroy their very name, until at length the Messiah whom they expected should arrive. This is their interpretation, but all history refutes both their ignorance and their rashness. For, as we shall afterwards observe, all who are endued with correct judgment will scarcely approve of this, because all historians relate the lapse of a longer period between the monarchy of Cyrus, and the Persians, and the coming of Christ, than Daniel here computes. The Jews again include the years which occurred from the ruin of the former Temple to the advent of Christ, and the final overthrow of their city. Hence, according to the commonly received opinion, they

32

heap together about six hundred years. I shall afterwards state how far I approve of this computation, and how far I differ from it. Clearly enough, however, the Jews are both shamefully deceived and deceive others, when they thus heap together different periods without any judgment.A positive refutation of this error is readily derived from the prophecy of Jeremiah, from the beginning of this chapter, and from the opinion of Ezra. That deceiver and impostor, Barbinel, who fancies himself the most acute of all the Rabbis, thinks he has a convenient way of escape here, as he eludes the subject by a single word, and answers only one objection. But I will briefly shew how he plays with frivolous trifles. By rejecting Josephus, he glories in an easy victory. I candidly confess that I cannot place confidence in Josephus either at all times or without exception. But what conclusions do Barbinel and his followers draw from this passage? Let us come to that prophecy of Jeremiah which I have mentioned, and in which he takes refuge. He says, the Christians make Nebuchadnezzar reign forty-five years, but he did not complete that number. Thus he cuts off half a year, or perhaps a whole one, from those monarchies. But what is this to the purpose? Because 200 years will still remain, and the contention between us concerns this period. We perceive then how childishly he trifles, by deducting five or six years from a very large number, and still there is the burden of 200 years which he does not remove. But as I have already stated, that prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the seventy years remains immovable. But when do they begin? From the destruction of the Temple? This will not suit at all.Barbinel makes the number of the years forty-nine or thereabouts, from the destruction of the Temple to the reign of Cyrus. But we previously perceived the Prophet to be then instructed concerning the close of the captivity. Now, that impudent fellow and his followers are not ashamed to assert that Daniel was a bad interpreter of this part of Jeremiah’s prophecy, because he thought the punishment completed, although some time yet remained. Some of the Rabbis make this assertion, but its frivolous character appears from this, Daniel does not here confess any error, but confidently affirms that he prayed in consequence of his learning from the book of Jeremiah the completion of the time of the captivity. Then Ezra uses the following words, — When the seventy years were completed, which God had predicted by Jeremiah, he stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, to free the people in the first year of his monarchy. (Daniel 1:1.) Here Ezra openly states, that Cyrus gave the people liberty by the secret impulse of the Spirit. Had the Spirit of God become forgetful, when he hastened the people’s return? For then we must necessarily convict Jeremiah of deception and falsehood, while Ezra treats the people’s return as an answer to the prophecy. On the other hand, they cite a passage from the first chapter of Zechariah, (Zechariah 1:12,) Wilt thou not, O Lord, pity thy city Jerusalem, because the seventy years are now at an end? But here the Prophet does not point out the moment at which the seventy years were finished, but while some portion of the people had returned to their country by the permission of Cyrus, and the building of the Temple was still impeded, after a lapse of twenty or thirty years, he complains of God not having completely and fully liberated his

33

people. Whether or not this is so, the Jews must explain the beginning of the seventy years from the former exile before the destruction of the Temple; otherwise the passages cited from Daniel and Ezra would not agree. We are thus compelled to close these seventy years before the reign of Cyrus, as God had said he should then put all end to the captivity of his people, and the period was completed at that point.Again, almost all profane writers reckon 550 years from the reign of Cyrus to the advent of Christ.I do not hesitate to suppose some error here, because no slight difficulty would remain to us on this calculation, but I shall afterwards state the correct method of calculating the number of years. Meanwhile, we perceive how the Jews in every way exceed the number of 600 years, by comprehending the seventy years’ captivity under these seventy weeks; and then they add the time which elapsed from the death of Christ to the reign of Vespasian. But the facts themselves are their best refutation. For the angel says, the seventy weeks were finished. Barbinel takes the word חתך , chetek, for “to cut off,” and wishes us to mark the continual miseries by which the people were afflicted; as if the angel had said, the time of redemption has not yet arrived, as the people were continually wretched, until God inflicted upon them that final blow which was a desperate slaughter. But when this word is taken to mean to “terminate” or “finish,”the angel evidently announces the conclusion of the seventy weeks here. That impostor contends with this argument — weeks of years are here used in vain, unless with reference to the captivity. This is partially true, but he draws them out longer than he ought. Our Prophet alludes to the seventy years of Jeremiah, and I am surprised that the advocates of our side have not considered this, as no one suggests any reason why Daniel reckons years by weeks. Yet we know this figure to be purposely used, because he wished to compare seventy weeks of years with the seventy years. And whoever will take the trouble to consider this likeness or analogy, will find the Jews slain with their own sword. For the Prophet here compares God’s grace with his judgment; as if he had said, the people have been punished by an exile of seventy years, but now their time of grace has arrived; nay, the day of their redemption has dawned, and it shone forth with continual splendor, shaded, indeed, with a few clouds, for 490 years until the advent of Christ. The Prophet’s language must be interpreted as follows, — Sorrowful darkness has brooded over you for seventy years, but God will now follow up this period by one of favor of sevenfold duration, because by lightening your cares and moderating your sorrows, he will not cease to prove himself propitious to you even to the advent of Christ. This event was notoriously the principal hope of the saints who looked forward to the appearance of the Redeemer.We now understand why the angel does not use the reckoning’ of years, or months, or days, but weeks of years, because this has a tacit reference to the penalty which

34

the people had endured according to the prophecy of Jeremiah. On the other hand, this displays God’s great loving kindness, since he manifests a regard for his people up to the period of his setting forth their promised salvation in his Christ. Seventy weeks, then, says he, were finished upon thy people, and upon thy holy city I do not approve of the view of Jerome, who thinks this an allusion to the rejection of the people; as if he had said, the people is thine and not mine. I feel sure this is utterly contrary to the Prophet’s intention. He asserts the people and city to be here called Daniel’s, because God had divorced his people and rejected his city. But, as I said before, God wished to bring some consolation to his servant and all the pious, and to prop them up by this confidence during their oppression by their enemies. For God had already fixed the time of sending the Redeemer. The people and the city are said to belong to Daniel, because, as we saw before, the Prophet was anxious for the common safety of His nation, and the restoration of the city and Temple. Lastly, the angel confirms his previous expression — God listened to his servant’s prayer, and promulgated the prophecy of future redemption. The clause which follows convicts the Jews of purposely corrupting Daniel’s words and meaning, because the angel says, the time was finished for putting an end to wickedness, and for sealing up sins, and for expiating iniquity We gather from this clause, God’s compassionate feelings for His people after these seventy weeks were over. For what purpose did God determine that time? Surely to prohibit sin, to close up wickedness, and to expiate iniquity. We observe no continuance of punishment here, as the Jews vainly imagine; for they suppose God always hostile to his people, and they recognize a sign of most grievous offense in the utter destruction of the Temple. The Prophet, or rather the angel, gives us quite the opposite view of the case, by explaining how God wished to finish and close up their sin, and to expiate their iniquity He afterwards adds, to bring in everlasting righteousness We first perceive how joyful a message is brought forward concerning the reconciliation of the people with God; and next, something promised far better and more excellent than anything which had been granted under the law, and even under the flourishing times of the Jews under David and Solomon. The angel here encourages the faithful to expect something better than what their fathers, whom God had adopted, had experienced. There is a kind of contrast between the expiation’s under the law and this which the angel announces, and also between the pardon here promised and that which God had always given to his ancient people; and there is also the same contrast between the eternal righteousness and that which flourished under the law.He next adds, To seal up the vision and the prophecy Here the word “to seal” may be taken in two senses. Either the advent of Christ should sanction whatever had been formerly predicted — and the metaphor will imply this well enough — or we may take it otherwise, namely:, the vision shall be sealed up, and so finally closed that all prophecies should cease. Barbinel thinks he points out a great absurdity here, by stating it to be by no means in accordance with God’s character, to deprive his Church of the remarkable blessing of prophecy. But that blind man does not comprehend the force of the prophecy, because he does not understand anything about Christ. We know the law to be distinguished from the gospel by this peculiarity,-they formerly had a long course of prophecy according to the language

35

of the Apostle. (Hebrews 1:1.) God spake formerly in various ways by prophets, but in these last times by his only-begotten Son. Again, the law and the prophets existed until John, says Christ. (Matthew 11:11; Luke 16:16; Luke 7:28.) Barbinel does not perceive this difference, and as I have formerly said, he thinks he has discovered an argument against us, by asserting that the gift of prophecy ought not to be taken away. And, truly, we ought not to be deprived of this gift, unless God desired to increase the privilege of the new people, because the least in the kingdom of heaven is superior in privilege to all the prophets, as Christ elsewhere pronounces. tie next adds, that the Holy of Holies may be anointed Here, again, we have a tacit contrast between the anointings of the law, and the last which should take place. Not only is consolation here offered to all the pious, as God was about to mitigate the punishment which he had inflicted, but because he wished to pour forth the fullness of all his pity upon the new Church. For, as I have said, the Jews cannot escape this comparison on the part of the angel between the state of the Church under the legal and the new covenants; for the latter privileges were to be far better, more excellent, and more desirable, than those existing in the ancient Church from its commencement. But the rest tomorrow. (114)

COFFFMAN, ""Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."THE FAMED PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKSThere is not a single word in this prophecy that is not disputed; and we shall

36

note some of these opinions; however, in the overall sense, there is not anything very hard about this prophecy. First we shall notice some of what we hold to be impossible interpretations of it.(a) The critics who deny the trustworthiness and dependability of the holy Bible refer this prophecy to Antiochus Epiphanes in the Maccabean period about the year 160 B.C. The desolation is caused by Antiochus, and the anointed one is Onias III; and the passage is robbed of any reference whatever to the Messiah. "The objections to this type of interpretation are so serious that it cannot possibly be regarded as correct."[8](b) A second school of interpreters (the dispensationalists) has many shades of beliefs; but generally, they deny that the six things to be accomplished in Daniel 9:24 were achieved by Christ in his First Advent. They interpose a gap between the 69th and 70th week and suppose that at the 2nd Advent of Christ, following the Church Age, the Christ will return and the seventieth week will resume at that time. The Scofield Bible gives a general presentation of this interpretation. We cannot possibly accept such notions about this prophecy, principally because they nullify the great work of Christ in his atoning death, burial and resurrection. Also, Christ gave his blood for the church (Acts 20:28), which is ample proof of the absolute necessity and importance of the Church. Such premillennial theories as these are guilty of downgrading the Church and of stripping it of its genuine place in the economy of redemption.THE TRUE INTERPRETATIONAs Keil said, "Most of the church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters find prophesied here the appearance of Christ m the flesh, His Death, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70."[9] That this is indeed the true interpretation is plainly indicated by the words of Jesus Christ who definitely applied "the abomination" spoken of by Daniel as an event that would occur in the siege of Jerusalem, as prophesied by Christ repeatedly in Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 21. Furthermore, Christ warned the Christians that, "When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which

37

was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains" (Matthew 24:15,16). Many Christian commentators have pointed out that the Christians indeed heeded that warning. Eusebius tells how the Christians fled from Jerusalem when the Romans most unpredictably lifted their siege, a fact that even Josephus noted.[10] No Christian is said to have lost his life in the final destruction of Jerusalem.Now, for the believer in Christ, one such indication from our Lord and Redeemer is worth more than thousands of human opinions. Since, therefore, Jesus Christ himself related this vision to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, that settles it; and we may therefore reckon the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. as an event that was indeed accomplished within the prescribed "seventy weeks" of this vision. That is what these verses actually say.WHAT THE PROPHECY SAYSNote that six things are to be accomplished within the seventy weeks:1. To finish transgression.2. To make an end of sins.3. To make reconciliation for iniquity.4. To bring in everlasting righteousness.5. To seal up vision and prophecy.6. To anoint the most holy. (as in Daniel 9:24)."To finish transgression" is a reference to the fairness of Israel's sins culminating in their rejection of the Messiah. As a result of that "finishing" of their transgressions, they were judicially condemned and hardened, their city

38

and religious economy destroyed, and the people scattered all over the world. For almost 2,000 years they disappeared as a nation; and, even with the revival of a modern "Israeli" today, it has no legitimate connection whatever with ancient Israel."To make an end of sins ..." This was accomplished when Christ "condemned sin in the flesh." Only in Jesus Christ has there ever been any such thing as the absolute forgiveness of sins. This line alone makes it certain that Christ's coming is here foretold."To make reconciliation for iniquity ..." "This means `to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin-offering, to forgive.'"[11] Here is a certain reference to the atonement for human transgression wrought by Jesus Christ on Calvary, as a result of which "reconciliation of men to God" could occur. This is precisely the thing that restored the broken fellowship between man and his God. We are indebted to Thomson who tells us that the word used here, "`To make an atonement,' is the technical word used fifty times in Leviticus for the offering of atoning sacrifice."[12]"To bring in everlasting righteousness ..." The only righteousness our poor world ever saw was the righteousness wrought by Christ. He is indeed "the righteousness of God"; there cannot possibly be any other source of it. The notion that this bringing in of everlasting righteousness could pertain to any other person that Christ is impossible of acceptance. This righteousness came from above; it did not rise out of the earth; Jesus brought it."To seal up vision and prophecy ..." We regard this as a figure referring to the confirmation of the ancient prophecies by their most marvelous fulfillment in the events of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Some 333 prophecies of the Old Testament pointing to the coming of Jesus Christ were most circumstantially fulfilled in his life, death, resurrection, etc."To anoint the most holy ..." This is so obviously a reference to Jesus Christ that we still marvel that the expression Most Holy is not capitalized, as in KJV or as in Douay which reads it, "Saint of saints may be anointed." As we

39

noted above, however, every word of this prophecy is disputed, and even Keil did not allow that this expression can refer to a person, making it a reference to some thing, not a person. Keil could not have so misunderstood this if he had consulted 1 Chronicles 23:23, where without the article (the basis of Keil's rejection) the phrase applies to an individual. "It is indeed applied most frequently to persons: to Aaron (Exodus 40:13), to Saul (1 Samuel 10:10), and to David (1 Samuel 16:3);"[13] Therefore the ancient renditions of this place are correct. "This understanding of it was accepted by the Jews, and the old Syriac translates this text, `To the Messiah, the Most Holy.'"[14]The shenanigans of the critical community regarding the interpretation of this anointing were discussed by Keil. He noted that they refer all of this to the times of Maccabees or a little earlier, alleging that the "anointing" here refers to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering which was restored by Zurabbel and Joshua, or to the consecration of the altar following its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes. Keil stated categorically that, "None of these interpretations can be justified."[15] To begin with, there were not any anointings during the era of the 2temple! "According to the definite uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy anointing oil did not even exist during the times of the second temple!"[16]These six things therefore pertain exclusively to the times of the First Advent of Christ and the setting up of his eternal kingdom.Daniel 9:25 advances the prophecy by giving the "terminus a quem" for the seventy weeks, namely from the date of the commandment to restore and to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. This of course was somewhat subsequent to the end of the Babylonian captivity; and the difficulty is compounded by our ignorance of just exactly when that commandment went forth. It is not even known if this means the commandment "from God" or by some kingly edict. There are several proposals as to just exactly when we should begin counting the seventy weeks. There is another problem. The weeks, understood as "weeks of years" theory is widely accepted and generally taken for granted; and yet it has not been actually proved. The nearest thing we have to proof that these 490 days should actually be understood as 490 years derives from

40

the fact that Christ identified this prophecy as reaching to 70 A.D., which definitely favors the day for a year understanding of it.The big message in Daniel 9:25, from Daniel's viewpoint was that God definitely promised that "The city shall be built again ... in troublous times." For a city that had already lain in desolation for the better part of a century, this must have been welcome news indeed to the grieving prophet.The whole seventy weeks were not to pass before Messiah came; that event would occur at the expiration of 69 weeks, interpreted by many as 483 years. Here again is the difficulty of any certainty as to what part of Jesus' life is reached by this calculation. His anointing (baptism) took place in A.D. 26; his death, burial, and resurrection in April of A.D. 30. Added to the uncertainty as to the "terminus a quem", it is almost impossible to be dogmatically certain as to the exact times specified. Nevertheless there is great utility in the prophecy.Thomson calculated the starting point of the "seventy weeks" as 445 B.C., relating it to a positive command for Nehemiah to build "the walls." Allowing this, the 490 years would bring us to 32. A.D. (about the time, but not exactly the time, of Christ's Ascension); and the sixty-nine weeks would bring us to A.D. 25 (about the time of Christ's baptism, that is, his anointing).[17] No one can fail to be impressed with how nearly these calculations correspond to sacred occasions in the life of Our Lord. Allowing for the fact, that the seventy years of Israel's captivity turned about to be only about 68 or 69 years, one can see that such calculations as these commend themselves to many people.Daniel 9:26 begins with the statement, "After the threescore and two weeks"; and the interesting thing is that there has been no previous mention of any "threescore and two weeks." There is a mention of the seven weeks and three-score and two weeks (69 weeks); and therefore it is hard to resist the conclusion that perhaps a word has fallen out of the text here, thus making the meaning to be, "Now after the sixty nine weeks." Some scholars have raised the question of a defective text here; and we are not personally able to

41

evaluate such claims. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that the 69th week takes us to "The Prince" who can be none other than the Christ. The cutting off of "the prince" followed quickly upon the appearance of Christ in his ministry; and although the destruction of Jerusalem which is mentioned in Daniel 9:26 as something to be accomplished within the seventy weeks, it is not necessary to suppose that the seventieth week needed to be extended unduly to reach the actual terminal date of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Christ indeed prophesied the total destruction of the city repeatedly, declaring that not one stone should be left on top of another within the temple complex itself, that her enemies would come and cast a trench about her and dash her little ones in pieces within her. True to the language of all the prophets, what God (or Christ) prophesied would happen was spoken of in the past tense, as something already done. That is why the destruction of Jerusalem was to be accomplished (in that sense) within the actual terminus of the seventy weeks.It is apparent that in this interpretation, we have ignored altogether the "sixty and two weeks," there being no way that we can discover any meaning in them. That they are indeed a part of the seventy weeks, and that they do not constitute a gap and an extension of the seventieth week to some far off end of time appearance, has been discerned by many scholars.The destruction of Jerusalem is here plainly included in the seventy weeks; and we have interpreted this to mean that within that time, Christ indeed condemned the city to total destruction, a prophecy actually fulfilled nearly forty years after Christ spoke. "Even unto the end ..." would appear to be a reference to the end of the Jewish nation. That there could also be overtones of the final termination of human probation in this is also freely admitted.Now, the prophecy in Daniel 9:27, to the effect that Christ should make the covenant firm with many for one week is a clear reference to the public ministry of Jesus Christ. It is here called "a week," indicating a seven year period; but with this limitation! He the Messiah was cut off "in the midst of the week," that is after three and one half years, which corresponds exactly to the facts. The further references to the destruction of Jerusalem, "the

42

flood," and "the war," etc. are prophecies of the great tribulations that should overwhelm Jerusalem at the times when her doom was executed by the armies of Vespasian and Titus in the year 70 A.D.CONCERNING THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATIONJesus Christ interpreted this as an event that would be openly visible to all, saints and sinners alike; he associated it with the destruction of Jerusalem; and in the light of the fact that the destruction of that city was itself a type of the final holocaust on the eternal Judgment Day, and that many of the conditions existing in God's Israel prior to that event would also be manifested a second time in the New Israel prior to final Judgment, it appears that a second abomination of desolation shall occur in the final days of Adam's race on earth.Exactly what was this "abomination of desolation?" Notice that there are two things in this, namely, abomination, and desolation.The abomination referred to the gross pollution of the "holy place," a reference to the temple sanctuary, or more properly, the Holy of Holies itself. This was to be the signal that indicated the approaching "desolation," thus it is said that the desolation was to come upon the "wing" of abominations (note the plural), indicating that the desolations would be a direct result of the gross pollution of the holy place.What happened? The Jewish people requested that a robber, named Barabbas, should be released to them instead of Christ (Mark 15:11); and it was appropriate that the consequences of such a choice should have been received by them making it. Josephus devotes twenty pages to a description of the sordid details of how a band of ruthless outlaw robbers took complete charge of the city, along with the entire temple complex, long before the Romans came, and who committed wholesale barbarity, rapines, plunderings, and murders, "over 12,000 of the nobility being brutally put to death, along with countless thousands of the common people. They even filled up the Holy of Holies itself with dead bodies! The robbers fell upon the people as

43

upon a flock of profane animals and cut their throats in what place soever they caught them!"[18] Josephus commented on this thus: "I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, that he cut off those great defenders, namely, the nobility."[19] In this connection Josephus also related how: "There was a certain ancient oracle of those men (the Jews), that the city should be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews, and their own hands should pollute the temple of God."[20]Bickersteth's discerning comment on this is that, "Their outrages against God were the special cause of the desolation of Jerusalem ... theirs was the abomination that filled up the measure of their iniquities and caused the avenging power of Rome to come down upon them and crash them."[21] Thus the Jews made the holy place desolate morally; and the Romans made it (and the city) desolate by their ruthless destruction of them.Almost certainly, here is the portion of this prophecy that may be applied to the end of all things culminating in the Final Judgment. Just as the Old Israel finally turned totally against God; so also shall it be in the final days of the New Israel when "the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled." Revelation 16 describes a time when the moral environment of the whole earth shall be corrupted in a near-total degree. It is of that period that Jesus asked, "When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth" (Luke 18:8). In Christ's multiple prophecy of the end of the world (Matthew 24:9-11), Christ warned that the ordinary upheavals of history such as wars and rumors of wars, floods, earthquakes, famines, etc. were not to be understood as "signs" of the end. The significant thing was what was happening among God's people themselves! When the time comes that the Church herself has forsaken the fundamentals of her faith in Christ, the abomination that makes desolate shall again appear in the "holy place," in the last instance of it, in the Church herself. There are many shameful developments in the visible Christendom of our own times that are frightening!

44

All of this prophecy appears to this writer as clearly understandable except the matter of the 62 weeks which we cited above. What ever this may mean, granted that it could indeed be a faithful record of the sacred text, we have been unable to discover any means of arriving at a scriptural explanation of it. There remains the strong possibility that "the sixty two weeks" was not originally a reference to a period of sixty-two weeks (no such period having been mentioned previously in the whole Bible), but rather to the "seven weeks and threescore weeks and two weeks" just mentioned in the previous verse, namely, the 69 weeks. Certainly, we are justified in the rejection of the irresponsible millennial views that are imported into the passage. Some things are simply not revealed; and, as far as we can discern, the matter of these alleged 62 weeks is one of them.One thing stands out - these seventy weeks were about to be completed, as indicated by Christ's reference to the abomination that makes desolate, which was soon to be fulfilled. This was clearly stated by Christ. Therefore, when Christ charged the Pharisees with being weather prophets who were nevertheless unable to "discern the signs of the times" (Matthew 16:3), it was most likely that one of the signs the Pharisees could not discern was that of the "seventy weeks" of Daniel approaching their termination.

COKE, "Daniel 9:24. Seventy weeks are determined, &c.— The sum of Calmet's observations on this prophesy is as follows: Daniel is afflicted before the Lord, with a desire to know when the end of those seventy weeks' captivity shall appear, which are foretold by Jeremiah. But God reveals to him a much more sublime and important mystery; namely, the time of the finishing transgressions, and of the coming of the Messiah, of the reign of everlasting righteousness, and of the perfect accomplishment of the prophesies. All this was to be brought about after a space of seventy weeks of years, which make four hundred and ninety. "You are solicitous to know when the seventy years of captivity, foretold by Jeremiah, shall have an end: I am going to announce to you a deliverance infinitely more important, and of which that foretold by Jeremiah is only a figure." The whole verse may be thus paraphrased: "The space of seventy weeks is invariably fixed and determined. This is no conditional or uncertain prediction, whose execution depends upon a future contingency,—the fidelity or infidelity of the people. It is not one of those promises, the accomplishment of which may be protracted or invalidated by the malice of

45

men. It is a prophesy, the event of which is certain, and which shall be executed at a fixed period;—in seventy weeks, which are to begin from the time of the edict that enjoins the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, and which will terminate with the death of the Messiah, and the abolition of sacrifices." The Hebrew word כלא callei, rendered finish, may be translated to restrain; and the sense will then be, "To put a stop to hypocrisy or sin."—To make an end of sins; either by the atonement to be made for them, or by the exemplary punishment to be inflicted upon the offenders.—To seal up the vision, &c. things which are fulfilled and perfected, are usually sealed up; because they were to receive their accomplishment in Christ. It is thus that the Jews commonly interpret the words, and both Rabbi Levi Ben-Gerson and Abarbanel expressly assert on this passage, that "All the prophesies shall be fulfilled in the Messiah." The sealing up of the prophesy, and the anointing of the Most Holy, were fulfilled in Christ's appearance among the Jews, and in their putting him to death, which was indeed the unction or consecration of the Holy One of God to his priestly office. See Dr. Chandler's Vindication of Daniel, p. 156 and Bishop Chandler's Defence, p. 124 and Vind. p. 297. Houbigant renders the 25th verse, Know therefore and understand; from the edict which shall be promulged for the return, and for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, shall be seven weeks; then shall the city be built again in solicitude and in troublous times; when, to Messiah the prince, shall be threescore and two weeks. See his note, where this version is fully justified. By the people of the prince who was to come, are meant the Romans, who are strongly pointed out at the close of the prophesy: see Matthew 22:7; Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 where our Saviour refers to this prophesy. The former words, but not for himself, (though the passage has been otherwise translated) refer to our Lord's suffering, through his rich mercy, solely for the sins of the world. The aera usually fixed upon for the commencement of the seventy weeks, is the twentieth year of Artaxerxes

ELLICOTT, " (24) Seventy weeks.—Great difficulty is experienced in discovering what sort of weeks is intended. Daniel 9:25-27 are sufficient to show that ordinary weeks cannot be meant. Possibly, also, the language (Daniel 10:2, margin “weeks of days”) implies that “weeks of days” are not intended here. On the other hand, it is remarkable that in Leviticus 25:1-10 the word week should not have been used to signify a period of seven years, if year-weeks are implied in this passage. However, it is generally assumed that we must understand the weeks to consist of years and not of days (see Pusey’s Daniel, pp. 165, 166), the principle of year-weeks depending upon Numbers 14:34, Leviticus 26:34, Ezekiel 4:6. The word “week” in itself furnishes a clue to the meaning. It implies a “Heptad,” and is not necessarily more definite than the “time” mentioned in Daniel 7:25.Are determined.—The word only occurs in this passage. Theod. translates ףץםופלטחףבם; LXX., ἐךסטחףבם; Jer. “abbreviatœ sunt.” In Chaldee the word means “to cut,” and in that sense “to determine.”

46

The object “determined” is twofold: (1) transgression and sin; (2) reconciliation and righteousness.To finish.—The Hebrew margin gives an alternative rendering, “to restrain,” according to which the meaning is “to hold sin back” and to “prevent it from spreading.” If this reading is adopted it will be parallel to the second marginal alternative, “to seal up,” which also implies that the iniquity can no more increase. Although the alternative readings may be most in accordance with the Babylonian idea of “sealing sins,” the presence of the word “to seal” in the last clause of the verse makes it more probable that the marginal readings are due to the conjectures of some early critics, than that they once stood in the text. However, it must be observed that while St. Jerome translates the passage “ut consummetur prœvaricatio, et finem habeat peccatum,” Theodotion supports the marginal reading “to seal.”To make reconciliation—i.e., atonement. (Comp. Proverbs 16:6; Isaiah 6:7; Isaiah 27:9; Psalms 78:38.) The two former clauses show that during the seventy weeks sin will cease. The prophet now brings out another side of the subject. There will be abundance of forgiveness in store for those who are willing to receive it.Everlasting righteousness.—A phrase not occurring elsewhere. The prophet seems to be combining the notions of “righteousness” and “eternity,” which elsewhere are characteristics of Messianic prophecy. (Isaiah 46:13; Isaiah 51:5-8; Psalms 89:36; Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:27.)To Seal Up.— ףϕסבדףבי, Theod.; ףץםפוכוףטῆםבי, LXX.; impleatur, Jer.; the impression of the translators being that all visions and prophecies were to receive their complete fulfilment in the course of these seventy weeks. It appears, however, to be more agreeable to the context to suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all prophecy. (Comp. 1Corinthians 13:8.)To anoint the most Holy.—The meaning of the sentence depends upon the interpretation of the words “Most Holy” or “Holy of Holies.” In Scripture they are used of (1) the altar (Exodus 29:37); (2) the atonement (Exodus 30:10); (3) the tabernacle and the sacred furniture (Exodus 30:29); (4) the sacred perfume (Exodus 30:36); (5) the remnant of the meat offering (Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 2:10); (6) all that touch the offerings made by fire (Leviticus 6:18); (7) the sin offering (Leviticus 10:17); (8) the trespass offering (Leviticus 14:13); (9) the shewbread (Leviticus 24:9); (10) things devoted (Leviticus 27:28); (11) various offerings (Numbers 18:9); (12) the temple service and articles connected with it, or perhaps Aaron (1

47

Chronicles 23:13); (13) the limits of the new temple (Ezekiel 43:12); (14) the sanctuary of the new temple (Ezekiel 45:3); (15) the territory set apart for the sons of Zadok (Ezekiel 48:2). Which of these significations is to be here adopted can only be discovered by the context. Now from the careful manner in which this and the following verse are connected by the words “Know therefore,” it appears that the words “most Holy” are parallel to “Messiah the Prince” (Daniel 9:25), and that they indicate a person. (See Leviticus 6:18; 1 Chronicles 23:13.) This was the opinion of the Syriac translator, who renders the words “Messiah the most Holy,” and of the LXX. וὐϕסᾶםבי ἃדיןם ἁדשם, on which it has been remarked that וὐϕסᾶםביwould have no meaning if applied to a place, and the phrase employed in this version for the sanctuary is invariably פὸ ἃדיןם פῶם ἁדשם. Any reference to Zerubbabel’s temple, or to the dedication of the temple by Judas Maccabזus, is opposed to the context.EXCURSUS G: THE SEVENTY WEEKS (Daniel ).It may be questioned in what way this prophecy presents any meaning to those who follow the punctuation of the Hebrew text, and put the principal stop in Daniel 9:25 after “seven weeks,” instead of after “three score and two weeks.” The translation would be as follows, “From the going out . . . until Messiah the prince shall be seven weeks; and during sixty-two weeks the city shall be rebuilt . . . and after sixty-two weeks shall Messiah be cut off ” . . . This can only be explained upon the hypothesis that the word “week” is used in an indefinite sense to mean a period. The sense is then as follows: —The period from the command of Cyrus or of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem, down to the time of Messiah, consisted of seven such weeks; during the sixty-two weeks that followed the kingdom of Messiah is to be established amidst much persecution. During the last week the persecution will be so intense that Messiah may be said to be annihilated by it, His kingdom on earth being destroyed. At the end of the last week the Antichristian prince who organises the persecution is himself exterminated, and destroyed in the final judgment.According to this view the seventy weeks occupy the whole period that intervenes between the times of Cyrus or Artaxerxes and the last judgment. The principal objection to it is that it gives no explanation of the numbers “seven” and “sixty-two,” which seem to have been chosen for some particular purpose. Nor does it furnish any reason for the choice of the word “weeks” instead of “times” or “seasons,” either of which words would have equally served the same indefinite purpose.The traditional interpretation follows the punctuation of Theodotion, which St.

48

Jerome also adopted, and reckons the seventy weeks from B.C. 458, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. From this date, measuring seven weeks of years—that is, forty-nine years—we are brought to the date B.C. 409. It is predicted that during this period the walls of Jerusalem and the city itself should be rebuilt, though in troublous times. It must be remembered that very little is known of Jewish history during the times after Ezra and Nehemiah. The latest date given in Nehemiah is the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, or B.C. 446. It is highly probable that the city was not completely restored till nearly forty years later. Reckoning from B.C. 409 sixty-two weeks or 434 years, we are brought to A.D. 25, the year when our Saviour began His ministry. After three and a half years, or in the “midst of a week,” he was cut off. The seventy weeks end in A.D. 32, which is said to be the end of the second probation of Israel after rejecting the Messiah. The agreement between the dates furnished by history and prediction is very striking, and the general expectation that there prevailed about the appearance of a Messiah at the time of our Saviour’s first advent points to the antiquity as well as to the accuracy of the interpretation. However, the explanation of the latter half of the seven weeks is not satisfactory. We have no chronological account of events which occurred shortly after the Ascension, and there are no facts stated in the New Testament that lead us to suppose that Israel should have three and a half years’ probation after the rejection of the Messiah.The modern explanation adheres in part to the Masoretic text, and regards the sixty-two year-weeks as beginning in B.C. 604. Reckoning onwards 434 years, we are brought to the year B.C. 170, in which Antiochus plundered the Temple and massacred 40,000 Jews. Onias III., the anointed prince, was murdered B.C. 176, just before the close of this period; and from the attack upon the Temple to the death of Antiochus, B.C. 164. was seven years, or one week, in the midst of which, B.C. 167, the offering was abolished, and the idolatrous altar erected in the Temple. The seven weeks are then calculated onwards from B.C. 166, and are stated to mean an indefinite period expressed by a round number, during which Jerusalem was rebuilt after its defilement by Antiochus. This explanation is highly unsatisfactory. It not only inverts the order of the weeks, but arbitrarily uses the word week in a double sense, in a definite and in an indefinite sense at once. There is still a graver objection to assuming that the starting point of the seventy weeks is the year B.C. 604. No command to rebuild Jerusalem had then gone forth.TRAPP, "Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.Ver. 24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people,] i.e., Seventy weeks

49

of years; ten jubilees, which make up four hundred and ninety years. Thus the very time is here particularly foretold when the Messiah should be revealed and put to death. The like hereunto is not to be found in any other of the prophets, as Jerome well observeth. This, therefore, is a noble prophecy, and many great wits have been exercised about it. Cornelius a Lapide speaketh of one learned gentleman who ran out of his wits, after many years’ study upon it. The doctors are much divided about the beginning and ending of these seventy weeks. "From the outgoing of the word," [Daniel 9:25] seemeth to me to fix the beginning of these weeks on Cyrus ’s decree concerning the holy city and the temple to be rebuilding. The end and period of them must he at the death of Christ, though some will have it at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. I choose rather thus to compute than to dispute. It is well observed by the learned that the Jews, after their seventy years’ captivity, have seven seventies of years granted for the enjoying of their own country (God’s mercies bear the same proportion to his punishments which seven - a complete number - have to n unit), besides the mercy of mercies, the grace of the Messiah.Upon thy people.] Of whose welfare thou art so solicitous and inquisitive.To finish the transgression.] Transgressionem illam; that great transgression of our first parents in paradise; that whereby sin entered into the world, and death by sin. [Romans 5:12] Now Christ, by his death, took away the power, and destroyed the dominion of all sin. [Romans 6:11-12]And to make an end of sins.] Heb., To seal up sins, that they come not into God’s sight against us, ever to be charged upon us. A metaphor, say some, from the Jews’ manner of writing in rolls, which, being wrapped up, and sealed on the backside, all the writing was covered.And to make reconciliation for iniqulty,] viz., By the expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice of himself for his elect, whereby the divine justice is fully satisfied.And to bring in everlasting righteousness.] Those "righteousnesses of the

50

saints," [Revelation 19:8] both imputed and imparted righteousness, called here "everlasting," as that which shall make the saints accepted of God for ever, never can be lost as Adam’s was.And to seal up the vision and prophecy,] i.e., To fulfil all the prophetic predictions concerning the life and death of the Lord Christ.And to anoint the most holy.] This was done when Christ was baptized, say some; but others better, when he ascended into heaven, consecrating it to the service of God therein to be performed by the elect throughout all eternity; like as Moses once consecrated the most holy place to the ceremonial service there to be performed by the high priest.

POOLE, " Seventy weeks: these weeks are weeks of days, and these days are so many years; though neither days, nor months, nor years are expressed, (which makes it somewhat the more obscure,) but weeks only. It is yet plain and obvious that the angel useth the number seventy to show the favour of God towards them, that they might have so much liberty and joy as their seventy years’ bondage and sufferings amounted to. Yet was this but a type of the time of grace which was to follow after by the coming of Christ. Upon thy people, and upon thy holy city. Why doth he call them Daniel ’s people?1. Because they were his by nation, blood, laws, and profession.2. Thine because thou dost own them, and art so tender of them, and so zealous for them.To finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity. Note,1. The angel discovers first the disease, in three several words, havh Nwe evk which contain all sorts of sin, which the Messiah should free us from by his full redemption, see Exodus 34:6,7 Mt 1:21 viz. original, actual, of ignorance, presumption, &c.; also fault and punishment, which we may prove by

51

Scripture.2. The angel shows us also the cure of this disease in three words, le callee, le chatem, le capper:1. To finish transgression;2. To make an end of sin;3. To make reconciliation: all which words are very significant in the original, and signify to pardon, to blot out, mortify, expiate.To bring in everlasting righteousness, i.e. to bring in justification by the free grace of God in Jesus Christ the Lord our Righteousness, Isaiah 53:6 Jeremiah 23:6 33:16 1 Corinthians 1:30; called everlasting because Christ is eternal, and he and his righteousness is everlasting. Christ brings this in,1. By his merit;2. By his gospel declaring it;3. By faith applying and sealing it by the Holy Ghost.To seal up the vision and prophecy; to abrogate the former dispensation of the laws, and to fulfil it, and the prophecies relating to Christ, and to confirm and ratify the new testament or gospel covenant of grace. The Talmud saith, all the prophecies of the prophets related to Christ.To anoint the most Holy; by which alluding to the holy of holies, which was anointed, Exodus 30:25-31 40:9-16. This typified the church, which is called anointed, 2 Corinthians 1:21, and heaven, into which Christ is entered, Hebrews 8:1 9:24 10:19; but chiefly Christ himself, who is the Holy One, Acts 3:14. He received the Spiritwithout measure, John 3:34. His human nature is therefore called the temple,

52

John 2:19, and tabernacle, Hebrews 8:2 9:11: moreover Christ is he that held the law, by which the will of God is revealed; the propiatory, appeasing God; the table, that nourisheth us; the candlestick, that enlightens; the altar, that sanctifies the gift and offering. All these were anointed and holy: by this word anointing he alludes to his name Messiah and Christ, both which signify anointed. Christ was anointed at his first conception and personal union, Luke 1:35; in hisbaptism, Matthew 3:17; to his three offices by the Holy Ghost,(1.) King, Matthew 2:2,(2.) Prophet, Isaiah 61:1,(3.) Priest, Psalms 110:4.

BENSON, "Daniel 9:24. Seventy weeks, &c. — Weeks not of days, but of years, or, seventy times seven years, that is, four hundred and ninety years, each day being accounted a year according to the prophetic way of reckoning, (see note on Daniel 7:25,) a way often used in Scripture, especially in reckoning the years of jubilee, which correspond with these numbers in Daniel: see Leviticus 25:8. See also Genesis 29:27, where, to fulfil her week, is explained by performing another seven years’ service for Rachel; and Numbers 14:34, where we read, that according to the number of the days which the spies employed in searching out the land of Canaan, even forty days, the Israelites were condemned to bear their iniquities, even forty years. Thus God says likewise to Ezekiel, cotemporary with Daniel, I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days three hundred and ninety days. I have appointed thee EACH DAY FOR A YEAR. Nor was this mode of expression in use only among the Jews; for Varro, speaking of himself, says, he was entered into the twelfth week of his age, at the close of which he would have been eighty-four years old. In these instances, the days evidently denote solar years, which were in use throughout the Jewish history; so that there is no probability that the angel should here intend any such singularity, as counting by lunar years. Are determined upon, or concerning, thy people — Hebrew נחת, are decided. The great event specified was not to be protracted beyond this period, fixed and determined in the counsels of God.To finish the transgression — The reader will observe, the expression is not, to finish transgressions, but הפשע, the transgression; a word which is derived from a

53

theme which signifies, “to revolt, to rebel, to be contumacious, to refuse subjection to rightful authority, or obedience to a law which we ought to observe.” To finish such transgression, is expressed by a word ( לכלא ) which denotes universality, to cancel, or annihilate. Dr. Apthorp, in his Discourses on Prophecy, vol. 1. p. 262, justly observes, that the diversity of expression respecting the several benefits here promised to the world by the Messiah, may be well supposed to intend so many distinct and determinate ideas. “In a prophecy of such moment,” says he, “we cannot suppose a mere co-acervation of synonymous terms, but each word is emphatic, and proper to its subject. The appropriate sense of each may be investigated, from their use and significance in other passages of Holy Scripture.” Accordingly, by the word transgression, he here understands man’s first disobedience, with its direful effects, the depravation and mortality of human nature. And by finishing this transgression he understands, “cancelling the primeval guilt of Adam’s apostacy, and reversing the sentence of mortality then passed on all the human race. ” In other words we may properly understand by the expression, the abolishing the guilt and fatal effects of that disobedience, in such a manner that no man shall perish eternally merely on account of the sin of our first parents, or the depravity entailed upon us thereby; to counteract the influence of which, sufficient grace is procured for us, and offered to us in the gospel of Christ. Concerning this first benefit of our redemption, the apostle treats explicitly Romans 5:12-21, a passage which the reader is particularly requested carefully to consider, as containing a full justification of the exposition here given of the first clause of this verse; man’s first disobedience, termed by the apostle the one offence, and the offence of one, being represented by him as introducing death into the world, and all our misery; and the obedience, or righteousness of one, and the free gift, procured for all mankind, and actually conferred on all penitent believers, as the one meritorious cause and source of our salvation. “No words can express, or thought conceive, the greatness of this redemption. Imagination faints under the idea of a Divine Benefactor effacing sin, annihilating death, and restoring eternal life.”And to make an end of sins — “As, in the appropriate sense of the words, the transgression denotes one original act of apostacy and rebellion against a positive command of God; sins, in the plural, emphatically express all the vices [offences] against conscience, all the crimes against civil society, and all sins against God, which have ever reigned among men. The redemption by Christ hath abolished all

54

the fatal effects of moral evil, with respect to such as believe and obey the gospel;” not only cancelling their actual guilt by a gracious remission, but even renewing their fallen nature, stamping them with the divine image, and thus both entitling them to, and preparing them for, the immortality lost by the fall.And to make reconciliation for iniquity — In these words is expressed the manner in which our redemption from death and sin hath been effected. “The word כפר, rendered reconciliation here, is the etymon of our English word, to cover. Its primary meaning is, to hide, or conceal, the surface of any substance, by inducing another substance over it. Thus the ark is commanded to be pitched, or covered, within and without, to secure it from the waters of the deluge. Sin, when grievous, and ripe for punishment, is said to be before God, or in his sight: a propitiation is the covering of sin, [procuring] God’s hiding his face from our sins, and blotting out our iniquities: see Romans 3:23 ; Romans 3:25. The word redemption implies a price paid for those who are set at liberty: the price is the blood of Christ; that blood a sacrifice; and the sacrifice an expiation for sinners, that is, for all mankind. This is the first and leading notion of the divine expedient for saving sinners, the sacrifice and blood of Christ. The second principal idea under which this redemption is represented, is that of substitution, and satisfaction, by another’s suffering for our guilt; and in this way of stating the doctrine, still the principal and leading idea is that of a sacrifice, and the blood of a victim; ”namely, Christ’s dying for the ungodly: see Romans 5:6-9. Inasmuch as Christ, by dying in our stead, “hath prevented either the extinction or [eternal] misery of a whole species, and hath obtained for us a positive happiness, greater than we lost in Adam; every considerate man must think it fit, that to effect such a redemption, some great expedient should be proposed by God himself, to vindicate his wisdom and moral government, in suffering so much vice and confusion to end so happily.” Add to this, that “so congenial to the most generous sentiments of the human mind is the idea of one devoting himself for another, for many, and for all, that all antiquity abounds with such examples and opinions. Not that the Scripture doctrine of Christ ’s satisfaction, in itself so luminous, needs any support from foreign testimony; but it is certain that a general consent, founded in nature, or divine institution, or both, hath led men to seek expiation of conscious guilt, in the way of voluntary substitution, and vicarious devotement. The chief reason of that prejudice, which is by some entertained against a doctrine so essential to peace of conscience, is founded on inattention to ancient religious customs. By the sacrifice of Christ, victims and sacrifices are abolished; but all the

55

ancient religions abounded with them to a degree which we should think astonishing, and scarcely credible. Oceans of blood flowed round their altars; and the Levitical rites were instituted on purpose to adumbrate Christ ’s expiation, and to introduce all that admirable spirituality and [pious] devotion, which is now the distinguishing excellence of Christianity. ” — Dr. Apthorp.To bring in everlasting righteousness — The three former particulars already considered import the removing the greatest evils; this, and the two following, imply the conferring of the greatest benefits, and all by Jesus Christ. This clause, says Dr. Apthorp, “may admit of two interpretations, which both concur in Christ, and are consistent with each other: our justification by faith in him, and our subsequent study [practice] of personal virtue. The first is a gratuitous act of Christ; the second is characteristic of his true disciples. In the former sense, Jeremiah styles him by his divine title, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. And in both senses Christ Jesus is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, sanctification and redemption.” To speak a little more distinctly: to bring in everlasting righteousness, according to the gospel, evidently includes three things: 1st, To bring in Christ’s righteousness, or his obedience unto death, as the ground of our justification and title to eternal life, he being the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 2d, To bring holiness, the divine nature, or the Spirit of God, with his various graces, into our souls, making us conformable to his image, as our meetness for that future felicity. And, 3d, For our direction in the way that leads to it; to lay before us, for our observation, a complete rule of life and manners. Of this last particular, which Dr. Apthorp includes in the everlasting righteousness here spoken of, as being immutable in its obligations, and eternal in its sanctions, he speaks as follows: “When we consider the Christian morality in its ground of obligation, [namely, the will of God,] its principle of charity, and in its detail of special duties, we are struck with admiration at the simplicity and perfection of a rule of life, which, without any artificial system, extended the Jewish law, and combined all the excellences of Gentile philosophy; the elevation of Plato, without his mysticism; the reasonableness of Aristotle, without his contracted selfishness, and worldly views; tempering the rigour of Zeno with the moderation of Epicurus; while, by the greatness of its end, it reforms, refines, and elevates human nature from sense to spirit, from earth to heaven.”And seal up the vision and prophecy — Hebrew, ולחתם חזון ונביא, to seal vision and prophet; prophet being put for prophecy. The words are a Hebraism, and when expressed in modern language signify, 1st, The accomplishing, and thereby confirming, all the ancient predictions relating to the most holy person here intended. God had spoken of the Messiah, by the mouths of his holy prophets, from the foundation of the world; had foretold his coming, pointed out the place of his birth, and specified the extraordinary circumstances of it; described the manner of his life, the nature of his doctrine, and the variety and splendour of his miracles,

56

with the treatment he should receive from his countrymen; had foretold repeatedly, and set forth at large, his humiliation, sufferings, and death, his resurrection, ascension, and the glory that should follow. Now by making the events exactly to answer the predictions, he confirmed them, as the setting of a seal to any writing confirms its authenticity. 2d, To seat implies, to finish, conclude, and put an end to any thing. Thus also were the vision and prophecy sealed among the Jews. They were shut up and finished. The privilege and use of them were no longer to be continued in their church. And this also happened accordingly; for, by their own confession, from that day to this they have not enjoyed either vision or prophet. But, 3d, To seal, is to consummate and perfect; and to seal the vision and prophecy here, may include the adding the New Testament revelations and predictions to those of the Old, and thereby supplying what was wanting to perfect the book of God, and render it a complete system of divine revelation. It is only necessary to add, 4th, That as things are frequently sealed in order to their security, the preservation of the divine records and oracles included in both Testaments may be also here intended by the expression.And to anoint the Most Holy — Hebrew, קדש קדשים, literally, the holy of holiest an expression often used of holy places, or things, especially of the most holy place of the Jewish tabernacle and temple. It is here very properly applied to the Messiah, whose sacred body was the temple of the Deity; agreeable to his own declaration, Destroy this temple, pointing to himself by some expressive action, and in three days I will raise it up; and who was greater than the temple. Now this most holy person, in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and who, even as man, had the Holy Spirit without measure, was by that divine unction (which is here principally intended) at once designated and qualified for the sundry offices he was to sustain, especially the prophetic, sacerdotal, and kingly offices, for the various characters he was to bear, and the work he was to do on earth, and is now doing in heaven, and hence is properly termed the Messiah, or the Anointed One. To this may be added, that, as the Jewish temple was evidently a type of the church of God, especially the Christian Church, termed in the Psalms and Prophets the city of God, and the holy place of the tabernacle of the Most High; by anointing the holy of holies here, may be also intended the effusion of the Holy Spirit, in his rich variety of gifts and graces, upon the Christian Church, foretold in innumerable passages of the Prophets, and eminently fulfilled, as the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles contained in the New Testament, and the writings of the ancient fathers abundantly prove.

WHEDON, "Verse 2424. The R.V. (with marginal references in brackets) reads, “Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish [to restrain] [the] transgression, and to make an end of [to seal up] sins, and to make reconciliation for [to purge away] iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy [prophet], and to anoint the most holy [a most holy place].” Kautzsch freely translates, “to bring to end the wickedness and to make full the

57

measure of sin… and to seal the prophetic revelations and to consecrate (again) a most holy.” All expositors agree that these terms relate to the Messianic hope. Whatever the author of Daniel saw or thought of when he penned these lines, such a vision could only be fully realized in Him who alone could atone for sin and bring in everlasting righteousness. That the prophet saw this Messianic glory break in upon the world immediately upon the close of the Antiochian persecution is in accordance with all other prophetic utterances. (See our discussion of “The Seventy Weeks,” Introduction to Daniel, II, 10, and compare Matthew 24.)Seventy weeks — Literally, seventy sevens; that is, “sevens of years” (as Genesis 29:27). The period of desolation prophesied by Jeremiah was to be seventy years (ten “sevens”), but this Danielic period of affliction was to be at least seven times longer. (Compare Leviticus 26:18.)To finish the transgression — That is, to fill up the full measure of the “transgression,” described Daniel 7:12, and elsewhere.To make an end of sins — This either means, as the preceding phrase, to fill up the measure of sin (Hitzig) or, more probably, “to abolish sin” (Bevan). That is, an end will now be put to this flood of crime and wickedness.To make reconciliation for iniquity — That is, to make atonement for sin. This is the common meaning of this familiar phrase which occurs again and again in the Pentateuch. It has reference to the mediatorial work of the Messiah, “which is here conceived as following the judgment of those transgressors whose sins are come to the full” (Terry).To bring in everlasting righteousness — “Bring in! then it was to dwell, to make its abode, to have its home there. Everlasting! Then it was never to be removed, never worn-out, never to cease, not to pass with this passing world, but to abide thenceforth, coeternal with God, its Author and Giver.” — Pusey.To seal up the vision and prophecy — That is, either to “seal” in the sense of “closing” — there being no more need of visions or prophets, since the old order has now given place to the new (see Wolf, who refers to 1 Corinthians 13:8) — or more probably “seal” in the sense of vindication. The predictions previously made by many prophets, of a glorious era which should follow all the back-slidings and afflictions of God’s people, should have the seal of Jehovah set to them by their fulfillment. (Compare John 3:33; John 6:27.)Prophecy — Rather, prophet.To anoint the most Holy — “A most holy place” (R.V., margin); “the most holy thing” (Bevan); “a holy of holies” (Terry). This may refer either to the anointing of the sacrificial altar (Exodus 29:37; Exodus 40:10), a holy sanctuary (Exodus 30:26; Exodus 40:9), or a holy one (Exodus 40:13; Isaiah 61:1) — although this phrase is

58

never used elsewhere of an individual unless in one doubtful verse (1 Chronicles 23:13). It is possible this may have primary reference to the reconsecration of the altar, defiled by Antiochus; though this altar was probably never “anointed,” literally, as the Jews had no holy anointing oil at this period (Keil, Wolf, etc.). But in any case, coming at the close of a passage confessedly full of the Messianic hope, this reference should not be pushed back and confined within the narrow scope of the prophet’s natural vision, but must be allowed its wider and richer Messianic meaning. In that new and blessed era which Daniel so dimly saw it was made known that all former altars and sanctuaries and high priests were but types and shadows of the “true tabernacle which the Lord pitched,” with its cross altar and its holy living sacrifices (Hebrews viii-x). “Anointing” had always been the symbol of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 61:1; compare 1 John 2:20-27).Verses 24-27THE GREAT PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS, Daniel 9:24-27.For a detailed examination of the various explanations of these verses and the reasons for our own position see our Introduction to Daniel, II, 10. We will merely attempt here to give succinctly the newer and the older views in their most reasonable form with our conclusions.

PETT, "Verse 24“Seventy sevens are decreed on your people, and on your holy city, to finish transgression, and to make and end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy (‘one’ or ‘place’).”The seventy sevens are here seen as not only making the situation right between the nation and God, resulting at the commencement in the rebuilding of the city and the sanctuary in the first ‘seven’, (which was what the seventy years of Jeremiah had in mind), but also as resulting in the making of a way of final full restoration and acceptability with God, and the final fulfilment of all prophecy, which includes all nations. The whole world is in mind.‘Seventy sevens.’ These seventy ‘sevens’ are in contrast with Jeremiah’s seventy ‘years’. Thus the idea is that final and full deliverance will occur in God’s timing. What Gabriel is saying is that far beyond the limited statement of Jeremiah concerning seventy years there was rather to be a period of seventy ‘sevens’ which would result in the fulfilment of God’s final purposes. In other words the ‘sevens’ (divinely perfect time periods) replace years. This expresses the ultra divinely perfect period. Seven is the number of perfection and seventy is an intensification of that number (see Genesis 4:24). Thus there are to be a divinely perfect number, not of years per Jeremiah, but of divinely perfect periods. God has them measured, even if man does not, and they are perfect within His will. The word for ‘sevens’ is

59

unusually in the masculine plural, as in Daniel 10:2-3 (and in Genesis 29:27 in the singular). Perhaps this was to stress the importance of these periods. They would be powerfully effective. (Further consideration will shortly be given to the interpretation of ‘sevens’).‘Are determined on your people and on your holy city.’ The limited view that suggests that therefore these verses only refer to Israel misses the point. God’s purpose for Israel and the holy city (Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3; Jeremiah 3:17; Zechariah 14:8-9) was that finally they should be a blessing to the world. So Israel was not here for itself, it was here for the world. From the time of the first promise to Abraham of blessing on all nations (Genesis 12:3), through the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of priests in the Sinai covenant (Exodus 19:6), to the recognition that they were to be God’s servant to the nations in Isaiah 42 onwards, the divine emphasis was always on their status and position as world functionaries (see Isaiah 49:6). What God determined on His people He determined for the sake of the world. Thus this prophecy has a world view.The result of the seventy sevens is to be:1) ‘To shut up (restrain) transgression.’ This and 2). are parallel ideas. Transgression has raged through the world since man’s first days. Men have flouted God’s laws. Now it is to be restrained, to be brought under control, to be imprisoned, to be finally dealt with.2) ‘And to make an end of sins (or ‘seal up sin’).’ Job 14:17 refers to ‘the sealing up of sin’ where the idea is that God has sealed it up so as to bring it to account. The restraining and imprisonment of transgression and the making an end of or sealing up of sin could only have in mind both the binding and restraining of the Evil One and the cessation of the power of sin over men’s lives both in penalty and effectiveness. This would be brought about through a sufficient sacrifice for sin which put away sin (Hebrews 9:26), and effective transformation through the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18) so that men became blameless before God. Sin would finally be dealt with by mercy and judgment.3) ‘And to make reconciliation for (or more literally ‘cover’) iniquity.’ This means such a reconciliation that man can come to God and be received as His with no shadow of failure between (2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 2:16). It was to remove any shadow or barrier between God and man. Transgression, sin and iniquity will all have been dealt with.4) ‘To bring in everlasting righteousness.’ This signifies that the stain of sin and evil is removed for ever, both judicially before God as men are covered in perfect righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 2:21), and in fact, so that man will actually be holy, blameless and unreproachable before Him for ever (Colossians 1:22; Ephesians 5:27). Note that everlasting righteousness is ‘brought in’ from outside. There is clear reference here 1). to God ‘bringing near’ righteousness and

60

salvation (Isaiah 46:13), everlasting salvation and righteousness (Isaiah 51:5-6), and 2). to the work of the One Who came to do it as the perfectly righteous one, bringing His righteousness for men (Romans 5:17; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21) and sacrificing Himself for sin.5) ‘To seal up vision and prophecy.’ This signifies its final and complete fulfilment so that it is no longer required and is past instead of future.6) ‘To anoint ‘the most holy’ (literally ‘the holy of holies’ - that which is most holy)’. Anointing indicates a new dedication to God, a setting apart for Him, within His purposes. This can refer either to the anointing of the everlasting King (as mentioned later in the chapter of ‘the anointed One’) or more likely to the anointing of the supreme everlasting sanctuary, in the heavenly Jerusalem (Exodus 40:9; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 21), the eternal dwellingplace of God with men. Whichever we choose, it is an indication of the fulfilment of God’s final purposes in holiness.In our view these descriptions cancel out any interpretation of these seventy ‘sevens’ that falls short of resulting in final perfection. There is no space for an inadequate ‘kingdom age’ to follow. Perfection has been achieved. And although there is a genuine sense in which Christ’s work on the cross and His resurrection fulfilled what is described here up to a point, it did not at that time bring it to complete fulfilment. That awaits the coming of Christ in glory and the final judgment. In our view it is not sufficient to stop short in a partial fulfilment at Christ’s first coming, glorious and initially complete though that was. Daniel is clearly, in the end, thinking of the final consummation.It has been said that there is no clear indication of what closes off the seventieth ‘seven’, but we find this suggestion quite remarkable. For we have it stated here quite clearly. It is closed by the final fulfilment of all God’s purposes brought to a state of perfection and completion. In terms of Daniel 9:27 it is closed by ‘the consummation’.

PULPIT, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. The LXX. here differs from the above, "Seventy weeks are determined ( וêñéèçóáí) upon thy people and the city Zion, to make an end of sin, to make unrighteousnesses rare ( óðáíéóáé), and to wipe out the unrighteous-nesses, and to understand the vision, and to give (appoint) ( äïèçíáé) everlasting righteousness, and to end the visions and the prophet, and to rejoice the holy of holies." There seem here to be some instances of doublet: ôáò áäéêéáò óðáíéóáé and áðáëåéøáé ôáò áäéëéáò are different renderings of לחתם (leḥathaym ḥaṭṭaoth), or as it is in the Q'ri, leahthaym hattath ( לחתם חטאוח). Neither of these seems to be the original of the Greek. Schleusner suggests to read óöñáãéóáé.

61

Against this is the fact that Paulus Tellensis renders lemaz‛or, "to bring to nothing" (Jeremiah 10:24, Peshitta). How Wolf can say the LXX. confirms the Massoretic K'thib, is difficult to see. The author of the first rendering of this phrase seems to have read חתת (ḥathath) instead of ḥatham; the other translator must have read maḥah ( מחה). The phrase, äéáíïçèçíáé, "to understand the vision," seems a doublet of the clause, "to seal up the vision." There seems to have been in one of the manuscripts used by the LXX. translator a transposition of words; for one of them must have read לחתן (lehoothan) instead of לחביא, since he renders äïèçíáé. This is an impossible change, but the mistaking of להחם for להתן is perfectly easy to imagine, if להתם had been written in place of להביא, and it transferred to the place in the Massoretic text occupied by להיי, then we can easily understand להבין . In the last clause the LXX. translator must have read שמח instead of משח, a clearly inferior reading. The impression conveyed to one is that the translators were able to put no intelligible meaning on the passage, and rendered the words successively as nearly as they could without attempting to make them sense. We must admit, however, that the phenomena that cause this impression may be due to corruption of the text. Theodotion renders, "Seventy weeks are determined ( óõíåôìḉèçóáí) upon thy people and on the holy city, to seal sins and wipe away unrighteousness, and to atone for sin, and to bring the everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies." Theodotion, it will be seen, as the LXX; has "prophet" instead of "prophecy," which certainly is more verbally accurate than our version; he omits "to finish transgression," having instead, "to seal sins." The Peshitta has followed the K'thib and renders, "finish transgressions," and instead of "prophecy" has the "prophets." The text of the Vetus, as preserved to us by Tertullian, is, "Seventy weeks are shortened (breviatae) upon thy people, and upon the holy city, until sin shall grow old, and iniquities be marked (signentur), and righteousnesses rise up, and eternal righteousness be brought in, and that the vision and the prophet should be marked (signetur), and the holy of holies (sanctus sanctorum) be anointed." Jerome renders, "Seventy weeks are shortened (abbreviate sunt) upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to end falsehood (prevarieatio), to end sin, to wipe out iniquity, to bring in the everlasting righteousness, to fulfil the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the holy of holies (sanctus sanctorum)." The Hebrew here is peculiar; the word for "weeks" is in the masculine, which is unexampled elsewhere in the plural. The singular masculine is found, e.g Genesis 29:27; there is no case of feminine singular. Mr. Galloway would read שבעים שבעים, and would render, "by weeks it is determined." There seems little evidence for this reading; against a few late manuscripts is the consensus of versions. "Determined" is also a word that occurs only Lore; it is Aramaic, but not common even in that language. It means "to cut off." It may thus refer to these weeks being "cut off" from time generally; hence "determined." It is singular, and its nominative is plural. "To finish" also causes difficulty; so translated, it implies that the word should be written כלה ; but it is written כלא, which means "to restrain," "to enclose," "to separate off" (Furst). Hence if we translate as it stands, it should be "restrain transgression." "To make an end of" in also "cause transgression to cease" This in a rendering of the Massoretic Q'ri; if the K'thib had been taken, the translation should rather have been "to seal." "Sins:" this word is

62

plural in the K'thib, but singular in the Q'ri. A large number of manuscripts write the word plural; the Greek versions give the plural; the Pe-shista and Vulgate, Aquila and Paulus Tellensis, singular. "The prophecy," it is clearly an it stands "the prophet." Jerome is the only one of the versions that takes the word in the sense in which it is taken in our versions. Professor Bevan renders it "prophet" (so Hitzig and Hengstenberg). One is tempted to adopt the reading of Michaelis הזיי חנביא, "the vision of the prophet," which has some manuscript authority. The overwhelming mass of evidence is in favour of the present consonantal text. Seventy weeks. "Week," while generally a week of days (Daniel 10:2), was occasionally week of years, as Genesis 29:27, "fulfil the week of this," i.e. the seven years of service. Among the later Jews this became a recognized mode of reckoning, as in the Book of Jubilees, each jubilee in divided into successive weeks. From what follows it is necessary that the weeks here are sevens of years. "Are determined," as already indicated, means "cut off," not "shortened," which does not seem to be the meaning of the word in any case. "Upon thy people and upon thy holy city." Daniel has been praying long and earnestly for his people; so there would be no inability to see what was meant by "his city and his people." "To finish transgression" is equivalent to "to restrain transgression." Transgression is apt to become bold and imperious; it is a great deal when it is even somewhat "restrained." It is to be noted that, as Daniel's prayer was greatly confession of the sins of the people and prayer for forgiveness, the promises here are largely moral; but still the Messianic period even was not to be expected to be one in which there will be no sin—it is to be restrained. "To make an end of sins"—though "to seal sins" seems the better reading diplomatically it is the K'thib, and that of some of the versions. It is difficult to give the phrase an intelligible meaning. Moreover, the occurrence of חתם so immediately after is against it. Something may be said for מחה, which occurs in a similar connection with תמםthat this does in Lamentations 4:22. This is the reading of one of the translators in the LXX; áðáëåéøáé—the spirit of lawlessness would be restrained and the past iniquities and their guilt wiped away. "To make reconciliation"—"to make an atonement." The verb used is the technical word, "the offering of an atoning sacrifice." In this sense it occurs some fifty times in Leviticus. This might apply to the renewal of sacrificial offerings in the temple after the fifty years' cessation during the Babylonian captivity, or to the renewal after the shorter cessation under the oppression inflicted on the Jews under Epiphanes. The next clause implies a wider application and a loftier sacrifice. Professor Bevan is right in maintaining that, despite the accents, this clause is to be connected with the next. To bring in everlasting righteousness. This is more than merely the termination of the suit of God against his people (Isaiah 27:9). The phrase occurs in Psalms 119:142, and is applied to the righteousness of God. These two, "atonement for sin" and "the everlasting righteousness," are found in Christ—his atoning death and the righteousness which he brings into the world. It is true that when Daniel heard these words spoken by Gabriel he might not put any very distinct meaning on them—in that he was but like other prophets; the prophets did not know the meaning of their own prophecies. To seal up the vision and prophecy; more correctly, to seal vision and prophet—to set to them the seal of fulfilment (von Lengerke, Hitzig, Bevan). This does not refer to Jeremiah, because his prophecy referred merely to the return

63

from Babylon, and this refers to a period which is to continue long after that. Jeremiah's prophecy was about to be verified. This new prophecy required four hundred and ninety years ere it received its verification. Some event to happen nearly half a millennium after Daniel is to prove the prophecy God has given him to be true. And to anoint the Most Holy. This phrase, קדשים קרש (qodesh qodasheem), is used some forty times in Scripture, but almost always of things, as the altar and the innermost sanctuary. Hengstenberg ('Christ.,' 3:119) points out that the phrase for "sanctuary" is " קדש הק, with the article. He appeals to 1 Chronicles 23:13 as a case where, without the article, the phrase applies to an individual, ווב דל אחרןלהקדישו קיי קיי (vayibbadayl Aḥeron leheqdeesho qodesh qadasheem), "And he separated Aaron to sanctify him as a holy of holies." This seems almost the necessary translation, despite the versions; for the prenominal suffix must be the object, and "holy of holies" must be in apposition to it. The act of anointing as a sign of consecration, though applied to the tabernacle (Exodus 30:26; Exodus 40:9), to the altar (Exodus 40:10), the laver (Exodus 40:11), is never applied to the holy of holies. It is applied most frequently to persons; as to Aaron (Exodus 40:13), to Saul (1 Samuel 10:1), to David (1 Samuel 16:3). The words of Gabriel thus point forward to a time when all iniquity shall be restrained, sin atoned for, and a priest anointed.

SIMEON, "THE TIME AND ENDS OF CHRIST’S ADVENTDaniel 9:24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.IT has pleased God on many occasions to manifest his regard to prayer; and to give such speedy and gracious answers to it as should encourage all his people to pour out their hearts before him. Daniel, having understood by books that the seventy years’ captivity in Babylon were drawing to a close, set himself by fasting and prayer to implore mercy for himself and his captive nation: and God instantly sent an angel to testify the acceptance of his prayers, and to reveal to him the period fixed for that far greater deliverance, which should in due time be effected by the Messiah. “Seventy weeks,” according to the prophetic language, mean seventy weeks of years, that is, four hundred and ninety years, a day for a year [Note: Ezekiel 4:6. There is a remarkable coincidence between the seventy years at the end of which this temporal deliverance was to take place, and the seventy weeks of years when the great Deliverer was to come. That space of time (four hundred and ninety years) includes ten Jubilees; at the last of which, not one nation only, but all the nations of the world should hear the sound of the gospel-trumpet, and be restored to their forfeited inheritance.]. Commentators are not agreed respecting the precise year from which the numeration of them begins [Note: The more approved calculations are those which are dated from the seventh, or from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and the latter by lunar years.]: but, according to any calculation, the Messiah must have long since come into the world; and the Jews are inexcusable in

64

rejecting so decisive a testimony. The ends of the Messiah’s advent, which are here set forth in a rich variety of expression, will form the subject of our present discourse.God sent him,I. To open a way for our salvation—There were two great obstacles to the salvation of man, namely, guilt and corruption — — — AndFor the removal of these the law made no adequate provision—[There were sacrifices and various other services appointed for the removal of guilt: and the person who complied with the ordinances prescribed, was considered as absolved from his sin. But in the nature of things “it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin.” Indeed the annual repetition of the same offerings on the great day of atonement shewed, that the transgressions, which had been before atoned for, were not fully and finally forgiven: these repeated sacrifices were so many “remembrances of sins,” intended to lead the minds of men to that greater sacrifice, which alone could “make them perfect as pertaining to the conscience,” or procure to them a complete and “eternal redemption [Note: Hebrews 9:9-12; Hebrews 10:1-4.].”]But what the law could not do, God sent his only dear Son to effect [Note: Romans 8:3.]—[“The Messiah was to be cut off, but not for himself [Note: Daniel 9:27.]:” by him Divine justice was to be satisfied, and the hand-writing that was against us, being nailed to his cross, was to be for ever cancelled [Note: Colossians 2:14.]: he was so to “finish transgression, and make an end of sin” that no further sacrifice for it should ever be necessary: by his one offering he was to perfect for ever them that are sanctified [Note: Hebrews 10:11-14.]. All this has been done: through the blood of his cross, reconciliation is made between God and man [Note: Colossians 1:21-22.]: God no more abhors the sinner, seeing that he is cleansed from sin in the Redeemer’s blood, and is clothed in that spotless righteousness which Jesus has brought in [Note: 2 Corinthians 5:21.]: nor does the sinner any longer hate God, because he is enabled to behold him as his God and Father in Christ. Thus is the breach completely closed: thus is man restored to the favour and love of God: thus are all typical sacrifices abrogated and annulled [Note: Daniel 9:27.]: and thus are men delivered, no less from the love and practice of sin than from the curse and condemnation due to it [Note: Titus 2:14.]. Sin is no more remembered on the part of God, nor any more practiced on the part of man.]Thus far the subject is plain. What remains of our text is more difficult to be understood. But I conceive that the true sense of it will be marked, if we consider it

65

as exhibiting yet farther the way devised for our salvation, and the sending of the Messiah,II. To complete all that was necessary for its full accomplishment—Two things were necessary to be effected by him:1. He was to fulfil for us all that had been predicted—[There were a great variety of types and prophecies which designated the Messiah’s work and character. The first promise, given immediately after the fall, represented him as “the seed of the woman who should bruise the serpent’s head.” In process of time other prophecies declared the family from which he should spring, the time and place of his birth, the minutest circumstances of his life and death, together with his subsequent exaltation and glory: moreover the whole nature of his undertaking, the various offices he was to sustain, with all the effects of his mission, were exactly delineated. Besides these, there were also many figurative representations instituted of God for the purpose of exhibiting to the world, as in a shadow, those things which were afterwards to be realized and substantially effected. Our first parents were clothed by God himself with the skins of beasts, which they had before been directed to otter in sacrifice; that, in that type, they might see the only true way of atoning for their sin, or covering their shame from the eyes of God. The various ordinances that were appointed under the Mosaic dispensation, the paschal lamb, whose sprinkled blood averted from the Israelites the sword of the destroying angel, while its flesh, eaten with bitter herbs, nourished their bodies; the daily and annual sacrifices, with all the sprinklings and other ceremonies; the habits and services of the priests, the form and furniture of the tabernacle, with many other things, which it would be tedious to enumerate, declared in ten thousand forms the work and offices of the promised Messiah.All of these Christ was in the exactest manner to fulfil. Some parts of the inspired volume represented him as God, others as a man, yea, as “a worm and no man;” some as victorious, others as suffering; some as living for ever, others as dying; some as the priest, others as the sacrifice; some as a sanctuary, and others as a stumbling-block: all manner of opposites were to unite in him as lines in their centre, in order that, when he should appear, there should not exist a doubt in any unprejudiced mind, but that he was the person foretold; and that every thing respecting him had been fore-ordained in the Divine counsels. Accordingly when he came, he shewed himself to be that very Messiah, who, like a seal, engraven with strokes infinitely diversified, corresponded exactly with the impression which had been given of it to the Church two thousand years before. Thus did he “seal up the vision and prophecy,” completing it in all its parts, and leaving no further occasion for such methods of instruction.]2. He was to impart to us all that had been promised—

66

[“The anointing of the most Holy” is generally thought to import, that Christ himself should receive the Spirit; but we apprehend that it imports also his communicating of the Spirit to his Church.Christ is certainly “the Holy One and the Just,” to whom the character of “The Most Holy” eminently belongs. It is certain also that he was anointed with the Spirit from his very first designation to preach the glad tidings of salvation [Note: Isaiah 61:1.]; and that lie received a further unction when the Spirit descended upon him in a bodily shape like a dove [Note: Matthew 3:16.]. But these do not appear to be the seasons alluded to in the text: the unction there spoken of seems to follow the other ends of his mission; and consequently to relate to something which took place after his ascension to heaven. The Psalmist speaks of Christ after his ascension, and consequent inauguration, when lie says, “Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows [Note: Psalms 45:7.],” In another psalm he declares the same truth in still plainer terms; “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive; thou hast received gifts for men, yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them [Note: Psalms 68:18.].” By consulting the Apostle Paul, we shall find that this gift which Jesus then received, was the Holy Spirit; and that he received it in order that he might communicate it to his Church; for, quoting this very passage, he alters one word in it, and says, “he gave gifts unto men;” and then adds, that he gave these “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ [Note: Ephesians 4:8; Ephesians 4:11-12.].” But the testimony of another Apostle is absolutely decisive on this point: while St. Peter was preaching on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Ghost came down upon all the Apostles, and abode on each of them in the shape of cloven tongues of fire: the Apostle then declared that this was an accomplishment of Joel’s prophecy respecting “the pouring out of God’s Spirit;” and referred them to Jesus as the author of it, and as having received, at this time, the gift of the Spirit for this very end; “therefore,” says he, “being exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, Jesus hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear [Note: Acts 2:3; Acts 2:16; Acts 2:33.].” Thus was this holy oil poured out upon the head of our great High Priest, that it might flow down to the skirts of his garments, and reach to the meanest of his members [Note: Psalms 133:2.].]The ends of the Messiah’s advent being so clearly and so fully declared, I wish you to observe—1. What abundant provision God has made for our salvation—[What can we conceive either as necessary or desirable beyond what our blessed Redeemer has done for us? What could the most guilty and abandoned sinner upon earth desire more of Christ, than that he should “finish transgression, make an end of sin, make reconciliation for iniquity, bring in for him an everlasting righteousness, and anoint him” with that same Spirit wherewith he himself is

67

“anointed without measure [Note: John 3:34.]?” Or what evidence of his ability and willingness to do these things would any man have, beyond what the accomplishment of so many types and prophecies affords him? And shall God freely offer us this glorious salvation, and we not deign to receive it? O let us open our eyes, and behold our truest interest: let us not perish in the midst of mercy: let us not be famished when so rich a feast is set before us [Note: Isaiah 25:6.]; but let us comply with the Saviour’s invitation, “Eat, O friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved [Note: Song of Solomon 5:1.].”]2. How deeply we are interested in obtaining the knowledge of Christ—[When the Apostles were asked by our Lord whether they also intended to forsake him, Peter well replied, “Lord, whither shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Thus must we say; for assuredly “there is salvation in no other; there is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus Christ [Note: Acts 4:12.].” In vain will be all our self-righteous endeavours to reconcile ourselves to God, or to renew our polluted hearts. “If Christ wash us not, we have no part with him [Note: John 13:8.]:” if he put not away our sins, they must abide upon us for ever: if he do not impart to us that “unction of the Holy One, whereby we know all things [Note: 1 John 2:20.],” and “can do all things [Note: Philippians 4:13.],” we must perish in our impotency, even as new-born infants that are left to themselves. Shall we then be regardless of the Saviour, and “perish for lack of knowledge,” when God is thus labouring to instruct us? Shall we not rather, like Daniel, pray day and night that we may obtain a clearer knowledge of his will? Our neglect of this is the true reason why, with the Bible in our hands, we understand so little of this subject, and feel so little its sanctifying and saving efficacy. Would to God there were more Daniels in the midst of us! O let us henceforth “give more earnest heed to the things that are spoken;” and treasure up in our minds that truth of God, which alone can sanctify us, which alone can save us.]

25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[f] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in 68

times of trouble.

BARNES, "Know, therefore, and understand - Hengstenberg renders this, “and thou wilt know and understand;” and supposes that the design of Gabriel is to awaken the attention and interest of Daniel by the assurance that, if he would give attention, he would understand the subject by the explanation which he was about to give. So also Theodotion renders it in the future tense. The Hebrew is in the future tense, and would probably convey the idea that he might, or would know and understand the matter. So Lengerke renders it, “Und so mogest du wissen,” etc. The object is doubtless to call the attention of Daniel to the subject, with the assurance that he might comprehend the great points of the communication which he was about to make respecting the seventy weeks. In the previous verse, the statement was a general one; in this, the angel states the time when the period of the seventy weeks was to commence, and then that the whole period was to be broken up or divided into three smaller portions or epochs, each evidently marking some important event, or constituting an important era. The first period of seven weeks was evidently to be characterized by something in which it would be different from what would follow, or it would reach to some important epoch, and then would follow a continuous period of sixty-two weeks, after which, during the remaining one week, to complete the whole number of seventy, the Messiah would come and would be cut off, and the series of desolations would commence which would result in the entire destruction of the city.

That from the going forth of the commandment - Hebrew, “of the word” -דבר dâbâr. It is used, however, as in Dan_9:23, in the sense of commandment or order. The expression “gone forth” (מצא môtsâ') would properly apply to the “issuing” of an order or decree. So in Dan_9:23 - דבר'yâtsâ יצא dâbâr - “the commandment went forth.” The word properly means a going forth, and is applied to the rising sun, that goes forth from the east, Psa_19:6 (7); then a “place” of going forth, as a gate, a fountain of waters, the east, etc., Eze_42:11; Isa_41:18; Psa_75:6 (7). The word here has undoubted reference to the promulgation of a decree or command, but there is nothing in the words to determine “by whom” the command was to be issued. So far as the “language” is concerned, it would apply equally well to a command issued by God, or by the Persian king, and nothing but the circumstances can determine which is referred to. Hengstenberg supposes that it is the former, and that the reference is to the Divine purpose, or the command issued from the “heavenly council” to rebuild Jerusalem. But the more natural and obvious meaning is, to understand it of the command’ actually issued by the Persian monarch to restore and build the city of

69

Jerusalem. This has been the interpretation given by the great body of expositors, and the reasons for it seem to be perfectly clear:(a) This would be the interpretation affixed to it naturally, if there were no theory to support, or if it did not open a chronological difficulty not easy to settle.(b) This is the only interpretation which can give anything like definiteness to the passage. Its purpose is to designate some fixed and certain period from which a reckoning could be made as to the time when the Messiah would come. But, so far as appears, there was no such definite and marked command on the part of God; no period which can be fixed upon when he gave commandment to restore and build Jerusalem; no exact and settled point from which one could reckon as to the period when the Messiah would come. It seems to me, therefore, to be clear, that the allusion is to some order to rebuild the city, and as this order could come only from one who had at that time jurisdiction over Jerusalem, and Judea, and who could command the resources necessary to rebuild the ruined city, that order must be one that would emanate from the reigning power; that is, in fact, the Persian power - for that was the power that had jurisdiction at the close of the seventy years’ exile. But, as there were several orders or commands in regard to the restoration of the city and the temple, and as there has been much difficulty in ascertaining the exact chronology of the events of that remote period, it has not been easy to determine the precise order referred to, or to relieve the whole subject from perplexity and difficulty. Lengerke supposes that the reference here is the same as in Dan_9:2, to the promise made to Jeremiah, and that this is the true point from which the reckoning is to be made. The exact edict referred to will be more properly considered at the close of the verse. All that is necessarily implied here is, that the time from which the reckoning is to be commenced is some command or order issued to restore and build Jerusalem.To restore - Margin, “build again.” The Hebrew is, properly, “to cause to

return” - lehâshıyb. The word might be applied to the return of the להשיבcaptives to their own land, but it is evidently used here with reference to the city of Jerusalem, and the meaning must be, “to restore it to its former condition.” It was evidently the purpose to cause it to return, as it were, to its former spendour; to reinstate it in its former condition as a holy city -the city where the worship of God would be celebrated, and it is this purpose which is referred to here. The word, in Hiphil, is used in this sense of restoring to a former state, or to renew, in the following places: Psa_80:3, “Turn us again - - hăshıybēnû השיבנו and cause thy face to shine.” So Psa_80:7, Psa_80:19. Isa_1:26, “And I will “restore” thy judges as at the first,” etc. The meaning here would be met by the supposition that Jerusalem was to be put into its former condition.

And to build Jerusalem - It was then in ruins. The command, which is referred to here, must be one to build it up again - its houses, temple, walls; and the fair sense is, that some such order would be issued, and the reckoning of the seventy weeks must “begin” at the issuing of this command. The proper interpretation of the prophecy demands that “that” time shall be assumed in endeavoring to ascertain when the seventy weeks 70

would terminate. In doing this, it is evidently required in all fairness that we should not take the time when the Messiah “did” appear - or the birth of the Lord Jesus, assuming that to be the “terminus ad quem” - the point to which the seventy weeks were to extend - and then reckon “backward” for a space of four hundred and ninety years, to see whether we cannot find some event which by a possible construction would bear to be applied as the “terminus a quo,” the point from which we are to begin to reckon; but we are to ascertain when, in fact, the order was given to rebuild Jerusalem, and to make “that” the “terminus a quo” - the starting point in the reckoning. The consideration of the fulfillment of this may with propriety be reserved to the close of the verse.Unto the Messiah - The word Messiah occurs but four times in the common version of the Scriptures: Dan_9:25-26 : Joh_1:41; Joh_4:25. It is synonymous in meaning with the word “Christ,” the Anointed. See the notes at Mat_1:1. Messiah is the Hebrew word; Christ the Greek. The Hebrew

word (משיח mâshıyach) occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and, with the exception of these two places in Daniel, it is uniformly translated “anointed,” and is applied to priests, to prophets, and to kings, as being originally set apart to their offices by solemn acts of anointing. So far as the “language” is concerned here, it might be applied to anyone who sustained these offices, and the proper application is to be determined from the connection. Our translators have introduced the article - “unto the Messiah.” This is wanting in the Hebrew, and should not have been introduced, as it gives a definiteness to the prophecy which the original language does not necessarily demand.

Our translators undoubtedly understood it as referring to him who is known as the Messiah, but this is not necessarily implied in the original. All that the language fairly conveys is, “until an anointed one.” Who “that” was to be is to be determined from other circumstances than the mere use of the language, and in the interpretation of the language it should not be assumed that the reference is to any particular individual. That some eminent personage is designated; some one who by way of eminence would be properly regarded as anointed of God; some one who would act so important a part as to characterize the age, or determine the epoch in which he should live; some one so prominent that he could be referred to as “anointed,” with no more definite appellation; some one who would be understood to be referred to by the mere use of this language, may be fairly concluded from the expression used - for the angel clearly meant to imply this, and to direct the mind forward to some one who would have such a prominence in the history of the world.The object now is merely to ascertain the meaning of the “language.” All that is fairly implied is, that it refers to some one who would have such a prominence as anointed, or set apart to the office of prophet, priest, or king, that it could be understood that he was referred to by the use of this language. The reference is not to the anointed one, as of one who was already known or looked forward to as such - for then the article would have been used; but to some one who, when he appeared, would have such marked characteristics that there would be no difficulty in determining that

71

he was the one intended. Hengstenberg well remarks, “We must, therefore, translate “an anointed one, a prince,” and assume that the prophet, in accordance with the uniform character of his prophecy, chose the more indefinite, instead of the more definite designation, and spoke only of AN anointed one, a prince, instead of the anointed one, the prince - κατ ἐξοχήν kat' exochēn - and left his hearers to draw a deeper knowledge respecting him, from the prevailing expectations, grounded on earlier prophecies of a future great King, from the remaining declarations of the context, and from the fulfillment, the coincidence of which with the prophecy must here be the more obvious, since an accurate date had been given.” - Christol. ii. 334, 335.

The Vulgate renders this, Usque ad Christum ducem - “even to Christ the leader,” or ruler. The Syriac, “to the advent of Christ the king.” Theodotion, ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου heōs Christou hēgoumenou - “Christ the leader,” or ruler. The question whether this refers to Christ will be more appropriately considered at the close of the verse. The inquiry will then occur, also, whether this refers to his birth, or to his appearance as the anointed one -his taking upon himself publicly the office. The language would apply to either, though it would perhaps more properly refer to the latter - to the time when he should appear as such - or should be anointed, crowned, or set apart to the office, and be fully instituted in it. It could not be demonstrated that either of these applications would be a departure from the fair interpretation of the words, and the application must be determined by some other circumstances, if any are expressed. What those are in the case will be considered at the close of the verse.

The Prince - nāgıyd. This word properly means a leader, a prefect, a נגידprince. It is a word of very general character, and might be applied to any leader or ruler. It is applied to an overseer, or, as we should say, a “secretary” of the treasury, 1Ch_26:24; 2Ch_31:12; an overseer of the temple, 1Ch_9:11; 2Ch_31:13; of the palace, 2Ch_28:7; and of military affairs, 1Ch_13:1; 2Ch_32:21. It is also used absolutely to denote a prince of a people, any one of royal dignity, 1Sa_9:16; 1Sa_10:1; 1Sa_13:14. - Gesenius. So far as this word, therefore, is concerned, it would apply to any prince or leader, civil or military; any one of royal dignity, or who should distinguish himself, or make himself a leader in civil, ecclesiastical, or military affairs, or who should receive an appointment to any such station. It is a word which would be as applicable to the Messiah as to any other leader, but which has nothing in itself to make it necessary to apply it to him. All that can be fairly deduced from its use here is, that it would be some prominent leader; some one that would be known without anymore definite designation; someone on whom the mind would naturally rest, and someone to whom when he appeared it would be applied without hesitation and without difficulty. There can be no doubt that a Hebrew, in the circumstances of Daniel, and with the known views and expectations of the Hebrew people, would apply such a phrase to the Messiah.

Shall be seven weeks - See the notes at Dan_9:24. The reason for dividing the whole period into seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week, is not formally stated, and will be considered at the close of the verse. All that is 72

necessary here in order to an explanation of the language, and of what is to be anticipated in the fulfillment, is this:(a) That, according to the above interpretation Dan_9:24, the period would be forty-nine years.(b) That this was to be the “first” portion of the whole time, not time that would be properly taken out of any part of the whole period.(c) That there was to be some event at the end of the forty-nine years which would designate a period, or a natural division of the time, or that the portion which was designated by the forty-nine years was to be distinctly characterized from the next period referred to as sixty-two weeks, and the next period as one week.(d) No intimation is given in the words as to the nature of this period, or as to what would distinguish one portion from the others, and what that was to be is to be learned from subsequent explanations, or from the actual course of events. If one period was characterized by war, and another by peace; one in building the city and the walls, and the other by quiet prosperity; one by abundance, and the other by famine; one by sickness, and the other by health - all that is fairly implied by the words would be met. It is foretold only that there would be something that would designate these periods, and serve to distinguish the one from the other.And threescore and two weeks - Sixty-two weeks; that is, as above explained Dan_9:24, four hundred and thirty-four years. The fair meaning is, that there would be something which would characterize that long period, and serve to distinguish it from what preceded it. It is not indeed intimated what that would be, and the nature of the case seems to require that we should look to the events - to the facts in the course of the history to determine what that was. Whether it was peace, prosperity, quiet, order, or the prevalence of religion as contrasted with the former period, all that the words fairly imply would be fulfilled in either of them.The street shall be built again - This is a general assertion or prediction, which does not seem to have any special reference to the “time” when it would be done. The fair interpretation of the expression does not require us to understand that it should be after the united period of the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks, nor during either one of those periods; that is, the language is not such that we are necessarily required to affix it to any one period. It seems to be a general assurance designed to comfort Daniel with the promise that the walls and streets of Jerusalem, now desolate, would be built again, and that this would occur some time during this period. His mind was particularly anxious respecting the desolate condition of the city, and the declaration is here made that it would be restored. So far as the languages - the grammatical construction is concerned, it seems to me that this would be fulfilled if it were done either at the time of the going forth of the commandment, or during either of the periods designated, or even after these periods.It is, however, most natural, in the connection, to understand it of the “first” period - the seven weeks, or the forty-nine years - since it is said that “the commandment would go forth to restore, and to build Jerusalem;” and since, as the whole subsequent period is divided into three portions, it may

73

be presumed that the thing that would characterize the first portion, or what would first be done, would be to execute the commandment - that is, to restore and build the city. These considerations would lead us, therefore, to suppose that the thing which would characterize the first period - the forty-nine years - would be the rebuilding of the city; and “the time” - a time which, considering the extent and entireness of the ruins, the nature of the opposition that might be encountered, the difficulty of collecting enough from among the exiles to return and do it, the want of means, and the embarrassments which such an undertaking might be supposed to involve, cannot, probably, be regarded as too long.The word rendered “street” - rechôb רחוב - means a “street,” so called from

its “breadth,” and would properly, therefore, be applied to a wide street. Then it denotes a market-place, or a forum - the broad open place at the gates of Oriental cities where public trials were held, and things exposed for sale, 2Ch_32:6. In Ezr_10:9, the word refers to the area or court before the temple: “And all the people sat in the street (ברחוב bırechôb) of the house of God,” etc. Compare Neh_8:1, Neh_8:3, Neh_8:16. The reference in this place, therefore, may be to that area or court; or it may be to any place of concourse, or any thoroughfare. It is such language as would be naturally used to denote that the city would be restored to its former condition. The phrase “shall be built again” is, in the margin, “return and be builded.” This is in accordance with the Hebrew. That is, it would be restored to its former state; it would, as it were, come back and be built up again. Hengstenberg renders it “a street is restored and built.” The phrase properly implies that it would assume its former condition, the word “built” here being used in the sense of “made,” as we speak of “making a road.” Lengerke renders it, wird wieder hergestellt - “shall be again restored.” Theodotion renders it, ἐπιστρέψει epistrepsei - “it shall return,” understanding it as meaning that there would be a return, to wit, from the exile. But the more correct meaning undoubtedly is, that the street would return to its former state, and be rebuilt.

And the wall - Margin, “ditch.” Hengstenberg renders this, “and firmly is it determined;” maintaining that the word חרוץ chârûts here means fixed, determined, resolved on, and that the idea is, the purpose that the city should be rebuilt was firmly resolved on in the Divine mind, and that the design of what is here said was to comfort and animate the returned Hebrews in their efforts to rebuild the city, in all the discouragements and troubles which would attend such an undertaking. The common interpretation, however, has been that it refers to a ditch, trench, or wall, that would be constructed at the time of the rebuilding of the city. So the Vulgate, “muri, walls.” So Theodotion, τεῖχος teichos - wall. The Syriac renders it, “Jerusalem, and the villages, and the streets.” Luther, Mauren, walls. Lengerke renders it, as Hengstenberg does, “and it is determined.” Maurer understands the two expressions, “street and wall,” to be equivalent to “within and without” - meaning that the city would be thoroughly and entirely rebuilt.

The Hebrew word חרוץ chârûts means, properly, what is cut in, or dug out, 74

from חרץ chârats - to cut in. The word is translated “sharp-pointed things” in Job_41:30; “gold, fine gold, choice gold,” in Psa_68:13; Pro_3:14; Pro_8:10, Pro_8:19; Pro_16:16; Zec_9:3; a threshing instrument, Isa_28:27; Amo_1:3; sharp (referring to a threshing instrument), Isa_41:15; “wall,” Dan_9:25; and “decision,” Joe_3:14. It does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures. The notion of “gold” as connected with the word is probably derived from the fact of its being dug for, or eagerly sought by men. That idea is, of course, not applicable here. Gesenius supposes that it here means a “ditch or trench” of a fortified city. This seems to me to be the probable signification. At all events, this has the concurrence of the great body of interpreters; and this accords well with the connection. The word does not properly mean “wall,” and it is never elsewhere so used. It need not be said that it was common, if not universal, in wailed cities to make a deep ditch or trench around them to prevent the approach of an enemy, and such language would naturally be employed in speaking of the rebuilding of a city. Prof. Stuart renders it, “with broad spaces, and narrow limits.”

Even in troublous times - Margin, “strait of.” Hengstenberg, “in a time of distress.” Lengerke, Im Druck der Zeiten - in a pressure of times. Vulgate, In angustia temporum. Theodotion, in the Septuagint, renders it, “And these times shall be emptied out” (Thompson) - καὶ ἐκκενωθήσονται οἱ καιροί kai ekkenōthēsontai hoi kairoi. The proper meaning of the Hebrew word (צוק tsôq) is, distress, trouble, anguish; and the reference is, doubtless. to times that would be characterized by trouble, perplexity, and distress. The allusion is clearly to the rebuilding of the city, and the use of this language would lead us to anticipate that such an enterprise would meet with opposition or embarrasment; that there would be difficulty in accomplishing it; that the work would not be carried on easily, and that a considerable time would be necessary to finish it.

Having gone through with an investigation of the meaning of the words and phrases of this verse, we are now prepared to inquire more particularly what things are referred to, and whether the predictions have been fulfilled. The points which it is necessary to examine are the following: - To whom reference is made by the Messiah the Prince; the time designated by the going forth of the commandment - or the “terminus a quo;” the question whether the whole period extends to the “birth” of him here referred to as the Messiah the Prince, or to his assuming the office or appearing as such; the time embraced in the first seven weeks - and the fulfillment - or the question whether, from the time of the going forth of the commandment to the appearing of the Messiah, the period of the four hundred and ninety years can be fairly made out. These are evidently important points, and it need not be said that a great variety of opinions has prevailed in regard to them, and that they are attended with no little difficulty.I. To whom reference is made as the Messiah the Prince. In the exposition of the meaning of the words, we have seen that there is nothing in the language itself to determine this. It is applicable to anyone who should be set apart as a ruler or prince, and might be applied to Cyrus, to any anointed king, or to him who is properly designated now as the Messiah - the Lord Jesus. Compare the notes at Isa_45:1. It is unnecessary to show that a great

75

variety of opinions has been entertained, both among the Jewish rabbis and among Christian commentators, respecting the question to whom this refers. Among the Jews, Jarchi and Jacchiades supposed that it referred to Cyrus; Ben Gersom, and others, to Zerubbabel; Aben Ezra to Nehemiah; rabbi Azariah to Artaxerxes. Bertholdt, Lengerke, Maurer, and this class of expositors generally, suppose that the reference is to Cyrus, who is called the Messiah, or the “Anointed,” in Isa_45:1.According to this interpretation, it is supposed that the reference is to the seventy years of Jeremiah, and that the meaning is, that “seven weeks,” or forty-nine years, would elapse from the desolation of the city until the time of Cyrus. See Maurer, in loc. Compare also Lengerke, pp. 444, 445. As specimens of the views entertained by those who deny the reference of the passage to the Messiah, and of the difculties and absurdities of those views, we may notice those of Etchhorn and Bertholdt. Eichhorn maintains that the numbers referred to are round numbers, and that we are not to expect to be able to make out an exact conformity between those numbers and the events. The “commandment” mentioned in Dan_9:25 he supposes refers to the order of Cyrus to restore and rebuild the city, which order was given, according to Usher, A.M. 3468. From this point of time must the “sevenweeks,” or the forty-nine years, be reckoned; but, according to his view, the reckoning must be “backward and forward;” that is, it is seven weeks, or forty-nine years, backward to Nebuchadnezzar, who is here called “Messiah the Prince,” who destroyed the temple and city, A.M. 3416 - or about fifty-two years before the going forth of the edict of Cyrus. From that time, the reckoning of the sixty-two weeks must be commenced.But again, this is not to be computed literally from the time of Nebuchadnezzar; but since the Jews, in accordance with Jer_25:11-12, reckoned seventy years, instead of the true time, the point from which the estimate is to begin is the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and this occurred, according to Usher, A.M. 3397. Reckoning from this point onward, the sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, would bring us to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (A.M. 3829). At the end of the sixty-two weeks, in the first year of Antiochus Epiphanes, the high priest, Onias III (the Messiah of

Dan_9:26), was displaced - “cut off” - yıkârēth יכרת - and Jason was appointed in his place, and Menelaus the year after removed him. Titus Onias had properly no successor, etc. This absurd opinion Bertholdt (p. 605, following) attempts to set aside - a task which is very easily performed, and then proposes his own - a hypothesis not less absurd and improbable. According to his theory (p. 613, following), the seventy years have indeed a historical basis, and the time embraced in them extends from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is divided into three periods:

(a) The seven first hebdomads extend from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar to king, Cyrus, who gave the exiles permission to return to their land. This is the period during which Jerusalem must lie waste Dan_9:2; and after the close of this, by the favor of Cyrus Dan_9:25, the promise of Jeremiah (Dan_9:25 - dâbâr דבר - “commandment”), that Jerusalem shall be rebuilt, goes forth.

76

(b) The following sixty-two weeks extend from the return of the exiles to the beginning of the troubles and persecutions under Antiochus. This is the period of the rebuilding of Jerusalem Dan_9:25.(c) The last period of one week extends from the time of the oppressions and wrongs commenced under Antiochus, to the death of Antiochus. See this view fully explained and illustrated in Bertholdt, “ut supra.” The great mass of Christian interpreters, however, have supposed that the reference is to the Messiah properly so called - the promised Saviour of the world - the Lord Jesus. In support of this opinion, the following considerations may be suggested, which seem to me to be conclusive:(1) The language itself is such as is properly applicable to him, and such as would naturally suggest him. It is true, as we see in Isa_45:1, that the term Messiah may be applied to another, as it is there to Cyrus (see the note at the meaning of the word in that place, and in the exposition of this verse), but it is also true that if the term stands by itself, and with no explanation, it would naturally suggest him who, by way of eminence, is known as the Messiah. In Isa_45:1, it is expressly limited to Cyrus, and there can be no danger of mistake. Here there is no such limitation, and it is natural, therefore, to apply it in the sense in which among the Hebrews it would be obviously understood. Even Bertholdt admits the force of this. Thus (p. 563)

he says: “That at the words נגיד mâshıyach משיח nāgıyd (Messiah the Prince) we should be led to think of the Messiah, Jesus, and at those, Dan_9:26, לו ואיןמשיח yıkârēth יכרת mâshıyach ve'ēyn lô (shall be cut off but not for himself), of his crucifixion, though not absolutely necessary, is still very natural.”

(2) This would be the interpretation which would be given to the words by the Jews. They were so much accustomed to look forward to a great prince and deliverer, who would be by way of eminence the Anointed of the Lord, that, unless there was some special limitation or designation in the language, they would naturally apply it to the Messiah, properly so called. Compare Isa_9:6-7. Early in the history of the Jews, the nation had become accustomed to the expectation that such a deliverer would come, and its hopes were centerd on him. In all times of national trouble and calamity; in all their brightest visions of the future, they were accustomed to look to him as one who would deliver them from their troubles, and who would exalt their people to a pitch of glory and of honor, such as they had never known before. Unless, therefore, there was something in the connection which would demand a different interpretation, the language would be of course applied to the Messiah. But it cannot be pretended that there is anything in the connection that demands such a limitation, nor which forbids such an application.(3) So far as the ancient versions throw any light on the subject, they show that this is the correct interpretation. So the Latin Vulgate, usque ad Christum ducem. So the Syriac, “unto Messiah, the most holy” - literally,

“holy of holies.” So Theodotion - ἔως Χριστοῦ heōs Christou - where there can be little doubt that the Messiah was understood to be referred to. The same is found in the Arabic. The Codex Chisianus is in utter confusion on this whole passage, and nothing can be made of it.

77

(4) All the circumstances referred to in connection with him who is here called “Messiah the Prince” are such as to be properly applicable to the work which the Lord Jesus came to do, and not to Cyrus, or Antiochus, or any other leader or ruler. See the notes at Dan_9:24. To no other one, according to the interpretation which the passage in that verse seems to demand, can the expressions there used be applied. In that exposition it was shown that the verse is designed to give a general view of what would be accomplished, or of what is expressed more in detail in the remaining verses of the vision, and that the language there used can be applied properly to the work which the Lord Jesus came to accomplish. Assuredly to no one else can the phrases “to restrain transgression,” “to seal up sins,” “to cover over iniquity,” “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” “to seal up the vision and prophecy,” and “to consecrate the most holy place,” be so well applied. The same is true of the language in the subsequent part of the prophecy, “Messiah shall be cut off,” “not for himself ... shall confirm the covenant ... cause the oblation to cease.” Any one may see the perplexities in which they are involved by adopting another interpretation, by consulting Bertholdt, or Lengerke on the passage.(5) The expression used here (“prince” - nāgıyd נגיד - is applied to the

Messiah beyond all question in Isa_4:4 : “I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader - nāgıyd נגיד - and a commander to the people.”

(6) The perplexity attending any other interpretation is an additional proof of this point. In full illustration of this, it is necessary only to refer to the views of Bertholdt and Eichhorn as above exhibited. Whatever may be said about the difficulties on the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus - the true Messiah - no one can undertake to reconcile the applications which they have proposed with any belief of the inspiration of the passage. These considerations seem to me to make it clear that the prophecy had reference to the Messiah properly so called - the hope and the expectation of the Jewish people. There can be no doubt that Daniel would so understand it; there can be no doubt that it would be so applied by the Jews.II. The next question is, From what point are we to reckon in computing the time when the Messiah would appear - the “terminus a quo?” It is important to fix this, for the whole question of the fulfillment depends on it, and “honesty” requires that it should be determined without reference to the time to which four hundred and ninety years would reach - or the “terminus ad quem.” It is clearly not proper to do as Prideaux does, to assume that it refers to the birth of Christ, and then to reckon backward to a time which may be made to mean the “going forth of the commandment.” The true method, undoubtedly, would be to fix on a time which would accord with the expression here, with no reference to the question of the fulfillment for in that way only can it be determined to be a true “prophecy,” and in that way only would it be of any use to Daniel, or to those who succeeded him. It need hardly be said, that a great variety of opinions have been maintained in regard to the time designated by the “going forth of the commandment.” Bertholdt (pp. 567, 568) mentions no less than thirteen opinions which have been entertained on this point, and in such a variety of sentiment, it seems almost hopeless to be able to ascertain the truth with

78

certainty. Now, in determining this, there are a few points which may be regarded as certain. They are such as these:(a) That the commandment referred to is one that is issued by some prince or king having authority, and not the purpose of God. See the notes above on the first part of the verse.(b) That the distinct command would be to “restore and build Jerusalem.” This is specified, and therefore would seem to be distinguished from a command to build the temple, or to restore that from its state of ruin. It is true that the one might appear to be implied in the other, and yet this does not necessarily follow. For various causes it might be permitted to the Jews to rebuild their temple, and there might be a royal ordinance commanding that, while there was no purpose to restore the city to its former power and splendor, and even while there might be strong objections to it. For the use of the Jews who still resided in Palestine, and for those who were about to return, it might be a matter of policy to permit them to rebuild their temple, and even to aid them in it, while yet it might be regarded as perilous to allow them to rebuild the city, and to place it in its former condition of strength and power.It was a place easily fortified; it had cost the Babylonian monarch much time, and had occasioned him many losses, before he had been able to conquer and subdue it, and, even to Cyrus, it might be a matter of very questionable policy to allow it to be built and fortified again. Accordingly we find that, as a matter of fact, the permission to rebuild the temple, and the permission to rebuild the city, were quite different things, and were separately granted by different sovereigns, and that the work was executed by different persons. The former might, without impropriety, be regarded as the close of the captivity - or the end of the “seventy years” of Jeremiah -for a permission to rebuild the temple was, in fact, a permission to return to their own country, and an implied purpose to aid them in it, while a considerable interval might, and probably would elapse, before a distinct command was issued to restore and rebuild the city itself, and even then a long period might intervene before it would be completed.Accordingly, in the edict published by Cyrus, the permission to rebuild the temple is the one that is carefully specified: “Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to “build him an house” at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and “build the house of the Lord God of Israel” (he is the God), which is in Jerusalem,” Ezr_1:2-3. In this order there is nothing said of the restoration of the city, and that in fact occurred at a different time, and under the direction of different leaders. The first enterprise was to rebuild the temple; it was still a question whether it would be a matter of policy to allow the city to be rebuilt, and that was in fact accomplished at a different time. These considerations seem to make it certain that the edict referred to here was not what was issued by “Cyrus,” but must have been a subsequent decree bearing particularly on the rebuilding of the city itself. It is true that the command to rebuild the temple would imply that either there were persons residing amidst the ruins of Jerusalem, or in the land of Palestine, who were to worship there,

79

and that there would be inhabitants in Jerusalem, probably those who would go from Babylon - for otherwise the temple would be of no service, but still this might be, and there be no permission to rebuild the city with any degree of its ancient strength and splendor, and none to surround it with walls - a very material thing in the structure of an ancient city.(c) This interpretation is confirmed by the latter part of the verse: “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” If the word rendered “wall” means “trench or ditch,” as I have supposed, still it was a trench or ditch which was designed as a “defense” of a city, or which was excavated for making a wall, for the purpose of fortifying a walled city in order to make it stronger, and the expression is one which would not be applied to the mere purpose of rebuilding the temple, nor would it be used except in a command to restore the city itself. We are, then, in the fair interpretation of the passage, required now to show that such a command went forth from the Persian king to “restore and rebuild” the city itself -that is, a permission to put it into such a condition of strength as it was before.In order to see how this interpretation accords with the facts in the case, and to determine whether such a period can be found as shall properly correspond with this interpretation, and enable us to ascertain the point of time here referred to - the “terminus a quo” - it is proper to inquire what are the facts which history has preserved. For this purpose, I looked at this point of the investigation into Jahn’s “Hebrew Commonwealth,” (pp. 160-177), a work not written with any reference to the fulfillment of this prophecy, and which, indeed, in the portion relating to this period of the world, makes no allusion whatever to Daniel. The inquiry which it was necessary to settle was, whether under any of the Persian kings there was any order or command which would properly correspond with what we have ascertained to be the fair meaning of the passage. A very brief synopsis of the principal events recorded by Jahn as bearing on the restoration of the Jews to their own country, will be all that is needful to add to determine the question before us.The kings of the Persian universal monarchy, according to Ptolemy, were ten, and the whole sum of their reign two hundred and seven years - from the time of Cyaxares II to the time of Alexander the Great. But Ptolemy’s specific object being chronology, he omitted those who continued not on the throne a full year, and referred the months of their reign, partly to the preceding, and partly to the succeeding monarch. The whole number of sovereigns was in reality fourteen, as appears by the following table:

B.C. Years Months538 Cyaxares II reigned 2 0536 Cyrus 7 0529 Cambyses 7 5522 Smerdis 0 7521 Darius Hystaspis 36 0

80

485 Xerxes I 21 0464 Artaxerxes Longimanus 40 3424 Xerxes II 0 2424 Sogdianus 0 7423 Darius Nothus 19 0404 Artaxerxes Mnemon 46 0358 Darius Ochus 21 0337 Arses 0 2335 Darius Codomanus 0 4

Under the reign of this last prince, 331 b.c., the kingdom was entirely subdued by Alexander the Great.In respect to the question whether any order or command was issued pertaining to the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem that corresponds with the meaning of the prediction as above explained, the following facts will probably furnish all the knowledge which can be obtained:(a) Cyaxares II Of course there was nothing in the time of Cyaxares II, the Darius of Daniel Dan_6:1; Dan_9:1, as it was under him that Babylon was conquered, and there was no movement toward a restoration of the Jews to their own land commenced by him, the first movement of that kind being under Cyrus.(b) Cyrus. What was the nature of the order issued by him we have seen above. It was a command to build the temple, and was limited to that, and involved no reference to the city. The command, as we have seen above, did not extend to that, and there were probably good reasons why it was not contemplated that it should be rebuilt in its former strength, and fortified as it was before. The purpose to fortify the city, or to encompass it by a wall or ditch, or even to build it at all, could not have been brought within the order of Cyrus, as recorded in Ezra, and that is the only form of the order which we have. The language of Daniel, therefore, seems to have been chosen of design when he says that the command would be issued to rebuild the city, not the temple. At any rate, such is the language, and such was not the order of Cyrus.(c) Cambyses. After the death of Cyrus the Samaritans wrote to Cambyses (called, by Ezra, Ahasuerus) against the Jews. We are not informed what effect this letter produced, but we can easily judge from the character of this degenerate son of Cyrus, as it is represented in history. He was a “thoughtless, gluttonous, furious warrior, who was considered as raving mad even by his own subjects.” - Jahn. He madly invaded Egypt, and on his return learned that Smerdis, his brother, had usurped the throne in his absence; and died of a wound received from the falling of his sword from its sheath, as he was mounting his horse. No order is mentioned during his reign pertaining to the rebuilding either of the city or the temple.(d) Smerdis. He retained the throne about seven months. In the Bible the

81

has the name of Artaxerxes. Compare, respecting him, Ctesias, x.; Justin, i. 9; Herod. iii. 61-67. “To this monarch the Samaritans again addressed themselves, complaining that the Jews were building (that is, fortifying) the city of Jerusalem, which they had never thought of doing; and in consequence of this false accusation, Smerdis issued a positive prohibition of their work.” - Jahn. Two things, therefore, may be remarked respecting this reign:(1) the order or commandment referred to by Daniel could not have been issued during this reign, since there was an express “prohibition” against the work of building and fortifying the city; and(2) this confirms what is said above about the improbability that any order would have been issued by Cyrus to rebuild and fortify the city itself.It could not but have been foreseen that such an order would be likely to excite opposition from the Samaritans, and to cause internal dissensions and difficulties in Palestine, and it is not probable that the Persian govenment would allow the rebuilding of a city that would lead to such collisions.(e) Darius Hystaspis. He reigned thirty-six years. He was a mild and benevolent ruler. “As Smerdis was a mere usurper, his prohibition of rebuilding the temple was of no authority.” - Jahn. In the second year of his reign, Haggai and Zechariah appeared, who plied the governor Zerubbabel, the high priest Joshua, and the whole people, with such powerful appeals to the Divine commands, that the building of the house of God was once more resumed. Upon this, Tatnai, the Persian governor on the west side of the Euphrates, came with his officers to call the Jews to an account, who referred him to the permission of Cyrus, and the Jews were suffered to proceed. The whole matter was, however, made known to Darius, and he caused search to be made among the archives of the state in reference to the alleged decree of Cyrus. The edict of Cyrus was found, which directed that a temple should be built at Jerusalem at the royal expense, and of much larger dimensions than the former. A copy of this was sent to Tatnai, and he was commanded to see that the work should be forwarded, and that the expenses should be defrayed from the royal treasury, and that the priests should be supplied with whatever was necessary to keep up the daily sacrifice. The work was, therefore, pressed on with renewed vigour, and in the sixth year of his reign the temple was completed and consecrated. The remainder of his reign was spent in unnecessary wars with Scythia, Thrace, India, and Greece. He suffered an overthrow at Marathon, and was preparing for a more energetic campaign in Greece when he died, and left his dominion and his wars to Xerxes. No order was issued during his reign for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. All his edicts pertain to the original grant of Cyrus - the permission to build the temple.(f) Xerxes I. The career of Xerxes is well known. He was distinguished for gluttony, voluptuousness, and cruelty. He is celebrated for his invasion of Greece, for the check which he met at Thermopylae, and for the overthrow of his naval forces at Salamis by Themistocles. In the twenty-first year of his reign he was murdered by Artabanus, commander of his life-guard. He died in the year 464 b.c. According to Jalm, it is probable that “the Artaxerxes of

82

Ezra, who is mentioned next after Darius Hystaspis, and the Ahasuerus of Esther, are names of Xerxes I.” If so, it was under him that the second caravan of Jews went to Judea, under the direction of Ezra Ezra 7 Xerxes, if he was the prince referred to, gave Ezra an ample commission in regard to the temple at Jerusalem, granting him full power to do all that was necessary to maintain public worship there, and committing to him the vessels of gold and silver in Babylon, pertaining to the temple, etc. The decree may be found in Ezr_7:13-26. This decree, however, relates wholly to the temple - the “house of God.” There was no order for rebuilding the city, and there is no evidence that anything material was done in building the city, or the walls. Respecting this reign, John remarks, “The Hebrew colony in Judea seems never to have been in a very flourishing condition. The administration of justice was particularly defective, and neither civil nor religious institutions were firmly established. Accordingly, the king gave permission anew for all Hebrews to emigrate to Judea,” p. 172. Ezra made the journey with the caravan in three months; deposited the precious gifts in the temple, caused the Scriptures to be read and explained; commenced a moral reformation, but did nothing, so far as appears, in reconstructing the city - for his commission did not extend to that.(g) Artaxerxes Longimanus. According to Jahn, he began to reign 464 b.c., and reigned forty years and three months. It was during his reign that Nehemiah lived, and that he acted as governor of Judea. The colony in Judea, says Jahn, which had been so flourishing in the time of Ezra, had greatly declined, in consequence of the fact that Syria and Phoenicia had been the rendezvous of the armies of Artaxerxes. “Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, learned the unhappy state of the Hebrews, b.c. 444, from a certain Jew named Hanani, who had come from Judea to Shushan with a caravan. Of the regulations introduced by Esra b.c. 478 there was little remaining, and, amid the confusions of war, the condition of the Jews continually grew worse. This information so affected Nehemiah that the king observed his melancholy, and inquiring its cause, he appointed him governor of Judea, “with full power to fortify Jerusalem,” and thus to secure it from the disasters to which unprotected places are always exposed in time of war.Orders were sent to the royal officers west of the Euphrates to “assist in the fortification of the city,” and to furnish the requisite timber from the king’s forest; probably on Mount Libanus, near the sources of the river Kadisha, as that was the place celebrated for its cedars. Thus commissioned, Nehemiah journeyed to Judea, accompanied by military officers and cavalry,” pp. 175, 176. Jahn further adds, “as soon as Nehemiah, on his arrival in Palestine, had been acknowledged governor of Judea by the royal officers, he made known his preparations for fortifying Jerusalem to the elders who composed the Jewish council. All the heads of houses, and the high priest Eliashib, engaged zealously in the work. The chiefs of the Samaritans, Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem, endeavored to thwart their undertaking by insults, by malicious insinuations that it was a preparation for revolt, by plots, and by threats of a hostile attack. The Jews, notwithstanding, proceeded earnestly in their business, armed the laborers, protected them still further by a guard of armed citizens, and at length

83

happily completed the walls of their city.”We have reached a point, then, in the history of the kings of Persia, when there was a distinct order to restore and fortify Jerusalem, and when there was an express expedition undertaken to accomplish this result. In the history of these kings, as reported by Jahn, this is the first order that would seem to correspond with the language of Daniel - “the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem,” and the assertion that “the street should be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” It may be well, therefore, to pause here, and to look more distinctly at this order of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and inquire into its conformity with the language of Daniel. The circumstances, then, as stated in the book of Nehemiah, are these:(a) Nehemiah learned from Hanani the state of his brethren in Judea, and the fact that the “walls of the city were broken down, and that the gates were burned with fire,” and that the people who were at Jerusalem were in a state of “great affliction and reproach,” and gave himself to weeping, and fasting, and prayer, on that account, Neh_1:1-11.(b) On coming into the presence of Artaxerxes, to perform the usual duty of presenting the wine to the king, the king saw the sadness and distress of Nehemiah, and inquired the cause, Neh_2:1-2. This, Nehemiah Neh_2:1 is careful to remark occurred in the twentieth year of his reign.(c) He states distinctly, that it was because Jerusalem was still in ruins: “Why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?” Neh_2:3.(d) The request of Nehemiah, in accordance with the language in Daniel, was, that he might be permitted to go to Jerusalem and “rebuild the city:” “And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favor in thy sight, that thou wouldst send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it,” Neh_2:5.(e) The edict of Artaxerxes contemplated the same thing which is foretold by the angel to Daniel “And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which pertained to the house, and for the wall of the city,” etc., Neh_2:8.(f) The work which Nehemiah did, under this edict, was what is supposed in the prediction in Daniel. His first work was to go forth by night to survey the state of the city: “And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, etc., and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire,” Neh_2:13. His next work was to propose to rebuild these walls again: “Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach,” Neh_2:17. The next work was to rebuild those walls, a full description of which we have in Neh. 3:1-32; 4:1-23. The city was thus fortified. It was built again according to the purpose of Nehemiah, and according to the decree of Artaxerxes. It took its place again as a fortified city, and the promised work of restoring and rebuilding it was; complete.(g) The building of the city and the walls under Nehemiah occurred in just such circumstances as are predicted by Daniel. The angel says, “The wall

84

shall be built again, even in troublous times.” Let anyone read the account of the rebuilding in Nehemiah - the description of the “troubles “which were produced by the opposition of Sanballat and those associated with him Neh. 4, and he will see the striking accuracy of this expression - an accuracy as entire as if it had been employed after the event in describing it, instead of having been used before in predicting it.It may confirm this interpretation to make three remarks:(1) After this decree of Artaxerxes there was no order issued by Persian kings pertaining to the restoration and rebuilding of the city. Neither Xerxes II, nor Sogdianus, nor Darius Nothus, nor Artaxerxes Mnemon, nor Darius Ochus, nor Arses, nor Darius Codomanus, issued any decree that corresponded at all with this prediction, or any that related to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. There was no occasion for any, for the work was done.(2) A second remark is, that, in the language of Hengstenberg, “Until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, the new city of Jerusalem was an open, thinly inhabited village, exposed to all aggressions from its neighbors, sustaining the same relation to the former and the latter city as the huts erected after the burning of a city for the first protection front rain and wind do to those which are still uninjured, or which have been rebuilt.” - Christ. ii. 381. This is quite apparent from the remarks which have been already made respecting the state of the city. The want of any permission to rebuild the city and the walls; the fact that the permission to return extended only to a right-to rebuild the temple; the improbabilities above stated, that the rebuilding of the city in its strength would be allowed when they first returned, and the account which Nehemiah gives of the condition of Jerusalem at the time when he asked leave to go and “build” it, all tend to confirm this supposition. See Hengstenberg, as above, pp. 381-386.(3) A third remark is, that a confirmation of this may be found in the book of Ecclesiasticus, showing how Nehemiah was regarded in respect to the rebuilding of the city: “And among the elect was Neemias, whose renown is great, who raised up for us the walls that were fallen, and set up the gates and the bars, and raised up our ruins again,” Ecclesiasticus 49:13. On the other hand, Joshua and Zerubbabel are extolled only as rebuilders of the temple: “How shall we magnify Zorobabel? even he was as a signet on the right hand:” “so was Jesus the son of Josedec: who in their time builded “the house” and set up a “holy temple” to the Lord,” Ecclesiasticus 49:11, 12. These considerations make the case clear, it seems to me, that the time referred to - the “terminus a quo” - according to the fair interpretation, was the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. To this we are conducted by the proper and necessary exposition of the language, and by the orders actually issued from the Persian court in regard to the temple and city.If it should be objected - the only objection of importance that has been alleged against it - that this would not meet the inquiry of Daniel; that he was seeking for the time when the captivity would cease, and looking for its termination as predicted by Jeremiah; that it would not console him to be referred to a period so remote as is here supposed - the time of the rebuilding of the city; and, still more, that, not knowing that time, the

85

prophecy would afford him no basis of calculation as to the appearing of the Messiah, it may be replied:(a) That the prediction contained all the consolation and assurance which Daniel sought - the assurance that the city “would be rebuilt,” and that an order “would go forth” for its restoration.(b) That the angel does not profess to answer the precise point of the inquiry which Daniel had suggested. The prayer of Daniel was the occasion of uttering a higher prophecy than the one which lie had been contemplating.(c) It is not necessary to suppose that the design was that “Daniel” should be able to compute the exact time when the Messiah would appear. It was sufficient for him if he had the assurance that he would appear, and if he were furnished with a basis by which it might be calculated when he would appear, after the order to rebuild the city had gone forth.(d) At any rate, the prophecy must have appeared to Daniel to have a much more important meaning than would be implied merely by a direct answer to his prayer - pertaining to the close of the exile. The prophecy indubitably stretched far into future years. Daniel must have seen at once that it contained an important disclosure respecting future events, and, as it implied that the exile would close, and that the city would be rebuilt, and as he had already a sufficient intimation when the exile would close, from the prophecies of Jeremiah, we may suppose that the mind of Daniel would rest on this as more than he had desired to know - a revelation far beyond what he anticipated when he set apart this day for special prayer.The only remaining difficulty as to the time referred to as the beginning of the seventy weeks - “the terminus a quo” - is that of determining the exact chronology of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes - the point from which we are to reckon. The time, however, varies only a few years according to the different estimates of chronology, and not so as materially to affect the result. The following are the principal estimates:

Jahn 444 b.c.Hengstenberg 454 b.c.Hales 414 b.c.Calmet 449 b.c.Usher 454 b.c.

It will be seen from this, that the difference in the chronology is, at the greatest, but ten years, and in such a matter, where the ancient records are so indefinite, and so little pains were taken to make exact-dates, it cannot perhaps be expected that the time could be determined with exact accuracy. Nor, since the numbers used by the angel are in a sense “round” numbers -“seventy weeks,” “sixty-two weeks,” “one week,” is it necessary to suppose that the time could be made out with the exactness of a year, or a month -though this has been often attempted. It is sufficient if the prediction were so accurate and determinate that there could be no doubt, in general, as to the time of the appearing of the Messiah, and so that when he appeared it 86

should be manifest that he was referred to. Hengstenberg, however, supposes that the chronology can be made out with literal accuracy. See Christ. ii. 394-408.Taking the dates above given as the “terminus a quo” of the prophecy - the time from which to reckon the beginning of the sixty-nine weeks to the “Messiah the Prince” - or the four hundred and eighty-three years, we obtain, respectively, the following resuits:

The period of b.c. 414, the period of Jahn and Hales, would extend to a.d. 39.That of b.c. 455, the period od Hentstenberg and Usher, to a.d. 29.That of b.c. 449, the period of Calmet, to a.d. 31.It is remarkable how all these periods terminate at about the time when the Lord Jesus entered on his work, or assumed, at his baptism, the public office of the Messiah - when he was thirty years of age. It is undeniable that, whichever reckoning be correct, or whatever computation we may suppose to have been employed by the Jews, the expectation would have been excited in the public mind that the Messiah was about to appear at that time. Perhaps the real truth may be seen in a stronger light still by supposing that if a sagacious impostor had resolved to take upon himself the office of the Messiah, and had so shaped his plans as to meet the national expectations growing out of this prediction of Daniel, he would have undoubtedly set up his claims at about the time when the Lord Jesus publicly appeared as the Messiah. According to the common chronologies, there would not have been a variance of more than nine years in the calculation, and, perhaps, after all, when we consider how little the chronology of ancient times has been regarded or settled, it is much more to be wondered at that there should be so great accuracy than that the time is not more certainly determined. If, notwithstanding the confusion of ancient dates, the time is so nearly determined with accuracy, is it not rather to be presumed that if the facts of ancient history could be ascertained, the exact period would be found to have been predicted by the angel?III. The next point properly is, what is the time referred to by the phrase “unto the Messiah the Prince” - the “terminus ad quem.” Here there can be but two opinions - what refers it to his birth, and that which refers it to his public manifestation as the Messiah, or his taking the office upon himself. The remarks under the last head have conducted us to the probability that the latter is intended. Indeed, it is morally certain that this is so, if we have ascertained the “terminus a quo” with accuracy. The only question then is, whether this is the fair construction, or whether the language can properly be so applied. We have seen, in the interpretation of the phrase above, that the grammatical construction of the language is such as might, without impropriety., be applied to either event. It remands only to look at the probabilities that the latter was the design. It may be admitted, perhaps, that before the event occurred, there might have been some uncertainty on the subject, and that with many, on reading the prophecy, the supposition would be that it referred to the birth of the Messiah. But a careful consideration of all the circumstances of the passage might even then have

87

led to different expectation, and might have shown that the probabilities were that it was the public manifestation of the Messiah that was intended. Those may be regarded as stronger now, and may be such as to leave no reasonable doubt on the mind; that is, we may now see what would not be likely to have been seen then - as in the case of all the prophecies. Among these considerations are the following:(a) Such an interpretation may be, after all, the most probable. If we conceive of one who should have predicted the appearance or coming of Jenghis Khan, or Alaric, or Attila, as conquerors, it would not be unnatural to refer this to their public appearing in that character, as to the time when they became known as such, and still more true would this be of one who should be inaugurated or set apart to a public office. If, for example, there had been a prophecy of Gregory the Great, or Leo X, as “Popes,” it would be most natural, unless there was a distinct reference to their birth, to refer this to their election and consecration as Popes, for that would in fact be the period when they appeared as such.(b) In the case of this prophecy, there is no allusion to the birth of the Messiah. It is not “to his birth,” or “to his incarnation,” but “unto the Messiah the Prince;” that is, most manifestly, when he appeared as such, and was in fact such. In many instances in the prophecies there are allusions to the birth of the Messiah; and so numerous and accurate had they become, that there was a general expectation of the event at about the time when he was actually born. But, in the passage before us, the language is what would be used on the supposition that the designed reference was to his entering as Messiah on the functions of his office, and not such as would have been so naturally employed if the reference had been to his birth.(c) His taking upon himself the office of the Messiah by baptism and by the descent of the Holy Spirit on him was, in fact, the most prominent event in his work. Before that, he had passed his life in obscurity. The work which he did as Messiah was commenced at that time, and was to be dated from that period. In fact, he was not the Messiah, as such, until he was set apart to the office - anymore than an heir to a crown is king until he is crowned, or an elected chief-magistrate is president before he has taken the oath of office. The position which he occupied was, that he was designated or destined for the office of the Messiah, but had not, in fact, entered on it, and could not as yet be spoken of as such.(d) This is the usual method of recording the reign of a king - not from his birth, but from his coronation. Thus, in the table above, respecting the Persian kings, the periods included are those from the beginning of the reign, not from the birth to the decease. So in all statutes and laws, as when we say the first of George III, or the second of Victoria, etc.(e) To these considerations may be added an argument stated by Hengstenberg, which seems to make the proof irrefragable. It is in the following words: “After the course of seventy weeks shall the whole work of salvation, to be performed by the Messiah, be completed; after sixty-nine weeks, and, as it appears from the more accurate determination in Dan_9:27, in the middle of the seventieth, he shall be cut off. As now, according to the passage before us, sixty-nine weeks shall elapse before the Messiah,

88

there remains from that event to the completion of salvation only a period of seven, until his violent death, of three and a half years; a certain proof that ‘unto the Messiah’ must refer, not to his birth, but to the appearance of the Messiah as such.” - Christ. ii. 337.IV. The next question then is, whether, according to this estimate, the time can be made out with any degree of accuracy. The date of the decrees of Artaxerxes are found to be, according to the common reckoning of chronologists, either 444, or 454, or 449 b.c. The addition of 483 years to them we found also to reach, respectively, to 39 a.d., to 29 a.d., and to 34 a.d. One of these (29) varies scarcely at all from the time when the Saviour was baptized, at thirty years of age; another (34) varies scarcely at all from the time when he was put to death; and either of them is so accurate that the mind of anyone who should have made the estimate when the command to build the city went forth, would have been directed with great precision to the expectation of the true time of his appearance; and to those who lived when he did appear, the time was so accurate that, in the reckoning of any of the prevailing methods of chronology, it would have been sufficiently clear to lead them to the expectation that he was about to come. Two or three remarks, however, may be made in regard to this point.(a) One is, that it is now, perhaps, impossible to determine with precise accuracy the historical period of events so remote. Time was not then measured as accurately as it is now; current events were not as distinctly recorded; chronological tables were not kept as they are now; there was no uniform method of determining the length of the year, and the records were much less safely kept. This is manifest, because, even in so important an event as the issuing of the commend to rebuild the city in the time of Artaxerxes - an event which it would be supposed was one of sufficient moment to have merited an exact record, at least among the Jews. There is now, among the best chronologists, a difference of ten years as to the computation of the time.(b) There is a variation arising from the difference of the lunar or the solar year - some nations reckoning by the one, and some by the other - and the difference between them, in the period now under consideration, would be greater than what now occurs in the ordinary reckonings of chronology.(c) Until the exact length of the year, as then understood, is ascertained, there can be no hope of fixing the time with the exactness of a month or a day; and if the usual and general understanding of the length of the year be adopted, then the time here referred to would be so intelligible that there would be no difficulty in ascertaining at about what time the Messiah was to appear, or when he did appear in determining that it was he. This was all that was really necessary in regard to the prophecy.(d) Yet it has been supposed that the time can be made out, even under these disadvantages, with almost entire accuracy. The examination in the case may be seen at length in Hengstenberg, Chris. ii. 394-408. It is agreed on all hands that the commencement of the reign of Xerxes occurred in the year 485 before Christ, and that Ariaxerxes died in 423. The difference concerns only the beginning of the reign of Ariaxerxes. If that occurred in the year 464 b.c., then the problem is solved, for then the decree of the

89

twentieth year of Artaxerxes would occur 444 b.c.; and if 483 be added to that, the result is 29 a.d. - a difference, then, even in reckoning whole years and round numbers, of only one year between that and the time when Jesus was baptized by John. The full proof of this point, about the beginning of the reign of Ariaxerxes, may be seen in Hengstenberg, as above. The argument, though long, is so important, and so clear, that it may without impropriety be inserted in this place:“According to the prophecy, the “terminus a quo,” the twentieth year of Ariaxerxes, is separated from the “terminus ad quem,” the public appearance of Christ, by a period of sixty-nine weeks of years, or four hundred and eighty-three years. If, now, we compare history with this, it must appear, even to the most prejudiced, in the highest degree remarkable, that, among all the current chronological determinations of this period, not one differs over ten years from the testimony of the prophecy. This wonder must rise to the highest pitch, when it appears from an accurate examination of these determinations, that the only one among them which is correct makes the prophecy and history correspond with each other even to a year.“Happily, to attain this end, we are not compelled to involve ourselves in a labyrinth of chronological inquiries. We find ourselves, in the main, on sure ground. All chronologists agree, that the commencement of the reign of Xerxes falls in the year 485 before Christ, the death of Artaxerxes, in the year 423. The difference concerns only the year of the commencement of the reign of Ariaxerxes. Our problem is completely solved, when we have shown that this falls in the year 474 before Christ. For then the twentieth year of Ariaxerxes is the year 455 before Christ, according to the usual reckoning. :

299 U. C.Add to this, 483 years,

- - - - -782 U. C.

“We should probably have been saved the trouble of this investigation, had not the error of an acute man, and the want of independence in his successors, darkened what was in itself clear. According to Thucydides, Ariaxerxes began to reign shortly before the flight of Themistocles to Asia. Deceived by certain specious arguments, hereafter to be examined, Dodwell, in the “Annal. Thucydides,” placed both events in the year 465 before Christ. The thorough refutation of Vitringa, in the cited treatise, remained, strange as it may appear, unknown to the philologians and historians, even as it seems to those of Holland, as Wesseling. The view of Dodwell, adopted also by Corsini in the “Fasta Attica,” became the prevailing one, at which we cannot wonder, when we consider how seldom, in modern times, chronological investigations in general have been fundamental and independent; when e. g., we observe that Poppo, a generally esteemed recent editor of Thucydides, in a thick volume, entitled, “In Thucydidem Commentarii politici, geograph., chronologici,” furnishes, in reference to the last, nothing more than a reprint of the school edition of the chronological tables collected from Dodwell, excusing himself with an 90

“odio quodam inveterato totius hujus disciplince”! Clinton also (“Fasti Hellenici, lat. vert. Kruger,” Leipz., 1830), though he clearly perceives that Dodwell has confused the whole chronology of this period (compare, e. g., p. 248-253), has not been able to free himself from him in the most important points, though he successfully opposed him in several; and thus the confusion only becomes still greater, since now neither the actual chronological succession of events, nor the one ingeniously invented by Dodwell, any longer remains.Nevertheless, the truth is advanced by this increased confusion. For now the harmony introduced by Dodwell into the fictitious history is destroyed. The honor, however, of having again discovered the true path, belongs to Kriiger alone, who, after more than a hundred years, as an entirely independent inquirer, coincides with Vitringa, in the same result, and in part in the employment of the same arguments. In the acute treatise, “Ueber den Cimonischen Frieden (in the Archiv f. Philologie und Padagog. von Seebode,” I. 2, p. 205, ff.) he places the death of Xerxes in the year 474 or 473, and the flight of Themistocles a year later. This treatise may serve to shame those who reject in the mass the grounds of our opinion (to the establishment of which we now proceed), with the remark, that the author has only found what he sought. Whoever does not feel capable of entering independently upon the investigation, should at least be prevented from condemning, by the circumstance, that a learned man, who has no other design in view than to elucidate a chronologically confused period of Grecian history, gives, for the event which serves to determine the “terminus a quo” of our prophecy, the precise year, which places prophecy and fulfillment in the most exact harmony.“We examine first the grounds which seem to favor the opinion, that the reign of Artaxerxes commenced in the year 465.(1) ‘The flight of Themistocles must precede the transfer of the dominion of Greece from Athens to Sparta by several years. For this happened during the siege of Byzantium, when the treasonable efforts of Pausanias first commenced; the flight of Themistocles, however, was a consequence of the complaint, which was raised against him, out of the documents found after the death of Pausanias. But Isocrates says, in the “Panathenaikos,” that the dominion of the Lacedemonians had endured ten years. The expedition of Xerxes, taken as the “terminus a quo,” this transfer falls in the year 470.’ But we may spare ourselves the labor which Vitringa takes to invalidate this alleged testimony of Isoerates, since all recent scholars, in part independent of one another, agree that Isocrates speaks of a ten years’ dominion, not before, but after that of the Athenians; compare Corny on “Pan.” c. 19; Dahlmann, “Forschungen,” I. p. 45; Kruger, p. 221; Clinton, p. 250, ff.(2) That Themistocles in the year 472 was still in Athens, Corsini infers (Fasti Att. III. p. 180) from AEl. lib. 9, c. 5. According to this, Themistocles sent back Hiero, who was coming to the O ympic games, asserting that, whoever had not taken part in the greatest danger, could not be a sharer of the joy. (The fact is also related by Plutarch.) Now as Hiere, Ol. 75, 3 (478), began to reign, only the Ol. 77 (472) could be intended. But who does not at once perceive that the reference to the games of the Ol. 76 (476) was far

91

more obvious, since the occurrence pre-supposed that the μέγιστος τῶν κινδύνων megistos tōn kindunōn was still fresh in remembrance?

(3) According to this supposition, Xerxes would reign only eleven years; Artaxerxes, on the contrary, fifty-one. This is in opposition to the testimony of the “Can. Ptolem.” (compare thereon Ideler, I. p. 109, ff.), which gives to Xerxes twenty-one, and to Artaxerxes forty-one years, and of Ctesias, who gives to Artaxerxes forty-two years, and of some other writers; compare the passages in Bahr on Ctesias, p. 181. “Ceteris paribus,” this argument would be wholly decisive. But when other weighty authorities are opposed to it, it is not of itself sufficient to outweigh them. The canon has high authority, only where it rests on astronomical observations, which is here not the case. Otherwise it stands on the same ground as all other historical sources. The whole error was committed, as soon as only an ιά ia in an ancient authority was confounded with a κά ka; for when a reign of twenty-one years had thus been attributed to Xerxes, the shortening of the reign of Artaxerxes to forty-one years necessarily followed. Wesseling (on Diod. 12, 64) attributes forty-five years to Artaxerxes, thus without hesitation rejecting the authority of the canon. To these arguments, already adduced by others, we subjoin the following.

(4) It seems to be evident from Ctesias, chapter 20, that Artaxerxes was born a considerable time after the commencement of the reign of Xerxes. Ctesias, after relating it, proceeds - γαμεῖ δὲ Ξέρξης Ὀνόφα θυγατέρα Αμιστριν καὶ γίνεται αὐτῷ παῖς Δαρειαῖος, καὶ ἕτερος ματὰ δύο ἔτη Υστασπης, καὶ ἔτι Ἀρταξέρξης gamei de Xerxēs Onofa thugatera Amistrin kai ginetai autō pais Dareiaios, kaiheteros meta duo etē Ustaspē, kai eti Artaxerxēs. If he relates the events in the true chronological order, Artaxerxes in the year 474 b.c. could at most have been seven years old. On the contrary, however, all accounts agree, that at the death of Xerxes, although still young (compare Justin, 3, 1), he was yet of a sufficient age to be capable of reigning himself. We must not be satisfied with the answer that it is very improbable that Xerxes, who was born at the beginning of the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Darius (compare Herod. 7, 2), and was already thirty-four or thirty-five years old at his death, was not married until so late a period. Ctesias himself frees us from the embarrassment into which we were thrown by his inaccuracy. According to chapter 22, Megabyzus was already married, before the expedition against Greece, with a daughter of Xerxes, who, already mentioned (chapter 20), if Ctesias is there chronologically accurate, could not have been born before that time. According to chapter 28, Megabyzus, immediately after the return of Xerxes from Greece, complained to him of the shameful conduct of this wife of his.

(5) There can be no doubt that the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther is the same as Xerxes. But the twelfth year of this king is there expressly mentioned, Est_3:7, and the events related in the following context fall, in part, about the end of the same year. But this difficulty vanishes, as soon as we include the years of the co-regency of Xerxes with Darius. According to the fall account in Herodotus 7, chapters 2-4, Xerxes, two years before the death of Darius, was established by him as king: compare e. g., chapter 4 -92

ἀπέδεξε δὲ βασιλῆα Πέρσῃσι Δαρεῖος Ξέρξεα apedexe de basilēa Persēsi Dareios Xerxea . Of the custom of the Hebrew writers to include the years of a co-regency, where it existed, we have a remarkable example in the account concerning Nebuchadnezzar (compare Bietr. I. p. 63). But we find even in the book of Esther itself plain indications of this mode of reckoning. The account of the great feast Est. 1 is placed in its true light by this supposition. The occasion of it was the actual commencement of the reign of Xerxes, though we need not on this account exclude, what has hitherto been regarded as the exclusive object, consultations with the nobles respecting the expeditions about to be undertaken. What is related Est_2:16 then falls precisely in the time of the return of Xerxes from Greece, while otherwise, and this is attended with difficulty, about two years after that event.

“We now proceed to lay down the positive grounds for our view; and in the first place, the immediate, and then the mediate proofs, which latter are far more numerous and strong, since they show that the flight of Themistocles, which must precede the reign of Artaxerxes, cannot possibly be placed later than 473 before Christ.“To the first class belong the following:1. It must appear very strange to those who assume a twenty-one years’ reign of Xerxes, that the whole period from the eleventh year is a complete “tabula rasa.” The Biblical accounts stop short at the close of the tenth year. Ctesias relates only one inconsiderable event after the Grecian war (chapter 28), which occurred immediately after its temination. No later writer has ventured to introduce anything into the ten years, which, according to our

view, the permutation of an ι (i) and κ (k) adds to his age.“2. We possess a twofold testimony, which places the return of Xerxes from Greece, and his death, in so close connection, that, without rejecting it, we cannot possibly assume a fifteen years’ reign after this return, but are rather compelled to place his death not beyond the year 474. The first is that

of AElian, Var. Hist. 13, 3: εἶτα ἐπανελθὼν, αἴσχιστα ἀνθρώπων ἀπέθανεν, ἀποσφαγεῖς νύκτωρ ἐν τῇ ἐυνῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ ὑιοῦ eita epanelthōn, aischista anthrōpōnapethanen, aposphageis nuktōr en tē eunē hupo tou huiou. The second, that of Justin, 3, 1: ‘Xerxes rex Persarum, terror antea gentium, bello in Graeciam infeliciter gesto, etiam suis contemtui essecoepit. Quippe Artabanus proefectus ejus, deficiente quotidie regis majestate, in spem regni adductus, cum septem robustissimis filiis,’ etc.

“3. The testimonies of Justin, I. c., respecting the age of his sons at his death, are not reconcilable with the twenty-one years’ reign of Xerxes: ‘Securior de Artaxerxe, puero admodum, fingit regem a Dario, qui erat adolescens, quo maturius regno potiretur occisum.’ If Xerxes reigned twenty-one years, his firstborn, Darius, according to a comparison of Ctesias (chapter 22), could not at his death have been an adolescens, but at least thirty-one years old. On the contrary, if eleven years’ reign be assumed, these determinations are entirely suitable. Darius was then toward twenty-one years old; Artaxerxes, according to Ctesias (chapter 20), near four years younger than Darius, about seventeen. This determination shows also that it cannot be objected against a fifty-one years’reign of 93

Artaxerxes that it would give him too great an age. The suggestion can be refuted by the simple remark, that the length of his life remains exactly the same, whether he reigned fifty-one or forty-one years. If he ascended the throne at seventeen, his life terminated at sixty-eight.“4. According to the most numerous and weighty testimonies, the peace of Cimon was probably concluded after the battle of the Eurymedon (before Christ 470). Now, as all agree that this peace was concluded with Artaxerxes, the commencement of his reign must, in any event, be placed before 470. Compare Kruger, 1. c., p. 218.“5. The history of Nehemiah is scarcely reconcilable with the supposition that Artaxerxes reigned only forty-seven years. After Nehemiah had accomplished all that is related in Neh. 1–12, he returned to Persia to discharge the duties of his office, at court. This happened, according to Neh_13:6, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. The time of his return is not accurately determined. It says merely, after a considerable time, the ימים leqēts לקץ yāmıym. That his absence, however, must have continued a

whole series of years, appears from the relation of that which took place in the meantime. The law against marriage with foreign women, to the observance of which the people had bound themselves anew, Neh_10:30, was first violated during his absence; then again, by a decree of the people, executed in all severity, Neh_13:1-3; and then again broken, as appears from the fact that Nehemiah, at his return, according to Neh_13:23, found a great many foreign women in the colony.That these marriages had already existed for some time appears from Neh_13:24, where it is said that the children of them had spoken half in the language of Ashdod, and could not speak Hebrew. A long absence is also implied in the other abuses which Nehemiah, according to Neh_13:10, following, found on his return. He saw the fruits of the former labors almost destroyed. The same is also evident from the prophecies of Malachi, which were delivered exactly in the time between the two periods of Nehemiah’s presence at Jerusalem: compare Vitringa’s excellent Dissert. de AEtate Mal., in his Obss. ss. vi. 7, t. 2, p. 353, following The condition of the people appears here, as it could have been only after they had already been deprived, for a considerable time, of their two faithful leaders, Ezra, who, having arrived thirteen years earlier, had cooperated for a considerable time with Nehemiah, and Nehemiah himself.But, if we consider barely the first-mentioned fact, the marriages with foreign women, it will be evident that a longer period than nine years would be required. For each change there will then only three years be allowed; and as this is undeniably too little for the third, according to Neh_13:24, the two first must be still more shortened, which is inadmissible. Besides, we do not even have nine years for these events, if the reign of Artaxerxes is fixed at forty-one years. For the relation of Nehemiah pre-supposes that Artaxerxes was yet living at the time of its composition. This, however, cannot be placed in the time immediately after the return of Nehemiah, since it must have been preceded by the abolition of all these abuses. If, however, we are conducted by the authority of Nehemiah, which is liable to no exception, since he was contemporary and closely connected with

94

Artaxerxes, a few years over forty-one, we have gained much. For then the only objection to our determination, the testimony of the canon, is completely set aside.“We must premise a remark, before we bring forward our indirect proofs, in order to justify the connection in which we place the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes with the flight of Themistocles. This connection has not, indeed, the unanimous testimony of the ancient writers in its favor. The vouchers for it are, Thucydides (chapter 137), where it is said of

Themistocles, who had come into Asia, ἐσπέμπει γράμματα ἐς βασιλέα Ἀρταξέρξην τὸν Ξέρξου, νεωστὶ βασιλεύοντα espemtei grammata, es basilea Artaxerxēnton Xerxou, neōsti basileuonta, and Charon of Lampsacus, who, according to Plutarch (Them. chapter 27), makes him in like manner fly to Artaxerxes. On the contrary: others, as Ephorus, Dinon, Klitarch, and Heraclides (compare Plut. 1. c.), represent him as going to Xerxes. If, now, we examine these testimonies, according to the authorities of the witnesses the decision will unquestionably be in favor of that of Thucydides and Charon. Thucydides was contemporary with Ariaxerxes, and was born about the time of the flight of Themistocles. This prince of Greek historians gives (chapter 97) as the cause why he relates the events between the Median and Peloponnesian war, that all his predecessors had passed over these events in silence, and that the only one who touched upon them, Hellanicus, βραχέως τε καὶ τοῖς χρὸνοις οὐκ ἀκριβῶς ἐπεμνήσθη bracheōs te kai tois chronois oukakribōs epemnēsthē them, from which it is evident, first, how little certain are the accounts of this period in later authors, because they can have no credible contemporary voucher, since he could not have been unknown to Thucydides; and, secondly, that Thucydides himself claims to be regarded as a careful and accurate historian of this period, and therefore must be esteemed such, because so honest a man would assume nothing to himself which did not belong to him. The other witness, Charon, was the less liable to err, since, at the very time of this event, he was a writer of history, and even lived in Asia. On the other hand, the oldest witnesses for the opposite supposition lived more than a century after the event. Ephorus (see on his Akrisic, Dahlmann) out-lived the dominion of Alexander in Asia; Dinon was father of Kiltarch, who accompanied Alexander.

“In weighing these grounds, the authority of Thucydides and Charon was unhesitatingly followed in ancient times. Plutarch (1. c.) does this, with the remark, that the testimony of Thucydides agrees better with the chronological works. Nepos says: ‘Scio plerosque ita scripsisse, Themistoclem Xerxe regnante in Asiam transiisse: sed ego potissimum Thucydidi credo, quod aetate proximus de his, qui illorum temporum historias reliquerunt et ejusdem civitatis fuit.’ Suidas, and the Scholiast on Aristoph. “Equites,” from which the former borrowed verbatim his second article on Themistocles, makes him flee, πρὸς τὸν Ἀρταξέρξην, τὸν Ξέρξου τοῦ Πέρσον παῖδα pros ton Artaxerxēn, ton Xerxou tou Persou paida, without even mentioning the other supposition. And in this respect, we have the less fear of contradiction, since, as far as we know, all modern critics, without exception, follow Thucydides and Charon. We only still remark that the

95

opposite view can the more easily be rejected, since its origin can so readily be explained, either from the fact that this event fell on the border of the reign of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes, or from a simple confounding of the two names, the assumption of which is more easy the more frequently it occurs; we find it even in Aristotle, the contemporary of those writers, Pol. 5, 8, and twice in Ctesias, chapter 35, where Bahr would make a change in opposition to all the manuscripts, and chapter 44. Compare Bahr on the passage, and Reimarus on Dio Cass. II. p. 1370. Finally, the error might arise also from the circumstance that the flight of Themistocles was placed in the right year; but twenty-one years were attributed to Xerxes, from which it necessarily follows that he took refuge with Xerxes. This last opinion is favored by the coincidence of several contemporary writers in the same error, which presupposes some plausible reason for it.“We now proceed to lay down our indirect proofs.(1) we begin with the testimony which gives precisely the year of the flight of Themistocles, that of Cicero, Lael. chapter 12. It is true, Corsini, 1. c. 3, p. 180, asserts, that Cicero speaks of the year in which Themistocles was banished from Athens; but we need only examine the passage to be convinced of the contrary: ‘Themistocles - fecit idem, quod viginti annis ante apud nos fecerat Coriolanus.’ The flight of Coriolanus to the Volci falls in the year 263 u. c., 492 b.c. The flight of Themistocles is accordingly placed by Cicero in the year 472, a year later than by us, which is of no importance, since the round number twenty was the more suitable to the object of Cicero, as the more accurate nineteen, for the chronologists. If Dodwell’s view were correct, there would be the space of twenty-seven years between the two events.“2. Diodorus Siculus, who (11, 55) places the flight of Themistocles in Ol. 77, 2 (471 b.c.), in any event favors our determination, which ascends only two years higher, far more than the opposite one. We remark, however, that he also places in the same year the residence of Themistocles at Magnesia, and his death; and thus it is evident that, whether by mistake or design, he compresses the events in the life of Themistocles, which filled up some years, into the year of his death. If this took place in the year 471, the flight must be dated at least as far back as 473. Our determination differs only a single year from that of Eusebius, who relates the flight of Themistocles in Ol. 77, 1.“3. But what forms the chief argument, the whole series of transactions, as they have been recorded in accurate order, especially by Thucydides, compels us without reserve to place the flight of Themistocles not be. low the year 473. That the expedition of the allied Greeks under the direction of Pausanias, against Cyprus and Byzantium, the capture of the latter city, and the transfer of the supremacy from the Lacedemonians to the Athenians, occasioned by the insolence of Pausanias, fall in the year 477, we may regard as established beyond dispute by Clinton, p. 270, following. The view of O. Muller (Dorier, ii. p. 498), who distributes these events into a period of five

years, is contradicted by the expression ἐν τῇδε τῇ ἡγεμονίᾳ en tēde tē hēgemoniaof Thucydides, chapter 94, whereby the capture of Byzantium is brought into the same year with the expedition against Cyprus. That these words

96

cannot be connected with what follows, without a change of the text in opposition to all critical authority, is shown by Poppo. Moreover, the very last of these events is placed, by the unanimous testimony of antiquity, in the year 477.Clinton shows, p. 249, that all reckonings of the time of the supremacy of the Athenians, setting out from this, year, differ from one another only in reference to the assumed termination. Also, Thucydides chapter 128, the expedition against Cyprus, and that against Byzantium, are connected as immediately succeeding each other. If, however, Dodwell were compelled by the force of the arguments to acknowledge that these events, which he compresses into one year, do not, as he assumes (p. 61), belong to the year 470, but to the year 477, he would surely be compelled, perceiving it to be impossible to lengthen out the thread of the events until the year 465, to give up the whole hypothesis. The dissatisfaction of the allies was followed by the recal of Pausanias. That this belongs still to the same year plainly appears, partly from the nature of the case itself, since it pre-supposes a

continuance of supremacy, partly from Thucydides, chapter 95: ἐν τούτῳ δε οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι μετεπέμποντο Παυσανίαν ἀνακρινοῦντες ὧν περὶ ἑπυνθάνοντο entoutō de hoi Lakedaimonioi metepemponto Pausanian anakrinountes hōn peri epunthanonto .

Pausanias having come to Sparta, and been there set at liberty, now betook himself privately in a galley to Byzantium. This cannot have happened long afterward, for Thucydides, chapter 128, immediately subjoins it, and what is of the most importance, Pausanias finds the fleet still at Byzantium. That his residence there did not long continue appears from the account of Thucydides, chapter 131, that he was forcibly expelled thence by the Athenians. He now retired to the colony in Troas; from there he was recalled to Sparta, after it had been reported that he kept up an understanding with the barbarians. The Ephori threw him into prison, but soon after released him. At this time his intercourse with Themistocles look place, who, being at the time already expelled from Athens, resided at Argos, and thence made excursions into the rest of the Peloponnesus. That Pausanias then for the first time drew Themistocles into his plan, when the latter had been driven from Athens, is asserted by Plutarch, and a personal intercourse between them is rendered certain by all accounts.That there was no considerable period between this release of Pausanias and his death is clear. Pausanias was not condemned, because there was no certain proof against him. It is, however, psychologically improbable that he did not soon afford it, that he prudently kept himself from giving open offence for a series of years, when we consider that he was deprived of all prudence by his haughtiness, arising to madness; that he himself rendered the execution of his treasonable plan impossible; that, according to Thucydides, chapter 130, he went about in a Median dress, and caused himself to be accompanied on a journey through Thrace with Median and Egyptian satellites, spread a Persian table, made difficult the access to his person, gave free course to his passions, of whom Thucydides himself very

significantly remarks, καὶ κατέχειν τὴν διάνοιαν οὐκ ἡδύνατο ἀλλ ἔργοις βραχέσι προύδήλου, ἅ τῇ γνώμῃ γνώμῃ μειζόνως ἐρέπειτα ἔμελλε πράξειν kai katechein tēn

97

dianoian ouk ēdunato all' ergois brachesi proudēlou , ha tē gnōmē meizonōs erepeita emellepraxein, and of whose senseless arrogance the same historian, chapter 132, gives an example, even out of the time immediately after the battle of Platea. The discovery was effected by him who was to bring to Artabazus the last letters to the king.

With what haste the transactions were carried on, and that by no means a space of four years was consumed, is evident from the fact that the king, in order to accelerate them, had expressly sent Artabazus to Asia Minor. His death immediately followed the discovery (compare Thucydides 133). We surely do not assume too little when we give to these events a period of three years. That we need not go beyond this is shown by Dio. dorus, who compresses all these events into the year 477 (Ol. 75, 4). How could he have done this, or how could such an error have arisen, if the beginning and end had been separated from each other by a period of eight or nine years?. How impossible it was for him, with his sources, to place the destruction of Pausanias far beyond this time appears from his fiction, which can in no other way be explained, of a twofold accusation of Themistocles. If, now, we must place the death of Pausanias about the year 474, and in no event later, the flight of Themistocles cannot be placed farther back than the year 473.For Themistocles, at the death of Pausanias, had already been a considerable time in the Peloponnesus. His accusation followed immediately after the event (compare Thucydides, I. 135); and the combined interests of the Lacedemonians, to whom nothing could be more desirable than to have the Athenians share their disgrace, and of the

enemies of Themistocles at Athens (Plut. Them. c. 23: κατεβόων μὲν αὐτοῦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, κατηγόρουν δ οἱ φθονοῦντες τῶν πολιτῶν kateboōn men autouLakedaimonioi, katēgoroun d' hoi phthonountes tōn politōn , would cause the decision to be hastened as much as possible. Themistocles, persecuted both by the Athenians and Lacedemonians, now flees from the Peloponnesus to Corcyra. Being denied a residence there, he retires to the opposite continent. In danger of being overtaken by his persecutors (Thucydides chapter 136: καὶ διωκόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν προστεταγμένων κατὰ πύστιν ᾖ χωροίη kaidiōkomenos hupo tōn prostetagmenōn kata pustin ē chōroiē, he sees himself compelled to flee to Admetus, the king of the Molossians. Nor can he have long resided there, for, according to Thucydides, chapter 137, he was sent forward by Admetus, as soon as his persecutors came. And how can we suppose that they would have been long behind him? How long could his place of residence have remained a secret? It is expressly said by Thucydides, that the coming of his persecutors, and the flight of Themistocles to Asia, very soon happened (ὕστερον ου πολλῷ husteron ou pollō). It is true, that if we could credit the account of Stesimbrotus, in Plut. chapter 24, we must assume that the residence of Themistocles with Admetus continued some months, for he related that his friends brought to him there his wife and children, whom they had secretly conducted out of Athens. But that no dependence is to be placed upon this is evident from the absurd fiction of Stesimbrotus that immediately follows, which to the surprise even of Plutarch (εἶτ οὐκ οἶδ

98

ὅπως ἐπιλαθόμενος τούτων, η τὸν Θεμιστοκλέα ποιῶν ἐπιλαθόμενον, πλεῖσαι φησιν, κ.τ.λ. eit' ouk oid' hopōs epilathomenos toutōn , ē ton Themistoklea poiōn epilathomenon , pleisai phēsin, etc.) he brings forward, without observing that the one fable does away the other - namely, that Themistocles was sent by Admetus to Sicily, and had desired of Hiero his daughter in marriage, with the promise to bring Greece under subjection to him.

Plutarch designates Stesimbrotus as a shameless liar, Pericles, chapter 13. That the sons of Themistocles remained in Athens is manifest from a relation in Suidas, and the testimony of Thucydides, chapter 137, and of Plutarch, that the gold was first sent to Themistocles by his friends after his arrival in Asia, to enable him to reward the service of the captain who brought him to Asia, shows at the same time the incorrectness of the assertion of Stesimbrotus, and confirms the opinion that Themistocles remained in no one place of his flight long enough for his friends to send to him there the necessary gold. Themistocles was conducted by Admetus to Pidna, and from there he betook himself in a boat directly to Asia. This, accordingly, since between the death of Pausanias, and the coming of Themistocles into Asia there could at most be only a year, can at latest have happened in the year 473, perhaps in 474; and even in the former case we are completely justified in placing the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, which still cannot have immediately coincided with the coming of Themistocles, in the year 474.“4. On the supposition that the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes, and the flight of Themistocles, fall in 465, an extravagant old age must be attributed to Charon of Lampsacus. According to Suidas, he was still flourishing under the first Darius, Ol. 69, 504 b.c. Since now, in his history, he mentions the flight of Themistocles to Artaxerxes, this being placed in 465, he must have been employed in writing history at least forty years. This is not, indeed, absolutely impossible; but, in a doubtful case, it must be rejected as the more improbable alternative. ‘Historice enim, non sunt explicandae - says Vitringa (Proll. in, Zach. p. 29) - ex raris et insolentibus exemplis, sed ex communi vivendi lege et ordine. Si res secus se habeat, in ipsa historia ascribitur ne fallat incautos.’ Compare his farther excellent remarks on this subject. That this argument is not without force, is evident even from the efforts of some advocates of the false chronology to set it aside by cutting the knot. Suidas, after he has cited the above-mentioned determination of the time of Charon, as he found it in his more ancient

authorities, subjoins, μᾶλλον δὲ ἦν ἐπὶ τῶν Περσικῶν mallon de ēn epi tōn Persikōn. Creuzer, on the Fragm. Historr. Groec., p. 95, rejects this date without farther examination, because it gives too great an age to Charon.

“5. According to Thucydides 1, 136, Themistocles, on his passage to Asia, fell in with the Athenian fleet, which was besieging Naxos. This siege of Naxos, however, according to the testimony of Thucydides, chapter 100, which makes all other arguments superfluous, happened before the great victory of the Athenians on the Eurymedon, which, according to Diodorus, belongs to the year 470, and cannot be placed later, because this was the first considerable undertaking of the Athenians against the Persians, the war with whom formed the only ground for the important requisitions 99

which they made upon their allies. Compare Thucydides i. 94. Hitherto, since the supremacy had passed over to the Athenians, scarcely anything had been done against the Persians, except the taking of the unimportant AEgon. Thucydides also leads us to about the same year as that given by Diodorus, who connects the defection of Thasos (467) with χρόνῳ ὕστερον chronō husteron, which cannot stand where events immediately succeed each other. Even for these reasons, the siege of Naxos and the flight of Themistocles, do not fall after 471. If, however, we consider that Naxos was the first confederate city with which the Athenians were involved in discord (compare Thucydides, p. 1, 98) - which, from the nature of the case, as is rendered especially clear by the remarks of Thucydides and a comparison of the later historians, could scarcely have first happened after seven years -and if we farther consider the way in which Thucydides (chapter 98) connects the events, from the transfer of the supremacy until the capture of Naxos, with one another, we shall, without hesitation, place the latter some years earlier, in the year 474 or 473.

“6. The flight of Themistocles falls at least three years earlier than the battle on the Eurymedon, because in all probability he was dead before the latter event. His death, however, must have been some years subsequent to his coming into Asia (compare Thucydides chapter 138). One year passed in learning the language, and some time, in any event, was required for what is implied in ταύτης ἦῤχε τῆς χώρας, δίντος, κ.τ.λ. tautēs ērche tēs chōras, dontos, etc. Thucydides relates that, according to the account of some, Themistocles took poison, ἀδύνατον νομίσαντα εἶναι ἐπιτελέσαι βασιλεῖ α ὑπέεσχετο adunatonnomisanta einai epitelesai basilei a hupescheto . This pre-supposes that Themistocles was compelled to fulfill his promises; and had this not been the case at his death, the report that Thucydides only in this instance relied upon himself could not have arisen. Plutarch expressly connects the death of Themistocles with the expedition of Cimon. This is done by several writers, with the mention of the most special circumstances (compare the passages in Staveren on Nep. Them. 10) all of which may be regarded, as they are by Cicero (Brut. chapter 11) and Nepos, as fictitious, and yet the historical basis on which alone everything depends, “the fact” that Thucydides died before the battle on the Eurymedon is firmly established.

“7. Kruger (1. c. p. 218) has shown that the account of Plutarch, that Themistocles reached an age of sixty-five years, forbids us to place his death beyond the year 470, and therefore his flight beyond the year 473. According to an account which has internal evidence of credibility, in AElian, Var. Hist. iii. 21, Themistocles, as a small boy coming from school, declined going out of the way of the tyrant Pisistratus. Assuming that this happened in the last year of Pisistratus, 529 b.c., and that Themistocles was at that time six years old, he must have been born in 535, and died in 470. Nor is it a valid objection that, according to Plutarch, Themistocles was still living at the time of the Cyprian expedition of Cimon (449 b.c.), and was still young at the battle of Marathon. For the former rests on a manifest confounding of the former event with the victory over the Persian fleet at Cyprus, which is supposed to have immediately preceded the victory on the Eurymedon (compare Diodor. 11, 60; Dahlmann, Forschungen, i. p. 69), and 100

the latter merely on a conclusion drawn from this error. ‘Whoever,’ remarks Dahlmann, p. 71, ‘reads without prejudice the passage, Thucydides 1, 138, will perceive that the death of Themistocles followed pretty soon after his settlement in Persia; probably in the second year, if Thucydides is worthy of credit.’“Until all these arguments are refuted, it remains true that the Messianic interpretation of the prophecy is the only correct one, and that the alleged pseudo-Daniel, as well as the real Daniel, possessed an insight into the future, which could have been given only by the Spirit of God; and hence, as this favor could have been shown to no deceiver, the genuineness of the book necessarily follows, and the futility of all objections against it is already manifest.” V. The only remaining point of inquiry on this verse is, as to the division of the whole period of sixty-nine weeks into two smaller portions of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; that is, of the four hundred and eighty-three years into one period of four hundred and thirty-four years, and one of forty-nine years. This inquiry resolves itself into another, Whether, after the issuing of the command in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, there was a period of forty-nine years that was in any manner distinguished from what followed, or any “reason” why an epoch should be made there? If the command in the twentieth of Artaxerxes was in the year 454 b.c., then the subtraction of forty-nine years from this would make the year 405 b.c. the marked period; that is, about that time some important change would occur, or a new series of affairs would commence which would properly separate the previous period from what followed.Now, the fair interpretation of this passage respecting the seven weeks, or forty-nine years, undoubtedly is, that that time would be required in rebuilding the city, and in settling its affairs on a permanent foundation, and that, from the close of that time, another period of sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, would elapse to the appearing of the Messiah. It is true that this is not distinctly specified in the text, and true that in the text the phrase “the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times,” is not limited expressly to either period, but it is also said in the next verse, that the period of sixty-two weeks would be terminated by the appearing of the Messiah, or by his being cut off, and, therefore, it is fair to presume that the previous period of seven weeks was to be characterized particularly as the “troubleus times” in which the street and the wall were to be built again. The inquiry now is, Whether that time was actually occupied in rebuilding and restoring the city? In regard to this, it may be remarked,(1) That there is a strong “probability” that a considerable time would be necessary to rebuild the walls of the city, and to restore Jerusalem to a condition like that in which it was before the captivity. We are to remember that it had been long lying in ruins; that the land was desolate; that Jerusalem had no commercial importance to make its growth rapid; that there were few in the city on whom reliance could be placed in rebuilding it; that a large portion of the materials for rebuilding it was to be brought from a distance; that the work was opposed with much determination by the Samaritans; that it was necessary, as Nehemiah informs us, in building the

101

walls, that the workmen should have a weapon of defense in one hand while they labored with the other, and that those who were engaged on it were mostly poor. When these things are considered, it is at least not improbable that the period of forty-nine years would be required before it could be said that the work was fully completed.(2) A more material question, however, is, whether the facts in the case confirm this, or whether there was such a termination of the rebuilding of the city at about that period, that it could be said that the time occupied was seven weeks rather than, for example, six, or five, or nine. It may not be necessary so to make this out as to determine the precise year, or the termination of forty-nine years. but in a general division of the time, it is necessary, undoubtedly, so to determine it as to see that that time should have been designated, rather than one equally general at the close of one week, or two, or six, or nine, or any other number. Now that that was the period of the completion of the work contemplated by the decree issued under Artaxerxes, and the work undertaken by Nehemiah, it is not difficult to show:(a) It is reasonable to presume that the time referred to in the seven weeks would be the rebuilding of the city, and the restoration of its affairs to its former state - or the completion of the arrangements to restore the nation from the effects of the captivity, and to put it on its former footing. This was the main inquiry by Daniel; this would be a marked period; this would be that for which the “commandment would go forth;” and this would constitute a natural division of the time.(b) As a matter of fact, the completion of the work undertaken by Nehemiah, under the command of the Persian kings, reached to the period here designated; and his last act as governor of Judea, in restoring the people, and placing the affairs of the nation on its former basis, occurred at just about the period of the forty-nine years after the issuing of the command by Artaxerxes Longimanus. That event, as is supposed above, occurred 454 b.c. The close of the seven weeks, or of the forty-nine years, would therefore be 405 b.c. This would be about the last year of the reign of Darius Nothus. See the table above. Nehemiah was twice governor of Judea, and the work of restoration which he undertook was not completed until his being the second time in that office. The first time he remained twelve years in office, for he received his commission in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and in the thirty-second year he returned again to him, Neh_13:6. This, according to the computation above, would bring it down to 442 b.c. How long he then remained with the king of Persia he does not definitely state himself, but says it was “certain days,” Neh_13:6. After this, he again obtained permission of the king to return to Jerusalem, and went back the second time as governor of Judea, Neh_13:6-7. The time from his first return to Persia, after the twelve years that he spent in Judea to the year 405 b.c., would be thirty-seven years. According to this, the close of the “seven weeks,” and the completion of the enterprise of “rebuilding and restoring” the city, must have been at the end of that thirty-seven years. In reference to this, it may be remarked,(1) That Nehemiah is known to have lived to a great age (Josephus); yet, supposing he was thirty years old when he was first appointed governor of

102

Judea, and that the time referred to at the close of the “seven weeks,” or forty-nine years, was the completion of his work in the restoration of the affairs of Jerusalem, the whole period would only reach to the seventy-ninth year of his age.(2) The last act of Nehemiah in restoring the city occurred in the fifteenth year of the reign of Darius Notbus - according to Prideaux (Con. II. 206, following) - that is, 408 b.c. This would make, according to the common computation of chronology, a difference from the estimate above of only three years, and, perhaps, considering that the time of “seven weeks” is a reckoning in round numbers, this would be an estimate of sufficient accuracy. But, besides this, it is to be remembered that the exact chronology to a year or a month cannot be made out with absolute certainty; and taking all the circumstances into consideration, it is remarkable that the period designated in the prophecy coincides so nearly with the historical record. The only remaining inquiries, therefore, are, whether the last act of Nehemiah referred to occurred at the time mentioned - the 15th of Darius Nothus, or 408 b.c. - and whether that was of sufficient prominence and importance to divide the two periods of the prophecies, or to be a proper closing up of the work of restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem. What he did in his office as governor of Judea, at his second visitation to Jerusalem, is recorded in Neh. 13:7-31.The particular acts which he performed consisted in removing certain abuses which had been suffered to grow up in his absence respecting the temple service, by which the temple had become greatly polluted Neh_13:7-14; in restoring the Sabbath to its proper observance, which had become greatly disregarded Neh_13:15-22; and in constraining those Jews who had contracted unlawful marriages to separate themselves from their wives Neh_13:23-31. These acts were necessary to put the affairs of the temple, and the condition of the city, on their former basis. The last of these acts - the separation of those who had contracted unlawful marriages from their wives, is that which designates the close of the “seven weeks,” and respecting which the date is to be sought. This is stated in the book of Nehemiah Neh_13:28 to have occurred in the time of “one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite.” That is, it occurred when Joiada was high priest.But, according to the “Chr. Alexandrinum,” Joiada succeeded his father in the office in the eleventh year of Darius Nothus, and Prideaux supposes, without improbability, that this event may have occurred as long as four years after he entered on the office of high priest, which would bring it to the fifteenth of Darius Nothus, or 408 b.c. Compare Jahn, Heb. Com. pp. 179-182; and Prideaux, Con. ii. 206-210. The time, then, if this be the event referred to, is sufficiently accurate to make it coincide with the prophecy -sufficiently so to divide the previous period from what succeeded it. The event itself was of sufficient importance to have a place here. It was, in fact, finishing what was necessary to be done in order to a completion of the purpose to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” It was in fact “the restoration of Jewish affairs under the Persian edict,” or what was accomplished in fact under that edict in placing the Jewish affairs on the proper basis - the basis on which they were substantially before the captivity.

103

This was the termination of that captivity in the fullest sense, and divided the past from the future - or constituted a “period or epoch” in the history of the Jewish people. It remains only to add, on this verse - and the remark will be equally applicable to the exposition of the two remaining verses of the chapter - that on the supposition that this had been written after the coming of the Messiah, and it had been designed to frame what would seem to be a prophecy or prediction of these events, the language here Would be such as would have been appropriately employed. From the time of the going forth of the command to rebuild the city, the whole duration would have been accurately divided into two great portions - that requisite for the completion of the work of restoring the city, and that extending to the coming of the Messiah, and the former would have been made to terminate where it is now supposed the period of “seven weeks,” or forty-nine years, did actually terminate. If this would have been the correct apportionment in a “historic” review, it is correct as a “prophetic” review.

CLARKE, "From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem - The foregoing events being all accomplished by Jesus Christ, they of course determine the prophecy to him. And if we reckon back four hundred and ninety years, we shall find the time of the going forth of this command.

Most learned men agree that the death of Christ happened at the passover in the month Nisan, in the four thousand seven hundred and forty-sixth year of the Julian period. Four hundred and ninety years, reckoned back from the above year, leads us directly to the month Nisan in the four thousand two hundred and fifty-sixth year of the same period; the very month and year in which Ezra had his commission from Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia, (see Ezr_7:9), to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. See the commission in Ezra 7:11-26 (note), and Prideaux’s Connexions, vol. 2 p. 380.The above seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, are divided, in Ezr_7:25, into three distinct periods, to each of which particular events are assigned. The three periods are: -I. Seven weeks, that is, forty-nine years.II. Sixty-two weeks, that is, four hundred and thirty-four years.III. One week, that is, seven years.To the first period of seven weeks the restoration and repairing of Jerusalem are referred; and so long were Ezra and Nehemiah employed in restoring the sacred constitutions and civil establishments of the Jews, for this work lasted forty-nine years after the commission was given by Artaxerxes.From the above seven weeks the second period of sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years more, commences, at the end of which the prophecy says, Messiah the Prince should come, that is, seven weeks, or forty-nine years, should be allowed for the restoration of the Jewish state;

104

from which time till the public entrance of the Messiah on the work of the ministry should be sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, in all four hundred and eighty-three years.From the coming of our Lord, the third period is to be dated, viz., “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,” that is seven years, Dan_9:27.This confirmation of the covenant must take in the ministry of John the Baptist with that of our Lord, comprehending the term of seven years, during the whole of which he might be well said to confirm or ratify the new covenant with mankind. Our Lord says, “The law was until John;” but from his first public preaching the kingdom of God, or Gospel dispensation, commenced.These seven years, added to the four hundred and eighty-three, complete the four hundred and ninety years, or seventy prophetic weeks; so that the whole of this prophecy, from the times and corresponding events, has been fulfilled to the very letter.Some imagine that the half of the last seven years is to be referred to the total destruction of the Jews by Titus, when the daily sacrifice for ever ceased to be offered; and that the intermediate space of thirty-seven years, from our Lord’s death till the destruction of the city, is passed over as being of no account in relation to the prophecy, and that it was on this account that the last seven years are divided. But Dean Prideaux thinks that the

whole refers to our Lord’s preaching connected with that of the Baptist. וחצי vachatsi, says he, signifies in the half part of the week; that is, in the latter three years and a half in which he exercised himself in the public ministry, he caused, by the sacrifice of himself, all other sacrifices and oblations to cease, which were instituted to signify his.

In the latter parts of Dan_9:26 and Dan_9:27 we find the Third Part of this great prophecy, which refers to what should be done after the completion of these seventy weeks.

GILL, "Know, therefore, and understand,.... Take notice and observe, for the clearer understanding of these seventy weeks, and the events to be fulfilled in them, what will be further said concerning them, the beginning of them, their distinct periods, and what shall be accomplished in them: that from the time of the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem; this commandment is the beginning of the seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years, and from it they are to be reckoned; and which designs not the proclamation of Cyrus in the first year of his reign, which was only to rebuild the temple, and not the city of Jerusalem, Ezr_1:1, nor the decree of Darius Hystaspes, which also only regards the temple, and is only a confirmation of the decree of Cyrus, Ezr_6:1 and for the same reasons it cannot be the decree in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes; which only confirmed what his predecessors had granted concerning the temple, and provision for sacrifices, and exemption of the

105

priests from toll, tribute, or custom, Ezr_7:7, but has not a word of building the wall and streets of Jerusalem, as that has, which was made in the twentieth year of his reign; and seems therefore to be the commandment or decree here referred to, Neh_2:1, and this is the general epoch of the seventy weeks, and where the first seven begin; though Gussetius (a) thinks that the word דבר does not signify any edict or decree, but a "thing"; and designs the thing itself, restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem; and that the following date is to be reckoned, not from any order to rebuild that city, but from the thing itself, from the moment when it first began to be rebuilt: and as singular is the notion of Tirinus (b), who is of opinion that this is to be understood of the going out, or the end of the word; not whereby the holy city was ordered to be built, but when it was really built; and so begins the account from the dedication of the new city, in the twenty third year of Artaxerxes, Neh_12:27. There are others who suppose that not any human word, decree, commandment, or order, is here meant, but a divine one; either the word of the Lord to Jeremiah, foretelling the seventy years' captivity of the Jews, and their deliverance from it; and reckon these four hundred and ninety years from the destruction of the first temple, to the destruction of the second temple, as Jarchi, Saadiah, Jacchiades, and others; but between these two destructions was a course of six hundred and fifty six or six hundred and fifty seven years: others take the beginning of the seventy weeks to be from the going forth of the commandment to the angel, at the beginning of Daniel's prayers, as Aben Ezra; and to end at the destruction of the second temple; but, for a like reason, this must be rejected as the other; since this space of time will outrun the seventy weeks near one hundred and twenty years: it is best therefore to interpret this of a royal edict, the order or commandment of a king of Persia to rebuild Jerusalem; and it seems correct to reckon the number given, either from the seventh, or rather from the twentieth, of Artaxerxes Longimanus before mentioned; and either these reckonings, as Bishop Chandler (c) observes, are sufficient for our purpose, to show the completion of the prophecy in Christ: "the commencement of the weeks (as he remarks) must be either from the seventh of Artaxerxes, which falls on 457 B.C. or from the twentieth of Artaxerxes; (add to 457 B.C., twenty six years after Christ, which is the number that four hundred and eighty three years, or sixty nine weeks, exceeds four hundred and fifty seven years); and you are brought to the beginning of John the Baptist's preaching up the advent of the Messiah; add seven years or one week to the former, and you come to the thirty third year of A.D. which was the year of Jesus Christ's death or else compute four hundred and ninety years, the whole seventy weeks, from the seventh of Artaxerxes, by subtracting four hundred and fifty seven years (the space of time between that year and the beginning of A.D.) from four hundred and ninety, and there remains thirty three, the year of our Lord's death. Let the twentieth of Artaxerxes be the date of the seventy weeks, which is 455 B.C. and reckon sixty nine weeks of Chaldean years; seventy Chaldee years being equal to sixty nine Julian; and so four hundred and seventy eight Julian years making four hundred and eighty three Chaldee years, and they end in

106

the thirty third year after Christ, or the passover following (d)''; the several particulars into which these seventy weeks are divided: unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; by whom is meant, not Cyrus, as Jarchi and Jacchiades; who, though called Messiah or anointed, Isa_44:28, cannot be intended; for this prince was to be cut off after seven, and sixty two weeks, or four hundred and eighty three years; whereas Cyrus died ages before this, and even died before the expiration of the seven weeks, or forty nine years; nor Joshua the high priest, or Zerubbabel, as Ben Gersom and others nor Nehemiah as Aben Ezra; nor Artaxerxes, which R. Azariah (e) thinks probable; for to none of these will this character agree, which denotes some eminent person known by this name; nor the work ascribed to him, Dan_9:24, nor can it be said of either of them that they were cut off, and much less at such a period as is here fixed: it is right to interpret it of the promised and expected Saviour, whom the Psalmist David had frequently spoken of under the name of the Messiah, and as a King and Prince; see Psa_2:2 and who is David, the Prince Ezekiel before this had prophesied of, Eze_34:24, and is the same with the Prince of peace in the famous prophecy of him in Isa_9:6. The Syriac version, though not a literal one, gives the true sense of the passage, rendering it, "unto the coming of the King Messiah;'' unto which there were to be seven, and sixty two weeks, or sixty nine weeks, which make four hundred and eighty three years; and these being understood of eastern years, used by the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Persians, consisting of three hundred and sixty days, reckoning thirty days to a month, and twelve months to a year, there were just four hundred and eighty three of these from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the thirty third of the vulgar era of Christ, and the nineteenth of Tiberius Caesar, in which he suffered. Sir Isaac Newton (f) thinks the seven weeks unto Messiah, which he detaches from the sixty two, respects the second coming of Christ, when he shall come as a Prince, and destroy antichrist, and that it takes in the compass of a jubilee; but when it will begin and end he does not pretend to say; but the true reason of the sixty nine weeks being divided into seven, and sixty two, is on account of the particular and distinct events assigned to each period, as follows: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times; that is, within the space of seven weeks, or forty nine years, reckoning from the twentieth of Artaxerxes; when the Jews had a grant to rebuild their city and wall, and were furnished with materials for it; and which was done in very troublesome times; Nehemiah, and the Jews with him, met with much trouble from Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem the Arabian, while they were setting up the wall of the city, and filling the streets with ranges of houses, Nehemiah chapters four and five for which the space of seven weeks, or forty nine years, were cut out and appointed; and that this event belongs

107

solely to this period is clear from the Messiah's coming being appropriated to the period of the sixty two weeks; which leaves this entirely where it is fixed. JAMISON, "from the going forth of the commandment — namely the

command from God, whence originated the command of the Persian king (Ezr_6:14). Auberlen remarks, there is but one Apocalypse in each Testament. Its purpose in each is to sum up all the preceding prophecies, previous to the “troublous times” of the Gentiles, in which there was to be no revelation. Daniel sums up all the previous Messianic prophecy, separating into its individual phases what the prophets had seen in one and the same perspective, the temporary deliverance from captivity and the antitypical final Messianic deliverance. The seventy weeks are separated (Dan_9:25-27) into three unequal parts, seven, sixty-two, one. The seventieth is the consummation of the preceding ones, as the Sabbath of God succeeds the working days; an idea suggested by the division into weeks. In the sixty-nine weeks Jerusalem is restored, and so a place is prepared for Messiah wherein to accomplish His sabbatic work (Dan_9:25, Dan_9:26) of “confirming the covenant” (Dan_9:27). The Messianic time is the Sabbath of Israel’s history, in which it had the offer of all God’s mercies, but in which it was cut off for a time by its rejection of them. As the seventy weeks end with seven years, or a week, so they begin with seven times seven, that is, seven weeks. As the seventieth week is separated from the rest as a period of revelation, so it may be with the seven weeks. The number seven is associated with revelation; for the seven spirits of God are the mediators of all His revelations (Rev_1:4; Rev_3:1; Rev_4:5). Ten is the number of what is human; for example, the world power issues in ten heads and ten horns(Dan_2:42; Dan_7:7). Seventy is ten multiplied by seven, the human molded by the divine. The seventy years of exile symbolize the triumph of the world power over Israel. In the seven times seventy years the world number ten is likewise contained, that is, God’s people is still under the power of the world (“troublous times”); but the number of the divine is multiplied by itself; seven times seven years, at the beginning a period of Old Testament revelation to God’s people by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi, whose labors extend over about half a century, or seven weeks, and whose writings are last in the canon; and in the end, seven years, the period of New Testament revelation in Messiah. The commencing seven weeks of years of Old Testament revelation are hurried over, in order that the chief stress might rest on the Messianic week. Yet the seven weeks of Old Testament revelation are marked by their separation from the sixty-two, to be above those sixty-two wherein there was to be none.Messiah the Prince — Hebrew, Nagid. Messiah is Jesus’ title in respect to

Israel (Psa_2:2; Mat_27:37, Mat_27:42). Nagid, as Prince of the Gentiles(Isa_55:4). Nagid is applied to Titus, only as representative of Christ, who designates the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as, in a sense, His coming (Mat_24:29-31; Joh_21:22). Messiah denotes His calling; Nagid, His power. He is to “be cut off, and there shall be nothing for Him.” (So the Hebrew for “not for Himself,” Dan_9:26, ought to be translated). Yet He is “the Prince” who is to “come,” by His representative at first, to inflict judgment, and at 108

last in person.wall — the “trench” or “scarped rampart” [Tregelles]. The street and trench include the complete restoration of the city externally and internally, which was during the sixty-nine weeks.

K&D, "The detailed statement of the 70 שבעים in 7 + 62 + 1 (Dan_9:25, Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27), with the fuller description of that which was to happen in the course of these three periods of time, incontrovertibly shows that these three verses are a further explication of the contents of Dan_9:24. This explication is introduced by the words: “Know therefore, and understand,” which do not announce a new prophecy, as Wieseler and Hofmann suppose, but only point to the importance of the further opening up of the contents of Dan_9:24, since ותשכל (and thou wilt understand) stands in distinct relation to בינה להשכל (to give thee skill and understanding, Dan_9:22). The two parts of Dan_9:25 contain the statements regarding the first two portions of the whole period, the seven and the sixty-two שבעים, and are rightly separated by the Masoretes by placing the Atnach under שבעה. The first statement is: “from the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem unto a Messiah(Gesalbten), a prince, shall be seven weeks.” דבר מצא (from the going forth of the commandment) formally corresponds, indeed, to דבר יצא (the commandment came forth), Dan_9:23, emphatically expressing a decision on the part of God, but the two expressions are not actually to be identified; for the commandment, Dan_9:23, is the divine revelation communicated in Dan_9:24-27, which the angel brings to Daniel; the commandment in Dan_9:25 is, on the contrary, more fully determined by the words, “to restore and to build, etc. להשיב is not to be joined adverbially with ת ולבנ so as to form one idea: to build again; for, though שוב may be thus used adverbially in Kal, yet the Hiphil השיב is not so used. השיב means to lead back, to bring again, then to restore; cf. for this last meaning Isa_1:26, Psa_80:4, Psa_80:8,20. The object to להשיב follows immediately after the word ת ,ולבנnamely, Jerusalem. The supplementing of עם, people (Wieseler, Kliefoth, and others), is arbitrary, and is not warranted by Jer_29:10. To bring back, to restore a city, means to raise it to its former state; denotes the restitutio, but not necessarily the full restitutio in integrum (against Hengstenberg). Here ת לבנ is added, as in the second half of the verse to תשוב, yet not so as to make one idea with it, restoring to build, or building to restore, i.e., to build up again to the old extent. בנה as distinguished from השיב denotes the building after restoring, and includes the constant preservation in good building condition, as well as the carrying forward of the edifice beyond its former state.

But if we ask when this commandment went forth, in order that we may thereby determine the beginning of the seven weeks, and, since they form 109

the first period of the seventy, at the same time determine the beginning of the seventy weeks, the words and the context only supply this much, that by the “commandment” is meant neither the word of God which is mentioned in Dan_9:23, because it says nothing about the restoration of Jerusalem, but speaks only of the whole message of the angel. Nor yet is it the word of God which is mentioned in Dan_9:2, the prophecies given in Jer 25 and 29, as Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others suppose. For although from these prophecies it conclusively follows, that after the expiry of the seventy years with the return of Israel into their own land, Jerusalem shall again be built up, yet they do not speak of that which shall happen after the seventy years, but only of that which shall happen within that period, namely, that Jerusalem shall for so long a time lie desolate, as Dan_9:2 expressly affirms. The prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the desolation of Jerusalem (Dan_9:2) cannot possibly be regarded as the commandment (in Dan_9:25) to restore Jerusalem (Kliefoth). As little can we, with Hitzig, think on Jer 30 and 31, because this prophecy contains nothing whatever of a period of time, and in this verse before us there is no reference to this prophecy. The restoration of Israel and of Jerusalem has indeed been prophesied of in general, not merely by Jeremiah, but also long before him by Isaiah (Daniel 40-56). With as much justice may we think on Isa 40ff. as on Jer 30 and 31; but all such references are excluded by this fact, that the angel names the commandment for the restoration of Jerusalem as the terminus a quo for the seventy weeks, and thus could mean only a word of God whose going forth was somewhere determined, or could be determined, just as the appearance of the נגיד משיח is named as the termination of the seven weeks. Accordingly “the going forth of the commandment to restore,” etc., must be a factum coming into visibility, the time of which could without difficulty be known - a word from God regarding the restoration of Jerusalem which went forth by means of a man at a definite time, and received an observable historical execution.

Now, with Calvin, Oecolampadius, Kleinert, Nägelsbach, Ebrard, and Kliefoth, we can think of nothing more appropriate than the edict of Cyrus (Ezr_1:1-11) which permitted the Jews to return, from which the termination of the Exile is constantly dated, and from the time off which this return, together with the building up of Jerusalem, began, and was carried forward, though slowly (Klief.). The prophecy of Isa_44:28, that God would by means of Cyrus speak to cause Jerusalem to be built, and the foundation of the temple to be laid, directs us to this edict. With reference to this prophecy, it is said in Ezr_6:14, “They builded according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of the king of Persia.” This is acknowledged even by Hengstenberg, who yet opposes this reference; for he remarks (Christol. iii. p. 142), “If the statement were merely of the commencement of the building, then they would undoubtedly be justified who place the starting-point in the first year of Cyrus. Isaiah (Isa_45:13) commends Cyrus as the builder of the city; and all the sacred writings which relate to the period from the time of Cyrus to Nehemiah distinctly state the actual existence of a Jerusalem during this period.” But according to his explanation, the words of the angel do not announce the beginning of the building of the city, but much rather the 110

beginning of its “completed restoration according to its ancient extent and its ancient glory.” But that this is not contained in the words ת ולבנ להשיבwe have already remarked, to which is to be added, that the placing in opposition the commencement of the building and the commencement of its completed restoration is quite arbitrary and vain, since certainly the commencement of the restoration at the same time includes in it the commencement of the completed restoration. In favour of interpreting להשיב of the completed restoration, Hengstenberg remarks that “in the announcement the temple is named along with the city in Dan_9:26 as well as in Dan_9:27. That with the announcement of the building the temple is not named here, that mention is made only of the building of the streets of the city, presupposes the sanctuary as already built up at the commencement of the building which is here spoken of; and the existence of the temple again requires that a commencement of the rebuilding of the city had also been already made, since it is not probable that the angel should have omitted just that which was the weightiest matter, that for which Daniel was most grieved, and about which he had prayed (cf. Dan_9:17, Dan_9:20) with the greatest solicitude.” But the validity of this conclusion is not obvious. In Dan_9:26 the naming of the temple along with the city is required by the facts of the case, and this verse treats of what shall happen after the sixty-two weeks. How, then, shall it be thence inferred that the temple should also be mentioned along with the city in Dan_9:25, where the subject is that which forms the beginning of the seven or of the seventy weeks, and that, since this was not done, the temple must have been then already built? The non-mention of the temple in Dan_9:24, as in Dan_9:25, is fully and simply explained by this, that the word of the angel stands in definite relation to the prayer of Daniel, but that Daniel was moved by Jeremiah's prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the ת חרב of Jerusalem to pray for the turning away of the divine wrath from the city. As Jeremiah, in the announcement of the seventy years' desolation of the land, did not specially mention the destruction of the temple, so also the angel, in the decree regarding the seventy weeks which are determined upon the people of Israel and the holy city, makes no special mention of the temple; as, however, in Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the desolation of the land, the destruction not only of Jerusalem, but also of the temple, is included, so also in the building of the holy city is included that of the temple, by which Jerusalem was made a holy city. Although thus the angel, in the passage before us, does not expressly speak of the building of the temple, but only of the holy city, we can maintain the reference of the דבר מצא to the edict of Cyrus, which constituted an epoch in the history of Israel, and consider this edict as the beginning of the termination of the seven resp. seventy weeks.

The words נגיד משיח עד show the termination of the seven weeks. The words נגיד משיח are not to be translated an anointed prince (Bertholdt); for משיח cannot be an adjective to נגיד, because in Hebr. The adjective is always placed after the substantive, with few exceptions, which are inapplicable to this case; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. §293b. Nor can משיח be a participle: till a prince

111

is anointed (Steudel), but it is a noun, and נגיד is connected with it by apposition: an anointed one, who at the same time is a prince. According to the O.T., kings and priests, and only these, were anointed. Since, then, משיחis brought forward as the principal designation, we may not by נגיד think of a priest-prince, but only of a prince of the people, nor by משיח of a king, but only of a priest; and by נגיד משיח we must understand a person who first and specially is a priest, and in addition is a prince of the people, a king. The separation of the two words in Dan_9:26, where נגיד is acknowledged as meaning a prince of the people, leads to the same conclusion. This priest-king can neither be Zerubbabel (according to many old interpreters), nor Ezra (Steudel), nor Onias III (Wieseler); for Zerubbabel the prince was not anointed, and the priest Ezra and the high priest Onias were not princes of the people. Nor can Cyrus be meant here, as Saad., Gaon., Bertholdt, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others think, by a reference to Isa_45:1; for, supposing it to be the case that Daniel had reason from Isa_45:1 to call Cyrus - משיח which is to be doubted, since from this epithet משיח, His (Jehovah's) anointed, which Isaiah uses of Cyrus, it does not follow as of course that he should be named משיח - the title ought at least to have been משיח משיח the ,נגיד being an adjective following נגיד, because there is no evident reason for the express precedence of the adjectival definition.

(Note: “It is an unjustifiable assertion that every heathen king may also bear the name משיח, anointed. In all the books of the O.T. There is but a single heathen king, Cyrus, who is named משיח (Isa_45:1), and he not simply as such, but because of the remarkable and altogether singular relation in which he stood to the church, because of the gifts with which God endowed him for her deliverance, ... and because of the typical relation in which he stood to the author of the higher deliverance, the Messiah. Cyrus could in a certain measure be regarded as a theocratic ruler, and as such he is described by Isaiah.” - Hengstenberg.)

The O.T. knows only One who shall be both priest and king in one person (Psa_110:4; Zec_6:13), Christ, the Messias (Joh_4:25), whom, with Hävernick, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Auberlen, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth, we here understand by the נגיד because in Him the two essential ,משיח requisites of the theocratic king, the anointing and the appointment to be the נגיד of the people of God (cf. 1Sa_10:1; 1Sa_13:14; 1Sa_16:13; 1Sa_25:30; 2Sa_2:4; 2Sa_5:2.), are found in the most perfect manner. These requisites are here attributed to Him as predicates, and in such a manner that the being anointed goes before the being a prince, in order to make prominent the spiritual, priestly character of His royalty, and to designate Him, on the ground of the prophecies, Isa_61:1-3 and Isa_55:4, as the person by whom “the sure mercies of David” (Isa_55:3) shall be realized by the covenant people.

(Note: In the נגיד משיח it is natural to suppose there is a reference to 112

the passages in Isaiah referred to; yet one must not, with Hofmann and Auberlen, hence conclude that Christ is as King of Israel named משיח, and as King of the heathen נגיד, for in the frequent use of the word נגיד of the king of Israel in the books of Samuel it is much more natural to regard it as the reference to David.)

The absence of the definite article is not to be explained by saying that משיח, somewhat as צמח, Zec_3:8; Zec_6:12, is used κατ ἑχ. as a nomen propr. of the Messiah, the Anointed; for in this case נגיד ought to have the article, since in Hebrew we cannot say מל המל but only ,דוד Much rather the article is .דודwanting, because it shall not be said: till the Messiah, who is prince, but only: till one comes who is anointed and at the same time prince, because He that is to come is not definitely designated as the expected Messiah, but must be made prominent by the predicates ascribed to Him only as a personage altogether singular.

Thus the first half of Dan_9:25 states that the first seven of the seventy weeks begin with the edict (of Cyrus) permitting the return of Israel from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem, and extend from that time till the appearance of an anointed one who at the same time is prince, i.e., till Christ. With that view the supposition that שבעים are year-weeks, periods of seven years, is irreconcilable. Therefore most interpreters who understand Christ as the נגיד have referred the following number, and sixty-two ,משיח weeks, to the first clause - ”from the going forth of the command ... seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.” Thus Theodotion: ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένουἑβδομάδες ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομάδες ἑξηκονταδύο; and the Vulgate: usque ad Christum ducem hebdomades septem et hebdomades sexaginta duae erunt. The text of the lxx is here, however, completely in error, and is useless. This interpretation, in recent times, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen have sought to justify in different ways, but without having succeeded in invalidating the reasons which stand opposite to them. First of all the Atnach forbids this interpretation, for by it the seven שבעים are separated from the sixty-two. This circumstance, however, in and of itself decides nothing, since the Atnach does not always separate clauses, but frequently also shows only the point of rest within a clause; besides, it first was adopted by the Masoretes, and only shows the interpretation of these men, without at all furnishing any guarantee for its correctness. But yet this view is not to be overlooked, as Hgstb. himself acknowledges in the remark: “Here the separation of the two periods of time was of great consequence, in order to show that the seven and the sixty-two weeks are not a mere arbitrary dividing into two of one whole period, but that to each of these two periods its own characteristic mark belongs.” With this remark, Hävernick's assertion, that the dividing of the sixty-nine שבעים into seven and sixty-two is made only on account of the solemnity of the whole passage, is set aside as altogether vain, and the question as to the ground of the division presses itself on our earnest attention.

If this division must indicate that to each of the two periods its own distinctive characteristic belongs, an unprejudiced consideration of the 113

words shows that the characteristic mark of the “seven weeks” lies in this, that this period extends from the going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem till the appearance of an Anointed one, a Prince, thus terminating with the appearance of this Prince, and that the characteristic mark for the “sixty-two weeks” consists in that which the words immediately connected therewith affirm, וגו ונבנתה and thus that the ,תשוב“sixty-two weeks” belong indeed to the following clause. But according to Hengstenberg the words ought not to be so understood, but thus: “sixty-nine weeks must pass away, seven till the completed restoration of the city, sixty-two from that time till the Anointed, the Prince.” But it is clearly impossible to find this meaning in the words of the text, and it is quite superfluous to use any further words in proof of this.

(Note: Hengstenberg, as Kliefoth has remarked, has taken as the first terminus ad quem the words “to restore and to build Jerusalem,” till the rebuilding of Jerusalem, till its completed rebuilding, till that Jerusalem is again built; and then the further words, “unto the Messiah the Prince,” as the second terminus ad quem; and, finally, he assigns the seven weeks to the first terminus ad quem, and the sixty-two weeks is the second; as if the text comprehended two clauses, and declared that from the going forth of the commandment till that Jerusalem was rebuilt are seven heptades, and from that time till a Messiah, a Prince, are sixty-two heptades.)By the remark, “If the second designation of time is attributed to that which follows, then we cannot otherwise explain it than that during sixty-two weeks the streets will be restored and built up; but this presents a very inappropriate meaning,” - by this remark the interpretation in question is neither shown to be possible, nor is it made evident. For the meaning would be inappropriate only if by the building up of Jerusalem we were to understand merely the rebuilding of the city which was laid in ruins by the Chaldeans. If we attribute the expression “and sixty-two weeks” to the first half of the verse, then the division of the sixty-nine weeks into seven weeks and sixty-two weeks is unaccountable; for in Dan_9:26 we must then read, “after sixty-nine weeks,” and not, as we find it in the text, “after sixty-two weeks.” The substitution, again [in Dan_9:26], of only this second designation of time (sixty-two weeks) is also intelligible only if the sixty-two weeks in Dan_9:25 belong to the second half of the verse, and are to be separated from the seven weeks. The bringing together of the seven and of the sixty-two week stands thus opposed to the context, and is maintained merely on the supposition that the שבעים are year-weeks, or periods of time consisting of seven years, in order that sixty-nine year-weeks, i.e., 483 years, might be gained for the time from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to Christ. But since there is in the word itself no foundation for attaching to it this meaning, we have no right to distort the language of the text according to it, but it is our duty to let this interpretation fall aside as untenable, in order that we may do justice to the words of the prophecy. The words here used demand that we connect the period “and sixty-two weeks” with the second half of the verse, “and during sixty-two weeks shall the street be built again,” etc. The “sixty-two weeks” are not united antithetically to the

114

“seven weeks” by the copula ו, as Hofmann would have it, but are connected simply as following the seven; so that that which is named as the contents of the “sixty-two weeks” is to be interpreted as happening first after the appearance of the Maschiach Nagid, or, more distinctly, that the appearance of the Messias forming the terminus ad quem of the seven weeks, forms at the same time the terminus a quo of the sixty-two weeks. That event which brings the close of the sixty-two weeks is spoken of in Dan_9:26 in the words משיח Messiah shall be cut off. The words “and ,יכרתsixty-two שבעים owt-ytx” may be taken grammatically either as the absolute nominative or as the accusative of duration. The words ונבנתה תשוב refer undoubtedly to the expression ת ולבנ להשיב (to restore and to build), according to which תשוב is not to be joined adverbially to ונבנתה (according to Hävernick, Hofmann, and Wieseler), but is to be rendered intransitively, corresponding to השיב: shall be restored, as Eze_16:55; 1Ki_13:6; 2Ki_5:10,2Ki_5:14; Exo_4:7. The subject to both verbs is not (Rosenmüller, Gesenius, v. Leng., Hgstb.) ב but Jerusalem, as is manifest from the ,רחcircumstance that the verbs refer to the restoration and the building of Jerusalem, and is placed beyond a doubt by this, that in Zec_8:5 רחוב is construed as masculine; and the opinion that it is generis faem. rests only on this passage before us. There is no substantial reason for interpreting (with Klief.) the verbs impersonally.

The words וחרוץ ב רח are difficult, and many interpretations have been given of them. There can be no doubt that they contain together one definition, and that ב רח is to be taken as the adverbial accusative. ב רחmeans the street and the wide space before the gate of the temple. Accordingly, to חרוץ have been given the meanings ditch, wall, aqueduct (Ges., Steud., Zünd., etc.), pond (Ewald), confined space (Hofmann), court (Hitzig); but all these meanings are only hit upon from the connection, as are also the renderings of the lxx εἰς πλάτος καὶ μῆκος, of Theod. πλατεῖα καὶ τεῖχος, and of the Vulg. platea et muri. חרץ means to cut, then to decide, to determine, to conclude irrevocably; hence חרוץ, decision, judgment, Joe_3:14. This meaning is maintained by Häv., Hgstb., v. Leng., Wies., and Kran., and וחרוץ is interpreted as a participle: “and it is determined.” This shall form a contrast to the words, “but in the oppression of the times” - and it is determined, namely, that Jerusalem shall be built in its streets, but the building shall be accomplished in troublous times. But although this interpretation be well founded as regards the words themselves, it does not harmonize with the connection. The words וחרוץ ב רח plainly go together, as the old translators have interpreted them. Now ב רח does not mean properly street, but a wide, free space, as Ezr_10:9, the open place before the temple, and is applied to streets only in so far as they are free, unoccupied spaces in cities. חרוץ, that which is cut off, limited, forms a contrast to this, not, however, as that we may interpret the words, as Hofm. does, in the sense of width, and space cut off, not capable of extension, or

115

free space and limited quarter (Hitzig), an interpretation which is too far removed from the primary import of the two words. It is better to interpret them, with Kliefoth, as “wide space, and yet also limited,” according to which we have the meaning, “Jerusalem shall be built so that the city takes in a wide space, has wide, free places, but not, however, unlimited in width, but such that their compass is measured off, is fixed and bounded.”The last words, העתים ק point to the circumstances under which the ,ובצ

building proceeds: in the difficulty, the oppression of the times. The book of Nehemiah, 3:33; Neh_4:1., Dan_6:1., 9:36, 37, furnishes a historical exposition of them, although the words do not refer to the building of the walls and bulwarks of the earthly Jerusalem which was accomplished by Nehemiah, but are to be understood, according to Ps. 51:20, of the spiritual building of the City of God.

CALVIN, "Daniel here repeats the divisions of time already mentioned. He had previously stated seventy weeks; but he now makes two portions, one of seven weeks, and the other of sixty-two. There is clearly another reason why he wished to divide into two parts the number used by the angel. One portion contains seven weeks, and the other sixty-two; a single week is omitted which will afterwards be mentioned. The Jews reject seven weeks from the rule of Herod to that of Vespasian. I confess this to be in accordance with the Jewish method of speech; instead of sixty-two and seven, they will say seven and sixty-two; thus putting the smaller number first. The years of man (says Moses) shall be twenty and a hundred, (Genesis 6:3) the Greeks and Latins would say, shall be a hundred and twenty years. I confess this to be the common phrase among the Hebrews; but here the Prophet is not relating the continuance of any series of years, as if he were treating of the life of a single man, but he first marks the space of seven weeks, and then cuts off another period of sixty-two weeks. The seven weeks clearly precede in order of time, otherwise we could not sufficiently explain the full meaning of the angel.We shall now treat the sense in which the going forth of the edict ought to be received. In the meantime, it cannot be denied that the angel pronounces this concerning the edict which had been promulgated about the bringing back of the people, and the restoration of the city. It would, therefore, be foolish to apply it to a period at which the city was not restored, and no such decree had either been uttered or made public. But, first of all, we must treat what the angel says, until the Christ, the Messiah Some desire to take this singular noun in a plural sense, as if it were the Christ of the Lord, meaning his priests; while some refer it to Zerubbabel, and others to Joshua. But clearly enough the angel speaks of Christ, of whom both kings and priests under the law were a type and figure. Some, again, think the dignity of Christ lessened by the use of the word נגיד, negid, “prince” or “leader,”as if in his leadership there existed neither royalty, nor scepter, nor diadem. This remark is altogether without reason; for David is called a leader of the

116

people, and Hezekiah when he wore a diadem, and was seated on his throne, is also termed a leader. (2 Samuel 5:2; 2 Kings 20:5.) Without doubt, the word here implies superior excellence. All kings were rulers over the people of God, and the priests were endowed with a certain degree of honor and authority. Here, then, the angel calls Christ, leader, as he far surpassed all others, whether kings or priests. And if the reader is not captious, this contrast will be admitted at once.He next adds, The people shall return or be brought back, and the street shall be built, and the wall, and that, too, in the narrow limit of the times. Another argument follows, — namely, after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be cut off. This the Jews understand of Agrippa, who certainly was cut off when Augustus obtained the empire. In this they seek only something to say; for all sound and sensible readers will be perfectly satisfied that they act without either judgment or shame, and vomit forth whatever comes into their thoughts. They are quite satisfied when they find anything plausible to say. That trifler, Barbinel, of whom I have previously spoken, thinks Agrippa has just as much right to be called a Christ as Cyrus; he allows his defection to the Romans, but states it to have been against his will, as he was still a worshipper of God. Although he was clearly an apostate, yet he treats him as by no means worse than all the rest, and for this reason he wishes him to be called the Christ. But, first of all, we know Agrippa not to have been a legitimate king, and his tyranny was directly contrary to the oracle of Jacob, since the scepter had been snatched away from the tribe of Judah. (Genesis 49:10.) He cannot by any means be called Christ, even though he had surpassed all angels in wisdom, and virtue, and power, and everything else. Here the lawful government of the people is treated, and this will not be found in the person of Agrippa. Hence the Jewish arguments are altogether futile. Next, another statement is added, he shall confirm the treaty with many. The Jews elude the force of this clause very dishonestly, and without the slightest shame. They twist it to Vespasian and Titus. Vespasian had been sent into Syria and the East by Nero. It is perfectly true, that though a wish to avoid a severe slaughter of his soldiers, he tried all conditions of peace, and enticed the Jews by every possible inducement to give themselves up to him, rather than to force him to the last extremity. Truly enough, then, Vespasian exhorted the Jews to peace, and Titus, after his father had passed over to Italy, followed the same policy; but was this confirming the covenant? When the angel of God is treating events of the last importance, and embracing the whole condition of the Church, their explanation is trifling who refer it to the Roman leaders wishing to enter into a treaty with the people. They attempted either to obtain possession of the whole empire of the East by covenant, or else they determined to use the utmost force to capture the city. This explanation, then, is utterly absurd. It is quite clear that the Jews are not only destitute of all reason when they explain this passage of the continual wrath of God, and exclude his favor and reconciliation with the people, but they are utterly dishonest, and utter words without shame, and throw a mist over the passage to darken it. At the same time their vanity is exposed, as they have no pretext for their comments.

117

I now come to the Ancient Writers. Jerome, as I stated shortly yesterday, recites various opinions. But before I treat them singly, I must answer in few words, the calumny of that impure and obstinate Rabbi, Barbinel. To deprive the Christians of all confidence and authority, he objects to their mutual differences; as if differences between men not sufficiently exercised in the Scriptures, could entirely overthrow their truth. Suppose, for instance, that I were to argue against him, the absence of consent among the Jews themselves. If any one is anxious to collect their different opinions, he may exult as a conqueror in this respect, as there is no agreement between the Rabbis. Nay, he does not point out the full extent of the differences which occur among Christians, for I am ready to concede far more than he demands. For that brawler was ignorant of all things, and betrays only petulance and talkativeness. His books are doubtless very plausible among the Jews who seek nothing else. But he takes as authorities with us, Africanus and Nicolaus de Lyra, Burgensis, and a certain teacher named Remond. He is ignorant of the names of Eusebius, (119) Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Apollinaris, Jerome, Augustine, and other similar writers. We here perceive how brazen this prater is, who dares to babble about matters utterly beyond his knowledge. But as I have stated, I allow many differences among Christians. Eusebius himself agrees with the Jews in referring the word “Christ” to the priests, and when the angel speaks of the death of Christ, he thinks the death of Aristobulus, who was slain, is intended here. But this is altogether foolish. He is a Christian, you will say; true, but he fell into ignorance and error. The opinion of Africanus is more to the point, but the time by no means accords with that of Darius the son of Hystaspes, as I shall afterwards show. He errs again on another chapter, by taking the years to be lunar ones, as Lyranus does. Without doubt, this was only a cavil of his; through not finding their own years suit, they thought the whole number might be made up, by using intercalary years together with the 490. For before the year was adjusted to the course of the sun, the ancients were accustomed to reckon twelve lunar months, and afterwards to add another. The whole number of years may be made up according to their imagination, if we add those additional periods to the years here enumerated by the Prophet. But I reject this altogether. Hippolytus also errs in another direction; for he reckons the seven weeks as the time which elapsed between the death and resurrection of Christ, and herein he agrees with the Jews. Apollinaris also is mistaken, for he thinks we must begin at Christ’s birth, and then extends the prophecy to the end of the world. Eusebius also, who contends with him in a certain passage, takes the last week for the whole period which must elapse till the end of the world shall arrive. I therefore am ready to acknowledge all these interpretations to be false, and yet I do not allow the truth of God to fail.How, therefore, shall we arrive at any certain conclusion? It is not sufficient to refute the ignorance of others, unless we can make the truth apparent, and prove it by clear and satisfactory reasons. I am willing to spare the names of surviving commentators, and of those who have lived during our own times, yet I must say what will prove useful to my readers; meanwhile, I shall speak cautiously, because I am very desirous of being silent upon all points except those which are useful and necessary to be known. If any one has the taste and the needful leisure to inquire

118

diligently into the time here mentioned, Oecolampadius rightly and prudently admonishes us, that we ought to make the computation from the beginning of the world. For until the ruin of the Temple and the destruction of the city, we can gather with certainty the number of years which have elapsed since the creation of the world; here there is no room for error. The series is plain enough in the Scriptures. But after this they leave the reader to other sources of information, since the computation from the overthrow of the Temple is loose and inaccurate, according to Eusebius and others. Thus, from the return of the people to the advent of Christ 540 years will be found to have elapsed. Thus we see how impossible it is to satisfy sensible readers, if we only reckon the years in the way Oecolampadius has done. (120)Philip Melancthon, who excels in genius and learning, and is happily versed in the studies of history, fakes a double computation. He begins one plan from the second year of Cyrus, that is, from the commencement of the Persian monarchy; but he reckons the seventy weeks to be finished about the death of Augustus, which is the period of the birth of Christ. When he arrives at the baptism of Christ, he adds another method of reckoning, which commences at the times of Darius: and as to the edict here mentioned, he understands it to have been promulgated by Darius the son of Hystaspes, since the building of the Temple was interrupted for about sixty-six years. As to this computation, I cannot by any means approve of it. And yet I confess the impossibility of finding any other exposition of what the angel says — until Christ the Leader, unless by referring it to the baptism of Christ.These two points, then, in my judgment, must be held as fixed; first, the seventy weeks begin with the Persian monarchy, because a free return was then granted to the people; and secondly, they did not terminate till the baptism of Christ, when he openly commenced his work of satisfying the requirements of the office assigned him by his father. But we must now see how this will accord with the number of years. I confess here, the existence of such great differences between ancient writers, that we must use conjecture, because we have no certain explanation to bring forward, which we can point out as the only sufficient one. I am aware of the various calumnies of those who desire to render all things obscure, and to pour the darkness of night upon the clearest daylight. For the profane and the skeptical catch at this directly; for when they see any difference of opinion, they wish to shew the uncertainty of all our teaching. So if they perceive any difference in the views of various interpreters, even in matters of the smallest moment, they conclude all things to be involved in complete darkness. But their perverseness ought not to frighten us, because when any discrepancies occur in the narratives of profane historians, we do not pronounce the whole history fabulous. Let us take Grecian history, — how greatly the Greeks differ from each other? If any should make this a pretext for rejecting them all, and should assert all their narrations to be false, would not every one condemn him as singularly impudent? Now, if the Scriptures are not self-contradictory, but manifest slight diversities in either years or places, shall we on that account pronounce them entirely destitute of credit? We are well aware of the existence of some differences in all histories, and yet this does not cause

119

them to lose their authority; they are still quoted, and confidence is reposed in them.With respect to the present passage, I confess myself unable to deny the existence of much controversy concerning these years, among all the Greek and Latin writers. This is true: but, meanwhile, shall we bury whatever has already past, and think the world interrupted in its course? After Cyrus had transferred to the Persians the power of the East, some kings must clearly have followed him, although it is not evident who they were, and writers also differ about. the period and the reigns of each of them, and yet on the main points there is a general agreement. For some enumerate about 200 years; others 125 years; and some are between the two, reckoning 140 years. Whichever be the correct statement, there was clearly some succession of the Persian kings, and many additional years elapsed before Alexander the Macedonian obtained the monarchy of the whole East. This is quite clear. Now, from the death of Alexander the number of years is well known. Philip Melancthon cites a passage from Ptolemy which makes them 292; and many testimonies may be adduced, which confirm that period of time. If any object, the number of years might be reckoned by periods of five years, as the Romans usually did, or by Olympiads, with the Greeks, I confess that the reckoning by Olympiads removes all source of error. The Greeks used great diligence and minuteness, and were very desirous of glory. We cannot say the same of the Persian empire, for we are unable accurately to determine under what Olympiad each king lived, and the year in which he commenced his reign and in which he died. Whatever conclusion we adopt, my previous assertion is perfectly true, — if captious men are rebellious and darken the clear light of history, yet, they cannot wrest this passage from its real meaning, because we can gather from both the Greek and Latin historians, the whole sum of the times which will suit very clearly this prophecy of Daniel. Whoever will compare all historical testimony with the desire of learning, and, without any contention, will carefully number the years, he will find it impossible to express them better than by the expression of the angel — seventy weeks. For example, let any studious person, endued with acuteness, experience, and skill, discover whatever has been written in Greek and Latin, and distinguish the testimony of each writer under distinct heads, and afterwards compare the writers together, and determine the credibility of each, and how far each is a fit and classical authority, he will find the same result as that here given by the Prophet. This ought to be sufficient for us. But, meanwhile, we must remember how our ignorance springs chiefly from this Persian custom; whoever undertook a warlike expedition, appointed his son his viceroy. Thus, Cambyses reigned, according to some, twenty years, and according to others, only seven; because the crown was placed on his head during his father’s lifetime. Besides this, there was another reason. The people of the East are notoriously very restless, easily excited, and always desiring a change of rulers. Hence, contentions frequently arose among near relatives, of which we have ample narratives in the works of Herodotus. I mention him among others, as the fact is sufficiently known. When fathers saw the danger of their sons mutually destroying each other, they usually created one of them a king; and if they wished to prefer the younger brother to the elder, they called him “king” with the concurrence of their council. Hence, the years of their reigns became intermingled, without any

120

fixed method of reckoning them. And, therefore, I said, even if Olympiads could never mislead us, this could not be asserted of the Persian empire. While we allow much diversity and contradiction united with great obscurity, still we must always return to the same point, — some conclusion may be found, which will agree with this prediction of the Prophet. Therefore I will not reckon these years one by one, but will only admonish each of you to weigh for himself, according to his capacity, what he reads in history. Thus all sound and moderate men will acquiesce, when they perceive how well this prophecy of Daniel agrees with the testimony of profane writers, in its general scope, according to my previous explanations.I stated that we must begin with the monarchy of Cyrus; this is clearly to be gathered from the words of the angel, and especially from the division of the weeks. For he says, The seven weeks have reference to the repair of the city and temple No cavils can in any way deprive the Prophet’s expression of its true force: from the going forth of the edict concerning the bringing back of the people and the building of the city, until Messiah the Leader, shall be seven weeks; and then, sixty-two weeks: afterward he adds, After the sixty-two weeks Christ shall be cut off When, therefore, he puts seven weeks in the first place, and clearly expresses his reckoning the commencement of this period from the promulgation of the edict, to what can we refer these seven weeks, except to the times of the monarchy of Cyrus and that of Darius the son of Hystaspes? This is evident from the history of the Maccabees, as well as from the testimony of the evangelist John; and we may collect the same conclusion from the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, as the building of the Temple was interrupted during forty-six years. Cyrus permitted the people to build the Temple; the foundations were laid when Cyrus went out to the war in Scythia; the Jews were then compelled to cease their labors, and his successor Cambyses was hostile to this people. Hence the Jews say, (John 2:20,) Forty-six years was this Temple in building, and wilt thou build it in three days? They strive to deride Christ because he had said, Destroy this Temple, and I will rebuild it in future days, as it was then a common expression, and had been handed down by their fathers, that the Temple had occupied this period in its construction. If you add the three years during which the foundations were laid, we shall then have forty-nine years, or seven weeks. As the event openly shews the completion of what the angel had predicted to Daniel, whoever wishes to wrest the meaning of the passage, only displays his own hardihood. And must we not reject every other interpretation, as obscuring so clear and obvious a meaning? We must next remember what I have previously stated. In yesterday’s Lecture we saw that seventy weeks were cut off for the people; the angel had also declared the going forth of the edict, for which Daniel had prayed. What necessity, then, is there for treating a certainty as doubtful? and why litigate the point when God pronounces the commencement of this period to be at the termination of the seventy years proclaimed by Jeremiah? It is quite certain, that these seventy years and seventy weeks ought to be joined together. Since, therefore, these periods are continuous, whoever refers this passage to the time of Darius Hystaspes, first of all breaks the links of a chain of events all connected together, and then perverts the whole spirit of the passage; for, as we yesterday stated, the angel’s object was to offer consolation in the midst of sorrow. For seventy

121

years the people had been miserably afflicted in exile, and they seemed utterly abandoned, as if God would no longer acknowledge these children of Abraham for his people and inheritance. As this was the Almighty’s intention, it is quite clear that the commencement of the seventy weeks cannot be otherwise interpreted than by referring it to the monarchy of Cyrus. This is the first point.We must now turn to the sixty-two weeks; and if I cannot satisfy every one, I shall still content myself with great simplicity, and I trust that all sound and humble disciples of Christ will easily acquiesce in this exposition. If we reckon the years from the reign of Darius to the baptism of Christ, sixty-two weeks or thereabouts will be found to have elapsed. As I previously remarked, I am not scrupulous to a few days or months, or even a single year; for how great is that perverseness which would lead us to reject what historians relate because they do not all agree to a single year? Whatever be the correct conclusion, we shall find about 480 years between the time of Darius and the death of Christ. Hence it becomes necessary to prolong these years to the baptism of Christ, because when the angel speaks of the last week, he plainly states, The covenant shall be confirmed at that time, and then the Messiah shall be cut off As this was to be done in the last week, we must necessarily extend the time to the preaching of the Gospel. And for this reason Christ is called a “Leader,” because at his conception he was destined to be king of heaven and earth, although he did not commence his reign till he was publicly ordained the Master and Redeemer of his people. The word “Leader” is applied as a name before the office was assumed; as if the angel had said, the end of the seventy weeks will occur when Christ openly assumes the office of king over his people, by collecting them from that miserable and horrible dispersion under which they had been so long ground down. I shall put off the rest till to-morrow.

COKE, "Daniel 9:25. Unto the Messiah the Prince, &c.— That is, until the awful period when the business of his life was finished, until his hour was come, when he was to glorify his Father, or when he was to be cut off by a voluntary suffering for the sins of mankind; and thereby triumph as a prince, over death, and over all his and our enemies. All the circumstances of his life are omitted, or rather comprehended in this final one, when all things that were written of him were accomplished.What has been hitherto offered, I trust, may be deemed a sufficient explanation of the true and proper sense of the astonishing prophesy contained in the four last verses. Yet, lest the sense here given should be mistaken, or not duly attended to in this detached form, I will beg leave to recapitulate it, or to state the sense of the angelic message with all due deference in the following summary; but previously reminding the reader, that the original word rendered weeks throughout the prophesy strictly signifies sevens, and may be referred either to days or years.Seventy weeks of precision, or precise weeks, remain upon thy people and upon thy

122

holy city Jerusalem, to restrain their rebellion or apostacy from God, and to put an end to sins and expiate iniquity, or to bring to a conclusion their sufferings and the punishment which occasioned them, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision of the prophet Jeremiah, and to restore the religious rites and holy things to their proper uses. This first deliverance from the captivity shall be accomplished within seventy weeks of days; but this term shall be typical, or a prelude to another more glorious deliverance, which from its commencement to its full and final period shall be comprehended in the same number of sevens or weeks, yet not of days, but of times or years. And this longer period shall be distributed into three portions, of seven weeks, and then of sixty-two weeks, and lastly of one week, each of which will be distinguished by extraordinary events, as the prophesy now proceeds to shew.For know and understand,—this interesting business induces me thus solemnly to recal your attention,—that from the passing of an edict to rebuild your city Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by fire, until Messiah the Prince, or from the 20th of Artaxerxes, when this edict will be delivered to Nehemiah, till that important hour, when the Messiah shall be offered up, and thereby triumph as a prince over death and hell and all his enemies, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks, or sixty-nine weeks of years: and the term is thus divided, because the former part shall be distinguished by the building of the city, which shall be fully completed with its streets and walls in that narrower limit of the times.Then after the threescore and two weeks, or at the passover next following their termination, shall Messiah be cut off by an ignominious death, and a total desertion. Yet though none shall be for him (so the words may be translated), or he shall be altogether forsaken at that time, his princely authority will still be manifested: for the people of the prince that shall come, or the Roman army in the service of the Messiah, when his business upon earth is completed, and the Gospel fully published, shall destroy both the Jewish city and sanctuary; and they shall come up against it like an inundation, and shall cut down with a general ruin, and to the end of a war decisive of the nation of the Jews there shall be desolations.Yet the one week of years that remains to complete the number typified in the former deliverance, this space of seven years shall make firm a covenant of security and protection to many, when those who are in Judaea will escape to the mountains; and in the midst of the week the sacrifice and meat-offering, or the whole ritual of the Jewish worship, shall cease: and when upon the borders of the temple, represented by an expanded wing, shall be the abomination of desolation, either the dead bodies of the slain, or the idolatrous ensigns, together with the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem, then the desolations shall presently follow, and shall continue till a full accomplishment of the decided fate of this devoted people shall be poured upon the desolate, or until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.REFLECTIONS.—1st, The date of this prophesy is in the first year of Darius, when the seventy years of the Jewish captivity ended, reckoning from the third of

123

Jehoiakim.1. Daniel had been diligently searching the Scriptures, and out of the book of Jeremiah understood that the time was at hand for the accomplishment of God's promises in the restoration of his people. Note; They who diligently search the Scriptures will find there what will amply compensate their pains.2. He became an earnest intercessor for the accomplishment of the promised mercy. In fasting and sackcloth he deeply humbled himself, under a sense of the sins which had provoked God's displeasure, and as a mourner over the desolations of Zion; and with faith and importunity set his face to the Lord, to seek by prayer and supplications the hastening of their deliverance in his good time. Note; (1.) What God promises should be the matter of our prayers. (2.) They who have the interests of God's church at heart, cannot but be deeply affected with its desolations, and earnest supplicants that God would revive his work in the midst of the years.2nd, We have Daniel's effectual fervent prayer.1. He opens with a most reverential address to the great and dreadful God; terrible to the sinner, and a consuming fire, yet full of mercy towards those who love and serve him, and faithful to all his promises.2. He makes his humble confession of sin, the cause of all their sufferings. They had provoked God by every possible aggravation of their iniquities; they had rebelled against him, rejected his government, broken all his precepts, positive and moral; and from the king upon the throne to the meanest of the people, notwithstanding their peculiar obligations, all had joined in the revolt, and were alike deaf to the admonitions of God's prophets, the corrections of his providences, and the threatenings of his word: and this is repeatedly acknowledged, as the burden which lay on the prophet's heart, as it ever will on all true penitents, when they begin in simplicity and godly sincerity to return to God.3. He justifies God in the punishments inflicted upon them. God was righteous, and they could not in the least except to his dispensations: heavy as his hand was upon them in all the countries of their dispersion, it was less than their iniquities deserved; and with confusion of face they must bow into the dust, and kiss the rod that smote them; all, from the king to the beggar, must join in the acknowledgment of God's justice, and take deepest shame to themselves for their provocations; for they had the fairest notice of the consequences of their iniquities; nor could God, consistent with the honour of his government, overlook such flagrant offences: the curse under which they groaned had been foretold by Moses, and God's faithfulness was glorified in the infliction of it upon them. Their sufferings were singular as their crime, enough it might be thought to have long since bowed the most obdurate heart; but they had continued incorrigibly impenitent, never thought of returning to God; nay, they did not, as a nation in general, so much as direct their prayers to him to sanctify their afflictions, or to remove his terrible indignation from them. No

124

marvel therefore that he still watched over them for evil. Note; (1.) In all our sufferings, however severe, we must own that God is righteous, and take to ourselves deserved shame. (2.) If sinners continue incorrigible, God's wrath will abide upon them. (3.) In our anguish our first recourse should be to God in prayer.4. Though the iniquities of the people were so incontestably evident and aggravated, the prophet still had recourse to the divine mercy; it was God's distinguished glory, that to him belonged mercies and forgivenesses, his patience infinite, his compassions boundless: and this is the only hope of the miserable sinner; for else he must for ever despair. Wondrous had been the instances of the divine interposition in time past: the fame of his delivering his people from Egypt, was to that day heard to his glory: what he had done before, therefore, the prophet hopes he will do again; and by delivering them now from Babylon, exalt yet more abundantly his own great name, and once more magnify his power and grace towards them, Jeremiah 16:14; Jeremiah 16:21. As if to excite the divine commiseration, he spreads their present wretchedness before him; they were become the contempt of the heathen, and a reproach to the neighbouring nations; their holy city of Jerusalem laid in ruins; and that once glorious sanctuary, their boast and honour, was now desolate and profaned. Note; (1.) They who have made themselves wicked, may expect that God will make them vile. (2.) Nothing afflicts the gracious heart so much as the desolations of the sanctuary, and the triumphs of the wicked over it.5. He concludes with importunate supplications, urged with the greatest vehemence and most engaging pleas. He founds all his hopes upon the relation that God yet stood in towards all the penitent among them, O our God; and therefore is emboldened to ask, [1.] The forgiveness of their sins, the cause of their calamities: and this is the sinner's first concern, the pardon of his guilt being more desirable than the removal of all his afflictions. [2.] He begs that he would turn away his wrath from Jerusalem, under the dire tokens of which the city at present lay, and cause his face to shine upon the desolate sanctuary; restoring it from its ruins, setting up again his worship there, and favouring them once more with a sense of his gracious presence in the midst of them. [3.] He entreats that the Lord would not defer their deliverance and recovery. They seemed at the last gasp, and the time of the promise was now come; so that he could with faith plead for a present and immediate answer of peace; and he urges these his requests,(1.) With an absolute renunciation of any trust and dependence on themselves, as deserving the least notice or regard; and this every humbled sinner who approaches God unfeignedly does.(2.) With an entire dependence on God, drawing their pleas for mercy from the consideration of his own glory. It must be for his own sake, not theirs, to magnify the riches of his grace; for the Lord's sake, the Lord Jesus, the sinner's atonement and glorious advocate, in and through whom alone any covenant mercies can be bestowed. His righteousness would be herein displayed, when he should execrate vengeance on their cruel enemies, and prove his faithfulness to his promises; and his

125

mercy would in the most eminent manner be evinced, when thus exercised toward objects so utterly unworthy, and withal so exceedingly miserable. And finally, the sanctuary was his own, and the city and people called by his name: he had an interest therefore in their recovery and restoration; and they had, by virtue of their relation to him, a peculiar claim upon him, to help them, even for his own glory; the most effectual plea that we can make in any of our prayers.3rdly, Very memorable is the answer here given to the prophet's prayer, and it contains one of the most remarkable prophesies of the Messiah that is to be found in the book of God. We have,1. The time when this answer was given him, while he was speaking and praying; confessing his own sins and those of his people, and making supplication before God for pardon, and the restoration of God's sanctuary. The hour that he had chosen for these devotions was that of the evening oblation, when the lamb was offered; which prefigured him who should appear in the end of the world to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and for whose sake this revelation was now made to the prophet. Note; (1.) God is pleased sometimes to return immediate and sensible answers to the prayers of his believing people. (2.) Daniel, though so distinguished a saint, does not approach God but with the humiliation of a sinner; the best of men in their approaches to God must have no plea but their own infinite unworthiness and the infinite merit of the Lord Jesus Christ.2. The messenger is an angel, Gabriel the mighty One of God, appearing in a human form, whom the same Daniel had seen before, chap. Daniel 8:16. He came with haste to deliver the message on which he was sent from on high; and touched him, to engage his attention, and to give him an intimation to desist from prayer, and hearken to what he was about to deliver; talking familiarly with him, as a man with his friend. He informs Daniel, that the moment he began to pray to God, the commandment came forth; either from the Lord, dispatching him on his errand; or at that very time the proclamation for the release of the Jews was signed by Cyrus. He lets him know how highly he was regarded of God; Thou art greatly beloved, or art desired; exceedingly amiable in the eyes of God and all his saints: and as the Lord intended to reveal to him his secrets, he must attend to, and consider the following vision. Note; (1.) Angels, though great in power and might, are but the servants of God's pleasure; and they are also ministers to the heirs of salvation. (2.) God's saints are greatly beloved by him, and he makes them know it by the visits of his grace; not to raise in them a conceit of themselves, but to humble them under a sense of their own unworthiness, and to engage a large return of love and gratitude. (3.) They who would understand the things of God, must consider them attentively and seriously.3. The message which he brought: seventy weeks of years, containing 490 years, are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city; so long God makes known to his prophet that their polity should last, or the most remarkable events concerning them should fall within that space of time; to finish the transgression, and to make

126

an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophesy, and to anoint the most Holy. These are the grand matters which shall be transacted within that period by the Messiah, the hope of Israel: he came to finish transgression, by taking upon himself the sin of the world, and thereby completely satisfying the justice of God in behalf of every faithful soul; that so he might be reconciled to them consistently with all his attributes—that he might be just, and yet a justifier of them that believe in Jesus: and to bring in everlasting righteousness, or the righteousness of ages; that righteous obedience of Christ to the death of the cross, which constitutes him our everlasting High-Priest, and by virtue of which alone our persons and our works are accepted of God; and also that internal righteousness—that image of God, which alone can qualify us for the eternal enjoyment of him the sovereign good: and to seal up the vision and prophesy, which should receive their full accomplishment in Christ Jesus; and to anoint the most Holy, the Messiah; most holy both in his divine and human nature; and appointed to, and qualified for the office of Mediator by that oil of gladness, the gift of the Spirit, which the Father without measure imparted to him: though this may also be applied to the people of God, who have an unction from the Holy One, and are sanctified by his Spirit, which in the days of the Messiah should be poured out in the most abundant manner. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: this is the period fixed, whence the seventy weeks are to be dated; which commenced, as is generally supposed, when Nehemiah received the edict of Artaxerxes, in the twentieth year of his reign, Nehemiah 2:1-8 wherein express mention is made of rebuilding Jerusalem; and this will make the expiration of the sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, fall just at the year thirty-three, being generally supposed the year of Christ's death. The dividing of the weeks into different periods of seven, threescore and two, and one, seems to have respect to the different events, peculiar to these several spaces of times. The first seven weeks, or forty-nine years, include the troublous times when the city was rebuilding; during which Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem so opposed the work. And the like opposition may they expect who zealously stand up in every age to build the walls of Christ's church; but against them, if faithful, no enemy shall finally prevail. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off; at the expiration of 483 years; but not for himself, but for the sins of the world, and especially of them that believe, which were laid upon him: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, as the Roman emperor did with his armies; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, so irresistibly should they sweep the land; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined; from the beginning of the war to the end, God had in righteous judgment given the Jewish people up to be consumed. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: which, as some suppose, refers to Messiah the Prince, confirming the covenant of grace, and by his own oblation of himself putting a period to the ceremonial services; but rather respects the prince of the Romans, who should come, having for that purpose made peace with other nations, as he did, in order to be more disengaged to wreak his vengeance on the Jews: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to

127

cease; through the straitness of the siege, the famine which prevailed, and the tumults which were in the city, before it was taken they had ceased to offer the daily sacrifice; for the overspreading of abominations, for the wickedness of the Jewish people, who had filled up the measure of their iniquities, he shall make it desolate; God giving the land into the hand of the Romans: some read the words, upon the wing, or battlement, shall be the idols of the desolator; the Roman ensigns, with their idols thereon pourtrayed, should be fixed on the walls, or in the sanctuary; even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate; either these armies with their abominations should besiege the city, till the determined consumption should be made, and the land utterly desolate; or these desolations should remain till the time prefixed, when the fulness of the Gentiles should come in, Luke 21:24. Some render the words, upon the desolator; meaning the Romans, who should themselves be at last cut off, and then the desolations of Zion should cease.This last week, according to the interpretation given, is separated from the rest; and the events contained in it, through the forbearance of God, deferred for a time, till about thirty years after the expiration of the sixty-nine weeks. On the whole, we have here an irrefragable argument against the Jews, who reject the true Messiah; it being evident, according to these prophesies, that he must have appeared many hundred years ago; and all the things predicted of him exactly corresponding with our adored Lord's appearing in the flesh, we are assured that this is he that should come, nor look for another.

ELLICOTT, " (25) Know therefore.—The difficulty of this verse is considerably increased by the principal accent in the Hebrew text being placed after the words “seven weeks.” According to the present punctuation, the translation is “Unto an Anointed one a prince shall be seven weeks, and during sixty and two weeks [Jerusalem] shall be built up” . . . This is opposed (1) to ancient translations except the LXX.; (2) to Daniel 9:26, which connects the sixty-two weeks with the Anointed, and not with the building of the city.The commandment.—To be explained, as in Daniel 9:23, to mean revelation. But to what revelation is the allusion? Is it to the edict of Cyrus (Ezra 6:14), which Isaiah predicts (Isaiah 44:28)? Or are we to explain it of what happened in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes? (See Excursus G.) It is obvious that there is no reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy, for nothing is there stated which can be interpreted to be a command to rebuild Jerusalem.Messiah the Prince.—Literally, an Anointed one, a prince, the two nouns being placed in apposition, and the article omitted before each, the person and the office of the person contemplated being sufficiently definite. He is to be “anointed,” that is, King and Priest at once (see 1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 13:14; 1 Samuel 25:30); in fact, He is to possess those attributes which in other passages are ascribed to the

128

Messiah. It is needless to point out that Cyrus, though spoken of (Isaiah 45:1) as an “anointed of Jehovah,” cannot be indicated here. By no calculation can he be said to have come either seven weeks or, sixty-nine weeks from the time of the commencement of the Captivity.The street . . . the wall.—By the street is meant the large square, which, according to Ezra 10:9, was in front of the Temple. With this the “wall” is contrasted, but what is meant cannot be ascertained. According to the etymology, it means “something cut off.” The English Version follows the ancient translations.In troublous times.—The whole history of the rebuilding of Jerusalem tells us one long tale of protracted opposition. Zerubbabel was compelled to undergo the persecution of his adversaries, and to bear their misrepresentations (Ezra 4:1-6). Attempts to delay the works were made in the reign of Darius (Ezra 5:6). In later times (Ezra 4:12) complaints were made that the walls were being rebuilt. Probably on this occasion the works that had been executed were destroyed (Nehemiah 1:3), and it was not until the twentieth year of Artaxerxes that Nehemiah succeeded in completing the walls, and not even then without the most indefatigable labours.

TRAPP, "Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.Ver. 25. Know, therefore, and understand.] See on Daniel 9:24. Here the angel brancheth the whole seventy sevens into three heads, or into three distinct periods of time.Shall be seven weeks.] Which make forty-nine years. These the angel purposely speaketh of apart, because they chiefly concerned the reparation of the city made under the Persian monarchy. Within this first seven weeks, or forty-nine years, the street of Jerusalem was rebuilt, and the wall with trench, though the times proved troublous, and full of straits.And threescore and two weeks.] Which make four hundred thirty-four years, the events of which are mentioned [Daniel 9:26] as those of the seven years following, [Daniel 9:27] out of which it might easily be supplied, and is therefore here omitted by the angel.

129

POOLE, " Know therefore and understand, i.e. by deep consideration, upon a due search of reason, and comparing of things, and minding what the angel saith.Seven weeks from the publication of the edict, whether of Cyrus or Darius, to restore and to build, we shall see anon.Even in troublous times; noting the enemy should create them much trouble in the building and reparations of the wall, city, and temple, which they did many ways, as we read in Nehemiah, which the Spirit of God doth premonish them of, lest they should think this their chief deliverance and redemption. These seven weeks are therefore mentioned by themselves, and repeated no more, because they contained the time of building the wall, city, and temple of Jerusalem, at the end of which seem to begin the sixty-two weeks.

BENSON, "Daniel 9:25. Know therefore and understand — Learn therefore and retain; from the going forth of the commandment — From the publication of the edict by the Persian king; to restore and to build Jerusalem — Or, to build again Jerusalem: so the verb שוב is translated in the latter part of the verse. Daniel had besought God to behold their desolations, and the ruins of the city which was called by his name, Daniel 9:18. In answer to this his supplication, the angel acquaints him, that an order should be issued from the Persian king to rebuild both the city and its wall. Now when, after this, the commandment did actually go forth, the faith of God’s people would be greatly confirmed, respecting the accomplishment of this wonderful prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, the prescience of the end being confirmed by that of all the intermediate events.Four edicts of the kings of Persia, in favour of the Jews, mentioned in Scripture, are, 1st, That of Cyrus, Ezra 1:1. 2d, That of Darius Hystaspes, Ezra 4:6; Haggai 1:1; Haggai 2:3 d, That of Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the seventh year of his reign, Ezra 7.; Ezra 8:4 th, That in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah 2:1. The first of these edicts cannot be applied to this prophecy, inasmuch as from the first of Cyrus, before Christ 536, to the death of Christ, A.D. 34, are 570 years. It was, however, the basis of liberty to the Jews, for all the indulgences granted them afterward, by the following kings of Persia, were founded on the precedent of this

130

great monarch. So that he might well be considered as fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah: He shall build my city, he shall let go my captives, Isaiah 45:13. In consequence of this decree 50,000 Jews returned under Zerubbabel, and partly dispersed themselves in their several tribes, and partly settled at Jerusalem, and began to build both the city and temple. But this was in a very rude and tumultuous manner, and they met with so many hinderances from the Samaritans and others, that the decree was not carried into effect. This therefore is not the period we are to reckon from. The second, namely, that of Darius Hystaspes, was made about fourteen years after, preceding the death of Christ 550 years. But neither was this efficacious. Besides, it related to the temple only, as appears from the letter of the Samaritan colony to Cambyses, Ezra 16-4:11 ; neither therefore is this the period. The third decree, which was that of Artaxerxes Longimanus, recorded at large Ezra

26-7:12 , “was of great solemnity and efficacy, importing no less than the restoration of the Jewish constitution, both civil and ecclesiastical, providing in the first place for the re-establishment of divine worship with becoming order and magnificence, exempting the priesthood from all taxes; then, for the civil government of the people, the institution of tribunals, and the administration of justice, according to the law of Moses. This decree answers to all the characters of the prophecy, the restoring of the constitution, the rebuilding of the city, and the chronological periods distinctly specified, ” and is, no doubt, here chiefly intended.“It is not unpleasing to conjecture the cause that moved the Persian monarch thus to emulate and transcend the magnanimity of Cyrus. Josephus with great probability, supposes the famous Esther to have been the queen of Artaxerxes. By her influence both the edicts of the seventh and twentieth of his reign were obtained: which is almost demonstrable from Nehemiah ’s prayer, Nehemiah 1:5-11; and relation, Nehemiah 11-2:1 . Thus the providence of God raised a Jewish heroine to the throne of Persia, first to preserve his people from massacre and extermination, and afterward to facilitate and complete their resettlement. Under these auspices, Ezra, like another Moses, became a second founder of the Jewish state: and his return with the captives to restore Jerusalem is the glorious epoch, from which the seventy weeks begin. God was pleased to reward the heroic virtue of Esther with a long and uninterrupted prosperity, being in full favour with the king from the seventh to the twentieth year of his reign, and perhaps earlier and later: and she had the felicity, than which none on earth can be greater, of having restored her nation to the full possession of their religion, laws, and liberties.”“The fourth and last edict was that which the same Artaxerxes granted to

131

Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of his reign, to repair and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Between the two edicts of the seventh and the twentieth, the rebuilding had met with so much opposition and hostility, that Nehemiah had much of the fortifications to begin again: the temple, which is the essential part of the completion, being finished, in consequence of the former edict. It is easy to solve the seeming difficulty respecting the thirteen years between the two edicts; for the archangel commences the seventy weeks, not from the actual rebuilding the walls and streets, but from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild them. So that the date of the first edict, not the work itself, is the epoch from whence begins the period of four hundred and ninety years. The work itself, though interrupted and resumed, properly began with the permission to execute it. Ezra began the foundation of the temple; Nehemiah completed the walls on the old foundations, and celebrated the encזnia, keeping the dedication with gladness and with thanksgivings, Nehemiah 12:27. Thus, of the four edicts, the first two are excluded because they were not efficacious, and prolong the term to near six hundred years: and the fourth was only a confirmation of the third. No other commencement of the four hundred and ninety years agrees with the event, than that of the seventh of Artaxerxes: and this system is perspicuous, and free from all difficulties.” — Apthorp.In order to manifest the perspicuity of this exposition, and give it the greater evidence, it may be well to examine the distinct characters of each of the three intervals into which the seventy weeks are divided; namely, seven weeks, threescore and two weeks, and one week. The reason of this distribution into three intervals, flowing in uninterrupted succession, is not so obscure as to elude discovery. The first and third of these intervals are marked by great events; the restoration of the Jewish polity, the expiation of Christ’s passion, and his covenant with the Jews and Gentiles. The long interval which connects the two extremes, necessarily contains sixty-two weeks. “In our English version, the sense of the twenty-fifth verse is somewhat obscured by the punctuation. It is easily rectified thus: From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks — The angel then specifies the great events of each of these intervals. In the first, of seven weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And thus it was; the city and the walls were rebuilt in forty-nine years, not without much opposition and various impediments. Nothing can be more exact than this period of the completion, both for the interval of forty-nine years, ending with the sixteenth of Darius; and for the troublous times in which the Jewish patriots restored and rebuilt their city.” —

132

Dr. Apthorp. It must be observed here, 1st, That the restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem, here spoken of, though it may chiefly respect the laws and constitution, is not so merely figurative as to exclude the literal sense: for though the city itself was in some degree rebuilt before this period, yet it was done so imperfectly, by reason of their poverty, and the opposition and envy of their neighbours, that the work was to be resumed in the seventh of Longimanus, whose long reign, and his favour to the nation of his queen, providentially effected its complete restoration. 2d, The troublous times mentioned, refer both to the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks. “The peculiarity in the application of these times to the seven weeks, consists in the almost continual obstructions which the restored Jews met with, chiefly from the Samaritans, and also from their idolatrous neighbours the Moabites, Ammonites, and others, in the difficult work of rebuilding the temple and walls of the new city; insomuch that the artificers were obliged to carry on their work with arms in their hands to repulse their assailants. But the troublous times here predicted have also an aspect on the long period of sixty-two weeks, in which the Jewish history abundantly verified this sad circumstance. Not to mention their general calamities and subjection to their potent neighbours of Syria and Egypt, their city was taken and their temple profaned by Ptolemy I., by Antiochus, by Crassus, by Pompey, by Herod: and their state was often so critical, that a particular providence was manifested in their preservation, especially in raising them up those illustrious patriots, who so nobly resisted the tyranny and persecution of Antiochus. Few periods of history are more savage and inglorious, more profligate and flagitious, than that of the successors of Alexander: and the Jewish government is not to be calumniated for their portion in the general calamities of those ages; while they are deserving of the highest admiration for their constancy, in being the only people on earth who adhered to the exclusive worship of the ONLY GOD.” — Apthorp.

WHEDON, " 25. The commandment — Literally, the word. When was this command, to restore (or, “re-people”) and to rebuild Jerusalem, given? That cannot be settled positively. (See remarks on “The Seventy Weeks” in our Introduction, II, 10.) Probably most modern scholars believe that this is the “word of the Lord” recorded by the prophet Jeremiah — of which Daniel was thinking at this very time (Daniel 9:2) — which “word” came to him in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (606 B.C.) and later (593 B.C.; 586 B.C.), and included inferentially at first, and afterward by explicit statement, the promise of restoration at the end of the seventieth year, the punishment of enemies, and the repopulation and rebuilding of the capital city (Jeremiah 25:1-2; Jeremiah 25:12; Jeremiah 29:1; Jeremiah 29:14; Jeremiah 30:3; Jeremiah 30:9; Jeremiah 30:18; Jeremiah 31:38, etc.). This is the most natural reference — since it was concerning this “word” that Daniel had just been praying — unless we refer it to the edict of Cyrus which gave historical expression to the divine edict which Daniel had been so earnestly considering. This would be equally “natural,” hut does not furnish as satisfactory a terminus at the end of the first seven weeks, when according to the prophecy “an anointed one, a prince” should appear. The older interpretation generally dates it from the

133

twentieth year of Artaxerxes (but see next verse).Unto the Messiah the Prince — Later scholars usually read, with the R.V., “Unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks.” According to this version the passage cannot refer primarily to Christ, for the “anointed one” is to come after seven weeks. Who is this anointed one? The reference attaches itself naturally to Cyrus, who had recently been called by this very title by Isaiah (Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:1) and who historically did appear as king of Anzan, 544 B.C., and as conqueror of Babylon, 537 B.C., just about seven weeks (forty-nine years) after these later and more explicit prophecies of the rebuilding of the city had been given (593 B.C.; 586 B.C.); although it may possibly refer to Jeshua, son of Jozadak (Ezra 3:2), who was the Jewish high priest at the time of the Return, (compare Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 3:1), the high priest being sometimes called in Scripture the “anointed” (Leviticus 4:3; Leviticus 4:5; Leviticus 4:16; Leviticus 6:20). Most of the older expositors prefer the hypothesis that the command of Daniel 9:23 is the decree of Artaxerxes given either to Ezra (about 458 B.C.) or to Nehemiah (about 445 B.C.), in which case the “anointed one” must be considered as the Lord Christ (compare Isaiah 61:1), and the punctuation of the verse retained as in the A.V. and margin of the R.V., where the seven weeks are united with the sixty-two. It seems more natural, however, to identify this mysterious “word” with the divine word of which the prophet was then thinking, as all acknowledge (see Daniel 9:2), rather than with a later decree made long after the exilic Daniel must have gone to his grave.Threescore and two weeks — The R.V. reads, “unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks: and threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.” This period of sixty-two weeks is passed by almost without remark, because the chief interest centers in the last week. Since the common symbolism of number required that the full period of sevenfold (or perfected) affliction should be seventy (7 x 10) weeks, and since seven weeks had been taken from the whole number at the beginning of the calculation and another week at the end, that necessarily left sixty-two weeks in the middle. According to the newer interpretation it is not probable that in the mind of the writer this represented any exact number of years, but in a general way was meant to cover the long period lying between the return of the Jews after the longed-for decree had been proclaimed by Cyrus, the “anointed prince” (537 B.C.) and the assassination of Onias III, the high priest, 171 B.C. (See next verse.) It was not, perhaps, intended to be chronologically exact, but was an indeterminate quantity connecting the two definite and well-known periods covered by the first seven and the final week of years. Certainly this final week, as is acknowledged by all, was the period upon which the emphasis was chiefly placed. During these sixty-two weeks Jerusalem should suffer trouble, but should at last be built up again “with street and moat” (R.V.), or perhaps rather, “with court and street.” The troubles experienced by the Jews in rebuilding may be seen from the fact that some ninety years after the Return, Nehemiah could speak of the vast open spaces in the city where no one yet lived and in which dwellings “are not builded” (Nehemiah 7:4; compare Nehemiah 1:3; Nehemiah 2:3; Nehemiah 6:1; Nehemiah 9:37). Perhaps, however, the phrase

134

and in troublous times should be connected with the statement following.

PETT, "Verse 25“Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem to the anointed one, the prince (nagid), will be seven sevens, and sixty two sevens. It will be built again with street and moat, even in troubled times.”The command (literally ‘word’) to restore and build Jerusalem almost certainly refers to God’s command for it to happen spoken of in Daniel 9:23, for the same phraseology is used by the angel to Daniel there. In Daniel 9:23 the ‘word (of the Lord) went forth’ in response to Daniel’s prayer for the restoration of the land, the city and the Temple. That would appear to indicate that the word that goes forth here is the same word. In terms of Daniel 9:23 that dates the commencement of the seventy sevens as being the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede, which is 539/8 BC. The fulfilment of that word on earth proceeded in stages. It commenced with the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC (Ezra 1:2-4) which, although it was specifically about rebuilding the temple, necessarily involved other building work in the city with the purpose of housing those who would have direct responsibility for the Temple. That is possibly why in Isaiah 44:28 Cyrus is seen as declaring of Jerusalem ‘she shall be built’ and of the Temple ‘your foundation will be laid’. A further edict was decreed in the time of Nehemiah in 445 BC (Nehemiah 2:8), and there the city was to be fortified with walls and made a governing city of the area. Furthermore the words in Ezra 4:12-16 also indicate that an attempt had previously been made to continue the work of building Jerusalem, an attempt stymied by the activities of enemies of Jerusalem. Some work had already proceeded, certainly sufficient to arouse the ire of the complainants, and the consequence of their complaint was that the work was immediately suspended (Ezra 4:21-24). It is clear therefore that the work was proceeding ‘in troubled times’.It was the rise of Nehemiah that resulted in a great advance in the situation. It was he who received the king’s authority to rebuild the city and its walls,

135

and to establish it as an independent city, thus demonstrating that God was ensuring that His plan to go forward. It was then, and only then, that Jerusalem could become what for Israel it had always been, a capital city, ruling over its own dependency. Note the words spoken to Daniel, it would be built with street and moat, a planned and defendable city, not a huddle of houses. This presumably occurred within the first ‘seven.The importance of this is clear. When Jerusalem was destroyed and ceased to be a ruling city, that was the sign that God had forsaken His people. And while it was trodden down that situation remained. The almost overwhelming vehemence of Ezekiel ’s cries that ‘Jerusalem must be destroyed’ was the seal that God had closed a chapter in the history of Israel and Judah. (Later indeed, in other circumstances, after another destroying of Jerusalem, we are told that the times of the Gentiles will continue while Jerusalem was trodden down (Luke 21:24) demonstrating again that it was Jerusalem primarily and the Temple only secondarily that was seen as the prime test of God’s favour on the Jews).Up to the time of Nehemiah Jerusalem had again been populated to some extent, but it was as a huddle of buildings with its own small Temple, and it was ruled from elsewhere and had little real authority. It was merely a provincial town of no importance and no status, part of a larger province, with no independence. It was still a dream in Israelite hearts rather than a reality. It was Nehemiah who rebuilt the walls and made it once more a ruling city with its pride restored (Nehemiah 5:14). It was Nehemiah who made ‘Jerusalem’ truly independent from the surrounding nations. Thus the word going forth in Daniel’s prophecy must be seen as resulting both in the edict of Cyrus and in the edict of Artaxerxes concerning Nehemiah, when Jerusalem once again began to count for something.‘To an anointed one, a prince (nagid) will be seven sevens, and sixty two sevens.’ There is no indication from the Hebrew whether the coming of the anointed prince was to be after the seven sevens or the sixty two sevens. However the fact that the anointed one will be cut off at the end of the sixty two ‘sevens’ would appear to date his coming at that time. So we must ask,

136

what is the significance of the split into two sections ? For nothing is specifically stated as happening at that time (unless we see it in the reference to the building of the city with street and moat in troubled times), and anointed princes were coming along in Israel all the time. It should be noted that this is not intended to be an ongoing prophecy like those in chapter 7, 8 and 11, covering different aspects of history. In this prophecy all the emphasis is on the achievement of God’s ends. This being so we must probably see this anointed prince as being also the one described in Daniel 9:26. All eyes are on his coming.The main answer to the question of the reason for the split almost certainly lies in the nature of seven ‘sevens’. We must look at this from the perspective of Israel and understand in this regard that ‘seven’ was a distinctive period for Israel. Time for them was split up into seven day periods, with the seventh day a sabbath; then into moon periods; then into years; and then into seven year periods, with the seventh year a sabbath for the land; and then finally into ‘seven sevens of years’ (Leviticus 25:8) with the fiftieth year a year of Yubile (Leviticus 25:10-12), a time when all Israelite bondservants would be released and land outside of walled cities would revert to its original owners (see Leviticus 25, 27). All Israel would then be made free again. Thus time was seen as moving forward in seven day periods, and then in seven year periods and then in forty nine year periods (seven sevens of years). The fiftieth year was not strictly a year like all the others but overlapped the forty ninth year at the end of one period and the first year that began to next period of forty nine years. The Jews therefore saw time as moving forward in sevens.Thus if seven days ended up with the sabbath and seven years ended up with the sabbath for the land and seven sevens of years ended up with the year of Yubile, then seven ‘sevens’ might well have been seen as a period ending with a seventh ‘seven’ which would be a time of special blessing. Seemingly this would be the period when the street and moat of Jerusalem would be built in troubled times, the street indicating a populated city, the moat indicating a city with strong defences (Daniel 9:25). Thus by the time of the seventh ‘seven’ Jerusalem would have been established as a populated and

137

fortified city. And they might well have seen that as indicating that the kingdom of blessing would then come. The angel is therefore careful to explain that that will not be so. For the seven ‘sevens’ will simply lead into the sixty two ‘sevens’. They were not to look for a quick solution. The purpose of this is n order to emphasise that there will be a considerable length of time which must pass before what is prophesied finally comes about. The everlasting kingdom will not be issued in by the restoration of the city and building of the sanctuary.This is not suggesting that we are to think strictly of a certain period of years. Indeed it rather brings out that we are dealing in ‘sevens’ not years. Not ‘seven days’, not ‘seven years’, nor seven sevens of years, but seven‘sevens’, seven divinely determined periods. And these will then be followed by a period of a further sixty two ‘sevens’, and then by a final period of ‘a seven’. And these are clearly to occur in sequence. There is not even a hint of a gap in between. The first ‘seven’ (divinely determined period) sees the establishment of Jerusalem. The second series of ‘sevens’ will end in the coming of the anointed Prince, and the third ‘seven’ will bring about the consummation, the final fulfilment of prophecy and the introduction of the everlasting kingdom.(At this point an interesting fact should be considered. In prophetic and general calculations months tended to be seen as of thirty days. This was equally used for convenience outside prophetic circles. It was a useful approximation. Of course true months per the moon were for twenty eight to twenty nine days, but this made for awkwardness, whilst our method of calculating months would not have been known to Daniel. Men lived by moon periods. So for calculation purposes a month was often seen as thirty days. Consider the 1,260 days of Revelation 11:3 which equates to forty two months which is intended to represent three and a half years (Revelation 11:2 with Daniel 11:3), and the 150 days of the flood which seems to indicate five months (Genesis 7:11 with Daniel 8:4). If we take the first sixty nine sevens as years and count them as being 360 days in length (12 times 30) we have 483 x 360, and the number of days resulting after the edict given to Nehemiah would actually, quite remarkably, bring us to the time of

138

Jesus ministry on earth. This is so extraordinary a ‘coincidence’ that some find it difficult to see it as a mere coincidence. But the fact is that the angel has made quite clear when ‘the word went forth’ (Daniel 9:23; Daniel 9:25) and that was in 359/8 BC. Thus the main idea behind the seventy ‘sevens’(rather than ‘seventy years’ as prophesied by Jeremiah) is of God’s perfect timing and a divinely perfect number of God-determined periods of activity of a duration unknown to man, as with the ‘seven times’ in Daniel 4:16. It should be noted in this regard that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever seized on this passage as evidence that Jesus had come as ‘the anointed One’, nor did anyone else in the early church. That must count against its having a timing significance).‘To an anointed one, a prince (or ‘to Messiah the Prince’.(’ The latter translation would mean that we have here the first specific reference to the Messiah, although not to the Messianic idea, which occurs fairly regularly in the Old Testament. But either way, in these words all the emphasis is on this prince. He is the one who is coming, and to whom all should look forward. This account is all about ‘the anointed One, the Prince’, who is coming, and what is done to him, and what subsequently follows.

PETT, "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. The version of the LXX. is widely different from this, "And thou shalt know and shalt understand and shalt discover that the commandments are determined, and thou shalt build Jerusalem a city of the Lord." The change in the first clause is due to a doublet reading—tishmah being also read as well as tishkayl, which may have become confluent in the Hebrew text before the Septuagint translator wrote. Instead of minmotza, he must have read v'timtza, deriving this, not from יצא (yatza), "to go forth," but from מצא (matza), "to find"—a reading that is opposed by the fact that many manuscripts write the word plerum, מוצא . Dabar must have been in the plural, and some such word as neherotzeem must have been supplied instead of hasheeb. The fact, however, that the same change occurs in Theodotion might render it at least possible that this was the word in the text, but Paulus Tellensis must have had a different reading, "Thou shalt find the precepts for answering;" a

139

marginal reading adds, "and for the understanding the weeks." In the next clause, ובנית (oovaneetha) instead of לבנות (libenoth), and instead of עד (‛adh) ער (‛eer), must have been read, and "Messiah the Prince" has been par, phrased into

שיךץס . The last clause may be regarded as omitted. Not impossibly this may have resulted from the end of the one verse being so like the beginning of the next. Theodotion's rendering is much more in agreement with the received text, "And thou shalt know and understand, from the going forth of the word to determine and build Jerusalem, until the anointed leader, is seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and he shall return, and the broad places and the wall shall be built, and the times shall be distressful." As above remarked, harootz is read instead of hasheeb. The Peshitta differs considerably from the received text, "Thou shalt know and understand from the decreeing of the word to restore and build Jerusalem, to the coming of the anointed king, is seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, to restore and build Jerusalem, its wall, and its palaces, at the end of the time." The rendering of the Vetus, as preserved to us in Tertuliian, runs thus, "And thou shalt know and perceive and understand from the going forth of the speech (sermo) for the restoring and rebuilding of Jerusalem, even to Christ the Leader, are sixty-two weeks and a half; and he shall return and build in joy, and the wall (convollationem), and times shall be renewed." Jerome's rendering is," Know and understand from the going forth of the word that Jerusalem should be again built, even to Christ the Leader, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, and the squares shall be again built and the walls in hard times." What cannot fail to impress one is the confusion that exists as to the original text. Of necessity conjectural emendations have been resorted to, with not much advantage. The most plausible is the suggestion of Professor Bevan to read lehosheeh, "to repeople," instead of lehasheeb, "to restore;" but there is no sign in the versions of such a reading being accepted. On the whole, a reading not far removed from the received has probability in its favour. Going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. To what does this refer? Hengstenberg ('Christology,' 3:128) says, "There can be no doubt that motza dabar signifies the issue of the decree." This view has the advantage that in Daniel 9:23 we have the same combination, יצא דבר (yatza dabar), "a command went forth." The probability is always in favour of holding a word not to change its meaning in contiguous verses, unless there is some indication that a change has taken place. Other commentators assume as strongly that the

140

word must be the word of the Lord to Jeremiah; hence Bevan renders dabar, "promise," without so much as a hint that there can be any doubt in the matter. Behrmaun takes the ל, the sign of the infinitive, as being equivalent to ut, and that hence this is a case of indirect speech—a usage gravely to be suspected, as certainly unexampled elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew. He refers to Ewald's 'Grammar,' but at his reference Ewald says that yKi is the sign of the semi-oblique narrative used in Hebrew. In a note Ewald refers to לאמר as introducing speeches; but that is not in point here. If dabar had meant "promise" or "prophecy" here, it would have been followed with the words in which the prophecy was announced. If, on the other hand, dabar is taken as" a decree," the infinitive is natural. The question, then, arises, "Whose decree is it that is here referred to?" Daniel was hoping for a decree being issued by Cyrus; of this he would naturally think, but what he thought is not to be taken as necessarily true. The prophets did not always know the meaning of their own prophecies. We must examine the record, and see what decree suits best with the words of our text. Many commentators think the reference here is to a Divine decree (Hengstenberg, Wolf. etc.). The difficulty of this view is that there is in appearance a definite starting-point given for the period named to begin. Now, a decree of God has no visible time-relation. This view, when maintained by those who hold that the prophecy of Jeremiah is referred to, may have some justification, only that a prophecy is never regarded as a decree, rendering certain its fulfilment. It must be, then, a human decree. The decree of Cyrus did not involve any rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. The altar was set up—that was all; the temple, even, was not built. The terms of the decree of Cyrus, as we have it in Ezra 1:2, are, "The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem." This clearly is not the decree intended. When Darius Hystaspis founded his permission to build the temple on the decree of Cyrus, there was no word of permitting them to rebuild the city walls. When, in the seventh year of Arta-xerxes, Ezra and his companions left Babylon and came to Jerusalem, still, though there was no command given to build again the walls of Jerusalem, there is more nearly implied a restoration of Jerusalem as a city. We may, then, start from b.c. 458. To Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, was there a positive command given to build the wall of Jerusalem. This date brings us to b.c. 445. Starting from the first date, the end of the 490 years is a.d. 32, and the end of the 69 weeks is a.d. 25. If, again, we start from the latter of these dates, the termination of the 490 years is a.d. 45, and of the 483 years a.d. 38. No one can fail to be struck with the fact that these dates are very near the most sacred date of all history—that of the crucifixion of our Lord. We know there is considerable diversity of opinion as to the date at which that event occurred. But, further, we are not to expect that prophecy shall have the accuracy we have in astronomical ephemerides. We admit there are great difficulties. We admit, further, that seven weeks mark, with wonderful precision, the time which elapsed from the capture of Jerusalem to the accession of Cyrus to the throne of Babylon. The interval was really fifty years. We do not know the occurrences that marked the relation of the Jewish people to their Persian masters during the century and more which elapsed between this twentieth year of Artaxerxes and the overthrow of the Persian Empire by Alexander the Great. The city walls and internal buildings of Jerusalem may have taken fifty years to erect—

141

we simply cannot tell. It is, at all events, a singular thing that the date of our Lord's crucifixion so nearly coincides with the termination of the 483 years. What is the result of starting from the date at which the prophecy was given? Assuming that the writer lived in the reign of Epiphanes, and meant to indicate the date of some event near his own period by the end of the 490 or the 483 years, let us see what follows. If we take the Massoretic date of the prophecy, it was given in the year of the accession of Nebuchadnezzar, or the next year—his first year, according to Babylonian chronology, that is to say, b.c. 606 or b.c. 605. Subtract 483 from either of these, and we have the utterly inconspicuous years b.c. 122 and b.c. 123, that is to say, twelve or thirteen years after the death of Simon the Maccabee. If three years and a half are added, to reach the middle of the week, we have b.c. 119, an equally inconspicuous year. Professor Bevan, however, follows Ewald, and begins with the destruction of Jerusalem. That the statement contradicts the text, which dates "from the going forth of a promise to people and build again Jerusalem," according to Professor Bevan's own translation, not from the destruction of Jerusalem, is looked upon evidently as of no importance. Of course, the refuge is the ignorance of the author of Darnel, notwithstanding that Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:1) dates his first prophecy "the fourth year of Jehoiakim," and his letter (Jeremiah 29:2), after the captivity of Jeconiah, and immediately after. Moreover, something more than ignorance is needed to explain the author of Daniel confounding the going forth of a prophecy to rebuild Jerusalem with the destruction of it. If we take the date of the destruction of Jerusalem, b.c. 588, and add 483 years, we reach b.c. 105—a year conspicuous only for the death of John Hyrcanus. This is so obvious, that many devices have been tried to square matters. Ewald drops out seventy years. Professor Bevan justly characterizes this device as fantastic. Hitzig would make the first seven years run parallel with the first seven weeks of the sixty-two. Professor Bevan rejects this as "highly artificial, and scarcely reconcilable with the text." So, again, in company with Graf and Cornill, he takes refuge in the author's ignorance. If, again, we take b.c. 164, the date the critics wish to make the terminus ad quem, which is chosen because it is the year of the purification of the temple; if four hundred and eighty-three years are added to that date, we have b.c. 647—a date that falls within the reign of Manasseh. As, however, the point of time is the anointing of a holy one, and there is reference also to an anointed prince in this verse, a more plausible date would be b.c. 153, the year when Jonathan the brother of Judas the Maccabee assumed the high priesthood (1 Macc. 10:21); to this add 483, and 636 is the result—a date during Josiah's reign. Of course, the refuge is the ignorance of our author; he didn't know any better. The difficulty is to understand, if he was so ignorant as to what was so comparatively near his own time, how he was so well informed as to Babylonian affairs. The critics cannot make the author of Daniel at once exceptionally ignorant and exceptionally well-informed. If, however, we take Mr. Galloway's reading of the LXX. Version of this verse, we have "seven and seventy weeks" or five hundred and thirty-nine years. If we reckon these years from the decree of Cyrus, b.c. 538, we reach a.d. 2. Messiah the Prince; "the anointed prince." Both priests and kings were anointed, as a sign of consecration to their office. Very rarely are priests referred to as "anointed," and never without a distinct statement that they are priests, whereas "the Lord's anointed" always

142

applies to kings. Priests are sometimes called "rulers," נגיד (negeed), but only in relation to the temple. Never is princedom and the anointing combined in regard to priest. These ideas are connected in regard to Solomon (1 Chronicles 29:22). We do not deny that this title would apply to the later Maccabeans, like Alexander Jannseus, who was at once high priest and king. We also note, however, that it applies to our Lord, who claimed to be anointed "to preach good tidings" (Luke 4:18). The street shall be built again. Rehob, "street," is really "broad place." Instead of the heaps of confused rubbish, the city was once more to be laid off in orderly streets and squares, so that Zechariah's prophecy might be fulfilled (Zechariah 8:5), "The streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing." And the wall, even in troublous times. This was certainly fulfilled in the days of Nehemiah; one has only to read the Book of Nehemiah to see that. The word harootz, translated "wall," is of somewhat doubtful significance. It means (Isaiah 10:22) "a determination." In Job 41:22 (30) it is translated "a threshing-wain," whereas in Proverbs 3:14 it means "fine gold." Furst would make it mean here "a marked-off quarter of a city." Gesenius makes it mean here "a ditch "—a view that Winer also holds. Cornill says most interpreters explain harootz, from the Targumic, as "ditches." It would seem that a bettor rendering would be "a palisade;" the ruling idea of all meanings, save the last, as pointed out by Winer, is "sharpness." "A ditch" or "a wall" conveys no suggestion of sharpness, but "a palisade" does. Not impossibly, before the wall was erected, the city was protected by "a palisade," and would certainly be set up in troublous times. It is to be observed that the events referred to in these two last clauses have no distinct temporal relation to the weeks. We might surmise that it referred to the time during which the city was being rebuilt—street and palisade—but we are destitute of informatiou which might enable us either to confirm or contradict that view. This period may be during the Maccabean struggle; we cannot tell.

26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will

143

continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

BARNES, "And after threescore and two weeks - After the completion of the last period of four hundred and thirty-four years. The angel had shown in the previous verse what would be the characteristic of the first period of “seven weeks” - that during that time the wall and the street would be built in circumstances of general distress and anxiety, and he now proceeds to state what would occur in relation to the remaining sixty-two weeks. The particular thing which would characterize that period would be, that the Messiah would be cut off, and that the series of events would commence which would terminate in the destruction of the city and the temple. He does not say that this would be immediately on the termination of the sixty-two weeks, but he says that it would be “after” achărēy' אחרי - “subsequent” to the close of that period. The word does not mean necessarily immediately, but it denotes what is to succeed - to follow - and would be well expressed by the word “afterward:” Gen_15:14; Gen_23:19; Gen_25:26, et al. See Gesenius, Lexicon The natural meaning here would be, that this would be the “next event” in the order of events to be reckoned; it would be that on which the prophetic eye would rest subsequent to the close of the period of sixty-two weeks. There are two circumstances in the prophecy itself which go to show that it is not meant that this would immediately follow:

(a) One is, that in the previous verse it is said that the “sixty-two weeks” would extend “unto the Messiah;” that is, either to his birth or to his manifestation as such; and it is not implied anywhere that he would be “cut off” at once on his appearing, nor is such a supposition reasonable, or one that would have been embraced by an ancient student of the prophecies;(b) the other is, that, in the subsequent verse, it is expressly said that what he would accomplish in causing the oblation to cease would occur “in the midst of the week;” that is, of the remaining one week that would complete the seventy. This could not occur if he were to be “cut off” immediately at the close of the sixty-two weeks.The careful student of this prophecy, therefore, would anticipate that the Messiah would appear at the close of the sixty-two weeks, and that he would

144

continue during a part, at least, of the remaining one week before he would be cut off. This point could have been clearly made out from the prophecy before the Messiah came.Shall Messiah - Notes, Dan_9:25.Be cut off - The word used here (כרת kârath) means, properly, to cut, to cut

off, as a part of a garment, 1Sa_24:5 (6), 11 (12); a branch of a tree, Num_13:23; the prepuce, Exo_4:25; the head, 1Sa_17:51; 1Sa_5:4; to cut down trees, Deu_19:5; Isa_14:8; Isa_44:14; Jer_10:3; Jer_22:7. Then it means to cut off persons, to destroy, Deu_20:20; Jer_11:19; Gen_9:11; Psa_37:9; Pro_2:22; Pro_10:31, et al. scepe. The phrase, “that soul shall be cut off from his people,” “from the midst of the people,” “from Israel,” “from the congregation,” etc., occurs frequently in the Scriptures (compare Gen_17:14; Lev_7:20-21; Num_15:30; Num_19:13, Num_19:20; Exo_12:19, et al.), and denotes the punishment of death in general, without defining the manner. “It is never the punishment of exile.” - Gesenius, Lexicon The proper notion or meaning here is, undoubtedly, that of being cut off by death, and would suggest the idea of a “violent” death, or a death by the agency of others.It would apply to one who was assassinated, or murdered by a mob, or who was appointed to death by a judicial decree; or it might be applied to one who was cut down in battle, or by the pestilence, or by lightning, or by shipwreck, but it would not naturally or properly be applied to one who had lived out his days, and died a peaceful death. We always now connect with the word the idea of some unusual interposition, as when we speak of one who is cut down in middle life. The ancient translators understood it of a violent death. So the Latin “Vulgate, occidetur Christus;” Syriac, “the Messiah shall be slain,” or put to death. It need not be here said that this phrase would find a complete fulfillment in the manner in which the Lord Jesus was put to death, nor that this is the very language in which it is proper now to describe the manner in which he was removed. He was cut off by violence; by a judicial decree: by a mob; in the midst of his way, etc. If it should be admitted that the angel meant to describe the manner of his death, he could not have found a single word that would have better expressed it.But not for himself - Margin, “and shall have nothing.” This phrase has given rise to not a little discussion, and not a little diversity of opinion. The Latin Vulgate is, “et non erit ejus populus, qui eum negaturus est” - “and they shall not be his people who shall deny him.” Theodotion (in the

Septuagint), καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἀυτῷ kai krima ouk estin en autō - “and there is no crime in him.” Syriac, “And it is not with him.” The Hebrew is לו ואיןve'ēyn lô - and the interpretation turns on the meaning of the word אין 'ēyn. Hengstenberg maintains that it is never used in the sense of לא lo' (not), but that it always conveys the idea of “nothing,” or “non-existence,” and that the meaning here is, that, then, “there was nothing to him;” that is, that he ceased to have authority and power, as in the cutting off of a prince or ruler whose power comes to an end.

Accordingly he renders it, “and is not to him;” that is, his dominion, 145

authority, or power over the covenant people as an anointed prince, would cease when he was cut off, and another one would come and desolate the sanctuary, and take possession. Bertholdt renders it, Ohne Nachfolger von den Seinigen zu haben - “without any successors of his own “ - meaning that his family, or that the dynasty would be cut off, or would end with him. He maintains that the whole phrase denotes “a sudden and an unexpected death,” and that it here means that he would have no successor of his own family. He applies it to Alexander the Great. Lengerke renders it, Und nicht ist vorhanden, der ihm, angehoret - and explains the whole to mean, “The anointed one (as the lawful king) shall be cut off, but it shall not then be one who belongs to his family (to wit, upon the throne), but a Prince shall come to whom the crown did not belong, to whom the name anointed could not properly belong.”Maurer explains it, “There shall be to him no successor or lawful heir.” Prof. Stuart renders it, “One shall be cut off, and there shall be none for it” (the people). C. B. Michaelis, “and not to be will be his lot.” Jacch. and Hitzig, “and no one remained to him.” Rosch, “and no one was present for him.” Our translation - “but not for himself” - was undoubtedly adopted from the common view of the atonement - that the Messiah did not die for himself, but that his life was given as a ransom for others. There can be no doubt of that fact to those who hold the common doctrine of the atonement, and yet it maybe doubted whether the translators did not undesignedly allow their views of the atonement to shape the interpretation of this passage, and whether it can be fairly made out from the Hebrew. The

ordinary meaning of the Hebrew word אין 'ēyn is, undoubtedly, “nothing, emptiness” - in the sense of there being nothing (see Gesenius, Lexicon); and, thus applied, the sense here would be, that after he was cut off, or in consequence of his being cut off, what he before possessed would cease, or there would be “nothing” to him; that is, either his life would cease, or his dominion would cease, or he would be cut off as the Prince - the Messiah. This interpretation appears to be confirmed by what is immediately said, that another would come and would destroy the city and the sanctuary, or that the possession would pass into his bands.

It seems probable to me that this is the fair interpretation. The Messiah would come as a “Prince.” It might be expected that he would come to rule -to set up a kingdom. But he would be suddenly cut off by a violent death. The anticipated dominion over the people as a prince would not be set up. It would not pertain to him. Thus suddenly cut off, the expectations of such a rule would be disappointed and blasted. He would in fact set up no such dominion as might naturally be expected of an anointed prince; he would have no successor; the dynasty would not remain in his hands or his family, and soon the people of a foreign prince would come and would sweep all away. This interpretation does not suppose that the real object of his coming would be thwarted, or that he would not set up a kingdom in accordance with the prediction properly explained, but that such a kingdom as would be expected by the people would not be set up.He would be cut off soon after he came, and the anticipated dominion would not pertain to him, or there would be “nothing” of it found in him,

146

and soon after a foreign prince would come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. This interpretation, indeed, will take this passage away as a proof-text of the doctrine of the atonement, or as affirming the design of the death of the Messiah, but it furnishes a meaning as much in accordance with the general strain of the prophecy, and with the facts in the work of the Messiah. For it was a natural expectation that when he came he would set up a kingdom - a temporal reign - and this expectation was extensively cherished among the people. He was, however, soon cut off, and all such hopes at once perished in the minds of his true followers (compare Luk_24:21), and in the minds of the multitudes who, though not his true followers, began to inquire whether he might not be the predicted Messiah -the Prince to sit on the throne of David. But of such an anticipated dominion or rule, there was “nothing” to him.All these expectations were blighted by his sudden death, and soon, instead of his delivering the nation from bondage and setting up a visible kingdom, a foreign prince would come with his forces and would sweep away everything. Whether this would be the interpretation affixed to these words before the advent of the Messiah cannot now be determined. We have few remains of the methods in which the Hebrews interpreted the ancient prophecies, and we may readily suppose that they would not be disposed to embrace an exposition which would show them that the reign of the Messiah, as they anticipated it, would not occur, but that almost as soon as he appeared, he would be put to death, and the dominion pass away, and the nation be subjected to the ravages of a foreign power. “And the people of the prince that shall come.” Margin, “And they (the Jews) shall be no more his people; or, the Prince’s (Messiah’s) future people.” This seems to be rather an explanation of the meaning, than a translation of the Hebrew. The literal rendering would be, “and the city, and the sanctuary, the people of a prince that comes, shall lay waste.” On the general supposition that this whole passage refers to the Messiah and his time, the language used here is not difficult of interpretation, and denotes with undoubted accuracy the events

that soon followed the “cutting off” of the Messiah. The word “people” (עם ‛am) is a word that may well be applied to subjects or armies - such a people as an invading prince or warrior would lead with him for purposes of conquest. It denotes properly

(a) a people, or tribe, or race in general; and then(b) the people as opposed to kings, princes, rulers (compare λαός laos, the

people as opposed to chiefs in Homer, Iliad ii. 365, xiii. 108, xxiv. 28): and then as soldiers, Jdg_5:2. Hence, it may be applied, as it would be understood to be here, to the soldiers of the prince that should come.Of the prince that shall come - The word “prince” here (נגיד nāgıyd) is the

same which occurs in Dan_9:25, “Messiah the prince.” It is clear, however, that another prince is meant here, for(a) it is just said that that prince - the Messiah - would be “cut off,” and this clearly refers to one that was to follow;(b) the phrase “that is to come” (הבא habbâ') would also imply this.

147

It would naturally suggest the idea that he would come from abroad, or that he would be a foreign prince - for he would “come” for the purposes of destruction. No one can fail to see the applicability of this to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman power, after the Lord Jesus was put to death. If that was the design of the prophecy, or if it be admitted that the prophecy contemplated that, the language could not have been better chosen, or the prediction more exact. No one can reasonably doubt that, if the ancient Hebrews had understood the former part of the prophecy, as meaning that the true Messiah would be put to death soon after his appearing, they could not fail to anticipate that a foreign prince would soon come and lay waste their city and sanctuary.Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary - The “holy place” - the temple. This is the termination of the prophecy. It begins with the command to “rebuild and restore” the city, and ends with its destruction. The time is not fixed, nor is there in the prophecy any direct intimation when it would occur, unless it be found in the general declaration in Dan_9:24, that “seventy weeks were determined upon the people and the city.” The whole scope of the prophecy, however, would lead to the supposition that this was soon to occur after the Messiah should be “cut off.” The series of events under the Romans which led to the destruction of the city and temple, in fact, began very soon after the death of the Lord Jesus, and ceased only when the temple was wholly demolished, and the city was rased to its foundations.And the end thereof - Hebrew, “its end,” or “his end” - qıtsô. It is not קצו

certain as to what the word “it” (ו ô) here refers. It may be either the end of the city, or of the prince, or of the prophecy, so far as the grammatical construction is concerned. As the principal and immediate subject of the prophecy, however, is the city, it is more natural to refer it to that. Hengstenberg renders it, “it will end,” supposing, with Vitringa, that it refers to the subject of the discourse: “the thing - the whole affair - all that is here predicted in this series of events - will end with a flood.” This accords well with the whole design of the prophecy.

With a flood - .basheṭeph. That is, it shall be like an overflowing flood בשטףThe word used here means a “gushing, outpouring,” as of rain, Job_38:25; of a torrent, Pro_27:4; an overflowing, inundation, flood, Psa_32:6; Nah_1:8. Hence, it would appropriately denote the ravages of an army, sweeping everything away. It would be like a sudden inundation, carrying everything before it. No one can doubt that this language is applicable in every respect to the desolations brought upon Jerusalem by the Roman armies.

And unto the end of the war desolations are determined - Margin, “it shall be cut off by desolations.” Hengstenberg renders this, “and unto the end is war, a decree of ruins.” So Lengerke - and his aufs Ende Krieg und Beschluss der Wusten. Bertholdt renders it, “and the great desolations shall continue unto the end of the war.” The Latin Vulgate renders it, et post finem belli statuta desolatio - “and after the end of the war desolation is determined.” Prof. Stuart translates it, “and unto the end shall be war, a decreed measure of desolations.” The literal meaning of the passage is, “and 148

unto the end of the war desolations are decreed,” or determined. The word rendered “determined” (חרץ chârats) means, properly, to cut, cut in, engrave; then to decide, to determine, to decree, to pass sentence. See the notes at Dan_9:24. Here the meaning naturally is, that such desolations were settled or determined as by a decree or purpose. There was something which made them certain; that is, it was a part of the great plan here referred to in the vision of the seventy weeks, that there should be such desolations extending through the war. The things which would, therefore, be anticipated from this passage would be,

(a) that there would be war. This is implied also in the assurance that the people of a foreign prince would come and take the city.(b) That this war would be of a “desolating” character, or that it would in a remarkable manner extend and spread ruin over the land. All wars are thus characterized; but it would seem that this would do it in a remarkable manner.(c) That these desolations would extend through the war, or to its close. There would be no intermission; no cessation. It is hardly necessary to say that this was, in fact, precisely the character of the war which the Romans waged with the Jews after the death of the Saviour, and which ended in the destruction of the city and temple; the overthrow of the whole Hebrew polity; and the removal of great numbers of the people to a distant and perpetual captivity. No war, perhaps, has been in its progress more marked by desolation; in none has the purpose of destruction been more perseveringly manifested to its very close. The “language” here, indeed, might apply to many wars - in a certain sense to all wars; to none, however, would it be more appropriate than to the wars of the Romans with the Jews.

CLARKE, "And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary - By the “prince” Titus, the son of Vespasian, is plainly intended; and “the people of that prince” are no other than the Romans, who, according to the prophecy, destroyed the sanctuary, הקדש hakkodesh, the holy place or temple, and, as a flood, swept away all, till the total destruction of that obstinate people finished the war.GILL, "And after threescore and two weeks,.... To be reckoned from the end of the seven weeks, or forty nine years, which, added to them, make four hundred and eighty three years: shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; by whom is designed the same with Messiah the Prince in Dan_9:25, not Onias the high priest, as a late writer (g) would have it, an upright person, and of great holiness, taken off by an unjust death; since he was dead many years before the expiration of these weeks; nor Hyrcanus the high priest, slain by Herod, as Eusebius (h)thinks; in whom the succession of the ancient priests terminated, and with whom the priestly unction perished; which indeed bids fairer than the former; but he was not a person of so much note as to be pointed at in such a

149

prophecy; besides, the priesthood continued much longer: nor is King Agrippa intended, as Jarchi and Abarbinel, who, they say, was the last king of the Jews, and was slain by Vespasian at the destruction of Jerusalem; which is not true; he was not properly king of the Jews, having only Galilee for his jurisdiction; was not slain by Vespasian; was a confederate of the Romans, lived some years after the destruction of the city, and at last died in peace; but Jesus the true Messiah is intended, with whom the character, dates, and death, and the manner of it, entirely agree: now to his death were to be four hundred and eighty three years; which years ended, as we have observed, in the thirty third year of the vulgar era of Christ, and the nineteenth of Tiberius; when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation; see Isa_53:8, or "he is not", as Jarchi, no more in the land of the living, is dead; see Jer_31:15, or "there is", or "will be, none for him", or "with him" (i), to help and assist him in his great work, Isa_63:5. The Vulgate Latin version is, "they shall not be his people"; the Jews rejecting him shall have a "loammi" upon them, and be no more the people of God. Gussetius (k) better renders it, "he hath not"; or he has nothing, so Cocceius; all things were wanted by him, that is, by Christ; he had neither riches, nor clothes, nor any to stand by him, or to accompany him: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; that is, the people of the Romans, under Vespasian their prince, emperor, and general, should, in a little time after the cutting off of the Messiah, enter into the land of Judea, and destroy the city of Jerusalem, and the temple that stood in it; though some understand this of Messiah the Prince that should come in his power, and in a way of judgment upon the Jewish nation, and destroy them for their rejection of him; whose people the Romans would be, and under whose direction, and by whose orders, all these judgments should be brought upon the Jews; but many of the Jewish writers themselves interpret it of Vespasian, as Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Abarbinel, and Jacchiades: and the end thereof shall be with a flood: the end of the city and temple, and of the whole nation, should be by the Roman army, which, like a flood, would overspread the land, and carry all before it. It denotes the number, power, and irresistible force of the enemy, and the sad devastation made by them: and unto the end of the war desolations are determined; from the beginning of the war by the Romans with the Jews, to the end of it, there would be nothing but continual desolations; a dreadful havoc and ruin everywhere; and all this appointed and determined by the Lord, as a just punishment for their sins.

JAMISON, "after threescore and two weeks — rather, the threescore and two weeks. In this verse, and in Dan_9:27, Messiah is made the prominent subject, while the fate of the city and sanctuary are secondary, being

150

mentioned only in the second halves of the verses. Messiah appears in a twofold aspect, salvation to believers, judgment on unbelievers (Luk_2:34; compare Mal_3:1-6; Mal_4:1-3). He repeatedly, in Passion week, connects His being “cut off” with the destruction of the city, as cause and effect (Mat_21:37-41; Mat_23:37, Mat_23:38; Luk_21:20-24; Luk_23:28-31). Israel might naturally expect Messiah’s kingdom of glory, if not after the seventy years’ captivity, at least at the end of the sixty-two weeks; but, instead of that, shall be His death, and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem.not for himself — rather, “there shall be nothing to Him” [Hengstenberg]; not that the real object of His first coming (His spiritual kingdom) should be frustrated; but the earthly kingdom anticipated by the Jews should, for the present, come to naught, and not then be realized. Tregelles refers the title, “the Prince” (Dan_9:25), to the time of His entering Jerusalem on an ass’s colt, His only appearance as a king, and six days afterwards put to death as “King of the Jews.”the people of the prince — the Romans, led by Titus, the representative of the world power, ultimately to be transferred to Messiah, and so called by Messiah’s title, “the Prince”; as also because sent by Him, as His instrument of judgment (Mat_22:7).end thereof — of the sanctuary. Tregelles takes it, “the end of the Prince,” the last head of the Roman power, Antichrist.with a flood — namely, of war (Psa_90:5; Isa_8:7, Isa_8:8; Isa_28:18). Implying the completeness of the catastrophe, “not one stone left on another.”unto the end of the war — rather, “unto the end there is war.”determined — by God’s decree (Isa_10:23; Isa_28:22).

K&D, "After the threescore and two weeks, i.e., in the seventieth שבוע, shall the Messiah be cut off. - From the אחרי (after) it does not with certainty follow that the “cutting off” of the Maschiach falls wholly in the beginning of the seventieth week, but only that the “cutting off” shall constitute the first great event of this week, and that those things which are mentioned in the remaining part of the verse shall then follow. The complete designation of the time of the “cutting off” can only be found from the whole contents of Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27. נכרת, from כרת, to hew down, to fell, to cut to pieces, signifies to be rooted up, destroyed, annihilated, and denotes generally a violent kind of death, though not always, but only the uprooting from among the living, or from the congregation, and is therefore the usual expression for the destruction of the ungodly - e.g., Psa_37:9; Pro_2:22 - without particularly designating the manner in which this is done. From יכרת it cannot thus be strictly proved that this part of the verse announces the putting to death of an anointed one, or of the Messiah. Of the word Maschiach three possible interpretations have been given: 1. That the Maschiach Nagid of Dan_9:25, the Maschiach of Dan_9:26, and the Nagidof Dan_9:26, are three different persons; 2. that all the three expressions

151

denote one and the same person; and 3. that the Maschiach Nagid of Dan_9:25 and the Maschiach of Dan_9:26 are the same person, and that the Nagid of Dan_9:26 is another and a different person. The first of these has been maintained by J. D. Michaelis, Jahn. Ebrard understands by all the three expressions the Messiah, and supposes that he is styled fully Maschiach Nagid in Dan_9:25 in order that His calling and His dignity might be designated; in ,(נגיד) as well as His power and strength ,(משיח )Dan_9:26, משיח, the anointed, where mention is made of His sufferings and His rejection; in Dan_9:26, נגיד, the prince, where reference is made to the judgment which He sends (by the Romans on apostate Jerusalem). But this view is refuted by the circumstance that הבא (that is to come) follows נגיד, whereby the prince is represented as first coming, as well as by the circumstance that הבא who destroys the city and the sanctuary, whose ,נגידend shall be with a flood, consequently cannot be the Messiah, but is the enemy of the people and kingdom of God, who shall arise (Dan_7:24-25) in the last time. But if in Dan_9:26 the Nagid is different from the Maschiach, then both also appear to be different from the Maschiach Nagid of Dan_9:25. The circumstance that in Dan_9:26 משיח has neither the article nor the addition נגיד following it, appears to be in favour of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as the other denotes that משיח, after that which is said of Him, in consideration of the connection of the words, needs no more special description. If we observe that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary is so connected with the Maschiach that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Maschiach, and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid, then by Maschiachwe can understand neither a secular prince or king nor simply a high priest, but only an anointed one who stands in such a relation to the city and sanctuary, that with his being “cut off” the city and the sanctuary lose not only their protection and their protector, but the sanctuary also loses, at the same time, its character as the sanctuary, which the Maschiach had given to it. This is suitable to no Jewish high priest, but only to the Messias whom Jehovah anointed to be a Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek, and placed as Lord over Zion, His holy hill. We agree therefore with Hהvernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Maschiach of this verse as identical with the Maschiach Nagid of Dan_9:25, as Christ, who in the fullest sense of the word is the Anointed; and we hope to establish this view more fully in the following exposition of the historical reference of this word of the angel.

But by this explanation of the משיח we are not authorized to regard the word יכרת as necessarily pointing to the death of the Messias, the crucifixion of Christ, since יכרת, as above shown, does not necessarily denote a violent death. The right interpretation of this word depends on the explanation of the words ל ואין which follow - words which are very differently interpreted by critics. The supposition is grammatically inadmissible that ל אין איננו = (Michaelis, Hitzig), although the lxx in the

152

Codex Chisianus have translated them by καὶ οὐκ ἔσται; and in general all those interpretations which identify אין with לא, as e.g., et non sibi, and not for himself (Vitringa, Rosenmller, Hהvernick, and others). For אין is never interchanged with לא, but is so distinguished from it that לא, non, is negation purely, while אין, “it is not,” denies the existence of the thing; cf. Hengstenberg's Christol. iii. p. 81f., where all the passages which Gesenius refers to as exemplifying this exchange are examined and rightly explained, proving that אין is never used in the sense of לא. Still less is ל to be taken in the sense of ל ”;there shall not then be one who (belongs) to him“ ,אשר (>)for although the pronomen relat. may be wanting in short sentences, yet that can be only in such as contain a subject to which it can refer. But in the אין no subject is contained, but only the non-existence is declared; it cannot be said: no one is, or nothing is. In all passages where it is thus rightly translated a participle follows, in which the personal or actual subject is contained, of which the non-existence is predicated. ל אין (>) without anything following is elliptical, and the subject which is not, which will not be, is to be learned from the context or from the matter itself. The missing subject here cannot be משיח, because ל points back to משיח; nor can it be עם, people (Vulg., Grotius), or a descendant (Wieseler), or a follower(Auberlen), because all these words are destitute of any support from the context, and are brought forward arbitrarily. Since that which “is not to Him” is not named, we must thus read the expression in its undefined universality: it is not to Him, viz., that which He must have, to be the Maschiach. We are not by this to think merely of dominion, people, sanctuary, but generally of the place which He as Maschiach has had, or should have, among His people and in the sanctuary, but, by His being “cut off,” is lost. This interpretation is of great importance in guiding to a correct rendering of יכרת; for it shows that יכרת does not denote the putting to death, or cutting off of existence, but only the annihilation of His place as Maschiach among His people and in His kingdom. For if after His “cutting off” He has not what He should have, it is clear that annihilation does not apply to Him personally, but only that He has lost His place and function as the Maschiach.

(Note: Kranichfeld quite appropriately compares the strong expression יכרת with “the equally strong יבלא (shall wear out) in Dan_7:25, spoken of that which shall befall the saints on the part of the enemy of God in the last great war. As by this latter expression destruction in the sense of complete annihilation cannot be meant, since the saints personally exist after the catastrophe (cf. Dan_9:27, Dan_9:22, Dan_9:18), so also by this expression here (יכרת) we are not to understand annihilation.”)

In consequence of the cutting off of the משיח destruction falls upon the city and the sanctuary. This proceeds from the people of the prince who comes. ישחית, to destroy, to ruin, is used, it is true, of the desolating of countries, but predicated of a city and sanctuary it means to overthrow; cf. e.g., Gen_

153

19:13., where it is used of the destruction of Sodom; and even in the case of countries the השחית consists in the destruction of men and cattle; cf. Jer_36:29.

The meaning of הבא נגיד עם depends chiefly on the interpretation of the Naturally it is connected with .עם This we cannot, with Ebrard, refer to .הבא not only according to the order of the words, but in reality, since in the ,נגידfollowing verse (Dan_9:27) the people are no longer spoken of, but only the actions and proceedings of the prince are described. הבא does not mean qui succedit (Roesch, Maurer), but is frequently used by Daniel of a hostile coming; cf. Dan_1:1; Dan_11:10,Dan_11:13, Dan_11:15. But in this sense הבאappears to be superfluous, since it is self-evident that the prince, if he will destroy Jerusalem, must come or draw near. One also must not say that הבאdesignates the prince as one who was to come (ἐρχόμενος), since from the expression “coming days,” as meaning “future days,” it does not follow that a “coming prince” is a “future prince.” The הבא with the article: “he who comes, or will come,” denotes much rather the נגיד (which is without the article) as such an one whose coming is known, of whom Daniel has heard that he will come to destroy the people of God. But in the earlier revelations Daniel heard of two princes who shall bring destruction on his people: in Dan_7:8, Dan_7:24., of Antichrist; and in Dan_8:9., 23ff., of Antiochus. To one of these the הבא points. Which of the two is meant must be gathered from the connection, and this excludes the reference to Antiochus, and necessitates our thinking of the Antichrist.

In the following clause: “and his end with the flood,” the suffix refers simply to the hostile Nagid, whose end is here emphatically placed over against his coming (Kran., Hofm., Kliefoth). Preconceived views as to the historical interpretation of the prophecy lie at the foundation of all other references. The Messianic interpreters, who find in the words a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus understand by the Nagid Titus, cannot apply the suffix to Nagid. M. Geier, Hהvernick, and others, therefore, refer it (the suffix) to the city and the sanctuary; but that is grammatically inadmissible, since העיר (the city) is gen faem. Aub. and others refer it, therefore, merely to the sanctuary; but the separation of the city from the sanctuary is quite arbitrary. Vitringa, C. B. Michaelis, Hgstb., interpret the suffix as neuter, and refer it to ישחית (shall destroy), or, more correctly, to the idea of destroying comprehended in it, for they understand שטף of a warlike overflowing flood: “and the end of it shall be (or: it shall end) in the flood.” On the other hand, v. Lengerke and Kliefoth have rightly objected to this view. “This reference of the suffix,” they say, “is inadmissibly harsh; the author must have written erroneously, since he suggested the reference of the suffix to עם or to נגיד. One cannot think of what is meant by the end of the destruction, since the destruction itself is the end; a flood may, it is true, be an emblem of a warlike invasion of a country, but it never signifies the warlike march, the expedition.” There thus remains nothing else than to apply the suffix to the Nagid, the prince.

154

קץ can accordingly only denote the destruction of the prince. Hitzig's interpretation, that קצ is the result of his coming, refutes itself.

In בשטף the article is to be observed, by which alone such interpretations as “in an overflowing” (Ros., Roed., and others), ”vi quadam ineluctabili oppressus” (Steudel, Maurer), “like an overflowing,” and the like, are proved to be verbally inadmissible. The article shows that a definite and well-known overflowing is meant. שטף, “overflowing,” may be the emblem of an army spreading itself over the land, as in Dan_11:10,Dan_11:22, Dan_11:26; Isa_8:8, or the emblem of a judgment desolating or destroying a city, country, or people; cf. Psa_32:6; Nah_1:8; Pro_27:4; Psa_90:5. The first of these interpretations would give this meaning: The prince shall find his end in his warlike expedition; and the article in בשטף would refer back to הבא. This interpretation is indeed quite possible, but not very probable, because שטף would then be the overflowing which was caused by the hostile prince or his coming, and the thought would be this, that he should perish in it. But this agrees neither with the following clause, that war should be to the end, nor with Dan_7:21, Dan_7:26, according to which the enemy of God holds the superiority till he is destroyed by the judgment of God. Accordingly, we agree with Wieseler, Hofmann, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth in adopting the other interpretation of שטף, flood, as the figure of the desolating judgment of God, and explain the article as an allusion to the flood which overwhelmed Pharaoh and his host. Besides, the whole passage is, with Maurer and Klief., to be regarded as a relative clause, and to be connected with הבא: the people of a prince who shall come and find his destruction in the flood.

This verse (Dan_9:26) contains a third statement, which adds a new element to the preceding. Rosenmller, Ewald, Hofm., and others connect these into one passage, thus: and to the end of the war a decree of desolations continues. But although קץ, grammatically considered, is the stat. constr., and might be connected with מלחמה (war), yet this is opposed by the circumstance, that in the preceding sentence no mention is expressly made of war; and that if the war which consisted in the destruction of the city should be meant, then מלחמה ought to have the article. From these reasons we agree with the majority of interpreters in regarding מלחמה as the predicate of the passage: “and to the end is war;” but we cannot refer קץ, with Wieseler, to the end of the prince, or, with Hהv. and Aub., to the end of the city, because קץ has neither a suffix nor an article. According to the just remark of Hitzig, קץ without any limitation is the end generally, the end of the period in progress, the seventy שבעים, and corresponds to פא ס עד in Dan_7:26, to the end of all things, Dan_12:13 (Klief.). To the end war shall be = war shall continue during the whole of the last שבוע.

The remaining words, ת שממ ,מלחמה form an apposition to ,נחרצתnotwithstanding the objection by Kliefoth, that since desolations are a

155

consequence of the war, the words cannot be regarded as in apposition. For we do not understand why in abbreviated statements the effect cannot be placed in the form of an apposition to the cause. The objection also overlooks the word נחרצת. If desolations are the effect of the war, yet not the decree of the desolations, which can go before the war or can be formed during the war. ת שממ denotes desolation not in an active, but in a passive sense: laid waste, desolated. נחרצת, that which is determined, theirrevocably decreed; therefore used of divine decrees, and that of decrees with reference to the infliction of punishment; cf. Dan_9:27; Dan_11:36; Isa_10:23; Isa_28:22. Ewald is quite in error when he says that it means “the decision regarding the fearful deeds, the divine decision as it embodies itself in the judgments (Dan_7:11.) on the world on account of such fearful actions and desolations,” because ת שממ has not the active meaning. Auberlen weakens its force when he renders it “decreed desolations.” “That which is decreed of desolations” is also not a fixed, limited, measured degree of desolations (Hofm., Klief.); for in the word there does not lie so much the idea of limitation to a definite degree, as much rather the idea of the absolute decision, as the connection with כלה in Dan_9:27, as well as in the two passages from Isaiah above referred to, shows. The thought is therefore this: “Till the end war will be, for desolations are irrevocably determined by God.” Since ת שממ has nothing qualifying it, we may not limit the “decree of desolations” to the laying waste of the city and the sanctuary, but under it there are to be included the desolations which the fall of the prince who destroys the city and the sanctuary shall bring along with it.

CALVIN, "Here Daniel treats of the sixty-two weeks which elapsed between the sixth year of Darius and the baptism of Christ, when the Gospel began to be promulgated, but at the same time he does not neglect the seven weeks of which he had been speaking. For they comprehend the space of time which intervened between the Persian monarchy and the second edict which again granted liberty to the people after the death of Cambyses. After the sixty-two weeks which should succeed the seven former ones, Messiah shall be cut off, says he. Here the angel predicts the death of Christ. The Jews refer this to Agrippa, but this, as we have already observed, is utterly nugatory and foolish. Eusebius and others refer it to Aristobulus, but this is equally destitute of reason. Therefore the angel speaks of the only Mediator, as in the former verse he had said, until Christ the Leader The extension of this to all the priesthood is both forced and absurd. The angel rather means this — Christ should then be manifest to undertake the government of his people; or, in other words, until Messiah shall appear and commence his reign. We have already remarked upon those who erroneously and childishly explain the name “Leader,” as if it were inferior in dignity to that of king. As the angel had used the name “Christ” in the sense of Mediator, so he repeats it in this passage in the same sense. And surely, as he had formerly treated of those singular marks of God’s favor, by which the new Church was to surpass the old, we cannot understand the

156

passage otherwise than of Christ alone, of whom the priests and kings under the Law were equally a type. The angel, then, here asserts, Christ should die, and at the same time he specifies the kind of death by saying, nothing shall remain to him. This short clause may be taken in various senses, yet I do not hesitate to represent the angel’s meaning to be this — Christ should so die as to be entirely reduced to nothing. Some expound it thus, — -the city or the people shall be as nothing to him; meaning, he shall be divorced from the people, and their adoption shall cease, since we know the Jews to have so fallen away from true piety by their perfidy as to be entirely alienated from God, and to have lost the name of a Church. But that is forced. Others think it means, it shall be neither hostile nor favorable; and others, nothing shall remain to him in the sense of being destitute of all help; but all these comments appear to me too frigid. The genuine sense, I have no doubt, is as follows, — the death of Christ should be without any attractiveness or loveliness, as Isaiah says. (Isaiah 53:2.) In truth, the angel informs us of the ignominious character of Christ’s death, as if he should vanish from the sight of men through want of comeliness. Nothing, therefore, shall remain to him, says he; and the obvious reason is, because men would think him utterly abolished.He now adds, The leader of the coming people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary Here the angel inserts what rather concerns the end of the chapter, as he will afterwards return to Christ. He here mentions what should happen at Christ’s death, and purposely interrupts the order of the narrative to shew that their impiety would not escape punishment, as they not only rejected the Christ of God, but slew him and endeavored to blot out his remembrance from the world. And although the angel had special reference to the faithful alone, still unbelievers required to be admonished with the view of rendering them without excuse. We are well aware of the supineness and brutality of this people, as displayed in their putting Christ to death; for this event occasioned a triumph for the priests and the whole people. Hence these points ought to be joined together. But; the angel consulted the interests of the faithful, as they would be greatly shocked at the death of Christ, which we have alluded to, and also at his ignominy and rejection. As this was a method of perishing so very horrible in the opinion of mankind, the minds of all the pious might utterly despond unless the angel had come to their relief. Hence he proposes a suitable remedy, The leader of the coming people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; as if he had said, There is no encouragement for the unbelievers to please and flatter themselves, because Christ was reduced to nothing after a carnal sense; vengeance shall instantly overtake them; the leader of the coming people shall destroy both the city and the sanctuary He names a coming leader, to prevent the unbelievers from resting secure through self-flattery, as if God would not instantly stretch forth his hand to avenge himself upon them. Although the Roman army which should destroy the city and sanctuary did not immediately appear, yet the Prophet assures them of the arrival of a leader with an army which should occasion the destruction of both the city and the sanctuary. Without the slightest doubt, he here signifies that God would inflict dreadful vengeance upon the Jews for their murder of his Christ. That trifler, Barbinel, when desirous of refuting the Christians, says — more than two hundred years elapsed between the destruction of

157

the Temple and the death of Christ. How ignorant he was! Even if we were to withhold all confidence from the evangelists and apostles, yet profane writers would soon convict him of folly. But such is the barbarity of his nation, and so great their obstinacy, that they are ashamed of nothing. As far as we are concerned, we gather with sufficient clearness from the passage how the angel touched briefly upon the future slaughter of the city and the destruction of the Temple, lest the faithful should be overwhelmed with trials in consequence of Christ’s death, and lest the unbelievers should be hardened through this occurrence. The interpretation of some writers respecting the people of the coming leader, as if Titus wished to spare the most beautiful city and preserve it untouched, seems to me too refined. I take it simply as a leader about to come with his army to destroy the city, and utterly to overthrow the Temple.He afterwards adds, Its end shall be in a deluge Here the angel removes all hope from the Jews, whose obstinacy might lead them to expect some advantage in their favor, for we are already aware of their great stupidity when in a state of desperation. Lest the faithful should indulge in the same feelings with the apostates and rebellious, he says, The end of the leader, Titus, should be in a deluge; meaning, he should overthrow the city and national polity, and utterly put an end to the priesthood and the race, while all God’s favors would at the same time be withdrawn. In this sense his end should be in a deluge Lastly, at the end of the war a most decisive desolation The word נחרצת, nech-retzeth, “a completion,” can scarcely be taken otherwise than as a noun substantive. A plural noun follows, שממות, shem-moth, “of desolation’s” or “devastation’s;” and taken verbally it means “definite or terminated laying waste.” The most skillful grammarians allow that the former of these words may be taken substantively for “termination,” as if the angel had said: Even if the Jews experience a variety of fortune in battle, and have hopes of being superior to their enemies, and of sallying out and prohibiting their foes from entering the city; nay, even if they repel them, still the end of the war shall result in utter devastation, and their destruction is clearly defined. Two points, then, are to be noticed here; first, all hope is to be taken from the Jews, as they must be taught the necessity for their perishing; and secondly, a reason is ascribed for this, namely, the determination of the Almighty and his inviolable decree. It afterwards follows: —

ELLICOTT, " (26) After threescore and two weeks. —These words can only mean that in the seventieth week the Anointed one shall be cut off. Observe the care with which the seventy weeks are arranged in a series of the form 7 + 62 + 1. During the period of seven weeks Jerusalem is to be rebuilt. The “troublous times” are not

158

to be restricted to this period, but may apply to the sixty-two weeks which follow. After the end of the sixty-nine weeks Messiah is to be cut off. By “Messiah” we must understand the same person who is spoken of in Daniel 9:25. It should also be observed that the word “prince,” which is applied to Messiah in Daniel 9:25, is here used of another person—some secular prince, who stands in opposition to the Messiah. The Greek versions render “unction” instead of “anointed,” whence Jacob of Edessa explains “the cutting off” to mean “the cessation of the unction by which judgment and sovereignty were established.” The word “to cut off,” however, applies to a person more appropriately than to a thing. It is frequently used of excommunication, e.g., Exodus 30:33; Exodus 30:38, Psalms 37:9, and must not be mistaken for the word “to cut off” (Isaiah 53:8).But not for himself.—On the marginal rendering comp. John 14:30. Literally the words mean, and He has not, but what it is that He loses is left indefinite. Taking the sense according to the context, the meaning is either that He has no more a people, or that His office of Messiah amongst His people ceases.That shall come.—These words imply coming with hostile intent, as Daniel 1:1; Daniel 11:10. Two such princes have been already mentioned (Daniel 7:23, &c., Daniel 8:23, &c.), the one being Antiochus, the other his great antitype, namely, Antichrist. Are we to identify this “prince” with either of these? Apparently not. Another typical prince is here introduced to our notice, who shall destroy the city and the sanctuary after the “cutting off” or rejection of the Messiah. But it must be noticed that the work of destruction is here attributed to the “people,” and not to the “prince.”The end thereof.—It is not clear what end or whose end is signified. According to grammatical rules, the possessive pronoun may either refer to “sanctuary, the last substantive, or to “prince,” the chief nominative in the sentence. The use of the word “flood” (Daniel 11:22) (comp. “overflow,” Daniel 11:26) makes it, at first sight, more plausible to think of the end of a person than of a thing. (Comp. also Nahum 1:8.) But upon comparing this clause with the following, it appears that by “the end” is meant the whole issue of the invasion. This is stated to be desolation, such as is caused by a deluge.Unto the end.—That is, until the end of the seventy weeks, desolations are decreed. The words recall Isaiah 10:22-23.

TRAPP, "Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

159

Ver. 26. And after threescore and two weeks.] See on Daniel 9:25. Within these threescore and two weeks befell the Jews many memorable things, as may be seen in Daniel 8:1-27, Daniel 11:1-45.Shall Messiah be cut off.] Excindetur, not abscindetur, cut off - that is, by wicked hands crucified and slain; [Acts 2:23] not only cast out of the synagogue, and excommunicated, as that malicious Rabbi read and sensed this text. Others of the Jewish doctors, by the evidence of these words, have been compelled to confess that Messiah is already come, and that he was that Jesus whom their forefathers crucified. See for this R. Samuel ’s Epistle to R. Isaak, set down at large by Dionys. Carthus. in his commentary on this text. See also R. Osea’s lamentation for this inexpiable guilt of the Jewish nation, recorded by Galatinus, lib. iv. cap. 18. Polanus reporteth that he, living some time in Moravia, where he used the help of some Rabbis for the understanding of the Hebrew tongue, heard them say, that for this ninth chapter’s sake, they acknowledged not Daniel to be authentic, and therefore read it not among the people, lest hereby they should be turned to Christ, finding out how they had been by them deceived.But not for himself,] i.e., Not for any fault of his, nor yet for any good to himself, but to mankind; whence some render these words, Et non sibi vel nihil ei, There being nothing therein for him: others, When he shall have nothing, i.e., nothing more to do at Jerusalem, but shall utterly relinquish it, and call his people out of it to Pella, &c.And the people of the prince that shall come,] i.e., Titus ’s soldiers, whose rage he himself could not repress, but they would needs burn down the temple, which he would fain have preserved, as one of the world ’s wonders. (a) Messiah the prince had a hand in it doubtless, whence also those Roman forces are called his armies. [Matthew 22:7]Shall destroy the city.] That slaughter house of the saints.And the sanctuary.] That den of thieves.

160

And the end thereof shall be with a flood,] i.e., Their extirpation shall be sudden, universal, irresistible, as was Noah ’s flood. How this was fulfilled, see Josephus, Hegesippus, Eusebius, &c.And unto the end of the war, &c.] The Romans shall have somewhat to do; but after tedious wars, they shall effect it.

POOLE, " After the threescore and two weeks. i.e. after the seven before, and after the sixty-two that followed them, which all make up sixty-nine, referring the angel’s seventy weeks, which is nothing though no week more be described, because it makes up the number a round number, after the Jewish manner of calculation, and there might be some fragments in the particular reckoning to make up the sum, or it might be finished in the seventieth week, and that was enough to call it seventy weeks, Daniel 9:24.Shall Messiah be cut off; which word trk signifies cutting off, or cutting down, as a tree, Isaiah 44:14 Jeremiah 10:3. Secondly, it is used for cutting off by capital punishment, Exodus 12:15 30:33,38; whether this be by the signal hand of God, or by the magistrate, for some heinous offence, Leviticus 18:29 20:17 Psalms 37:34. This foreshows that the death of Christ should be as of a condemned malefactor sentenced to death, and that justly. So did the Jews, Christ’s executioners, proclaim that he died for blasphemy, and that he was a devilish impostor, &c. Yea, God himself charged sin upon him and the curse, Isaiah 53:4 2 Corinthians 5:21 Galatians 3:13.But not for himself; wl Nyaw which being abrupt, is variously rendered and read; some referring it to Christ, and some to the people: and others to both, and all with very probable conjectures, Psalms 22:6,7 Isa 53:3: i.e. not to him: There was none to succour him; or that they would none of him for their Messiah; they set him at nought, and would not have him live, and therefore he would not own them for his people, but cast them off, for thus dying is expressed in short, not to be. Thus Enoch, Genesis 5:24, Joseph, Genesis 42:36, and Rachel’s children, Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:17,18. But our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i.e. not

161

for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation.The people of the prince that shall come; the Romans under the conduct of Titus Vespantianus. Some will include Christ ’s people here, whom he should chiefly gather out of the Roman empire, should ruin that church, and polity, and worship. Desolations are determined; God hath decreed to destroy that place and people by the miseries and desolations of war, i.e. sword, famine, sickness, scattering. All this is signified byshomemoth: also the profaning of the temple by idols, which are called abominations that make desolate; this was done by the Greeks and Jews before, and the Romans at their siege, and after.Quest. But some will query, why the angel who was sent to comfort Daniel should insert here this tragical business of destruction and desolation, being beyond the space of seventy weeks?Answ.1. That Daniel might be informed of the judgments of God upon that place and people, and the reasons of it, viz. their rejecting and killing Christ.2. That the spirit of God ’s people should not fail when these tragedies were acted; being foretold, thereby they were prepared and fortified against it, and to expect it, and not to be surprised by it when it came.

BENSON, "Daniel 9:26. After threescore and two weeks (counting from the expiration of the first interval) shall Messiah be cut off — “This long interval extends from the 93d Olympiad to the 202d Olympiad, or four hundred and thirty-four years; ending with the sixty-ninth [prophetic] week, and with the commencing of our Lord’s ministry. No prophetic characters are here given of the long interval; but they are supplied from other predictions of this great prophet, which respect the Roman people and empire, the Persian monarchy, Alexander and his successors;

162

particularly by that circumstantial prophecy in the eleventh chapter, respecting the Lagidז and Seleucidז, and extending to the antichristian persecutions and idolatries typified by those of Antiochus Epiphanes. These four centuries include the most interesting periods of profane history, and their chronology is so well ascertained as to make the computation of Daniel ’s weeks mathematically exact. For sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four years, added to seven weeks, or forty-nine years, are equal to four hundred and eighty- three years. After which period, or in the last one week, containing seven years, the Messiah should be cut off. The title of MESSIAH is, by way of eminence, peculiar to Christ. It was first used in this prophecy in that appropriate sense. No other application of this title ever obtained among the ancient Jews. Nor can it, without absurdity, be applied to any civil or ecclesiastical prince, much less to a succession in the high-priesthood. It is here used personally, proper to some one anointed; and to whom it is proper is decided by that emphatic circumstance, Messiah shall be CUT OFF, an expression used in Scripture to denote a judicial sentence and a violent death; BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF — Isaiah gives an exact comment on both these expressions, Isaiah 53:8. HE WAS CUT OFF out of the land of the living; FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE was he stricken.” — Dr. Apthorp.And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, &c. — Thus to the death of Christ the angel immediately subjoins the excision of Jerusalem. The people here spoken of are the Romans, and the prince that should come, may mean, as some think, the Messiah; the Romans being called his people, both on account of their present subserviency to his will, and their future conversion to his faith; HE sent forth HIS armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city, Matthew 22:7. Or, the prince that should come may be understood of Titus Vespasian, of whom the Roman writers speak as if his military glory chiefly resulted from the taking of Jerusalem. “The actions of this prince, in the conduct of this memorable siege, are related in the fifth and sixth books of Josephus; the most tragical event in history was effected by a prince whose clemency made him ‘the delight of human-kind,’ and who saw, with generous reluctance, the horrors of his own victory. — Jos., 7:5. 2. It is thus Divine Providence distinguishes its counsels and instruments; and the victor himself acknowledged that ‘God was his assistant, that none but God could have ejected the Jews from so strong fortifications,’ Josephus Daniel 6:9. 1. They shall destroy the CITY and the SANCTUARY — The specification is remarkable; as Jerusalem, in effect, sustained two separate sieges; one, of the lower city; the other, of the temple, or sanctuary of strength, as our prophet elsewhere styles it, chap. Josephus Daniel 11:31, as being not only a magnificent temple newly rebuilt, but a strong fortress, which was consumed by their own fires, against the intention and efforts of their conqueror. — Josephus

163

Daniel 6:4, 7.” The end thereof shall be with a flood — The symbol of invading armies:— — Aggeribus ruptis cum spumeus amnis Exiit, oppositasque evicit gurgite moles, Fertur in arva furens cumulo, camposque per omnes, Cum stabulis armenta trahit. VIRG. N. 2:496.Not with so fierce a rage the foaming flood Roars, when he finds his rapid course withstood; Bears down the dams with unresisted sway, And sweeps the cattle and the cots away. DRYDEN.And unto the end of the war desolations are determined — “Which marks the irrevocable decree of Heaven, and the completeness of the devastation, after a continued war of more than seven years.” — Dr. Apthorp.

WHEDON, " 26. R.V. reads, “And after the threescore and two weeks shall the [an] anointed one be cut off.” Delitzsch and Zockler, as recent evangelical scholars generally, accept Onias III as the “anointed one” referred to here. Onias was the last Jewish high priest who ruled in the regular succession. He was deposed by Antiochus about 175 B.C. and murdered 171 B.C. This awful event must have made a tremendous impression upon the Jewish world. (Compare Daniel 11:22; 2 Maccabees 4:35.) Others of the newer critics explain this as referring to the murder of Seleucus Philopator by Heliodorus; but this seems less probable than the above. It is a significant fact that“Jewish exposition in pre-Christian times is united in referring this section [Daniel 9:25-27] to the Maccabean era of tribulation under Antiochus Epiphanes” (Zockler). The older exegetes follow here the punctuation of the A.V. and, uniting the seven with the sixty-two weeks, see a direct reference to Jesus the Messiah, who was cut off at the end of the sixty-nine prophetic weeks. (See note Daniel 9:25 and our remarks on “The Seventy Weeks,”Introduction to Daniel, II, 10.) The argument of Dr. Terry that an (or, “the”) anointed one in Daniel 9:26 should be the same as the anointed one in Daniel 9:25, while valid in ordinary historic narration, does not apply so forcibly in apocalyptic writings, which were made purposely obscure and of a double meaning.

164

But not for himself — This translation of the Hebrew cannot be defended. The R.V. is better, “and shall have nothing,” or, as the margin, “there shall be none belonging to him” (or, “for him”). Kautzsch renders freely, “without his having any (fault).” There are grammatical objections to every translation and the meaning is very obscure. Behrmann and many others render “and no one follows [succeeds] him.” Most critics who hold the newer interpretation of the passage explain it as meaning that Onias had no legitimate successor. Those who hold to the direct Messianic interpretation, and yet accept the critical Hebrew text generally, take it to mean that the Messiah had no one to stand for him as protector or helper when threatened with death.The people of the prince that shall come — According to the most common form of the newer critical interpretation this refers to the army of Antiochus (compare Judges 5:2), who came from Rome after the death of Onias and devastated Jerusalem, destroyed the sanctuary, and massacred forty thousand of its inhabitants. For the objection that Antiochus did not literally destroy Jerusalem compare notes Ezekiel 29:8-12. According to the older view this phrase refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.And the end thereof shall be with a flood — In-stead of “the” end R.V. renders “his” end, as also the A.V., in the margin. The difficulty is to know whether the flood sweeps away the sanctuary or the people or the prince. It seems most natural to refer it to the city and sanctuary, over which the invading army sweeps like a deluge (Daniel 11:22; compare Nahum 1:8).And unto the end of the war — Rather, with R.V., “and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.” Instead of the perfect security, victory, and peace which Daniel at the close of the seventy years’ captivity would probably have expected from the prophecy of Jeremiah which he was reading (Daniel 9:2; compare Jeremiah 29:11; Jeremiah 29:14; Jeremiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:10; Jeremiah 30:19-20; Jeremiah 33:10-16), the “perpetual desolations” which Jeremiah had prophesied against the heathen (Jeremiah 25:12) are now prophesied against Jerusalem clear down to the end of the seventy weeks. Only after these seventy weeks of calamity can the real fulfillment of all Jeremiah’s prophecies of restoration and joy take place.

PETT, "Verse 26“And after the sixty two sevens the anointed one will be cut off, and will have nothing, and the people of the coming prince will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And their end will be with a flood. And even to the end there will be war. Desolations are determined.”

165

Now if we read this verse without preconceived notions, and without a theory to be supported, the natural interpretation of this verse is that the anointed prince, who was to come after the sixty nine ‘sevens’ have passed, will be cut off, and that his people will then destroy the city and the sanctuary. And this is supported by the fact that the prince is a ‘nagid’ (a prince of Israel, see earlier in the passage) in both cases. Note especially that on this interpretation Daniel 9:25 speaks of ‘the anointed one, the prince’, then Daniel 9:26 refers to him first as ‘the anointed one’ and then as ‘the prince’. Thus the three references fit together as referring to the same person in three different ways, the first combining both terms and preparing for the other two.Indeed on this basis the whole passage fits together. The prince arrives. Rebellion takes place. The prince is cut off (compare Leviticus 7:20; Psalms 37:9; Isaiah 53:8). Then his rebellious people destroy the city and sanctuary. But could this be seen as happening to God ’s anointed prince? Could it be that the One for whom Israel has waited should be cut off (put to death for gross sin), and finish up with nothing?That that could be seen as happening is evidenced by Isaiah ’s picture of the anointed prophet who, personifying Israel, comes to proclaim the truth to Israel (Isaiah 49:1-6), is falsely tried, smitten, spat on and shamed (Isaiah 50:6; Isaiah 53:7-8), and sets his face like a flint to go towards his destiny (Isaiah 50:7), with the result that he is made to suffer and is offered as a sacrifice (Isaiah 53:3-5; Isaiah 53:8; Isaiah 53:10-12), thereby accomplishing the will of God (Isaiah 53:10). And finally He is to be exalted, extolled and be very high (Isaiah 52:13). Daniel may well have had this picture and thought in mind, especially if we link it with the anointed prophet in Isaiah 61:1.The fact is that all were looking forward to the coming of an anointed Prince (Isaiah 11:1-2; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 55:3; Hosea 3:4-5) or Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:18; Isaiah 42:1-4; Isaiah 49:1-6; Isaiah 53:1-12; Isaiah 61:1-2). But the prophets had come to realise that when such

166

a One came Israel would reject Him, because He would not fulfil their expectations, They would put Him away because He was too righteous (compare Zechariah 13:7). But above all they recognised that somehow, in spite of what they did, God’s purposes would be fulfilled through that rejection.Of course this picture will not be pleasing to those who want to see Antiochus Epiphanes as the prince who destroys the sanctuary (but why then a nagid?), nor to those who want to see it as referring to Titus or the king of the end days. But it is very questionable whether any of these could be given the title ‘nagid’, which means a prince anointed by God and chosen as His adopted son. Indeed it is difficult to see why Antiochus Epiphanes or the king of the end days should be called ‘prince’ at all, or why they would be spoken of, uniquely, in terms of their people. They are always referred to elsewhere as ‘king’. And there is really no reason why the Roman invasion should not have been attributed to a king, for Titus was acting on his father ’s authority. But these difficulties are often simply overlooked because they get in the way of a theory.A further point to be made is that the reference is to ‘the peopleof the prince who is coming.’ Now if the prince has been cut off we can see immediately why they should be so described. On the other hand Daniel does not otherwise normally refer to ‘the people’. He refers directly to the king or the kingdom, whilst the people who follow the king are assumed. Why then this sudden change? Why say ‘the people of Antiochus’ or ‘the people of Titus’? It is very odd indeed and against all precedent.However there is one circumstance where ‘the people’ are referred to rather than the prince, and that is in Daniel 7:27 where reference is to the people of God in contrast with the kings and their kingdoms. They are called ‘the people of the saints of the Most High ’. There the emphasis is on the people and not the prince. Thus general usage is against the phrase ‘the people of the coming prince’ being seen as signifying a worldly ruler and is in favour of it indicating Israel, although in this case Israel in rebellion.

167

But how then was this fulfilled? Certainly an ‘anointed prince’ came in Jesus Christ (Jesus the anointed One), and certainly He was put to death and had nothing. And certainly by their act of crucifying Jesus Israel brought on its own head the wrath of God resulting in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. This was something that Jesus again and again pointed out would happen. The act of rejecting and crucifying Him was constantly connected by Him with the idea of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.They had refused to listen to Him when He sought to gather them as chickens under His wings and their house would therefore be left to them desolate (Matthew 23:37-38; Matthew 24:2; compare John 2:19). The fig tree was to be cursed and the mountain was to be thrown into the sea (Mark 11:21-22). Jesus was confident that the Temple would be destroyed, and that must surely have been with His coming death in mind (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). Compare how in the same context in Daniel as this verse Jerusalem’s previous destruction came from a curse on them in Daniel 9:11-12. So by this act of cutting off the Messiah the people are seen by Daniel as again putting themselves under a curse, and thus, by it, bringing about the effective destruction of the city and the sanctuary.Furthermore it should be noted that very similar language was in fact used by the Jewish historian Josephus in 1st century AD, who also ascribed the destruction of Jerusalem to his own people and their behaviour. He says, ‘I venture to say that the sedition destroyed the city and the Romans destroyed the sedition.’ And again, ‘I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and thatfrom this very day may be dated the overthrow of her walls. ’ (Italics ours).And when we look at what happened we can understand why he said it. For the story of the end of Jerusalem in 70 AD is almost unbelievable. The Jews behaved like madmen. They fought each other even while the armies of Rome were approaching the city, and in consequence they sacked much of the city. They even destroyed the grain supplies to prevent their rivals from using them. The different factions then defended different places from which they glared at each other, and made sallies against each other, although in

168

the end also, with much bravery, fighting the Romans. And it must seem very probable that they did deliberately set alight their own temple in order to prevent Titus from desecrating it (Titus had given strict orders for the preservation of the Temple). So the suggestion that they destroyed their own city is certainly historically true, and if Josephus could thus date this destruction of Jerusalem from the death of Ananus, how much more could it be dated from the death of their God sent Messiah.How poignant is the picture. The city and sanctuary having been built, the anointed prince comes. But the people are so sinful that they ‘cut Him off’, (a phrase which regularly signifies someone cut off for gross sin) and then by their actions bring about the destruction of the very city and sanctuary which they had so longed for. Retribution indeed. By it the sinfulness of man is revealed to its fullest extent. But by it also the city and sanctuary are finished. They are written off. Hope now lies totally in God. In other words this revelation is emphasising that final hope must not be placed in the city of Jerusalem or in the TempleWe must pause for a moment to consider this picture. Daniel has seen and known of the process of Jerusalem’s first destruction, which has witnessed to the sinfulness of his people, he has been informed of the sacrilege to happen against the second temple in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, which was to be the end of the days of indignation against his people ’s sins (Daniel 8:19), and now he learns that Jerusalem and the sanctuary are once more to be destroyed, this time by his own people. The message could only be that once again his people as a whole will fail to truly respond to God, that no hope can be placed in them, even though they have been given another chance.‘And their end will be with a flood. And even to the end there will be war. Desolations are determined.’ Scripture often describes invaders in terms of a flood. See Daniel 11:22; Isaiah 8:7-8; Isaiah 17:13; Jeremiah 46:8. So Israel having killed their Messiah will experience the flood of God ’s anger (Nahum 1:8). Reference is made to ‘their end’, which comes suddenly, and then to‘the end’. This could be to the end of a new period of God ’s indignation against them (compare Daniel 8:19), or possibly to the end of time. Either

169

way it is described in terms of war. Jesus may well have had this verse in mind when He spoke of wars and rumours of wars (Mark 13:7). Some have tried to see ‘even to the end’ as signifying a gap between the sixty ninth and seventieth week. But if that were so it would leave the destruction of the city and the Temple to occur before the gap, and thus in the sixty ninth seven. For their theory it is simply self-defeating. And it is difficult to see ‘to the end’ as signifying any other than what it says. To the end of the seventy‘sevens’.‘Desolations are determined.’ The world and its sinfulness is such that there can only be desolations. Man in his inner heart does not change unless transformed by the power of Christ. Thus his continuing sinfulness will result in desolations, and is the reason why God determines desolations on him. War and desolations are to be the future of mankind.Note On The Prince Who Will Come.The natural interpretation of the prince who will come in the context, given that the reference is to his people, is that it refers to the prince already described as coming in Daniel 9:25. He has been cut off and therefore his people are left to act on their own. This would tie in with the use of nagid, which almost always refers to a king of Israel appointed by God, and it would also link him and his death with the destruction of the city and the Temple, something which the Gospels do of the death of Jesus.There is, however, another popular view (although not among most scholars) which attempts to see in this description a reference to a king who will come prior to the second coming of Christ. The idea is that his people are mentioned (which they see as the Romans) pointing to the fact that the king of those final days of the age will also be connected with the Roman empire, a Roman empire that is revived. But this view must be rejected for a number of reasons:· Firstly because the term nagid is not the term that Daniel would use of such a king. He would use either sar or melech. He only elsewhere uses

170

nagid of an Israelite prince.· Secondly because the people who destroyed the city and Temple would not be his people. They would be the people of the emperor who was ruling the Roman empire at the time. Thus it is far too subtle. Surely had Daniel intended to convey such a message he could have done it by directly referring to the king and indicating his connection with the fourth beast. It took the subtle minds of the modern era to weave together such a pattern from different parts of Daniel.· Thirdly because it seems a very backhand way in which to introduce such an important personage without giving any further information about him.· Fourthly because those who hold this view then see him as a foreigner‘confirming covenant’ with the Jews. But in this case he would be making the covenant not confirming it. Why then use the idea of ‘confirming’. And besides the word ‘covenant’ is not the one used of treaties and alliances made by foreign kings in Daniel. It is elsewhere only used of the covenant with God, which would then make sense of it being confirmed because it was already in existence, and having been broken required confirmation.· Fifthly because normally in Hebrew the antecedent of ‘he’ would be sought in the subject of a previous sentence unless there were good grounds for seeing otherwise. And a previously unmentioned prince would hardly be good grounds.Thus everything about this interpretation is wrong.End of note.

PULPIT, "And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. The version of the LXX. is

171

nearly unintelligible as it stands, though the genesis of each separate clause from a text akin to the Massoretic can be easily understood, "And after seven and seventy and sixty-two, the anointing shall be taken away, and shall not be, and the kingdom of the heathen shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Messiah, and his end shall come with wrath, and it shall be warred with war till the time of the end." The first clause has strayed from the end of the preceding verse, and שבעים (shibeeem), "seventy," is confused with שבעים(shibooeem), "weeks." It is a possible thing that the Kabbalistic use of numbers had something to do with this number, for if these numbers are expressed in letters, and the letters taken as initials, we have the initials of this sentence סלעמית בבל זמן עד, "The time until the overthrow of Babylon." They must have read משחה instead of "It is difficult to understand how "the people of the prince that shall come .משיח could be read, "the kingdom of the Gentiles." save by supposing a somewhat arbitrary paraphrase. The last clause has probably assumed the present shape through the insertion of some part of the verb לחם, and the omission of the end of the verse. Theodotion's rendering is in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, yet is wide from it too, "After the sixty-two weeks anointing shall be utterly destroyed, and judgment is not in it (or 'him,' ץב ôù ), and he (it) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the leader that cometh; they shall be cut off with a flood, even until the end of the war, having been arranged by disappearances in order." The introduction of êñéìá is difficult to explain, except as an explanatory addition from Isaiah 53:8. Still more difficult is it to understand the genesis of the last clause. The Peshitta, though considerably closer to the Massoretic in the beginning of the verse, is as far apart in the last clause, "And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed shall he killed, and there was not to him, and the city of the holy shall be destroyed with the king that cometh and his end is with a flood, even until the end of the war of the fragments of destruction." The Vetus, as represented by the quotation in Tertullian, is not so close to the LXX. as it usually is, "And after the sixty-two weeks, even the anointing shall be destroyed, and shall not be, and with the coming leader he shall destroy the holy city, and thus shall be destroyed in the end of the war, because he shall be destroyed even to death." This version agrees neither with the LXX. nor with Theodotion. Jerome translates into an eminently Christian sense, "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain, and his people who will deny him will not be. And his people with a leader about to come, will destroy the city and sanctuary, its end wasting, and after the end of the war desolation determined." And after three score and two weeks shall the Messiah be cut off. The period of sixty-two weeks must begin after the seven weeks have ended, as the completed period to Messiah the prince is seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. The Messiah: the word has no article, and, therefore, it is argued, it ought to be rendered "an anointed one;" but the use of the article is not so rigid. It is omitted in poetic and semi-poetic passages: eg. the first word in the Hebrew Bible is anarthreus, although we are obliged to translate it with the article. Further, the Messiah the Prince has already been mentioned, and, therefore, comes somewhat into the region of proper

172

names, as Amos 7:12, "the sanctuary of king," instead of "the king;" so 1 Kings 21:13, "curse God and king." We take "Messiah" here as equivalent to "the Messiah" above mentioned. Who is it that is here referred to? The common critical position assuming, without reason assigned, that "anointed" without any subject may refer to a priest, asserts that the reference here is to Onias III. The account of his murder is given in 2 Macc. 4:39. He had succeeded his father, Simon If; as high priest, b.c. 198. In connection with his high-priesthood is the legendary story told (2 Macc. 3.) of the attempt of Heliodorus to spoil the temple. On the accession of Epiphanes, Jason, the brother of Onias, endeavoured to undermine him with the king, and succeeded: Onias, displaced, in favour of Jason, retired to Antioch. Three years after Jason, in turn, was superseded by Menelaus, who, according to 2 Maccabees, was a Benjamite. Onias rebuked Menelaus for selling some of the sacred vessels; Menelaus bribed Andronieus to put Onias to death, which he did, alluring him from the sanctuary of Daphne, in which he had taken refuge. Josephus gives a different account of matters ('Ant.,' 12.5), "About this time, Onias having died, he (Epiphanes) gives the high-priesthood to his brother Jesus, for the son whom Onias left was only a child. This Jesus, who was brother of Onias, was deprived of the high-priesthood. The king, being angry with him, gave it to his youngest brother Onias." Josephus adds, "These two brothers changed their names—Jesus became Jason, and Onias Menelaus. After a little, Onias (Menelaus) was expelled from Jerusalem, and retired to Antiochus and abjured his religion." In 1 Macccabees there is no reference to the death of Onias at all. Certainly the First Book of Maccabees does not take up this part of the history, but if this Onias was murdered, and his murder so affected Jewish feeling, that it became a date of superlative interest in Jewish history—the writer would at least have referred to it. The whole story, as told in 2 Maccabees, has a doubtful look. Even if we disregard the Heliodorus legend altogether, and the suspicion of the whole history which it engenders, we have Menelaus, a man who, according to 2 Maccabees, is a Benjamite, intruded into an office for which only Aaronites were eligible, without a hint that the writer thought it an additional element in the guilt of the usurper. Josephus mentions it as a point against Alcimus, that he was not of the high-priestly family ('Ant.,' 11.9. 5), yet Alcimus was a descendant of Aaron (l Macc. 7:13). We have, further, a zealous Jew retiring to Antioch, and, when in danger, betaking himself for safety to the heathen sanctuary of Daphne. We know the orgies that consecrated the groves of Daphne. These would make Daphne the last place in which a Jewish high priest would seek refuge; if his very presence in the sanctuary would not be held by the Greeks as polluting it. Titus, even though we had not the express evidence of Josephus against it, the narrative is self-condemned. The whole story is baseless, and, whether true or false, did not affect Jewish imagination in the way assumed by critics. Had the story been that, while high priest, he was allured from the sacred precincts of the temple at Jerusalem and been murdered, then the legend, even if untrue, might well have affected the Jews deeply. But a high priest who had surrendered his office and retired into a heathen city was a less sacred person, and his allurement from a heathen sanctuary and his murder was a less heinous crime. The whole notion that Onias III. can be thought of here is an absurdity that would have been scouted at once by these critics, had any necessity of

173

argument required it. The origin of this legend of the murder of Onias IIl. is to be sought in the murder or execution of Onias Menelaus by order of Antiochus Eupator (Jos; 'Ant.,' 12.9. 5; 2 Macc. 13:5). Is the anointed one Seleucus Philopator? Bleek, von Lengerke, Maurer, and Ewald hold this view. Seleucus is alleged to have been murdered by Helio-dorus: this rests on the sole authority of Appian, in a narrative in which there is evidence of confusion. Even if it be granted, it is difficult to imagine a heathen prince called "Messiah." Certainly Cyrus is called so in the Second Isaiah, but this is because of the work he is to do for Israel. There seems a necessity to maintain that it was some one who was to be the anointed prince of the Jewish people, who should thus be cut off. But not for himself. Great difference of opinion exists as to the precise meaning of this phrase. The meaning expressed by the Authorized Version would have required at least in normal Hebrew, not ואין לו(v'ayin lo), but ולא לו (velo'lo). The Revised Version is preferable, "and shall have nothing." It may mean "he shall not be," but that is not so natural. The Revised, however, is vague, and one is inclined to seek for an explanation in a parallel passage in Daniel 11:45, ואין עפוזר לו, "And there was no helper to him." It is no sufficient answer to say, as does Professor Bevan, that Daniel 11:45 applies to Epiphanes, and this does not. The same statement might be made of two different persons. It seems to be a more condensed expression of what we find in Isaiah 63:3, "Of the people there was none with me." Behrmann's translation is indefensible, "No one remains to him, i.e. follows him;" he gives no particular reference. This view assumes Onias III. to be the Messiah. He was, according to Josephus, on his death succeeded by first one and then the other of his two brothers, because his son was too young for the office. The further assumption has to be made that, in the opinion of the pious, they were not successors of Onias. The pious of that time have left no record of their opinions. And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The word translated "prince" is rarely to be rendered" king." The only cases are these of Solomon (1 Chronicles 29:22) and Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:5). The former was anointed, נגיד, while his father was still living; the latter occurs in a poetical passage. Priests are sometimes called" princes," or "rulers," but that is simply in regard to the house of God and the sacerdotal arrangements. If the verse stood by itself, there would seem little possible difficulty in regard to accepting the old Jewish interpretation which made "the prince" Titus, who was left to carry on the siege of Jerusalem while his father was in Rome, busied with the duties incumbent on the occupant of the imperial throne. Certainly the Romans, the people of the prince, did destroy the city and the sanctuary in a more thorough way than any one since Nebuchadnezzar. And the end thereof shall be with a flood. It is difficult to decide the reference of "thereof" here. The reference grammatically seems to be restricted to "the people," as that is the nominative of the preceding verb. It may, however, without much grammatical strain, refer to the prince. In regard to prophecy, especially apocalyptic prophecy, grammar cannot be regarded as affording a final canon for interpretation. The main subject of the verse is the Messiah who shall be cut off. There might, therefore, be a reference to him, "his end" being the vengeance that came upon the people for deserting him. This is the interpretation of the Septuagint, "The kingdom of the heathen shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the Messiah," identifying "prince" with "Messiah," and

174

his end shall come with wrath." Theodotion refers to the city and the sanctuary, for he has, "They shall be cut off with a flood." The Peshitta refers to the king that cometh. The Vetus has finem belli. Jerome has finis eius vastitas, his reference being to the city. The idea of Hitzig, that the prenominal suffix refers to the campaign, seems the most natural one. Of course, Hitzig refers it to the campaign of Antiochus, but the interpretation does not necessitate that. With a flood; not a literal flood. This word does not elsewhere refer to a number of men, save in the eleventh chapter of this book; that chapter, however, is of doubtful authenticity. All that we draw from the use of shateph, "a flood," for "a multitude of men," and of shataph, "to overflow," "to overrun," is that, in the opinion of the author of the eleventh chapter, the phrase here means "a multitude of men." "Wrath," or "devastation," seems to be the best meaning of the word. The latter seems, on the whole, the more natural rendering here. If so, no one can fail to see how apt a description it gives of the state of Judaea, and especially of Jerusalem, after the war which was concluded by the capture of the city by Titus. And unto the end of the war desolations are determined. Rather it should be rendered, "until the end was the decree of desolations," viz. the end of this campaign above referred to, and until that end is reached, war, which is itself a decree of desolations, is determined. Taken thus, this clause explains that which has gone before. The text here, however, is evidently in such a corrupt state that no decision can be made with any feeling of confidence. The Septuagint appears to have read yillaḥaym instead of nehresheth, and has omitted the last word altogether. Theodotion has, "by order in disappearances," but one cannot tell what Hebrew words these represent. The Vetus, which usually stands closely related to the Septuagint, omits a number of words. The uncertainty of the text renders one chary of suggesting meanings.

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[k]”[l]

175

BARNES, "And he shall confirm the covenant - literally, “he shall make strong” - vehıgebıyr. The idea is that of giving strength, or stability; of והגבירmaking firm and sure. The Hebrew word here evidently refers to the “covenant” which God is said to establish with his people - so often referred to in the Scriptures as expressing the relation between Him and them, and hence used, in general, to denote the laws and institutions of the true religion - the laws which God has made for his church; his promises to be their protector, etc., and the institutions which grow out of that relation. The margin reads it, more in accordance with the Hebrew, “a,” meaning that he would confirm or establish “a covenant” with the many. According to this, it is not necessary to suppose that it was any existing covenant that it referred to, but that he would ratify what was understood by the word “covenant;” that is, that he would lead many to enter into a true and real covenant with God. This would be fulfilled if he should perform such a work as would bring the “many” into a relation to God corresponding to what was sustained to him by his ancient people; that is, bring them to be his true friends and worshippers.

The meaning of the expression here cannot be mistaken, that during the time specified, “he” (whoever may be referred to) would, for “one week” -pursue such a course as would tend to establish the true religion; to render it more stable and firm; to give it higher sanctions in the approbation of the “many,” and to bring it to bear more decidedly and powerfully on the heart. Whether this would be by some law enacted in its favor; or by protection extended over the nation; or by present example; or by instruction; or by some work of a new kind, and new influences which he would set forth, is not mentioned, and beforehand perhaps it could not have been well anticipated in what way this would be. There has been a difference of opinion, however, as to the proper nominative to the verb “confirm” - הגבירhıgebıyr - whether it is the Messiah, or the foreign prince, or the “one week.” Hengstenberg prefers the latter, and renders it, “And one week shall confirm the covenant; with many.”

So also Lengerke renders it. Bertholdt renders it “he,” that is, “he shall unite himself firmly with many for one week” - or, a period of seven years, ein Jahrsiebend lang. It seems to me that it is an unnatural construction to make the word “week” the nominative to the verb, and that the more obvious interpretation is to refer it to some person to whom the whole subject relates. It is not usual to represent time as an agent in accomplishing a work. In poetic and metaphorical language, indeed, we personate time as cutting down men, as a destroyer, &e., but this usage would not justify the expression that “time would confirm a covenant with many.” That is, evidently, the work of conscious, intelligent agent; and it is most natural, therefore, to understand this as of one of the two agents who are spoken of in the passage. These two agents are the “Messiah,” and the “prince that should come.”176

But it is not reasonable to suppose that the latter is referred to, because it is said Dan_9:26 that the effect and the purpose of his coming would be to “destroy the city and the sanctuary.” He was to come “with a flood,” and the effect of his coming would be only desolation. The more correct interpretation, therefore, is to refer it to the Messiah, who is the principal subject of the prophecy; and the work which, according to this, he was to perform was, during that “one week,” to exert such an influence as would tend to establish a covenant between the people and God. The effect of his work during that one week would be to secure their adhesion to the “true religion;” to confirm to them the Divine promises, and to establish the principles of that religion which would lead them to God. Nothing is said of the mode by which that would be done; and anything, therefore, which would secure this would be a fulfillment of the prophecy. As a matter of fact, if it refers to the Lord Jesus, this was done by his personal instructions, his example, his sufferings and death, and the arrangements which he made to secure the proper effect of his work on the minds of the people - all designed to procure for them the friendship and favor of God, and to unite them to him in the bonds of an enduring covenant.With many - lârabıym. Or, for many; or, unto many. He would לרבים

perform a work which would pertain to many, or which would bear on many, leading them to God. There is nothing in the word here which would indicate who they were, whether his own immediate followers, or those who already were in the covenant. The simple idea is, that this would pertain to “many” persons, and it would be fulfilled if the effect of his work were to confirm “many” who were already in the covenant, or if he should bring “many” others into a covenant relation with God. Nothing could be determined from the meaning of the word used here as to which of these things was designed, and consequently a fair fulfillment would be found if either of them occurred. If it refers to the Messiah, it would be fulfilled if in fact the effect of his coming should be either by statute or by instructions to confirm and establish those who already sustained this relation to God, or if he gathered other followers, and confirmed them in their allegiance to God.For one week - The fair interpretation of this, according to the principles adopted throughout this exposition, is, that this includes the space of seven years. See the notes at Dan_9:24. This is the one week that makes up the seventy - seven of them, or forty-nine years, embracing the period from the command to rebuild the city and temple to its completion under Nehemiah; sixty-two, or four hundred and thirty-four years, to the public appearing of the Messiah, and this one week to complete the whole seventy, or four hundred and ninety years “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” etc., Dan_9:24. It is essential, therefore, to find something done, occupying these seven years, that would go to “confirm the covenant” in the sense above explained. In the consideration of this, the attention is arrested by the announcement of an important event which was to occur “in the midst of the week,” to wit, in causing the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, showing that there was to be an important change occurring during the “week,” or that while he would be, in fact, confirming the covenant through the week in some proper sense, the sacrifice and oblation would

177

cease, and therefore the confirming of the many in the covenant must depend on something else than the continuation of the sacrifice and oblation. In regard to this language, as in respect to all the rest of the prophecy, there are, in fact, just two questions: one is, what is fairly to be understood by the words, or what is the proper interpretation, independent of anything in the result; the other is, whether anything occurred in what is regarded as the fulfillment which corresponds with the language so interpreted.(1) The first inquiry then, is, What is the fair meaning of the language? Or what would one who had a correct knowledge of the proper principles of interpretation understand by this? Now, in regard to this, while it may be admitted, perhaps, that there would be some liability to a difference of view in interpreting it with no reference to the event, or no shaping of its meaning by the event, the following things seem to be clear:(a) that the “one week,” would comprise seven years, immediately succeeding the appearance of the Messiah, or the sixty-two weeks, and that there was something which he would do in “confirming the covenant,” or in establishing the principles of religion, which would extend through that period of seven years, or that that would be, in some proper sense, “a period” of time, having a beginning - to wit, his appearing, and some proper close or termination at the end of the seven years: that is, that there would be some reason why that should be a marked period, or why the whole should terminate there, and not at some other time.(b) That in the middle of that period of seven years, another important event would occur, serving to divide that time into two portions, and especially to be known as causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease; in some way affecting the public offering of sacrifice, so that from that time there would be in fact a cessation.(c) And that this would be succeeded by the consummation of the whole matter expressed in the words, “and for the overspreading of abomination he shall make it desolate,” etc. It is not said, however, that this latter would immediately occur, but this would be one of the events that would pertain to the fulfillment of the prophecy. There is nothing, indeed, in the prediction to forbid the expectation that this would occur at once, nor is there anything in the words which makes it imperative that we should so understand it. It may be admitted that this would be the most natural interpretation, but it cannot be shown that that is required. It may be added, also, that this may not have pertained to the direct design of the prophecy - which was to foretell the coming of the Messiah, but that this was appended to show the end of the whole thing. When the Messiah should have come, and should have made an atonement for sin, the great design of rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple would have been accomplished, and both might pass away. Whether that would occur immediately or not might be in itself a matter of indifference; but it was important to state here that it would occur, for that was properly a completion of the design of rebuilding the city, and of the purpose for which it had ever been set apart as a holy city.(2) The other inquiry is whether there was that in what is regarded as the fulfillment of this, which fairly corresponds with the prediction. I have

178

attempted above (on Dan_9:25) to show that this refers to the Messiah properly so called - the Lord Jesus Christ. The inquiry now is, therefore, whether we can find in his life and death what is a fair fulfillment of these reasonable expectations. In order to see this, it is proper to review these points in their order:(a) The period, then, which is embraced in the prophecy, is seven years, and it is necessary to find in his life and work something which would be accomplished during these seven years which could be properly referred to as “confirming the covenant with many.” The main difficulty in the case is on this point, and I acknowledge that this seems to me to be the most embarrassing portion of the prophecy, and that the solutions which can be given of this are less satisfactory than those that pertain to any other part. Were it not that the remarkable clause “in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” were added, I admit that the natural interpretation would be, that he would do this personally, and that we might look for something which he would himself accomplish during the whole period of seven years. That clause, however, looks as if some remarkable event were to occur in the middle of that period, for the fact that he would tense the sacrifice and oblation to cease - that is, would bring the rites of the temple to a close - shows that what is meant by “confirming the covenant” is different from the ordinary worship under the ancient economy. No Jew would think of expressing himself thus, or would see how it was practicable to “confirm the covenant” at the same time that all his sacrifices were to cease. The confirming of the covenant, therefore, during that “one week,” must be consistent with some work or event that would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease in the middle of that period.(b) The true fulfillment, it seems to me, is to be found in the bearing of the work of the Saviour on the Hebrew people - the ancient covenant people of God - for about the period of seven years after he entered on his work. Then the particular relation of his work to the Jewish people ceased. It may not be practicable to make out the exact time of “seven years” in reference to this, and it may be admitted that this would not be understood from the prophecy before the things occurred; but still there are a number of circumstances which will show that this interpretation is not only plausibIe, but that it has in its very nature strong probability in its favor. They are such as these:(1) The ministry of the Saviour himself was wholly among the Jews, and his work was what would, in their common language, be spoken of as “confirming the covenant; “that is, it would be strengthening the principles of religion, bringing the Divine promises to bear on the mind, and leading men to God, etc.(2) This same work was continued by the apostles as they labored among the Jews. They endeavored to do the same thing that their Lord and Master had done, with all the additional sanctions, now derived from his life and death. The whole tendency of their ministry would have been properly expressed in this language: that they endeavored to “confirm the covenant” with the Hebrew people; that is, to bring them to just views of the character of their natural covenant with God; to show them how it was confirmed in the Messiah; to establish the ancient promises; and to bring to bear upon

179

them the sanctions of their law as it was now fulfilled, and ratified, and enlarged through the Messiah. Had the Saviour himself succeeded in this, or had his apostles, it would have been, in fact, only “confirming the ancient covenant” - the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the covenant established under Moses, and ratified by so many laws and customs among the people. The whole bearing of the Saviour’s instructions, and of his followers, was to carry out and fulfill the real design of that ancient institution - to show its true nature and meaning, and to impress it on the hearts of men(3) This was continued for about the period here referred to; at least for a period so long that it could properly be represented in round numbers as “one week,” or seven years. The Saviour’s own ministry continued about half that time; and then the apostles prosecuted the same work, laboring with the Jews for about the other portion, before they turned their attention to the Gentiles, and before the purpose to endearour to bring in the Jewish people was abandoned. They remained in Jerusalem; they preached in the synagogues; they observed the rites of the temple service; they directed their first attention everywhere to the Hebrew people; they had not yet learned that they were to turn away from the “covenant people,” and to go to the Gentiles. It was a slow process by which they were led to this. It required a miracle to convince Peter of it, and to show him that it was right to go to Cornelius Acts 10, as a representative of the Gentile people, and it required another miracle to convert Saul of Tarsus, “the apostle of the Gentiles,” and to prepare him for the work of carrying the gospel to the pagan world, and a succession of severe persecutions was demanded to induce the apostles to leave Jerusalem, and to go abroad upon the face of the earth to convey the message of salvation.Their first work was among the Jewish people, and they would have remained among them if they had not been driven away by these persecutions, and been thus constrained to go to other lands. It is true that it cannot be shown that this was a period of exactly “half a week,” or three years and a half after the ascension of the Saviour, but, in a prophecy of this nature, it was a period that might, in round numbers, be well expressed by that; or the whole might be properly described by “seventy weeks,” or four hundred and ninety years, and the last portion after the appearing of the Messiah as one of these weeks. There has been much needless anxiety to make out the exact time to a month or a day in regard to this prophecy - not remembering its general design, and not reflecting how uncertain are all the questions in ancient chronology. Compare the sensible remarks of Calvin on Dan_9:25.(4) When this occurred; when the apostles turned away from the Hebrew people, and gave themselves to their labors among the Gentiles, the work of “confirming the covenant” with those to whom the promises had been made, and to whom the law was given, ceased. They were regarded as “broken off” and left, and the hope of success was in the Gentile world. See the reasoning of the apostle Paul in Rom. 11. Jerusalem was given up soon after to destruction, and the whole work, as contemplated in this prophecy, ceased. The object for which the city and temple were rebuilt was accomplished, and here was a proper termination of the “prophecy.” It was

180

not necessary, indeed, that these should be at once destroyed, but they were henceforth regarded as having fulfilled the work designed, and as being now left to ruin. The ruin did not at once occur, but the sacrifices thenceforward offered were without meaning, and the train of events was constantly preparing that would sweep away city and temple together. I suppose, therefore, that this last “one week” embraced the period from the beginning of the ministry of the Saviour to that when the direct and exclusive efforts to bring the principles of his religion to bear on the Hebrew people, as carrying out the design of the covenant made by God with their fathers, and confirmed with so many promises, ceased, and the great effort was commenced to evangelize the pagan world. Then was the proper close of the seventy weeks; what is added is merely a statement of the winding up of the whole affair in the destruction of the city and temple. That occurred, indeed, some years after; but at this period all that was material in regard to that city had taken place, and consequently that was all that was necessary to specify as to the proper termination of the design of rebuilding the city and the temple.And in the midst of the week - The word here rendered “in the midst” - חצי

chētsıy - means, properly, half, the half part, Exo_24:6; Num_12:12; then the middle, or the midst, Jdg_16:3. The Vulgate renders it, in dimidio; the Greek, ἐν τῳ ἡμίσει en tō hēmisei. Hengstenberg, “the half.” So Lengerke, die Halfte; Luther, mitten. The natural and obvious interpretation is what is expressed in our translation, and that will convey the essential idea in the original. It refers to something which was to occur at about the middle portion of this time, or when about half of this period was elapsed, or to something which it would require half of the “one week,” or seven years, to accomplish. The meaning of the passage is fully met by the supposition that it refers to the Lord Jesus and his work, and that the exact thing that was intended by the prophecy was his death, or his being “cut off,” and thus causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease.

Whatever difficulties there may be about the “precise” time of our Lord’s ministry, and whether he celebrated three passovers or four after he entered on his public work, it is agreed on all hands that it lasted about three years and a half - the time referred to here. Though a few have supposed that a longer period was occupied, yet the general belief of the church has coincided in that, and there are few points in history better settled. On the supposition that this pertains to the death of the Lord Jesus, and that it was the design of the prophecy here to refer to the effects of that death, this is the very language which would have been used. If the period of “a week” were for any purpose mentioned, then it would be indispensable to suppose that there would be an allusion to the important event - in fact, the great event which was to occur in the middle of that period, when the ends of the types and ceremonies of the Hebrew people would be accomplished, and a sacrifice made for the sins of the whole world.He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease - The word “he,” in this place, refers to the Messiah, if the interpretation of the former part of the verse is correct, for there can be no doubt that it is the same person who is mentioned in the phrase “he shall confirm the covenant with many.” The

181

words “sacrifice” and “oblation” refer to the offerings made in the temple. The former word more properly denotes “bloody” offerings; the latter “offerings” of any kind - whether of flour, fruits, grain, etc. See these words explained in the notes at Isa_1:11, Isa_1:13. The word rendered “cease” means, properly, to rest (from the word Sabbath), and then (yashebıyt ישבית)in Hiphil, to cause to rest, or to cause to cease. It conveys the idea of “putting an end to” - as, for example, “war,” Psa_46:9; “contention,” Pro_18:18; “exultation,” Isa_16:10. - Gesenius. The literal signification here would be met by the supposition that an end would be made of these sacrifices, and this would occur either by their being made wholly to cease to be offered at that time, or by the fact that the object of their appointment was accomplished, and that henceforward they would be useless and would die away.

As a matter of fact, so far as the Divine intention in the appointment of these sacrifices and offerings was concerned, they “ceased” at the death of Christ - in the middle of the “week.” Then the great sacrifice which they had adumbrated was offered. Then they ceased to have any significancy, no reason existing for their longer continuance. Then, as they never had had any efficacy in themselves, they ceased also to have any propriety as types -for the thing which they had prefigured had been accomplished. Then, too, began a series of events and influences which led to their abolition, for soon they were interrupted by the Romans, and the temple and the altars were swept away to be rebuilt no more. The death of Christ was, in fact, the thing which made them to cease, and the fact that the great atonement has been made, and that there is now no further need of those offerings, is the only philosophical reason which can be given why the Jews have never been able again to rebuild the temple, and why for eighteen hundred years they have found no place where they could again offer a bloody sacrifice. The “sacrifice and the oblation” were made, as the result of the coming of the Messiah, to “cease” for ever, and no power of man will be able to restore them again in Jerusalem. Compare Gibbon’s account of the attempt of Julian to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem: Dec. and Fall, ii. 35-37.And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate - The marginal reading here is very different, showing clearly the perplexity of the translators: “Upon the battlements shall be the idols of the desolator.” There is great variety, also, in the ancient versions in rendering this passage. The Latin Vulgate is, “And there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.” The Greek, “And upon the temple shall be an abomination of desolations.” The Syriac. “And upon the extremities of the abomination shall rest desolation.” The Arabic, “And over the sanctuary shall there be the abomination of ruin.” Luther renders it, “And upon the wings shall stand the abomination of desolation.” Lengerke and Hengstenberg render it, “And upon the summit of abomination comes the destroyer.” Prof. Stuart, “And the water shall be over a winged fowl of abominations.” These different translations show that there is great obscurity in the original, and perhaps exclude the hope of being able entirely to free the passage from all difficulties. An examination of the words, however, may perhaps enable us to form a judgment of its meaning. The “literal” and “obvious” sense of the original, as I understand it, is, “And

182

upon the wing of the abominations one causing desolation” - משמם שקיציםכנף ve‛al ועל kenap shıqqytsıym meshomēm. The word rendered “overspreading” means, properly, a “wing;” so called as “covering,” or because it (kânâp כנף)“covers” - from כנף kânap), to cover, to hide. Then it denotes anything having a resemblance to a wing, as an extremity, a corner, as

(a) of a garment, the skirt, or flap, 1Sa_24:4 (5), 11 (12); Num_15:38, and hence, as the outer garment was used by the Orientals to wrap themselves in at night, the word is used for the extremity or border of a bed-covering, Deu_22:30 Deu_23:1; Rth_3:9.(b) It is applied to land, or to the earth - as the earth is compared with a garment spread out, Isa_24:16; Job_37:3; Job_38:13.(c) It is used to denote the highest point, or a battlement, a pinnacle - as having a resemblance to a wing spread out.So the word πτερύγιον pterugion is used in Mat_4:5. See the notes at that

passage. It would seem most probable that the allusion by the word as applied to a building would not be, as supposed by Gesenius (Lexicon), and by Hengstenberg and Lengerke, to the “pinnacle or summit,” but to some roof, porch, or piazza that had a resemblance to the wings of a bird as spread out - a use of the word that would be very natural and obvious. The extended porch that Solomon built on the eastern side of the temple would, not improbably, have, to one standing on the opposite Mount of Olives, much the appearance of the wings of a bird spread out. Nothing certain can be determined about the allusion here from the use of this word, but the connection would lead us to suppose that the reference was to something pertaining to the city or temple, for the whole prophecy has a reference to the city and temple, and it is natural to suppose that in its close there would be an allusion to it.The use of the word “wing” here would lead to the supposition that what is said would pertain to something in connection with the temple having a

resemblance to the wings of a bird, and the word “upon” (על ‛al) would lead us to suppose that what was to occur would be somehow upon that. The word rendered “abominations” (שקוצים shıqqûtsıym) means “abominable” things, things to be held in detestation, as things unclean, filthy garments, etc., and then idols, as things that are to be held in abhorrence. The word שקוץ shıqûts, is rendered abomination in Deu_29:17; 1Ki_11:5, 1Ki_11:7; 2Ki_23:13, 2Ki_23:24; Isa_66:3; Jer_4:1; Jer_7:30; Jer_13:27; Jer_32:34; Eze_5:11; Eze_7:20; Eze_20:7-8, Eze_20:30; Dan_9:27; Dan_11:31; Dan_12:11; Hos_9:10; Zec_9:7; abominable idols in 2Ch_15:8 (in the margin abominations); “detestable” in Jer_16:18; Eze_11:18, Eze_11:21; Eze_37:23; and “abominable filth” in Nah_3:6. It does not occur elsewhere.

In most of these places it is applied to “idols,” and the current usage would lead us so to apply it, if there were nothing in the connection to demand a different interpretation. It might refer to anything that was held in abomination, or that was detestable and offensive. The word is one that might be used of an idol god, or of anything that would pollute or defile, or 183

that was from any cause offensive. It is not used in the Old Testament with reference to a “banner or military standard,” but there can be no doubt that it might be so applied as denoting the standard of a foe - of a pagan - planted on any part of the temple - a thing which would be particularly detestable and abominable in the sight of the Jews. The word rendered “he shall make IT desolate” - meshomēm משמם - is “he making desolate;” that is, “a desolator.” It is a Poel participle from שמם shâmēm - to be astonished, to be laid waste; and then, in an active sense, to lay waste, to make desolate. -Gesenius. The same word, and the same phrase, occur in Dan_11:31 : “And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate,” or, as it is in the margin, “astonisheth.”

There, also, the expression is used in connection with “taking away the daily sacrifices.” The word would be more properly rendered in this place “desolator,” referring to some one who would produce desolation. There is great abruptness in the entire expression, and it is evident that it was not the intention to give so clear a prediction in this that it could be fully understood beforehand. The other portions of the prophecy respecting the building of the city, and the coming of the Messiah, and the work that he would accomplish, are much more clear, and their meaning could have been made out with much more certainty. But, in reference to this, it would seem, perhaps, that all that was designed was to throw out suggestions - fragments of thought, that would rather hint at the subject than give any continuous idea. Perhaps a much more “abrupt” method of translation than what attempts to express it in a continuous grammatical construction capable of being parsed easily, would better express the state of the mind of the speaker, and the language which he uses, than the ordinary versions.The Masoretic pointing, also, may be disregarded, and then the real idea would be better expressed by some such translation as the following: “He shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. And - upon the wing - the porch of the temple - abominations! And a desolator!” That is, after the ceasing of the sacrifice and the oblation, the mind is fixed upon the temple where they had been offered. The first thing that arrests the eye is some portion of the temple, here denoted by the word “wing.” The next is something abominable or detestable - an object to be hated and loathed in the very temple itself. The next is a desolator - one who had come to carry desolation to that very temple. Whether the “abomination” is connected with the “desolator” or not is not intimated by the language. It might or might not be. The angel uses language as these objects strike the eye, and he expresses himself in this abrupt manner as the eye rests on one or the other. The question then arises, What does this mean? Or what is to be regarded as the proper fulfillment? It seems to me that there can be no doubt that there is a reference to the Roman standard or banners planted on some part of the temple, or to the Roman army, or to some idols set up by the Romans - objects of abomination to the Jews - as attracting the eye of the angel in the distant future, and as indicating the close of the series of events here referred to in the prophecy. The reasons for this opinion are, summarily, the following:(a) The “place or order” in which the passage stands in the prophecy. It is

184

“after” the coming of the Messiah; “after” the proper cessation of the sacrifice and oblation, and at the close of the whole series of events - the termination of the whole design about rebuilding the city and the temple.(b) The “language” is such as would properly represent that. Nothing could be more appropriate, in the common estimation of the Jews, than to speak of such an object as a Roman military standard planted in any part of the temple, as an “abomination,;” and no word would better denote the character of the Roman conqueror than the word “desolator” - for the effect of his coming, was to lay the whole city and temple in ruins.(c) The language of the Saviour in his reference to this would seem to demand such an interpretation, Mat_24:15 : “When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place,” etc. There can be no reasonable doubt. that the Saviour refers to this passage in Daniel (see the notes at Mat_24:15), or that events occurred in the attack on Jerusalem and the temple that would fully correspond with the language used here. Josephus, for instance, says, that when the city was taken, the Romans brought their ensigns into the temple, and placed them over the eastern gate, and sacrificed to them there. “And now the Romans,” says he, “upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns into the temple, and set them over against its eastern gate; and there they did offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus “Imperator” with the greatest acclamations of joy.” - “Jewish Wars,” b. vi. ch. vi. Section 1. This fact fully accords with the meaning of the language as above explained, and the reference to it was demanded in order that the purpose of the prophecy should be complete. Its proper termination is the destruction of the city and temple - as its beginning is the order to rebuild them.Even until the consummation - Until the completion - .ye‛ad-kâlâh ועד־כלה

That is, the series of events in the prophecy shall in fact reach to the completion of everything pertaining to the city and temple. The whole purpose in regard to that shall be completed. The design for which it is robe rebuilt shall be consummated; the sacrifices to be offered there shall be finished, and they shall be no longer efficacious or proper; the whole civil and religious polity connected with the city and temple shall pass away.And that determined - venechĕrâtsâh. See this word explained in the ונחרצה

notes at Dan_9:24, Dan_9:26. See also the notes at Isa_10:23. There seems to be an allusion in the word here to its former use, as denoting that this is the fulfillment of the determination in regard to the city and temple. The idea is, that what was determined, or decided on, to wit, with reference to the closing scenes of the city and temple, would be accomplished.Shall be poured - tıttak. The word used here means to pour, to pour תתך

out, to overflow - as rain, water, curses, anger, etc. It may be properly applied to calamity or desolation, as these things may be represented as “poured down” upon a people, in the manner of a storm. Compare 2Sa_21:10; Exo_9:33; Psa_11:6; Eze_38:22; 2Ch_34:21; 2Ch_12:7; Jer_7:20; Jer_42:18; Jer_44:6.185

Upon the desolate - Margin, desolator. The Hebrew word (שומם shômēm) is the same, though in another form (כל kal instead of פל pēl) which is used in the previous part of the verse, and rendered “he shall make it desolate,” but which is proposed above to be rendered “desolator.” The verb שמם shâmēm is an intransitive verb, and means, in “Kal,” the form used here, to be astonished or amazed; then “to be laid waste, to be made desolate” (Gesenius); and the meaning in this place, therefore, is that which is desolate or laid waste - the wasted, the perishing, the solitary. The reference is to Jerusalem viewed as desolate or reduced to ruins. The angel perhaps contemplates it, as he is speaking, in ruins or as desolate, and he sees this also as the termination of the entire series of predictions, and, in view of the whole, speaks of Jerusalem appropriately as “the desolate.”

Though it would be rebuilt, yet it would be again reduced to desolation, for the purpose of the rebuilding - the coming of the Messiah - would be accomplished. As the prophecy finds Jerusalem a scene of ruins, so it leaves it, and the last word in the prophecy, therefore, is appropriately the word “desolate.” The intermediate state indeed between the condition of the city as seen at first and at the close is glorious - for it embraces the whole work of the Messiah; but the beginning is a scene of ruins, and so is the close. The sum of the whole in the latter part of the verse may be expressed in a free paraphrase: “He, the Messiah, shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” by having fulfilled in his own dcath the design of the ancient offerings, thus rendering them now useless, and upon the outspreading -upon the temple regarded as spread out, or some wing or portico, there are seen abominable things - idolatrous ensigns, and the worship of foreigners. A desolator is there, also, come to spread destruction - a foreign army or leader. And this shall continue even to the end of the whole matter - the end of the events contemplated by the prophecy - the end of the city and the temple. And what is determined on - the destruction decreed - shall be poured out like a tempest on the city doomed to desolation - desolate as surveyed at the beginning of the prophecy - desolate at the close, and therefore appropriately called “the desolate.”After this protracted examination of the meaning of this prophecy, all the remark which it seems proper to make is, that this prediction could have been the result only of inspiration. There is the clearest evidence that the prophecy was recorded long before the time of the Messiah, and it is manifest that it could not have been the result of any natural sagacity. There is not the slightest proof that it was uttered as late as the coming of Christ, and there is nothing better determined in relation to any ancient matter than that it was recorded long before the birth of the Lord Jesus. But it is equally clear that it could have been the result of no mere natural sagacity. How could such events have been foreseen except by Him who knows all things? How could the order have been determined? How could the time have been fixed? How could it have been anticipated that the Messiah, the Prince, would be cut off? How could it have been known that he would cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease? How could it have been ascertained that the period during which he would be engaged in this would be one week - or about seven years? How could it be predicted that a remarkable event would

186

occur in the middle of that period that would in fact cause the sacrifice and oblation ultimately to cease? And how could it be conjectured that a foreign prince would come, and plant the standard of abomination in the holy city, and sweep all away - laying the city and the temple in ruins, and bringing the whole polity to an end? These things lie beyond the range of natural sagacity, and if they are fairly implied in this prophecy, they demonstrate that this portion of the book is from God.

CLARKE, "And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate - This clause is remarkably obscure. כנף שקוצים משמם kenaph shikkutsim meshomem , “And upon the wing of abominations causing amazement.” This is a literal translation of the place; but still there is no determinate sense. A Hebrews MS., written in the thirteenth century, has preserved a very remarkable reading here, which frees the place from all embarrassment. Instead of the above reading, this valuable MS. has ובהיכלubeheychal yihyey shikkuts יהיה שיקוץ ; that is, “And in the temple (of the Lord) there shall be abomination.” This makes the passage plain, and is strictly conformable to the facts themselves, for the temple was profaned; and it agrees with the prediction of our Lord, who said that the abomination that maketh desolate should stand in the holy place, Mat_24:15, and quotes the words as spoken δια Δανιηλ του φροφητου, by Daniel the prophet. That the above reading gives the true sense, there can be little doubt, because it is countenanced by the most eminent ancient versions.

The Vulgate reads, Et erit in templo abominatio, “And in the temple there shall be abomination.”The Septuagint, Και επι το ἱερον βδελυγμα των ερημωσεων, “And upon the

temple there shall be the abomination of desolation.”The Arabic, “And upon the sanctuary there shall be the abomination of ruin.”The above reading is celebrated by J. D. Michaelis, Epist. De Ebdom. Dan., p. 120: Vix insignius exemplum reperiri posse autumem, ostensuro in codicibus Hebraeis latere lectiones dignissimas quae eruantur, etc. “A more illustrious example can, I think, hardly be found, to show that various readings lie hid in Hebrew MSS., which are most worthy of being exhibited.” Vid. Bib. Hebrews Kennicott, Dis. Gen.I have only to add that this mode of reckoning years and periods by weeks is not solely Jewish. Macrobius, in his book on Scipio’s dream, has these remarkable words: Sed a sexta usque ad septimam septimanam fit quidem diminutio, sed occulta, et quae detrimentum suum aperta defectione non prodat: ideo nonnullarum rerumpublicarum hic mos est, ut post sextam ad militiam nemo cogatur; Somn. Scip., lib. 1 c. vi., in fine. “From the sixth to the seventh week, there is a diminution of strength; but it is hidden, and does not manifest itself by any outward defect. Hence it was the custom in some republics not to oblige a man to go to the wars after the sixth week, i.e., after forty-two years of age.”

187

Various Readings of Dan_9:24-27Having now gone through the whole of this important prophecy, and given that interpretation which the original seemed best to warrant, I shall next proceed to notice the principal various readings found in the Collections of Kennicott and De Rossi, with those from my own MSS., which the reader may collate with the words of the common printed text.

Dan_9:24שבעים שבעים נחתך על עמך ועל עיר קדשךלכלא הפשע ולחתם חטאותולכפר עו ולהביא צדק עלמיםובצלחתם חזו ונביא ולמשח קדש קדשים׃Dan_9:25ותדע ותשכלמן מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלםעד משיח נגיד שבעים שבעהושבעים ששים ושנים תשובונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ ובצוק העתים׃Dan_9:26ואחרי השבעים ששים ושניםיכרת משיח ואין לווהעיר והקדש ישחית עם נגיד הבאוקצו בשטףועד קץ מלחמה נחרצת שממות׃Dan_9:27והגביר ברית לרבים שבוע אחדוחצי השבוע ישבית זבח ומנחהועל כנף שקוצים משמםועד כלה ונחרצה תתך על שומם׃

Houbigant’s Translation of Dan_9:24-27Of the whole passage Houbigant gives the following translation: -

Dan_9:24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and the city of thy sanctuary:

188

That sin may be restrained, and transgressions have an end;That iniquity may be expiated, and an everlasting righteousness brought in;That visions and prophecies may be sealed up, and the Holy of holies anointed.

Dan_9:25Know therefore and understand: -From the edict which shall be promulgated, to return and rebuild Jerusalem, there shall be seven weeks.Then it shall be fully rebuilt, with anxiety, in difficult times.Thence, to the Prince Messiah, there shall be sixty-two weeks.

Dan_9:26And after sixty-two weeks the Messiah shall be slain, and have no justice.Afterwards he shall waste the city and the sanctuary, by the prince that is to come.And his end shall be in straits; and to the end of the war desolation is appointed.

Dan_9:27And for one week he shall confirm a covenant with many;And in the middle of the week he shall abrogate sacrifice and offering; And in the temple there shall be the abomination of desolation,Until the ruin which is decreed rush on after the desolation.In this translation there are some peculiarities.Instead of “the street shall be built again, and the wall,” Dan_9:26, he

translates רחוב וחרוץ (with the prefix ב beth instead of ו vau in the latter word), “it shall be fully (the city and all its walls) rebuilt with anxiety.”

Instead of ואי לו “but not for himself,” he translates, “Nor shall justice be done him;” supposing that די “justice” was originally in the verse.

Instead of “the people of the prince,” Dan_9:26, he translates “by the prince,” using עם im as a preposition, instead of עם am, “the people.”

Instead of “and for the overspreading,” he translates ועל כנף “in the temple;” following the Septuagint, και επι το ἱερον. This rendering is at least as good as ours: but see the marginal readings here, and the preceding notes.

Houbigant contends also that the arrangement of the several members in these passages is confused. He proposes one alteration, which is important, viz., From the promulgation of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem shall be seven weeks; and unto Messiah the prince, sixty-two weeks. All these alterations he vindicates in his notes at the end of this chapter. In the text I have inserted Houbigant’s dots, or marks of distinction between the different members of the verses.

189

Various ReadingsDan_9:24

שבוים שבעים weeks written full, so to prevent mistakes, in thirteen of Kennicott’s, four of De Rossi’s, and one ancient of my own.

שבעים Seventy-one of Kennicott’s, and one of De Rossi’s, have שבועים “weeks, weeks, weeks;” that is, “many weeks:” but this is a mere mistake.

to consume,” is the reading of twenty-nine of“ לכלח ”.to restrain“ לכלאKennicott’s, thirteen of De Rossi’s, and one ancient of my own.

,and to seal up.” Forty-three of Kennicott’s, twelve of De Rossi’s“ ולחתםand one of my own, have ולחתם “to make an end.” One reads ולחתום, more full.

sin,” in the singular, is the reading of twenty-six of De“ חטאת ”.sins“ חטאותRossi’s; and so, in the second instance where this word occurs, two of my MSS.

and so in the next ,שלמים everlasting.” Two of my oldest MSS read“ עלמיםinstance.

.and the prophet.” The conjunction is omitted by two of Kennicott’s“ ונביא.ותשכיל and understand.” One of my MSS. has“ ותשכל

Dan_9:25 מן from the publication.” One MS. of De Rossi’s omits the“ מן מוצא

“from,” and instead of either, one of my oldest MSS. has למוצא “to the publication.”

Messiah.” Nine MSS. read the word with the point sheva, which“ משיהmakes it read, in regimine, “the anointed of the prince.” But this is evidently the effect of carelessness, or rather design.

”.vau, “and ו seven.” Two MSS. add the conjunction“ שבעה.and to build.” One of mine omits the conjunction“ ולבנות seventy“ שבעים שבה seven weeks.” One of Kennicott’s has“ שבעים שבעה

years.”ושבוע and weeks.” One of Kennicott’s has“ ושבעים and a week.” vau, “and sixty;” and another has ו sixty.” A few add the conjunction“ ששים

seventy.” Wherever this word signifies“ שבעים six;” and another“ ששהweeks, two of my oldest MSS. write it full שבועים. In one of my MSS. השבועיםששים are omitted in the text, but added by a later hand in the margin.

”,street“ רחב the city.” And for“ העיר and the ditch.” One MS. has“ וחרוץone of mine has רחוב of the same meaning, but more full.

and in straits,” or anxiety. One MS. without and, as the Vulgate and“ ובצוק190

Septuagint.Dan_9:26

,.and the holy place or sanctuary.” But two of my most ancient MSS“ והקדשand four of Kennicott’s, leave out the ו vau, and read הקדש and the“ והעירholy city,” or “city of holiness,” instead of “the city and sanctuary.” In one MS. ו is omitted in והעיר.

ו and its end.” One MS. omits the conjunction“ וקצו and; one omits the following קץ “the end;” reading thus:” and unto the war.” But a more singular reading is that of one of my own MSS. written about a.d. 1136, which has וקיצו “and its summer.”

”;sixty weeks“ ששים שבעים sixty.” But one of Kennicott’s MSS. has“ ששיםand another adds the conjunction, And sixty.

ישחית shall destroy.” But one of De Rossi’s has ישחת “shall be destroyed.” im, “with,” is the reading of one of Kennicott’s, with עם ”.the people“ עם

the Septuagint, Theodotion, Syriac, Hexapla, Vulgate, and Arabic.”.the flood“ השטף with a flood.” One MS. has“ בשטף.and unto,” etc“ ועד and upon the wing.” Nearly twenty MSS. have“ ועל כנף

Dan_9:27”.and upon“ ועל to the end;” and one has“ עד־ ”.and unto the end“ ועד קץ the time of“ עת קץ ,the time;” and another both“ עת the end.” One has“ קץ

the end.” and upon the wing (or battlement) abomination.” Instead“ ועל כנף שקוצים

of this, one of the Parisian MSS. numbered three hundred and thirteen in Kennicott’s, has ובהיכל יהיה שיקוץ “and in the temple there shall be abomination.” See the preceding notes. This is a similar reading to Theodotion, the Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, Hexapla, and the Arabic; and is countenanced by our Lord, Mat_24:15. After all that has been said on this reading, (which may be genuine, but is less liable to suspicion, as the MS. appears to be the work of some Christian; it is written from the left to the right hand, and is accompanied by the Vulgate Latin), if this be an attempt to accommodate the Hebrew to the Vulgate, it should be stated that they who have examined this MS. closely, have asserted that there is no evidence that the writer has endeavored to conform the Hebrew to the Latin text, unless this be accounted such. The ancient versions give this reading great credit.

.שקצים abominations.” One of mine has less fully“ שקוצים.משימם desolation.” One of mine has more fully“ משמם;and unto,” is wanting in one of mine“ ועד.and upon” is the reading in one other“ ועל

191

שמם the desolation.” One of mine has“ שומם ”.until the desolation“ על שומםwithout the ו vau. על is wanting; but is added in the margin, by a later hand, in another of these ancient MSS.

I have thus set down almost all the variations mentioned by Kennicott and De Rossi, and those furnished by three ancient MSS. of my own, that the learned reader may avail himself of every help to examine thoroughly this important prophecy. Upwards of thirty various readings in the compass of four verses, and several of them of great moment.

GILL, "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,.... Sixty nine of the seventy weeks being accounted for, and the several events observed to be fulfilled in them; the angel proceeds to take notice of the remaining "one" week, or seven years, and what should be done within that space of time: a covenant should be confirmed with many; which is not to be understood of the Messiah's confirming the covenant of grace with many, or on account of all his people, by fulfilling the conditions of it, and by his blood and sacrifice, through which all the blessings of it come to them; for this is not for one week only, but for ever; but this is to be interpreted of the Roman people, spoken of in the latter part of the preceding verse; who, in order to accomplish their design to destroy the city and temple of Jerusalem, made peace with many nations, entered into covenant and alliance with them, particularly the Medes, Parthians, and Armenians, for the space of one week, or seven years; as it appears they did at the beginning of this week (l): and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; the daily sacrifice of the Jews, and all their other offerings; and which was literally fulfilled "in the half part" (m) of this week, as it may be rendered; towards the close of the latter half of it, when the city of Jerusalem, being closely besieged by Titus, what through the closeness of the siege, the divisions of the people, and the want both of time and men, and beasts to offer, the daily sacrifice ceased, as Josephus (n) says, to the great grief of the people; nor have the Jews, ever since the destruction of their city and temple, offered any sacrifice, esteeming it unlawful so to do in a strange land: and at the same time, in the same half part of the week, for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate; that is, the Roman people shall make the land of Judea desolate, for the overspreading of their abominations or idolatries in it. The words may be rendered, as by some, "upon the wing", the battlements of the temple, shall be the abominations, or "idols of the desolator", or "of him that makes desolate" (o); so Bishop Lloyd; meaning either the ensigns of the Roman army, which had upon them the images of their gods or emperors; and being set up in the holy place, and sacrificed to, nothing could be a greater

192

abomination to the Jews; or else the blood of the zealots slain on these battlements, by which the holy place was polluted; see Mat_24:15, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate; that is, either these abominations shall continue in the place where they are set until the utter destruction of the city and temple; or the desolation made there should continue until the consummation of God's wrath and vengeance upon them; until the whole he has determined is poured out on this desolate people; and which continues unto this day, and will till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, Luk_21:24. Some, as Bishop Lloyd, render it, "upon the desolator" (p); meaning the Romans; and the sense they take to be is, that this vengeance shall continue upon the Jews until it is turned upon the head of those who have made them desolate: now this "one week", according to the sense given, must begin in the sixty third year of the vulgar era of Christ, about thirty years after the expiration of the sixty nine weeks; since it ends in the seventieth year of the same era, in which was the destruction of Jerusalem, the grand event assigned to it in this famous prophecy; when it might have been expected it should have begun at the end of the sixty nine weeks, and run on in a direct line from them. The true reason of its being thus separated from them is the longsuffering and forbearance of God to the people of the Jews, who gave them, as to the old world, space to repent; but his grace and goodness being slighted, things began to work at the beginning of this week towards their final ruin, which, in the close of it, was fully accomplished: from the whole of this prophecy it clearly appears that the Messiah must be come many hundred years ago. The Jews are sensible of the force of this reasoning; so that, to terrify persons from considering this prophecy, they denounce the following curse, "let them burst, or their bones rot, that compute the times" (q). R. Nehemiah, who lived about fifty years before the coming of Christ, declared the time of the Messiah, as signified by Daniel, could not be protracted longer than those fifty years (r). The Jews also say the world is divided into six parts, and the last part is from Daniel to the Messiah (s).

JAMISON, "he shall confirm the covenant — Christ. The confirmation of the covenant is assigned to Him also elsewhere. Isa_42:6, “I will give thee for a covenant of the people” (that is, He in whom the covenant between Israel and God is personally expressed); compare Luk_22:20, “The new testament in My blood”; Mal_3:1, “the angel of the covenant”; Jer_31:31-34, describes the Messianic covenant in full. Contrast Dan_11:30, Dan_11:32, “forsake the covenant,” “do wickedly against the covenant.” The prophecy as to Messiah’s confirming the covenant with many would comfort the faithful in Antiochus’ times, who suffered partly from persecuting enemies, partly from false friends (Dan_11:33-35). Hence arises the similarity of the language here and in Dan_11:30, Dan_11:32, referring to Antiochus, the type of Antichrist.

with many — (Isa_53:11; Mat_20:28; Mat_26:28; Rom_5:15, Rom_5:19; Heb_9:28).in ... midst of ... week — The seventy weeks extend to a.d. 33. Israel was

193

not actually destroyed till a.d. 79, but it was so virtually, a.d. 33, about three or four years after Christ’s death, during which the Gospel was preached exclusively to the Jews. When the Jews persecuted the Church and stoned Stephen (Act_7:54-60), the respite of grace granted to them was at an end (Luk_13:7-9). Israel, having rejected Christ, was rejected by Christ, and henceforth is counted dead (compare Gen_2:17 with Gen_5:5; Hos_13:1, Hos_13:2), its actual destruction by Titus being the consummation of the removal of the kingdom of God from Israel to the Gentiles (Mat_21:43), which is not to be restored until Christ’s second coming, when Israel shall be at the head of humanity (Mat_23:39; Act_1:6, Act_1:7; Rom_11:25-31; Rom_15:1-32). The interval forms for the covenant-people a great parenthesis.he shall cause the sacrifice ... oblation to cease — distinct from the temporary “taking away” of “the daily” (sacrifice) by Antiochus (Dan_8:11; Dan_11:31). Messiah was to cause all sacrifices and oblations in general to “cease” utterly. There is here an allusion only to Antiochus’ act; to comfort God’s people when sacrificial worship was to be trodden down, by pointing them to the Messianic time when salvation would fully come and yet temple sacrifices cease. This is the same consolation as Jeremiah and Ezekiel gave under like circumstances, when the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was impending (Jer_3:16; Jer_31:31; Eze_11:19). Jesus died in the middle of the last week, a.d. 30. His prophetic life lasted three and a half years; the very time in which “the saints are given into the hand” of Antichrist (Dan_7:25). Three and a half does not, like ten, designate the power of the world in its fullness, but (while opposed to the divine, expressed by seven) broken and defeated in its seeming triumph; for immediately after the three and a half times, judgment falls on the victorious world powers (Dan_7:25, Dan_7:26). So Jesus’ death seemed the triumph of the world, but was really its defeat (Joh_12:31). The rending of the veil marked the cessation of sacrifices through Christ’s death (Lev_4:6, Lev_4:17; Lev_16:2, Lev_16:15; Heb_10:14-18). There cannot be a covenant without sacrifice (Gen_8:20; Gen_9:17; Gen_15:9, etc.; Heb_9:15). Here the old covenant is to be confirmed, but in a way peculiar to the New Testament, namely, by the one sacrifice, which would terminate all sacrifices (Psa_40:6, Psa_40:11). Thus as the Levitical rites approached their end, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, with ever increasing clearness, oppose the spiritual new covenant to the transient earthly elements of the old.for the overspreading of abominations — On account of the abominationscommitted by the unholy people against the Holy One, He shall not only destroy the city and sanctuary (Dan_9:25), but shall continue its desolation until the time of the consummation “determined” by God (the phrase is quoted from Isa_10:22, Isa_10:23), when at last the world power shall be judged and dominion be given to the saints of the Most High (Dan_7:26, Dan_7:27). Auberlen translates, “On account of the desolating summit of abominations (compare Dan_11:31; Dan_12:11; thus the repetition of the same thing as in Dan_9:26 is avoided), and till the consummation which is determined, it (the curse, Dan_9:11, foretold by Moses) will pour on the desolated.” Israel reached the summit of abominations, which drew down desolation (Mat_24:28), nay, which is the desolation itself, when, after

194

murdering Messiah, they offered sacrifices, Mosaic indeed in form, but heathenish in spirit (compare Isa_1:13; Eze_5:11). Christ refers to this passage (Mat_24:15), “When ye see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place” (the latter words being tacitly implied in “abominations” as being such as are committed against the sanctuary). Tregelles translates, “upon the wing of abominations shall be that which causeth desolation”; namely, an idol set up on a wing or pinnacle of the temple (compare Mat_4:5) by Antichrist, who makes a covenant with the restored Jews for the last of the seventy weeks of years (fulfilling Jesus’ words, “If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive”), and for the first three and a half years keeps it, then in the midst of the week breaks it, causing the daily sacrifices to cease. Tregelles thus identifies the last half week with the time, times, and a half of the persecuting little horn (Dan_7:25). But thus there is a gap of at least 1830 years put between the sixty-nine weeks and the seventieth week. Sir Isaac Newton explains the wing (“overspreading”) of abominations to be the Roman ensigns (eagles) brought to the east gate of the temple, and there sacrificed to by the soldiers; the war, ending in the destruction of Jerusalem, lasted from spring a.d. 67 to autumn a.d. 70, that is, just three and a half years, or the last half week of years [Josephus, Wars of the Jews,6.6].poured upon the desolate — Tregelles translates, “the causer of desolation,” namely, Antichrist. Compare “abomination that makethdesolate” (Dan_12:11). Perhaps both interpretations of the whole passage may be in part true; the Roman desolator, Titus, being a type of Antichrist, the final desolator of Jerusalem. Bacon [The Advancement of Learning, 2.3] says, “Prophecies are of the nature of the Author, with whom a thousand years are as one day; and therefore are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have a springing and germinant accomplishment through many years, though the height and fullness of them may refer to one age.”

K&D, "This verse contains four statements. - The first is: “He shall confirm the covenant to many for one week.” Following the example of Theodotion, many (Hהv., Hgstb., Aub., v. Leng., Hitzig, Hofm.) regard אחדשבוע אח as the subject: one week shall confirm the covenant to many. But this poetic mode of expression is only admissible where the subject treated of in the statement of the speaker comes after the action, and therefore does not agree with ברית where the confirming of the covenant is not the ,הגבירwork of time, but the deed of a definite person. To this is to be added the circumstance that the definitions of time in this verse are connected with those in Dan_9:25, and are analogous to them, and must therefore be alike interpreted in both passages. But if, notwithstanding these considerations, we make אחד שבוע the subject, the question then presses itself upon us, Who effects the confirming of the covenant? Hהvernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen regard the Messias as the subject, and understand by the confirming of the covenant, the confirming of the New Covenant by the

195

death of Christ. Ewald, v. Lengerke, and others think of Antiochus and the many covenants which, according to 1 Macc. 1:12, he established between the apostate Jews and the heathen Greeks. Hitzig understands by the “covenant” the O.T. Covenant, and gives to הגביר the meaning to make grievous: The one week shall make the covenant grievous to many, for they shall have to bear oppression on account of their faith. On the other hand, Hofmann (Schriftbew.) renders it: The one week shall confirm many in their fidelity to the faith. But none of these interpretations can be justified. The reasons which Hengstenberg adduces in support of his view that the Messias is the subject, are destitute of validity. The assertion that the Messias is the chief person spoken of in the whole of this passage, rests on the supposition, already proved to be untenable, that the prince who was to come (Dan_9:26) was the instrument of the Anointed, and on the passages in Isa_53:11; Isa_42:6, which are not parallel to that under consideration. The connection much more indicates that Nagid is the subject to הגביר, since the prince who was to come is named last, and is also the subject in the suffix of קצ (his end), the last clause of Dan_9:26 having only the significance of an explanatory subordinate clause. Also “the taking away of the daily sacrifice combines itself in a natural way with the destruction (Dan_9:26) of the city and the temple brought about by the הבא - ”;נגידfurther, “he who here is represented as 'causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease' is obviously identical with him who changes (Dan_7:25) the times and usages of worship (more correctly: times and law)” (Kran.). “The reference of הגביר to the ungodly leader of an army, is therefore according to the context and the parallel passages of this book which have been mentioned, as well as in harmony with the natural grammatical arrangement of the passage,” and it gives also a congruous sense, although by the Nagid Titus cannot naturally be understood. ברית הגביר means to strengthen a covenant, i.e., to make a covenant strong (Hitzig has not established the rendering: to make grievous). “Covenant” does not necessarily mean the covenant of God (Old Testament or New Testament Covenant), since the assertion that this word occurs only in this book with reference to the covenant of God with Israel (Hgstb.) does not also prove that it must here have this meaning; and with expression ברית הגביר with לis analogous to ברית כרת [icere faedus] with ל; and the construction with לsignifies that as in the forming of a covenant, so in the confirming of a covenant, the two contracting parties are not viewed as standing on an equality, but he who concludes or who confirms the covenant prevails, and imposes or forces the covenant on the other party. The reference to the covenant of God with man is thus indeed suggested, yet it is not rendered necessary, but only points to a relation analogous to the concluding of a covenant emanating from God. לרבים with the article signifies the many, i.e., the great mass of the people in contrast with the few, who remain faithful to God; cf. Mat_24:12. Therefore the thought is this: That ungodly prince shall impose on the mass of the people a strong covenant that they should follow him and give themselves to him as their God.

196

While the first clause of this verse announces what shall happen during the whole of the last week, the second treats only of the half of this period. השבוע חצי we cannot grammatically otherwise interpret than the definition of time mentioned immediately before, and thus, for reasons give above, cannot take it as the subject of the clause, but only as the accusative of the duration of time, consequently not in the sense of the ablative: in the midst of the week. The controversy whether חצי here means half, or midst, has no bearing on the matter, and acquires significance only if we interpret חצי, in opposition to the context, as synonymous with בחצי, or with Klief., which is equally untenable and impossible in this context, regard השבוע חצי as an absolute definition. חצי signifies only half, not midst. Only where the representation of an extent of space or period of time prevails can we render it, without a change of its meaning, by the word midst. In the half of the night is the same as in the middle of the night, at midnight, Exo_12:29; in the half of the firmament, Jos_10:13, is the same as in the middle of the space of the heavens across which the sun moves during day; in the half of the day of life is the same as in the middle of the period of life, Psa_102:25. But during the half of the week is not the same as: in the middle of the week. And the objection, that if we here take חצי in the sense of half, then the heptad or cycle of seven would be divided into two halves (Klief.), and yet of only one of them was anything said, is without significance, because it would touch also the explanation “and in the midst of the heptad,” since in this case of the first, before the middle of the expiring half of the week, nothing also is said of what shall be done in it. If Kliefoth answers this objection by saying that we must conceive of this from the connection, namely, that which brings the power of Antichrist to its height, then we shall be able also, in the verbally correct interpretation of השבוע to ,חציconceive from the connection what shall happen in the remaining period of the שבוע. Yet weaker is the further objection: “that which is mentioned as coming to pass השבוע the causing of the offering of sacrifice to cease, is ,חציsomething which takes place not during a period of time, but at a terminus” (Kliefoth); for since השבית does not properly mean to remove, but to make to rest, to make quiet, it is thus not conceivable why we should not be able to say: The sacrifice shall be made to rest, or made still, during half a week.

In the verbally correct interpretation of השבוע the supposition that ,חציthe second half of the heptad is meant loses its support, for the terminus a quo of this half remains undefined if it cannot be determined from the subject itself. But this determination depends on whether the taking away of the sacrifice is to be regarded as the putting a complete termination to it, or only the causing of a temporary cessation to the service of sacrifice, which can be answered only by our first determining the question regarding the historical reference of this divine revelation. ומנחה bloody and ,זבחunbloody sacrifice, the two chief parts of the service of sacrifice, represent the whole of worship by sacrifice. The expression is more comprehensive than התמיד, Dan_8:11, the continuance in worship, the daily morning and

197

evening sacrifice, the cessation of which does not necessarily involve the putting an end to the service of sacrifice.The third clause of this verse, משמם שקוצים כנף is difficult, and its ,ועל

interpretation has been disputed. The lxx have rendered it: καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸνβδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται. Theodotion has given the same rendering, only omitting ἔσται. The Vulgate has: et erit in templo abominatio desolationis. The church interpreters have explained the words in accordance with these translations, understanding by שקוצים כנף the abomination of idols in the temple, or the temple desecrated by the abomination of idols. Hהvernick explains the words of the extreme height of abomination, i.e., of the highest place that can be reached where the abominations would be committed, i.e., the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem; Hengstenberg, on the contrary, regards the “wing of the abominations” as the pinnacle of the temple so desecrated by the abomination that it no longer deserved the name of a temple of the Lord, but the name of an idol-temple. Auberlen translates it “on account of the desolating summit of abominations,” and understands by it the summit of the abominations committed by Israel, which draws down the desolation, because it is the desolation itself, and which reached its acme in the desecration of the temple by the Zealots shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. But no one of these interpretations is justified by the language here used, because כנף does not signify summit, highest point. This word, it is true, is often used figuratively of the extremity or skirt of the upper garment or cloak (1Sa_15:27; 1Sa_24:5; Hag_2:12), of the uttermost part, end, of the earth, Isa_24:16, and frequently in the plur. of the borders of the earth, in the rabbin. also of the lobes of the lungs, but demonstrably never of the summit as the highest point or peak of an object; and thus can mean neither the temple as the highest point in Jerusalem, nor the pinnacle of the temple desecrated by the abomination, nor the summit of the abomination committed by Israel. “It is used indeed,” as Bleek (Jahrbb. v. p. 93) also remarks, “of the extreme point of an object, but only of that which is extended horizontally (for end, or extremity), but never of that which is extended perpendicularly (for peak).” The use of it in the latter sense cannot also be proved from the πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, Mat_4:5; Luk_4:9. Here the genitive τοῦ ἱεροῦ, not τοῦ ναοῦ, shows that not the pinnacle, i.e., the summit of the temple itself, is meant, but a wing or adjoining building of the sanctuary; and if Suidas and Hesychius explain πτερύγιον by ἀκρωτήριον, this explanation is constructed only from the passages of the N.T. referred to, and is not confirmed by the Greek classics.

But though πτερύγιον may have the meaning of summit, yet this can by no means be proved to be the meaning of כנף. Accordingly שקוצים כנף cannot on verbal grounds be referred to the temple. This argument from the words used is not set aside by other arguments which Hengstenberg brings forward, neither by the remark that this explanation harmonizes well with the other parts of the prophecy, especially the removal of the sacrifice and the destruction of the temple, nor by the reference to the testimony of tradition and to the authority of the Lord. For, with reference to that

198

remark, we have already shown in the explanation of the preceding verses that they do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and thus are not reconcilable with this interpretation of שקוצים But the testimony of .כנףtradition for this interpretation in Josephus, De bello Jud. iv. 6. 3, that by the desecration of the temple on the part of the Zealots an old prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple was fulfilled, itself demonstrates (under the supposition that no other passage occur in the book of Daniel in which Josephus would be able to find the announcement of bloody abomination in the temple which proceeded even from the members of the covenant people) nothing further than that Josephus, with many of his contemporaries, found such a prophecy in this verse in the Alexandrine translation, but it does not warrant the correctness of this interpretation of the passage. This warrant would certainly be afforded by the words of our Lord regarding “the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place” (Mat_24:15.; Mar_13:14), if it were decided that the Lord had this passage (Dan_9:27) alone before His mind, and that He regarded the “abomination of desolation” as a sign announcing the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But neither of these conditions is established. The expression βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is found not only in Dan_9:27 (where the lxx and Theod. have the plur. ἐρημώσεων), but also in Dan_11:31 (βδ. ἐρημώσεως) and Dan_12:11 (τὸ βδ. τῆς ἐρημώσεως), and thus may refer to one of these passages. The possibility of this reference is not weakened by the objection, “that the prophecy Daniel 11 and Dan_12:1-13was generally regarded as fulfilled in the Maccabean times, and that the fulfilling of Daniel 9 was placed forward into the future in the time of Christ” (Hgstb.), because the Lord can have a deeper and more correct apprehension of the prophecies of Daniel than the Jewish writers of His time; because,moreover, the first historical fulfilling of Daniel 11 in the Maccabean times does not exclude a further and a fuller accomplishment in the future, and the rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish temple and the worship of God can be a type of the assault of Antichrist against the sanctuary and the church of God in the time of the end. Still less from the words, “whoso readeth, let him understand” (Mat_24:15), can it be proved that Christ had only Dan_9:27, and not also Dan_11:31 or Dan_12:11, before His view. The remark that these words refer to בדבר בין (understand the matter), Dan_9:23, and to ותשכל ותדע (know, and understand), does not avail for this purpose, because this reference is not certain, and בין את־הדברdna ,n (and he understood the thing) is used (Dan_10:1) also of the prophecy in Daniel 10 and 11. But though it were beyond a doubt that Christ had, in the words quoted, only Dan_9:27 before His view, yet would the reference of this prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans not be thereby proved, because in His discourse Christ spake not only of this destruction of the ancient Jerusalem, but generally of His παρουσία and the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος (Mat_24:3), and referred the words of Daniel of the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως to the παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

On these grounds we must affirm that the reference of the words under consideration to the desecration of the temple before the destruction of 199

Jerusalem by the Romans is untenable.But also the reference of these words, as maintained by other

interpreters, to the desecration of the temple by the βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως (1 Macc. 1:54), built on the altar of burnt-offering by Antiochus Epiphanes, is disproved on the verbal ground that כנף cannot designate the surface of the altar. In favour of this view the משמם Dan_11:31 ,השקוץ (the abomination that maketh desolate), is principally relied on, in order to establish the connection of משמם with שקוצים; but that passage is of a different character, and the difference of number between them opposes the connecting together of these two words. The singular משמם cannot be connected as an adjective with שקוצים. But the uniting of משמם with the noun כנף gives no meaning, and besides has the parallels Dan_11:31 and Dan_12:11 against it. In this passage before us משמם can only be the subject; and the clause is neither to be connected with the preceding nor with the following, but is to be interpreted as containing an independent statement. Since in the preceding context mention is made of a Nagid who shall make desolate the city and the sanctuary, and shall take away the bloody and the unbloody sacrifice, it is natural to regard the משמם, desolater, as the Nagid, and to identify the two. The circumstance that it does not refer to it by the article is no valid objection, because the article is in no way necessary, as (המשמם)משמם is a participle, and can be rendered as such: “on the wings of abomination he comes desolating.” כנף על can, without ingenuity, be rendered in no other way than on wings. שקוצים signifies not acts of abomination, but objects of abomination, things causing abomination, and is constantly used of the heathen gods, idol-images, sacrifices to the gods, and other heathen abominations. The connection of שקוצים permits us, however, with Reichel, Ebrard, Kliefoth, and Kranichfeld, to think on nothing else than that wings (כנף) are attributed to the שקוצים. The sing. כנףdoes not oppose this, since it is often used collectively in a peculiar and figurative meaning; cf. e.g., כנף כנפים Pro_1:17, with ,בעל ,Ecc_10:20 ,בעלthe winged, the bird; and הארץ dna ;drib כנף (from the uttermost part of the earth), Isa_24:16, is not different from הארץ ת ,Job_37:3; Job_38:13 ,כנפjust as אברה, wing, plumage, Psa_91:4; Deu_32:11, is found for ת אבר(wings), Psa_68:14. But from such passages as Deu_32:11; Exo_19:4, and Psa_18:11, we perceive the sense in which wings are attributed to the שקוצים, the idolatrous objects.

(Note: The interpretation of J. D. Michaelis, which has been revived by Hofmann, needs no serious refutation. They hold that שקוצים כנףsignifies an idol-bird, and denotes the eagle of Jupiter of Zeus. Hofm. repeats this interpretation in his Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 592, after he had abandoned it.)

In the first of these passages (Deu_32:11), wings, the wings of an eagle, are attributed to God, because He is the power which raises up Israel, and 200

lifting it up, and carrying it throughout its history, guides it over the earth. In P. 18 wings are attributed to the wind, because the wind is contemplated as the power which carries out the will of God throughout the kingdom of nature. “Thus in this passage wings are attributed to the שקוצים, idol-objects, and to idolatry with its abominations, because that shall be the power which lifts upwards the destroyer and desolater, carries him, and moves with him over the earth to lay waste” (Klief.).

(Note: Similarly, and independently of Kliefoth, Kranichfeld also explains the words: “The powerful heathen enemy of God is here conceived of as carried on (על) these wings of the idol-abomination, like as the God of the theocracy is borne on the wings of the clouds, and on cherubim, who are His servants; cf. Psa_18:11; Psa_104:3.”)

The last clause, וגו is differently construed, according as the ,ועד־כלהsubject to תת, which is wanting, or appears to be wanting, is sought to be supplied from the context. Against the supposition of Hהvernick and Ebrard, who take תת as impersonal: “it pours down,” it is rightly objected that this word is never so found, and can so much the less be so interpreted here, since in Dan_9:11 it is preceded by a definite subject. Others supply a subject, such as anger (Berth.), or curse and oath from Dan_9:11; the former is quite arbitrary, the latter is too far-fetched. Others, again (Hengstenberg, Maurer), take ונחרצה כלה (the consummation and that determined) as the subject. This is correct according to the matter. We cannot, however, so justify the regarding of ועד as a conjunction: till that; for, though עד is so used, ועד is not; nor, once more, can we justify the taking of ונחרצה כלה as a whole as the subject (Hofmann), or of ונחרצה alone as the subject (v. Leng., Hitzig, Kliefoth), since ועד is not repeated before ונחרצה on account of the ו(with v. Leng.), nor is ונחרצה alone supplied (with Hitz.), nor is the וbefore נחרצה to be regarded (with Klief.) as a sign of the conclusion. Where וintroduces the conclusion, as e.g., Dan_8:14, it is there united with the verb, and thus the expression here should in that case be נחרצה תת The relative interpretation of .ותת is the only one which is verbally admissible, whereby the words, “and till the consummation and that determined,” are epexegetically connected to the foregoing clause: “and till the consummation and that determined which shall pour down upon the desolater.” The words ונחרצה כלה remind us of Isa_10:23 and Isa_28:22, and signify that which is completed = altogether and irrevocably concluded, i.e., substantially the inflexibly decreed judgment of destruction. The words have here this meaning, as is clear from the circumstance that נחרצה points back to ת שממ נחרצת (Dan_9:26, desolations are determined), and כלה עד corresponds to קץ עד (Dan_9:26). In Dan_11:31 משמם is not in a similar manner to be identified with שמם, but has the active signification: “laying waste,” while שמם has the passive: “laid waste.” Both words refer to the Nagid, but with this difference, that this ungodly prince who comes as

201

the desolater of the city and the sanctuary will on that account become desolate, that the destruction irrevocably decreed by God shall pour down upon him as a flood.Let us now, after explaining the separate clauses, present briefly the substance of this divine revelation. We find that the Dan_9:25-27 contain the following announcement: From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the appearance of the Messias seven weeks shall pass away; after that, during threescore and two weeks the city shall be restored and built up amid the oppressions of the times; but after the sixty-two weeks the Messias shall be cut off, so that to Him nothing remains, and the city, together with the sanctuary, shall be destroyed by the people of a prince who shall come, who shall find his end in the flood; but the war shall continue to the end, since destruction is irrevocably decreed. That prince shall force a strong covenant for one week on the mass of the people, and during half a week shall take away the service of sacrifice, and, borne on the wings of idol-abominations, shall carry on a desolating rule, till the firmly decreed judgment shall pour itself upon him as one desolated. - According to this, the first seven weeks are determined merely according to their beginning and their end, and nothing further is said as to their contents than may be concluded from the definition of its terminus a quo, “to restore and to build Jerusalem,” namely, that the restoring and the building of this city shall proceed during the period of time indicated. The sixty-two weeks which follow these seven weeks, ending with the coming of the Messias, have the same contents, only with the more special definition, that the restoration and the building in the broad open place and in the limited place shall be carried on in oppressive times. Hence it is clear that this restoration and building cannot denote the rebuilding of the city which was destroyed by the Chaldeans, but refers to the preservation and extension of Jerusalem to the measure and compass determined by God in the Messianic time, or under the dominion of the Messias, since He shall come at the end of the seven weeks, and after the expiry of the sixty-two weeks connected therewith shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him.The statements of the angel (Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27) regarding the one week, which, because of the connection, can only be the seventieth, or the last of the seventy, are more ample. The cutting off of the Messias forms the beginning of this week; then follows the destruction of the city and of the sanctuary by the people of the coming prince, who shall find his end in the flood, not immediately after his coming, but at the end of this week; for the war shall continue to the end, and the prince shall take away the service of sacrifice during half a week, till the desolation determined as a flood shall pour down upon him, and make the desolater desolated. If we compare with this the contents of Dan_9:24, according to which seventy weeks are determined to restrain transgression, to make an end of sin and iniquity, partly by atonement and partly by shutting up, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to consecrate a new most holy, we shall find that the reciprocal statements are so related to each other, that Dan_9:25-27 present what shall be done in the course of the seventy weeks, which are divided into three periods, but Dan_9:24 what shall be the result of all these things. The seventieth week ends, according to

202

Dan_9:27, with the judgment on the destroyer of the city and the sanctuary of God; but with this judgment shall be the conclusion of the divine counsel of salvation, or the kingdom of God shall be consummated. This was revealed to the prophet in Daniel 7, and thus does not need to be here expressly repeated. If that which, according to Dan_9:24, shall happen with the expiry of the seventy appointed weeks stood after Dan_9:27, then would the connection of the judgment on the last enemy of God with the consummation of the kingdom of God appear here also distinctly to view. But it was not necessary after Daniel 7 to give express prominence to this connection here; and Gabriel here first mentions the positive aim and end of the divine plan of salvation with Israel, because he gives to the prophet a comforting answer to remove his deep distress on account of his own sins, and the sin and guilt of his people, and therein cannot conceal the severe affliction which the future would bring, because he will announce to him that by the sins of the people the working out of the deliverance designed by God for them shall not be frustrated, but that in spite of the great guilt of Israel the kingdom of God shall be perfected in glory, sin and iniquity blotted out, everlasting righteousness restored, the prophecy of the judgment and of salvation completed, and the sanctuary where God shall in truth dwell among His people erected. In order to establish this promise, so rich in comfort, and firmly to ratify it to Daniel he unveils to him (Dan_9:25-27), in its great outlines, the progress of the development of the kingdom of God, first from the end of the Exile to the coming of the Messias; then from the appearance of Christ to the time far in the future, when Christ shall be cut off, so that nothing remains to Him; and finally, the time of the supremacy and of the victory of the destroyer of the church of God, the Antichrist, and the destruction of this enemy by the irrevocably determined final judgment. If, now, in this he says nothing particular regarding the first period of this development, regarding the time from the Exile to Christ, the reason is, that he had already said all that was necessary regarding the development of the world-kingdom, and its relation to the kingdom and people of God, in the preceding revelation in Daniel 8. It is the same angel Gabriel who (Daniel 8) comforted Daniel, and interpreted to him the vision of the second and third world-kingdom, and who here brings to him further revelations in answer to his prayer regarding the restoration of the holy city, which was lying in ruins, as is expressly remarked in Dan_9:21. - Also regarding the second long period which passes from the appearance of the Messias to His annihilation (Vernichtung), i.e., the destruction of His kingdom on the earth, little is apparently said, but in reality in the few words very much is said: that during this whole period the restoration and building shall proceed amid the oppressions of the times, namely, that the kingdom of God shall be built up to the extent determined by God in this long period, although amid severe persecution. this persecution shall during the last week mount up to the height of the cutting off of Christ and the destruction of His kingdom on the earth; but then with the extermination of the prince, the enemy of God, it shall reach its end.But if, according to what has been said, this revelation presents the principal outlines of the development of the kingdom of God from the time of Daniel to its consummation at the end of this epoch of the world, the

203

seventy שבעים which are appointed for it cannot be year-weeks, or cycles of seven years, but only symbolically defined periods of measured duration. This result of our exposition contradicts, however, the usual interpretations of this prophecy so completely, that in order to confirm our exposition, we must put thoroughly to the test the two classes of opposing interpretations -which, however, agree in this, that the definitions of time are to be understood chronologically, and that under the שבעים year - weeks are to be understood-and examine whether a chronological reckoning is in all respects tenable.

The first class of expositors who find the appearance of Christ in the flesh and His crucifixion, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, prophesied of in this passage, adduce in support of their view, partly the agreement of the chronological periods, partly the testimony of Christ, who referred Dan_9:27 to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. How does it now stand with these two arguments?The first Hengstenberg (Christol. iii. 1, p. 137) introduces with the remark, “The predominant view in the synagogue and in the church has always been, that the seventy weeks, as well as the shorter periods into which the whole period is divided, are closely fixed and limited. The opposite supposition becomes very suspicious by this, that it is maintained only by such as come into conflict with the chronology by their hypotheses, or take no interest in chronological investigations.” He then seeks first to confute the arguments brought forward in favour of the supposition that the chronological definitions are only given in the lump (in Bausch und Bogen), and then to present the positive arguments for the definiteness of the chronological statements. But he has in this identified the definiteness of the prophecy in general with its chronological definiteness, while there is between these two ideas a noticeable difference. Of the positive arguments adduced, the first is, that the seventy weeks stand in closer relation to the seventy years of Jeremiah, in so far as regards chronological definiteness, when the seventy years of Jeremiah are understood as strictly chronological and as chronologically fulfilled. But the force of this argument is neutralized by the fact, that in Jeremiah a chronologically described period, “years,” is in this prophecy, on the contrary, designated by a name the meaning of which is disputed, at all events is chronologically indefinite, since weeks, if seven-day periods are excluded by the contents off the prophecy, can as well signify Sabbath or jubilee periods, seven-year or seven times seven-years epochs. Still weaker is the second argument, that all the other designations of time with reference to the future in the book of Daniel are definite; for this is applicable only to the designations in Dan_8:14 and Dan_12:11-12, in which evening-mornings and days are named, but not to the passages Dan_7:25; Dan_12:7, and Dan_4:13 (16), where the chronologically indefinite expression, time, times, occurs, which are arbitrarily identified with years.There remains thus, for the determination of the time spoken of in this prophecy, only the argument from its fulfilment, which should give the decision for the chronological definiteness. But, on the contrary, there arises a grave doubt, from the circumstance that among the advocates of the

204

so-called “church Messianic interpretation” the terminus a quo of the prophecy is disputed; for some of these interpreters take the edict of Cyrus (b.c. 536) as such, while, on the other hand, others take the edict which Artaxerxes issued on the return of Ezra to Jerusalem for the restoration of the service of God according to the law, in the seventeenth year of his reign, i.e., in the year b.c. 457, and others, again, among whom is Hengstenberg, take the journey of Nehemiah to Jerusalem with the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, i.e., b.c. 445, or according to Hengstenberg, b.c. 455, as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks - a difference of eighty-one years, which in chronological reckoning is very noticeable.In our interpretation of Dan_9:25, we have given our decided opinion that

the וגו להשיב from the going forth of which seventy years are to be ,דברreckoned, refers to the edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to their fatherland, and the arguments in favour of that opinion are given above. Against this reference to the edict of Cyrus, Hהvernick, Hengstenberg, and Auberlen have objected that in that edict there is nothing said of building up the city, and that under Cyrus, as well as under the succeeding kings, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes, nothing also is done for the building of the city. We find it still unbuilt in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezr_9:8; Ezr_10:13; Neh_1:3; Neh_2:3; 5:34; Neh_4:1; Neh_7:4). Although from the nature of the case the building of the temple supposes the existence also of houses in Jerusalem (cf. Hag_1:4), yet there is not a single trace of any royal permission for the restoration of the people and the rebuilding of the city. Much rather this was expressly forbidden (Ezra 4:7-23) by the same Artaxerxes Longimanus (who at a later period gave the permission however), in consequence of the slanderous reports of the Samaritans. “There was granted to the Jews a religious, but not a political restoration.” For the first time in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus the affairs of Israel took a favourable turn. In that year Artaxerxes granted to Ezra permission to go to Jerusalem, entrusting him with royal letters of great importance (Ezra 7:11-26, particularly Ezr_7:18, Ezr_7:25.); in his twentieth year he gave to Nehemiah express permission to rebuild the city (Neh 2). Following the example of the old chronologist Julius Africanus in Jerome and many others, Hהv., Hgstb., Reinke, Reusch, and others regard the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, while Auberlen, with Valovius, Newton, M. Geier, Gaussen, Pusey, and others, regard the seventy years, as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks. But that the arguments derived from the absence of any mention being made in the edict of Cyrus of the building of Jerusalem against the reference of וגו דבר מצא to that edict are not very strong, at least are not decisive, is manifest from what Auberlen has advanced for the seventh and against the twentieth year. Proceeding from the proposition, correct in itself, that the time of Ezra and that of Nehemiah form one connected period of blessing for Israel, Auberlen thence shows that the edict relating to Nehemiah had only a secondary importance, as the sacred narrative itself indicates by the circumstance that it does not mention the edict at all (Neh_2:7-8), while the royal letters to Ezra (Ezra 7) are given at large. Since it was the same king Artaxerxes who sent away Ezra as well as Nehemiah, his heart must have

205

been favourably inclined toward Israel in his seventh year. “Then must the word for the restoration and building of Jerusalem have gone forth from God.” The consciousness of this is expressed by Ezra himself, when, after recording the royal edict (Ezr_7:27), he continues: “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem; and hath extended mercy to me before the king and his counsellors, and before all the king's mighty princes.”But, we must reply, wherein does the mercy extended to Ezra before the king consist? Is it in the permission to build up Jerusalem? Certainly not, but in the beautifying the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem. And to that alone the royal authority granted to Ezra (Ezra 7) refers. Of the building of the city there is not a word said. Only the means, as it appears, of restoring the temple-worship, which had fallen into great decay, and of re-establishing the law of God corresponding thereto, were granted to him in the long edict issued by the king.

(Note: Auberlen, it is true, remarks (p. 138): - ”The authority given to Ezra is so extensive that it essentially includes the rebuilding of the city. It refers certainly, for the most part [rather wholly,] to the service of the sanctuary; but not only must Ezra set up judges (Ezr_7:25), he is also expressly permitted by the king to expend as it seems good to him the rest of the silver and gold (Ezr_7:18). How he then understood the commission, Ezra himself says clearly and distinctly in his prayer of repentance: 'Our Lord hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof (of our God), and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem.' The argument from this passage lies not merely in the גדר (encircling wall), but especially in this, 'to repair the desolations thereof.' This could not be the desolations of the temple, which had been long before this rebuilt, and therefore we may understand by it the desolations of Jerusalem.” But the strength of this argumentation rests merely on a verbally free rendering of the verse referred to (Ezr_9:9). The circumstance that Ezra speaks of the kings (in the plur.) of Persia, who showed favour to the Jews, indicates that he meant not merely that which Artaxerxes had done and would yet do in the future, but that he refers also to the manifestation of favour on the part of kings Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes; thus also the expression, “to give us a wall,” cannot refer to the permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which Artaxerxes some years later first granted to Nehemiah. Moreover, the expression, “to give us a גדר in Judah and Jerusalem,” shows that by גדר cannot be understood the fortified walls of Jerusalem; for גדר never denotes the walls of a city or fortress as such, but always only the encompassing wall of a vineyard, which meaning is found in Mic_7:11; Eze_13:5. גדר is therefore to be understood here figuratively: encompassing wall in the sense of divine protection; and the meaning is not this: “that the place protected by the wall lies in Judah and Jerusalem; but in Judah and Jerusalem the Persian kings have given

206

to the new congregation of the people a secure dwelling-place, because the power of the Persian kings secured to the Israelites who had returned from captivity the undisturbed and continued possession of their land” (Bertheau). The objection also, that חרבתיו cannot be the ruins of the temple, because it was already built, is set aside as soon as we express the infinitive ,as it is rightly done, by the praeterite ,להעמידwhereby this word refers to the completed building of the temple. Cf. with this Hengstenberg's extended refutation of this argument of Auberlen's (Christol. iii. 1, p. 144).)

If the clause, “from the going forth of the commandment,” etc., cannot refer to the edict of Cyrus, because in it there is no express mention made of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, so also, for the same reason, it cannot refer to that which was issued by Artaxerxes in favour of Ezra. Auberlen's remark, however, is correct, when he says that the edict relating to Nehemiah is of secondary importance when compared with that relating to Ezra. Strictly speaking, there is no mention made of an edict relating to Nehemiah. Nehemiah, as cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, entreated of the king the favour of being sent to Judah, to the city of his fathers' sepulchres, that he might build it; and the king (the queen also sitting by him) granted him this request, and gave him letters to all the governors on this side the Euphrates, that they should permit him undisturbed to prosecute his journey, and to the overseers of the royal forests, that they should give him wood “for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city” (Neh_2:4-8). However important this royal favour was in its consequences for Jerusalem, - for Nehemiah built the walls of the city, and thereby raised Jerusalem to a fortified city guarded against hostile assaults, - yet the royal favour for this undertaking was not such as to entitle it to be designated as 'מצא דצר .a going forth of a commandment of God ,וגוBut if, in favour of the reference of דבר מצא to the edict of Ezra, Auberlen (p. 128ff.) attaches special importance to the circumstance that in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are recorded two periods of post-exilian history, the first of which - namely, the time of Zerubbabel and of the high priest Joshua under Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes - we may designate the period of the building of the temple, the second - namely, the time of Ezra the priest, and Nehemiah the Tirshatha, under Artaxerxes Longimanus - we may designate the period of the restoration of the people and the building of the city, - the former the time of the religious, and the latter that of the politicalrestoration; and, in seeking to establish this view, he interprets the first part of the book of Ezra as a whole in itself, and the second as a whole taken in combination with the book of Nehemiah; - if this is his position, then Hengstenberg has already (Christol. iii. p. 149) shown the incorrectness of this division of the book of Ezra, and well remarks that the whole book of Ezra has the temple as its central-point, and views with reference to it the mission of Ezra as well as that of Zerubbabel and Joshua. There is certainly an inner connection of the mission of Ezra with that of Nehemiah, but it consists only in this, that Ezra's religious reformation was secured by Nehemiah's political reform. From the special design of the work of Ezra, to describe the restoration of the temple and of the service of God, we must

207

also explain the circumstance that nothing is said in it of the building of the city of Jerusalem. Besides, this building, before Nehemiah's arrival in Judah, had not further advanced than to the re-erection of houses for the returned exiles who had settled in Jerusalem. Every attempt to restore the walls was hindered and frustrated by the enemies of Judah, so that the gates and the walls were yet lying burnt and in ruins on Nehemiah's arrival (Neh_1:3; Neh_2:3, Neh_2:5). Therefore neither the absence of any mention in the decree of Cyrus of the building of the city, nor the fact that the rebuilding of the city walls was first effected by Nehemiah, forms a decisive argument against the reference of וגו דבר מצא to this edict; and we must maintain this reference as the only correct one, because this edict only, but not that which gave permission to Ezra or that which gave authority to Nehemiah to build the city walls, formed an epoch marking a crisis in the development of the theocracy, as this is connected in the announcement of Gabriel with the going forth of the word to restore Jerusalem.

Not less doubtful is the matter of the definition of the terminus ad quemof the seventy שבעים, and of the chronological reckoning of the whole period. As for the terminus ad quem, a sharply defined factum must form the conclusion of the sixty-ninth week; for at this point the public appearance of Christ, His being anointed with the Holy Ghost, is named as the end of the prophecy. If this factum occurred, according to Luk_3:1, in the year of Rome 782, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes - i.e., the year 455 b.c., according to the usual chronology - would be the year 299 A.U.C.; if we add to that sixty-nine weeks = 483 years, then it gives the year 782 A.U.C. In the middle of this last week, beginning with the appearance of the Anointed, occurred His death, while the confirming of the covenant extends through the whole of it. With reference to the death of Christ, the prophecy and its fulfilment closely agree, since that event took place three and a half years after His baptism. But the terminus ad quem of the confirming of the covenant, as one more or less moveable, is capable of no definite chronological determination. It is sufficient to remark, that in the first years after the death of Christ the ἐκλογή of the Old Covenant people was gathered together, and then the message of Christ was brought also to the heathen, so that the prophet might rightly represent the salvation as both subjectively and objectively consummated at the end of the seventy weeks for the covenant people, of whom alone he speaks (Hgst. pp. 163f., 180). Thus also Auberlen, who, however, places the end of the seventy weeks in the factum of the stoning of Stephen, with which the Jews pressed, shook down, and made full to the overflowing the measure of their sins, already filled by the murder of the Messias; so that now the period of grace yet given to them after the work of Christ had come to an end, and the judgment fell upon Israel.

We will not urge against the precise accuracy of the fulfilment arrived at by this calculation, that the terminus a quo adopted by Hengstenberg, viz., The twentieth year of Artaxerxes, coincides with the 455th year b.c. only on the supposition that Xerxes reigned but eleven years, and that Artaxerxes came to the throne ten years earlier than the common reckoning, according to which Xerxes reigned twenty-one years, and that the correctness of this 208

view is opposed by Hofm., Kleinert, Wieseler, and others, because the arguments for and against it are evenly balanced; but with Preiswerk, whose words Auberlen (p. 144) quotes with approbation, considering the uncertainty of ancient chronology on many points, we shall not lay much stress on calculating the exact year, but shall regard the approximate coincidence of the prophetical with the historical time as a sufficient proof that there may possibly have been an exact correspondence in the number of years, and that no one, at all events, can prove the contrary. But we must attach importance to this, that in this calculation a part of the communication of the angel is left wholly out of view. The angel announces not merely the cutting off of the Messias after seven and sixty-two weeks, but also the coming of the people of a prince who shall lay waste the city and the sanctuary, which all interpreters who understand משיח יכרת of the death of Christ refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple by the Romans; he also says that this war shall last till the end of the seventy weeks. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans followed the death of Christ, not after an interval of only three and a half years, but of thirty years. Accordingly, the seventy weeks must extend to the year 70 a.d., whereby the whole calculation is shown to be inaccurate. If we yet further remark, that the advocates of this exposition of the prophecy are in a position to give no sufficient reason for the dividing of the sixty-nine weeks into seven and sixty-two, and that their reference of the seven weeks to the time of the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, and of the sixty-two weeks to the period from the completion of this building to the appearance of Christ in the flesh, stands in open contradiction to the words of the text; finally, that the placing of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes as the terminus a quo of the reckoning of the דבר מצא cannot be correct, - then may we also regard the much commended exact concord of the prophecy with the actual events of history derived from this interpretation of the verse as only an illusion, since from the “going forth of the word” to restore Jerusalem to the destruction of that city by Titus, not seventy weeks or 490 years elapsed, but, according as we date the going forth of this word in the year 536 or 455 b.c., 606 or 525 years, i.e., more than eighty-six, or at least seventy-five, year-weeks, passed. This great gulf, which thus shows itself in the calculation of the שבעים as year-weeks, between the prophecy and its chronological fulfilment, is not bridged over by the remark with which Auberlen (p. 141) has sought to justify his supposition that Ezra's return to Judah in the year 457 b.c. formed the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks, while yet the word of the angel announcing the restoration and the building up of Jerusalem first finds its actual accomplishment in the building of the city walls on Nehemiah's return - the remark, namely, that the external building up of the city had the same relation to the terminus a quo of Daniel's seventy year-weeks as the external destruction of Jerusalem to that of Jeremiah's seventy years. “The latter begin as early as the year 606 b.c., and therefore eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for at that time the kingdom of Judah ceased to exist as an independent theocracy; the former begin thirteen years before the rebuilding of the city, because then the re-establishment of the theocracy began.” We find a repetition of the same phenomenon at the end of the seventy weeks. “These extend to the

209

year 33 a.d. From this date Israel was at an end, though the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did not take place till the year 70 a.d.” For Jeremiah did not prophesy that the destruction of Jerusalem should last for seventy years, but only that the land of Judah would be desolate seventy years, and that for so long a time its inhabitants would serve the king of Babylon. The desolating of the land and Judah's subjugation to the king of Babylon did not begin with the destruction of Jerusalem, but with the first siege of the city by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., in the year 606 b.c., and continued till the liberation of the Jews from Babylonian bondage by Cyrus in the first year of his reign, in the year 536 b.c., and thus after seventy years were fully accomplished. Jeremiah's chronologically definite prophecy is thus accurately fulfilled; but Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks is neither chronologically defined by years, nor has it been altogether so fulfilled as that the 70, 7, 52, and 1 week can be reckoned by year-weeks.The New Testament also does not necessitate our seeking the end of the seventy weeks in the judgment the Romans were the means of executing against the ancient Jerusalem, which had rejected and crucified the

Saviour. Nowhere in the N.T. is this prophecy, particularly the משיח ,יכרתreferred to the crucifixion of our Lord; nor has Christ or the apostles interpreted these verses, 26, 27 of this chapter, of the desolation and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. However general the opinion may be that Christ, in speaking of His παρουσία, Matt 24; Mar_13:1, and Luke 21, in the words ὅταν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ ῥηθὲν Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτουκ.τ.λ. (Mat_24:15, cf. Mar_13:14), had before His eyes this prophecy (Dan_9:26-27), yet that opinion is without foundation, and is not established by the arguments which Hהvernick (Daniel p. 383f.), Wieseler (die 70 Wochen, p. 173ff.), Hengstenberg (Beitr. i. p. 258f., and Christol. iii. 1, p. 113f.), and Auberlen (Daniel p. 120f.) have brought forward for that purpose. We have already, in explaining the words שקוצים כנף Dan_9:27, shown that the ,עלβδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, found in the discourse of Christ, is not derived from Dan_9:27, but from Dan_11:31 or Dan_12:11, where the lxx have rendered משמם שקוץ by τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. For the further confirmation of the arguments in behalf of this view there presented, we wish to add the following considerations. The appeal to the fact that Josephus, in the words (Antt. x. 11. 7) Δανιῆλος καὶ περὶ τὴς τῶν Ρηωμαίων ἡγεμονίας ἀνέγραψε καὶ ὅτιὑπ αὐτῶν ἐρημωθήσεται, referred to the prophecy Daniel 9, and gave this interpretation not only as a private view of his own, but as (cf. De Bell. Jud. iv. 6. 3) παλαιὸς λόγος ἀνδρῶν, i.e., represented the view of his people, as commonly received, even by the Zealots, - this would form a valid proof that Daniel 9 was at that time commonly referred to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, only, however, if besides this no other prophecy of the book of Daniel could be apparently referred to the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans. But this is not the case. Josephus and his contemporaries could find such a prophecy in that of the great enemy (Dan_7:25) who would arise out of the fourth or Roman world-kingdom, and would persecute and destroy the saints of the Most High. What Josephus adduces as the contents of the παλαιὸς λόγος ἀνδρῶν, namely, τότε

210

τῆν πόλιν ἁλώσεσθαι καὶ καταφλεγήσεσθαι τὰ ἅγια νόμῳ πολέμου, occurs neither in Daniel 9 nor in any other part of the book of Daniel, and was not so defined till after the historical fulfilment. Wieseler, indeed, thinks (p. 154) that the words τὴν πόλιν καταφλεγήσεσθαι κ.τ.λ., perfectly correspond with the words of Daniel, ישחית והקדש Dan_9:26 ,והעיר (shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, E. V.); but he also concedes that Josephus interpreted the kind of desolation, perhaps with reference to Dan_11:33 (? 31), after the result, as a total desolation. It is thus granted that not only in Daniel 9, but also in Daniel 11, Daniel predicted a desolation of the city and the sanctuary which could be interpreted of their destruction by the Romans, and the opinion, that besides Daniel 9, no other part of Daniel can be found, is abandoned as incorrect. But the other circumstances which Josephus brings forward in the passage quoted, particularly that the Zealots by the desecration of the temple contributed to the fulfilling of that παλαιὸς λόγος, are much more distinctly contained in Dan_11:31 than in Dan_9:26, where we must first introduce this sense in the words (Dan_9:27) כ נף שקוצים משמם על (on the wing of abominations one causing desolation). Similarly the other passages are constituted in which Josephus speaks of ancient prophecies which have been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. No one specially points to Daniel 9.

But if the proof from Josephus could be made more valid than has yet been done, that the Jews of his time referred Daniel 9 to the overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth by the Romans, yet thereby it would not be proved that Christ also shared this Jewish opinion, and set it forth in His discourse, Matt 24, as an undoubted truth. In favour of this view it has indeed been argued, “that the ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ fully corresponds to ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸνβδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται (lxx, Dan_9:27):” Hengstenberg, Christol. p. 117. But it is still more inconsistent with the proof from the Alexandrian translation of the verses before us than it is with that from Josephus. In the form of the lxx text that has come down to us there are undoubtedly two different paraphrases or interpretations of the Hebrew text off Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27 penetrating each other, and therein the obscure words of Daniel (after Dan_11:31 and Dan_12:11) are so interpreted that they contain a reference to the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus.

(Note: That the Septuagint version (Dan_11:31; Dan_12:11; Dan_9:24-27) is not in reality a translation, but rather an explanation of the passage as the lxx understood it, is manifest. “They regard,” as Klief. rightly judges, “Dan_9:24 and the first half of Dan_9:25 as teaching that it was prophesied to Daniel that Israel would soon return from exile, that Daniel also would return, and Jerusalem be built. The rest they treat very freely. They take the second half of Dan_9:25 out of its place, and insert it after the first clause of Dan_9:27; they also take the closing words of Dan_9:26 out of their place, and insert them after the second clause of Dan_9:27. The passage thus arranged they then interpret of Antiochus Epiphanes. They add together call the numbers they find in the text (70 + 7 + 62 = 139), and understand by them years, the years of the Seleucidan aera, so that they descend to the second year of Antiochus Epiphanes. Then they interpret all the separate statements of the times 211

and actions of Antiochus Epiphanes in a similar manner as do the modern interpreters. C. Wieseler, p. 200 .”)The על כנף , incomprehensible to the translators, they interpreted after the Dan_11:31, and derived from it the ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν. But Christ derived the ,חללוexpression τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως as well as the ἐστὼς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ from Dan_11:31, cf. with Dan_12:11, but not from Dan_9:27, where neither the original text, “on the wings of abomination shall the desolater come,” nor the lxx translation, ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται - ”over the sanctuary shall the abomination of the desolations come,” leads to the idea of a “standing,” or a “being placed,” of the abomination of desolation. The standing (ἐστώς) without doubt supposes the placing, which corresponds to the ונתנו (δώσουσι, lxx), and the ולתת (ἑτοιμασθῇ δοθῆναι, lxx), and the ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ points to המקדש, Dan_11:31, since by the setting up of the abomination of desolation, the sanctuary, or the holy place of the temple, was indeed desecrated.

The prophecy in Daniel 11 treats, as is acknowledged, of the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus Epiphanes. If thus the Lord, in His discourse, had spoken of the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρ. ἑστὼς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίω| as a sign of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, it would not remotely follow that He referred this prophecy (Daniel 9) to that catastrophe. Much more would He then, as Kliefoth (p. 412) has well remarked, “represent that which Antiochus Epiphanes did against Jerusalem as an historical type of that which the Romans would do.” He would only say, “As once was done to Jerusalem by Antiochus, according to the word of Daniel, so shall it again soon be done; and therefore, it ye see repeating themselves the events which occurred under Antiochus in the fulfilment of Daniel's word, then know ye that it is the time for light.” But regarding the meaning which Christ found in Dan_9:26 and Dan_9:27, not the least intimation would follow therefrom.

But in the discourse in question the Lord prophesied nothing whatever primarily or immediately of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, but treated in it, as we have already remarked, generally of His παρουσία and the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, which He places only in connection with the destruction of the temple. The occasion of the discourse, as well as its contents, show this. After He had let the temple, never to enter it again, shortly before His last sufferings, while standing on the Mount of Olives, He announces to His disciples, who pointed to the temple, the entire destruction of that building; whereupon they say to Him, “Tell us πότε ταῦταἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος?” for they believe that this destruction and His παρουσία take place together at the end of the world. This question the Lord replies to in a long discourse, in which He gives them the wished-for information regarding the sign (σημεῖον, Matt 24:4-31), and regarding the time (πότε) of His παρουσία and the end of the world (Mat_24:32). The information concerning the sign begins with a warning to take heed and beware of being deceived; for that false messiahs would appear, and wars and tumults of nations rising up one against another, and other plagues, would come (Mat_24:4). All this would be only

212

the beginning of the woes, i.e., of the affliction which then would come upon the confessors of His name; but the end would not come till the gospel was first preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations (Mat_24:8). Then He speaks of the signs which immediately precede the end, namely, of the abomination of desolation in the holy place of which Daniel prophesied. With this a period of tribulation would commence such as never yet had been, so that if these days should not be shortened for the elect's sake, no one would be saved (Mat_24:15). To this He adds, in conclusion, the description of His own παρουσία, which would immediately (εὐθέως) follow this great tribulation (Mat_24:29). He connects with the description of His return (Mat_24:32) a similitude, with which He answers the question concerning its time, and thus continues: “When ye see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, this γενεά shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Mat_24:33, Mat_24:34, Mat_24:36).

From this brief sketch of the course of the thought it clearly appears that the Lord speaks expressly neither of the destruction of Jerusalem, nor yet of the time of that event. What is to be understood by βδέλυγμα τ. ἐρ He supposes to be known to the disciples from the book of Daniel, and only says to them that they must flee when they see this standing in the holy place, so that they may escape destruction (Mat_24:15). Only in Luke is there distinct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem; for there we find, instead of the reference to the abomination of desolation, the words, “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that its ἐρήμωσις is nigh” (Luk_21:20). According to the record of all the three evangelists, however, the Lord not only connects in the closest manner the tribulation commencing with the appearance of the βδέλυγμα τ. ἐρ, or with the siege of Jerusalem, with the last great tribulation which opens the way for His return, but He also expressly says, that immediately after the tribulation of those days (Mat_24:29), or in those days of that tribulation (Mar_13:24), or then (τότε, Luk_21:27), the Son of man shall come in the clouds in great power and glory. From this close connection of His visible παρουσία with the desolation of the holy place or the siege of Jerusalem, it does not, it is true, follow that “by the oppression of Jerusalem connected with the παρουσία, and placed immediately before it, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans cannot possibly be meant;” much rather that the discourse is “of a desecration and an oppression by Antichrist which would come upon the τόπος ἅγιος and Jerusalem in the then future time, immediately before the return of the Lord, in the days of the θλῖπσις μεγάλη” (Kliefoth). But just as little does it follow from that close connection - as the eschatological discourse, Matt 24, is understood by most interpreters - that the Lord Himself, as well as His disciples, regarded as contemporaneous the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and His visible return in the last days, or saw as in prophetic perspective His παρουσία behind the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and thus, without regard to the sequence of time, spoke first of the one event and then of the other. The first conclusion is inadmissible for this reason, that the disciples had made inquiry

213

regarding the time of the destruction of the temple then visibly before them. If the Lord, in His answer to this question, by making mention of the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρ. ἑστὼς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίω, had no thought of this temple, but only of the τόπος ἅγιος of the future, the temple of the Christian church, then by the use of words which the disciples could not otherwise understand than of the laying waste and the desolation of the earthly sanctuary He would have confirmed them in their error. The second conclusion is out of harmony with the whole course of thought in the discourse. Besides, both of them are decidedly opposed by this, that the Lord, after setting forth all the events which precede and open the way for His παρουσία and the end of the world, says to the disciples, “When ye see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors” (Mat_24:33), and solemnly adds, “This γενεά,” i.e., the generation then living, “shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled” (Mat_24:34). Since the πάντα ταῦτα in Mat_24:33 comprehends all that goes before the παρουσία, all the events mentioned in Mat_24:15-28, or rather in Matt 24:5-28, it must be taken also in the same sense in Mat_24:34. If, therefore, the contemporaries of Jesus and His disciples - for we can understand nothing else by ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη - must live to see all these events, then must they have had a commencement before the destruction of Jerusalem, and though not perfectly, yet in the small beginnings, which like a germ comprehended in them the completion. Hence it is beyond a doubt that the Lord speaks of the judgment upon Jerusalem and the Jewish temple as the beginning of His παρουσία and of the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, not merely as a pre-intimation of them, but as an actual commencement of His coming to judgment, which continues during the centuries of the spread of the gospel over the earth; and when the gospel shall be preached to all nations, then the season and the hour kept in His own power by the Father shall reach its completion in the ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ (2Th_2:8) to judge the world.

(Note: This view of the parousia of Christ has been controverted by Dr. A. Christiani in his Bemerkungen zur Auslegung der Apocalypse mit besonderer Rcksicht auf die chiliastische Frage (Riga 1868, p. 21), -only, however, thus, that notwithstanding the remark, “Since the words πάντα ταῦτα, Mat_24:34, plainly refer back to Mat_24:33, they cannot in the one place signify more than in the other,” he yet refers these words in Mat_24:34 to the event of the destruction of Jerusalem, because the contemporaries of Jesus in reality lived to see it; thus giving to them, as they occur in Mat_24:34, a much more limited sense than that which they have in Mat_24:33.)

According to this view, Christ, in His discourse, interpreted the prophecy of Daniel, Daniel 11, of the abomination of desolation which should come, and had come, upon Jerusalem and Judah by Antiochus Epiphanes, as a type of the desolation of the sanctuary and of the people of God in the last time, wholly in the sense of the prophecy, which in Mat_24:36 passes over from the typical enemy of the saints to the enemy of the people of God in the time of the end.Thus the supposition that Christ referred Dan_9:26 and Dan_9:27 to the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans loses all support; and for the chronological reckoning of the seventy weeks of Daniel, no help is obtained

214

from the New Testament.We have now to take into consideration the second view regarding the historical reference of the seventy weeks prevailing in our time. The opponents of the genuineness of the book of Daniel generally are agreed in this (resting on the supposition that the prophecies of Daniel do not extend beyond the death of Antiochus Epiphanes), that the destruction of this enemy of the Jews (Ant. Ep.), or the purification of the temple occurring a few years earlier, forms the terminus ad quem of the seventy weeks, and that their duration is to be reckoned from the year 168 or 172 b.c. back either to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, or to the beginning of the Exile. Since now the seventy year-weeks or 490 years, reckoned from the year 168 or 172 b.c., would bring us to the year 658 or 662 b.c., i.e., fifty-two or fifty-six years before the commencement of the Exile, and the terminus a quo of Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years, a date from which cannot be reckoned any commencing period, they have for this reason sought to shorten the seventy weeks. Hitzig, Ewald, Wieseler, and others suppose that the first seven year-weeks (= forty-nine years) are not to be taken into the reckoning along with the sixty-two weeks, and that only sixty-two weeks = 434 years are to be counted to the year 175 (Ewald), or 172 (Hitzig), as the beginning of the last week filled up by the assault of Antiochus against Judaism. But this reckoning also brings us to the year 609 or 606 b.c., the beginning of the Exile, or three years further back. To date the sixty-two year-weeks from the commencement of the Exile, agrees altogether too little with the announcement that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem during sixty-two weeks it shall be built, so that, of the most recent representatives of this view, no one any longer consents to hold the seventy years of the exile for a time of the restoring and the building of Jerusalem. Thus Hitzig and Ewald openly declare that the reckoning is not correct, that the pseudo-Daniel has erred, and has assumed ten weeks, i.e., seventy years, too many, either from ignorance of chronology, “or from a defect in thought, from an interpretation of a word of sacred Scripture, springing from certain conditions received as holy and necessary, but not otherwise demonstrable” (Ewald, p. 425). By this change of the sixty-two weeks = 434 years into fifty-two weeks or 364 years, they reach from the year 174 to 538 b.c., the year of the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus, by whom the word “to restore Jerusalem” was promulgated. To this the seven weeks (= forty-nine years) are again added in order to reach the year 588 or 587 b.c., the year of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, from which the year-weeks, shortened from seventy to sixty, are to be reckoned.This hypothesis needs no serious refutation. For a reckoning which places the first 7 weeks = 49 years aside, and then shortens the 62 weeks by 10 in order afterwards again to bring in the 7 weeks, can make no pretence to the name of a “scientific explanation.” When Hitzig remarks (p. 170) “that the 7

weeks form the πρῶτον ψεῦδος in the (Daniel's) reckoning, which the author must bring in; the whole theory of the 70 year-weeks demands the earlier commencement in the year 606 b.c.” - we may, indeed, with greater accuracy say that the πρῶτον ψεῦδος of the modern interpretation, which needs such exegetical art and critical violence in order to change the 70 and

215

the 62 weeks into 60 and 52, arises out of the dogmatic supposition that the 70 weeks must end with the consecration of the temple under Antiochus, or with the death of this enemy of God.Among the opponents of the genuineness of the book this supposition is a dogmatic axiom, to the force of which the words of Scripture must yield. But this supposition is adopted also by interpreters such as Hofmann, Reichel (die 70 Jahreswochen Dan_9:24-27, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 735ff.), Fries, and others, who recognise the genuineness of the book of Daniel, and hold the announcement of the angel in these verses to be a divine revelation. These interpreters have adopted this view for this reason, that in the description of the hostile prince who shall persecute Israel and desecrate the sanctuary, and then come to his end with terror (Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27), they believe that they recognise again the image of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose enmity against the people and the sanctuary of God is described, Dan_8:9., 23f. It cannot, it is true, be denied that there is a certain degree of similarity between the two. If in Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27 it is said of the hostile prince that he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and put an end to the sacrifice and the meat-offering for half a week, then it is natural to think of the enemy of whom it is said: he “shall destroy the mighty and the holy people” (E. V. Dan_8:24), “and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away” (Dan_8:11), “and he shall take away the daily sacrifice” (Dan_11:31), especially if, with Hofmann, we adopt the view (Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 592) that between the expressions “take away the daily

sacrifice” (התמיד and “he shall cause the sacrifice and ,(הרים [remove ,הסיר]the oblation to cease” (ומנחה זבח ”.there “is no particular distinction ,(ישבית

(Note: We confine ourselves here to what Hofm. in his Schriftbew. has brought forward in favour of this view, without going into the points which he has stated in his die 70 Wochen, u. s. w. p. 97, but has omitted in the Schriftbew., and can with reference to that earlier argumentation only refer for its refutation to Kliefoth's Daniel, p. 417ff.)But the predicate “particular” shows that Hofmann does not reject everydistinction; and, indeed, there exists a not inconsiderable distinction; for, as we have already remarked, התמיד denotes only that which is permanentin worship, as e.g., the daily morning and evening sacrifice; while, on the other hand, זבה ומנחה denotes the whole series of sacrifices together. The making to cease of the bloody and the unbloody sacrifices expresses an altogether greater wickedness than the taking away of the daily sacrifice. This distinction is not set aside by a reference to the clause משמם שקוצים כנףועל (Dan_9:27) compared with משמם השקוץ ונתנו (Dan_11:31). For the assertion that the article in משמם השקוץ (Dan_11:31, “the abomination that maketh desolate”) denotes something of which Daniel had before this already heard, supplies no proof of this; but the article is simply to be accounted for from the placing over against one another of התמיד and משמם Moreover the .השקוץ השקוץ is very different from the משמם שקוצים כנף The being carried on the wings of idol-abominations is a much more .עלcomprehensive expression for the might and dominion of idol-

216

abominations than the setting up of an idol-altar on Jehovah's altar of burnt-offering.As little can we (with Hofm., p. 590) perceive in the הבא, closely

connecting itself with בשטף וקצ (Dan_9:26), a reference to the divine judgment described in Daniel 8, because the reference to the enemy of God spoken of in Dan_7:8, Dan_7:24 is as natural, yea, even more so, when we observe that the enemy of God in Daniel 7 is destroyed by a solemn judgment of God - a circumstance which harmonizes much more with קצבשטף than with ישבר יד which is said of the enemy described in Daniel ,באפס8. Add to this that the half-week during which the adversary shall (Dan_9:27) carry on his work corresponds not to the 2300 evening-mornings (Dan_8:13), but, as Delitzsch acknowledges, to the 3 1/2 times, Dan_7:25and Dan_12:7, which 3 1/2 times, however, refer not to the period of persecution under Antiochus, but to that of Antichrist.

From all this it therefore follows, not that the prince who shall come, whose people shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and who shall cause the sacrifice to cease, is Antiochus, who shall raise himself against the people of the saints, take away the “continuance” (= daily sacrifice), and cast down the place of the sanctuary (Dan_8:11), but only that this wickedness of Antiochus shall constitute a type for the abomination of desolation which the hostile prince mentioned in this prophecy shall set up, till, like Pharaoh, he find his overthrow in the flood, and the desolation which he causes shall pour itself upon him like a flood.This interpretation of Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27 is not made doubtful also by

referring to the words of 1 Macc. 1:54, ᾠκοδόμησαν βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον, as an evidence that at that time Dan_9:27 was regarded as a prophecy of the events then taking place (Hofm. Weiss. i. p. 309). For these words refer not to Dan_9:27, where the lxx have βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεων, but to Dan_11:11, where the singular βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως stands with the verb καὶ δώσουσι (lxx for ונתנו), to which the ᾠκοδομήσεται visibly refers.

If, therefore, the reference of Dan_9:26, Dan_9:27 to the period of Antiochus' persecution is exegetically untenable, then also, finally, it is completely disproved in the chronological reckoning of the 70 weeks. Proceeding from the right supposition, that after the 70 weeks, the fulfilling of all that was promised, the expiating and putting away of sin, and, along with that, the perfect working out of the divine plan of salvation for eternity, shall begin - thus, that in Dan_9:24 the perfecting of the kingdom of God in glory is prophesied of, - Hofmann and his followers do not interpret the 7, 62, and 1 week which are mentioned in Dan_9:25-27 as a division of the 70 weeks, but they misplace the first-mentioned 7 weeks at that end of the period consisting of 70 such weeks, and the following 62 + 1 in the time reaching from the beginning of the Chaldean supremacy in the year 605 to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 164, which makes 441 years = 63 year-weeks; according to which, not only the end of the 62 + 1 weeks does not coincide with the end of the 70 weeks, but also the 7 + 62 + 1 are to be regarded neither as identical with the 70 nor as following one another continuously in their order, - much more between the 63 and the 7 weeks a 217

wide blank space, which before the coming of the end cannot be measured, must lie, which is not even properly covered up, much less filled up, by the remark that “the unfolding of the 70 proceeds backwards.” For by this reckoning 7 + 62 + 1 are not an unfolding of the 70, and are not equal to 70, but would be equal to 62 + 1 + some unknown intervening period + 7 weeks. This were an impossibility which the representatives of this interpretation of the angel's communication do not, it is true, accept, but seek to set aside, by explaining the 7 weeks as periods formed of 7 times 7, or jubilee-year periods, and, on the contrary, the 62 + 1 of seven-year times of Sabbath-periods.This strange interpretation of the angel's words, according to which not only must the succession of the periods given in the text be transposed, the

first 7 weeks being placed last, but also the word שבעים in the passages immediately following one another must first denote jubilee (49 year) periods, then also Sabbath-year (7 year) periods, is not made plain by saying that “the end of the 62 + 1 week is the judgment of wrath against the persecutor, thus only the remote making possible the salvation; but the end of the 70 weeks is, according to Dan_9:24, the final salvation, and fulfilling of the prophecy and consecration of the Most Holy - thus the end of the 62 + 1 and of the 70 does not take place at the same time;” and - ”if the end of the two took place at the same time, what kind of miserable consolation would this be for Daniel, in answer to his prayer, to be told that Jerusalem within the 70 weeks would in troublous times again arise, thus only arise amid destitution!”' (Del. p. 284). For the prophecy would furnish but miserable consolation only in this case, if it consisted merely of the contents of Dan_9:25, Dan_9:26, and Dan_9:27, - if it said nothing more than this, that Jerusalem should be built again within the 70 weeks in troublous times, and then finally would again be laid waste. But the other remark, that the judgment of wrath against the destroyer forms only the remote making possible of the salvation, and is separated from the final deliverance or the completion of salvation by a long intervening period, stands in contradiction to the prophecy in Daniel 7 and to the whole teaching of Scripture, according to which the destruction of the arch-enemy (Antichrist) and the setting up of the kingdom of glory are brought about by one act of judgment.

In the most recent discussion of this prophecy, Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 585ff., 2 Aufl.) has presented the following positive arguments for the interpretation and reckoning of the period of time in question. The message of the angel in Dan_7:25-27 consists of three parts: (1) A statement of how many heptades shall be between the going forth of the command to rebuild Jerusalem and a Maschiach Nagid; (2) the mentioning of that which constitutes the contents of sixty-two of these periods; (3) the prediction of what shall happen with the close of the latter of these times. In the first of these parts, דבר with the following infinitive, which denotes a human action, is to be taken in the sense of commandment, as that word of Cyrus prophesied of Isa_44:28, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem is to be interpreted as in this passage of Isaiah, or in Jeremiah's prophecy to the same import, and not as if afterwards a second rebuilding of Jerusalem

218

amid the difficulty and oppression of the times is predicted; then will the sixty-two heptades remain separated from the seven, and not sixty-nine of these, but only seven, be reckoned between the going forth of the command to build Jerusalem again and the Maschiach Nagid, since in Dan_9:26mention is made not of that which is to be expected on the other side of the sixty-nine, but of the sixty-two times; finally, the contents of the seven times are sufficiently denoted by their commencement and their termination, and will remain without being confounded with the building up of Jerusalem in troublous times, afterwards described.All these statements of Hofmann are correct, and they agree with our interpretation of these verses, but they contain no proof that the sixty-two weeks are to be placed after the seven, and that they are of a different extent from these. The proof for this is first presented in the conclusion derived from these statements (on the ground of the correct supposition that by Maschiach Nagid not Cyrus, but the Messias, is to be understood), that because the first of these passages (Dan_9:25) does not say of a part of these times what may be its contents, but much rather points out which part of them lies between the two events in the great future of Israel, and consequently separates them from one another, that on this account these events belong to the end of the present course of the world, in which Israel hoped, and obviously the seven times shall constitute the end of the period consisting of seven such times. This argument thus founds itself on the circumstance that the appearing of the Maschiach Nagid which concludes the seven weeks, and separates them from the sixty-two weeks which follow, is not to be understood of the appearance of Christ in the flesh, but of His return in glory for the completion of the kingdom which was hoped for in consequence of the restoration of Jerusalem, prophesied of by Isaiah (e.g., Isa_55:3-4) and Jeremiah (e.g., Jer_30:9). But we could speak of these deductions as valid only if Isaiah and Jeremiah had prophesied only of the appearance of the Messias in glory, with the exclusion of His coming in the flesh. But since this is not the case - much rather, on the one side, Hofmann

himself says the וגו להשיב דבר may be taken for a prediction, as that Isa_44:28, of Cyrus - but Cyrus shall not build the Jerusalem of the millennial kingdom, but the Jerusalem with its temple which was destroyed by the Chaldeans - and, on the other hand, here first, if not alone, in the prophecies Jer. 25 and 29, by which Daniel was led to pray, Jeremiah has predicted the return of Israel from exile after the expiry of the seventy years as the beginning of the working out of the divine counsel of salvation towards Israel, - therefore Daniel also could not understand the וגו להשיבדבר otherwise than of the restoration of Jerusalem after the seventy years of the Babylonish exile. The remark also, that nothing is said of the contents of the seven weeks, warrants us in no respect to seek their contents in the time of the millennial kingdom. The absence of any mention of the contents of the seven weeks is simply and sufficiently accounted for from the circumstance, as we have already shown, that Daniel had already given the needed information (Daniel 8) regarding this time, regarding the time from the end of the Exile to the appearance of Christ. Still less can the conclusion be drawn, from the circumstance that the building in the sixty-two weeks is

219

designated as one falling in troublous times, that the restoration and the building of Jerusalem in the seven weeks shall be a building in glory. The ת ולבנ להשיב (to restore and to build, Dan_9:25) does not form a contrast to the העתים ק ובצ ונבנתה תשוב (= E.V. shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times, Dan_9:25), but it is only more indefinite, for the circumstances of the building are not particularly stated. Finally, the circumstance also, that after the sixty-two heptades a new devastation of the holy city is placed in view, cannot influence us to escape from the idea of the second coming of Christ in the last time along with the building of Jerusalem during the seven heptades, since it was even revealed to the prophet that not merely would a cruel enemy of the saints of God (in Antiochus Epiphanes) arise out of the third world-kingdom, but also that a yet greater enemy would arise out of the fourth, an enemy who would perish in the burning fire (Dan_7:12, Dan_7:26.) in the judgment of the world immediately before the setting up of the kingdom of glory.

Thus neither the placing of the contents of the seven weeks in the eschatological future, nor yet the placing of these weeks at the beginning instead of at the end of the three periods of time which are distinguished in Dan_9:25-27, is established by these arguments. This Fries (Jahrb.f. deutsche Theol. iv. p. 254ff.) has observed, and rightly remarked, that the effort to interpret the events announced in Dan_9:26. of the tyranny of Antiochus, and to make this epoch coincide with the close of the sixty-two year-weeks in the chronological reckoning, cannot but lead to the mistake of including the years of Babylon in the seventy year-weeks - a mistake which is met by three rocks, against which every attempt of this kind must be shattered. (1) There is the objection that it is impossible that the times of the destruction and the desolation of Jerusalem could be conceived of under the same character as the times of its restoration, and be represented from the same point of view; (2) the inexplicable inconsequence which immediately arises, if in the seventy year-weeks, including the last restoration of Israel, the Babylonish but not also the Romish exile were comprehended; (3) the scarcely credible supposition that the message of the angel sent to Daniel was to correct that earlier divine word which was given by Jeremiah, and to make known that not simply seventy years, but rather seventy year-weeks, are meant. Of this latter supposition we have already shown that it has not a single point of support in the text.In order to avoid these three rocks, Fries advances the opinion that the three portions into which the seventy year-weeks are divided, are each by itself separately to be reckoned chronologically, and that they form a connected whole, not in a chronological, but in a historico-pragmatical sense, “as the whole of all the times of the positive continuance of the theocracy in the Holy Land lying between the liberation from Babylonish exile and the completion of the historical kingdom of Israel”; and, indeed, so that the seven year-weeks, Dan_9:25, form the last part of the seventy year-weeks, or, what is the same, the jubilee-period of the millennial kingdom, and the sixty-two year-weeks, Dan_9:26, represent the period of the restoration of Israel after its liberation from Babylon and before its overthrow by the Romans - reckoned according to the average of the points

220

of commencement and termination, according to which, from the reckoning 536 (edict of Cyrus), 457 (return of Ezra), and 410 (termination by the restoration), we obtain for the epoch of the restoration the mean year 467 b.c.; and for the crisis of subjection to the Roman power A.U.C. 691 (the overthrow of Jerusalem by Pompey), 714 (the appointment of Herod as king of the Jews), and 759 (the first Roman procurator in Palestine), we obtain the mean year 721 A.U.C. = 33 b.c., and the difference of these mean numbers, 467 and 33, amounts exactly to 434 years = 62 year-weeks. The period described in v. 26 thus reaches from the beginnings of the subjection of Israel under the Roman world-kingdom to the expiry of the time of the diaspora of Israel, and the separate year-week, v. 27, comprehends the period of the final trial of the people of God, and reaches from the bringing back of Israel to the destruction of Antichrist (pp. 261-2;66).Against this new attempt to solve the mystery of the seventy weeks, Hofmann, in Schriftbew. ii. 2, p. 594, raises the objection, “that in Dan_9:26 a period must be described which belongs to the past, and in Dan_9:27, on the contrary, another which belongs to the time of the end; this makes the indissoluble connection which exists between the contents of the two verses absolutely impossible.” In this he is perfectly right. The close connection between these two verses makes it certainly impossible to interpose an empty space of time between the cutting off of the Anointed, by which Fries understands the dispersion of Israel among the heathen in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the coming of Antichrist, a space which would amount to 1800 years. But in opposition to this hypothesis we must also further remark, (1) that Fries had not justified the placing of the first portion of the seventy year-weeks (i.e., the seven weeks) at the end, - he has not removed the obstacles standing against this

arbitrary supposition, for his interpretation of the words נגיד משיח till“ ,עדMessias the prince shall be,” is verbally impossible, since, if Nagid is a predicate, then the verb יהיה could not be wanting; (2) that the interpretation of the משיח יכרת of the abolition of the old theocracy, and of the dispersion of the Jews abandoned by God among the heathen, needs no serious refutation, but with this interpretation the whole hypothesis stands or falls. Finally, (3) the supposition requires that the sixty-two weeks must be chronologically reckoned as year-weeks; the seven weeks, on the contrary, must be interpreted mystically as jubilee-periods, and the one week as a period of time of indefinite duration; a freak of arbitrariness exceeding all measure, which can on longer be spoken of as scripture interpretation.

Over against such arbitrary hypotheses, we can regard it as only an advance on the way toward a right understanding of this prophecy, that Hofmann (p. 594) closes his most recent investigations into this question with the following remarks: - ”On the contrary, I always find that the indefiniteness of the expression שבוע, which denotes a period in some way divided into sevens, leaves room for the possibility of comprehending together the sixty-three and the seven weeks, in one period of seventy, as its beginning and its end .... What was the extent of the units of which the

221

seventy times consist, the expression שבוע did not inform Daniel: he could only conjecture it.” This facilitates the adoption of the symbolical interpretation of the numbers, which, after the example of Leyrer and Kliefoth, we regard as the only possible one, because it does not necessitate our changing the seventy years of the exile into years of the restoration oaf Jerusalem, and placing the even weeks, which the text presents as the first period of the seventy weeks, last.

The symbolical interpretation of the seventy שבעים and their divisions is supported by the following considerations: - (1) By the double circumstance, that on the one side all the explanations of them as year-weeks necessitate an explanation of the angel's message which is justified neither by the words nor by the succession of the statements, and do violence to the text, without obtaining a natural progress of thought, and on the other side all attempts to reckon these year-weeks chronologically show themselves to be insufficient and impossible. (2) The same conclusion is sustained by the choice of the word שבוע for the definition of the whole epoch and its separate periods; for this word only denotes a space of time measured by sevens, but indicates nothing as to the duration of these sevens. Since Daniel in Dan_8:14 and Dan_12:11 uses a chronologically definite measure of time (evening-mornings, days), we must conclude from the choice of the expressions, seven, seven times (as in Dan_7:25 and Dan_12:7 of the like expression, times), which cannot be reckoned chronologically, that the period for the perfecting of the people and the kingdom of God was not to be chronologically defined, but only noted as a divinely appointed period measured by sevens. “They are sevens, of that there is no doubt; but the measure of the unit is not given:” thus Lהmmert remarks (Zur Revision der bibl. Zahlensymb. in den Jahrbb.f. D. Theol. ix. 1). He further says: “If the great difficulty of taking these numbers chronologically does not of itself urge to their symbolical interpretation, then we should be led to this by the disagreement existing between Gabriel's answer (Dan_9:22) and Daniel's question (Dan_9:2). To his human inquiries regarding the end of the Babylonish exile, Daniel receives not a human but a divine answer, in which the seventy years of Jeremiah are reckoned as sevens, and it is indicated that the full close of the history of redemption shall only be reached after a long succession of periods of development.”

By the definition of these periods according to a symbolical measure of time, the reckoning of the actual duration of the periods named is withdrawn beyond the reach of our human research, and the definition of the days and hours of the development of the kingdom of God down to its consummation is reserved for God, the Governor of the world and the Ruler of human history; yet by the announcement of the development in its principal stadia, according to a measure fixed by God, the strong consolation is afforded of knowing that the fortunes of His people are in His hands, and that no hostile power will rule over them one hour longer than God the Lord thinks fit to afford time and space, in regard to the enemy for his unfolding and ripening for the judgment, and in regard to the saints for the purifying and the confirmation of their faith for the eternal life in His kingdom according to His wisdom and righteousness.222

The prophecy, in that it thus announces the times of the development of the future consummation of the kingdom of God and of this world according to a measure that is symbolical and not chronological, does not in the least degree lose its character as a revelation, but thereby first rightly proves its high origin as divine, and beyond the reach of human thought. For, as Leyrer (Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. p. 387) rightly remarks, “should not He who as Creator has ordained all things according to measure and number, also as Governor of the world set higher measures and bounds to the developments of history? which are to be taken at one time as identical with earthly measures of time, which indeed the eventus often first teaches (e.g., the seventy years of the Babylonish exile, Dan_9:2), but at another time as symbolical, but yet so that the historical course holds and moves itself within the divinely measured sphere, as with the seventy weeks of Daniel, wherein, for the establishing of the faith of individuals and of the church, there lies the consolation, that all events even to the minutest, particularly also the times of war and of oppression, are graciously measured by God (Jer_5:22; Job_38:11; Psa_93:3.).”(Note: Auberlen, notwithstanding that he interprets the seventy שבעים

chronologically as year-weeks, does not yet altogether misapprehend the symbolical character of this definition of time, but rightly remarks (p. 133f.), “The history of redemption is governed by these sacred numbers; they are like the simple foundation of the building, the skeleton in its organism. These are not only outward indications of time, but also indications of nature and essence.” What he indeed says regarding the symbolical meaning of the seventy weeks and their divisions, depends on his erroneous interpretation of the prophecy of the appearance of Christ in the flesh, and is not consistent with itself.)To give this consolation to the faithful is the object of this revelation, and that object it fully accomplishes. For the time and the hour of the consummation of the kingdom of God it belongs not to us to know. What the Lord said to His disciples (Act_1:7) before His ascension, in answer to their question as to the time of the setting up of the kingdom of Israel - ”It

belongs not to you to know χρόνους ἤ καιροὺς οὕς ὁ πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ Ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ “that He says not only to the twelve apostles, but to the whole Christian world. That the reason for this answer is to be sought not merely in the existing condition of the disciples at the time He uttered it, but in this, that the time and the hour of the appearance of the Lord for the judgment of the world and the completion of His kingdom in glory are not to be announced beforehand to men, is clear from the circumstance that Christ in the eschatological discourse (Mat_24:36; Mar_13:32) declares generally, “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” According to this, God, the Creator and Ruler of the world, has kept in His own power the determination of the time and the hour of the consummation of the world, so that we may not expect an announcement of it beforehand in the Scripture. What has been advanced in opposition to this view for the justifying of the chronological interpretation of Daniel's prophecy of seventy weeks, and similar prophecies (cf. e.g., Hengstb. Christol. iii. 1, p. 202ff.), cannot be regarded as valid proof. If Bengel, in Ordo Temporum, p. 259, 2nd ed., remarks with reference to Mar_13:32 :

223

“Negatur praevia scientia, pro ipso duntaxat praesenti sermonis tempore, ante passionem et glorificationem Jesu. Non dixit, nemo sciet, sed: nemo scit. Ipse jam, jamque, sciturus erat: et quum scientiam diei et horae nactus fuit, ipsius erat, scientiam dare, cui vellet et quando vellet,” - so no one can certainly dispute a priori the conclusion “Ipse jam,” etc., drawn from the correct statements preceding, but also every one will confess that the statement “Ipsius erat,” etc., cannot prove it to be a fact that Jesus, after His glorification, revealed to John in Patmos the time and the hour of His return for the final judgment. Bengel's attempt to interpret the prophetical numbers of the Apocalypse chronologically, and accordingly to reckon the year of the coming again of our Lord, has altogether failed, as all modern scientific interpreters have acknowledged. So also fails the attempt which has been made to conclude from what Christ has said regarding the day of His παρουσία, that the Scripture can have no chronologically defined prophecies, while yet Christ Himself prophesied His resurrection after three days.

CALVIN, "The angel now returns to Christ. We have explained why he made mention of the coming slaughter; first, to shew the faithful that they had no reason for remaining in the body of the nation in preference to being cut off from it; and next, to prevent the unbelievers from being satisfied with their obstinacy and their contempt of their inestimable blessings, by their rejecting the person of Christ. Thus this clause was interposed concerning the future devastation of the city and temple. The angel now continues his discourse concerning Christ by saying, he should confirm the treaty with many for one week This clause answers to the former, in which Christ is called a Leader. Christ took upon him the character of a leader, or assumed the kingly office, when he promulgated the grace of God. This is the confirmation of the covenant of which the angel now speaks. As we have already stated, the legal expiation of other ritual ceremonies which God designed to confer on the fathers is contrasted with the blessings derived from Christ; and we now gather the same idea from the phrase, the confirmation of the covenant. We know how sure and stable was God’s covenant under the law; he was from the beginning always truthful, and faithful, and consistent with himself. But as far as man was concerned, the covenant of the law was weak, as we learn from Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 31:31.) I will enter into a new covenant with you, says he; not such as I made with your fathers, for they made it vain. We here observe the difference between the covenant which Christ sanctioned by his death and that of the Jewish law. Thus God’s covenant is established with us, because we have been once reconciled by the death of Christ; and at the same time the effect of the Holy Spirit is added, because God inscribes the law upon our hearts; and thus his covenant is not engraven in stones, but in our hearts of flesh, according to the teaching of the Prophet Ezekiel. (Ezekiel 11:19.) Now, therefore, we understand why the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week, and why that week was placed last in order. In this week will he confirm the covenant with many But I cannot finished this exposition just now.

224

ELLICOTT, " (27) And he shall confirm.—The subject of the sentence is ambiguous. Theod. makes it to be “one week.” LXX. “the covenant;” others take it to be the Antichristian prince spoken of in the last verse, an opinion which derives some support from Daniel 7:25. According to this interpretation, the covenant refers to the agreement which the prince makes with the large number of persons who become apostates. But (1) the word “covenant” does not apply to any such agreement, but rather to a covenant with God, and (2) in Daniel 9:26 it is the people of the prince, and not the prince, which is the subject of the sentence. It is therefore more appropriate to take Messiah as the subject. During the last closing week of the long period mentioned, Messiah, though cut off, shall confirm God’s covenant (comp. Daniel 11:22; Daniel 11:28; Daniel 11:30; Daniel 11:32) with many, that is, with those who receive Him.In the midst of the week.—Or, during half the week (the latter half of the week, according to the LXX.), he will cause to cease all the Mosaic sacrifices (possibly those mentioned in Daniel 8:11), whether bloody or unbloody. The verb “cause to cease” is used here as in Jeremiah 36:29.And for the overspreading . . .—The Greek versions agree in translating this as follows, êáὶ ἐðὶ ôὸ ἱåñὸí âäåëõãìá ôῶí ἐñçìþóåùí, which St. Jerome follows, “et erit in templo abominatio desolationis. However, it is not possible to obtain any such meaning from our present Hebrew text without omitting the last letter and altering the last vowel of the word translated “abominations.” As the text stands it can be literally translated only as follows, “and upon the wing of abominations is a desolator.” The desolator, of course, is the person who causes the desolations mentioned in Daniel 9:26. But what is meant by the “wing of abominations?” The language is without parallel in the Old Testament, unless such passages as Psalms 18:10; Psalms 104:3 are adduced, where, however, the plural “wings,” and not the singular, is used. If the number is disregarded, the words before us are explained to mean that “the abomination” or idolatry is the power by which the desolator accomplishes his purposes. He comes riding on the wings of abominations, using them for his ministers as God does the winds or the cherubim. As it appears decisive against this interpretation that Daniel has written “wing,” and not “wings,” it is better to explain the words as referring to the “sanctuary” spoken of in the last verse. The sense is in that case, “and upon the wing—i.e., the pinnacle of the abominations (comp. the use of ðôåñýãéïí,, Matthew 4:5) is a desolator. The Temple is thus called on account of the extent to which it had been desecrated by Israel.Until the consummation.—These words refer back to Daniel 9:26, and mean that these abominations will continue till the desolation which God has decreed shall be poured upon that which is desolated. Though the word “desolate” is active in Daniel 8:13; Daniel 12:11, it appears in this passage to be used in a passive sense, as also in Daniel 9:18. That which is foretold by Daniel is the complete and final destruction of the same city and temple which evoked the prophet’s prayer. There is no prophecy

225

that the desolator himself is destined to destruction. Of his doom nothing is here stated. The “prince” appears merely as the instrument pre-ordained by God, by whose people both city and sanctuary are to be destroyed.

TRAPP, "Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.Ver. 27. And he (Messiah) shall confirm the covenant {see Daniel 9:24} with many.] Heb., With his Rabbis, that is, with his elect. Compare Isaiah 53:11, Job 32:9, Jeremiah 41:2.For one week,] i.e., In the last seven years of the seventy.And in the midst of the week,] i.e., In three years and a half he shall, by his passion, disannul the Jewish sacrifices and services.And for the overspreading (or wing) of abominations,] i.e., For the abominable outrages committed by the seditious Jews, those zealots, as they called themselves, who filled the temple with dead bodies. Others, from Matthew 24:15-16 cf. Luke 20:20-21, think the Romans to be meant, who set up their eagles (their ensigns) in the temple, together with the images, first of Caligula, and then of Titus, their emperors.Even until the consummation.] Until the end, and to the utmost. The Jews have often attempted, but could never yet recover their country, nor are like to do. Perpetua et consummatissima consumptione urgentur.Shall be poured.] As if the windows of heaven were opened, as once they were at the flood. See Daniel 9:26.

POOLE, "Verse 27He: thishe is not Titus making truce with the Jews, which he did not, though he endeavoured to persuade them that he might spare them. I say then with Graser, Mede, and others, that this he is the Messiah, and the covenant he confirms is the new testament or covenant, called therefore the covenant of the people, Isaiah 42:6 49:8; and the Angel of the covenant, Malachi 3:1; and the Surety of the covenant, Hebrews 7:22; and the ancient rabbins called the Messias xrk a middle man, or middle man between two.

226

Quest. How did Christ confirm the covenant?Answ. 1. By testimony,(1.) Of angels, Luke 2:10 Mt 28;(2.) John Baptist;(3.) Of the wise men;(4.) By the saints then living, Luke 1:2;(5.) Moses and Elias, Matthew 17:3;(6.) Pharisees, as Nicodemus, John 3:2;(7.) The devils that confessed him.2. By his preaching.3. By signs and wonders.4. By his holy life.5. By his resurrection and ascension.6. By his death and blood shed.Shall confirm the covenant; rybgh he shall corroborate it, as if it began before his coming to fail and be invalid.With many; noting hereby the paucity of the Jewish church and nation, compared with the great increase and enlargement by believing Gentiles throughout all nations and ages of the world, Isaiah 11:9 49:6 53:11,12 54:2,3 Mr 16:15 Acts 13:46: q.d. With many Jews first and last, and with many more of the nations, yea, with the many whom the rabbins and Pharisees despise as the rabble, the common people, Isaiah 42:3 Matthew 21:31 John 7:48,49 1 Corinthians 1:26,27.For one week; by a figure, take the greater part of the whole, he shall, though rejected by the chief and bulk of the Jewish nation, yet make the new testament prevail with many in that time, i.e. at the latter end of the seventy weeks.The sacrifice and the oblation to cease; zebach and mincha, bloody and unbloody, to cease. i.e. all the Jewish rites, and Levitical ceremonious worship, i.e. by the burning of the temple before the city was taken, for they were only to offer sacrifice in the temple, nor had they wherewithal in the siege. Yet is there more in it than this, viz.

227

that the Lord Jesus, by his death, and by the execution of his wrath, and abrogate and put an end to this laborious service, and made it to cease for ever.For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate; desolatefor the wing, for the manifold and great abominations stretching, and our text hath it well overspreading. This abomination was the Roman army with their eagles, and with their superstitious rites in approaching to besiege and subdue any place; and this is executed by Christ upon them, Matthew 22:7, when he is called a King sending forth his armies, and destroying the murderers that destroyed him, and burning their city, and their coming is Christ’s coming, Malachi 3:1,2 John 21:22 James 5:7; therefore it is said here,he shall make it desolate. Even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate: here all this is made the effect of God’s decree, and therefore irrevocable. This word shomen notes that this people were bewitched, sottishly superstitious, wanderers, banished, the astonishment and scorn of the world; all which did justly and dreadfully befall them, and they verify it to this day.They that will curiously search further into the seventy weeks and other numbers in Daniel, and have leisure and skill, let them read Graserus, L’Empereur, Wasmuth, Mede, Willet, Wichmannus, Sanctius, Rainoldus, Pererius, Derorlon, Broughton, Liveleius, Helvicns, Calovius, Geierus. &c. Read also Joseph Med. p. 861, &c., and Bail. p. 180, &c. This scripture shows the coming of the Messiah so clearly, his sufferings, and the wrath of God so severely upon the Jews for it, that it thoroughly confutes their unbelief; and fully confirms our faith in Jesus Christ.

BENSON, "Daniel 9:27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many — “The covenant to be confirmed by the Messiah is not a civil, but a religious compact, as such, styled by Daniel himself, the holy covenant, Daniel 11:28; Daniel 11:30; Daniel 11:32, the covenant of grace; which, after the infraction of the first divine law of strict obedience, was, of mere clemency, granted to all mankind by the mediation of Christ. He not only expiated the sins of the world by his death, which was the chief article of the federal system; but in person, by the energy of his miracles, by the efficacy of his doctrine, and, soon after his resurrection, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, he induced many myriads of the Jews to accede to this covenant, which the Prophet Jeremiah so admirably describes, Jeremiah 31:33-34 : compare Hebrews 8:6-13. He shall confirm this covenant with MANY, not with ALL, which marks the exclusion of the obstinate and impious Jews, whose fate is predicted in the preceding and following clause. By an obvious analogy, the Christian covenant, though offered to all, is still confirmed with many; namely, those only who, by a rational faith and moral subjection, having his law written in their hearts, attain to that exalted privilege.”For one week — “Christ’s personal ministry continued to its fourth year. St. John

228

(John 2:13; John 5:1; John 6:4; John 11:15;) distinctly reckons four passovers; the first, A.D. 30, Feb. 15, and the first year of his ministry; the second, A.D. 31; the third, A.D. 32; the fourth, A.D. 33. The half year precedes the first passover from his baptism. The first half week of Daniel is from the beginning of Christ’s first preaching, Mark 1:15, Repent ye, and believe the gospel, A. 30, to his death, April 3, A. 33; or rather, to the pentecost following, when all the Christian mysteries were completed. The duration of Christ’s ministry is so ascertained by St. John; and is so suitable to the great events of his life as well as to this prophecy, that, as it needs not to be protracted, so it cannot be shortened with any degree of probability. The second half week is from the feast of pentecost, (when St. Peter with so much energy converted three thousand of the Jews,) to the conversion of Cornelius, and the first-fruits of the Gentiles, by the same apostle. The best chronologers place the vision of St. Peter, and the conversion of Cornelius, in the fourth year after the passion; and in the same year we may place the foundation of the church of Antioch, where the disciples were first called CHRISTIANS, Acts 11:26. Thus a prediction, which began with the happy event of rebuilding the earthly Jerusalem, sublimely terminates with the structure of the heavenly, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST himself being the chief corner-stone, Ephesians 2:20-22. The confirmation of the Christian covenant in one week, or seven years, includes its full effect, both in the conversion of many myriads of the Jews, and in the first-fruits of the Gentile Church.”And in the MIDST of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease — “The sacrifice here specified, with its attendant bread-offering, was eucharistical, as well as propitiatory, being a slain victim, on which the offerers feasted in token of amity and reconciliation with God. When Christ, in the MIDST of the week, offered his own body, that great sacrifice for the expiation of sin, to reconcile sinners to God; by that most holy and acceptable victim, he completed and abolished all the typical sacrifices of the law. The legal sacrifices, indeed, continued to be offered at the temple, for thirty-six years after Christ’s death; but, in effect, they ceased, at that instant their efficacy was no more, after that Christ had given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour, Ephesians 5:2. Hence forward the Christian religion abrogated the Levitical sacrifices, as was accurately foretold by the psalmist, Psalms 40:6, as commented by the inspired writer to the Hebrews 10:5-10.”And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate —Or, more literally, And he shall be a desolator by the wing of abominations. Or, And being a desolator, he shall command over a wing of abominations. The desolator is the Roman army of sixty thousand men: Jos., B. J. 3:4. 2. The wing, as well as the flood, is the Hebrew metaphor for great armies. Abominations, in the Jewish style, are idols. The word is so used by Daniel 11:31, for the idol of the Olympian Jupiter, which Antiochus placed on God’s altar, 1 Maccabees 1:57. In this prophecy, it denotes the standards of the Roman legions. To every legion was a golden eagle with expanded wings, grasping a thunder-bolt. The eagles, with the standards of the

229

cohorts, ten in each legion, adorned with the image of the reigning Cesar, were deified, adored, and sworn by; each eagle was placed in a little temple, or shrine; and there was a chapel in the camp where all the eagles were adored. At Rome they were deposited in the temple of Mars. Such deified ensigns were an abomination to the Jews: see Joshua 17:7; Joshua 17:2; Joshua 18:8. The prediction was minutely verified when the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the temple and adjacent buildings, brought the ensigns to the holy place, fixed them against the eastern gate, offered sacrifices to them, and hailed Titus Imperator, Joshua 6:6. 1. The allusion to the Roman standards is observable in that prediction of Moses; The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand, Deuteronomy 28:49 : see also Matthew 24:15-16. The eagles, and the language, and the distance from Rome, discriminate the Romans from the Chaldeans, whose tongue was only a dialect of the Hebrew.”“The concluding clause, Even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate, is elliptical. It may be thus literally translated, and the ellipses supplied; Even until the consummation and excision, the divine wrath shall be poured on the desolate city, temple and people; which expresses so complete a devastation, as cannot be described but in the emphatic words of Christ, when his disciples beheld with admiration the recent magnificence of Herod’s temple. See ye not all these things? Verily, I say unto you, there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And, Daniel 9:21, Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. Christ’s own prediction was memorably verified against the attempt of the apostate emperor, Julian, expressly to defeat it: an attempt which confirms the principle of prophecy, that the designs and counsels of God are independent of the projects of men, either to frustrate or fulfil them.” The war of Adrian, A.D. 133, may be also intended in this last clause of the prophecy; and the re-duplication of images and expressions, rising one above another, may relate to the two completions. “It is worthy of attention, that the ancient prophecies, prior to this of Daniel, have no such exact specification of the time of their completion. Chronology was not reducible to historic certainty prior to the Olympiads. When that era became the authentic measure of time, God was pleased to give this singular credential to the Christian religion; whose author and original could not be more precisely ascertained than by a measure of time, adapted to the ideas of the Jewish law, including ten jubilees, or seventy sabbatic years, nearly commencing with the war of Peloponnesus [between the Athenians and Lacedemonians;] in the recital of which, the unexampled accuracy of Thucydides led the example of the most exact notation of time to other historians. If chronology for six hundred years after Cyrus had been as perplexed as it was for six hundred years before, it would not have been possible to ascertain the completion of a prophecy, specifying so many particular dates.” — Dr. Apthorp. The reader will observe, that several false and evasive systems have been advanced on the subject of this prophecy; but it has not been judged proper to embarrass this exposition of the passage with a refutation of them.

230

WHEDON, " 27. And he shall confirm — R.V. reads, “And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week.” Expositors of the old school generally make the “Messiah” (Daniel 9:26) the subject here. He shall make strong his new covenant of grace (Hebrews 9:13) during his life, in his death and resurrection, and for a short time afterward — this “week” being variously estimated as running to Pentecost, to the conversion of St. Paul, or farther still into the Christian era. But according to this method of interpretation it is not easy to find a period of seven years or thereabouts which could be naturally described as the week during which our Lord made firm his covenant. Some expositors make the “one week” refer to “the last period of the Jewish dispensation;” but is it consistent to make the sixty-ninth week end with the death (the “cutting off”) of the Messiah (Daniel 9:26), and then to consider the week following as a part of the Jewish dispensation? It is one of the difficulties of this theory that the “cutting off” of Christ (Daniel 9:26) should have occurred seemingly before the crisal week opens in which “he shall make a firm covenant with many” (Daniel 9:27). For fuller discussion, see Introduction, II, 10. The newer interpretation is that Antiochus, by his many alliances with other princes and the covenant made with apostatizing Jews, was able to keep himself strong for one week (the first seven years of his reign, 175-168 B.C.), and during this period he was confirmed in his heartless persecutions of the Jews. Although the Hebrew word “covenant” usually refers to God’s covenant with Israel, this usage is not universal. (See Hosea 12:1; Amos 1:9.) By a very slight change, however, the phrase may be rendered, “he shall cause many to transgress the covenant;” which was indeed sadly true of Antiochus, for we have independent Jewish testimony that “many Israelites” turned heathen at his command, consenting to profane the Sabbath, and even to set up altars to idols and sacrifice to them swine’s flesh and other unclean offerings (1 Maccabees 1:10-15).And in the midst of the week, etc. — R.V. reads, “and for the half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation [meal offering] to cease.” The older school of expositors refer this to the cessation of the temple sacrifices, when Christ through the eternal Spirit offered himself as a Lamb without spot to bear the sins of the world (compare Hebrews 8-10). But was it only for half a week that these temple sacrifices were to cease? Or, if the A.V. is preferred, is it historical truth to say that in the middle of the week following the one in which the Christ was “cut off” (Daniel 9:26) these sacrifices came to an end? Their typical virtue ended with the crucifixion, not half a week later; while beast sacrifices actually continued to be offered on the temple altar down to the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. Scholars who favor the new interpretation see in this half week a clearer allusion to the “time, times, and half a time” mentioned previously by Daniel, during which the saints were delivered into the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes (see note Daniel 7:25) and the sacrifices (as all acknowledge) were abolished for some three and a half years; from perhaps June, 168 B.C., to December, 165 B.C.And for the overspreading of abominations, etc. — The R.V. (which is accepted in substance by scholars of all schools) reads, “and upon the wing of abominations

231

shall come one that maketh desolate.” R.V., margin, “upon the pinnacle of abominations.” The older commentators generally explain this as having reference to the idolatrous eagle standards of the Roman armies, which spread desolations wherever they came. The newer school explains it in harmony with the similar but clearer phrase found in Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11, where it evidently has an allusion to the heathen altar built by Antiochus Epiphanes on the temple altar of Jehovah, and where on Chislev (December) 25, B.C. 168, sacrifice was offered to the Olympic Zeus. This altar is actually called (1 Maccabees 1:51; 1 Maccabees 1:54; 1 Maccabees 6:7) “the abomination of desolation.” This sacrilege certainly caused desolations and made even the most sacred altar of Jehovah an “abomination.” Although Farrar suggests that the heathen altar may have seemed to overshadow the great altar of burnt offering “like a wing,” it is not best to press any vivid pictorial meaning out of the word “wing,” as the exact thought of the Hebrew is uncertain. For the possible connection of this winged abomination with the Babylonian representations of evil genii see Speaker’s Commentary, in loco. The Greek version used by our Lord (Matthew 24:15) seems to favor the modern view that this abomination specially referred to the desecration of the “holy place.”Even until the consummation, etc. — The R.V. reads, “and even unto the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolator (margin, ‘desolate’).” There are various readings of this very difficult phrase, but the general meaning certainly is that the desolations shall come to the divinely determined end and the desolator shall be punished. If we read “desolate,” with R.V., margin, instead of “desolator,” as the last word of the chapter, this would refer plainly to Jerusalem and would emphasize the statement that up to the very week of Messianic triumph desolations and afflictions should overwhelm the holy city. For this picture of Messianic triumph see Daniel 12:1-3. We cannot think that there is here any direct prophecy of the second coming of Christ or the end of the world; neither can we think that the passage as a whole has direct and primary reference to the coming and crucifixion of our Saviour and the destruction of the temple by the Romans. We have given our reasons for doubting this, and might add the suggestive fact that “neither our Lord nor his apostles nor any of the earliest Christian writers once appealed to the evidence of this prophecy” (Farrar), which would be superlatively astonishing if this were a direct chronological proof that Jesus was indeed the Christ. On the other hand, we must never forget that in all prophecy the future is pictured in the present with an historic exit point in the background. It has been said that the seers of God were not “children of their time but were exalted above their time.” Whether that was true or not of the prophets as individuals, it certainly was true of their Messianic visions. They often spake better than they knew. Daniel’s vision does not stop with Antiochus; the picture which he paints fits upon him only as the forerunner of an enemy of the theocracy still more dreadful. As Professor Simcox has written in the Cambridge Bible, “If the Book of Daniel be accepted as a really inspired prophecy, the visions admit of but one explanation. The oppression of Antiochus is foretold in part for its own sake, as an important episode in the temporal and religious history of God’s people; in part also as a type of a greater and still more important oppression” (The Book of Revelation,

232

p. 21).

PETT, "Verse 27“And he/they will make a covenant to prevail (‘will confirm covenant’) with many for one seven, and in the midst of the seven they will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, and even to the consummation, and that determined, will wrath be poured out on the desolator.”It should be noted that there is no clear indication here of any break between the sixty nine sevens and the seventieth seven. The natural interpretation if we were not trying to fit it into history would be that the seventieth seven follows on immediately after the sixty ninth seven.It will be observed immediately that it is suggested that the singular verbs could be translated in the plural. And the reason that this is has been done is because the obvious antecedent to the he/they is ‘the people of the coming prince’, for they are the subject of the previous sentence. This is because the word for ‘people’ is a collective singular noun and therefore requires a singular Hebrew verb, although in English we translate as a plural. The translation is therefore a correct rendering of the Hebrew if the people are being referred to.Many see the subject of the verbs as being ‘the coming prince’ of Daniel 9:26 or the ‘anointed one, the prince’ of Daniel 9:25. Both are possible. But neither are grammatically the most likely. Indeed the genitive ‘of the prince’ is extremely unlikely as an antecedent, for the emphasis of the phrase is on the people and the prince is only an identifying factor, and it is extremely unusual in Hebrew for the subject of a verb to indicate a previous genitive. On the other hand the mention of the ‘other’ prince is too far away really to be an antecedent, and besides, as the ‘other’ prince has been cut off, the idea of him confirming a covenant could only be derived from elsewhere. Neither is a totally insuperable objection but they do make either interpretation extremely unlikely. An alternative suggestion is that the initial ‘he’ is referring to God. The sudden introduction of God as ‘he’ without any other identification is something that occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament. But the undeniable fact is that Hebrew verbs with no subject usually look back to the subject of the previous sentence. And as that makes complete sense in this case we can see no reason why should we look elsewhere, especially as ‘the covenant’ in Daniel always means the holy covenant.What is to take place here is within the final ‘seven’, that final period of God’s divinely perfect activity of unknown duration which will bring His final purposes to pass.The people of the prince who has been cut off, will at some stage recognise their

233

rebellion for what it was and, realising that they have by their actions breached their holy covenant, will come to renew it before God, (as many such as Paul did) including within that renewal the ‘many’ who had not breached it, the true Israel of God, Gods true people. The word ‘many’ is regularly used by Daniel when referring to people of an uncertain number and identity (Daniel 8:25; Daniel 11:14; Daniel 11:18; Daniel 11:26; Daniel 11:33-34; Daniel 11:39; Daniel 11:41; Daniel 11:44; Daniel 12:3-4; Daniel 12:10, compare also its use in Isaiah 53:11). This is a picture of the widespread conversion of Jews to their Messiah, to Christ, and of their rapprochement with the true people of God, something which did happen in the early days of the church prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Such a conversion is seen as having taken place in the early chapters of Acts when large numbers of Jews responded to the preaching of the Apostles and the followers of Jesus, and it continued as the message went out into the wider world, with many Jewish Christians (including Paul) preaching the Gospel in the synagogues around the know world.This period may be seen as immediately following the cutting off of the prince, as ‘the many’ of His followers are joined by large numbers of other repentant Jews in the confirming of God’s covenant through Christ, resulting in the new Israel, and then in the bringing in to the new Israel of the Gentiles who are converted to Christ (Romans 11:17-20; Galatians 3:29; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:12; Ephesians 2:19-22).The ceasing of true worship in the midst of the seven may then be seen as referring back to the reference to the destruction of the sanctuary, or alternatively it may refer to apostasies that will occur as a result of persecutions, such as those referred to in the letter to the Hebrews.It should be noted in this regard that Daniel 9:26 a and 27 can be seen as parallel. Each commences at the time when the anointed prince is cut off, and each goes up to ‘the end’. Thus we may see in them two reactions of ‘the people of the Prince’. The one the reaction of those who rejected Him, and continued to do so, the other the reaction of those who after His death (and resurrection) responded to him. The whole of Israel rarely acted as one.But some consider it the more natural reading to see Daniel 9:27 as following the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. That would not, however, require a ‘gap’ for the destruction of city and sanctuary could well be directly connected with the cutting off of the prince, and be seen as occurring within the sixty ninth ‘seven’. Nevertheless they try to argue that this must be seen as occurring towards ‘the end’, when a great turning back of Israel to God through Christ is to be expected (Joel 2:15-17; Joel 2:32; Zechariah 8:21-23; Romans 11:23; Romans 11:26-32). This is especially the case for those who wish to treat the ‘sevens’ as years (in order to make the years fit). On this basis it would refer to a wholesale conversion in the end days. But the interpretation has to be ‘read in’. it is not a natural interpretation of the passage.

234

This idyllic final ‘seven’ will be interrupted, for in the midst of the ‘seven’ the sacrifices and oblations will be caused to cease. In context this should probably be seen as another way of indicating the destruction of the Temple already mentioned in the previous verse. This was a blow to both unbelieving Jews and to believing Christian Jews who still engaged in Temple worship. Alternately it can be seen as indicating that, after the renewal of the covenant, many will again turn away from Christ, probably as a result of the activities of persecutors, and possibly following some proscription of Jewish Christians (or all Christians) by the powers that be, and especially finally by the horn, the small one, of chapter 7 who is to ‘wear out the saints of the Most High’ (Daniel 7:25 compare Revelation 11). Thus they will cease to worship and honour God, and will renege on their commitment to Christ. They will cease to honour His sacrifice on their behalf. They will ‘cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease’, not literally, for there will be no literal sacrifices (no new temple has been posited), but the spiritual sacrifices of worship, praise and thanksgiving through Christ’s own sacrifice of Himself ( Romans 12:1; Hebrews 13:15; 1 Peter 2:5; Mark 12:33). Given a further chance they will have once again failed. Either way desolation is to follow, something which has occurred regularly throughout subsequent history.(It must always, however, be recognised that throughout all these failures of Israel there have always been a remnant who have carried on the purposes of God. God has never been left without a witness. And it was this remnant which became the new true Israel and which Jesus used for the spreading of the Gospel incorporating into it converted Gentiles who thus themselves became part of the true Israel. Thus were God’s promises for Israel fulfilled even when Israel as a whole failed).‘And on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate.’ ‘Abominations’ regularly refers to idolatry and ungodliness. Thus the reference here may be to the Roman armies who continued to wreak desolation throughout Palestine. Or it may signify persecution wrought by idolatrous emperors against the people of God. Thus desolation is a keynote of what follows the cutting off of the Messiah, and the destruction of the Temple, and it will especially affect Palestine. Such desolations certainly resulted in Palestine later becoming bereft of Jews. But they tie in with Jesus’ warning of what the future held for the world (‘wars and rumours of wars’). And this will go on until the final consummation determined by God, at which point judgment will be poured out on the desolator (see Daniel 12:1-3; Revelation 19:11-21).‘The wing of abomination.’ The thought of the singular ‘wing’ may be that false religion can only offer half of what it pretends. It flies with one wing, and is therefore deficient and lacking. It, as it were limps, along. (This is a vision so that the question of whether it is possible to fly with one wing is irrelevant, and anyway it could be argued that it flies like an injured bird). There may here be a deliberate contrast with the One Who carries His people on eagles’ wings, on two wings (Exodus 19:4; Deuteronomy 32:11). Others refer it to the wing of the temple, as an

235

indication that the desolator is parodying the temple, or indeed replaces the Temple. The singular may, however, just be similar to our use when we speak of ‘a bird on the wing’.Some see the seventieth seven as referring to the time when Christ was on earth, with the renewing of the covenant then taking place through the ministry of Jesus, and the ceasing of sacrifices and offerings coming about through His death. This is then followed by an indeterminate period, the final part of God’s plans of unknown duration, in which the people of God have to face the tribulations ahead until God’s final judgment. The problem with this interpretation in my view is that it here treats the cessation of sacrifice and offering as a good thing, whereas elsewhere in Daniel it is a bad thing (Daniel 8:11-12; Daniel 12:10-11). Nor does it lead up to the final consummation.‘And even to the consummation (or ‘full end’), and that determined, will wrath be poured out on the desolator.Finally the troubles must cease, for the full end is coming as determined by God, and then wrath will be poured out on the desolator. We are left to recognise that the consummation indicates the great blessings of Daniel 9:24 will become true for God’s own people. For the final destruction of evil coincides with the triumph of the people of God. Both are sides of the same coin, and the latter was the central purpose of the vision.Note. Could There Be a Break Between the Sixty Nine Sevens and the Seventieth Seven?The fact of such a gap has been seen by some as suggested by the phrase ‘to the end’. Elsewhere in Daniel we have examples of history foretold and then of a sudden jump to ‘the end’. Contrast Daniel 11:29-35 with Daniel 11:36-45. In chapter 11 the contrast between those two sections is so remarkable that two different periods of activity appear to be in mind, and the latter takes us on to ‘the time of the end’. This phenomenon is found in all the prophets. Regularly there is a gap between the near fulfilment and the far fulfilment.Compare and contrast also the ‘small horn’ (a small horn is an indication of a horn that is starting to grow) of the third empire in Daniel 8:20-26 with that of the fourth empire in Daniel 7:20-25 where the contrasts are far more than the similarities. The former deals with Antiochus’ persecutions, the latter with the time of the end. But there is no real reason for seeing a gap here in chapter 9, which reads like a continuous sequence, while ‘to the end’ would seem to indicate what it says, something that will occur to the very end, not something which will be followed by a further ‘seven’.Certainly, if the seventy sevens is taken to mean seventy sevens of years (on no really satisfactory grounds, for in context the seventy ‘sevens’ are contrasted with

236

Jeremiah’s seventy ‘years’) then there must be a gap, for the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple did not take place within seven years of the death of Christ. This would, of course, depend on what the ‘seventieth seven’ means. If it is ‘a divinely perfect time of unknown length’, as we believe, then all that is described in Daniel 9:26-27 can be encompassed in that ‘seven’. It simple represents ‘the end of the ages’ which began at the time of Christ’s death (1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 Peter 4:7). When we are dealing with God time is irrelevant. To him a thousand years, or even ten thousand, could be accomplished within a ‘seven’, His final perfect activity.Furthermore, here in chapter 9 Daniel sums up what follows the cutting off of the Messiah by ‘their end will be with a flood’. Whose end? Why, surely the people of the coming Prince (a singular noun in Hebrew followed by a singular verb). They will be destroyed by a flood of invaders (compare Daniel 11:22). And the phrase that follows, ‘and even to the end shall be war, desolations are determined’ is an indefinite and vague phrase that can cover many situations. Mankind will continue to face suffering and hardship because they are the result of their own sin.That such a history would be theirs is actually confirmed by Jesus in Luke 21:24 where He speaks of the coming in of the invaders, the times of the Gentiles, and the terrible and long exile of the Jewish people (described in Matthew as included in the ‘great tribulation’ which they would suffer under the invasion of Titus and the mad antics of their own fanatical leaders), which would commence with the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, when ‘the times of the Gentiles’ would begin. Thus the ‘seventy sevens which are determined upon your people’ (Daniel 9:24) could possibly be seen as suspended, but there are no grounds in the text for suggesting it.The idea of a gap in the history of the Jews may also be seen as suggested by Paul in Romans 11:15-24. Indeed that is exactly his argument. He is dealing with the problem of God turning away from His people and setting them aside and answers it along two lines.1) That not all Jews have been rejected. An examination of the past reveals that God has always chosen out some and rejected others. Thus this position is no different.2) That the temporary rejection of the nation as a whole is in order that God might bless the Gentiles, but there is the suggestion that when this purpose is accomplished the Jewish nation itself may expect a new final offer of deliverance (Daniel 9:25-27).Given this fact Paul clearly saw a period when the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation would be put into the background, followed in the end by a great work of God among that people as they come in response to Christ. There can in fact be no future for the Israel away from Christ. It is only when they respond to Him and are grafted back into the olive tree that they can be saved and begin again to fulfil God’s purpose . This situation could be seen as confirmed in the seventieth seven.

237

But while we agree that such a gap is ‘possible’, (anything is possible with interpreters) it is really taking what Paul is saying too far, for he nowhere connects it with prophetic interpretation, and such a gap is not obvious from this passage. Furthermore Paul is not indicating a gap, he is indicating the individual response to Christ of both Jews and Gentiles to make up the sum total of the elect, and the continuation of Israel. It therefore seems far more realistic to see the seventieth seven as immediately following the sixty ninth, and therefore as including all that will then happen from the end of the sixty ninth seven until the end of time. It then encompasses within it conversion, apostasy and tribulation, and all the continual experience of the people of God, the true Israel, as well as the destruction of Jerusalem because of the unbelief of those who continually reject Him. Taken in this way it ties in with the apocalyptic message of Jesus in Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21, which also have in mind the death of Christ, people responding to the covenant who will be persecuted, the destruction of the Temple, and continuing desolations.Note. Is This the Period of the Great Tribulation?We ask this question because of the use made of this passage by many, not because there is anything in the passage to suggest it. It is this popular usage that makes it a violable question.Firstly, however, we must question the phrase ‘the Great Tribulation’. It is the invention of Bible students not of the Bible. The Bible does speak of ‘great tribulation’ which would come on parts of the church in the time of the Apostle John (Revelation 2:22), and ‘great tribulation’ which the Jews would face when Titus destroyed Jerusalem (which could be avoided by fleeing to the mountains, thus it is a tribulation limited to the Jews) with its aftermath in the dispersion of the Jews to face tribulation through the centuries (Matthew 24:21; Luke 21:24). There is also a mention of great tribulation which the people of God would suffer through the ages (Revelation 7:14), possibly referring back to the great tribulation of Revelation 2:22, but never is there mention of a period called ‘the Great Tribulation’.Secondly we should note that here in Daniel war and desolations are promised right from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:26), so that what is described in Daniel 9:27 is not unusual. Certainly Daniel 9:27 may be seen as suggesting that the people of God will be persecuted so that some turn aside from the covenant, but if it is to be restricted to a seven year period at the end of time that might be limited to Palestine, and anyway the people of God are persecuted in all ages, and never more so than in parts of the world today, especially in Muslim countries. We must not over-exaggerate the picture.Thirdly we should note that while at the end there will be ‘a time of trouble such as never was’ (Daniel 12:1) that is nowhere limited to seven years, and its geographical extent we do not know. It is mainly connected with the Jews.So this modern huge emphasis by some on a seven year tribulation period cannot be

238

obtained from Daniel. Nor, we believe, can it be found in Revelation (see our commentary on Revelation). That is not to deny that at the end there will be great troubles and persecution. Such have always been the lot of Christians and it is very likely that they will intensify as Satan realises that his time is short. It is only to reject the idea that it can be summed up in a seven year period on the basis of this passage.End of note.

PULPIT, "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. The verse in the Septuagint corresponding to this is evidently mixed up with confluent readings and notes as to earlier verses, "And the covenant shall be strong upon many, and again he shall turn ('repent') åðéóôñǻøåé), and it shall be built in breadth and length, and according to the end of times until the end of the war, and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years until the end of the war; and the desolation shall be taken away in confirming (or 'when he shall confirm') the covenant to many weeks; and in the end of the week the sacrifice and the oblation shall be taken away, and upon the temple shall be the abomination of desolation until the end, and an end shall be given to the desolation." In this mass of confusion this much is clear—the clause, "the covenant shall be strong ( äõíáóôåṍóåé) upon many," is a doublet of the clause, "when he shall confirm the covenant to many weeks." The clause, "and after seven and seventy times and sixty-two years," is a doublet of the beginning of the twenty-sixth verse; "Till the end of the war, and the desolation shall be taken away," is an alternative version of the last clause of the twenty-sixth verse. When those extraneous elements are got rid of, we have left a rendering of the twenty-seventh verse, which may afford us light as to the text. "The covenant shall be strong upon many" is a possible rendering of the Hebrew (see Psalms 12:5). The alternative reading, "when he shall confirm ( åí ôù êáôéó÷õóáé) the covenant during many weeks," implies the infinitive with the preposition ב, and "weeks" in the plural, and one omitted—the latter is omitted, indeed, by both. "And in the end of the week"—reading קץ (qaytz) instead of חצי (hatzee)—"sacrifice and offering shall be taken away, and upon the temple shall be the abomination of desolation"—reading קדש (qodesh), "holy," instead of זבח (kenaph), "wing," "outspreading," or it may be tendered "wing of temple"—"until the end, and an end be given to desolation"—reading תתן (toottan), "is given," or "appointed," instead of תת(tittak), "poured out." Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, "And one week shall confirm ( äõíáìùóåé) a covenant to many, and in the middle ( çìéóåé) of the week my sacrifice and offering shall be taken away"—reading זבחי (zebeḥee) instead of זבח(zebaḥ), and possibly minḥath, instead of minḥah—"and upon the temple (shall be) the abomination of desolations, and till (at) the end of the time an end is set (given) to the desolation." It will be observed that Theodotion agrees with the LXX. in reading קדש (qodesh) instead of כנף (kenaph), and תתן (toottan) instead of תת

239

(tittak)£ The Peshitta is closer still to the Massoretic, but the last verb the translator seems to have read as tanah, "shall rest." Tertullian, in his quotation from the Vetus, shows that in this verse it follows Theodotion, or rather the version which he made his basis. He, however, connects "half a week" with "one week." The Vulgate rendering is, "One week also shall confirm the covenant to many, and in the middle of the week sacrifice and offering shall cease"—reading ישבת : (yishbath)—"and in the temple shall be the abomination of desolation"—therefore reading with the Greek versions and the Vetus, קדש instead of כנף—"and even to the consummation and end shall the desolation continue"—reading, therefore, תשב instead of תת, and omitting the preposition על (‛al), "upon"—the latter is not a probable reading. From this examination of the versions one thing is clear—we must accept, with all its difficulties, "confirms." Gratz would change one letter, and translate, "he shall cause many to transgress the covenant." The wilder supposition of Professor Bevan, which would change two letters, and translate, "the covenant shall be annulled for many," is equally out of court. The next point is kenaph, "expansion." Here the Greek and Latin versions, including that in Matthew 24:15, but excluding the doublet mixed up in the text of the Vatican and Alexandrian Codices, have read קדש . The Peshitta and the author of the reading intruded into the Alexandrian Codex have read כנף. (kenaph). However, these two are not agreed as to the interpretation. The Peshitta renders "wings," the Vatican and Alexandrian scribes render ðôåñṍãéïí, the word used (Matthew 4:5) for a pinnacle of the temple. There is, whichever is preferred, not the slightest justification for the suggestion of Kuenen that we should read כנו instead of כנף Professor Bevan thinks "this emendation is well-nigh certain." If that is so, any suggestion of any critic may be equally commended. We have practically four Greek versions here, two Syriae if we include Paulus Tellensis, two Latin, and not one of them gives the slightest hint that this "well-nigh certain" reading was in existence. The balance of evidence is decidedly in favour of קדש fo ru (qodesh), especially so in the light of our Lord's words. Had the text with which his hearers were familiar contained the suggestive word כנף, "wing," it was impossible, speaking as he did of the setting up of the Roman eagles in the temple, to have avoided remarking on the word used. Our Lord in this case must have had the Hebrew before him, as he does not render as the Greek versions do, åðé ôï éåñḯí, but åí ôḯëù áãéù . We must thus hold קדש to have been the original text. And he shall confirm the covenant with many. What is the subject of the verb here? Hengstenberg, Hitzig, and yon Lengerke make the one week the nominative of the verb. Professor Bevan objects that to represent a week making a covenant, or making it burdensome, is without analogy. Both Hitzig and Hengstenberg appeal to Ma 3:19; Isaiah 22:5; Job 3:3, where a "day" is represented as acting. Theodotion translates thus. The natural meaning, according to the Hebrew, if we do not pass beyond the clause before us for the subject of the verb, is ברית, (bereeth), "covenant." Thus we ought naturally to render either—taking the hiphil in its causative sense—"a covenant," or "the covenant shall confirm;" i.e. secure "one week to many," or—and this is better, as supported by Psalms 12:5 (4), in the sense given to the hiphil of גבר (gabar)—"the covenant shall prevail for many during one week." This agrees with the first version we find in the Septuagint, The covenant—

240

God's covenant with Israel, and this it must be here—"prevails with many;" his covenant to send a Messiah, a part of the eternal covenant with Israel, would prevail with the hearts of many of Israel during one week. If we reckon our Lord's ministry to have begun in the year a.d. 30, and the conversion of St. Paul a.d. 37, we have the interval required. After the conversion of St. Paul, the Gentiles more than the Jews were brought into the Church. Another theory is that it is the coming prince who is referred to. This is assumed by critics to be Antiochus; e.g. Ewald. Moses Stuart, who adopts this view, refers to the covenant made with Antiochus by many of the Jews. But bereeth thus absolute, is used not of alliances, but of the Divine covenant. The theory that the coming prince is Jason the brother of Onias does not suit with the idea of confirming the Divine covenant, so the interpreters that hold this view—e.g. Bevan—do not make "the prince" the subject of the verb. If bereeth is the Divine covenant, as by usage it is, then the prince whose people were to lay waste the temple and city cannot be he that confirms the covenant. We might take the last clause of verse 26 as in a parenthesis, and regard the subject of the verb "confirm" as the Messiah who was cut off. It seems, however, preferable to take the construction as we have done above, and make bereeth the subject of the verb. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. In accordance with our interpretation of the previous clause, we would interpret this, "The covenant shall cause offering and oblation to cease." What covenant is this? The new Messianic covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Jeremiah 8:8) quotes this passage as Messianic, and as proving that sacrifice and offering had ceased with Christ's sacrifice of himself. Interpreters of the critical school are reduced to considerable difficulties in their endeavours to square this passage with their preconceived notions Bevan admits that the natural subject of the verb yashbeeth is the "prince who shall come;" but having come to the conclusion that this coming prince is Jason, he could not be said to make sacrifice and offering cease. Professor Bevan is constrained to change the reading from hiphil into the kal. He has certainly the justification that the Septuagint and Theodotion both make the word passive. Ewald regards the coming prince as Epiphanes. If so, then he must be the subject all through. In that case we are obliged to contradict usage and maintain that the covenant confirmed refers to an alliance made with apostate Jews; but this, as we have said, contradicts the usage in regard to "covenant" in this absolute position. Further, we have, in the end of Jeremiah 31:26, the "end of the war" referred to. Yet, according to this interpretation, after the war is over the prince is making sacrifice and offering to cease. Ewald, recognizing the difficulties of his interpretation,declares, "As soon as the discourse touches upon the man and his projects, it is at once agitated with the profoundest disorder." The midst of the week. On the ordinary Christian interpretation, this applies to the crucifixion of our Lord, which took place, according to the received calculation, during the fourth year after his baptism by John, and the consequent opening of his ministry. Hitzig and many critical commentators see a reference in the half-week to the time, times, and half a time, and they identify that with the time during which Antiochus had set up the heathen altar in the temple. It is to be observed that this view has the support of 1 Macc. 1:54, which applies the next clause to Antiochus. If the traditional view is correct—that the prophecy published

241

in the days of Cyrus applied to the coming Romans—then it was but natural that a writer in the clays of John Hyrcanus should be prone to interpret the prophecy of events in his own time. As we have already seen, the reference cannot be to Antiochus. The extreme popularity of Daniel by the time 1 Maccabees was written, probably about b.c. 100, is to be observed. For the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate. This is rendered in the Revised Version, "And upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate;" in the margin the rendering is, "upon the pinnacle of abominations." We have seen that the great balance of evidence was in favour of inserting קדש, "holy place," instead of כנף, "wing." Even if we take the Massoretic reading, and render it according either to the text or the margin, we have difficulties. We have no instance of a bird supporting itself by one wing. If כנף . (konaph), "wing," is retained, the reference to the Roman eagles can scarcely be resisted. The word has several derivative meanings: "The edge" of the earth, as Isaiah 24:16; from this is derived the rendering in the Revised. In the present passage, Gesenius, Furst, and Wirier regard it as equivalent to ðôåñṍãéïí; but no such meaning is elsewhere found in Hebrew. "He shall make it desolate." In Hebrew, this is only one word, meshomaym, the participle. The word occurs twice in Ezra 9:1, Ezra 9:4, and there means "astonished," "stupefied." It is imitated in Daniel 11:31, but the preceding word, שקוץ (shiqqootz), is in the singular, and agrees with meshomaym. Here we have the noun shiqqootzeem in the plural while the participle is in the singular. In Daniel 12:11 we have another variation, שקוץ שמם. The versions translate as if the word had been in the singular; hence we may doubt whether the noun was not originally singular, all the more that in the parallel passage (Daniel 11:31) we have the singular used. An accidental reduplication of the , מ which begins משמם, would explain the present reading. Professor Bevan suggests that we read משמים, the hophal participle plural from שום, "to sit;" but the evidence of the versions is decisive against this. The rendering of the clause would be thus, "and upon the temple the abomination of desolation." The usage of shiqqootz leads us to think of heathen idols, as 1 Kings 11:1, Chemosh, the abomination of Moab; Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon, 2 Kings 23:13 ; As-toreth, the abomination of the Zidonians. More important is Jeremiah 32:34, "They set their abominations in the house that is called by my name, to defile it." We have here the combination suggested by Professor Bevan. From the fact that Daniel seems to have been saturated with Jeremiah, his suggestion might have had weight; but the utter want of any hint in the versions that the reading was even doubtful, compels us to be against this view. There is no case where shiqqootz means "altar," but many where it means" idol." So the setting up of a heathen altar is not what would naturally be thought of in this connection. The traditional opinion, that this refers to the Roman eagle standards, which were in a sense "idols," and were regarded especially as such by the Jews, is certainly at least plausible on grammatical grounds, and may be regarded as certain from other reasons; e.g. its suitability to the meaning of the other verses. Even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolate. The Revised Version is very different here, "And even unto the consummation, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolator." We have already seen that תת (tittak)," poured out," must be abandoned, as not

242

present in any of the versions. Most of them have read תתן . We must, in the first instance, assume the nominative in the sentence to be the subject of the verb. In that case we should render in accordance with the rendering of the two Greek versions, "Until an end and a limit be set to the desolation." The reading of Jerome in the Vulgate, as we have seen, seems to have read תשב (tayshayb), "to dwell," "to remain," for he renders persecerabit; and must not have had the preposition על, (‛al ), "upon," for he makes desolation the nominative of the verb. Jerome's interpretation points to the end of the world, and the reading we adopt points also to the same terminus ad quem, the more indefinitely. The end set to the desolation may be the end of time; but it may be some earlier period; but that is not revealed. The meaning of kalah is assumed to be "end," not "ruin," as asserted by many commentators. Where the word does mean "destruction," it is simply as an utter end of a person or nation —it is that person's or nation's destruction; but it never does mean" destruction "apart from this. In connection with this question, two passages in Isaiah have to be considered (Isaiah 10:23; Isaiah 28:23), where kalah and neheretzeth occur in connection. Our interpretation implies that we take עד as a conjunction, and not as a preposition. Professor Bevan would make it absolute, that when עד introduces a verbal clause, the verb takes the precedence of the subject, and would therefore point עד, not עד ; but in opposition to this dictum is 1 Samuel 2:15. The generality of the phenomenon is due to the normal structure of the Hebrew clause. An end shall be set some time to the desolation of Zion, although that end may coincide with 'the end of all things.

243