Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 9:1

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 9:1” utilice nuestra app.

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

1. Darius ] i.e. ‘Darius the Mede,’ Dan 5:31: cf. Dan 6:1 ff. The date is fixed suitably: the first year after the conquest of Babylon would be a time when, in view of the promises of Jeremiah and the second Isaiah (e.g. Isa 44:28; Isa 45:13), thoughts of restoration would naturally be stirring in the minds of the Jewish exiles.

the son of Ahasuerus ] Ahasuerus, properly ’chashwrsh, also in Ezr 4:6, and Esther, passim is the Hebrew form of the Persian Khshayrsh, the Greek Xerxes, called in contemporary Aramaic Chshiarsh ( ) [331] . Cf. p. liv, and on Dan 5:31.

[331] See the writer’s Introduction, p. 512 (ed. 6, p. 546), note.

of the seed of the Medes ] See Dan 5:31. For the expression cf. Est 6:13.

was made king ] See on Dan 5:31, ‘received the kingdom.’

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

In the first year of Darius – See the notes at Dan 5:31, and Introuction to Dan. 6 Section II. The king here referred to under this name was Cyaxares II, who lived between Astyages and Cyrus, and in whom was the title of king. He was the immediate successor of Belshazzar, and was the predecessor of Cyrus, and was the first of the foreign princes that reigned over Babylon. On the reasons why he is called in Daniel Darius, and not Cyaxares, see the Introduction to Dan. 6, Section II. Of course, as he preceded Cyrus, who gave the order to rebuild the temple Ezr 1:1, this occurred before the close of the seventy years of the captivity.

The son of Ahasuerus – Or the son of Astyages. See Introduction to Dan. 6 Section II. It was no unusual thing for the kings of the East to have several names, and one writer might refer to them under one name, and another under another.

Of the seed of the Medes – Of the race of the Medes. See as above.

Which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans – By conquest. He succeeded Belshazzar, and was the immediate predecessor of Cyrus. Cyaxares II ascended the throne of Media, according to the common chronology, 561 b.c. Babylon was taken by Cyrus, acting under the authority of Cyaxares, 538 b.c., and, of course, the reign of Cyaxares, or Darius, over Babylon commenced at that point, and that would be reckoned as the first year of his reign. He died 536 b.c., and Cyrus succeeded him; and as the order to rebuild the temple was in the first year of Cyrus, the time referred to in this chapter, when Daniel represents himself as meditating on the close of the captivity, and offering this prayer, cannot long have preceded that order. He had ascertained that the period of the captivity was near its close, and he naturally inquired in what way the restoration of the Jews to their own land was to be effected, and by what means the temple was to be rebuilt.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

CHAPTER IX

Daniel, understanding from the prophecies of Jeremiah that the

seventy years’ captivity was now terminating, pours out his

soul in fervent prayer to God, and earnestly supplicates pardon

and restoration for his captive people, 1-12.

When thus supplicating God in behalf of Israel, the angel

Gabriel is sent to inform him of the seventy prophetic weeks,

or four hundred and ninety natural years, which should elapse

from the date of the edict to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple

to the death of the Messiah, 20-27;

a prophecy most exactly fulfilled by the event, according to

the computation of the best chronologers. Dean Prideaux states

the commencement of these seventy prophetic weeks to have been

in the month Nisan, in the year of the Julian period 4256,

which corresponds with A.M. 3546, B.C. 458, according to the

Usherian account. How awfully are the Jews blinded, who, in

contradiction to so clear a prophecy, still expect the Messiah

who was cut off, and, after suffering, is entered into his

glory!

NOTES ON CHAP. IX

Verse 1. In the first year of Darius] This is the same Darius the Mede, spoken of before, who succeeded Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans. See Da 5:31.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

In the first year of Darius; that is, immediately after the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, which was also the year of the Jews deliverance from their seventy years captivity; therefore punctually here set down. The Lord hath carefully recorded the several periods of time that relate to his church, and the signal providences both of mercy or judgment exercised towards it; for hereby God is glorified in the signal displaying of his attributes, and the saints graces exercised, especially faith and patience, by calling to mind what God hath done in time past, Psa 77:5-7. This Darius was not Darius the Persian, under whom the temple was built, as Porphyrius would have it, that thereby he might persuade unlearned men that Daniel lived long after the time that he did live in. Therefore this is called Darius the Mede, and by the Greeks called Cyaxares.

Which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; and this is confirmed by Xenophon.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. first year of DariusCyaxaresII, in whose name Cyrus, his nephew, son-in-law, and successor, tookBabylon, 538 B.C. The dateof this chapter is therefore 537 B.C.,a year before Cyrus permitted the Jews to return from exile, andsixty-nine years after Daniel had been carried captive at thebeginning of the captivity, 606 B.C.

son of AhasueruscalledAstyages by XENOPHON.Ahasuerus was a name common to many of the kings of Medo-Persia.

made kingThe phraseimplies that Darius owed the kingdom not to his own prowess, but tothat of another, namely, Cyrus.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes,…. This is the same with Darius the Median, that took the kingdom after the death of Belshazzar; so called, to distinguish him from Darius the Persian; and yet Porphyry has the gall to assert that this was Darius the Persian, under whom the temple was built, that Daniel might appear to live later than he did: Ahasuerus, whose son he was, is not he that was the husband of Esther, and was many years later than this; but the same with Astyages king of the Medes, and who is called Ahasuerus, in the Apocrypha:

“But before he died he heard of the destruction of Nineve, which was taken by Nabuchodonosor and Assuerus: and before his death he rejoiced over Nineve.” (Tobit 14:15)

the father of Cyaxares, the same with this Darius, who was uncle to Cyrus that conquered Babylon, and made him king of it, and of the whole empire; for this was not the first year of his reign over Media, where he had reigned many years before, but over Chaldea, as follows:

which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; by Cyrus his nephew; who having taken Babylon, and settled his affairs, undertook a journey to Persia, and made Media in his way; where he met with his uncle Cyaxares, the same with this Darius, and delivered the kingdom of Babylon to him, and married his daughter, with whom he had for her dowry the kingdom of Media, as Xenophon y relates. Now it was in the first year of his reign over the Chaldeans that Daniel had the following vision of the seventy weeks; which, according to Bishop Usher z and Mr. Whiston a, was in the year of the world 3467 A.M. and 537 B.C. Dean Prideaux b places it in the year 538; and Mr. Bedford c in the year 536.

y Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 36. z Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3467. a Chronological Tables, cent. 10. b Connexion, &c. part 1. p. 125, 128. c Scripture Chronology, p. 711.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Dan 9:1 and Dan 9:2 mention the occasion on which the penitential prayer (vv. 3-19) was offered, and the divine revelation following thereupon regarding the time and the course of the oppression of the people of God by the world-power till the completion of God’s plan of salvation.

Regarding Darius, the son of Ahasverosch, of the race of the Medes, see under Dan 6:1. In the word the Hophal is to be noticed: rex constitutus, factus est . It shows that Darius did not become king over the Chaldean kingdom by virtue of a hereditary right to it, nor that he gained the kingdom by means of conquest, but that he received it ( , Dan 6:1) from the conqueror of Babylon, Cyrus, the general of the army. The first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over the Chaldean kingdom is the year 538 b.c., since Babylon was taken by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus in the year 539-538 b.c. According to Ptolemy, Cyrus the Persian reigned nine years after Nabonadius. But the death of Cyrus, as is acknowledged, occurred in the year 529 b.c. From the nine years of the reign of Cyrus, according to our exposition, two years are to be deducted for Darius the Mede, so that the reign of Cyrus by himself over the kingdom which he founded begins in the year 536, in which year the seventy years of the Babylonish exile of the Jews were completed; cf. The exposition under Dan 1:1 with the chronological survey in the Com. on the Books of the Kings.

The statement as to the time, Dan 9:1, is again repeated in the beginning of Dan 9:2, on account of the relative sentence coming between, so as to connect that which follows with it. We translate (in Dan 9:2), with Hgstb., Maur., Hitzig, “I marked, or gave heed, in the Scriptures to the number of the years,” so that ( number) forms the object to ( I understood); cf. Pro 7:7. Neither the placing of ( by books) first nor the Atnach under this word controvert this view; for the object is placed after “by books” because a further definition is annexed to it; and the separation of the object from the verb by the Atnach is justified by this consideration, that the passage contains two statements, viz., that Daniel studied the Scriptures, and that his study was directed to the number of the years, etc. , with the definite article, does not denote a collection of known sacred writings in which the writings of Jeremiah were included, so that, seeing the collection of the prophets cannot be thought of without the Pentateuch, by this word we are to understand (with Bleek, Gesenius, v. Leng., Hitzig) the recognised collection of the O.T. writings, the Law and the Prophets. For , , is not synonymous with , , but denotes only writings in the plural, but does not say that these writings formed already a recognised collection; so that from this expression nothing can be concluded regarding the formation of the O.T. canon. As little can refer, with Hv. and Kran., to the letter of Jeremiah to the exiles (Jer 29), for this reason, that not in Jer 29, but in Jer 25:11., the seventy years of the desolation of the land of Judah, and implic. of Jerusalem, are mentioned. The plur. also can be understood of a single letter, only if the context demands or makes appropriate this narrower application of the word, as e.g., 2Ki 19:14. But here this is not the case, since Jeremiah in two separate prophecies speaks of the seventy years, and not in the letter of Jer. 29, but only in Jer. 25, has he spoken of the seventy years’ desolation of the land. In lies nothing further than that writings existed, among which were to be found the prophecies of Jeremiah; and the article, the writings, is used, because in the following passage something definite is said of these writings.

In these writings Daniel considered the number of the years of which Jeremiah had prophesied. , as Dan 8:26, with respect to which, relates not to , but to ( number of the years). It is no objection against this that the repetition of the words “seventy years” stands opposed to this connection (Klief.), for this repetition does not exist, since does not declare the number of the years. With ( to fulfil) the contents of the word of Jehovah, as given by Jeremiah, are introduced. does not stand for the accusative: to cause to be complete the desolation of Jerusalem (Hitzig), but signifies in respect of, with regard to. This expression does not lean on Jer 29:10 (Kran.), but on Jer 25:12 (“when seventy years are accomplished”). , properly, desolated places, ruins, here a desolated condition. Jerusalem did not certainly lie in ruins for seventy years; the word is not thus to be interpreted, but is chosen partly with regard to the existing state of Jerusalem, and partly with reference to the words of Jer 25:9, Jer 25:11. Yet the desolation began with the first taking of Jerusalem, and the deportation of Daniel and his companions and a part of the sacred vessels of the temple, in the fourth years of Jehoiakim (606 b.c.).

(Note: Thus also the seventy years of the Exile are reckoned in 2Ch 36:21-23; Ezr 1:1. This Ewald also recognises ( Proph. iii. p. 430), but thinks that it is not an exact reckoning of the times, but rather, according to Zec 1:12 and Dan 9:25, that the destruction of Jerusalem forms the date of the commencement of the desolation and of the seventy years. But Dan 9:25 contains no expression, or even intimation, regarding the commencement of the Exile; and in the words of Zec 1:12, “against which Thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years,” there does not lie the idea that the seventy years prophesied of by Jeremiah came to an end in the second year of Darius Hystaspes. See under this passage.)

Consequently, in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over the kingdom of the Chaldeans the seventy years prophesied of by Jeremiah were now full, the period of the desolation of Jerusalem determined by God was almost expired. What was it that moved Daniel at this time to pour forth a penitential prayer in behalf of Jerusalem and the desolated sanctuary? Did he doubt the truth of the promise, that God, after seventy years of exile in Babylon, would visit His people and fulfil the good word He had spoken, that He would again bring back His people to Judea (Jer 29:10)? Certainly not, since neither the matter of his prayer, nor the divine revelation which was vouchsafed to him in answer to his prayer, indicated any doubt on his part regarding the divine promise.

According to the opinion of Bleek and Ewald, it was Daniel’s uncertainty regarding the termination of the seventy years which moved him to prayer Bleek ( Jahrbb.f. D. Theol. v. p. 71) thus expresses himself on the subject: “This prophecy of Jeremiah might be regarded as fulfilled in the overthrow of the Babylonian kingdom and the termination of the Exile, when the Jews obtained from Cyrus permission to return to their native land and to rebuild their city and temple, but yet not perfectly, so far as with the hope of the return of the people from exile there was united the expectation that they would then turn in truth to their God, and that Jehovah would fulfil all His good promises to them to make them partakers of the Messianic redemption (cf. Jer 29:10., also other prophecies of Jeremiah and of other prophets regarding the return of the people from exile, such as Isa. 40ff.); but this result was not connected in such extent and fulness with the return of the people and the restoration of the state.” On the supposition of the absolute inspiration of the prophets, it appeared therefore appropriate “to regard Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years, after the expiry of which God will fulfil His good promises to His people, as stretching out into a later period beyond that to which the seventy years would extend, and on that account to inquire how it was to be properly interpreted.” Ewald ( Proph. iii. p. 421ff.) is of opinion that these seventy years of Jeremiah did not pass by without the fulfilment of his prophecy, that the ruins of Jerusalem would not continue for ever. Already forty-nine years after its destruction a new city of Jerusalem took the place of the old as the centre of the congregation of the true religion, but the stronger hopes regarding the Messianic consummation which connected itself herewith were neither then, nor in all the long times following, down to that moment in which our author (in the age of the Maccabees) lived and wrote, ever fulfilled. Then the faithful were everywhere again exposed to the severest sufferings, such as they had not experienced since the old days of the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore the anxious question as to the duration of such persecution and the actual beginning of the Messianic time, which Daniel, on the ground of the mysterious intimation in Dan 7:12, Dan 7:25 and Dan 8:13., regarding the period of the sufferings of the time of the end, sought here to solve, is agitated anew; for he shows how the number of the seventy years of Jeremiah, which had long ago become sacred, yet accorded with these late times without losing its original truth. Thus Ewald argues.

These two critics in their reasoning proceed on the dogmatic ground, which they regard as firmly established, that the book of Daniel is a product of the age of the Maccabees. All who oppose the genuineness of this book agree with them in the view that this chapter contains an attempt, clothed in the form of a divine revelation communicated to the prophet in answer to his prayer, to solve the mystery how Jeremiah’s prophecy of the beginning of the Messianic salvation after the seventy years of exile is to be harmonized with the fact that this salvation, centuries after the fall of the Babylonish kingdom and the return of the Jews from the Babylonish exile, had not yet come, but that instead of it, under Antiochus Epiphanes, a time of the severest oppression had come. How does this opinion stand related to the matter of this chapter, leaving out of view all other grounds for the genuineness of the book of Daniel? Does the prayer of Daniel, or the divine revelation communicated to him by means of Gabriel regarding the seventy weeks, contain elements which attest its correctness or probability?

The prayer of Daniel goes forth in the earnest entreaty that the Lord would turn away His anger from the city Jerusalem and His holy mountain, and cause His face to shine on the desolation and on the city that was called by His name (Dan 9:15-18). If this prayer is connected with the statement in Dan 9:2, that Daniel was moved thereto by the consideration of the words of Jeremiah regarding the desolation of Jerusalem, we can understand by the ruins, for the removal of which Daniel prayed, only the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which was brought about by the Chaldeans. Consequently the prayer indicates that the desolation of Jerusalem predicted by Jeremiah and accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar still continued, and that the city and the temple had not yet been rebuilt. This, therefore, must have been in the time of the Exile, and not in the time of Antiochus, who, it is true, desolated the sanctuary by putting an end to the worship of Jehovah and establishing the worship of idols, but did not lay in ruins either the temple or the city.

In his message (Dan 9:24-27) the angel speaks only of the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, and present the going forth of this word as the beginning of the seventy weeks of Daniel determined upon the people and the holy city within which Jerusalem must be built, and thus distinguishes the seventy weeks as distinctly as possible from Jeremiah’s seventy years during which Jerusalem and Judah should lie desolate. Thus is set aside the opinion that the author of this chapter sought to interpret the seventy years of Jeremiah by the seventy weeks; and it shows itself to be only the pure product of the dogmatic supposition, that this book does not contain prophecies of the prophet Daniel living in the time of the Exile, but only apocalyptic dreams of a Maccabean Jew.

(Note: The supposition that the seventy weeks, Dan 9:24, are an interpretation of the seventy years of Jeremiah, is the basis on which Hitzig rests the assertion that the passage does not well adjust itself to the standpoint of the pretended Daniel, but is in harmony with the time of the Maccabees. The other arguments which Hitzig and others bring forth against this chapter as the production of Daniel, consist partly in vain historical or dogmatic assertions, such as that there are doubts regarding the existence of Darius of Media, – partly in misinterpretations, such as that Daniel wholly distinguishes himself, Dan 9:6, Dan 9:10, from the prophets, and presents himself as a reader of their writings (Hitz.), – opinions which are no better founded than the conclusions of Berth., v. Leng., and Staeh., drawn from the mention of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Dan 9:7, and of the holy city, Dan 9:24, that Jerusalem was then still inhabited and the temple still standing. To this it is added, that the prayer of Daniel is an imitation of the prayers of Ezr 9:1-15 and Neh 9, or, as Ewald thinks, an extract from the prayer of Baruch (Bar. 1 and 2).)

Moreover, it is certainly true that in the Exile the expectation that the perfection and glory of the kingdom of God by the Messiah would appear along with the liberation of the Jews from Babylon was founded on the predictions of the earlier prophets, but that Daniel shared this expectation the book presents no trace whatever. Jeremiah also, neither in Jer. 25 nor in Jer. 29, where he speaks of the seventy years of the domination of Babylon, announces that the Messianic salvation would begin immediately with the downfall of the Babylonian kingdom. In Jer. 25 he treats only of the judgment, first over Judah, and then over Babylon and all the kingdoms around; and in Jer. 29 he speaks, it is true, of the fulfilling of the good word of the return of the Jews to their fatherland when seventy years shall be fulfilled for Babylon (Dan 9:10), and of the counsel of Jehovah, which is formed not for the destruction but for the salvation of His people, of the restoration of the gracious relation between Jehovah and His people, and the gathering together and the bringing back of the prisoners from among all nations whither they had been scattered (Dan 9:11-14), but he says not a word to lead to the idea that all this would take place immediately after these seventy years.

Now if Daniel, in the first year of Darius the Mede, i.e., in the sixty-ninth year of the Exile, prayed thus earnestly for the restoration of Jerusalem and the sanctuary, he must have been led to do so from a contemplation of the then existing state of things. The political aspect of the world-kingdom could scarcely have furnished to him such a motive. The circumstance that Darius did not immediately after the fall of Babylon grant permission to the Jews to return to their fatherland and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, could not make him doubt the certainty of the fulfilment of the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah regarding the duration of the Exile, since the prophecy of Isaiah, Isa 44:28, that Coresch (Cyrus) should build Jerusalem and lay the foundation of the temple was beyond question known to him, and Darius had in a certain sense reached the sovereignty over the Chaldean kingdom, and was of such an age (Dan 6:1) that now his reign must be near its end, and Cyrus would soon mount his throne as his successor. That which moved Daniel to prayer was rather the religious condition of his own people, among whom the chastisement of the Exile had not produced the expected fruits of repentance; so that, though he did not doubt regarding the speedy liberation of his people from Babylonish exile, he might still hope for the early fulfilment of the deliverance prophesied of after the destruction of Babylon and the return of the Jews to Canaan. This appears from the contents of the prayer. From the beginning to the close it is pervaded by sorrow on account of the great sinfulness of the people, among whom also there were no signs of repentance. The prayer for the turning away of the divine wrath Daniel grounds solely on the mercy of God, and upon that which the Lord had already done for His people by virtue of His covenant faithfulness, the ( righteousness) of the Lord, not the “righteousness” of the people. This confession of sin, and this entreaty for mercy, show that the people, as a whole, were not yet in that spiritual condition in which they might expect the fulfilment of that promise of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah (Jer 29:12.): “Ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart; and I will be found of you, and will turn away your captivity,” etc.

With this view of the contents of the prayer corresponds the divine answer which Gabriel brings to the prophet, the substance of which is to this effect, that till the accomplishment of God’s plan of salvation in behalf of His people, yet seventy weeks are appointed, and that during this time great and severe tribulations would fall upon the people and the city.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Daniel’s Confession and Prayer.

B. C. 538.

1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; 2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. 3 And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

We left Daniel, in the close of the foregoing chapter, employed in the king’s business; but here we have him employed in better business than any king had for him, speaking to God and hearing from him, not for himself only, but for the church, whose mouth he was to God, and for whose use the oracles of God were committed to him, relating to the days of the Messiah. Observe, 1. When it was that Daniel had this communion with God (v. 1), in the first year of Darius the Mede, who was newly made king of the Chaldeans, Babylon being conquered by him and his nephew, or grandson, Cyrus. In this year the seventy years of the Jews’ captivity ended, but the decree for their release was not yet issued out; so that this address of Daniel’s to God seems to have been ready in that year, and, probably, before he was cast into the lions’ den. And one powerful inducement, perhaps, it was to him then to keep so close to the duty of prayer, though it cost him his life, that he had so lately experienced the benefit and comfort of it. 2. What occasioned his address to God by prayer (v. 2): He understood by books that seventy years was the time fixed for the continuance of the desolations of Jerusalem. v. 2. The book by which he understood this was the book of the prophecies of Jeremiah, in which he found it expressly foretold (Jer. xxix. 10), After seventy years be accomplished in Babylon (and therefore they must be reckoned from the first captivity, in the third year of Jehoiakim, which Daniel had reason to remember by a good token, for it was in that captivity that he was carried away himself, ch. i. 1), I will visit you, and perform my good word towards you. It was likewise said (Jer. xxv. 11), This whole land shall be seventy years a desolation (chorbath), the same word that Daniel here uses for the desolations of Jerusalem, which shows that he had that prophecy before him when he wrote this. Though Daniel was himself a great prophet, and one that was well acquainted with the visions of God, yet he was a diligent student in the scripture, and thought it no disparagement to him to consult Jeremiah’s prophecies. He was a great politician, and prime-minister of state to one of the greatest monarchs upon earth, and yet could find both heart and time to converse with the word of God. The greatest and best men in the world must not think themselves above their Bibles. 3. How serious and solemn his address to God was when he understood that the seventy years were just upon expiring (for it appears, by Ezekiel’s dating of his prophecies, that they exactly computed the years of their captivity), then he set his face to seek God by prayer. Note, God’s promises are intended, not to supersede, but to excite and encourage, our prayers; and, when we see the day of the performance of them approaching, we should the more earnestly plead them with God and put them in suit. So Daniel did here; he prayed three times a day, and, no doubt, in every prayer made mention of the desolations of Jerusalem; yet he did not think that enough, but even in the midst of his business set time apart for an extraordinary application to Heaven on Jerusalem’s behalf. God had said to Ezekiel that though Daniel, among others, stood before him, his intercession should not prevail to prevent the judgment (Ezek. xiv. 14), yet he hopes, now that the warfare is accomplished (Isa. xl. 2), his prayer may be heard for the removing of the judgment. When the day of deliverance dawns it is time for God’s praying people to bestir themselves; something extraordinary is then expected and required from them, besides their daily sacrifice. Now Daniel sought by prayer and supplications, for fear lest the sins of the people should provoke him to defer their deliverance longer than was intended, or rather that the people might be prepared by the grace of God for the deliverance now that the providence of God was about to work it out for them. Now observe, (1.) The intenseness of his mind in this prayer; I set my face unto the Lord God to seek him, which denotes the fixedness of his thoughts, the firmness of his faith, and the fervour of his devout affections, in the duty. We must, in prayer, set God before us, an set ourselves as in his presence; to him we must direct our prayer and must look up. Probably, in token of his setting his face towards God, he did, as usual, set his face towards Jerusalem, to affect his own heart the more with the desolations of it. (2.) The mortification of his body in this prayer. In token of his deep humiliation before God for his own sins, and the sins of his people, and the sense he had of his unworthiness, when he prayed he fasted, put on sackcloth, and lay in as hes, the more to affect himself with the desolations of Jerusalem, which he was praying for the repair of, and to make himself sensible that he was now about an extraordinary work.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

DANIEL – CHAPTER 9

DANIEL AND EZEKIEL’S VISION OF THE 70 WEEKS

Verses 1, 2:

Verse 1 fixes the time of this event as occurring in the first year of Darius, who was the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who was made to be king over the Chaldeans, Dan 1:21; Dan 5:31; Dan 6:28; Dan 10:1. This was 537 B.C., one year after Cyrus took Babylon 538 B.C. It was 69 years after Daniel had been carried captive to Babylon 606 B.C.

Verse 2 adds that in or during the first year of the reign of Darius, Daniel understood by books or scrolls (of Jeremiah) the number of years the Lord had told Jeremiah that his people, the Jews, would be kept captive while Jerusalem and the temple were desolated. The time was definitively given to be seventy (70) years, as alluded to Jer 25:11-12; Jer 29:8-10; See also 2Ch 36:21; Jer 30:18; Jer 31:38. The 70 years were completed with the commandment to rebuild the temple, Dan 9:25.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

In this chapter Daniel will explain to us two things. First, how very ardently he was accustomed to pray when the time of redemption, specified by Jeremiah, drew nigh; and next, he will relate the answer he received from God to his earnest entreaties. These are the two divisions of this chapter. First, Daniel informs us how he prayed when he understood from books the number of the years Whence we gather, that God does not here promise his children earthly blessings, but eternal life, and while they grow torpid and ease aside all care and spiritual concern, he urges them the more earnestly to prayer. For what benefit do God’s promises confer on us, unless we embrace them by faith? But prayer is the chief exercise of faith. This observation of Daniel’s is worthy of notice. He was stimulated to prayer because he knew from books the number of the years But I will defer the rest till to-morrow.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS

Dan 9:1-27.

IN undertaking the exposition of the 9th chapter of Daniel, one treads not only on Holy ground, but also a perilous path.

The varied interpretations of this chapter should alike impress one with the need of careful study and cautious expression. Let it be said, however, that in spite of the many interpretations which have been given to the same, the great school of premillennialism is, in its leadership at least, clear and united in understanding.

It will not be our privilege, then, this morning to introduce novelties of thought or Athenian interpretation. On the other hand, we shall walk the same path that the studious fathers in the Faith took in their understanding and exposition of this chapter.

What we shall say upon the subject arranges itself around The Study of Prophecy, The Messiahs Appearance, and The Worlds Prince.

THE STUDY OF PROPHECY

Daniel was a student of prophecy!

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the Word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the Prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem (Dan 9:1-2).

All Scripture is meaty; as the Apostle Paul said,

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2Ti 3:16).

Has it ever occurred to you that in this introduction to his experience, Daniel, all unwittingly, answers one of the most common and most important of the many criticisms that escape the mouths of Modernists?

In the average College and University of either the Old or the New World, the Professor in the History of Religion is very certain to be found saying to his students concerning inspiration, Now, young people, when these books were originally written they expressed the convictions and experiences of their authors just as books of the present day do, and only after a long period, a period of hundreds of years, did the idea of assembling them between the same covers, and claiming for them plenary inspiration occur to mans mind.

The distance between Jeremiah and Daniel is supposed to be less than 50 years, in other words, their lives overlapped, and yet Daniel quotes from JEREMIAH THE PROPHET with an assurance that could rest only in the certainty of inspiration, and begins to determine his whole course and conduct upon the certainty of that prophecys fulfilment. Inasmuch as Ezra had not yet done his compiling work, it is perfectly clear that Ezra did not assemble the Bible for Daniel, but those portions that antedate Daniel existed and were accepted before Ezra was born.

The New Testament gives this fact a further and important emphasis. Peter, in his Second Epistle, addressed, you remember, To them that have obtained like precious faith with us, says, concerning the new Heaven and the new earth of prophecy:

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

And account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you:

As also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures (2Pe 3:14-16).

Peter, then, contemporary of Paul and constant companion in labors, regarded Pauls writings as Scripture; in other words, when he spoke of the wisdom given to Paul he meant the Divine inspiration that guided him in what he wrote.

The claims of the inspiration of the Bible, then, rest, not upon human opinion, nor yet in a careful selecting and combination of books, but rather, in the circumstance that its authors wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This perusal of prophecy produced penitence. Daniel was suddenly broken up by Scripture study. He saw with exceeding clearness what the future held for his people; and, in penitence, cried unto God.

The record is:

I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes:

And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to them that keep His Commandments;

We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from Thy Precepts and from Thy Judgments.

Neither have we hearkened unto Thy servants the Prophets, which spake in Thy Name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land (Dan 9:3-6).

The only reason why the men of this generation can keep their indifferent poise and go their way as gaily as if the future held for them no perils, is the fact that they are not students of prophecy. The statesmen who sit in solemn council on questions national and international indulge themselves in vain reasonings and reach impotent conclusions on the same account.

However, as time moves on and history more and more runs into the mould of prophecy, thoughtful men who know nothing of what the prophetic Scriptures say, and who, in their indifference, do not concern themselves on the subject, are, by natural reason, reaching prophetic conclusions.

The Chicago Tribune of June 15th, 1932, carries one of the most alarming articles that has been published since the century began. It raises the question as to whether the two great National political conventions that have just concluded their sittings will ever be convened again. And it significantly suggests that if Municipal, State, and Federal taxes continue to climb at the rate of recent years, and unemployment continues to grow as it has lately been growing, and crime continues unjudged and unchecked, the Government may be in the hands of Soviets, or a Dictator, by the time the next four year period of presidential occupancy ends.

The leading magazines of the country are increasingly calling attention to the grave national and international questions for which no man seems to have found a solution.

The economic depression now resting upon us as a democracy, increasing as it is daily, will drive students of Scripture to deeper study, and may even eventuate in a more serious attitude of mind on the part of the general public.

Before passing from these sentences you should note the fact that Daniel does not set himself up as the exceptional saint who has no part nor lot with the sinners of his day. Evidently he did not believe that he alone was left as the Lords solitary loyalist; nor did he indulge in that now too common custom of berating the Israel of God as apostate, and calling upon it to repent.

On the contrary, like Moses of old, and every true minister of truth, he included himself with his fallen brethren, and sincerely said:

We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from Thy Precepts and from Thy Judgments.

Neither have we hearkened unto Thy Servants the Prophets, which spake in Thy Name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land (Dan 9:5-6).

The world was long since weary, and the Church of God is becoming more and more so, of those peripatetics who appear like flashes of heat lightning and pass almost as quickly, but never until they have voiced themselves in a veritable thunder storm against organized religion, the apostate church, the professional preacher, and Christianity in general.

It is easy enough to point out what is lacking in the mission field; it is easy enough to charge ministers with lack of vision; it is easy enough to name the abominations of the church; it is easy enough to denounce the present apostasy, but it is rather difficult to set before the slack ministry a sample of perfection, to give the foreign missioner an illustration of personal self-sacrifice that would stimulate him to further surrender, to set before the organized body of believers,called the church, a non-organized assembly that surpasses it for honest living, or to correct the apostasy in doctrine by a course of conduct that is Christ-approved.

It is our firm conviction that one of the signs of the times, indicating the approaching end, is the daily increase of critics in the persons of men and women who profess to be the only adequate representatives of Christ on the earth, the only faithful exponents of doctrine, the only leaders worthy of following. The professed enterprises of these men, looking as they had claimed to the bringing in of the Kingdom of God, are, in a multitude of instances, nothing but schemes for personal preferment and financial profit, and they are beginning to be rightly named religious racketeers.

That the Church of God is in a bad way no man can question. But the trouble with it is not independent of us, but solely on account of us. It is as true now as it was when Daniel said it, and in my extensive acquaintance, I do not know one name that can be justly excepted, We have sinned, we have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from Gods precepts and Gods judgments: neither have we hearkened unto the Prophets of God, which spake in Gods Name to our fathers, and now speak to us.

If there is a call for us as a church, and as a people, to be on our faces before God in contrition (and I believe there is) I know of no man, even in this blessed church, its pastor included, who is exempt!

And if the churches and the denominations, as they now exist, are deficient and to a large extent apostate, and God is demanding of them repentance (and we believe that to be the exact truth), certainly the disorganized religion of the day and the disorganizers are not the vanguard of promise.

There is absolutely no hope for the future in wholesale healers, self-styled defenders, couriers for cash only, Holy rollers, Pentecostalists of all brands, and their numerous kindred, up-to-date defections. As in Daniels time, so in ours. The occasion of penitence is universal, and the call to a sensible interpretation of Holy Scripture and a sane practice of Christian precepts is equally so. There is none that doeth good; no, not one.

Daniel trusted Gods mercy and not mans merit.

O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto Thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that ate far off, through all the countries whither Thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against Thee.

O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against Thee.

To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness, though we have rebelled against Him:

Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His Laws, which He set before us by His servants the Prophets.

Yea, all Israel have transgressed Thy Law, even by departing, that they might not obey Thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against Him.

And He hath confirmed His words, which He spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole Heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.

As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand Thy Truth.

Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the Lord our God is righteous in all His works which He doeth: for we obeyed not His voice.

And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought Thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten Thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.

O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, I beseech Thee, let Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thy city Jerusalem, Thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.

Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of Thy servant, and his supplications, and cause Thy face to shine upon Thy Sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lords sake.

O my God, incline Thine ear, and hear; open Thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by Thy Name: for we do not present our supplications before Thee for our righteousnesses, but for Thy great mercies.

O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not; for Thine own sake, O my God: for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy Name (Dan 9:7-19).

For nearly 7,000 years now man has been attempting self-justification on the ground of self-goodness. In this matter Cains was the first departure from the Faith. He refused the blood offering which signified atonement and suggested mans unworthiness, but brought of the fruit of the ground, or the works of his own hands.

In other words, immediately following the curse against sin, Cain proposed to show that he, at least, could stand in his own integrity and required no atonement.

The record in Gen 4:4-5 is Gods eternal decree on that subject.

And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

But unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect.

From Cains time to the present-day boaster of personal merit, there has not been a single man accepted of God on merit ground.

Gods dealings with Israel are in no sense exceptional. Favorite children of His, as they are, they must come by the one waythe Blood Way. Forgiveness is to be secured by Gods mercy or not at all. That is why Daniel dried:

Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of Thy servant, and his supplications, and cause Thy face to shine upon Thy Sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lords sake.

A constant disposition to self-exaltation, to self-praise, and to self-evaluation is, in fact, but another form of sin, and God cannot endure it.

It is said that on one occasion a rich man resented the circumstance that John Bright did not seem to pay the proper tribute to his greatness, so he pompously asked, Do you know, Sir, that I am worth one million sterling? Yes, said the irritated but calm-spirited respondent, It is all you are worth.

To entertain the idea that one can buy his way into Divine favor either through means, morals, birth, or station, is an idea utterly at variance with Scriptural teaching.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

That no flesh should glory in His presence (1Co 1:26-29).

But, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, for our forgiveness is the product of His mercy and not the reward of our rags of unrighteousness.

MESSIAHS APPEARANCE

And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God;

Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.

At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

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 (Dan 9:20-24).

From this it seems, we should learn three things:

First, God sometimes sends an answer by an angel.

The man Gabriel is an archangel. In Scripture angels are often called men. This particular Heavenly servant has made more than one visit to earth. In the New Testament he was the one who came to announce to Zacharias the birth of John, and to Mary the birth of Jesus (Luk 1:19; Luk 1:26),

We are quite inclined to believe that angels may have more to do with human life than men imagine. Certainly the Scriptures would so indicate.

In the very first Book of the Bible the Angel of the Lord found Hagar by the fountain of water in the wilderness and commanded her to return to her mistress and to submit herself unto her hands, and promised, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

And in the Book of Genesis alone the ministry of angels is mentioned many times. In the Book of Exodus the Angel of the Lord appeared unto Moses in the flame of fire in the midst of the bush. The conversation that followed is recorded.

It was the Angel of the Lord which went before the camp of Israel when they were quitting Egypt. To Moses an angel was promised to lead him in the way and to bring him at last to the place which had been prepared for him and his people.

In fact, throughout the Old TestamentNumbers; Judges; I and II Samuel; I and II Kings; I and II Chronicles; Job; Psalms; Ecclesiastes; Isaiah; Daniel; Hosea; Zechariah; angels performed a never-ending ministry to men. They are always described as servants of God.

The scores and scores of references to their service give special significance to Pauls statement in Heb 1:14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation?

The mooted question, with moderns, is whether this Heavenly ministry has ended.

During the last War a most engaging little volume was published entitled The Comrade in White and it was earnestly contended that this comrade, who appeared again and again on the battle-field in Flanders and ministered to the wounded and dying and as suddenly vanished out of sight, was either the Lord Himself or some ministering spirit of His, who evinced a Divine compassion and exercised Divine power.

You will remember that in the Ecclesiastical history of Socrates there is mention made of one Theodorus, a martyr, who was put to extreme torments by Julian the Apostate, but finally dismissed by him when he found him unconquerable. Ruffinus, in his history, says that he met with this martyr a long time after his trial, and asked him, whether the pains he felt were not insufferable. He answered that at first it was somewhat grievous, but after a while there seemed to stand by him a young man in white, who, with a soft and comfortable handkerchief, wiped off the sweat from his body and bade him be of good cheer, and in whose presence punishment became such a pleasure that he was sorry when they had taken him off the rack and the angel was gone.

Personally we believe, both on the basis of Biblical teaching and by reason of human experience, that there is a constant commerce between Heaven and earth, and that Gods saints are often the objects of angelic ministry.

This angel voiced both Divine love and compassion.

He said to Daniel,

I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.

At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

That is like God! While it is the truth that He is no respecter of persons, it is also truth that His special love goes forth to loyal and trustworthy individuals. It did toward Joseph, and here toward Daniel, and deserving men they were; and while expressing affection for Daniel there was a prophecy and promise of compassion for Israel.

The 70 weeks determined upon for this people and for the Holy city, like the 120 years of pre-deluge days, was a period of extended mercy, an age of opportunity for repentance.

Gods compassions fail not!

Some years ago one Mr. Gaynor was mayor of New York. A down-and-outer made an appeal to him for help and the mayor granted it. For this act a lawyer friend took him to task.

That fellow is no good. He said, He has only got what was coming to him. With his yellow streak . . . Wait a minute, said Gaynor, that may be also, but did you never hear of that mother who visited Napoleon concerning her son who was condemned to death, and of how the Emperor told her the young man had twice committed the same offence and justice demanded the forfeit of his life, and of how that mother answered, But, Sire, I am not here to plead for justice, but for mercy. I had not intended to grant him justice; I purposely meant to show him mercy instead.

How good it is that our God ever holds that purpose toward even His sinful subjects, and how gracious it has been of Him to maintain that attitude through the millenniums!

That is perhaps the only reason why your generation and mine has not been brought to book.

Gods compassions fail not!

Yet again, the verses that follow

Reveal Gods plan and mans perversity.

Seventy weeks are determined upon * * to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins.

What strange scenes to be followed by these, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.

The very time when man is going on in his sin and is bringing his iniquities to a climax, God is planning reconciliation, righteousness and a Saviour.

Truly the Old Testament and the New speak together!

In Johns Gospel we read

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.

He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed in the Name of the only Begotten Son of God.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather them light, because their deeds were evil (Joh 3:16-19).

Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

But how often, as here, His very appeal to the same seems met by mans perversity.

God speaking of His people said, As for My Law, they have rejected it (Jer 6:19), and when we come nearer to the end of this study we will find that the antichrist himself will be dealing with Jews who have forsaken the Holy Covenant (Dan 11:30).

The truth is that right now the people of Gods favor, Israel, are fulfilling prophecy; and, in their unbelief, frankly confessing their apostasy.

Claude Montefiore, a leader among liberal Jews, said some time ago that he no longer believed in the miraculous incidents of the Exodus story. We do not believe that any Divine and miraculous voice, still less that of God Himself, audibly pronounced the Ten Commandments; we no longer believe that God had any partial love for Israel; we no longer regard the Law as the unalloyed product of God; all the Festivals were probably adopted from the Canaanites; circumcision had originally nothing to do with the religion of Jehovah.,

The Zionist Movement, the sure sign of the end of the age, is being carried forward in unbelief, and with an utter indifference to its inspired prediction.

The professed Christian who also holds the liberalistic view of this day will meet the coming condemnation since every sentence of prophecy is held by him more in mock than mark, and the world moves on to the consummation of transgressions the end of sin.

And for aught we know there remains little more than Daniels 70th weekthe heptadthe period of seven years between it and the final world judgment; for this chapter concludes with a picture of

THE WORLDS PRINCE

The best students of the Bible have long been agreed that that portion of this prophecy is not only fulfilled, but belongs in the far past, for they interpret this heptad to mean years and not days, so that it is 70 times 7 years that is involved in this passage. They base this upon the word which instead of meaning week means seven and upon the circumstance that Daniel was thinking of the 70 years of prophecy just read from Jeremiahs prediction and meant to multiply that 70 by 7,—490 years!

However, it will be noted that he breaks these 70 years into 3 periods

A period of 7 weeks, or seven sevens of years which would be 49 years, and

A period of threescore and two weeks, or seven times 62, or 434 years.

The first period was involved in the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the second led up to the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, or the Messiah who was cut off.

It is maintained by those who have reputations to lose that from the time when the edict to rebuild Jerusalem, given in Nehemiah 2: sent forth in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, the king, was 445 years B.C.

According to this prophecy 483 years, or 69 sevens were to intervene before the Messiah was cut off.

Chronologists, reckoning upon the Jewish year basis of 360 days each, claim that those prophetic years were just completed when the Crucifixion took place, leaving a period of one heptad, or seven years, to come to pass before the worlds Prince appears.

If it be kept in mind that Daniels prophecies ignore the times of the Gentiles, it will be understood that Israel will be dealt with finally in a 7-year period which shall compass the reign of the antichrist here described as the worlds prince.

Following out, then, the prophecy, let us learn three things about him:

His promises shall please the multitudes.

His break with Israel will portend the end.

His just judgment will close this age.

His promises shall please the multitudes.

Doubtless the Covenant here referred to is a Covenant with Israel, and yet that the world rulers are to participate with pleasure in his governmental arrangement is suggested by the phrase, with many.

Turning over to the Book of the Revelation which is a companion piece and prophetic completion of Daniel, you will discover his promised popularity.

And all the world wondered after the beast.

And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast who is able to make war with him? (Rev 13:3-4).

The word translated beast here is easily misleading. Such this creature will be, in fact, but not in outward appearance.

Augustus J. C. Hare tells us that in the frescoes of Signorelli we have The Teaching of Antichristno repulsive figure, but a grand personage in flowing robes, and with a noble countenance, which at a distance might easily be taken for the Saviour. To him the crowd are eagerly gathering and listening; and it is only when you draw close that you can discover in his harder and cynical expression, and from the evil spirit whispering in his ear, that it is not Christ.

It is my candid conviction that no more serious obligation rests upon any living preacher of the present century than that of so clearly and carefully interpreting prophecy as to enable his people to distinguish the antichrist from the Christ.

It will be remembered that Paul, in writing his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, tells us that

That day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God (2Th 2:3-4).

However, the Spirit-led in Scripture study will quickly distinguish the difference, and they alone will escape the deception. How great, then, the responsibility of the preacher!

But, as I have spoken fully on this subject in my volume on The Second Coming of Christ, and again in a previous chapter in this Book, we pause simply to remark that His break with Israel will portend the end.

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 (Dan 9:27).

The three and a half years, then, or time, times, and half a time, forty and two months, one thousand, two hundred and sixty days, will witness the Great Tribulation,

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened (Mat 24:22).

Then if my man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not (Mat 24:23).

However, that deceivers reign will be short, and His judgment shall close the age.

The text should read,

And that determined shall be poured upon the desolator. (See Scofield Bible Marginal Reference.) (Dan 9:27).

Inasmuch as I have treated this judgment in my volume on Revelation, the 20th chapter, we will not stop now to dwell further upon either the hideousness of his reign or the hell of his fate. Suffice it to say that he is assigned with Satan to the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.

In other words, the fate of the eternal Sinner is eternal suffering.

But, with this consummation, awful alike for the unbelievers and their leader, comes the Great Day of the Christ and of all His followers. As we anticipate it we are brought into the exultant joy of the poet who wrote

He is coming! He hath said it!

Coming soon to claim His own,

And the time is fast approaching

When well gather round His throne.

We shall then sing forth our praises

To the Lamb once crucified,

Gladly bow the knee before Him

Who in our place once died.

No more sorrow, no more trial,

Every tear be wiped away,

When our Lord at last shall lead us

To the land of endless day!

Meanwhile, just a little longer

Must we work, and watch, and pray,

Then well hear the shout of triumph

Ushering in that glorious day!

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

HOMILETICS

SECT. XXX.DANIELS PRAYER (Chap. Dan. 9:1-14)

We come to what, in more than one respect, is among the most remarkable portions of Scripture. The chapter before us contains one of the most precious predictions concerning the promised Saviour and the work of redemption which He was to accomplish. It has two peculiarities which place it in advance of every other: the one, that it gives the name or title by which He was to be known throughout the dispensation He was to introduce, and which was at the same time to designate that dispensation, viz., Messiah or the Christ; the other, that the time of His advent is distinctly and unmistakably marked out.
This remarkable communication was given to the prophet in answer to prayer. That prayer, itself remarkable, is also recorded in this chapter,the second circumstance that distinguishes it as a portion of Holy Scripture [247]. The prayer is peculiar, not only from its own intrinsic character, but as being the prayer of a prophet, a patriot, a statesman, holding the highest office in the second great universal empire, and an eminent saint of above fourscore, who had walked with God in Babylon for threescore years and ten. It is to this remarkable prayer we now turn our attention. We notice

[247] This prayer, observes Keil, has been judged very severely by modern critics. According to Bertholdt, V. Langerke, Hitzig, Sthelin, and Ewald, its matter and its whole design are constructed according to older patterns; in part, according to the prayers of Nehemiah (chap. 9) and Ezra (chap. 9) But we have only to examine the parallel thoughts and words adduced in order at once to perceive that, without exception, they all have their roots in the Pentateuch, and afford not the slightest proof of the dependence of this chapter on Nehemiah 9. The whole tone and language of the prayer also is such that it seems impossible to conceive of it as a forgery under the name of Daniel.

I. The time of the prayer. In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus [248], of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans (Dan. 9:1). This was that Darius the Mede who, on the death of Belshazzar and the fall of Babylon, took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old (chap. Dan. 5:31). As Darius reigned only two years, and as Cyrus his successor granted the Jews their liberty to return to their own land in the first year of his reign, after a captivity of seventy years, at the commencement of which Daniel was a youth of about fourteen or sixteen years of age, he must now have been something above eighty years old. Daniel, as we have seen, had been a man of prayer from his youth. Neither his engagements as a statesman and prime minister, nor the seductions of a luxurious court, had been able to turn him aside from his beloved practice. The path to the mercy-seat had become to Daniel a well-beaten one. The throne of grace was now well known to him for a refuge. He had long experienced the truth of the divine title, Thou that hearest prayer (Psa. 65:2). He spends his last days in the happy familiar exercise. As in the case of President Lincoln, prayer had become a confirmed habit. His constant resource amidst the difficulty and trials of life, it is his solace as he approaches the solemnities of death. As the burden of state business and the splendours of a palace, so the infirmities of old age failed to lessen his relish for the hallowed employment.

[248] Son of Ahasuerus. This Ahasuerus was a brother of Cyruss grandfather, Darius being Cyruss uncle. Ahasuerus was a common name among the kings of Persia, its Greek form being Artaxerxes. See note at chap. Dan. 5:31. The Ahasuerus, however, who is here mentioned, is called by heathen writers Astyages, Oriental monarchs usually having several names. The first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over Babylon was probably 538 b.c. Mr. Bosanquet indeed contends that this Darius was Darius Hystaspis, and that this vision was given in the sixty-second year of his age, 592 b.c. He also thinks of this Ahasuerus as Cyaxares, of the seed of the Medes, whose son or grandson he may have been by birth, adoption, inheritance, ancestral descent in male or female line, son-in-law, or simply successor to the throne of this Median king. He thinks that it was in the second year of that Darius that the indignation against Jerusalem ceased, and the seventy weeks of mercy began (Zec. 1:12), and that it was therefore at that period when the present prophecy was delivered. See note (4).

II. The occasion of it. This was the reading and study of the Scriptures which he possessed, and more especially the prophecies of Jeremiah. I, Daniel, understood by books [249] the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet that He would accomplish seventy years [250] in the desolations of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:2). From this prophet Daniel knew that the time for the termination of the captivity could not be far distant, from whatever period its commencement was to be dated. His concern was that no sin or unbelief on the part of his people might cause the promised term to be prolonged, as in the case of their fathers in the desert. Knowing well their past provocations, he sets himself to supplicate pardon and grace on their behalf, according to the divine direction given in the same prophet (Jer. 29:10-12). Not even a direct promise intended to supersede the duty of humiliation and prayer, but rather to stimulate to the performance of it. God free even in the fulfilment of His promises. Ye shall know my breach of promise (Num. 14:33). Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you (Jer. 5:25). The fulfilment of a promise to be secured by prayer and prepared for by humiliation. So the disciples at Pentecost (Act. 1:4-5; Act. 1:14; Act. 2:1).

[249] By books. (bassepharim), in the books, the sacred books which he possessed, especially those of the prophets, and more particularly the writings of Jeremiah. Neither the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, nor the histories of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and the two Books of Chronicles, were yet written. Hengstenberg observes that nothing more can be gathered from this passage than that Daniel was in possession of certain sacred writings, embracing the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Obadiah, Micah, a collection of Psalms, and the Book of Job. Equally numerous were the writings which Zechariah had before him. Hence the text affords no argument that the Book of Daniel was first composed at a time when the rest of the canon was already made up and regarded as a complete whole. Keil, with Maurer and Hitzig, renders the words, I marked or gave heed in the Scriptures; and adds: (hassepharim), , is not synonymous with (hakkethubhim), ; but denotes only writings in the plural, without saying that these writings formed already a recognised collection; so that from this expression nothing can be concluded regarding the formation of the Old Testament canon. Dr. Pusey remarks that the date at which the Jews in the time of Josephus believed the canon of the Scriptures to have been closed was about four centuries before the birth of our Lord. Josephus probably fixed on the reign of Artaxerxes as being the period of Nehemiahs great work of restoration, although the actual closing of the canon probably took place during the second visit to his country, the probable date of the prophet Malachi, under the son and successor of Artaxerxes or Darius Nothus. Dr. Pusey, however, remarks that what is said here about the books, i.e., the biblia, the Scriptures, exactly expresses what we see from the writings of the prophets before the Captivity to have been the fact, that the books of the prophets were collected together. He adds: The canon was almost completed before the return from the Captivity. Of the former prophets or historical books, the Kings at most had yet to be formally added to it. Of the latter prophets, there remained perhaps the formal reception of Ezekiel; the three last prophets only had not been sent. Of the Hagiographa, there remained the collection of some later psalms,some in the last Book of the Psalms were not yet written. Daniel was perhaps then formally added: the historical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, the Chronicles, were as yet unwritten. Professor R. Smith thinks we have here the prophetic literature referred to under the name of the books, which he understands as equivalent to Scriptures. He remarks that the first unambiguous evidence as to the close of the canon is contained in the list of Josephus, composed towards the close of the first century; and that we can affirm, with practical certainty, that the twenty-two books of Josephus are those of our present Hebrew canon. He thinks, however, that the force of this evidence is disguised by the controversial purpose of the writer, which leads him to put his facts in a false light, viewing the close of the canon as distinctly marked by the cessation of the succession of prophets in the time of Artaxerxes, while there was clearly no regular and unbroken series of sacred annals officially kept up from the time of Moses onwards. He regards the view of Josephus as a theory, and one inconsistent with the fact that we find no complete formal catalogue of Scriptures in earlier writers like the Son of Sirach, who, enumerating the literary worthies of his nation, had every motive to give a complete list, if he had been in a position to do so; inconsistent also with the fact that questions as to the canonicity of certain books were still undecided within the lifetime of Josephus himself; referring to those of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, about whose character, as inspired Scripture, the Mishna records some Rabbinical disputes. Mr. Smith thinks that the clearest evidence that the notion of canonicity was not fully established till long after the time of Artaxerxes is in the Septuagint, as containing some apocryphal additions; from which he concludes, that the canon of the Old Testament was of gradual formation; that some books, now accepted, had long a doubtful position, while others were for a time admitted to a measure of reputation, which made the line of demarcation between them and the canonical books uncertain and fluctuating; the canon of the Old Testament passing through much the same kind of history through which we know the New Testament canon to have passed; the position of several books being, as a matter of fact, still subject of controversy as Antilegomena in the apostolic age, and not finally determined till after the fall of the Temple and the Jewish state; the Hagiographa not forming before that date a closed collection with an undisputed list of contents, so that the general testimony of Christ and His apostles to the Old Testament Scripture cannot, in his opinion, be used as certainly including those books.

[250] Seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:2). There have been two reckonings of these seventy years: one, which is generally accepted, from the captivity in the third year of Jehoiakim, ending with the first year of Cyrus; the other, from the captivity of Zedekiah, ending nineteen years later, in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (Zec. 1:12). The later adopted by Theodoret, Pellican, and colampadius. The Duke of Manchester thinks there were two periods of seventy years: the one, that of the servitude in Babylon; the other, that of the desolation of Jerusalem, terminating in the first year of Darius Nothus. Dr. Pusey observes that the time of seventy years, counting from the year when captives were first taken to Babylon, the first of a long series of such removals, viz., in the third year of Jehoiakim, was fulfilled to the exact year. According to the canon of Ptolemy, Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-three years; Evil-Merodach, two; Neriglissar, four; Nabunahit, who for a time associated his son Belshazzar in the government, seventeen; to which should probably be added a year or eighteen months preceding that part of the fourth of Jehoiakim with which Nebuchadnezzars accession to his fathers throne coincides, and the two years during which Darius the Mede was viceroy in Babylon after Belshazzars death. Prideaux thinks that it was not only exactly after seventy years that the release from the Captivity took place, but that it was in the very month, viz., November, in which, seventy years before, it had commenced; the Jews who returned being found for the first time in Jerusalem in the month Nisan (our April), after a four months march and one months preparation for it.

III. The preparation for it. I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplication [251], with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes [252] (Dan. 9:3). Daniels prayer was to be no ordinary one, and to be engaged in in no ordinary manner. The prayer was to be for an object of the highest importance, not so much to himself personally, as to his people, the cause of religion, and the glory of God. It was to be for the promised removal of evils long threatened and justly executed on account of the aggravated and long-continued sins of his people, and which impenitence and unbelief on their part might still retard. The prayer needed therefore to be not only made with deepest earnestness and fervour, but to be accompanied with heartfelt humiliation and confession of sin, in the name of his guilty countrymen as well as his own. All the powers of his soul must therefore be aroused to intense exercise, while he must be brought under a deep sense of the sins which he has to confess as the cause of his peoples severe and protracted calamities. He has recourse, therefore, to what were not only the ordinary outward expressions of self-abasement, humiliation, and sorrow, but natural helps to the attainment and maintenance of such a state of soul, and suitable accompaniments of it. Special prayer demands special preparation. This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. Thou wilt prepare their heart; Thou wilt cause Thine ear to hear.

[251] Prayer and supplication (Dan. 9:3). Keil thinks that (tephillah), prayer, is prayer in general; (takhanunim), supplications, prayer for mercy and compassion, as also petition for something, such as the turning away of misfortune or evil. Dr. Cox observes that Daniels prayer divides itself into three partsthe address, the confession, and the petition. He remarks that the prayer is remarkable for the large proportion of it that is occupied with confession; the reiteration of phrases descriptive of sin, examplifying the depth of his penitential sorrow; the simplicity of the diction; the minuteness of the detail; the profound humility indicated; the vindication of God and the spirit of self-reproach; the high estimation expressed of the mercy and forgiveness of God.

[252] With fasting and sackcloth and ashes (Dan. 9:3). Calvin remarks that Daniel, though naturally alert in prayer to God, was yet conscious of the want of sufficiency in himself; and hence he adds the use of sackcloth and ashes and fasting. He observes that every one conscious of his infirmity, ought to collect all the aids he can command for the correction of his sluggishness, and thus to stimulate himself to ardour in supplicating God.

IV. The prayer itself. This prayer of Daniel, perhaps beyond any other in the Bible, contains in it all the elements of devotion. Those in Ezr. 9:6, &c., and Neh. 9:5, &c., dictated by the same spirit, probably moulded by this of Daniel. As its constituent parts we have

1. Adoration. Expressing

(1.) Reverence. O Lord, the great and dreadful God (Dan. 9:4). The Lord is great and greatly to be praised, to be held in reverence of all that are about Him. Great fear due to Him in the meeting of His saints and in all their approaches to His throne of grace. Of all the people will I be sanctified. Filial confidence not inconsistent with the deepest reverence. The song of the glorified on the sea of glass: Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name for Thou only art holy (Rev. 15:4). The tendency of such adoration to deepen our sense of sin.

(2.) Faith. Keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to them that keep His commandments (Dan. 9:4). Faith in God as merciful, gracious, and ready to forgive, also expressed in Dan. 9:9 : To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against Him. He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). Confidence in Gods mercy to be coupled with reverence and holy fear. Without faith it is impossible to please Him. Daniels faith further expressed in his appropriation of the Lord as his God. Not satisfied with calling Him our God, he twice over invokes him as my God. Faith believes, accepts, and appropriates God as our covenant God in and through Christ. I will be their God, and they shall be my people. My Lord and my God. If we wish our prayers to be heard, says Keil, then God, to whom we pray, must become our God.

2. Confession. We have sinned, &c. (Dan. 9:5-14). This confession, large and full, occupying the greatest part of the prayer. Felt by Daniel, in the circumstances, to be that which was so much called for, and so necessary to the obtaining of the object sought He confesses the sins of the whole people in both its sections, and of all classes, including his own. With the sins he acknowledges the sufferings entailed by them, and the justice that inflicted them. Righteousness belongeth unto Thee, but unto us confusion of face (Dan. 9:7-8). Mentions as an aggravation of their case that while the Lord was visiting them for their sin they still refused to repent and pray, and hardened themselves against His corrections. In confessing sin we are to remember and confess its peculiar aggravations.

3. Thanksgiving and praise. Daniel makes thankful acknowledgment of Gods past mercies. O Lord God, that hast brought Thy people out of the land of Egypt, &c. (Dan. 9:15). Thanksgiving to accompany prayer and supplication in making our requests known unto God (Php. 4:7). Thanksgiving for past mercies a tribute due to their Author and the means of obtaining more. Gratitude both glorifying to God and a gain to ourselves. In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God concerning you. What God has already done, a never-failing source of thanksgiving.

4. Petition or supplication [253]. O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, I beseech Thee let Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away, &c. (Dan. 9:16-19). Supplication and petition, prayer properly so called. To pray is properly to ask or make request; supplication is earnest asking. Without this there may be devotion and communion with God, but scarcely prayer. This part of Daniels prayer the centre and kernel of the whole. His object in the exercise to entreat for forgiveness and favour on behalf of his people and country. In this part of the prayer we observe

(1.) Intense earnestness. O Lord, I beseech thee. O my God, incline Thine ear and hear. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for Thine own sake, O my God. An instructive specimen of earnest pleading. This the effectual fervent prayer of the righteous man that availeth much. Jacob wrestling with the angel and refusing to let him go without bestowing a blessing.

(2.) Deep humility. We do not present our supplications before Thee for our own righteousnesses, but for Thy great mercies. To us belongeth confusion of face. Humility refuges every plea for acceptance but Gods free mercy. It can indeed plead a righteousness, but not its own. The Lord Himself is its righteousness, wrought out in the person of the Son and freely made over to faith. This is the name whereby He shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness. I will make mention of Thy righteousness, even of Thine only.

(3.) The prevailing plea. For the Lords sake (Dan. 9:17)

(8). No doubt as to who this is. Daniel sets before God the Mediator by whose favour he hopes to obtain his request.Calvin. The Lord (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (the Anointed or the Christ, the promised Saviour), Sit Thou on my right hand, &c. (Psa. 110:1). The same Messiah who forms the subject of the following vision, Gods anointed King of Israel on His holy hill of Zion (Psalms 2) Raising Him from the dead and placing Him on His own right hand, God declared Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (Act. 2:36). It was through Him that God blessed Israel and that He now blesses men. Prayer accepted and answered on His account, and therefore to be made in His name. Thus David prayed: Behold, O God, our shield; look on the face of Thine Anointed. Let Thy hand be upon the Man of Thy right hand, upon the Son of Man, whom Thou hast made strong for Thyself (Psa. 84:9; Psa. 80:17). This divine and God-given plea made more fully known after His appearance in the flesh and the acceptance of His offered sacrifice. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father. Having a great High Priest who is passed into the heavens, let us come boldly to the throne of grace. He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? (1Jn. 2:2; Heb. 4:14-16; Rom. 8:32).

(4.) Large-heartedness and unselfishness. Daniels petitions and pleadings more on behalf of others than himself. Self forgotten in his deep concern for his country and the cause of God. He pleads for Jerusalem, Gods city and sanctuary that was desolate, His holy mountain, and His people. Personally, Daniel himself was in comfort, and never expected to see again his native land and beloved city. But his people were still captives and Jerusalem was in desolation. The cause of God and of His Christ was in the dust. Hence his unselfish pleading. Grace enlarges the heart and makes the cause of others our own. The mark of the spirit of Jesus to be burdened with the sins and sorrows of others. True patriotism and benevolence learned at the feet of Him who wept over Jerusalem. For Zions sake I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalems sake I will not rest, till the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. The sign of a mere nominal Christianity and a heartless religion when its professors drink wine in bowls and anoint themselves with the chief spices, but are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph (Amo. 6:6). Such was not Daniels. If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning (Psa. 137:5).

[253] Dr. Rule observes that it is evident from the utterances of both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, that after the giving of the promise of a gracious return of the captives from Babylon, the wickedness of those left behind in Jerusalem had exceedingly increased; that there was not yet any appearance of the restoration of the Jews in captivity; and that all that was royal, noble, brave, or worthy in that city had been swept away. See Ezekiel 8-11; Jer. 7:30; Jer. 32:34. The captives themselves in general apparently not much improved by their affliction. See Ezekiel 2, 3; Eze. 33:30-32.

From the whole prayer we may learn

1. The spirit of prayer characteristic of a child of God. Prayer in a child of God as natural as a childs cry to its mother. God has many suffering children, but no silent ones. We cry, Abba, Father!

2. Gods Word the study and enjoyment of His people. Daniel not only a man of prayer but a man of study. I understood by books. These books the Scriptures. Other books not neglected, but these his daily food. It is my meditation all the day. His delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he doth meditate day and night. Gods Word the stream that nourishes the roots of godliness, the oil that makes the lamp of grace to burn. This inclusive of prophetic Scripture. Prophecy a large proportion of the Bible. Daniel moved to pray by the word of prophecy. That word to be taken heed to as to a light shining in a dark place. Daniel, though a prophet, himself a careful reader of the prophecies of others.

3. The Word read to be turned into prayer. Believing prayer a fruit of the study of Scripture. Daniel read and then prayed. To read little is often to pray little; and reading without praying is of little worth. That is the most profitable reading of the Scriptures that sends us to our knees. That the most lively, fervent, and successful prayer that is the child of a precept, a promise, or a prophecy.

4. Prayer to be accompanied with thanksgiving and confession of sin. Gods past mercies and our own past sins never to be forgotten at the throne of grace. He prays ill who forgets Gods favours and his own faults.

5. Believers especially to cultivate intercessory prayer. For this purpose Christ makes us priests. Our high calling to be Gods remembrancers. Gods people watchmen set on Zions walls to give Him no rest till He establish and make Jerusalem a praise in the earth. A wide field and a loud call for earnest intercessory prayer. Prayers and intercessions to be made for all men (1Ti. 2:1). Seek the peace of the city, and pray unto the Lord for it. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Brethren, pray for us. For all saints. Pray one for another, that ye may be healed. Abrahams intercession all but saved Sodom. Pauls prayers saved the lives of all that sailed with him (Act. 27:24).

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER NINE

III. THE PRAYER, THE PRINCE, AND PROSPERITYDan. 9:1-27

a. REPENTANCE

TEXT: Dan. 9:1-14

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasureus, of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans,

in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years whereof the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishing of the desolation of Jerusalem, even seventy years.

And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

And I prayed unto Jehovah my God, and made confession, and said, Oh, Lord, the great and dreadful God, who keepeth covenant and lovingkindness with them that love him, and keep his commandments,

we have sinned, and have dealt perversely, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even turning aside from thy precepts and from thine ordinances;

neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, that spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of face, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee.

O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.

To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness; for we have rebelled against him;

neither have we obeyed the voice of Jehovah our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets.

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even turning aside, that they should not obey thy voice: therefore hath the curse been poured out upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God; for we have sinned against him.

And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil; for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.

As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet have we not entreated the favor of Jehovah our God, that we should turn from our iniquities, and have discernment in thy truth.

Therefore hath Jehovah watched over the evil, and brought it upon us; for Jehovah our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth, and we have not obeyed his voice.

QUERIES

Why was Daniel studying the books concerning the captivity?

Why confess sins now after almost 70 years in captivity?

Does Dan. 9:13 mean they had not prayed to God in the captivity?

PARAPHRASE

It was now the first year of the reign of Gubaru (king Darius, the son of Ahasuerus), 539538 B.C. (Daruis was a Mede but was appointed king of the province of Chaldea by Cyrus). During that first year of his reign I, Daniel, was studying the scroll of Jeremiah the prophet, and learned that the time for the captivities of the Jews and the desolation of their land and holy city, Jerusalem, was seventy years, and thus very near its end. I fasted, donned sackcloth and ashes, and I pleaded with the Lord concerning the end of our captivities. I confessed my sins and those of my people, praying, O Lord, you are a great and awesome God; You always fulfill Your promises and keep Your covenants, returning love to those who love You and keep Your commandments. But we have sinned against You every way possible. We have been perverse, stubborn, wicked, rebellious, disobedient to Your precepts and commandments; we did not even pay attention to the prophets when You sent them to speak to our leaders and to us. O Lord, You are altogether righteous and holy, but we are shame-faced with sin to this very day. All of Your covenant peoplethe men of Judah, Jerusalem and all Israelscattered all over by Your righteous judgment for their sins, they are even now shamefaced with sin. But the Lord our God is merciful, and pardons even those who have rebelled against Him. O Lord, our God, we have disobeyed You; we have flouted all the laws You gave us through Your servants, the prophets. All Israel has disobeyed; we have deliberately turned away from You and refused to listen to Your voice. As a consequence the curse of Godpronounced in the law of Moseshas been poured out upon us. And You have done exactly as You warned us You would; for never in all history has there been a disaster like what happened at Jerusalem to us and our rulers. Every curse against disobedience written in the law of Moses has come to pass because we have disobeyed Your law. Yet we have not appeased Jehovah our God by breaking with our sins and turning to the keeping of Your truth. Therefore God deliberately crushed us with the calamity He preparedand He is just and holy in everything He doesbecause we have not obeyed His Truth.

COMMENT

Dan. 9:1-2 IN THE FIRST YEAR OF DARIUS THE SON OF AHASUREUS . . . We have discussed the identity of Darius the Mede in chapter 5, Dan. 5:31, and concluded that he is the Gubaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle. Mr. Whitcomb, author of Darius, The Mede, says, The fact that no cuneiform text known to us mentions the name of Gubarus father is no evidence that his father could not have been Ahasuerus. Gubaru (Darius, the Mede) was appointed king of Chaldea and Babylon in the same year that Cyrus conquered it, 539538 B.C. This then, was the year that Daniel was studying the books concerning the duration of the captivities.

The term books does not mean the entire O.T. canon. Destructive critics would like to have it to mean this in order to claim that the O.T. canon was already complete when the book of Daniel was being written thus making the composition of the book of Daniel as late as 200 B.C. Leupold says, the article before books according to Hebrew usage, need imply nothing more than the idea of the books requisite for the passage involved (i.e. Jeremiah). There is a quotation from Jeremiah made by Jesus in Mat. 27:9 ff. which contains some phrases from the book of Zechariah. This probably indicates that more than one prophets work was recorded on one scrollthus one scroll contain two or more books. As a matter of fact, many ancient Hebrew manuscripts have what is called the book of The Twelve (all of the Minor Prophets on one scroll). It is highly probable that Daniel had a scroll of Jeremiah in his hand which also had other books written on the same scroll, but Daniel was studying Jeremiah. The passage that caught his attention was Jer. 25:9-11, And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy-years. The desolation began with the captivity of Daniel in 606 B.C. and the first devastation of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. So, in the first year of Darius (538 B.C.), the 70 years (536 B.C.) would be almost completed. The above dates are in harmony with 2Ch. 36:21-23 and Ezr. 1:1 ff which speak of the first year of Cyrus (which was 539538 B.C.). Some regard the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 as the point from which the 70 years are to be reckoned. But if this be so, Daniel would hardly feel that now, in the first year of Darius, the 70 years were very soon coming to completion and be in fervent prayer about it.

Dan. 9:3-6 AND I SET MY FACE UNTO THE LORD GOD . . . WE HAVE SINNED . . . Daniel knows only too well that the cause for the captivity is the stubborn, deliberate rebellion and sin of the people. He sees that the time appointed by God for the captivity is about complete. He knows that the majority of the people still have not turned to God, so he sets himself in earnest, soul-baring prayer as he confesses his sin and those of his people. His main concern is not to know the precise meaning of the number 70; it is to implore Jehovah God for the complete, full and merciful cleansing and pardon for their sin. This is very important in understanding the answer the angel gives to Daniels prayer! For the answer is not precise in delineating the 70 sevens, calendar-wise, but the answer emphasizes the fact that complete forgiveness is in the future.

That Daniel was in earnest is indicated by the fact that he fasted and humbled himself in sackcloth and ashesthe customary attire for a Jew who wished to subdue the flesh in order to concentrate upon the spiritual.
Daniel salutes God as One who by mighty acts of supernatural character chastens and punishes sinful people. Then he praises God for His manifestations of absolute faithfulness in keeping His covenants (Word) to those who love Him. It is in this way God expresses His lovingkindness to those who love Him. Those who love Him keep His commandments (cf. I John).

The prophet uses four-synonyms for sin in order to emphasize the stubborn deliberations of it. Jer. 6:16-19 indicates the rebelliousness of their attitude toward God and toward the prophets who spoke Gods message. See also Ezekiel, chapter 2 and 3. Their sin was not one of ignoranceit was willful disobedience. They loved to have it so! Thus the enormity of the nations sin! Those who have no love for the truth, but take pleasure in unrighteousness, God will allow them to have deluded minds, if they so desire. This impudent, arrogant, wicked people would not listen to the true prophets who predicted punishmentthey listened to false prophets who cried, Peace, peace, when there was no peace.

Dan. 9:7-11 . . . NEITHER HAVE WE OBEYED THE VOICE OF JEHOVAH OUR GOD, TO WALK IN HIS LAWS, WHICH HE SET BEFORE US BY HIS SERVANTS THE PROPHETS . . . THEREFORE HATH THE CURSE BEEN POURED OUT UPON US . . . It is evident from this prayer of Daniel that he thought the time of the captivity was about to be prolonged on account of the sins of his countrymen and he besought the Lord for mercy. It is a prayer of confession. The word confession is in the Greek is homologeo which means to say the same as . . . In the case of Daniels confession he is saying the same as God about rebellion against Gods will and the consequences of such rebellion. Daniel is admitting (confessing) that God is completely justified in bringing upon the people of Israel this captivity because this was the warning of God when the law was given to Moses (cf. Deut. chaps. 28, 29, 30). The phrase poured out is similar to that of the pouring out of the vials of wrath which symbolize the wrathful judgments of God depicted in the Book of Revelation (Rev. 16:1-4). What the Jews were enduring in their captivities was what they deserved, and what God, through Moses, warned them would come if they should not hearken to the prophets of God.

Dan. 9:12-14 AND HE HATH CONFIRMED HIS WORDS . . . YET HAVE WE NOT ENTREATED . . . And now, Daniel is frightened. In spite of the chastening of the captivity for their former sins, they have not, for the most part, entreated the favor of God. They have not mollified God. The verb translated entreated means literally to make the face sweet. They had not sweetened the face of God toward themselves by turning from their sinful ways in repentance and obeyed the will of God as expressed through His prophets. If they had, God would have removed the evil of captivity from them. They are in the same attitude toward God as before the captivity, so Daniel prays that the captivity not be prolonged.

God confirmed His Word as truly inviolable with the captivities of Israel and Judah. What God promises and warns will surely come to pass! The overthrow of the covenant people (both of Israel and Judah) involved an amount of cruelty and suffering that no other case in history could claim! Just one illustration of such unparalleled degradation is in Deu. 28:53-57 where it is predicted that as a consequence of disobedience to Gods law the covenant people will actually be driven to eat the flesh of their own children! It was fulfilled literally in 2Ki. 6:24-31 for Israel and in Jer. 19:9 for Judah! God means what He says!

There is no unfairness or unrighteousness in Gods actions. He has done only what He said He would do, and gave ample warning and abundant help in providing a way to escape His judgment. Despite all this, the covenant people did not, and were not in Daniels time, hearkening unto Him, so their guilt, therefore, is all the greater.

QUIZ

How could Darius the Mede be the son of Ahasuerus?

Why would destructive critics like to have the term books mean the entire O.T. canon? What does the term mean?

When were the 70 years of Israels captivity to end?

What is very important in understanding the answer the angel gives to Daniels prayer (information concerning the 70 weeks)?

Why is Daniel praying about the peoples sin in the present tense?

How were Gods words concerning His judgment confirmed?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

IX.

(1) On Darius the Mede see Excursus D.

Was made king.The phrase corresponds with took the kingdom (Dan. 5:31), and shows that Darius was not king by his own right, but that he received his authority from anotheri.e., Cyrus.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

1. For “Darius the Mede” see our Introduction, III, 3, (5), and note Dan 5:31. If this king really was Gubaru, appointed vicegerent by Cyrus when he captured Babylon, then this prophecy of the “seventy year-weeks” is represented as being given in the very year when the Jews received permission to return and rebuild their temple; that is, at the end of their “seventy weeks” of captivity in Babylon.

Son of Ahashuerus This may possibly have been a marginal note, though the versions do not indicate it.

If the reference here is to the Book of Esther’s famous Ahasuerus (Xerxes) it is a bad mistake; for he was the son of Darius Hystaspes, not the father of Darius the Mede. But a famous man is usually preceded by less famous men bearing the same name. In official documents of the fifth century B.C. and later the name Ahasuerus ( Khsyrs, mighty) occurs in many forms. The Hebrew ear was not keen nor the tongue glib, so that no objection can be properly raised here because of the Hebrew spelling of this name. In the very first year of the reign of the celebrated Xerxes (485 B.C.) his name was spelled in official records, Akhsu-varsi, Akki-sarsu, Akhsi-varsa, Aksi-yarsu; the form fixing itself later as Akhsi-yarsu (Oppert, Revue des Etudes Juives, 1894).

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans, in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of years about which the word of YHWH came to Jeremiah the prophet for the bringing to conclusion of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years.’

For Darius the Mede see chapter 6 opening. Here he is called the son of Ahasuerus (Persian khshayarsha). This was a name applied to royalty (the Greek equivalent is Xerxes) in the Medo-Persian empire and there is no reason why someone with such a name should not be father to Darius the Mede. And he is said to be ‘of the seed of the Medes’. This stresses that ‘the Mede’ refers to his birth and not to the empire over which he was king.

‘Was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans.’ ‘Was made.’ He was acting as an under-king to the ruler of the whole empire. We only hear of the first year of his reign and it may well be that he died, or was replaced, shortly after, for within two years Daniel begins to date in terms of Cyrus (Dan 10:1), whose son took over the governorship of Babylon. As Darius was 62 years old when he was ‘made king’ (Dan 5:31) he would not rule for long, and he was probably appointed as having a recognised ability for the organisation of administrators (Dan 6:2). Nothing is known of him historically, but in view of his short tenure this is not necessarily surprising. He has been variously identified with Cyrus himself, and with Cyrus’ general Gobryas, but his age at accession makes these identifications unlikely. There is no good to reason to deny his historicity, or for not accepting his identity at face value.

‘Understood by the books.’ Daniel clearly had a number of ‘books’ which included at least a part of the prophet Jeremiah (see Jer 36:2-3; Jer 36:28). It is very possible that he had other parts of the Old Testament as well, especially Deuteronomy. These told him that Jerusalem’s period of barrenness and emptiness was to be seventy years, after which His people would return to the city (Jer 25:11-14; Jer 29:10-11; compare 2Ch 36:21). The prayer that follows is clearly based on Scripture and confirms that Daniel was heavily influenced by Jeremiah and Deuteronomy, even to the use of the divine name YHWH, which is found nowhere else in Daniel.

‘Seventy years’ would be considered a round number indicating the divine perfection of the period involved and a fairly long period, thinking in terms of a lifetime (Psa 90:10). Daniel at this stage had been in Babylon since 605 BC (sixty six years) and was thus probably around eighty. He would therefore have felt that God’s time was surely near.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Daniel’s Intercession and the Seventy-Week Prophecy Regarding Christ’s First Coming (538 B.C.) In Dan 9:1-27 we have Daniel’s prayer of intercession for his people Israel and the vision of the angel who came to reveal to him a greater depth of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy-year captivity of Israel. Within this vision we are given the date of Christ’s first coming. Because Daniel had been faithful to God in showing several kings the understanding of their dreams and visions, He was going to help Daniel understand his own visions. This is the principle of sowing and reaping. Daniel has probably heard Jeremiah as a young child or teenager speaking publicly to the Jews and giving the prophecy of the seventy years of Babylonian Captivity. Whether he ever knew Jeremiah or not, when Daniel understood from Jeremiah’s prophecies that his people would be in captivity for seventy years because of their sins, he began to intercede for Israel because he understood that this time was coming to an end. Thus, while he was praying God sent an angel to show Daniel the proper interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, that Israel’s full restoration would not take place after this seventy-year period, but after the fulfillment of a seventy-week period. This meant that Israel’s return after seventy years was a partial restoration. Thus, we can understand that Jeremiah’s prophecy had a two-fold application in that it refers to two separate events, a partial restoration of Israel that would take place in seventy years and a full restoration that would take place in seventy weeks of years, or four hundred ninety (490) years.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Daniel Intercedes for His People Dan 9:1-19

2. Gabriel’s Prophecy of Seventy Weeks of Years Dan 9:20-27

God Reveals His Time-line of Redemption to the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church We know from 1Co 10:32 that God’s plan of redemption for mankind involved three people-groups. He began with the Jews, then moved to the Gentiles and finally created the Church out of the Gentile nations.

1Co 10:32 , “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.”

Each of the groups of people plays an important role in man’s redemption. To each one of them has been revealed God’s time-line to work redemption through them. When I first began to study end-time prophecy I looked for a single passage of Scripture that gave me an outline, or structure of end-time prophecy. I did not find one comprehensive time-line, but rather, three separate time-lines, one for each people-group. Dan 2:1-49 gives us the time-line of God’s redemptive plan for the Gentile nations with the vision of the image made up of different types of metals. In addition, Dan 9:1-27 gives a time-line for the Jews, which is explained in the Seventy-Week Prophecy. We have to go to the New Testament to find the time-line for the Church, which Jesus gave to us in His Eschatological Discourse of Mat 24:1-46 .

God revealed this time-line to King Nebuchadnezzar because he was asking for an understanding of the future events that related to him and his kingdom ( Dan 2:29 ). Thus, God showed him the “Times of the Gentiles” in which there will be four periods involving four earthly kingdoms. Later in Daniel’s ministry the angel Gabriel visited him and revealed to him the interpretation of Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy of Israel’s Babylonian Captivity. This was revealed because Daniel was seeking to know what was going to take place in the future for His people. When Jesus was leaving the Temple for the last time, His disciples asked Him about the future events of His Second Coming ( Mat 24:3 ). This is why He explained to them the events leading up to the end of the Church Age.

Dan 9:1-19 Daniel Intercedes for His People In Dan 9:1-19 we have the prayer that Daniel prayed to God when Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy-year captivity of Israel was to him.

Dan 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

Dan 9:1 Comments – Darius the Mede was given rule as a viceroy over the Chaldean region under Cyrus the king of Persia in 538 B.C. Darius reigns a short two years.

Dan 5:30, “In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.”

Dan 6:28, “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”

Dan 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Dan 9:2 Comments The seventy-year prophecy given by Jeremiah is recorded in Jer 25:11-12; Jer 29:10. Jeremiah wrote letters to the Jewish captives in Babylon and sent them by the hands of Elasah the son of Shaphan, and Gemariah the son of Hilkiah (Jer 29:3). Therefore, Daniel had access to one of these prophetic letters seventy years later, towards the end of the Captivity.

Jer 25:11-12, “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years . And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished , that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.”

Jer 29:10, “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”

Jer 29:1, “Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon;”

Dan 9:11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

Dan 9:11 Comments The blessings and cursings of the Mosaic Law are found in Deu 27:1 to Deu 30:20.

Dan 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

Dan 9:21 Word Study on “the man” Strong says the Hebrew word “man” (‘iysh) ( ) (H376) means, “a man as an individual or a male person.” The Enhanced Strong says this word is used 1639 times in the Old Testament, being translated in the KJV as “man 1002, men 210, one 188, husband 69, any 27, misc 143.” Strong tells us that it is a contraction of the Hebrew word ( ) (H582), which also means, “man, mortal man, person, people,” which comes from the primitive root ( ) (H605), which means, “to be weak, frail.”

It is used somewhat figuratively in Dan 9:21 to describe how the angel Gabriel held the features of a man, but was not truly flesh and blood like himself.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Glorification: The Coming of Christ (Daniel’s Private Visions) – There are two main divisions to the book of Daniel. Daniel 1-6 is primarily narrative material and emphasizes Daniel’s ministry to the kings of Babylon and Media. In these passages he interprets two dreams and the writing on the wall for two kings. This division as well contains three stories of the captivity and persecution of Daniel and his three friends. However, the visions recorded in Daniel 7-12 were not for the kings. Rather, they are a collection of private visions of apocalyptic in nature that Daniel received from the Lord regarding the Time of the Gentiles and the Last Days. They were not delivered to the kings under whom he served, but were initially private in nature. Their emphasis is not on the nation of Israel; but rather, upon the fulfillment of the Times of the Gentiles. The fact that the first section was written in Aramaic and the second section in Hebrew suggests that there were initially two different intended recipients. The Babylonian Jews would have found comfort in both divisions as they saw the sovereign power of God at work in their midst and as they understood by prophecy that God had not forsaken the nation of Israel. Note that this second section has been arranged in chronological order independently of the first section’s chronological arrangement.

Daniel 7-12 is a collection of private visions given to Daniel concerning the future glorification of Jesus Christ and His children and the Great White Throne Judgment of the nations. The redemptive role of Jesus Christ is clearly predicted as the Son of Man comes upon the clouds and approaches the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:13) and He establishes the everlasting Kingdom of Heaven (Dan 7:14).

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Daniel’s Confession and Prayer

v. 1. In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, known in secular history as Gobryas and mentioned as a viceroy of the empire after the fall of Babylon,5) of the seed of the Medes, who were joined with the Persians in the conquest of Babylon, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans, not by accession, but through the agency of the victorious army and by the hand of Cyrus,

v. 2. in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by books, he observed, he got his information, and then drew his conclusions, the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, the prophet, Cf Jer 25:11, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem, or, “that seventy years would be completed in the desolate condition of Jerusalem. ” Note that Daniel was in possession of a book of Jeremiah’s prophecies, which, therefore, must have been in existence in a number of copies even then, that he considered the words of this book as the Word of Jehovah, and that he definitely believed the words of the prophecy, as the words of the Lord, would be fulfilled.

v. 3. And I set my face unto the Lord God, the one sovereign God of the universe, to seek by prayer and supplications, to plead for the restoration of the city of his fathers, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. It was thus an importunate, moving prayer which Daniel sought by the operation of the Holy Spirit, by which he made known his requests before God.

v. 4. And I prayed unto the Lord, my God, and made my confession, a frank acknowledgment of one’s sinfulness preparing the way for the proper worship of the Lord, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, He whose fear and terror is upon all those who are His enemies, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love Him and to them that keep His commandments, Cf Deu 7:9:

v. 5. we have sinned and have committed iniquity, by leaving the path of God’s commandments, and have done wickedly and have rebelled, shown rebellious behavior, even by departing from Thy precepts and from Thy judgments, the introduction of the confession being modeled after the words of Solomon’s prayer, 1Ki 8:47;

v. 6. neither have we hearkened unto Thy servants, the prophets, his confession now being made in the name of his entire people with their open disregard of the admonition of the prophets, which spake in Thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. Cf 2 Kings 17; Jer 44:17.

v. 7. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto Thee, He is the possessor of absolute righteousness, who alone can dispense righteousness, but unto us confusion of faces, namely, the confusion which shows itself in the guilty blush on account of the consciousness of sin and the consequent disgrace and tribulation, as at this day: to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, these being concerned first of all, as the leaders of the Lord’s people, and unto all Israel, for many members of the other tribes had joined the southern kingdom when the downfall of the northern kingdom was imminent, all those who professed their belief in the true God thus casting their lot together, that are near and that are far off, through all the countries whither Thou hast driven them, as they were deported into shameful exile, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against Thee, the guilt of the people thus being brought out time and again.

v. 8. O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against Thee, this statement being repeated for the sake of emphasis, just as the synonymous expressions were heaped at the beginning of Daniel’s confession, in order that the full scope of the people’s guilt might be brought out. Over against this confusion and guilt stands the one hope of sinful mortals, the mercy of God showing itself in the forgiveness of sins.

v. 9. To the Lord, our God, belong mercies and forgivenesses, of which the repentant sinners feel the great need, though we have rebelled against Him, rather, “for we have rebelled,” and the need of His forgiveness as their one hope has become apparent to them;

v. 10. neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord, our God, to walk in His laws, following them exactly, which He set before us by His servants, the prophets, His ministers, in making known His will to men.

v. 11. Yea, all Israel have transgressed Thy Law, even by departing, that they might not obey Thy voice, their turning away from Him being done with this deliberate purpose; therefore the curse is poured upon us, like a rainstorm with hail, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, Cf Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28, because we have sinned against Him.

v. 12. And He hath confirmed His words which He spake against us, maintaining them, confirming them in deed, as they now had the proof before them, and against our judges that judged us, the term including all those in authority in the entire nation, by bringing upon us a great evil; for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem, the severity of the Lord’s punishment was without equal.

v. 13. As it is written in the Law of Moses, in the two chapters which contain the dreadful statements of the Lord concerning His punishment upon the transgressors of His Law, all this evil is come upon us; yet made we not our prayer before the Lord, our God, by entreating or conciliating His face, by attempting to propitiate His anger, as suggested in King Solomon’s great prayer, that we might turn from our iniquities and understand Thy truth. The truth of God is His plan of salvation as revealed in His Word, according to which He wants the sinner to turn from his evil ways, accept the salvation offered him in the Gospel, and lead a life in accordance with the will of the Lord.

v. 14. Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, He was concerned about its coming upon the transgressors, and brought it upon us; for the Lord, our God, is righteous in all His works which He doeth, all His actions being essentially just; for we obeyed not His voice, wherefore the punishment meted out to them had to be admitted to be just and righteous.

v. 15. And now, O Lord, our God, that hast brought Thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, Exo 32:11, and hast gotten Thee renown, as at this day, His acts of mercy being acknowledged wherever they became known among the nations: we have sinned, we have done wickedly, this confession now also introducing the final petition of Daniel’s prayer.

v. 16. O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, I beseech Thee, in agreement with the righteousness which demanded the fulfillment of His promises, let Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thy city Jerusalem, Thy holy mountain, designated thus because His Sanctuary had been situated there for so many centuries, because for our sins and for the iniquities of our fathers Jerusalem and Thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us, so that the heathen looked upon them with scorn and mockery.

v. 17. Now, therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of Thy servant and his supplications and cause Thy face to shine, in merciful love, upon Thy Sanctuary that is desolate, for the fact that the Temple was lying in ruins was the chief ground for Daniel’s prayer, for the Lord’s sake, for the glory of the restoration would then be the Lord’s.

v. 18. O my God, incline Thine ear, in the attitude of willing attention, and hear; open Thine eyes and behold our desolations, both the cities and their ruins being included in this term, and the city which is called by Thy name, literally, “upon which Thy name is called,” where God had so gloriously revealed Himself, which He had, by choosing it for His Sanctuary, elevated so highly among the cities of the world; for we do not present our supplications before Thee, casting them down before Him, as it were, for our righteousnesses, in dependence upon any state or act of righteousness on the part of the petitioners, but for Thy great mercies, since the unmerited grace of God, His free favor, is the only hope of sinners.

v. 19. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do! the prophet here rising to the very climax of an importunate and fervent prayer. Defer not, for Thine own sake, O my God; for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name, and therefore His zeal for His own glory should be the motive urging Him to heed the prophet’s prayer. The prayer of faith is always certain, meekly importunate, and, when supported by promises on the part of the Lord, may rise to a clamor for mercy which is sure to find a hearing.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

Dan 9:1-27

THE SEVENTY WEEKS. This is the chapter of Daniel which has occasioned most controversy. It was appealed to by Tertullian and the early Fathers as a demonstration of the correctness of our Lord’s claims to Messiahship. It is now received by critical commentators that to our Lord this prophecy cannot refer. Many treatises have been written on the “seventy weeks” of Daniel, and none of them have entirely cleared up the difficulties; indeed, it may be doubted whether all together they have illuminated the subject very much.

Dan 9:1, Dan 9:2

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; in the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord same to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. The version of the Septuagint goes on the assumption that the critics are correct in their belief that the author of Daniel imagined a Median Empire between the Babylonian and the Persian.

“(1) In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes, of the seed of the Medes who,” that is, the Medesthe LXX. seems to have read malkoo instead of homlak“reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans.

(2) In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by the books the number of the years when the ordinance () about the land was (revealed) to Jeremiah the prophet to accomplish seventy years to the fulfilment of the reproach of Jerusalem.”

Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, only he does not seem to have read the hophal of “reign,” but the kal. Further, Theodotion omits the second statement of the year of Darius, with which, both in the LXX. and in the Massoretic, the second verse begins. We have in Tertullian a few verses from this chapter in the Old Latin Version, called sometimes the Vetus. It coincides exactly with neither of the Greek Versions, nor with the Massoretic, but is in closer relationship with Theodotion. The Peshitta in the first agrees in the main with the Massoretic texf, but renders the second verse thus: “In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood in the book the number of years; I saw what was the ordinance of the number which Jeremiah the prophet had said concerning the completion of the desolation of Jerusalemseventy years.” Theodotion, the Vetus, the Peshitta, and also Jerome, neglect the fact that (hom’lak) is hophal, and translate as if the word were kal. This neglect is due to the difficulty of understanding the semi-satrapial position occupied by Gobryas. He had regal powers given him to appoint satraps in the divisions of the province of Babylonia. Not improbably, further, be could fulfil certain sacred functions which customarily only a king could fulfil. This is the only case where the hophal of this verb occurs. Such a unique use of a verb must imply unique circumstances; such unique circumstances existed in the position of Gobryas in Babylon. Only a contemporary would have indicated this singular state of matters by the use of an out-of-the way portion of a verb without further explanation. It is singular that critics will not give the obvious meaning to the persistent indications that the author of this book gives, that he regards Darius, not as an independent sovereign, but as in some sort a vassal of a higher power, on whom he is dependent. Of the seed of the Medes. This statement naturally implies that while Darius was of Median descent, he was naturalized into some ether race. In the first year of his reign. This phrase has the appearance of representing the original beginning of the narrative. Probably there were originally two recensions of this narrative, one of them beginning with the first verse, the other with some modification of the second verse which has been still further modified till it has reached its present form. The year indicated corresponds to b.c. 538, the year of the capture of Babylon, therefore sixty-eight years from the time that Daniel was carried captive. The period, then, which had been foretold by Jeremiah during which the Jews were to be captive and Jerusalem desolate, was drawing to a close. According to the critical assumption, that this date is to be reckoned from the captivity of Jehoiachin, there were yet ten years to run, and if it reckoned from the capture of Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah, there were twenty years. There is a certain dramatic suitability, if no more, in Daniel studying the prophecies of Jeremiah, with always growing eagerness as the time approached when God had promised release. I Daniel understood by books. The critical school have assumed that this phrase “books” applies, and must apply, to the canon; therefore it is concluded that this book was written after the formation of the canon, and therefore very late. Unfortunately for the assumption brought forward, aephareem is by no means invariably used collectively for the books of the Bible, but K’thubim, e.g. Talmud Babli Shabbath (Mishna), p. 115a, was also used. Many of the cases where sephareem appears it is used distributively, not collectively; e.g. Talmud Babli Megillah (Mishna), p. 8b. From the fact that the same word was used for the third division of the canon, and for the books of the canon as a whole, there was liable to be a difficulty, and hence confusion. Traces of this we find in the prologue to the Greek Version of Ecclesiasticus. Thus in the first sentence the translator speaks of “the Law, the Prophets, and the others ( ),” as if were mentally supplied before . While sepher is used for any individual book of Scripture, and sephareem used for a group of these books, as the Books of Moses, it is not used for the Bible as a whole, just as in English we never call the Bible “the books,” but not unfrequently “the Scriptures; “on the other hand, we speak of “the Books of Moses,” never of the “Scriptures of Moses.” If sephareem does not mean the canon, what does it mean? We know from Jer 29:1 that Jeremiah sent to the exiles a “letter,” and in that letter (verse 10) it is said, “For thus saith the Lord, After seventy years be accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you in causing you to return to this place.” It is true that this letter is called sepher in Jeremiah, but in 2Ki 19:14 and Isa 37:14 we have sephareem the plural, used for a single letter. This is proved by the fact that in Isaiah all the suffixes referring to it are singular; in Kings one is in the plural by attraction, but the other is singular as in Isaiah. The correct rendering of the passage, then, is, “I Daniel understood by the letter the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet.” It is clear that the reference in this verse is to Jeremiah’s letter, for we have the use of , Jahve (Jehovah), which out of this chapter does not appear in this book; we have in this verse , which we have in Jer 29:10; it is vocalized as infinitive piel in Daniel, and infinitive kal in Jeremiah, but there is probably some error in Daniel. Another peculiarity which connects this passage with the “letter” of Jeremiah is the form the prophet’s name assumes. In the rest of his prephecy it is usually called (Yir’myahoo); in the section of which the ‘letter forms part, as in this verse in Daniel, he is called (Yir’myah). It is thus clear that Daniel had in his mind Jeremiah’s “letter;” hence it is far-fetched to imagine that he claims acquaintance with all the books of the Hebrew canon, in order to know the contents of a letter. Even a falsarius of the most ignorant sort would scarcely fail to avoid the blunder attributed to the author of Daniel by critics. How do the critics harmonize their explanation of this verse with their theory that the canon closed in b.c. 105, while Daniel was written in the year b.c. 1687 It would be as impossible for an author to speak of the canon in terms which denote it being long fixed, sixty years before it was actually collected, as four hundred years. The impossible has no degrees. That he would accomplish seventy years. That seventy years would fulfil the period of desolation to Jerusalem. It is to be noted that the word translated here “accomplish” occurs in Jeremiah’s letter in regard to this very period (Jer 29:10). The word for “desolations” is connected by Furst with “drought;” it is also connected with the word for “a sword.” The date at which the vision related in the chapter was given was, as we have seen, shortly after the fall of Babylon. The period set by God, if we date from Daniel’s own captivity, was rapidly nearing its conclusion. As yet Cyrus had given no sign that he was about to treat the Jews differently from the other nations. The King of Ansan had declared himselfwhether from faith or policy we cannot tella fervent worshipper of Merodach and the other gods of Babylon: would he not be prone to pursue the policy of the kings of Babylon, whose successor he claimed to be? He had certainly ordered the return to the various cities of the images of those gods which had been brought to Babylon by Nabunahid, but there was no word of the return of the captives of Zion. Would Jehovah be true to his promise or not? Like believers in every age, Daniel takes refuge in prayer.

Dan 9:3

And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes. The Septuagint Version here is slavishly close; it renders (ettena) in accordance with its more common meaning, , and the idiomatic phrase, “to seek prayer and supplication,” is rendered . The true rendering is, as Professor Bevan points out,” to set to prayer.” Theodotion is nearly as slavish; only he omits “ashes,” and has “fastings.” The Peshitta is close, but does not follow the change of construction in the last clause. Jerome seems to have read, “my God.” The cessation of the temple-worship, with its sacrifices, was naturally fitted to bring prayer as a mode of worship into a prominence it bad not before. Yet we find prayers made while the first temple was yet standing, as the prayer of Hezekiah (2Ki 19:15), of Jehoshaphat (2Ch 20:6). The comparison more naturally stands with the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, as the subject of their supplication is similar to that of the prayer before us.

Dan 9:4

And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and maid, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments. The versions do not call for remark. The first clause is somewhat of a repetition of the end of the previous verse, and may thus be the indication of there having been two recensions; at the same time, the Oriental style allows greater repetition and redundancy than in Western countries would be permitted. There is a reference here to Deu 7:9, from which the latter clause is quoted verbatim. It is also quoted with equal exactness in Neh 1:5. The chapter in Deuteronomy exhibits God’s love for Israel, and hence, as that love is his plea, Daniel appeals to it. We note the evidence of careful acquaintance with preceding Scripture.

Dan 9:5

We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments. While otherwise close, neither of the Greek versions retains the change of construction before the last clause, which is exhibited in the English versions. The Peshitta fails in this way ale, but uses participles all through. This verso has a strong resemblance to Neh 1:6, Neh 1:7, only in Nehemiah there is more elaboration and all the signs of a later development. There is a climax here from simple sin to rebellion; at the same time, this heaping up of terms so nearly synonymous is more liturgic than literary; these words may have been used in the synagogue service in Babylon.

Dan 9:6

Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy Name to our kings, our princes, and oar fathers, and to all the people of the land. The Septuagint, while agreeing in the main with the Massoretic, translates “to all the people of the land” as “to every nation on the earth.” Theodotion is more accurate, but the Peshitta maintains the ambiguity. Daniel continues his confession of sin. Not only will they not keep God’s commands, but when God sent prophets, men of their brethren, to speak to them with human voice, they would not hearken. The designation of the ordinary inhabitants, the common people, as (am haaretz) is a usage that became more pronounced in later days, when all not educated as rabbin were called am haaretz. The resemblance is striking between this passage and Neh 9:30-32. It is, perhaps, impossible to settle on merely critical grounds which is the more primitive form. There is much in both passages that would suggest a third form, the independent source of both. Not unlikely the source was some liturgic prayer. As the shorter, the passage before us may be nearer this original source.

Dan 9:7, Dan 9:8

O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them. because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee. O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. The versions are all very close to the Massoretic text. The most important variation is Theodotion’s repetition of the first clause of Dan 9:7 at the beginning of Dan 9:8. Neither of the English versions brings out the contrast in the Hebrew of the second clause of Dan 9:7; it is “man,” not “men,” of Judah. This contrast is observed by Theodotion and Jerome, but not by the LXX. or the Peshitta. These two verses have a strong resemblance to Bar. 1:15, 16, “And ye shall say, To our God belongeth righteousness, but unto us the confusion of faces, as it is come to pass this day to man of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to our kings, and to our princes, and to our priests, and to our prophets, and to our fathers.” This confession is introduced into the text of Baruch as a quotation. The captives on the river Lud send money to Jerusalem for offerings and sacrifices, and with the money send certain advices. As the circumstances in which the Baruch version purports to be written do not so naturally suit the words used, we can, we think, have no difficulty in recognizing that it is not the primitive recension. The words have the look of a liturgic prayer. The relationship between the present passage and Jeremiah is close; “confusion of face” occurs in Jer 7:19 as well as Ezr 9:7. The most marked case is the collocation, “man of Judah, and inbabitants of Jerusalem.” This phrase is frequent in Jeremiah; e.g Jer 4:4; Jer 11:2; Jer 17:25. There is also a resemblance to Ezekiel in the phrase, “their trespass that they have trespassed against thee;” e.g. Eze 15:8; Eze 20:27. The language thus is in strict dramatic suitability to one who has just been studying the prophets of the Captivity. To our kings, to our princes. This could not be used naturally after the date of Daniel. To him who remembered kings and princes in Judah and Jerusalem, this language is natural. In the age of Epiphanes it would be absurd and meaningless. The phrase is used in the liturgic prayer in Nehemiah, because there is a narrative of the history of the people. When we compare the Psalter of Solomon, we find the only King of Israel is God: yet Alexander Jannseus, who was not long dead when that Psalter was written, had assumed the crown; and his sons had competed for the possession of it.

Dan 9:9, Dan 9:10

To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. The Septuagint renders the last clause, “The Law which thou gavest before Moses, and us by thy servants the prophets.” There is a change here which has the appearance of marking an interpolation. The prayer ceases, and an explanatory narrative begins. In content it resembles the parallel passage in Bar. 1; but is much briefer, and therefore more likely to be the older. “Forgivenesses” occurs only here and Neh 9:17 in a prayer that otherwise seems borrowed from that before us.

Dan 9:11

Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy Law. even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. The versions do not present any points worthy of special consideration. The prayer is resumed during the greater part of this verse. The reference here is to Le 26:14 and Deu 28:15, the probability being more in favour of the latter, from the reference to the “oath.” The last clause is a lapse again into the narrative style. In the parallel passage in Baruch it is narrative throughout. This clause may easily have been a gloss added by a scribe and inserted in the text by a copyist. There may, however, simply be an error in the prenominal suffix.

Dan 9:12

And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us. and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. The LXX. differs somewhat, “And he hath confirmed against us ( ) his words (), such as he spake against us, and against our judges, such great evils as thou didst adjudge us ( ), to bring upon us.” The rest is farily in accordance with the Massoretic. It is clear that in the text before the LXX. translator the word was shephattanoo instead of shephatoonoo, that is to say, (tau) instead of (vav). These letters in earlier scripts were liable to be confounded. The meaning assigned to shaphat in this reading is unusual; but this is rather in favour of it being the true reading; and the return to the second person, while awkward, also has weight. Theodotion and the Peshitta do not call for remark. The use of the word “judges” for rulers generally ought to be noted. If we take the Massoretic reading, there may be a reminiscence of 2Ki 23:22. Among the Carthaginians the principal magistrates bore the title suffetes, equivalent to shopheteen. Under the whole heaven hath not been done as bath been done upon Jerusalem. Such language is to be regarded in any case as the exaggeration of grief; but it would have something like a justification twice in the history of Jerusalem, and only twiceafter the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and after its capture by Titus. No one has maintained that the origin of Daniel is so late as the latter event; hence we are thrown back upon the former. With the fact before him that temples had been plundered everywhere, and desecrated, and cities sacked, the writer could not have regarded the case of Jerusalem, and its temple, in the days of Epiphanes, as unique under all heaven. After the capture of Jerusalem by. Nebuchadnezzar, the temple was left in rums and the city deserted. Such measure, so far as we know, was not meted out by Nebuchadnezzar to any other city. Only rarely had even the Ninevite monarchs taken such terrible vengeance on rebellious subjects.

Dan 9:13

As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth. The LXX. renders “laws,” , “covenant,” which is applied to the “Law” (Heb 9:20, quoting from Exo 24:8; Deu 29:1). Theodotion agrees in the main with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta differs only in joining the first clause of the next verse to this. Ewald makes the prenominal suffix at the end of the verse third person, not second. The very awkwardness of the construction is an evidence in favour of the received reading, “As it is written in the Law of Moses.” The passages referred to are those denoted previously (Lev 26:1-46; Deu 28:1-68). All this evil is come upon usthe curses referred to there. Yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God; literally, entreat the face. The face being the sign of favour, “entreated not the favour of the Lord” would be really what is meant; therefore not quite as Ewald renders, “appeased not Jahve.” Understand thy truth. Hitzig thinks here the reference is to God’s faithfulness, either in promises or in threats. Keil objects to this, contending that baamitheka with the preposition cannot mean “faithfulness,” but” truth.” This is a mistake; the preposition might alter the significance of the verb it follows, but not that of the noun it governs. The truth is that the word here is extended to its fullest meaning, “God’s supreme reality.” God’s being God implies necessarily that every word he utters of promise or threatening is true; veracity and faithfulness are equally involved in Jehovah being God. At the same time, from the connection it is the evilthe judgmentshe had threatened that bulk most largely in the prophet’s mind.

Dan 9:14

Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the Lord our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice. The Greek versions agree with this, save that the LXX. has “Lord God” in the first case as well as the second. The Peshitta, when one remembers the different division of the verses, is also identical. There is an obvious resemblance here to Jer 44:27, “Behold, I am watching over you for evil, and not for good.” The verb shaqad is somewhat rare, occurring only twelve times in Scripture, and five of these times in Jeremiah. It is not always an evil watching; in Jer 31:28 the two meanings are contrasted. Then follows an acknowledgment of the righteousness of God in so dealing with them Bar. 2:9 is really a version of this verse; the original Hebrew would be almost identical. There are few indications which, did this verse stand alone, would enable one to decide which is the more primitive.

Dan 9:15

And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly. The versions are in agreement with the Masoretic text. This verse also has many resemblances to Jer 32:20, Jer 32:21. Hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand In Jeremiah we have, “Hast brought forth thy people Israel with signs and with wonders and with a strong hand.” In Jeremiah it is fuller, in Daniel we have only a condensed reference. Hast gotten thee renown, as at this day. This is an exact quotation from Jeremiah. The exactness is obscured in our Authorized Version, in which Jer 32:20 is give)), “Hast made thee a name, as at this day:” the words rendered, “made thee a name,” in Jeremiah, are precisely the same as these rendered above,” gotten thee renown.” The last clause is very much a repetition of the opening of verse 5, “we have sinned,” missed the mark; “we have done wickedly,” violently trangressed.

Dan 9:16

O lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, lilly holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us. The Septuagint rendering here is in close agreement with the Massoretic. The only point to be noted in regard to Theodotion is that he gives the late, and in this case inapplicable, meaning to “righteousness” of , “almsgiving.” The Peshitta, imagining a certain want of completeness in the last clause, inserted after “Jerusalem” “is scattered into all lands.” The appeal is made to God’s righteousness, because now the seventy years were nearing their end, and God’s righteousness was involved in the time not being exceeded. “‘Righteousness’ here signifies the fair dealing (wohlverhalten) of God to his people in reference to the fulfilment of hie promises” (Behrmann). “Righteousness” is really righteousnesses, in the plural, the reference being to the many proofs God has given in the past of his benevolence (Keil). “Thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain,” forms a further argument: “The mountain of thy holiness” (Psa 2:6). A reproach to all that are about us. There is a striking resemblance here to Jeremiah: repeatedly in his prophecies are the Jews threatened that they will become a reproach (herpa). Especially is there a resemblance here to Jer 29:18, the letter of Jeremiah, to which reference is made in the beginning of the chapter. This whole prayer is saturated with phrases borrowed from Jeremiah. The apocryphal Book of Baruch, which has expanded on tiffs prayer, has also drawn from Jeremiah.

Dan 9:17

Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake. The Septuagint differs here, “Now give ear, O Lord, to the prayer of thy servant, and to my supplications; for thy servant’s sake lift up thy countenance upon thy holy mountain which is desolate, O Lord.” The omission of the vav in tahenoonayiv would occasion the LXX. rendering, “my supplications.” They had read before, . Certainly the Septuagint rendering gives better sense than the violent change to the third person from the second. Keil would escape the difficulty by translating, “because thou art the Lord”a translation that is independent of Hebrew grammar. The conjunction would not naturally be lemaan (), but possibly eqeb asher ( ). Further, the covenant name would certainly have been used in such a connection, and it would necessarily have been followed by “thou.” As it stands, it really asserts that the desolations are on account of the Lordan assertion which would not be germane to the tenor of the prayer. The reading of the LXX. is thus better here. Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic text, but instead of “O our God,” reads, “O Lord our God,” and avoids the change of person in the last clause by reading as a vocative, and inserting . The Peshitta has, “our supplication,” and avoids the awkward change of person by reading, “for thy Name’s sake.” Jerome gives a fairly accurate rendering of the Massoretic. only in the last clause he omits “Lord” and renders temet ipsum. The influence of the Psalter is to be seen in this verse. The first clause is a slightly altered and condensed version of Psa 143:1. The verb that ought to open the second member is omitted. The word tahooneem is not a very common one. Cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary has a close resemblance to Psa 80:3, Psa 80:7, Psa 80:19. As they.had no temple sacrifices in Babylon, the captive Jews would have only the psalms of the sanctuary to keep the sense of worship alive in their hearts.

Dan 9:18, Dan 9:19

O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy Name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord. hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God; for thy city and thy people are called by thy Name. The version of the Seventy differs but little from the Massoretic; they read “hear me” instead of simply “hear.” The translator also connects the “desolation “with the city, against grammar. The LXX. adds, “Be propitious to us ( ).“ The repetition of the vocative in the nineteenth verse is omitted, but “Zion” and “Israel” are inserted after “city” and “people” respectively. Theodotion is in yet closer agreement with the received text. The Peshitta is very close, but adds “ruin” to “desolation.” The Vulgate affords no cause of remark. Our desolations. The word used here occurs in Lamentations. In the prophecies of Jeremiah a cognate word is used, differing from that before us only in vocalization (comp. Jer 25:12, where it is applied to Babylon after the seventy years of Babylonian rule are ended). Which is called by thy Name. This phrase is used repeatedly in Jer 7:1-34. of the temple. Present our supplications. The words used suggest the posture in presenting a petitionfalling down before the person to whom it is addressed. It is one frequently used in Jeremiah, sometimes of persons (Jer 38:26), of God (Jer 42:9). Not on account of our righteousnesses. There is a marked advance in spiritual insight exhibited by this. The old position was reward according to righteousness, and mercy because of it. The Jews before the Captivity had very much the heathen idea of paying God by sacrifice for benefits received or asked; but the long cessation of sacrifice raised them above this. But for thy great mercies. This plea to God because in the past he has multiplied his mercies, is in the same elevated plane. We find a similar line in Neh 9:1-38; only as an occasion of thanksgiving. It is remarked by Professor Fuller that the repetition of the word Adonai, and the short sentences, give a feeling of intensity to the prayer suitable to the circumstances. The words used are all echoes of Jeremiah; e.g. “forgive,” “hearken,” are used in connections that would suit Daniel’s study of Jeremiah. It is impossible not to observe to how great an extent this prayer is coloured by Jeremiah.

Excursus on Baruch and Daniel.

Professor Ewald, in his ‘History of Israel’, and afterwards in his ‘Prophets of Israel,’ emphasizes the resemblance between the opening chapters of the apocryphal Book of Baruch and the ninth chapter of Daniel. After, in the first place, arbitrarily assigning Baruch to the Persian period, he assumes a tendency to rebel against the Persiansa thing of which we have no evidence. Certainly we have no proof against this, because we have no history of the period at all. He assumes that there was constant communication between the Jewish community in Jerusalem and that in Babylon during this period, which, though possible, is not certain. The further assumption, however, that the Babylonian Jewish community would take such a cumbrous device as the apocryphal Book of Baruch to convey their advice to the Jews of Jerusalem, to avoid rebellion, is a strange one for a man of Ewald’s acuteness. By the introductory hypothesis in the Book of Baruch, the Jewish community of Babylon send a letter by Baruch to the remnant of the Jews in Jerusalem. If that were so, then it is in Jerusalem, not in Babylon, that this letter, or a copy of it, might be supposed to turn up. Therefore the falsarius is to be looked for among the Jews of Jerusalem, not among those of Babylon. In Jerusalem would, of necessity, the farce of finding this epistle be enacted. Altogether, there seems no support for the date or origin assigned by Ewald to this book. Of course, if we could have assumed the conclusion of Ewald in regard to the date of Baruch to be correct, it would have been of advantage in our further argument.

Ewald further assumes that the opening portion of Baruch has been the original from which the prayer in the ninth chapter of Daniel has been imitated. The resemblance cannot be denied, the question to be decided isWhich is the original and which the imitation? It is a general rule, and one of almost universal application, that the shorter form of a poetical compositionand the prayer in Daniel and in Baruch has that characteris the more original. Unquestionably, if we apply this test, the prayer in the Book of Baruch is later than the parallel prayer in Dan 9:1-27. In Baruch the prayer occupies at least sixty verses, in Daniel only sixteen. We would not press the mere fact of brevity, did this stand alone as evidence for the priority of Daniel, as it is possible, but we think little more than barely possible, that the version in Daniel might be a summary of that in Baruch, though summaries are much rarer in poetic literature than expansions. The nature of the differences seem more naturally to be due to expansion than to summarizing.

Thus if we compare two closely parallel passages (Bar. 2:9-12 and Dan 9:14, Dan 9:15), we find the differences are all due to expansions in Baruch on changes that might appear to make the succession of thought easier. Of the latter, an example is” works which he has commanded us,” compared with” works which he doeth.” The former makes the transition to the thought of disobedience easier. It is possible this change may have been due to the translator misreading the Hebrew before him. The expansions are more obviously additions to the textthey have the invariable character of such things, additions to the words of a passage without being any real addition to the sense. Thus the last clause of Dan 9:14, “For we obeyed not his voice,” is expanded into “Yet we have not hearkened unto his voice to walk in the commandments of the Lord, which he hath set before us.” After the first eight words, which may be regarded as exactly equivalent to the six in Daniel, the rest is mere expansion. Again, the last obtuse of Dan 9:15, “we have sinned, we have done wickedly,” is expanded into “O Lord our God, we have sinned, we have done ungodly, we have dealt unrighteously in all thine ordinances.” Any one can see that here the differences are mere expansion, without any addition to the thought. We might carry our investigation further, and would only make our point clearer; but this would be mere loss of time. This expansion and paraphrasing prove the dependence of Baruch upon Daniel, and therefore the priority of the latter.

More important is the utter failure of the writer of Baruch to comprehend the condition of matters at the time he supposes himself writing. In Bar. 1:2 we are told that the Chaldeans “had taken Jerusalem, and burned it with fire.” Jerusalem thereafter ceased to be inhabited, for Gedaliah stayed in Mizpah. Yet (Bar. 1:10) the Babylonian Jews say they have sent money “to buy you burnt offerings, and sin offerings,” which it would be impossible to present before God as the temple was a mass of ruins. Jer 41:5 cannot be quoted against this, because the Shechemites and Samaritians there mentioned are carrying an unbloody sacrifice, which might be offered to the Lord at the ruins; but there is no word of burnt offerings or sin offerings. And in harmony with this there is no stress laid in the prayer in Baruch, as there is in the prayer in Daniel, on the absoluteness of the desolation of Zion. On the supposition in the Book of Baruch, Jerusalem had still inhabitants, and there was still a high priest, a state of matters utterly at variance with that implied in the Book of Ezra. No such anachronism can be detected in Daniel; his whole prayer speaks consistently of the desolation of Jerusalem. We do but mention the fact that the high priest “Joachim, sen of Cheleias, sen of Salem” (Bar. 1:7) has no existence in the list of the priests we find in Chronicles and Nehemiah. In 1Ch 6:15 we are told that Jehozadak “went into captivity,” and we know that Joshua was his son. We shall lay no stress on the otherwise unheard-of return to the land of Judah of the vessels “which Sedecias, the son of Joaias, king of Judah had made” (Bar. 1:8), nor on the date in the first verse, “the fifth year in the seventh day of the mouth;” they are in perfect harmony with the general non-historical tone of the whole book. The Book of Daniel has nothing like them.

Another historical blunder must be notedone that proves the dependence of Baruch on Daniel, and disproves the opposite view. The Babylonian Jews declare their intention (Bar. 1:12) to live “under the shadow of Nebuchodonosor King of Babylon, and under the shadow of Balthasar his son.” This makes Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and his associate on the throne, in contradiction of history as we know it now. We know now that Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Nabunahid. He may have been the grandson of the great conqueror, but not his actual son. The statements in Daniel, while liable to be interpreted in the sense in which the author of Baruch has taken them, do not necessitate this sense, as we have shown above. In Daniel Belshazzar is never described as the son of Nebuchadnezzar in the same way as Darius is called the son of Ahasuerus. It is true Nebuchadnezzar is called his father, and he himself, according to the Massoretic text, speaks of him as his father; but this means no more, in the court language of Assyria, than that he was his predecessor and was famous. As there is no note of chronological succession in Daniel, Belshazzar’s occupation of the throne as representative of his father Nabunahid might be any number of years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, without contradicting anything in it. A writer acquainted with Daniel, and living long after the events, would naturally drop into the blunder of the writer of Baruch, and make Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine the writer of Danielif he were a novelisthaving Baruch in his hand, and not introducing Belshazzar alongside of Nebuchadnezzar. The artistic possibilities of the situation would have been too great to be resisted. We then feel ourselves necessitated to place Baruch long posterior to Daniel.
It is difficult to settle the date of Baruch. The latter two chapters, which are certainly by a hand other than the first three, and probably later, have signs in them that make them late. Bar. 5. is an imitation of the Psalter of Solomon 11. The utter inability to comprehend the cessation of burnt offering and sin offering, implied in Bar. 1:10, shows that it was written before the destruction of the temple under Vespasian. It is scarcely possible that it could have been written after the desolation of the temple by Epiphanes. This definitely overthrows the theory of Kneueker, that Baruch was written in Rome after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus. One who had seen the desolation of Jerusalem under the Romans would not have been under the hallucination of the writer of Baruch, or imagined that burnt sacrifices could have been offered by a high priest in Jerusalem after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Not unlikely the first three chapters were composed in the reign of the Lagid princes, and had for their object to reconcile the Jews to subjection to the foreign yoke. Israel certainly was still scattered among the countries. The huge Jewish communities in Egypt and Babylon, not to speak of the smaller communities scattered over every city round the basin of the Mediterranean, amply proved that. They were no longer an independent nation, they were always subject to some power, and that was a cause of humiliation. If we are right in our idea of the date of the Book of Baruch, and of the relation between it and the Book of Daniel, we have proved that Daniel must have existed long prior to the Maccabean struggle.

Dan 9:20, Dan 9:21

And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God; yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. All the versions are practically in agreement with the Massoretic text, save that none of them gives the hophal meaning, “caused to fly swiftly;” the nearest approach being in the Septuagint, in which we have . All, however, derive the word from , “to fly;” another etymology is possible from . As to the meaning of this word, there is a difference of opinion, Gesenius holding that it means “wearied out”a meaning unsuited to the subject or to the context, though in accordance with the use of the word elsewhere. Meinbold would connect this word with the preceding clause, and refer it to Daniel, “when I was faint.” The main difficulty is the succeeding word. Furst suggests that it means “shining in splendour”a meaning perfectly suited to the circumstances, but for which there seems little justification in etymology from cognate tongues. Furst suggests a transposal from . Winer gives it, “celeriter ivit, cucurrit.” This view is taken by Hitzig, yon Lengerke, and Havernick. Verse 20 is largely an expansion of the first clause of verse 21. Whiles I was speaking, and praying. (comp. Gen 24:15, “And it came to pass, before he had done speaking”). This shows the rapidity of the Divine answer to prayer; even before we ask, “our Father knows what things we have need of.“ The man Gabriel. The name Gabriel, as mentioned above, means “Hero of God;” and tile word here translated “man” is the ordinary word for “man,” ‘ish. It may be remarked that in Scripture angels are always “men;” never, as in modern art and poetry, “women.” Whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning. This really means “whom I had seen previously in vision,” the reference being to Dan 8:16. Being caused to fly swiftly. As above mentioned, there is considerable difficulty in deciding which meaning is to be taken as the correct. Kliefoth’s and Meinhold’s view would be the simplest, if there were any certainty that means “faintness.” Touched me about the time of the evening oblation. Daniel is so absorbed in his devotions that not till Gabriel touched him did he recognize the presence of an an gel-visitant. The time of the evening offering does not imply that those offerings were made in Babylon, but simply that, through the half-century that had intervened since the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar the sacred hour had been kept in remembrance, not impossibly as being one consecrated to prayer. Daniel had been using this season to make known his request and petition to God. “Oblation,” minhah, the bloodless meat offering (Le Dan 2:1, Dan 2:4, Dan 2:14).

Dan 9:22

And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. The LXX. and Peshitta render the first clause, “And he approached and talked with me.” It is difficult to understand how that reading could have arisen from the Massoretic text, or how, on the other hand, the Massoretic text could have arisen from that behind the Septuagint. The rendering of the Septuagint in the last clause is better than that in our Authorized Version, and is in accordance with our Revised, “to make thee skilful of understanding.” Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic. Although Daniel was highly endowed, and although he had before him the inspired words of Jeremiah, he had need of yet higher endowments to understand the secrets of the Divine plan. He knew that if he reckoned seventy years from the time when he himself had been carried captive, then the period was drawing to a close: but the sins of the people were still there. It might be that God would restrain the fulfilment of his promise; the more so that, if the prophecy of Jeremiah were reckoned from the fall of Jerusalem, twenty years would yet have to run. Daniel is concerned about the sins of his people, knowing that, unless they were removed, renewed punishment would befall them.

Dan 9:23

At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. The version of the LXX. differs somewhat from this, “In the beginning of thy prayer a commandment came from the Lord, and I came to show thee, because thou art merciful, and do thou understand () the command.” The other versions do not present much worthy of remark. At the beginning of thy supplications. This affords a reason why it was while Daniel “was yet speaking,” that Gabriel came to him; the moment the desire was strong enough to shape itself in words, the answer was on the way. The commandment came forth. The word translated “commandment” is the very common Hebrew word, (dabar), “a word,” “a thing,” “a matter,” in which sense it occurs in the penultimate clause of this verse. And I am come to show thee. The angel Gabriel is the messenger sent forth to interpret to Daniel the ways of God with his people. The angel Gabriel is sent to give Daniel an explanatory oracle or word that he may be comforted concerning his people. The reason of this is, “for thou art greatly beloved.” This phrase has caused considerable difference of opinion. The LXX. renders, ; Theodotion, ; the Peshitta, regee; Jerome, vir desideriorum; Hitzig’s rendering is “darling” (liebling); Ewald, “dearly beloved one.” Hemoodoth means “desires,” “loves;” hence may either be understood subjectively or objectively; in this case, most probably the latter, “a man, the object of love.” Therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. The reader will have observed that the last clause is omitted from the LXX. There is a false succession here. Daniel is first commanded “to understand the matter,” and then “to consider the vision.” Another rendering of the Massoretic avoids this by neglecting the ethnach, and connecting with the preceding clause, gives, “thou art greatly beloved and understanding in the matter.”

Dan 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. The LXX. here differs from the above, “Seventy weeks are determined () upon thy people and the city Zion, to make an end of sin, to make unrighteousnesses rare (), and to wipe out the unrighteous-nesses, and to understand the vision, and to give (appoint) () 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: and are different renderings of (lehathaym hattaoth), or as it is in the Q‘ri, leahthaym hattath ( ). Neither of these seems to be the original of the Greek. Schleusner suggests to read . Against this is the fact that Paulus Tellensis renders lemazor, “to bring to nothing” (Jer 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 (hathath) instead of hatham; the other translator must have read mahah (). The phrase, , “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 (lehoothan) instead of , since he renders . This is an impossible change, but the mistaking of for is perfectly easy to imagine, if had been written in place of , and it transferred to the place in the Massoretic text occupied by , then we can easily understand . In the last clause the LXX. translator must have read instead of , 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 () 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 Gen 29:27; there is no case of feminine singular. Mr. Galloway would read , 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 ; but it is written , 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 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 , “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 (Dan 10:2), was occasionally week of years, as Gen 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 sinit 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 so immediately after is against it. Something may be said for , which occurs in a similar connection with that this does in Lam 4:22. This is the reading of one of the translators in the LXX; 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 (Isa 27:9). The phrase occurs in Psa 119:142, and is applied to the righteousness of God. These two, “atonement for sin” and “the everlasting righteousness,” are found in Christhis 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 themin 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 prophetto 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 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, (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 ” , with the article. He appeals to 1Ch 23:13 as a case where, without the article, the phrase applies to an individual, (vayibbadayl Aheron 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 (Exo 30:26; Exo 40:9), to the altar (Exo 40:10), the laver (Exo 40:11), is never applied to the holy of holies. It is applied most frequently to persons; as to Aaron (Exo 40:13), to Saul (1Sa 10:1), to David (1Sa 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.

Dan 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 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 readingtishmah 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 (yatza), “to go forth,” but from (matza), “to find”a reading that is opposed by the fact that many manuscripts write the word plerum, . 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 marginal reading adds, “and for the understanding the weeks.” In the next clause, (oovaneetha) instead of (libenoth), and instead of (adh) (eer), must have been read, and “Messiah the Prince” has been par, phrased into . 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 Dan 9:23 we have the same combination, (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 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 , the sign of the infinitive, as being equivalent to ut, and that hence this is a case of indirect speecha 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 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 upthat was all; the temple, even, was not built. The terms of the decree of Cyrus, as we have it in Ezr 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 historythat 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 erectwe 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 yearhis 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 (Jer 25:1) dates his first prophecy “the fourth year of Jehoiakim,” and his letter (Jer 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. 105a 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. 647a 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 resulta 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 applies to kings. Priests are sometimes called “rulers,” (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 (1Ch 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” (Luk 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 (Zec 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 (Isa 10:22) “a determination.” In Job 41:22 (30) it is translated “a threshing-wain,” whereas in Pro 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 rebuiltstreet and palisadebut 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.

Dan 9:26

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 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 (shibeeem), “seventy,” is confused with (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 , “The time until the overthrow of Babylon.” They must have read instead of . It is difficult to understand how “the people of the prince that shall come” 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 , 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,’ ), 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 is difficult to explain, except as an explanatory addition from Isa 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 names, as Amo 7:12, “the sanctuary of king,” instead of “the king;” so 1Ki 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 namesJesus 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 historythe 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 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 (v’ayin lo), but (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 Dan 11:45, , “And there was no helper to him.” It is no sufficient answer to say, as does Professor Bevan, that Dan 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 Isa 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 (1Ch 29:22) and Hezekiah (2Ki 20:5). The former was anointed, , 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 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 yillahaym 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.

Dan 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. 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’) ), 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 clearthe clause, “the covenant shall be strong () 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 Psa 12:5). The alternative reading, “when he shall confirm ( ) the covenant during many weeks,” implies the infinitive with the preposition , and “weeks” in the plural, and one omittedthe latter is omitted, indeed, by both. “And in the end of the week”reading (qaytz) instead of (hatzee)“sacrifice and offering shall be taken away, and upon the temple shall be the abomination of desolation”reading (qodesh), “holy,” instead of (kenaph), “wing,” “outspreading,” or it may be tendered “wing of temple””until the end, and an end be given to desolation”reading (toottan), “is given,” or “appointed,” instead of (tittak), “poured out.” Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, “And one week shall confirm () a covenant to many, and in the middle () of the week my sacrifice and offering shall be taken away”reading (zebehee) instead of (zebah), and possibly minhath, instead of minhah“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 (qodesh) instead of (kenaph), and (toottan) instead of (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 : (yishbath)“and in the temple shall be the abomination of desolation”therefore reading with the Greek versions and the Vetus, instead of “and even to the consummation and end shall the desolation continue”reading, therefore, instead of , and omitting the preposition (al), “upon”the latter is not a probable reading. From this examination of the versions one thing is clearwe 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 Mat 24:15, but excluding the doublet mixed up in the text of the Vatican and Alexandrian Codices, have read . The Peshitta and the author of the reading intruded into the Alexandrian Codex have read . (kenaph). However, these two are not agreed as to the interpretation. The Peshitta renders “wings,” the Vatican and Alexandrian scribes render , the word used (Mat 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 instead of 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 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 , “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, , but . We must thus hold 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; Isa 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 , (bereeth), “covenant.“ Thus we ought naturally to render eithertaking the hiphil in its causative sense”a covenant,” or “the covenant shall confirm;” i.e. secure “one week to many,” orand this is better, as supported by Psa 12:5 (4), in the sense given to the hiphil of (gabar)“the covenant shall prevail for many during one week.” This agrees with the first version we find in the Septuagint, The covenantGod’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 viewe.g. Bevando 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 Jer 31:31. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Jer 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 Jer 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 correctthat the prophecy published in the days of Cyrus applied to the coming Romansthen 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 , “holy place,” instead of , “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 . (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 Isa 24:16; from this is derived the rendering in the Revised. In the present passage, Gesenius, Furst, and Wirier regard it as equivalent to ; 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 Ezr 9:1, Ezr 9:4, and there means “astonished,” “stupefied.” It is imitated in Dan 11:31, but the preceding word, (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 Dan 12:11 we have another variation, . 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 (Dan 11:31) we have the singular used. An accidental reduplication of the , which begins , would explain the present reading. Professor Bevan suggests that we read , the hophal participle plural from , “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 1Ki 11:1, Chemosh, the abomination of Moab; Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon, 2Ki 23:13; As–toreth, the abomination of the Zidonians. More important is Jer 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 (tittak),” poured out,” must be abandoned, as not present in any of the versions. Most of them have read . 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 (tayshayb), “to dwell,” “to remain,” for he renders persecerabit; and must not have had the preposition , (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 nationit 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 (Isa 10:23; Isa 28:23), where kalah and neheretzeth occur in connection. Our interpretation implies that we take as a conjunction, and not as a preposition. Professor Bevan would make it absolute, that when introduces a verbal clause, the verb takes the precedence of the subject, and would therefore point , not ; but in opposition to this dictum is 1Sa 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.

HOMILETICS

Dan 9:3-8

Confession of sin.

I. THE DUTY OF CONFESSION. This implies, first, a recognition of guilt in our own consciousness; and second, an admission of it in the presence of God.

1. If we have sinned, it is wrong to ignore the fact or to forget it, till we have repented and have been forgiven. To do so will foster insincerity and self-deception, and will harden the heart in sin. We must first admit our guilt to ourselves.

2. If we have sinned, we are required to declare our guilt before God. The guilt must not be hidden in the secret darkness of our own consciousness. It must be confessed. Though we may confess our sins one to another, the supreme duty is to confess them to God, because

(1) we have sinned against him;

(2) he is our Judge;

(3) he is our Father;

(4) he only can deliver us from the consequences and power of sin.

II. THE TESTS OF SINCERE CONFESSION. NO duty is more often obeyed only in outward form, and yet there is no duty in which unreality and superficiality are more fatal.

1. One test of sincerity is the presence of real grief (Dan 9:3). There may be a bald admission of guilt without any feeling of compunction. This is of no value.

2. Another test is the feeling of shame: “confusion of faces.” There is a confession which glories in wickedness. True confession is self-humiliating (Gen 3:7-10).

III. THE GROUNDS OF CONFESSION.

1. A consideration of our conduct in the light of the nature and character of God.

(1) We shall realize our guilt by comparison with God’s righteousness, which is the standard of perfection. It is the daylight of God’s presence which reveals the defects of our work.

(2) We shall be prompted to confess our sin to God when we see his greatness, which cannot endure sin; his faithfulness, which is true to his side of the covenant, though we are false to ours (Dan 9:4); and his mercy, which pardons the penitent (Dan 9:9).

2. A consideration of our conduct in the light of our obligations.

(1) We are subjects of the great King; therefore our sin is treason: “we have rebelled.”

(2) We live under spiritual government, and are not left to our own inclination to shape our conduct; therefore our wickedness is the breach of law: we have “departed from God’s precepts and judgments.”

(3) We have been enlightened by Divine revelation. We cannot plead ignorance. Even the heathen have some light of conscience and nature (Rom 1:18-20). We have the clearer light of prophecy, and our guilt is that “We have not hearkened to God’s servants the prophets”

IV. THE PERSONAL APPLICATION OF THE DUTY OF CONFESSION.

1. It is universal. Daniel includes men of all classes and in all situations. We cannot shake off our guilt by leaving the scenes of our sins. We carry this burden with us (verse 7). The rich and great are not exempt (verse 8).

2. It is personal. The prophet writes in the first person”we.” Confession must be individual.

(1) We should acknowledge and confess our special sins, our besetting sins, the sins which are particularly our own characteristic defects, the different kinds of sin, the separate acts of sin. Confession of general guilt is often vague, and does not associate itself closely with our experience.

(2) We should recognize the sinful condition of the heart of which these special sins are symptoms, and confess our sin as well as our sins (Psa 51:5).

V. THE ENDS OF CONFESSION.

1. It is right on its own account, as an evidence of sincerity (1Jn 1:8).

2. It is a necessary condition of forgiveness (1Jn 1:9).

3. It is the first step towards a better life. As we admit the evil of the past we are more able to do better for the future (Psa 51:7-10).

Dan 9:16-19

Prayer for pardon.

In its tone and character, the ends it seeks and the pleas it urges, this prayer of Daniel’s may be regarded as a model prayer for the forgiveness of sins.

I. ITS CHARACTER. The very atmosphere of this prayer is purifying and inspiring. It is marked by several important characteristics.

1. Contrition. It follows a confession of sin (verses 5-8), and frankly admits that the present calamities are the merited consequences of sin (verse 16). Forgiveness is only possible after repentance (Act 3:19) and confession (1Jn 1:9).

2. Earnestness. This is the most striking feature of the prayer Its short passionate phrases, its repetitions, its direct practical aims, are proofs of reality and intensity of desire. We may expect that God will attend to our prayers in proportion to our earnestness in offering them. Reverent importunity is expected by God, and attains its end, as with Abraham (Gen 18:23-33), Jacob (Gen 32:26), Moses (Exo 32:7-14), and in our Lord’s parable of the importunate widow (Luk 18:1-7).

3. Faith. In his distress the prophet seeks his God, though it is against his God that the sin has been committed. Faith confesses that there is no help but in God. Faith persists in pleading with God, and relies on his mercy.

II. ITS OBJECT. The object of this prayer is the pardon of sin. All our greatest evil comes from sin, and can only be removed when our sin is forgiven. Forgiveness brings in its train all the best blessings.

1. The turning away of God‘s anger. (Verse 16.) The worst effect of our sin is seen in the changed relations between our souls and God. God is angry with us. The essence of forgiveness is not the remission of penalties, but the restoration of friendly relations between God and man. It is personal reconciliation rather than legal acquittal.

2. The awakening of God‘s sympathy. The prophet prays, “Incline thine ear and hear; open thine eyes.” Forgiveness is not merely the negative cessation of God’s anger. It is the positive restoration of his sympathy.

3. The practical help of God. “Cause thy face to shine;” “hearken and do;” “defer not,” are earnest practical petitions. After the spiritual reconciliation, we may naturally ask for help in the external calamities which our sins have brought upon us. Forgiveness is the preface to active help.

III. ITS PLEAS. The prophet has no plea of merit. We can ask for nothing for our own righteousness. All our pleas must be found, as Daniel found his, in the character and actions of God.

1. God‘s righteousness. This is a plea,

(1) because it implies his faithfulness to his promises of pardon to the penitent (Le 26:40-44); and

(2) because righteousness is more honoured by the forgiveness which destroys sin than by the anger which only punishes it (Isa 45:21).

2. God‘s honour. Jerusalem is “God’s holy mountain;” the city is “called by his name.” God is dishonoured in the humiliation of his people, and he is glorified in their restoration (Num 14:13-16).

3. God‘s mercy. (Verse 18.) All prayer depends on the free grace of God. Prayer for pardon rests on that grace which pities misery and overlooks offencesthe grace which we call mercy. This plea is expressed by the Christian phrase, “for Christ’s sake,” because Christ is both the Revelation of God’s mercy and the Sacrifice by which it becomes attainable.

Dan 9:20-23

Prayer answered.

We have here a lifting of the veil which commonly hides from our view the processes which connect our prayers with God’s replies. The revelation thus made of the unseen world should confirm our faith in the necessity and power of prayer, and help us to understand in some way the manner in which God answers it.

I. GOD GIVES SOME BLESSINGS ONLY IN RESPONSE TO PRAYER. The blessing was given to Daniel immediately he prayed, but not till then. Probably if the prayer had been offered sooner, the response also would have been enjoyed sooner. There are many good things which we lose simply because we do not pray for them (Jas 4:2).

1. This is not contrary to the idea of the universality and unchangeable character of natural law.

(1) Because prayer itself is a factor among spiritual forces which ha,e influences upon the future; and

(2) because God must have at least no less freedom of action in arranging the forces of his universe than he has accorded to us, and so may act with special purposes as we also do, without breaking one of his laws.

2. This is not contrary to the wisdom and goodness of God. God knows what we need before we ask him (Mat 6:8). Yet there may be things which it is wise and right for God to give after we have asked for them, but which it is not right or wise for him to ,.ire before we have prayed, because our recognition of the need of them and our trust to God for them, may be important conditions for the right reception of them (Mat 7:7-11).

II. GOD ANSWERS PRAYER ACTIVELY AND PROMPTLY. Prayer is not merely a subjective act soothing and relieving the soul. Even the subjective influence of it depends on our faith in its real efficacy. We should not be comforted by prayer if we did not believe that God heard and answered it.

1. God hears prayer. Prayer is not only the breathing out of our souls. It is talking to a God who hears, attends, and sympathizes (Isa 41:17).

2. God acts in response to prayer. Gabriel is sent by God, and Daniel receives new light. We may find, especially in spiritual matters, that there is a real exertion of energy on God’s side in response to prayer. He is not a passive hearer of prayer. His answers are not the mere echoes of sympathy. They carry active aid (Psa 91:15).

3. God answers prayer promptly. Daniel prays, “Defer not.” God does not defer. The answer is sent at the very beginning of the supplication,” and Gabriel is “caused to fly swiftly.” God is too powerful to need to delay, and too merciful to be willing to delay. If we do not receive the answers to our prayers quickly, it is not because God is slow, but because the time at which the blessing is to be given is one of the conditions of its utility. Still, the decree goes forth at once, and begins to be accomplished in due time (Hab 2:3).

III. GOD‘S RESPONSE TO PRAYER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS WILL AND PROVIDENTIAL ORDER.

1. The manner in which the answer is made does not imply any breach in the order of providence. The angel is sent to communicate knowledge to Daniel. This, according to Scripture, is the normal method of spiritual help (Heb 1:14).

2. The substance of the answer is in harmony with God‘s will and the order of his providence. Daniel prays for the restoration of his people. God answers the prayer by revealing the already settled purpose of this restoration. God often answers prayer in a different way from our expectation. Sometimes he opens our eyes to blessings already given, but not recognized (Gen 21:19). Sometimes he changes our desires, and inclines our hearts to rest in his will by showing us that it is better than our will. The best prayer is that in which we seek to be reconciled to the will of God (Mat 26:39).

Dan 9:24

Redemption promised.

I. THE ASSURANCE OF REDEMPTION.

1. It comes from God. We have sinned against God; yet it is he who purifies and renews us. God sends the calamities which are the chastisement of sin; but God also removes them, and restores his penitent people to his favour (Psa 103:3, Psa 103:4).

2. It was determined long before it was accomplished. From the Fall the restoration was determined (Gen 3:15). Old Testament saints were comforted by the hope of it. All previous history prepared the way for it. Though “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (Joh 1:17), they were not created at his advent. The gospel is not a revelation of new mercy, but a new revelation of God’s eternal mercy (Psa 136:1).

3. The time of its accomplishment was fixed beforehand. Though Christ did not come till long after sin had entered the world, he came at the most suitable time. He came when the world was prepared for his advent, and when men most needed him (Gal 4:4).

II. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF REDEMPTION.

1. As regards the evil of the past.

(1) The old life of sin is completed and forsaken. The “old man is put off” (Col 3:9). “The transgression is finished.”

(2) A check is put on the indwelling power of sin to prevent it from again rising up and ruling over our souls (1Jn 3:6). An end is made to sins, and they are “sealed up” to prevent them from breaking out again. This is completely accomplished with “the spirits of just men made perfect.” it begins with each Christian when his redemption begins. Though sin still lingers in the Christian, it no longer rules.

(3) The old sins are atoned for and forgiven. They are “covered.” God will remember them no more (Isa 43:25). This is regarded as accomplished in the act of redemption only predicted to Daniel. Therefore we must understand that the forgiveness of sins depends on the accomplishment of the great work of Christ.

2. As regards the blessings of the future.

(1) “Everlasting righteousness” is brought in. The essence of redemption is not deliverance from misery, but restoration to righteousness. The first and chief aim of the work of Christ is not to secure peace in this life and happiness in the life to come, but to make us righteous (Rom 3:21, Rom 3:22). The new righteousness is different from primitive innocence, which rested on the unstable basis of ignorance (Gen 3:5). This rests on the broad and solid foundation of intelligent principles accepted with love and confirmed by the indwelling Spirit of God (Jer 31:33, Jer 31:34). Therefore it is everlasting.

(2) The sources of confidence are no longer vague hopes of a future redemption, but the clear knowledge of the accomplished fact. Judaism lived upon prophecy, Christianity lives upon history.

(3) The shame and humiliation of sin is abolished; the desolation which it produced is done away with; the world is again joyous in the love of God; worship is glad and deep and real, and all life made sacred by its influence; the “most holy place is anointed” and reconsecrated.

HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS

Dan 9:1-21

The nation’s advocate at God’s bar.

“Whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel touched me” (Dan 9:21). Our subject is the prayer of Daniel, and the following points will demand full and careful consideration.

I. THE MOMENT IN TIME. This was most critical; for:

1. The moment had been anticipated in prophecy. (Jer 25:11, Jer 25:12; Jer 29:10-14.) How Daniel reckoned the seventy years, and how others did so, must be carefully observed. The deportation to Babylon extended over twenty years; hence different men took a different starting-date whence to reckon the seventy. Daniel reckons from the first siege, the date of his own going into captivity. Zechariah from the third siege,

(1) from the beginning of it, b.c. 590 (Zec 1:12);

(2) from its close, b.c. 588 (Zec 7:1, Zec 7:5). The prophets wrote each from his own standpoint, and there are no discrepancies, though the critical school tries to create them.

2. It was immediately after the fall of Babylon. (Verse 1.)

3. The Cyrus of prophecy was on the throne of Persia. Darius was only vicegerent in Babylon. In the very next year Cyrus issued his decree (Ezr 2:1, Ezr 2:2).

4. It was offered at the exact moment of evening sacrifice. (Verse 21.)

II. THE FOUNDATION OF THE PRAYER. The Word of God, as contained in “the Scriptures.” We should read verse 2 thus: “I Daniel understood by the Scriptures the number of the years.” The expression is, indeed, most remarkable, and has been laid hold of to impugn Daniel’s authorship. This is said in substance: The expression shows that the Old Testament was, when the Book of Daniel was written, complete. It must then have been written after the close of the Old Testament canon; not then by Daniel, but by some one very much later. The author, whoever he was, has inadvertently betrayed himself. The answer would be best given by showing historically the gradual formation of the canon all the way down from Moses, and particularly that from his time even “the Scriptures” had an acknowledged existence. Enough for us here to note that Daniel’s prayer was founded on the prophecy and promise of Daniel’s God. Enough for practical purposes.

III. ITS SOLEMN AND DELIBERATE CHARACTER. Imagine vividly the crisis. The first great world-power had already gone down. How long the second and third might last, who could tell? Then would appear the fourth, during whose existence “one like a Son of man” would come “with the clouds of heaven.” The deliverer from captivity (Cyrus) had already appearedwas on the throne of power.

1. Such a prayer could not be breathed amidst life‘s business. Retirement, leisure, deliberateness, solemnity, were all essential.

2. There had been preparation for it. “Fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes,” i.e. the withdrawal of the spirit from the realm of the sensuous, the assumption of the mourner’s garb, the sign of abasement and grief, viz. casting ashes on the head.

3. Daniel’s mode of speaking implies deliberation and solemnity. “I set my face,” etc. “Unto the Lord God,” with perhaps the lattice open “toward Jerusalem.”

IV. ITS CONTENTS. In a sense we would analyze it; but not so as to dissipate the aroma of its sweetly plaintive devotional spirit.

1. The invocation. (Verse 4.) In these words we trove:

(1) Some of the glorious attributes of God referred to. And:

(a) His majesty. All great in him.

(b) Fidelity to covenant. Whether the terms be written in the ordinances of heaven, the social constitution of man, the development of providence, the book of the Law, or the gospel of his Son. But “the covenant” specially.

(c) Mercy.

(2) An answering feeling. Dread. Not the abjectness of fear, but the prostration of reverent love.

2. The confession. In it there are the following specialities: The iniquity of the nation is set forth:

(1) In its greatness. Terms that to us are almost synonymous in Daniel’s Hebrew set forth the nation’s sin as failure, perversity, disturbance, rebellion, departure from all that is holiest and best, disobedience to the one supreme voice.

(2) In its aggravations. The Law disregarded. Prophets unheeded. See the history (2Ch 36:14-16). Divine judgments in vain.

(3) In its universality. The ten tribes “afar off,” and the two “near.”

(4) In its effects. The fulfilment of oath and curse-in the desolations of temple and city, Church and nation.

3. The vindication of God. (Verses 7, 8, 11-14.)

4. Complaint. The reproach of the people and the ruin of the sanctuary were the prophet’s mighty griefs (verses 16, 17, 18). “Our desolations.”

5. The petition.

(1) The plea. It is for:

(a) The cherishing of anger. (Verse 16.)

(b) The recognition of the desolation. (Verse 18.)

(c) The favouring smile of God. (Verse 17.)

(d) Pardon. (Verse 19.)

(e) Divine action. (Verse 19.)

(f) Instant and speedy relief. (Verse 19.)

(2) Its ground. Observe:

(a) Daniel has never forgotten for a moment the covenant relation of God. Note: “The Lord my God;” “The Lord our God;”

(b) Toward the close all the argument is fetched, not from what man is, but from what God is. “According to all thy righteousness;” “For the Lord’s sake;” “The city which is called by thy name;” “For thy great mercies;” “For thine own sake;” “Thy city and thy people are called by thy name.”

V. THE ANSWER.

1. Instantaneous.

2. Most marked.

3. By angelic envoy.

In conclusion, observe:

1. The noble unselfishness of the prayer. All intercessory.

2. Its consequent prevalence. Every word was answered. Next year out came the edict of Cyrus for the restoration.R.

Dan 9:24

A section in time.

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy holy city,” etc. (Dan 9:24). The inner connection between this brilliant prophecy and Daniel’s prayer is to be carefully observed. At the end of seventy years of captivity he prayed for the averting of the Divine anger, etc. (see preceding homily, Dan 4:5 (1)), The answer passed on to the next critical event in the developments of Godto the anointing of the Redeemer. It responded to the soul of Daniel’s prayer, but weft far beyond it. Divine answers go far beyond “all that we ask or think“ (Eph 3:20, Eph 3:21). We had best here anticipate our homiletic line of march by indicating how we read the passage. Literally thus: “Hebdomads [sc. of days or years] seventy is cut off in regard to thy people and thy holy city, to close the defection, and to seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies.”

I. THE SECTION, i.e. of time, here said to be “cut off.“ But what section of time was cut offseventy hebdomads of days or of years? It might be said of days, but then we think each day stands for a year. For our part we think the year-day theory very doubtful. We say, therefore, “seventy hebdomads of years;” and for the following reasons:

1. The Law had made hebdomads of years familiar. (Le 25:1-4, 8-10.)

2. The magnitude of the events required years. Seventy weeks of days would be only one year and four monthstoo short a time for the restoration of the city, the advent of Messiah, and the overthrow of the city and nation.

3. To the consolation of Daniel. What comfort for him, pining for the restoration, if all were to be in ruin again within a year or so!

II. ITS PREDICTION. In the substance and form of this prediction of “the seventy sevens” are several specialities.

1. The length of the section is mystically given. “Seventy sevens” is itself mystical. But when we askFrom what moment reckoned, to what moment? a haze of uncertainty envelops the whole subject. The date of Daniel’s prayer is about b.c. 538. Four hundred and ninety years on leads to b.c. 48. We believe the four hundred and ninety years are not to be reckoned from the moment of Daniel’s prayer; but why this haze and mystery? Because:

(1) Prophecy must not be too explicit. Explicit enough to lead to expectation of the event; but not so explicit as either to suggest its own fulfilment or contribute to its own defeat, Prophecy must not usurp the place of history. Man’s moral relations must not be hopelessly entangled by premature and too sharply defined revelations.

(2) Mercy was to be contrasted strongly with judgment. Of desolation seventy years; of comfort and further probation, seventy times seven.

(3) The perfection of the cycle was to be suggested. By the use of sacred numbers. “Seven” has a place peculiar in Scripture, based possibly on facts yet undiscovered in the universe. It is suggestive of perfection. The following sevens form a remarkable accumulation: The prismatic colours; the notes of the octave; Shakespeare’s “seven ages;” a man’s “seven senses,” though the vulgar make them five, the scientific more; the week of creation; our week of days; the week of years; the seven sevens, and then the jubilee year; the branches of the candlestick; at Jericho, trumpets, priests, and days of perambulation;

‘purified seven times; seven times a day do I praise thee; at the bringing up the ark from the house of Obed-edom, they offered “seven bullocks and seven rams;’ in the [New Testament, seven Churches, candlesticks, angels, stars, horns, eyes, lamps, spirits of God, trumpets, vials, and seals.

2. The length of the section is very exactly given, however.

(1) Exact enough to excite a general expectation of the Messiah. That Daniel’s prophecy did so is notorious.

(2) But also with literal numerical exactness, From the arrival of Ezra to restore Jerusalem to a.d. 26, the year of the Lord’s baptism is 483. 483 is equivalent to seven sevens, and sixty-two sevens. Another half-week of years brings us to the Crucifixion; and consider another three and a half years occupied by the confirmation of the covenant.

3. The section is regarded as one whole. Hence the singular verb with plural noun: “Seventy sevens is cut off.”

4. And insulated. “Cut off.“ A distinct portion of history, like the antediluvian age, the era of Egyptian bondage, the forty years of the desert, the seventy of the Captivity.

5. In the prediction we can see God‘s fellowship with Daniel. In his prayer, Daniel recognized God’s sympathy with Jerusalem; in the answer, God recognizes Daniel’s. Daniel had said, “Thy city Jerusalem thy holy mountain thy people thy city and thy people, called by thy name.” God now says, “Upon thy people, and upon thy holy city.” Thine as well as mine.

III. ITS CLOSE The majestic events which were to signalize Dan 2:1. The termination of sin. By:

(1) The conclusion of the great rebellion. “To close the defection”the great falling away of the race from God; to close it, not actually, but potentially. The history of rebellion draws near the finish; and the history of restoration begins.

(2) The limitation of sins. “To seal up sins,” to incarcerate them, and to place on the door of the dungeon the king’s seal. The breaking the power of sin; the limitation of the number of sins; their entire oblivion,are all ideas which may well be included here.

(3) The covering of iniquity. “To cover iniquity.” Note: In the Old Testament usage “cover” is used in one sense of God, in quite another of man, in relation to sin (see the use of in the Hebrew concordance).

(a) God “covers’ sin by forgiving it.

(b) Man, by atoning for it.

Now, in this prophecy nothing is said of who “covers;” but history declares it to be Christ. But he is God-Man; and therefore “covers” in the double senseatones and forgives. He acts as man and as God.

2. The advent of righteousness. “To bring in everlasting righteousness.” Many Christians overlook this, are content with pardon, forget that the end of the gospel is righteousness in heart and life. Note, then:

(1) The fact that this great crisis was to be signalized by the advent of righteousness.

(2) The agent. Not named here; but the Christ.

(3) The mode.

(a) By Divine example.

(b) Elevated precept.

(c) Loving persuasion.

(d) Placing morals on a better foundation.

(e) Inaugurating a government of unprecedented character, viz. mediatorial.

(f) A grand act of self-sacrifice, which should awake for virtue the enthusiasm of mankind.

(g) Atonement.

(h) The coming of the Holy Ghost.

(4) Its attribute. “Everlasting.“

(a) The method of making men righteous, once introduced, should be unchangeable and perpetual.

(b) The righteousness itself should be one that no change could affect, and no physical dissolution impair or decay.

3. The close of prophecy. “To seal up vision and prophet.” Four hundred and ninety years passing before the ending of sin, and the advent of righteousness shows the greatness of these events. The sin of all people and of all time was to be effectually dealt with. This was the aspiration of prophecyprophecy fulfilled, might cease. (Explain from Oriental usage the significance of the sealing.) Christ’s words illustrate, “The things concerning me have an end.” When once vision and prophet are accomplished by the manifestation of the Sou of God, though prophecy still remains in some respects immensely important, the adoring gaze of the Church is fixed on the Life and Light of men.

4. The anointing of the Lord Jesus. “And to anoint the holy of holies.” Outline of the argument for applying this phrase to the consecration of the Messiah.

(1) “Holy of holies” is an indefinite phrase. Therefore examine context and whole field of revelation to determine its application here.

(2) The grammatical gender is uncertain. May be masculine or neuter. But even if neuter, may apply to Christ (Luk 1:35). A certain grandeur of indefiniteness about the neuter.

(3) The name is appropriate to Jesus.

(4) The preceding clauses of this prophecy lead up naturally to the Messiah.

(5) The “Anointed” must be the same in Dan 2:24, Dan 2:25. “And to anoint the Most Holy unto the Anointed, the Prince,” etc.

(6) The chronology favours, demands this conclusion. The “sevens seventy” terminated with the advent of the Lord, and the confirmation of the Divinity of his mission.

(7) Scripture use of the word “anoint,” and its application to the Redeemer. (Summarize Scripture teaching on literal anointing; its spiritual significance; and on Jesus as “the Messiah” of the Old Testament and “the Christ” of the New.) A very powerful appeal might well be made to both believer and unbeliever at the close on the following grounds: The great rebellion is broken; limitation has been put upon sin; atonement has been made; everlasting righteousness has been brought in; attention has been concentrated on the Light and Life of men; the Saviour-King has been anointed. Have we broken with the rebellion? Is limitation being put upon our sin? Have we accepted the atonement? Are we putting on the garment of righteousness? Is our gaze on the Life and Light? Is the Anointed our Saviour and King?R.

Dan 9:25

Times as evidence.

“Know therefore and understand,” etc.

I. THE STATE OF MIND DEMANDED FROM THE STUDENT OF PROPHECY,

1. A certain temper. “Know and understand.” The angel anticipates difficulties of interpretation. A skilled and spiritual mind necessary. So also industry, pains, care. The worst temper would be the proud, self-sufficient, and dogmatic. Compare words of Jesus, “Whoso readeth, let him understand;” “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

2. Spiritual insight. “The going forth of the word to restore.” Whose?

(1) God‘s. To see a truth like this demands insight of a spiritual kind. The sovereign word of the Eternal King!

(2) But given through the edict of Cyrus.

II. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PASSAGE. We might study separately the prophecy, and then the fulfilment in history. But take them togetherstudy the prophecy in the light of its historical development. But consider the kind of agreement we may expect between the prediction and the history. No greater than the circumstances admit of. Chronological exactness is only to be looked for when the event is defined and limited to some moment in time. But some events develop slowly; e.g. the restoration of a city, the confirmation of a covenant. If events are not defined, prophecy must be indefinite. We suggest the following outline for the preacher, to make all clear (for detail, see the histories, secular and sacred):

1. Before the time-section of four hundred and ninety years. Eighty years from the time of Daniel’s prayer to “the restoration,” the moment whence the four hundred and ninety are to be reckoned. Here the principal events are: Jerusalem a desolation; the first migration at the decree of Cyrus; the building of the temple only; interruption; Joshua and Zerubbabel; finished in eighteen years, b.c. 534-516. Then fifty-eight years, of which history is silent. The temple standing, but no wall; no city.

2. Commencement of the four hundred and ninety. The coming of Ezra, the restoration and rebuilding of the city. “From the going forth of the word to restore,” etc.

3. The forty-nine years. “Hebdomads seven and,” etc. These are made up thus: Ezra at work alone about twelve or thirteen years; first visit of Nehemiah about twelve years; Nehemiah’s return to Persia, and second visit to the time of Joiada becoming high priest, about nineteen or twenty years. This accounts for forty-five out of the forty-nine. The other four may be reckoned to the death of Nehemiah, but the date of his death is lost.

4. The four hundred and thirty-four year‘s. “Hebdomads sixty and two? This period extends to the baptism of Jesus; i.e. to the public manifestation of “Messiah-Prince.” This could be none other than the Redeemer. (Prove this in detail.)

5. The seven years. Three and a half to the Crucifixion; three and a half to establishment of Christianity and the Church.

III. THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRONOLOGY FOR THE DIVINITY OF THE GOSPEL.

1. Its place. Strange that both sceptic and Christian should object to this kind of evidence. The sceptic: “Faith cannot depend on chronology.” The Christian: “Questions of events and times do not become the spiritually minded.” But the evidences for revelation are not all of one kind, nor all for the same class of mind (see Hengstenberg’s ‘Christology,’ vol. 3:199, Clark’s edit.).

2. Its value. On this we had better quote Preiswerk: “We ought not, considering the uncertainty of ancient chronology, to lay much stress in calculating the exact year. For, though the calculation be very successful, yet so soon as another interpreter follows, another chronological system, what has been so laboriously reared up is apparently thrown down. But if we grant, from the outset, that ancient chronology is uncertain, and be content to point out a general coincidence of the historical with the prophetical time; if we show that possibly even a minute coincidence took place, and at least that no one can prove the contrary, we shall have done enough to prove the truth of the ancient prophecy, and our work cannot be overthrown by others.”

3. Its availability; i.e. to ordinary readers of Scripture. Before Christ, the Jews knew about when to reckon from, and so when to expect Messiah. And now, though learned chronological arguments may not be within reach of the many, yet plain people may come to that simple knowledge of history which shall teach that prophecy has been fulfilled in Christ.R.

Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27

The close of the Jewish economy.

“And after three score and two weeks,” etc. (Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27). The angel passed from the restoration of the city to the coming of Messiah and the close of the Judaic dispensation. This is the manner of prophecy to seize on the great epochs in the history el the Divine dealings with man.

I. THE DEATH OF THE CHRIST.

1. It was to be violent. “Messiah was to be cut off.” An ominous and portentous phrase to every Jewish mind. Ever used of the close of the career of the wicked (Exo 31:14; Psa 37:9; Pro 2:21, Pro 2:22). The phrase implies a supernatural agent too; so in this case (Act 2:23).

2. Without cause. In Hebrew, literally, “There is nothing to him.” The Septuagint gives the meaning doubtless: . “In him was no sin;” he “did no sin;” he “knew no sin.” Pilate’s verdict: “I find in him no fault at all.”

II. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH POLITY.

1. The instruments. “And the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” That the prince is not the Christ is evident:

(1) Because of his designationsimply “a prince.”

(2) He is to “come” clearly from without the Jewish state.

(3) His invasion was to be after the death of Messiah. So the context indicates. History shows that the prince was Titus.

2. The mode. “And its end with inundation, and to the end, war; decree of desolations.” The foreign army should sweep everything before it. The war was to be exterminating. No intermission of calamity until no city was left on which calamity could fall.

3. The reason. Note the inner connection of the passage between the cutting off of Messiah and the fall of the city and politybetween Calvary and the coming of Titus (Luk 19:41-44). When Christ wept over the city, the nation in heart had rejected him. Formally, and in so many words, in the course of a few days they discarded their only Saviour. For that rejection, city and nation descended into the abyss. As it was at the end of the Jewish economy, so shall it be at the close of the Christian. The condemnation will not be sin, but rejection, or neglect of the sinner’s Saviour (Joh 3:18).

III. THE CONFIRMATION OF THE COVENANT.

1. The Confirmer. The Lord Jesus. His august Personality has been prominent throughout. The actions described in verse 24 are his. In Isa 42:1-7, specially in Isa 42:6, Christ is described as Divine Covenant incarnate.

2. The covenant. Neither the old nor the new, but that one comprehensive covenant of salvation, of which they were transcripts.

3. Its confirmation was by the Redeemer’s words of grace, miracles, and death; by the Pentecostal effusion; by the first preaching of the gospel, especially to the Jews.

4. The time. From the commencement of the Lord’s ministry to about the time of the death of Stephen and the scattering of the Jewish Churchabout seven years. By that time the nation rejected both the Messiah and that Spirit who came with Pentecostal power and grace. Then was the nation dead, waiting for the fire of the Divine judgments. The “hebdomads seventy” were ended. Henceforth the history in the Acts of the Apostles turns to the Gentiles.

5. With whom. “With many.” But all showed the nation’s sin.

IV. THE CESSATION OF SACRIFICE. “He shall cause the sacrifice,” etc; that is, Christ the Lord.

1. In mercy. The sacrifices might cease:

(1) either literally;

(2) or, their object accomplished, they might become useless, and in time disappear. In the latter sense they were made to cease. No need of the finger of the type, when the glory of the Antitype filled the world. Herein mercy. He offered up sacrifice for the people’s sins “once, when he offered up himself.” “Once in the end of the world” he “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

2. In judgment. Not long was it ere in judgment they ceased literally.

3. In permanence. Ceasing, they cease for ever, and no power of man can ever restore what has been doomed by God. “The Word of our God stands for ever.”

V. THE CONSUMMATION We read, “And upon the wing of abominations, a desolator; even until destruction, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate.” The passage would be difficult before the events, intentionally so, but not so difficult after. The design was, perhaps, to throw out fragments of thought rather than give a continuous idea; to light up with lightning rather than with sunshine. After speaking of the cessation of sacrifice, attention is fixed on the temple, some high point of it, soaring portion, “wing.” A “wing of abominations,” the temple hateful on account of its corruptions. The temple must become detestable

(1) by corruption;

(2) from within, ere any desolator is allowed to touch it. Note the lesson well. But having become abominable, look! watch! behold the desolator, i.e. the Roman! But how long shall the Roman eagle look down upon the temple threateningly? “Until destruction, and that which is decreed, shall be passed upon the desolate.” Daniel’s prayer was offered in sight of a desolate Jerusalem; the vision opened by the angel ends with a desolation more appalling. “How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”R.

HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES

Dan 9:1-19

The omnipotence of prayer.

The man of prayer exerts a greater influence over national affairs than even crowned heads. “Prayer moves the hand that moves the world.” Daniel on his knees was a mightier man than Darius on his throne. Daniel was in the service of the King of kings; was admitted to the audience-chamber of the Most High; and received the announcements of the Divine will. Darius now mainly serves as a landmark on the course of time to indicate a date; Daniel is still the teacher and moulder of men.

I. TRUE PRAYER IS FOUNDED ON KNOWLEDGE OF GOD‘S WILL. The reason why Daniel prayed so earnestly for this special blessing was that he knew from Jeremiah’s prophecies God’s purpose concerning Israel. This knowledge, instead of rendering prayer needless, made it more necessary. For God is no fatalist, He does not absolutely fix a date for certain events without good reason, nor is the fixture made regardless of other events. That date for the termination of Israel’s bondage took into account, through the Divine presence, the temper and feeling prevalent among the Jewstook into account even this very prayer of Daniel. Speaking after the manner of men, Daniel’s intercession was a foreseen link in the chain of events, and could not be spared. Daniel possibly did not realize the full extent of his responsibility; still, he felt that a turn in the tide of Israel’s fortunes was due, that the Divine promise awaited fulfilment, and that much depended on earnest prayer. Hope liberates the tongue of prayer. If God has purposed to bless, we can plead with confident expectation.

II. PRAYER DERIVES ITS INSPIRATION FROM THE CHARACTER AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. It is very instructive to note how in this prayer Daniel fastens his eye upon God, contemplates his manifold perfections, and finds in them the fuel with which to feed the fires within his soul. He delights to think on God’s greatnesshis vast resources of good. He reposes with confidence on the unchanging faithfulness of him who had stooped to make a covenant with Israel. If the nation’s sins depress his hopes, the mercy of God far more elates him. He is pleased to contemplate God’s infinite righteousness; for that righteousness he can and will convey to his suppliant people. He extracts hope even from the inviolable justice of Jehovah, inasmuch as this attribute secures to men the fullest benefit of every gracious promise. He pleads that anger may be diverted from Jerusalem, “according to the righteousness” of God. Once and again Daniel urges his request “for the Lord’s sake””for thine own sake, O my God.” This is the inexhaustible well of human comfort, viz. that God is what he is. It does not hinder success in prayer that we are so needy and so unworthy. The highest good is accessible, because the Fountain is so vast and so unfailing.

III. PRAYER EMPTIES THE SUPPLIANT OF SELF. The more men pray the more they part with self-confidence, self-righteousness, self-importance, self-seeking. They lose themselves in God. Every form of sin that Daniel could find in his consciousness or in his memory was confessed, and confessed with genuine sorrow. He acknowledges personal and public sins in every variety of language. Positive wickedness, deafness to the Divine voice, neglect of plain commandments, disregard of special messengers, contempt of God’s sovereign authority,all is confessed in a spirit of candour and humility. The axe is laid to the utmost root of pride. His soul is mantled in just shame. There is a complete emptying of selfa needful preparation to be filled with God.

IV. PRAYER IDENTIFIES THE SUPPLIANT WITH OTHERS‘TIS A VICARIOUS ACT. In prayer we take the place of others, bear their burdens, and make intercession for them. Daniel here pleads for the whole nation. He regards as his own the sins of rulers, kings, priests, and judges. The whole nation is represented in his person. As upon a later occasion, the lives of passengers and crew in the Egyptian ship were saved for Paul’s sake, so now the restoration of Israel was due instrumentally to the advocacy of Daniel. A self-righteous man would have repudiated the idea that he was as guilty as others; he would have plumed himself on his superior virtues. Not so Daniel. The sins of the nation he attaches to himselffelt himself, in a sense, responsible for the whole; and seeks Divine favour, not for himself individually, but for the commonwealth of Israel.

V. PRAYER, TO BE SUCCESSFUL, MUST CONSIST IN EARNEST PLEADING. Sensible that so much hung upon his successful suit, Daniel put his whole soul into it, and resolved that he would not fail for want of earnestness. He had risen to the height of the great emergency. He knew that the “set time to favour Zion was now come.” Other hindrances were now removed. God waked to be graciouswaited for human prayer as the last link in the chain; and Daniel was chosen to complete the series of preparations. Every possible argument Daniel could conceive or elaborate he employs in his siege of the heavenly citadel. And God permitted this, not on his own account, but to elicit fervent desire and to develop heroic faith. If a man clearly sees the evil which follows from non-success, he will use the most fervid appeal. Or, if he discerns the magnitude of the boon which is in view, he will strain every nerve of his soul to obtain it. Languor in prayer is the offspring of ignorance. Earnestness is only sober wisdom.D.

Dan 9:20-27

Prayer opens wider horizons of God’s kingdom.

We have here a signal instance of the fact that God not only answers human prayer, but gives “more than we ask” or conceive. The thing which Daniel asked was small compared with what God bestowed. Compared with contemporary men, Daniel stood above them head and shoulders. Compared with God, he was but a pigmy.

I. PRAYER IS THE BEST PREPARATION FOR RECEIVING LARGER REVELATION. The exercise of real prayer develops humility, dependence, self-forgetfulness; and these states of mind are favourable to ingress of light. “The meek will God show his way;” “To that man will he look, who is of humble and contrite heart.” Prayer brings the soul near to God; it lifts us up to heavenly elevations; it clears the eye from mist and darkness. The Apostle John was engaged in lonely worship, when the final revelation of Scripture was made to him. Our Lord was in the act of prayer when heaven came down to earth, and his whole Person was enwrapt in glory. The response to Daniel’s prayer was immediate. He had not ceased to pray when the answer came. Swifter than the electric current came the oracle’s response.

II. LARGER REVELATION COMES BY A PURE AND PERSONAL SPIRIT, We may fairly conclude that angels have larger knowledge of God’s will than have we, because they are free from the darkness and the doubt which sin generates. If they are not counsellors in the heavenly court, they are heralds, ambassadors, couriers. What God wills should happen they know is wise and right and good. In their estimation it is an incomparable honour to be engaged on Divine errands. Swift as their natures will allow, they fly to convey instruction or help to men. It is consonant, no less with reason than with Scripture, that there are ranks and orders of intelligent beings with natures more ethereal than ours, .and that communication between us and them is possible. Every form of service is attributed to the angels. An angel ministered to our Saviour’s bodily hunger. An angel strengthened him in the garden. An angel rolled the stone from his sepulchre. An angel released Peter from prison. Gabriel interpreted the vision to Daniel. Gabriel announced to Zacharias and to Mary the approaching advent of a Saviour.

III. LARGER REVELATION IS AN EVIDENCE OF GOD‘S SPECIAL LOVE. The despatch of a special messenger from the court of heaven was in itself a signal token of God’s favour. Not often in the history of our race had such a favour been shown. Further, Gabriel was well pleased to assure the man of prayer that, in heaven, he was “greatly beloved.” Every act of devotion to God’s cause had been graven on the memory of God. His character was an object of God’s complacency. On account of God’s great love for Daniel he gave him larger understanding, and disclosed to him the purposes and plans for man’s redemption. God’s intention was that Daniel should enlarge the area of his vision, and look with solicitude, not on Israel after the flesh, but on the true Israel of God. Yet all revelation is a mark of God’s love to men. Because men are “greatly beloved” of God, therefore he has given them this complete canon of Scripture, therefore he gives them understanding to discern the meaning, therefore he leads them further into the truth.

IV. LARGER REVELATION IS FOUNDED UPON A TYPICAL PAST. The thoughtful love of God adapted this new revelation to the capacity and mood of Daniel’s spirit. Daniel had been dwelling on the seventy years which Jeremiah had declared to be the full period of Israel’s captivity. His hope was resting on the fact that the seventy years were accomplished, and that God was faithful to his word. Gabriel was charged to assure the prophet that restoration was nigh at hand, but that other epochs of “seventies” were opening. The desolation of Jerusalem in the past was a type of a sadder desolation yet to come. The visible reconciliation between God and Israel (implied in the restoration of the Jews) was a type of a more complete reconciliation when sin should be purged away. By identifying himself with the nation, and confessing its sins as his own, Daniel himself had become a type of that Deliverer who should “bear our sins” and “make intercession for the transgressors.” Time is reckoned in weeks, to remind Israel of the perpetual obligation of the sabbath. After each cycle of desolation rest shall follow, until the world shall enter into the enjoyment of Jehovah’s rest. The mind of Daniel is thus carried onward from the consummation he so much desired to a grander consummation stillthe appearance of Israel’s Messiah; and this vital truth is impressed upon his soul, that no triumph is real or enduring which is not the triumph of righteousness over sin.

V. LARGER REVELATION CENTRES IN THE PERSON AND WORK OF MESSIAH. If now and then God should lift us up to some spiritual height, and give us a wider vision of human destiny, we should be amused and saddened at the littleness of our petitions. Often do we pray and plead for some good, which seems to us a very consummation of blessing; but when we have gained it, we find that there are far larger possessions awaiting us. The desires of Daniel’s soul were concentrated on Israel’s return to Palestine; yet, at the best, this was only a temporal advantage. Change of place and resumption of worldly power would not in themselves secure nobleness of character or purification of soul. The best blessings of God can be enjoyed anywhere, and amid any outward conditions. But God is too wise and too beneficent to confine his gifts within the limits of human request. “His thoughts are not as our thoughts;” and from inferior restoration to outward privilege, as a starting-point, he leads our expectations onward to a nobler restoration of character and of life. The centre of the world’s hope (whether the world so regards it or not) is Jesus the Messiah. Before Gabriel had satisfied Daniel with respect to Israel’s earthly fortune, he poured into Daniel’s ear what was uppermost in his own mindthe advent of the Son of God. The grandeur, the value, the triumphant issues of Messiah’s work,these were the tidings which he delighted to convey. The revelation which, in any age, man most needs is revelation respecting the removal of sinknowledge how the great redemption can be accomplished. No tidings from heaven can ever be so joyous as these, viz. that sin shall meet with final destruction, and that reconciliation between God and man is made secure. Such a revelation embraces an enormous sweep of blessing, and comprises every possible interest of humanity. The possession of the earthly Canaan is a very short-lived benefit; the inheritance of heaven is an eternal good.

VI. THE LARGER REVELATION EMBRACES THE FINAL TRIUMPH OF RIGHTEOUSNESS; For the present the outlook of Israel is flecked with light and shade. Like an April day, our present experience is an alternation of blustering storm and bright sunshine. The defences of Jerusalem, Daniel was assured, would be rebuilt, but would be rebuilt amid harassing trouble. Messiah the Prince should in due time appear; but Messiah should be cut off. The city and the sanctuary should rise from the reproach of present ruin, but they would again be destroyeddesolation, like a flood, would sweep over them. Sacrifice should be restored in the temple, but sacrifice and oblation should again cease. These were but temporary arrangements to prepare the world for a real atonement. But the final upshot shall be the destruction of abomination. Upon the desolater there shall be desolation. “All that defileth” shall be exterminated. Death shall die. “Captivity shall be led captive;” “God shall be all in all.”D

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

Dan 9:1. In the first year of Darius This is the same Darius the Median spoken of before, chap. Dan 5:31 and who succeeded Belshazzar king of the Chaldeans.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

3. The vision of the seventy weeks of years

Dan 9:1-27

1In the first year of [to] Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes 2[Media], which [who] was made king over the realm of the Chaldans; in the first year of [to] his reign, I Daniel understood by [the] books the number of the years, whereof [which] the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came [was] to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish [for fulfilling] seventy years in [for] the desolations of Jerusalem. 3And I set [gave] my face unto the Lord God, to seek1 by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.

4And I prayed2 unto the Lord [Jehovah] my God, and made my confession, and said,3 O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy4 to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; 5we have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by [and there has been a] departing from thy precepts [commandments], and from thy judgments; 6neither have we [and we have not] hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which [who] spake in thy name to our kings, our 7princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee; but [and] unto us confusion [shame] of faces,4 as at this day; to the men [man] of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through [in] all the countries [lands] whither [where] thou hast driven them, because of [in] their trespass [treachery] that they have trespassed [done treacherously] against [with] thee. 8O Lord, to us belongeth confusion [shame] of face [faces], to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we [or, we who] have sinned against [to] 9thee. To the Lord our God belong mercies4 and forgivenesses,4 though [for] we have rebelled against [with] him; 10neither have we [and we have not] obeyed the voice of the Lord [Jehovah] our God, to walk in his laws, which he set [gave] before us by [the hand of] his servants the prophets.

11Yea, [And] all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by [and there has been a] departing, that they might not [so as not at all to] obey thy voice; therefore [and] the curse is [has] poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against [to] him. 12And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing [to bring] upon us a5 great evil; for [,which] under the whole heaven [heavens] hath not been done as [it] hath been done 13upon [in] Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of Moses, [as to] all this evil [,it] is [has] come upon us; yet [and] made we not our prayer before [we besought not the face of] the Lord [Jehovah] our God, that we might [to] turn 14from our iniquities, and understand [become wise in] thy truth. Therefore [And] hath the Lord [Jehovah] watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us; for the Lord [Jehovah] our God is righteous in [upon] all his works which he doeth [has done]; for [and] we obeyed not his voice.

15And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten [made for] thee renown [a name], 16as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, according to [in] all thy righteousness [righteousnesses], I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away [return] from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain [the mountain of thy sanctuary]; because for [in] our sins, and for [in] the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become [are for] a reproach to 17all that are about us. Now, therefore [And now], O our God, hear [hearken to] the prayer of thy servant, and [to] his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon 18thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lords sake. O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold [see] our desolations, and the city which is called by the name [upon which thy name has been called]: for we do not present6 our supplications before thee for [upon] our righteousness, but [for it is] for [upon] thy great mercies. 19O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken, and do; defer not: for thine own sake, O my God; for thy city and thy people are called by thy name [thy name has been called upon thy city and upon thy people].

20And while I was [And I was yet] speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord [Jehovah] my God for the holy mountain [upon the mountain of the sanctuary] 21of my God; yea, while I was [and I was yet] speaking in prayer,4 even [and, i.e., then] the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at [in] the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched [reached] me about the time of the evening oblation. 22And he informed me, and talked [spoke] with me, and said, O 23Daniel, I am [have] now come forth to give thee skill and7 understanding. At [In] the beginning of thy supplications the commandment [word] came [went] forth, and I am [have] come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved,8 therefore [and] understand [in] the matter [word], and consider [have understanding in] the vision [appearance].

24Seventy weeks [sevens] are determined9 upon thy people and upon thy holy city [the city of thy sanctuary], to finish the transgression, and to make an end of [seal up] sins, and to make reconciliation for [cover] iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint 25the Most Holy [holy of holies]. Know, therefore [And thou shalt know], and understand [be wise], that from the going forth of the commandment [word] to restore [return] and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks [sevens], and threescore and two weeks [sevens]: the street shall be built again, and the wall [trench], even [and, i.e., but] in troublous [trouble 26of the] times. And after [the] threescore and two weeks [sevens] shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself [and there shall be nothing to him]: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [or, his end] shall be with a [the] flood, and unto [till] the end of the war desolations are determined [there is a decision of desolations]. 27And he shall confirm the covenant with [to] many for one week [seven]: and in the midst [half] of the week [seven] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for [upon] the overspreading [wing] of abominations he shall make it desolate [there shall be a desolator], even [and] until the consummation, and that determined [decided], shall be poured [it shall pour] upon the desolate.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS

Dan 9:1-3. The time of the penitential prayer which led to the vision, and the occasion which inspired it. In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus. Concerning both Darius the Mede and his father Ahasuerus (Theodot., Sept., Vulg., Assuerus) or Astyages, see the Introd. 8, note 4. The point of time referred to in the text belongs to a period later than that of the vision in the preceding chapter by more than twenty years, or about B.C. 537;10 cf. on Dan 5:30; Dan 6:1.Of the seed of the Medes. The nationality of the new ruler is noticed, because the subject of the prayer which follows, and also of the prophecy respecting the seventy weeks of years vouchsafed in consequence, was conditioned by the circumstance that at the time when this incident transpired in the experience of Daniel, he was a Medo-Persian subject, and hence, had seen the second world-power of his former vision replace the first. The overthrow of Babylon by the Median king would naturally lead him to meditate on the question concerning the time of the restoration of Jerusalem and the realization of the further theocratic hopes connected with that event. In the nature of the case, such meditations would connect themselves at once with Jeremiahs prophecy relating to the seventy years which were to elapse, before Jerusalem, the desolate, should be restored; and such a reference was unavoidable in the case of a vir desideriorum (see Dan 9:23, Vulg.), like Daniel, who searched the Scriptures.Which was made king. The passive denotes that he did not become king over the Chaldan realm in the ordinary way and by right of inheritance, but that he reached the throne in an extraordinary and violent manner, through the agency of the victorious Persian army (led by his nephew, Cyrus).

Dan 9:2. I Daniel, understood (or observed) in books the number of years, i.e., I gave attention to that question, meditated upon it. With regard to , a shortened Hiphil-form like , Dan 10:1, or like , for , Job 33:13, cf. Ewald, Lehrb. 127 a, 111The construction with an accusative is similar to Dan 10:1; Pro 7:7; Pro 23:1. Von Lengerke renders it incorrectly, I sought understanding in the books, in the number, etc., as if were here construed with , as in Dan 9:23, and this were then dropped before the more definite .12The books (or writings, ) in which Daniel observed the number seventy, and thus made it the subject of his meditations, were, according to the context, those which would engage the attention of a captive, be familiar and adapted to him. They did not probably include the whole collection of O.-T. writings, the Torah, Nebiim, and Kethubim (as v. Lengerke, Hitzig, Ewald, and other defenders of the Maccaban origin of the book suppose), nor were they limited to the letter of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 29, although the plural might, without difficulty, designate a single letter; cf. Jer 29:25; 2Ki 19:14) which contained the prophecy concerning the seventy years, but they were simply a collection of prophetic writings which Daniel had at command. It cannot be decided how great the extent of this collection was. Perhaps it was confined merely to prophecies by Jeremiahpossibly including only those which are now contained in chapters 25 and 29 (to which Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen, etc., p. 4, limits the , as being the particular rolls of writing in which these oracles of Jeremiah were recorded), or extending to a larger number, or even comprehending all that are now found in the book of Jeremiah. Perhaps it comprehended a larger circle of prophetic and other writings, similar to the private collection which Jeremiah already must have owned (cf. Hengstenberg, Beitrge, etc., p. 33 et seq.). It is likely of itself that the Pentateuch was included among the sacred books belonging to Daniel, although no positive evidence of that fact can be derived from Dan 9:11; Dan 9:13 of this chapter; for the mention of the in those passages does not prove that the prophet classed them among the which are here referred to.13To what passage in Jeremiahs prophecies, then, does Daniel allude? Chiefly and primarily, no doubt, to chap. 25, from which the term , ruins, is evidently borrowed (see Jer 25:9; Jer 25:11); but likewise to chap. 29, the 10th verse of which clearly refers back to Jer 25:11 et seq., and with which our prophet was doubtless as well acquainted as with the former.Whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet. , whereof, in regard to which (namely, years); cf. the use of in the same sense in Dan 8:26. , as found also in Ezr 1:1, and in chapters 2729 in the book of Jeremiah itself, is the later form of the name.That he would accomplish seventy year in the desolation of Jerusalem; or, that seventy years should be full in the ruins, etc. , ruins, desolate condition; cf. Lev. 24:31; Eze 36:10; Eze 36:33; Eze 38:12, etc. Our prophet, as appears in Dan 9:25 a, regards the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, in the year B.C. 587, as the terminus a quo of the seventy years of desolation, while, on the other hand, Jeremiah uttered his prophecy relating to the seventy years (Jeremiah 26; cf. Jer 29:1 et seq.) as early as the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., B.C. 605, or 19 years before that date, and accordingly seemed to favor the method which reckoned the seventy years from the first conquest of Juda by Nebuchadnezzar, and ended them with Cyrus (606536).14 When and how the end of the seventy years should be realized, was therefore a question which would engage his special attention when the Chaldan monarchy was supplanted by the Medo-Persian.15

Dan 9:3. And I set my face unto the Lord God, i.e., probably, heavenward (cf. Gen 21:17; 1Ki 8:22; Joh 17:3); for the turning of his face toward Jerusalem or the site of the temple (cf. Dan 6:11), would certainly not be disregarded in this instance, when about to pray for the restoration of the city and temple. The name is used here to designate God (instead of , which is found in several MSS.), as in Dan 1:2; Ezr 10:3; Neh 1:11; Neh 4:8, and as in several places in the prayer itself, Dan 9:4 et seq.To seek by prayer and supplications; rather, to seek prayer, etc. Prayer is conceived of as an operation of the Divine Spirit (cf. Zec 12:10; Rom 8:26), which must be sought after or elicited from within, by means of fasting, putting on mourning garments, etc.; cf. 2Sa 7:27; 2Sa 12:16; Ezr 9:3; Sir 34:21; Luk 2:37, etc. Upon this subject see my Geschichte der Askese, p. 136 et seq. is prayer generally considered (Psa 65:3), while , like , Dan 9:20, is prayer for mercy, importunate, moving prayer.

Dan 9:4-19. Daniels prayer. In order to justly appreciate the impressive beauty of this prayer, and to understand its plan and aim, cf. Ewald, p. 430 et seq.: The motives that led him to pray are scarcely indicated in the introductory statements, Dan 9:1-3, and must be discovered in the nature of the circumstances. He had long been deeply afflicted because the sufferings of his people were protracted during so long a period, and thus found and meditated on those passages from Jeremiah in the Bible (?); but the difficulty of understanding the Divine meaning of the number, redoubled his grief. He comprehended, however, that if the period of Israels punishment at the hand of God was so protracted, and the mystery relating to himself and the whole nation was so hard to solve, it must be charged solely to the consequences of the former grossly wayward course of the people as a whole, and in this concurrence of the most incongruous emotions he sought and found the proper plea to present before God. He does not plead for ability merely to solve this numerical riddlethe entire prayer contains no allusion to this; and what, indeed, is a mere number in the sight of God? The mystery of the number is oppressive to the heart of this individual supplicant who prays for light, and likewise to the whole nation, only because of other and entirely different errors, darknesses, and faults; and not until this supplicant has put forth all the powers of his soul in wrestling with God for the removal of those general sins, can he hope that the next uncertainty which bows him down and troubles him shall be dispelled by a gracious ray from the original source of all light. Thus the moving stream of this deeply agitated prayer gushes forth from a profound sense that only when the most earnest desire for renewed purification, forgiveness, and elevation at the hand of God shall take possession of the people as a whole, can Divine help be expected for the desolations of Jerusalem, for which after all Daniel also pleads. His words, resulting from the oppressive darkness of the present and from a further retrospect of all former history relating to this state, thus become at first the expression of a true confession, and then of genuine confidence and supplication. They become a sincere confession in view of the present, Dan 9:4-10, but still more so, Dan 9:11-14, in consequence of a retrospect of all former history, which is the more proper in this connection, because the blame for this exceeding great destruction and disintegration dates back, in the first instance, to the older times; but in Dan 9:15-19 the trustful prayer and supplication for mercy become gradually more fervent (at first in the name of the whole people, Dan 9:15 et seq., but ultimately in the name of the individual supplicant himself, Dan 9:17 et seq.), until they cease, so to speak, in disconnected sighs, and as if exhausted with the last glow of the fire (Dan 9:19).However appropriate we may find this analysis to be in general,16 we are nevertheless obliged to enter a decided protest against the presumption of a Maccaban composition of the prayer, which forms its background. The proof of this presumption is found by Ewald, Hitzig, v. Lengerke, etc., in the similarity between this prayer and the penitential prayer found in Ezr 9:6 et seq.; Neh 1:5-11; Neh 9:6 et seq., Bar 1:14 to Bar 2:19, which unquestionably exists, and which they believe indicates the imitation of those passages by an alleged pseudo-Daniel, who lived at a much later time. The points of contact referred to, however, are in part merely indirect and accidental, such as sprang naturally from the general type of thought produced by the period of the captivity and the age immediately subsequent to it. Other features belonging to them in common are more specific and direct; but in these cases the prayer before us must be regarded as the original, instead of the others (as, e.g., , Dan 9:7-8, cf. Ezr 9:7; , Dan 9:9, cf. Neh 9:17; also the combination our kings, princes, fathers, and all the people of the land, Dan 9:6, which is exactly repeated in Neh 9:32, and again in Neh 9:34, where [as here in Dan 9:8] all the people of the land is omitted, etc.). The more verbose and diffuse style of these prayers, and especially of those found in Nehemiah and Baruch, is of itself sufficient to arouse the suspicion at a glance, that Daniels prayer, with its comprehensive brevity and freshness, must be the original (cf. particularly, Zndel, Kritische Unterss., etc., p. 191, whose exposition has not been controverted in a single feature by anything adduced by Ewald, p. 485). The fact, moreover, that it represents the sufferings of Israel as deserved, but does not allude with a syllable to the damnable character of the human agent who executed the Divine punishment, nor yet to the raging of Israels oppressors, which still continued, and to the Divine judgment which was certainly impending over themall this is surely not conformable to the idea that this section is a compilation made in imitation of older models and dating as late as the Maccaban age. It is certainly conceivable that an author writing in the midst of the sufferings of the Maccaban period, might occasionally avail himself of the opportunity to remind the people that their affliction was partly deserved, because of their general sinful conduct toward the God of their fathers, and thus attempt to remove their bitterness of heart in view of the fact that God had permitted such misery to come upon them. But it does not seem natural that he should fail to strengthen the courage of his nation by a direct reference, to say nothing of a passing allusion, to the excessive wickedness of the course of the persecuting despot, the , at a juncture when they took their stand upon the ground of that very law of their fathers for which they suffered. Still more unnatural is it that here, where practical encouragement was needed in a time of decisive and terrible conflicts, he should neglect this for the mere purpose of keeping up a conformity to the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, which originated in circumstances of a totally different character and involved a reference to the earlier fact of the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem (Kranichfeld). Cf. in addition the remarks in the Introd. 6, respecting the relation of the book of Daniel to the writings of the period subsequent to the captivity, which refer to it; and also the exposition of the several passages.

Dan 9:4-10. The introduction. A penitential confession of sin in the name of the people. And I prayed. made my confession, and said. , to confess, acknowledge, as in Dan 9:20; Ezr 10:1.O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy. The same address to the mighty and terrible God, but who is good and merciful when His conditions are met, occurs also in, Neh 1:5; with this difference only, that the article is carelessly omitted before , the second object of , in the latter passage, while in the present instance and in Neh 9:32 and Deu 7:9, it is retained.

Dan 9:5. We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled. Properly, and sinned and rebelled, for the in is probably to be retained; its omission from several MSS. is explained from the desire to assimilate this passage to the parallels Dan 9:15 and 1Ki 8:47. The Hiphil , to sin, do wickedly, is used instead of the more usual Kal ; cf. Dan 11:32; Neh 9:33; Psa 145:6.By departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments. The infinitive is used as a continuation of the v. finit., as in Dan 9:11; cf. Neh 9:8; Neh 9:13; Est 3:13; Est 9:1; Est 9:12; Est 9:16; Est 6:9, etc.

Dan 9:6. The prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, etc. The fathers in this place and in Dan 9:8, as well as in Jer 44:17; Jer 44:21, denote the ancestors of the Israel of that day, including all but those who were of royal and princely blood; cf. the comprehensive and to all the people of the land, which immediately follows. The same language occurs in Neh 9:32, where, however, the prophets and priests are also specially included, between the princes and the fathersan extension which clearly reveals the thought of a later age, and which appears the more superfluous, inasmuch as both prophets and priests might unquestionably be comprehended in the term fathers (cf. Jdg 17:10; Jdg 18:19).

Dan 9:7. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, i.e., the confusion which depicts itself on the face (by blushing) because of our sin and the consequent disgrace and tribulation; cf. the familiar use of , and the passage Ezr 9:7, which paraphrases the thought here presented.As at this day (so from time immemorial). In , does not indicate the indefinite temporal sense of about, at (as v. Lengerke, Hvernick, etc., think), but that of comparison, as always in this form of speech; cf. Dan 9:15; Neh 9:10; Jer 25:18, etc. Consequently the expression of Gods righteousness and the contrasted being put to shame or disgrace of Israel are both described as having always been apparent and as being still evident.To the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Vs. 1618, which represent Jerusalem as being in ruins, show clearly that this reference is not to inhabitants of Jerusalem who were contemporary with the prophet (Bertholdt, v. Lengerke, Sthelin, etc.).

Dan 9:8. O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, etc. cf. Jer 3:25; Jer 14:20; Neh 9:34, etc.

Dan 9:9. Though (rather for) we have rebelled against him. , as in Dan 9:5. The clause with serves to explain why the mercy and forgiveness of God (; cf. Neh 9:17, and , Psa 130:4) are referred to, namely, because the children of Israel need mercy, etc., before all else, since they are guilty of rebellion against God. The thought is still farther developed in the following verse.

Dan 9:10. Neither (rather and we) have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws; cf. Jer 44:23; 1Ki 8:61; Luk 1:6 etc. The here mentioned differ from the of the next verse merely in the form of the word, the latter comprehending the commandments, i.e., the several manifestations of Gods will in a united whole. The prophets accordingly appear as the guardians, teachers, and enforcers of the law; cf. Isa 21:11, where the term is applied to them; Jer 6:17; Eze 33:2; Mic 7:4, etc., which designate them by .

Dan 9:11-14. Continuation.17 Reference to the past history of the nation. Therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath. As in other places the anger of God (Jer 42:18; Jer 44:6; 2Ch 12:7; 2Ch 34:21, etc.), so here the curse which represents it, is characterized as, so to speak, a fiery hail (Gen 19:24; Exo 9:33; Nah 1:6) which is poured out on the sinner. It is, moreover, not a simple curse, but stands connected with an oath, which supports and strengthens it; cf. Num 5:21; Neh 10:30; Psa 95:11; Heb 3:11; Heb 3:18; Heb 6:17.That is written in the law of Moses the servant of God. Lev 26:14 et seq.; Deu 28:15 et seq.; Deu 29:19. Concerning the designation as the servant of God, cf. Exo 4:10; Exo 14:31; Num 11:11; Num 12:7; Jos 1:2; Heb 3:5. See also Dan 9:5, where the same predicate is applied to the prophets

Dan 9:12. And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake. , usually to raise up, here signifies to preserve intact, to maintain, to confirm in act; cf. Num 30:14-15.Instead of the Keri has , referring back to the curse, Dan 9:11; but all the ancient versions and also the parallels Neh 9:8; Bar 2:3 support the plural.Against us, and against our judges; literally over us, etc. , a comprehensive term denoting our superiors generally; cf. Psa 2:10; Psa 148:11, and above, Dan 9:6; Dan 9:8, the separation of this idea into kings and princes.By bringing upon us a great evil, etc.; rather, that he would bring upon us, etc.; cf. Lam 1:12; Lam 2:17; Eze 5:9, etc.

Dan 9:13. As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us; rather, as all this evil is written in the law of Moses, that is come, etc.18 before serves to introduce the subject, as in 2Ki 10:6; Jer 45:4; Eze 44:3.19 Concerning cf. Isa 14:24 b.Yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God; rather, yet conciliated we not the face of the Lord, etc.,who prepares for our just punishment. It appears from the following verse that this neglect of propitiating his anger, hence an obstinate and hardened persistence in sin, was the immediate cause that brought misfortune to the nation. With regard to which literally signifies to stroke ones face, to smooth its stern furrows, cf. Exo 32:11; 1Sa 13:12; 1Ki 13:6, etc.That we might (or should) turn from our iniquities, and understand (or observe) thy truth. The truth of God which was not observed by the people is His immutability, by virtue of which He actually permits the punishment threatened against the sinner to be inflictedhence His faithful adherence to His pledges from a negative point of view, which is identical with His punitive justice (cf. 1Jn 1:9). Hitzigs adoption of a hendiadys, that observing thy faithfulness, we should turn from our sins, is unnecessary.

Dan 9:14. Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, i.e., He cared for it, was concerned about it; cf. Jer 1:12; Jer 44:27.For the Lord our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth; literally, on the ground of all his works (); cf. Neh 9:33. which he doeth, is aorist, like Jon 1:14 (not pret., which he has done).For (rather and) we obeyed not his voice, i.e., despite that we obeyed not; cf. the similar expression, with , in Dan 9:13.

Dan 9:15-19. Conclusion. The petition itself in its intensity and importunity, which increase from sentence to sentence. That hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand; a glorious and striking proof of the grace and mercy which God formerly manifested towards his people; cf. Exo 20:2, etc.; Psalms 105; Psalms 114 etc.And hast gotten thee renown, as at this day, i.e., by that wonderful act of deliverance hast acquired renown that continues to this day; cf. Jer 32:20; Neh 1:10; Neh 9:10.

Dan 9:16. O Lord, according to all thy righteousness. let thine anger be turned away, i.e., according to the displays of thy righteousness. , whether it is to be regarded as the plural of , as a majority hold, or as the plural of a singular , which is Hitzigs view (cf. Isa 41:10; Isa 42:6; Isa 42:21), certainly denotes proofs of righteousness and not of mercy; but it is decidedly erroneous, and involves a gross weakening of the sense of the Scriptures, to assign the meaning mercy to the Old-Test term righteousness, in a single instance.20From thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain. The opposition is the more appropriate, as in Daniels time nothing remained of Jerusalem but its site, its mountain.Jerusalem . (are become) a reproach to all that are about us; cf. Psa 79:4.

Dan 9:17. Now therefore, O our God, hear. is a conclusion from Dan 9:16 b, and does not serve to resume Dan 9:15.The prayer of thy servant, and his supplications. Daniel applies the designation to himself in full consciousness of the mediatorial position occupied by him, as by Moses and the earlier prophets (cf. Dan 11:5).Cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate. The ruined temple here takes the place of the city and the mountain which were mentioned before, indicating that the prayer constantly increases in fervor and importunity, and addresses God with motives whose effective character steadily grows stronger.For the Lords sake, i.e., for thine own sake, for thy names sake (Dan 9:19). The noun is repeated, to the neglect of the pronoun, for the sake of emphasis, as in Gen 19:24, and as often in the usage of the New Test., e.g., Rom 15:5-6; Eph 2:21, etc.

Dan 9:18. O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, etc. The Kethib is to be retained, in opposition to the Niphalizing Keri ; cf. Dan 9:19; Psa 41:5; Isa 7:11; Isa 32:11.The though of the phrase incline thine ear (cf. Psa 88:3; Psa 86:1; Psa 102:3; Psa 116:2, etc.), is also frequently expressed in the plural, thine ears, e.g., Psa 130:2; cf. Isa 59:1; Eze 8:18; Psa 34:16; 1Pe 3:12; Jam 5:4. Luthers translation generally disregards this distinction, and in almost every instance employs the plural, even where the original has the singular.And behold our desolations (, as in Dan 9:26, instead of the former , Dan 9:2; cf. Isa 61:4) and the city which is called by thy name, literally, upon which thy name is called; cf. Jer 7:10; Jer 25:29; Jer 34:15; Psa 48:3; Psa 48:9, etc.For we do not present (lit. lay down) our supplications before thee for our righteousness. On the expression , to lay down or pour out supplications at ones feet, cf. Dan 9:20; Jer 38:26. [The expression is derived from the custom of falling down before God in prayer.Keil.] On the thought cf. Isa 57:12; Isa 58:2; Neh 9:19; Neh 9:27; Neh 9:31, etc.

Dan 9:19. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken, etc. The two-fold repetition of the name Adonai, Lord, denotes the highly importunate and almost uncontrollable character which the prayer assumes at the close; cf. Isa 6:3; Jer 7:4; Jer 22:29.And do it, defer not. It cannot be proved that Daniel intended to refer to the long delay attendant on the fulfilment of Jeremiahs prophecy of the seventy weeks by the expression defer not (cf. 40:18; 70:6), as Ewald thinks. The expression is not sufficiently definite for this; and at any rate, nothing in favor of the Maccaban origin of this passage can be deduced from it.For thine own sake, O my God; for thy city and thy people are called by thy name. The explanatory clause for are called by thy name, implies that is equivalent to (Isa 48:9; Psa 23:3; Psa 25:11), and therefore signifies, for the sake of thy honor, of thy renown (cf. on Dan 9:18).

Dan 9:20-23. Arrival of the angel Gabriel, who was sent from God to interpret Jeremiahs prophecy of the seventy weeks. And while I was speaking, and praying, etc. This does not mean, before I ceased prayingfor the prayer had evidently reached its conclusion with Dan 9:19but rather, I was concluding my remarks, I was just speaking the last words, etc. Cf. Isa 28:4.My supplication for the holy mountain of my God; properly, on the basis (or ground) of the holy mountain. The preposition , by virtue of its fundamental meaning over, may signify against (Dan 9:12) as well as for. According to Dan 9:16-17 the holy mountain includes the holy city (Mat 4:5) and the temple.

Dan 9:21. Yea (lit., and), while I was (yet) speaking in prayer; rhetorical epanalepsis or brief repetition, designed to favor the connection.Even (or and) the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning (or formerly), a reference to Dan 8:15 et seq., where the designation of the angel as a man was explained as being derived from his human form. Concerning see on Dan 8:1.Being caused to fly swiftly; rather, come to me with flying speed. The expression is difficult. The rendering, wearied with an extended (or rapid) course, which is adopted by Ibn Ezra, Gesenius, etc. (substantially also by Kranichfeld, very weary) appears to be supported by the circumstance that the same root , which always signifies to weary, become exhausted, lies at the bottom of both words. The sense of being wearied, however, will not apply to angels generally, nor is it appropriate in the present instance, where the of the following verse clearly alludes to the rapidity of the angels coming. This rapid approach does not indicate that he ran swiftly (Hvernick, v. Lengerke, etc.), but denotes nasty flying, with lightning speed, as may be seen (1) from the root , which is unquestionably related to , to fly, and therefore may involve that idea; (2) from the testimony of the ancient versions, which unanimously express the idea of flying rapidly (Sept. ; Theodotion, ; Vulg., cito volans, and also Syrus); (3) from the fact that the Scriptures frequently represent the angels as flyinga trait which is not confined to the New Test. (Rev 14:6), but is found in the Old Test. also, as Isa 6:2 et seq.; Jdg 13:20; Psa 104:4, etc., demonstrate, despite the assertion to the contrary of Hitzig, Hvernick, and others (cf. also Mat 28:3 etc.).21About the time of the evening oblation, or about sundown (Num 28:4). This theocratic and Levitical designation of time finds a simple explanation in the prophets yearning recollection of the sacrifice that was offered at that hour in the temple-worship, and therefore does not in any way militate against the belief that this chapter originated during the captivity. It is no more remarkable, as uttered by the captive Daniel in the reign of Darius Medus, than it would be if a Christian youth of the Middle Ages who had fallen into the power of the Saracens, should, after being separated from scenes of Christian worship for many years, still have spoken of matins, or vespers, or the completorium. Cf. supra, on Dan 6:11.

Dan 9:22. And he informed me, or gave me to understand. Thus it is rendered, correctly, by most expositors; cf. in Dan 8:16. Hitzigs version, and he became awarenamely that the, time of evening sacrifice was not yet past, and therefore that Daniel had just finished his evening prayeris entirely too forced.I am now come forth, namely from God, before whom Gabriel usually stands (Luk 1:19; cf. also Job 1:12); That he should now come forth (, like Joh 14:11) denotes that Daniels importunate prayer had caused his being sent; cf. the next verse.

Dan 9:23. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment (rather, a word) came forth, i.e., a decree (, as in Job 4:12; Isa 9:7, etc.) intended to comfort and encourage thee (and consequently to answer thy prayer). It was not a commandment, for this could only have been laid on the angel, and not on Daniel, who is nevertheless exhorted to attend to the word (). Hitzig renders it correctly, a decree, an oracle, which is recorded verbally in Dan 9:24-27.For thou art greatly beloved. , synonymous with , man of costlinesses, of joys, i.e., well-beloved, a favorite (Luther, beloved man, beloved and precious; Ewald, a loved sweet one.). The vir desideriorum of Jerome is misleading; for certainly does not relate to the prophets anxiety to understand the mysteries of God (quod pro desiderio tuo Dei secreta audire merearis, et esse conscius futurorum). With far greater correctness Jerome himself compares, in remarks immediately preceding, the predicate , the favorite of God, which was applied to Solomon (2Sa 12:23); and several moderns have also adduced the cognomen of Titus, amor et delici generis humani, with equal justice.22Therefore understand thou (or observe the matter (word), and consider the vision. The transition from to denotes a slight variation of meaning in the fundamental idea. The difference is not greater than exists between itself and , the latter of which=, revelation, the substance or soul of the spoken word (Hitzig).23

Dan 9:24-27. The interpretation of the seventy weeks of years. Seventy weeks are determined. Literally, are cut off; for this is the proper meaning of , in like manner as primarily signifies to cut, to sharpen to a point, and then to conclude, determine; cf. Job 14:5; Isa 10:22; 1Ki 20:40. The Vulgate, influenced by , Mat 24:22, has abbreviat, sunt, which conflicts with the context. Hitzig, on the contrary, is correct when he rejects the idea of dividing into two sections, which might seem to accord with Dan 9:25 et seq., and instead applies the cutting off to the sum of the time as a whole, in consequence of which he paraphrases, a section of time (consisting) of seventy years is appointed.The construction is the familiar one of the impersonal passive with an accusative (cf. Gen 35:26; Exo 13:7; Isa 21:2; also supra, on Dan 9:13). Entirely too artificial is the view which Wieseler adopt3, that in Dan 9:23 is the subject, while the seventy weeks form the predicatethe word is cut off at seventy weeks. This view is opposed further, by the fact that cannot in this place denote the idea of being abbreviated. , seventy weeks. This cannot possibly denote seventy weeks in the ordinary sense, or 490 days; for the number has an obvious relation to the seventy years of Jeremiah, Dan 9:2, and the brief limit of 490 days is not suited to serve as a mystical paraphrase of the period of three and a half years. Moreover, according to the descriptions in chapters 7 and 8, the three and a half years were throughout a period of suffering and oppression, while in Dan 9:25 et seq. the latter and more extended subdivision (amounting to sixty-two weeks) of the seventy weeks is characterized as being comparatively free from sufferings. Finally, the three and a half years evidently reappear in Dan 9:27, in the form of the: half-week during which the sacrifices and oblations were to cease, etc.: and this undeniable identity of the small fraction at the end of the seventy weeks with the three and a half years of tribulation, heretofore described, removes it beyond the reach of doubt that the seventy weeks are to be regarded as seventy weeks of years, and therefore as an amplification of the seventy years of Jeremiah. Such a prophetic or mystical transformation of the seventy years into as many periods of seven years each is not unparalleled in the usage of the ancients; cf., e.g., the remarks of Mark Varro, in Aul. Gellius, N. A. III., Daniel 10 : Se jam undecimam annorum hebdomadem ingressum esse et ad eum diem septuaginta hedomadas librorum conscripsisse; also Aristotle, Polit., vii. 16; Censorin., de die natali, C. 14. It was, however, peculiarly adapted to the prophets purpose, and was especially intelligible to his readers, inasmuch as the Mosaic law (Lev 25:2; Lev 25:4 et seq.; Dan 26:34, 35, 43; cf. 2Ch 36:21) had designated every seventh year as a sabbath of the land, and had introduced the custom of dividing the years into hebdomads, which thus became familiar to every individual in the Jewish nation during all subsequent ages. The thought that instead of seventy years, seven times seventy were to elapse before the theocracy should be restored in all its power and significance, and that consequently, an extended period of delay should precede the advent of the Messianic ra, is an integral feature in the mode of conception which prevails throughout the book (Kranichfeld). It should also be observed that the idea weeks, as the principal idea, is placed before the numerical idea for emphasis: weeks (of years, not simple years), seventy in number, are determined, etc. The masculine form of the noun occurs also in Dan 10:2-3; cf. Gen 29:27 et seq.; Lev 12:5.24Upon thy people and upon thy holy city. Thy is used in the sense of near thy heart, dear and precious unto thee; cf. Dan 9:20; Dan 12:1. As the people of Jehovah (Dan 9:19) is also Daniels people (Dan 9:20), so is Jerusalem his city, his favorite city. It may have been, in addition, his native place; but this circumstance cannot be determined from this passage; see the Introd. 2, at the beginning. The predicate holy was deserved by Jerusalem, even when in ruins, and without regard to the length of the period during which it was desolate, since by virtue of all its history in the past, and in view of its importance for Gods kingdom in the future, it was absolutely the holy city, cf. Dan 9:16-20; Isa 52:1; Mat 4:5.To finish the transgression and to make an end of sins. The infinitives with which follow, to the end of the verse, direct attention, with a view to comfort, to the blessed experiences connected with the close of the period in which the people and the city were then languishing, thus denoting from the outset that the vision is concerned with the realization of the Messianic hopes of Israel, in the time when Zions warfare shall be accomplished (Isa 40:2 et seq.)in short, that the prophetic remarks of the angel acquire a Messianic character from this point.Theo-dot., Hengstenb., v. Leng., Wiesel., Kranichf., etc., punctuate the Kethib , and read to seal up the transgression, which, according to v. Lengerke, signifies to forgive the transgression, and according to Kranichfeld, means to hinder or restrain the sin. The former rendering, however, would lead to an unsuitable tautology with ; and the idea of restraining (cohibere) sin would be more properly expressed by ; cf. Job 14:17; Hos 13:2. The idea of restraining, moreover, has not been presented by a single one of the more ancient translators, not even by Theodotion. It is better, therefore, to read with a majority of moderns, and to regard this as standing for , expressive of the idea of completing or filling up. This view is also supported by the parallel , as it should be read, with the Keri and all the ancient versions, excepting that of Theodotion; cf. Dan 8:23; Isa 16:4; Isa 33:1, etc. The making full of sin, i.e., of the measure of sin, is substantially identical with the finishing of the transgression, from which it differs only in expressing the idea more forcibly. The Kethib (similarly Theodotion also: ) is decisively rejected by the single fact that , and to seal up, is repeated in this passage, and in a sense that differs materially from what it would bear in the former half of the verse. It is certainly possible to refer (with Kranichfeld) to Dan 6:18; Dan 12:4; Deu 32:34; Job 9:7; Job 37:7, in support of this rendering, which would perhaps add to , to seal up, to hinder, the idea of a still more effective sealing up or of a more complete banishment. The sense of filling up, however, which is secured by Dan 8:23, and by which the language of the whole verse gains a harmonious variety and multiformity, is far more likely to prove correct; and, in addition, the substitution of for in the preceding line would, in and of itself, be an exceedingly probable error on the part of a copyist, which might be easily comprehended.To make reconciliation (rather expiation) for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. These closely united members stand related to each other as antecedent and conclusion, or as a negative and a positive statement of the same fact. They form the central point of the acts of gracious blessing wrought by God, and both are introduced alike by the two infinitive clauses which precede, and appear to be conjoined and brought to a common conclusion by those which follow. According to this, three pairs of actions, or three double numbers, were designed in this verse, as Gesenius, Maurer, and Hitzig correctly observe; and for this reason the disjunctive accent seems less suitable after than it would have been after . The intimate collocation of with is warranted, further, by the fact that, without doubt, God is regarded as the efficient cause of both these results, and particularly of the expiation (literally covering over) of sin; cf. Psa 32:2; Psa 65:4, etc.Righteousness, which is a characteristic of the Messianic period in other prophecies also (cf. Isa 53:11; Jer 33:15 et seq.; Mal. 3:20), is here described as everlasting, in harmony with the eternal character of Messiahs kingdom (cf. Dan 2:44; Dan 7:18; Dan 7:27; Isa 51:5-8). It is of course not to be limited to the sphere of a merely external (Levitical and theocratic) righteousness, as even Hitzig acknowledges, when he observes that external righteousness cannot be regarded as separate from internal in any case.And to seal up vision and prophet (marg.), and to anoint the most holy (rather, a holy of holies). The relation between these final members of the whole series of Messianic results to be secured is that of the internal to the external, of the ethical to the ritual, or of religion to worship. Kranichfelds remark is incorrect, when he observes that the third pair in the gracious series occupies an inverse relation to the first, in view of its form, inasmuch as the latter proceeds from the antecedent to the consequent, while that method is here reversed (namely, the sealing of prophecy precedes the anointing of the most Holy).25 But Hitzig, Bleek, etc., are no less at fault, when they assume that the anointing of the most Holy is mentioned after the sealing of prophecy, and at the end of the entire series, because it had not been foretold by Jeremiah, while the other features had, directly or indirectly, formed the subject of the Messianic promises with that prophet. The opinion that the sealing of vision and prophet denotes specifically the confirmation of Jeremiahs prophecy respecting the seventy years (as v. Lengerke, Wieseler, Kamphausen, etc., also hold) in chap. 25 and 29 is wholly untenable, since the terms and , without the article, evidently do not refer to any particular prophet or prophecy, but rather to the prophetic institution and its visions relating to the prospective salvation in general. The idea is, that everything in the form of prophetic visions and predictions which had been produced in the course of theocratic development from the time of Moses ( and are collective and general; cf. Dan 11:14) should receive sealing, i.e., Divine confirmation and recognition, in the form of actual fulfilment (cf. 1Ki 21:8; Est 8:8).26 Jeremiahs prophecy cannot be intended, either exclusively, or even by way of pre-eminence (as Ewald thinks), because it does not mention the expiation of sin and the establishing of everlasting Messianic righteousness, which nevertheless are here particularly emphasized. The sense is clearly general, similar to that found in New-Test, passages like Act 3:19; Act 10:43; 2Co 1:20, etc.The prospect of an anointing of the most Holy, which is presented at the close, or rather of a most Holy ( , without the article) is evidently a solemn act of worship, which is substantially equivalent to the restoration of the theocratic worship as a whole. It is the anointing with oil or theocratic consecration of the sacrificial altar of the New Covenant, of the Messianic community of the redeemed, the pure sanctuary, which shall no more be profaned, that according to Dan 8:14 (of. 7:35; Dan 9:17), shall take the place of the desecrated and denied altar of the Old Dispensation. From Lev 8:11, comp. with Eze 43:20; Eze 43:26, where a consecration of the altar of burnt-offerings by means of an act of anointing is described (in Lev., l. c., with oil, in Ezek., l. c., with the blood of the sacrifice), and also from Exo 29:37; Exo 30:29; Exo 40:10, where the sacrificial altar is expressly designated as the , it is evident that the altar of sacrifice is here intended, instead of the holy of holies in the temple at large, or even the Messiah himself (sanctus sanctorum), as Syrus, the Vulgate, and others suppose.The prophecy under consideration has been twice fulfilled,at first externally and in a literal sense, by the actual restoration of the Old-Test, services in the temple with their bloody offerings of animals, which came to pass three years after they had been interrupted by Antiochus Epiphanes in the Maccaban age (1Ma 4:54-59),27 and afterward in the anti-type by the historical introduction of the more perfect sanctuary and worship of the New Covenant, which were likewise foretold by the prophet Zechariah (Dan 3:9) and whose sacrificial altar is Christ, having become such through the cross which he anointed and consecrated by his own exalted priestly sacrifice and blood.28

Dan 9:25. Know therefore and understand. This exhortation is intended to introduce the more detailed explanation of the relation of the seventy year-weeks to the yet unexpired seventy years, and also to the subject of the earlier theocratic promises which follows. It directs the notice of both the hearer and the reader to the importance of the disclosures now to be made, and to the duty of subjecting them to serious and thoughtful consideration; cf. , Mat 24:15.From the going forth of the commandment (or word) to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks; rather, unto an anointed one, a prince, etc. The expression corresponds to at the beginning of the angels remarks, and therefore probably denotes the promulgation of a Divine decree rather than of a royal edict (as Dereser, Hvernick, Weigl, etc., conceive with reference to the edict of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which commanded that the rebuilding of Jerusalem should be commenced). The latter idea would require that should be connected with , in order to its clear expression; and the observation of Hitzig is probably correct: Gabriel could not speak so objectively, and with composure, of the decree of a heathen king that would imply his right to dispose of the holy city; such a decree would no more be a in the mind of a theocrat than the confederacy in Isa 8:12 would be a .Moreover, cannot denote a decree at all, but rather a prophetic statement, an oracle, which in this instance promises the restoration of Jerusalem. This Divine prediction concerning the rebuilding of the holy city cannot differ materially from the repeated prophecy by Jeremiah (chap. 25 and 29), which foretold the desolation of Jerusalem during seventy years, and the subsequent restoration of the exiles and punishment of their Chaldan oppressors. Although the restoration of the theocracy, and especially the rebuilding of Jerusalem, are not expressly mentioned in the latter prophecies, these features are yet implicitly included in the prediction, Jer 25:12 et seq., concerning the judicial visitation of the Chaldans and the re-adoption of Israel; and in Jer 29:10 the gracious visitation of the Jews is described directly as a restoration to their place, i.e., their country. It is not necessary, therefore, to seek for a prophecy by Jeremiah that predicts the rebuilding of Jerusalem in more literal and explicit terms. If such a passage be found in Jer 30:18, or Jer 31:38 (Hitzig, Ewald, Bleek, Kamphausen, etc.), it is nevertheless unnecessary to assume that Daniel here refers only to that prophecy (which was probably composed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 588, according to Jer 31:5 et seq.). It is more probable that our prophet made no chronological distinction between Jeremiah 29 (a letter composed about B.C. 598) and the more extended prophecy in chap. 30 and 31 They (and also chap. 25) were probably regarded by him as belonging, upon the whole, to the same period and the same circle of prophecies, namely, that of the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah which covered eighteen to twenty years, beginning with the first conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, or B.C. 605, and ending with the destruction of the city in B. C. 588. His starting-point for the calculation of the seventy years thus naturally became uncertain and vacillating, and for that very reason became the inciting cause of the prophecy under consideration. See supra, on Dan 9:229It would conflict with the general usage to take in an adverbial sense and to connect it with the following verb, so as to obtain the sense to build Jerusalem again, since only in the Kal is used to designate our again (rursus, iterum) in other places (and also here, in the latter half of the verse). Wieselers rendering, to lead back, i.e., the people, is opposed in part by the harshness of such an objective supplement, and partly by the impossibility of showing that this passage refers directly and exclusively back to Jer 29:10, where certainly occurs in the sense of to lead back. The second half of the verse, moreover, refers only to a rebuilding of the city ( ), and not to a reductio populi exulis, which is decisive in favor of a restoration, i.e., of bringing back out of the state of desolation; cf. Eze 16:55.Who is designated by , the anointed one, the prince (or, as it may be rendered with equal correctness, the anointed prince; cf. Ewald, Lehrb., p. 741), in the sense of the prophet? Certainly not the Messiah of Israel in an immediate and primary sense, as the Jewish and orthodox exegesis has generally held, down to the latest time. He would scarcely have been referred to as an anointed prince without the article; nor would Daniel have introduced Him after the brief interval contained in the first seven of the seventy year-weeks, since he always places the advent of the Messiah in the distant future, when the fourth and last world-kingdom shall fallwhich is especially apparent in chapters 2 and 7.30 The reference is probably to a prince contemporary with Daniel and already well known, who was destined to exert a powerful influence in favor of the theocracy, and to fulfil the special Divine purpose relating to the Israel of that day (about forty-nine or fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem)hence, without doubt, to Cyrus, who is designated as Jehovahs Mashiach in Isa 48:1 also. Cf. Kranichfeld, p. Dan 327: Rather, the person referred to appears as a different prince, who has a theocratic dominion, and is endowed with the spirit of Jehovah for his calling; cf. 1Sa 16:13 et seq.; Dan 10:1; Dan 10:6 et seq. But since the special mention of the feature of anointing in the case of the ordinary, i.e., non-Messianic national kings who came in contact with Israel would be strange, it is proper to search for a heathen prince, who became prominent as the promoter of the theocracy, and especially so, because of his relation to the Messianic hopes before referred to. As such a one, and unique in this respect, the theocratic literature conceives of Koresh, the victor from the east who effected the return of Israel from the exile. He is expressly designated in Isa 45:1 as the Mashiach of Jehovah. He appears in the first year of the reign of Darius Medus over Babylon, therefore at the time of the vision, and was then at least the victorious leader of the armies of Darius. We are compelled to decide for him, in interpreting the of Daniels description. He was regarded as the executor of the will of Jehovah already referred to, agreeably to the description which immediately follows, and in harmony with the theoratic hopes which Israel based on him. Having realized other prophetic expectations, the author regarded him as the agent who should bring about the restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem; and consequently, the writer expressly confirms these expectations, since he merely separates from them the direct Messianic idea, which he finds himself obliged to refer to a more distant future, in view of the course of political events.31The Mashiach Nagid, accordingly, is in himself merely a type of the Messiah, corresponding to the person introduced in Isaiah 45, but is not Christ Himself (correctly rendered by Saad., Gaon., Bertholdt, Von Leng., Hitzig, Bleek, Kamph., etc., with the exception, however, that they generally reject the typical Messianic sense as well as the direct reference to Christ). This typical forerunner of Christ, the first restorer of the theocracy in the age of Daniel itself, is placed by the prophet at the close of the first cycle of seven Sabbatic years, and hence after the expiration of the first jubilee-period which had elapsed since the prophetic activity of Jeremiah, while he assigns sixty-two additional weeks of years (or nearly nine jubilee-periods) to the interval of tribulation that announced and prepared for the coming of the genuine antitypical Christ.32 Several expositors attempt to substantiate the direct Messianic interpretation of , by placing the seven weeks referred to in this passage after the sixty-two weeks which follow (Von Hofmann, Wieseler in the Gttinger Gelehrten-Anzeigen. 1846, Delitzsch, etc.), and thus reckon the contents of the seventy backward; but if Daniel had preferred this order he would certainly have noticed the sixty-two weeks first and the seven weeks afterwards, and, moreover, the one week in Dan 9:27 cannot be suitably provided for. Finally, all that has been heretofore observed against the direct Messianic interpretation of that expression, militates against their view. Upon the whole, cf. the history of the exposition in appendix to exeget. remarks.And three-score and two weeks; the street shall be built again, etc.; rather, and (during) three-score and two weeks (it) shall return (or be restored) and be built.33 This period of sixty-two weeks, the result of subtracting the significant seven at the beginning, and of one to be reserved for the end, covers the time during which the heathen world-kingdoms succeed each other, down to the fourth and most godless power, which is to attempt to entirely suppress the Divine kingdom of the Old Covenant that had mean while been perfectly restored, although with much labor, but which by that very effort secured its own destruction through the Messianic judgment (cf. Dan 8:11 et seq.; 23 et seq., and the preceding parallels). The subject of , which must be supplied, is doubtless Jerusalem, in analogy with the former half of the verse, where the same idea is presented in an active form. The specification of time, , which precedes in the accusative, marks the limits of the period, within which, at different times, the building was prosecuted (Hitzig).The limitation of this period, beginning a new clause as it does, is properly preceded by an Athnach, which serves to divide the verse. The method adopted by the ancient translators, by Luther, and by a majority of subsequent expositors (including Hengstenb., Hvern., Auberl., Zndel, etc.but not Kranichfeld, Kliefoth, and Fller), divides the verse so as to connect the sixty-two weeks with the preceding clause, despite the Athnach, and thus obtains sixty-nine weeks as the time that should elapse before the coming of the anointed prince; but it is evidently based on the desire to give a direct Messianic bearing to the passage. It is opposed (1) by the fact that the sixty-two weeks are repeated in Dan 9:26, where they are preceded by the article, which clearly marks them as an independent period; (2) that the clause thus occupies a very abrupt and bare position, being without any designation of time, while the preceding clause has two; (3) that the sense of the writer clearly is that the rebuilding and restoration had not begun before the sixty-two weeks, while he evidently regards the seven weeks as a period of desolation and ruinous neglect of the city which afterward was to be built (cf. Hitzig, p. 160; also Kliefoth, p. 323 et seq.).34The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times; rather, (with) street and ditch, but in troublous times. , a combination that suggests , Isa 26:1, is evidently an adverbial apposition to the subject ; and there properly signifies street-and-ditch-wise, i.e., with streets and ditches. It was not to be a wretched, confused, and scattered, as well as a defenceless mass of houses, but was to be arranged in streets, and to be surrounded with a fortified (wall and) ditch. [ means the street and the wide Space before the gate (Keil, who adds before the temple, but this last is by no means certain.)] is regarded by most moderns, and certainly with justice, as synonymous with the Chald. , ditch. This rendering is indirectly supported by the ancient versions also, which have wall (Sept., Theodot.: ; Vulgate: rursum dificabitur platea et muri). Hitzig arbitrarily asserts that the verb will not admit of such an interpretation of . On his view, the word is synonymous with , Eze 41:12, and gives the meaning according to street and court. Hofmann adopts a similar rendering, extension and bounded space, as do also Kliefoth and Fller, opening and limitation. Grotius, on the other hand, conceives of an aqueduct, Dathe, of the Divine judgment, and several others take as a parenthetic supplement, signifying and it is determined (decided), or, as it is determined (Hitzig, in Stud. u. Krit., 1832, Hengstenb., Hvernick, Von Lengerke, Wieseler, Kranichfeld).35 expresses the reason why so long a time is required to build and restore, and therefore stands in an adversative relation to the preceding (= but, however). The historical commentary on this but in troublous times is found in the narratives of Ezra and Nehemiah, respecting the frequent disturbing and interruption of the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem in the time of the Persian kings; cf. especially Neh 9:36-37. The city was inhabited in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (Hag 1:4), but had neither walls nor gates (cf. Zec 2:8-9); up to that time the enemies of the Jews had prevented the building of the temple and of the walls either by cunning or by force (Ezr 4:4-5; Ezr 4:12; Ezr 4:23 et seq.). In the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus the walls and gates had again been destroyed (Neh 1:3); and the renewed building succeeded only under manifold precautions: Neh. 3:33; 4:1, 2 et seq.; Neh 6:1 et seq.36 (Hitzig). Any reference of the expression to disturbances encountered in the building up of the church, or the New Test, kingdom of God, can only be admitted in a typical sense, since the primary reference of the passage is solely to Jerusalem in the period following the captivity. When Kranichfeld, p. 329, declares that is the modifying factor connected with oracles like Jer 31:38; Isa 54:11; Isa 60:10; Eze 45:6; Eze 48:8; Eze 48:15 et seq., he thereby substantially contradicts his ordinary interpretation of the passage, which is only typically Messianic, and he is guilty of an inconsequent vacillation in the direction of the strict Messianic theory.

Dan 9:26. And after (the 37) threescore and two weeks shall the Messiah be cut off; rather, an anointed one. Since the period covered by the sixty-two weeks (or 434 years) is preceded by the seven weeks (or forty-nine years) according to the above, the event here predicted must fall into the last of the seventy weeks in Dan 9:24, as the next verse expressly states. Hence the who is to be cut off during that final year-week cannot possibly be identified with the whom the preceding verse introduced already on the expiration of the seventh of the seventy weeks of years.38 Instead of an anointed prince, we are here referred simply to an anointed one, who is, moreover, placed in such an intimate relation to the city and the sanctuary in the second half of the versei.e., to Jerusalem and the temple located therethat he is brought into sharp and clearly defined contrast with the prince and people who destroy that city and its sanctuary. A high priest of Israel is evidently intended, whom the people of the foreign and hostile prince cuts off (), i.e., destroys, kills (cf. Gen 9:11; Deu 20:20; Jer 11:19; Psa 37:9; Pro 2:22; Pro 10:31, etc.).39 And since the hostile prince is unequivocally characterized in both Dan 9:26-27 as the ruler of the antitheistic and anti-Christian world-power, and as the originator of the blasphemous and sacrilegious horrors which already appeared in Dan 7:25; Dan 8:11. et seq., it will evidently be appropriate to regard a high priest who fell at the hands of heathen persecutors in the period of religious oppression under the Seleucid as the anointed one, in whose death the prophecy before us was primarily, although but typically, fulfilled. Such a person is found in the high priest Onias III who was murdered by Andronicus, the governor under Epiphanes, according to 2Ma 3:31 et seq.; Dan 4:1 et seq., and to him the prophecy may be referred with the highest probability that the interpretation is correct. According to 2Ma 4:34 et seq., the slaying of this anointed one took place before the second campaign undertaken by Epiphanes against Egypt, and shortly before the king arrived at Tyre on his return from Cilicia (cf. ibid., Daniel 9:22, 30, 44; Dan 5:1). Hence, it certainly transpired before the abuse of the city and its sanctuary by the same king, a feature with which the description in this verse harmonizes well upon the whole [but with some fatal exceptions]. A discrepancy exists in a chronological aspect only between that event and the statements in the prophecy; for, while the sixty-two weeks of years extend, when reckoned from the end of the first seven year-weeks or B. C. 539, to B. C. 105 or into the reign of the Asmonan Aristobulus I or his successor Alexander Jannus (after 105), the murder of Onias by Andronicus took place as early as 141 or 142 of the ra of the Seleucid, i.e., B. C. 171 or 172, and therefore in the fifty-third week of years after B. C. 539. Consequently, if it be conceded that all the remaining assumptions are correct, it must be acknowledged that the prophecy is not consistent with itself in a chronological aspect, or that the prophet saw events belonging to different periods in a single comprehensive viewin other words, that he conceived of a catastrophe in the historical future, which was decidedly important to the nations concerned, as belonging to a period, later by a number of years (perhaps ten weeks of years, or seventy years) than it actually transpired. Cf. infra, eth.-fund. principles, etc. Nos. 1 and 2.40The following diverging interpretations are to be rejected: (1) That adopted by Eichhorn, Corrodi, Wieseler, Hitzig, Kamphausen, etc., which comes especially near our own; they regard the anointed one as being Onias, but reckon the sixty-two year-weeks, which closed at the time of his death, from B. C. 604 instead of 539, so that the first seven weeks are not to be counted (?), or rather, are included in the sixty-two (?)since 604434 actually results in 170, the number of the year in which Onias died; (2) The similar view of Wieseler (Gtt. Gel.-Anz. 1846) and of Delitzsch (upon the whole that of Hofmann also, Weiss. und Erf., p. 303 et seq.), which holds that Onias is the anointed one, at whose cutting off the sixty-two weeks of years from B. C. 604 were to have expired; but that the seven weeks are to be placed after the year-week which began with the year of his deathhence are to be reckoned from B. C. 164 (cf. on the impossibility of this assumption, supra, on Dan 9:25); (3) The opinion of Bleek, Maurer, v. Lengerke, Roesch, Ewald, etc., that the anointed one who was cut off was not the high priest Onias, but the king Seleucus IV Philopater, of Syria, who was killed by the usurper Heliodorus in B. C. 176; this opinion involves still greater chronological difficulties than the former, inasmuch as the sixty-two weeks of years, when reckoned back from B. C. 176, would extend to B. C. 610; and it is opposed, moreover, by the inadmissible character of an attempt to explain by king; (4) That of Bertholdt, who believes that the passage refers to the death of Alexander the Great (!), who left no heir; (5) The assumption of Kranichfeld, that the anointed one is the Messiah of Israel, as in Psa 2:2; Isa 61:1, and therefore not identical with the anointed prince of Dan 9:25, but not less distinct also from Onias, the murdered high-priest of Maccaban times; (6) The orthodox churchly view which identifies the anointed one with the anointed prince of the preceding verse, and believes that both denote Christ, whose sufferings and death are said to be predicted in a similar manner by , as in Isaiah 53 (held among moderns, e.g., by Hvern., Hengstenb., Auberl., Pusey [Keil], etc.); (7) The assertion by Kliefoth (on Zec 13:7 and also on this passage) that the anointed one is Christ, but only in the final stage of his work and government among the kingdoms of the earth; and further, that the passage, like Luk 17:25; 2Th 2:7, describes the relation to the world and mankind which Christ shall occupy by reason of the great apostasy before the end of the world, as prophecy leads us to expect.But not for himself; rather, and he has no one, i.e., for his helper, his deliverer from death; or he has nothing, there remains nothing to him ( , namely , cf. Fller and Kranichfeld on this passage). This meets with an extraordinary variety of interpretations, based respectively on the different explanations of . Theodotion: ; Jerome: et non erit ejus populus qui eum negaturus est (in like manner also Grotius, and a majority of Roman Catholic expositors); Bertholdt: and he (Alex the Gr.) shall have no successor; v. Lengerke, Roesch, Bleek, Ewald, etc.: and he (Seleucus Philopater) shall have no successor; Wieseler: and he (Onias) shall have no son; Auberlen: he, Christ, shall have no adherents; Hofmann, Hengstenb., Kranichf., Kliefoth (and similarly also Calvin, Junius, Ebrard): he, Christ, shall possess nothing, shall be without possessions, and be deprived of everything; Hofmann (in Weiss, und Erf.): and there shall not be to the people, i.e., an anointed one, the people shall have no Messiah;41 Hvernick: and not for himself, i.e., for his own sake,supply, shall the Messiah die, but for the benefit of mankind, which is to be redeemed; Michaelis, E. C. Schmidt (in Paulus Memorabil. VII. 51), Wieseler (in Gtt. Gel. Anz., 1846), Hitzig: and he is not, i.e., Onias ( consequently=, cf. Gen 5:24). Upon the whole cf. Kliefoth, p. 357 et seq. Since the forcible cutting off of an anointed one is concerned, we are obliged to regard that explanation as being most consistent with the context, which supplies , perhaps (cf. Psa 7:3; Psa 50:22; Isa 5:29) after . It does not differ materially from that advocated by Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Kranichfeld, etc., which supplies ; for whoever has no deliverer or helper is also without power, without possessions, without anything whatever. We differ from those expositors only in regarding the anointed one who is described as being without possessions and helpless, not directly as the Messiah, but more immediately as his type, the Jewish high priest who was killed in the course of the Antiochian persecution,in short, in substituting the typical Messianic theory for the direct (in which we agree substantially with Fller).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; rather, and the people of a prince,42 who shall come and end with overflowing,43 shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The words evidently refer to a catastrophe which follows immediately on the cutting off of the anointed one. The coming prince ( ) who approaches to cause destruction to the city and the sanctuary, or more exactly, who comes as the ruler of the people that brings ruin and destruction, is doubtless, therefore, the Old.-Test. antichrist, or the antitheistic horn of the earlier visions (Dan 7:21; Dan 7:25; Dan 8:11 et seq.; 24 et seq.), and consequently Antiochus Epiphanes, (= ) describes this ruler as coming at the head of his army in a hostile character (cf. in Dan 1:1; Dan 8:6; Dan 11:10; Dan 11:13; Dan 11:15-16; Dan 11:40-41), and the definite article indicates that his coming was a familiar fact to the prophet, as having formed the subject of his earlier predictions.44 The participle is therefore not employed without a purpose (Hofmann, Weiss, und Erf., I. 304), nor does it refer to , people (Schll, Ebrard). It does not signify Epiphanes succession to his predecessor Seleucus (Roesch, Maurer), nor denote the future appearing or mysterious presence of the New-Test antichrist, in the sense of 2Th 2:9 (Kliefoth).The ending of this prince with overflowing is probably not materially different from the pouring out of annihilation and judicial punishment upon the desolator, at the close of the following verse. , a flood, an overflowing, accordingly denotes the judgment inflicted by God in his anger on the impious (Wieseler, Kliefoth), or, more probably, since in that case a genitive (cf. Pro 27:4) would properly be required in order to define the sense more clearly, it is used sensu bellico to denote an overflowing with warlike hosts, which should lead to the end of his life, i.e., his annihilation (Dan 11:45; cf. Dan 7:26). Cf. the exactly similar use of in Dan 11:10; Dan 11:22; Dan 11:26; Dan 11:40, and in Isa 8:8, together with Isa 10:22.Here again we are obliged to reject a number of diverging explanations, and especially that of Hitzig, v. Lengerke, etc., who refer the words to a warlike expedition undertaken by Antiochus Epiphanes, instead of one that should break in upon him like a flood and annihilate him; that of Ewald, who obtains the sense who comes with his host overflowing (or in overflow) by a violent emendation, inasmuch as he substitutes , and his host, or , and his line of battle (after Pro 30:27), for ; that of Gesenius, Rosenmller, Roesch, etc., who take in the sense of suddenly, like a flood; that of Auberlen, Hvernick, Delitzsch, etc., who refer the suffix in to the city and sanctuary, rather than to the prince; their destruction shall come by overflowing, etc.45And unto the end of the war desolations are determined; i.e., the devastating of the city and sanctuary are to continue to the end of the warlike alarms excited by their impious oppressor, as a matter that is determined by God. designates that state of war which begins with cutting off the anointed one, and eventually results in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (so, correctly, Rosenmller, Hofmann, Ewald, Fller, etc.). Others read, and to the end shall be war, the determined desolations, in which method is either taken as an apposition (Hvern., v. Leng., Maur., Wieseler, Hitz., Auberlen), or as an explanatory clause to the foregoing, with the conjunctions omitted in the connection (Kranichfeld, Kliefoth), and in connection with which still further differences of opinion exist with regard to the meaning of , some expositors referring it to the end of the prince (Wieseler), some to the end of the sanctuary (Hv., Aub.) or of the period of the seventy weekshence, to the last year-week of the seventy (v. Lengerke, Hitzig), and some even to the end of all things, the absolute end (Kliefoth). The reference of to the exterminated prince is evidently the only one in harmony with the context, which thus identifies it with the of the preceding clause; but it is more appropriate to regard it in the sense of a stat. constr., to the end of the war, because of the more regular and connected character of the arrangement of the sentence.46 is also the construct state of , which recurs at the close of the following verse, and here probably denotes the same idea as in Dan 11:36, and Isa 10:23; Isa 28:22, viz.: determination, destiny, what is ordained. A determination of the desolations ( as in Dan 9:18; cf. on that passage) is a decree that aims at desolations and has them for its object. Ewald: the decision respecting the horrors, i.e., the decision of God at the judgment of the world, which relates to the horrible actions and devastations of Antiochus, or which serves to punish them (?). Hofmann and Kliefoth are still more arbitrary: a determined measure of desolations, which is thus limited and confined.[This language was not fulfilled in any appropriate sense by Antiochus, who aimed merely at the suppression of Jehovahs worship, but left the city and sanctuary uninjured. It seems to us that the old interpretation, which refers it to the last war with the Romans when Titus seemed compelled by providence to persist in his attack till the temple itself was demolished, is the only adequate one. This was the retribution that eventually followed the rejection and murder of their Messiah by the Jews.]

Dan 9:27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; rather, make a strong covenant,47 etc. This sentence (introduced by an explicative vav) is obviously an explanation and more particular illustration of the statements in the preceding verse. Its subject is neither the indefinite it (Fller), nor the one week (Theodot., Dereser, Hvern., Von Leng., Hengstenb., Hitz., Auberl.), but, beyond all question, , which governs the preceding sentence as a logical subject, is finally included in , and is the prominent subject of consideration, from Dan 9:26 b (thus, correctly, Berth., Maur., Wiesel., Ewald, kranichf, Klief., etc.).48 It is observed, therefore, with regard to the anti-Christian prince of the final world-power, that he shall confirm the covenant as to many, i.e., that he shall enter into a strong, firm covenant with many; for the Hiphil , which occurs elsewhere only in Psa 12:5, and there signifies to be strong, to exhibit strength, in this place doubtless expresses the transitive idea of strengthening, and in connection with the idea covenant, involves more particularly the notion of confirming or establishing. The many ( with the article) with whom the strong covenant is made by the prince are obviously the numerous apostate Jews, who were induced by the heathen tyrant to break their covenant with God and disobey His law, according to 1Ma 1:10 et seq., and thus to enter into an antitheocratic alliance that was hostile to God, for one week, i.e., during a week of years ( , accusative of time). Cf. the allusions to this fact in Dan 11:22 (where is employed in the same antitheocratic sense as here), in Dan 11:32 (where the transgressors of [Jehovahs] covenant, the , are the same as the in this place), and also in Dan 8:10 et seq., where the stars that were trodden under foot by the little horn may likewise represent the breakers of the covenant who are here mentioned (cf. also Dan 8:24 et seq.).49A great diversity of opinion respecting the meaning of the. covenant exists among the representatives of the theory which makes the subject of . In illustration of this, cf. Hitzig, the one week of years shall make the covenanti.e., the adherence to the faith in Jehovah, and to the theocratic lawhard for many; Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, II. 2), the one week of years shall confirm many in the covenant through tribulation and the trial of their faith (similarly, Rosenmller, before Hofmann); Von Lengerke, A week shall confirm a covenant to many, through the seductive arts of Antiochus; Hengstenberg, Hvernick, Auberlen, etc., the one week, or rather the events belonging to it, especially the death of the Messiah referred to in Dan 9:26, will lead to the conclusion of a new, strong, and firm covenant with many, etc.And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; i.e., during one half of the week. might of itself signify the middle of the week; but the following shows that something transpires during the , which naturally belongs to the close of the whole period of oppression here described, viz.: the punishment and annihilation of the impious persecutor. For this reason must rather denote half of the week, and more particularly the second half, and it therefore corresponds to the three and a half years of persecution of Dan 7:25; and for which no other appropriate subject can be found than that of the preceding verb can therefore express no other sense than that of causing to cease during the period in question. The impious madman causes to cease during that period the , the bloody and unbloody offerings, which are mentioned representatively for all the sacrifices required by the theocratic ritual, as being the two principal classes of offerings under the Mosaic economy, in a similar manner as that in which , the daily, was employed in Dan 8:11 to express this concrete individualizing and comprehensive sense.50 The expression here employed cannot be taken to refer to the superseding of the Old-Test. institution of sacrifices by the New-Test, worship in spirit and in truth, as being based on the perfect expiatory sacrifice of Christ (against Hvernick, Hengstenb., Auberl., etc.); for the verb would not have been suited to express that idea, and, moreover, the sin offering (cf. Dan 9:24) would hardly have been passed by without mention in that case. Kliefoth emphasizes correctly, that in this place the of Dan 9:26 must be considered the subject, and that the observation here relates not to the abrogation, but merely to the suspension of the sacrifices; but he afterward arbitrarily applies the passage to a temporary suspension and suppression of the eucharist as the sacrifice of the New Covenant, to be caused by the antichrist in the last age of the church.And for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate; rather, and abominations of desolation shall be on the wing. This constitutes the actual climax of the many difficulties presented in this passage, the real crux interpretum, which has produced almost as many explanations as interpreters. Probably all those methods of explanation are to be at once rejected and avoided which contradict the most ancient quotation and translation of the words in the originally Hebrew Maccaban book (1:54; cf. Mat 24:15; Mar 13:14), and the corresponding testimony of the most ancient translators, the Sept., Theodotion, and the Vulgate. All these render by abominations of desolation (1 Macc., l. c., ; Sept., Theodot., ; Vulg., abominatio desolationis), which probably resulted from the influence of primitive traditions that were certainly correct in the main. was accordingly regarded as a genitive from the beginning, and probably by the author himselfnot, however, as a genitive of possession, but as a genitive of description; or, what amounts to the same thing, it was considered an apposition to the preceding plural , in support of which the analogy of in Dan 8:8 may be adduced on the one hand (as also the similar connection of that plural with a singular in Jer 49:11), and on the other, the appositional combination in Dan 8:13 (cf. also , 1Ch 27:5).51 The plural (for which, however, the writer of 1 Macc., l. c., substituted the sing , , possibly with design, because the abomination of idolatry with which Epiphanes desecrated the temple was chief in his mind) at all events denotes abominations, horrible things, and more particularly abominable things from a religious point of view, abominable idolatries, what is loathsome in the domain of Divine worship, res abominand ad cultum Deorum spectantes; cf. Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11. In like manner as this meaning of is adequately secured by the or abominatio of the ancient translators, so that of , by which it denotes ravager or desolation, is evidently established by their . This rendering may be substantiated by a comparison with in the preceding verse, and also with in Eze 36:3 (cf. , to be desolate, uninhabited, Lam 1:4; 2Sa 13:20), and accords as well with the context as does the idea of an object to be stared at, or of terrorhence what is terrible, dreadful,by which Hitzig, Ewald, et al., prefer to render the term (by virtue of a one-sided application of the fund meaning of , to stare, shudder). If these considerations are accordingly sufficient to establish for the sense of abomination of desolation=desolating abomination of idolatry, hideously devastating nature of the idolatrous service, there remains only the difficult to be interpreted. The ancient versions are agreed in rendering by , templum, and also in not connecting it as a stat. constr. with the following term, but taking it separately as a stat. absol., and reading it . It might be difficult to raise any material objection against this departure from the Masoret punctuation, since it is only too easy to conceive of as a stat. constr., and thus reach the ordinary reading, in view of the temptation to obtain the sense of wings of abomination, hideous wings, which is suggested by passages like Zec 5:1; Zec 5:9. Moreover, the interpretation of by sanctuary has an almost irresistible though indirect support in the of Mat 4:5. , in itself equivalent to screen, covering, roof (from which fund, meaning all others, e.g., wing, tassel, edge, border, etc., are readily derived), might without difficulty become the customary term to designate the roof of the temple or the pinnacle of the temple (Matt., l.c.), and afterward be applied, with equal adaptation, to the entire edifice of the temple (in view of its elevated site and its prominent buildings), by virtue of a synecdoche analogous to that which prevails in the Latin with reference to tectum, and in the Greek (cf. Mat 8:8) in the use of . If this view should not seem objectionable, it will not be necessary to limit the sense of so as to apply to the roof-pinnacle, summit, or highest point of the temple (Gesenius, Hengstenberg, etc.), nor yet to violently amend by supplying , with J. D. Michaelis. It will then be possible to render it simply by, and on the wing, i.e., the temple, and to regard the desolating idolatrous abominations found on it as any symbols or utensils of idolatrous worship whatever, whether idols, altars erected to their worship, or other similar fixtures. See especially Bleek, Jahrb. f. d. Theol., 1860, p. 93 et seq.[52]We adduce, by way of illustration merely, several of the more recent and noticeable of the many interpretations rejected in favor of the above (with reference to which Hitzig, p. 168, observes somewhat coarsely, but not without wit, and, were he to assign to his own a principal place among them, not incorrectly, that the expositors themselves are here lying-in in the weeks, and being delivered of all manner of ). Hitzig interprets, and annihilation, even to its full consummation, is poured out on the extreme point of the horrible abomination (by which expression is designated the idolatrous altar, which, according to 1Ma 1:59, was erected on the altar of burnt-offerings by Antiochus); Ewald, and above shall be the horrible wing of abominations, i.e., the wing-shaped (!?) point of the heathen altar shall appear over the ruined altar of Jehovah; Wieseler, and a desolator shall arise against the wing of abominations; Von Lengerke, the desolator comes upon the pinnacle of abomination (also Hengstenberg, Maurer, Reinke); de Wette, the abomination of the desolator shall stand on the pinnacle of the temple; Hvernick, on the head (or summit) of the abominations is a desolator; Auberlen, and because of the desolating wing of abominations. the curse (?) shall drop down upon the desolate; Delitzsch, and indeed, because of the desolating wing of abominations (which spreads over the temple and the altar), the sacrifice shall be abolished; Hofmann, and upon the covering of the desolating idolatrous institutions (i.e., on the new plate which Antiochus caused to be placed on the profaned altar with a view to the offering of heathen sacrifices) the sacrifice shall be interrupted for half a week; Fller, and over the covering of abominations stands a desolator; Ebrard, Kliefoth, and a destroyer comes on the wings of idolatrous abominations (so formerly Reichel, Stud. u. Kritiken, 1848, and also Kranichfeld [and substantially Keil]); Jahn, Hermeneutic. Append., p. 161), Gesenius(Thesaur.), desolation comes upon the horrible wing of the rebels host; [Stuart, and a waster shall be over a winged fowl of abominations, i.e., the winged statue of Jupiter Olympius placed by Antiochus in the temple], etc.Even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate; rather, but (only) until extirpation and judicial punishment shall be poured out upon the desolator, i.e., the abomination of desolation shall continue only until the Divinely determined judgment shall be poured out upon the desolator. The in may be rendered by and indeed (as epexegeticum), or by but yet; in either case this closing sentence serves to limit the idea. It points out, in a comforting manner, how long the abomination of desolation should continue in the sanctuary, certifying that it could be maintained no longer than the providence of God should permit.[53] The thought that the events of the entire period of severe tribulation in question are controlled by a Divine decree which predetermines their end and results was already expressed for the comfort of the pious in the of Dan 9:26, and was also implied by , Dan 9:24 (Kranichfeld). The combination is taken verbatim from Isa 10:23; Isa 28:22, and signifies, as in those passages, utter extinction (annihilation) and consummation,a hendiadys which denotes a Divinely determined annihilation, extirpation imposed as a judicial punishment. This two-fold idea forms a unit in the intimate blending of its shades of meaning, and is the subject of the verb ; for is not in this instance a preposition governing the two substantives, but a conjunction, signifying until that, as elsewhere ; cf. Gen 38:11; Hos 10:12. The annihilation that was determined drops down, is poured out on the , the impious desolator, as the curse and the oath were to descend upon the guilty Israelites, Dan 9:11; cf. , which does not materially differ from , as has already been shown., the Kal participle of , is probably equivalent in substance to , the Piel partic. of the same verb (cf. Dan 8:13; Dan 12:11 with Dan 11:31).54 Like that, it signifies desolating, the desolating (agent), desolation, and probably does not primarily designate the person of the antichrist, but rather both antichrist and his host (cf. Dan 9:26, the people of a prince)hence, the aggregate of the power that opposed God led Israel into apostasy and desecrated its sanctuary, and upon which the Divine judgment was for that reason poured out. Hitzig arbitrarily remarks (as did Ewald and Hofmann before him) that does not designate the tyrant who resisted God, but rather the idol-altar erected by him or the heathen religion generally, against which destruction and judgment are here denounced, as being horrible to any Israelite in its nature.

APPENDIX

Relating to the history of the exposition of Dan 9:24-27.

1. Jewish exposition in pre-Christian times is united in referring this section to the Maccaban ra of tribulation under Antiochus Epiphanes. This is established beyond controversy by the of 1Ma 1:54, which corresponds to , Dan 9:27, and in that place denotes the smaller idol-altar (, 1Ma 9:59) erected by Antiochus Epiphanes on the altar of burnt-offerings. It is no less clearly indicated by the manner in which the Sept. renders this paragraph, and supplements it with various additions that obviously relate to the Maccaban period. In this connection the mode of expressing the time indicated at the beginning of Dan 9:26 is especially instructive. And after threescore and two weeks, reads in that version, , i.e., after 139 (67 + 62) years. This was doubtless intended to designate the year 139 of the ra of the Seleucid (B. C. 174) as the time at which began the apostasy of the Jews who had been seduced by Antiochus; cf. 1Ma 1:11 et seq.; 2Ma 4:9 et seq. See also Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen, etc., p. 201; Hvernick, Komment., p. 387 et seq.Several expressions in the New Test appear to indicate that shortly before the advent of Christ the Jews again began to look for the fulfilment of the prophecy in question in the future; e.g., Luk 2:38 (cf. Dan 9:24), ; Mat 11:3, , a designation of the Messiah that probably originated in a misunderstanding of in Dan 9:26 (cf. Wieseler, p. 150); and also the allusions to the abomination of desolation, Dan 9:27, contained in the eschatological prophecies uttered by the Saviour (Mat 24:15; Mar 13:14) and by St. Paul (2Th 2:3 et seq.), which could only be understood by their contemporaries, in case a Messianic character were assigned to the paragraph before us, and consequently, in case its fulfilment were not exclusively looked for in the events of the Maccaban period.[55]Josephus also bears witness that this Messianic-eschatological interpretation was current among the Jews of his day, in the repeated instances where he states, or at least implies, that the terrible incidents connected with the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans were predicted by the prophet Daniel; e.g., Ant., X. 11, Daniel 7 : Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them ( ); De Bell. Jud., IV 5, 2, where he applies the term anointed one, Dan 9:26, and again the expression anointed one and prince, Dan 9:25, to the high priest Ananus whom the Idumans murdered; and De Bell. Jud., VI. 5, 4, where the mysterious oracle that then should their city be taken, when their temple should become four-square seems to refer back to Dan 9:27 (where they perhaps read instead of ), etc. It is less certain whether any direct reference to this section is contained in the celebrated passage, De Bell. Judges , 6, 5, 4, . In that case the parallel records in Tacitus, Hist., V. 13 and Suet., Vesp., 4, must, of course, be likewise rooted in the prophecy of Daniel that is before us. Concerning this question see Hvernick, p. 390, who, however, probably finds too much in the passage, since he refers the , directly to the of Dan 9:25-26.56

2. The interpretation of Josephus, which applies the prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 and to Titus as the Dan 9:26, seems to have been accepted, with scarcely an exception, by the later Jews of the Talmudic ra and the time immediately subsequent. The principal witness to this fact is Jerome (on Dan 9:24 et seq.; T. V., 2 ed. Vallars., p. 694). The Hebri of his day calculated the 490 years or seventy weeks of years from the first year of Darius or B. C. 539 indeed, but none the less assigned their conclusion to the age of Jesus, even finding his death predicted therein (probably in the , Dan 9:26), since they held that non erit illius imperium, quod putabat se redemturum (as it should be read, instead of quod putabant se retenturos, which is a later emendation). They also found a prediction of the approach of the Roman army under Vespasian and Titus, in the same place. Several added even the rising under Barcocheba or the three years (three and a half years) war against Hadrian: Nec ignoramus, quosdam illorum dicere, quod una hebdomada, de qua scriptum est: confirmabit pactum multis hebdomada una, dividatur Vespasiano et Hadriano, quod juxta historiam Josephi Vespasianus et Titus tribus annis et sex mensibus pacem cum Judis fecerint. Tres autem anni et sex menses sub Hadriano supputantur, quando Hierusalem omnino subversa est, et Judorum gens catervatim csa, ita ut Jud quoque finibus pellerentur.The two Gemaras also refer this prophecy to the war against Vespasian; the Babylonian in Nasir, c. 5; Sanhedr., c. 11, and the Jerusalem in Kelim, c. 9; and several Talmudic and Rabbinical traditions are likewise based on that interpretation, e.g., that the Targumist had neglected to translate the Hagiographa, because it was taught in them that the Messiah should be cut off (Dan 9:26. See Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad Luk 19:11; Schttgen, Hor. Hebr., p. 211); and that the Messiah actually came at the time when Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple desolated, but as a sufferer and in disguise (Glsener, De gemin. Jud, Mess., p. 23ss.; Corrodi, Krit. Gesch. des Chilias muss, I. 284 et seq.).It was reserved for the later period of the middle ages to introduce several new and more independent explanations beside this variously modified Messianic interpretation of the prophecy; e.g., by referring the to Cyrus (Saad. Gaon., Rashi, Jacchiad.), or to Nehemiah (Ibn-Ezra) or the highpriest Joshua (Levi b. -Gers.). Cf. Mller, Judaism, pp. 321, 342 et seq.; Carpzov, in his ed. of Raymond Martinis Pugio fidei, p. 233.It was customary to follow the Seder Olam Rabba in reckoning the seventy weeks from the first destruction of the temple to the second; see Abendana, in the Spicileg. ad Michl. Jophi: Hebdomades h sept. sunt septiman annorum quadringentorum nonaginta, iidemque sine dubio a devastatione primi ad devastationem secundi templi, quia sept. anni fuere captivitatis Babyhnic, et quadringenti viginti anni, quibus futura erit domus secunda in structura sua: atque sic majores nostri exposuere in Seder Olam. By this method of reckoning, the , Dan 9:25, is accordingly made to apply to the period of Jeremiahs prophecy respecting the seventy years exile or to the year B. C. 588. Ibn-Ezra alone departs from this method, by referring that expression concerning the going forth of the oracle (Dan 5:23) to Daniel, and consequently assigning the beginning of the 490 years to the year B. C. 539 and extending the first seven weeks of years belonging to that period, to Nehemiah, the restorer of the temple, or to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Concerning these Rabbinical methods of reckoning, and at the same time, concerning their fundamental incorrectness and untenable character in a chronological point of view, cf. Chr. B. Michaelis, Annot. uberior, III. 320 et seq. Individual Rabbins in modern times were convinced of the incorrectness of this usual anti-Messianic interpretation, as appears from the noteworthy expression of the Venetian chief-Rabbin Simon Luzzato, concerning this passage, as recorded by Wolf in the Biblioth. Hebr., III. 1228. According to him, the consequence of a too extended and profound investigation on the part of Jewish scholars would be that they would all become Christians; for it cannot be denied that according to Daniels limitation of the time, the Messiah must have already appeared. But that Jesus was the true Messiah he felt himself unable to accept as certain.

3. The Christian expositors of the older time regarded the directly Messianic bearing of the passage as being generally incontrovertible, and especially the application of to Christ the crucified, as also the reference of the restoring and building of the city and temple in Dan 9:25 to the establishing of the church of the New Covenant; cf. Barnabas, Ep., c. Dan 16: , , , . The different exegetes varied exceedingly, however, in the mode of reckoning the years.57 Jerome, on this passage, already mentions nine different methods of explaining them: (1) that of Jul. Africanus, who reckoned the 490 years from Nehemiah, or the 20th year of Artaxerxes, to the death of Christ, but in connection with this committed the error of reckoning by Jewish lunar years (resulting in only 465 solar years); (2) Three different theories of Eusebius, who (a) dates the first sixty-nine weeks from the return of the Jews in the reign of Cyrus to the death of Alexander Jannus, the high priest and king, and Pompeys invasion (B. C. 536B. C. 64; thus in Dem, ev., VIII. 2, 55 et seq.); or (b) from the second year of Darius Hystaspis (B. C. 520 to the birth of Christ (ibid. and Chronic. Ol. 184); or, (c) regards the last week as a period of seventy years, and attempts to calculate from the resurrection of Christ; (3) that of Hippolytus, who counted sixty-nine mystical weeks (comprising more than seven years each) from the first year of Cyrus to the incarnation of Christ, and declared that the last mystical week denotes the future period of the antichrist, which is connected with the end of the world; (4) that of Apollinaris of Laodicea, who reckoned the 490 years from the birth of Christ (ab exitu Verbi, Dan 9:25), and therefore expected the coming of the antichrist and the end of the world about a century after his day, in the last week; (5) that of Clemens Alex. who extended the seventy weeks of years, in the face of all chronology, from the first year of Cyrus to the second year of Vespasian (B. C. 560A. D. 70); (6) that of Origen, who denies the possibility of any more exact chronological estimate, and therefore assumes 4900 years instead of 490, reaching from Adam to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (not indeed in vol. 10 of his Stromata, which Jerome cites, but in his Tract. XXIV. on Matthew c, 24); (7) that of Tertullian (adv. Judos, c, 8), who reckons the 437 years from the first year of Darius Nothus (whom he strangely identifies with Darius Medus) to the birth of Christ, and fifty-two and a half from that event to the destruction of Jerusalem, thus obtaining 490.Jerome himself expresses no opinion respecting the mode of reckoning to be observed, but seems to favor that of Africanus, which he preferred to all the others, and probably not without reason. That method is likewise adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Isidore of Pelusium, Euthymius Zigabenus, and generally by a majority of expositors in the Oriental church, but few of whom assume an independent position. Among the latter are, e.g., Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. xii. 19), who attempts to extend the seventy weeks of years from the sixth year of Darius Medus to the birth of Christ, but violates historical accuracy by identifying Darius Medus with Darius Hystaspis; Ephraem Syrus who places the restoration of Jerusalem in the beginning of the seventieth week and the destruction by Titus at its close, without entering on a more careful calculation in other respects; Polychronius, a brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who reckons the first seven weeks from Darius Medus to the ninth year of Darius Hystaspis, when Zerubbabels temple is said to have been completed, the sixty-two weeks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the birth of Christ, and the final week from that date to Titus, while the death of Christ falls in its central point; Basil of Seleucia (Orat., 38 in t. 85 of Mignes Patrol.), who calculates the first sixty-nine weeks from the completion of the walls of Jerusalem in the twenty-eighth year of Xerxes (!) to the resurrection of Christ, and identifies the seventieth week with the first seven years after the resurrection, while he declares the abomination of desolation erected in the middle of that week to have been the familiar attempt of Caligula to erect his image in the temple.Among the later expositors of the Latin church, Augustine, following the example of Jerome, avoids every independent and detailed calculation of the seventy weeks. He contents himself with finding a fulfilment of the leading features of the prophecy Dan 9:24 et seq., in the earthly work of Christ and in the judgment of Jerusalem, and expressly rejects (especially in Ep. 199 de fine sculii) the opinion of those who looked for two periods of seventy weeks of years, the first of which should reach to Christs advent in the flesh, and the second to the end of the world. This assumption of a double period of seventy weeks of years, or of an Old-Test. and typical realization of the prophecy, followed by a New-Test. antitypical fulfilment, was advocated as late as the sixth century by the unknown Arian author of the so-called Opus imperfectum in Matthum. Sulpicius Severus (Chron., II. 21) extends the sixty-nine weeks from the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes 1 to Vespasian, or from the restoration of the temple to its second destruction. His contemporary, Julius Hilarianus, appears in his Chronologia libellus de mundi duratione (in Migne, t. XIII, p. 1098) as the forerunner of the modern critical exposition, in consequence of his denial of the direct Messianic character of the prophecy, whose fulfilment he places in the age of Antiochus and the Maccabees; but he commits the gross chronological blunder of assigning 434 years (=62 weeks) to the interval between the return of the Jews under Zerubbabel and the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, while the period between B. C. 536 and B. C. 175 really amounts to but 361 years! Prosper Aquitan in his Chronicon adopts the view advocated by Eusebius in the Demonstr. evangelica and the Chron. (see supra, No. 2 b), and accordingly reckons the sixty-nine weeks from the building of the temple under Darius to Herod the Gr. and the birth of Christ. Finally, the venerable Bede adopts substantially the view of Julius Africanus (Libell. de temporum ratione, c. 7), as does also Thomas Aquinas (Comm. in Dan., in Opp., t. 13 ed. Antverp).

4. The expositors of modern times, and more particularly of pre-rationalistic times, are agreed in recognizing the Messianic bearing of this prophecy, but differ exceedingly in their modes of reckoning the seventy weeks, or, what amounts to the same thing, in their interpretations of , Dan 9:25.58 As the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks they accept one of the following dates:

a. The time of the first prophecy by Jeremiah (Jer 25:11 et seq.), or the fourth year of Jehoiakims reign; thus Harduin (Chronol. Vet. Test., Amstel., 1709, p. 592 ss.); A. Calmet (Dissert. sur les 70 semaines de Daniel, Dissertt., p. 1); A. Collins (The scheme of liberal prophecy, I. 109).

b. The time of Jeremiahs second prophecy (Jer 29:10) or the fourth year of Zedekiah; so Seb. Mnster, Vatablus (and also several expositors belonging to the last centuries in the Middle Ages, e.g., Lyranus, in the Postilla, Raym, Martini, Pugio fid., 2, 269, etc.).

c. The date of Daniels prophecy itself (Dan 9:1), and hence the first year of the reign of Darius Medus over Babylon, B. C. 539; so J. H. Jungmann (Cassel, 1681); J. Koch (Entsiegelter Daniel, II. 206, and Kurze Anfangsgrnde der Chronologie, II. 24), J. D. Michaelis (Versuch ber die 70 Wochen Daniels, Gtt. and Gotha, 1770; cf. his Epistola de Septuag. hebdom. ad Jo. Pringle, London, 1773); Matth. Hassenkamp (Versuch einer neuen Erklrung der 70 Wochen Daniels, Lemgo, 1772); Velthusen (Muthmassungen ber die siebenmal siebenzig Jahre beim Dan 9:24-27, Hanover, 1774).

d. The first year of the reign of Cyrus. B. C. 560; Calvin, colampadius, lEmpereur, Cocceius, Matth. Bervaldus (Chronicon auctoritate constitutum, III. 7), B. Blayney (A dissertation by way of Inquiry into Daniels seventy Weeks, Oxford, 1775), H. Uri (Sept. hebdomadum, quas Gabriel ad Danielem detulerat, interpretatio, paraphrasis, computatio, Oxford, 1788), also Dathe, Hegel, etc., in their commentaries.

e. The second year of the reign of Darius Hystaspis (B. C. 520), or the year of the prophe ies of blessing by Haggai (Dan 1:1 et seq.; Dan 2:1 et seq.) and Zechariah (Dan 1:1 et seq.; Dan 3:8 et seq.; Dan 8:7 et seq.); so J. Driedo (De scriptis et dogmatibus ecclesiasticis, c. 5). Corn. Jansen (Concord. evangel., c. 122), J. A. Bengel (Ordo temporum, etc., Stuttgart, 1741).

f. The second year of the reign of Darius Nothus (B. C. 423); so J. J. Scaliger (De emendat. temporum, Dan 1:4), S. Calvisius (Opus chronologicum).

g. The second year of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus; so Luther (D. Prophet Daniel deutsch, etc., vol. 41, p. 247, ed. Erl.), Melancthon (Comm. p. 891), Sal. Glossius (Philol. sacra).

h. The seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or the date of the first decree by this king to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezr 7:1; Ezr 8:11 et seq.); so Abr. Calov (De Septuag. septimanis mysterium, Viteb., 1663; Bibl. illustr., I. p. 119 ss.), M. Geier, in the Comm., Isaac Newton (Observations, etc.), J. R. Rus (Diss. de Sept. hebdom. Danielis, Jen, 1740), H. Benzel (Diss. de 70 hebdd. Danielis, in the Syntagma dissertatt., II. 21 ss.), H. Prideaux (Connections, etc.), Alex. Sostmann (Comment. chronol. philol. et exeget. in orac, Dan 9:24-27, Lugd. B., 1710), S. Deyling (Progr. ad Dan 9:24 ss., Lips., 1724), J. G. Franck (Novum systema chronologi fundamentalis, Gtt., 1778), J. C. Dderlein (Institutt. Theol. chr., II. p. 530 ss.).

i. The twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or the date of the second edict by that king (Neh 2:1; Neh 2:7 et seq.); so Luther (Dass Jesus Christus ein geborner Jude sei, vol. 29, p. 71 et seq., ed. Erl.),59 H. J. Offerhaus (Dissertat. de 70 septimanis Danielis, Groning., 1756), J. G. Reinbeck (Betrachtungen ber die Augsb. Konfession, III. 39), S. S. Weickhmann (Carmen Danielis de 70 hebdd. Christo vindicat., Prog., Viteb., 1772), Starke (Synops., p. 2614).

k. The tenth or eleventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or the earlier date by about ten years assigned to his second edict, on the ground of his co-regency with his father Xerxes; so Dion. Petavius (Doctrina tempp., L. 2, C. 29; Rationarium tempp., II. 3, C. 9), Camp. Vitringa (De Septuag. hebdom. Dan. advers. Marshamum, Observatt. sacr., II., p. 290 ss.), C. B. Michaelis (in Annott. uberior., etc.).

l. The second year of the reign of Xerxes; so J. E. Faber (Jesus ex natalium opportunitate Messias, Jen, 1772, p. 125 ss.).

A great difference of opinion prevailed also with reference to the particular terminus adquem of the prophecy referred to Christ, inasmuch as (a) some, following Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jacob of Edessa, and other ancient churchly expositors, extended the seventy weeks merely to the death of Christ, others (b) continued them to the time of his presentation in the temple (Jungmann, Sostmann, etc.), others (c) to his baptism in the Jordan or to his anointing (Melancthon, Calvin, Vitringa; also W. Whiston, Dissertation upon Daniels weeks, London, 1725), still others (d) to the year of our Lords death (Luther, Calov, Prideaux, Buddeus, H. Eccl. Vet. Ti., p. 854 ss.), and others finally (e) included the more general spread of the Gospel in the years immediately following the Saviours death in the series of the seventy weeks (Petavius, Bengel, J. Brunsmann, etc.).Various methods were adopted in order to obviate, by means of exact calculation, the discrepancy between the termin. a quo and adquem, which was either too large or too small. According to Bertholdt, p. 574 et seq., they may be designated as follows:

(1). The method of parallelism by which the seven and the sixty-two weeks were reckoned from the same point of time, or by which these periods were not regarded as successive in their order, but as contemporaneous with each other (Harduin, Jungmann, Collins, Marsham, etc.).

(2). The method of intercalation which consisted in interpolating intervals of greater or less extent between the several periods of hebdomads, and especially between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks (lEmpereur, Newton, Koch, Beer, Uri, etc.).

(3). The method of tranposition by which the first two periods of hebdomads were enumerated in inverted order, i.e., the sixty-two first, and the seven afterward (thus, in imitation of Tertullian, Theodoret, etc., some of the most recent expositors, especially Hofmann, Delitzsch, Wieseler, etc.).

(4). The analogical method which estimates the hebdomads in the several sections by an unequal standard, e.g., regarding the seventieth week as a septimana magna or Jubilee period of forty nine years (Newton, Frank; similarly Calmet, A. Kluit [Vaticinium de Messia duce primarium s. explic. Sept. hebdd. Dan., Mediol., 1774], and already many of the church fathers mentioned above, as Eusebius, Polychronius, etc.).

(5). The method of reckoning by lunar years of 354 days, without an intercalated month (Hassenkamp and J. D. Michaelisafter the precedent of Jul. Africanus and his patristic successors).

(6). The method of counting by jubilee periods of fifty years each, by which the seventy years appear to be exactly equal to 500 years (Sostmann and others).

(7). The method of reckoning by Chaldee years of 360 days, by which the seventy hebdomads are reduced to 483 years (Pet. Brinch, Diss. chronol.-critica de 70 hebdomadd. Danielis, Hafn., 1702).

(8). The mystical method of enumeration, which seeks either to limit or extend the seventy weeks of years by the use of a year of any abnormal and mystical length. Hippolytus and others led the way in the ancient church in this method; and following them we have J. J. Hainlinus (Clavis sacror. temporum, Tb., 1692, and Sol temporum s. Chronol. mystica, Tb., 1647); Bengel, Thube, Crusius (Hypomnemata in theologiam prophetieam). Among them Hainlin assumed shorter years than the ordinary, giving them 343 days each, and thus obtained 460 Julian years for the seventy weeks. Bengel, Thube, etc., on the other hand, sought to amplify, and therefore fixed the length of a mystical year at 159/441 solar years, and thus obtained 555 5/9 years for the period of seventy weeks.

5. The critico-rationalistic or anti-Messianic expositors of recent times may be divided into two principal classes:

A. That of the emendators who adopt a violent course, and seek to remove the chronological difficulty by means of exegetical or critical assumptions of a more or less arbitrary character, e.g., (1) by the assertion that the seventy weeks are ordinary weeks and therefore 490 days, and extended from the day of the vision to the time of Cyrus and of laying the foundations of the temple (thus the Eng.-work. A free Inquiry into Daniels vision or Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, London, 1776; cf. Bertholdt, p. 554 et seq.); (2) by the assertion that Daniel, who wrote after the time of Cyrus, predicted to the people an impending second destruction of the recently I restored temple in this prophecy, which was therefore not fulfilled (Eckermann, Theol. Beitrge, I. 1, p. 132 et seq.); (3) by the assumption that Dan 9:25-27 are the gloss of some rabbi (Franz Lwenheim, lnquisitio critica exegetica in difficult. proph. Dan., C. 11, etc. Wirceb., 1787); (4) by several less important changes in the reading of Dan 9:24 or 25, such as were proposed by Schmidt (in Paulus Memorabilia, VII., 41 et seq.), Velthusen, J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, et al. The first (with whom Baumgarten-Crusius agrees, Bibl. Theol., p. 370) reads Dan 9:24, , seventy, yea, seventy years (which is intended to indicate the duration of the exile), and then translates Dan 9:25, from the present time to the Messiah are seventy, seven, sixty, and two weeks, which is interpreted to mean that twice seventy years may elapse before his advent (!). Velthusen (Muthmassungen ber die siebenmal 70 Jahre des Daniel, Hanover, 1774) reads Dan 9:25 . J. D. Michaelis (Versuch ber die 70 Jahruochen Daniels, Gtt., 1771) emends the same passage so as to read . Jahn (Herm. sacra, Append., t. I.), on the other hand, reads Dan 9:24, like Schmidt, (the seventy years of the captivity), and then renders Dan 9:25 (70 x 7 or 490 years, which reach from Cyrus to B. C. 64), and adds in addition (i.e., seventy years, to A. D. 7 or 8. and sixty-two years, to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus).

B. The more considerate and scientific expositors of the critical school conceive of the passage as belonging to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, and as a Vaticinium ex eventu relating to that age. In this view they were preceded by numerous Jewish and a few Christian representatives of the Maccaban interpretation (e.g., by Julius Hilarianus, about A. D. 400; by Marsham, an Englishman [Canon chron., p. 610 ss.], the Jesuit Harduin [Opp. selecta, p. 592 ss.; cf. Khler, De Harduin nove sed inepta interpretatione vatic. apud Dan. de 70 hebd., Altorf, 1721], and the English free-thinker Ant. Collins [Scheme of Literal Prophecy, Lond., 1726]). So Corrodi (Krit. Gesch. des Chiliasmus, p. 247 et seq., and Freimthige Versuche ber verschiedene in Theologie und biblische Kritik einschlagende Materien, p. 42 et seq.), who, however, introduced much that is arbitrary in developing his scheme. He renewed, for instance, the questionable expedient of transposing the weeks [see No. 4 (3)], reckoning first sixty-two hebdomads from the beginning of the captivity to the first invasion of Juda by Epiphanes, then seven hebdomads from the date of the composition of the book of pseudo-Daniel to the Maccaban Messiah, who, it is alleged, was expected to appear about the year B. C. 115, and finally inserting a single hebdomad between the two former periods, to which last week he assigns the actual persecutions, which involved, e.g., the murder of Onias 3, the interruption of the sacrifices, etc.Another representative of this tendency is Eichhorn (Allgem. Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, III., 761 et seq.) who follows the method by parallelism [No. 4 (1)] rather than that of transposition, calculating the first seven hebdomads backwards from the edict of Cyrus in B. C. 536 to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but reckoning the sixty-two weeks forward from the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 605) to Ant. Epiphanes, and the final week from the death of Onias to the restoration of the temple services by Judas Maccabus. Eichhorns hypothesis found an adherent in 5. Ammon, who adopted it in his Biblische Theologie (II. 217 et seq.) with but few changes; but Bertholdt opposed it with keen criticism, and advanced instead the following explanation: seventy weeks of years are determined upon the Jews until the expiation of their sin (i.e., to the dedication of the temple by Judas Maccabus), and, more particularly, from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar to the reign of Cyrus, forty-nine years or seven weeks of years; within a period of sixty-two further weeks of years Jerusalem is to be rebuilt (hence to the time of Epiphanes). At about the end of these sixty-two weeks (?!) Alexander the Gr. dies, without leaving a natural successor. Afterward Jerusalem is desolated by Antiochus Epiphanes, who forms an alliance with numerous apostate Jews, that continues during nearly a week of years. At the middle of that week he interrupts the temple services and erects the statue of Jupiter Olympus on a wing of the templeuntil death overtakes him. So far as the chronological order of the seven and sixty-two weeks is concerned, this expositor is therefore not a parallelist, but a representative of the theory that they denote successive periods. To obviate the exorbitant interval of sixty-two weeks of years between B. C. 536 and B. C. 175, he assumes that, as a whole, the statements by the oracle respecting time are not to be taken mathematically, but prophetically and indefinitely (p. 613)!Bertholdts theory is accepted by Griesinger (Neue Ansicht der Aufstze im Buch Daniel, 1815, p. 92) and substantially also by Bleek. The latter (Theolog. Zeitschr. of Schleiermacher. de Wette, and Lcke, 1822, and Jahrbb. f. d. Theologie, 1860) differs from Bertholdt in several particulars, e.g., in not dating the commencement of the first seven weeks of years from the destruction of Jerusalem, but from the prophetic oracle of Jeremiah, chapters 25 and 29, and in extending the sixty-two weeks exactly to the death of Seleucus Philopater (the without a successor, Dan 9:26). But they are entirely agreed in placing the seven, sixty-two; and one weeks in succession to each other, and in most positively rejecting every parallelism or transposition of these periods, as being contrary to the sense of the vision (Jahrbb., etc., p. 83).H. L. Reichel (Die vier Weltreiche des Propheten Daniel, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1848) and Kamphausen in Bunsens Bibelwerk advocate views similar to those of Bleek, excepting that the latter holds that the anointed one of Dan 9:26 denotes the high priest Onias, instead of Seleucus Philopater.Several others, however, again made use of parallelisms, e.g., Rsch (Die 70 Jahrwochen des Buches Daniel, genau chronologisch nachgewiesen, Stud. u. Krit., 1834), v. Lengerke, and Hitzig. The first takes the year B. C. 609 as the starting-point of the two parallel epochs as being the year which the alleged pseudo-Daniel assumed for the destruction of Jerusalem. The seven weeks of years, beginning at that date, were to continue until the commencement of the reign of Cyrus, B. C. 560, and the sixty-two weeks until the death of Seleucus Philopater, the anointed one who should be cut off; but this period is lengthened by the addition of eight farther weeks, which reach to B. C. 120 or to John Hyrcanus, the political Messiah of Judaism in the Maccaban period. Von Lengerke likewise regards the seven and the sixty-two years as being parallel, but dates them from B. C. 588. The sixty-two were to expire with the murder of Seleucus Philopater, the anointed one, Dan 9:26 (although this is said to involve an error of 2122 years in the reckoning of pseudo-Daniel, since the 434 years, if calculated from 588, would, in fact, reach to B. C. 154), and the seventieth week was to reach from 170 to the death of Antiochus in B. C. 164. There is consequently a gap of about six years between the close of the sixty-second week and the beginning of the last! Hitzig subjects this hypothesis of 5. Lengerke to a searching criticism, but on his part, likewise adopts an arbitrary explanation based on parallelisms. He (a) inserts the seven weeks of years between B. C. 588 and 539; (b) the sixty-two weeks or 434 years, on the other hand, are reckoned backward, from B. C. 172 to B. C. 606, the year in which Jeremiah uttered his prophecy respecting the seventy years; (c) the seventieth week extends from April, B. C. 170, to the end of March, 164, and the murder of Onias, the anointed one, Dan 9:26, falls in the beginning of this last week. This hypothesis comes nearest to that of Eichhorn, from which it differs merely in reckoning the seven weeks forward from 588, and the sixty-two backward from 172, while Eichhorn counts the seven weeks in a retrograde order, and the sixty-two progressively.A peculiar mode of reckoning was adopted by Ewald, which may be characterized as the abbreviating method. It first reckons the seven weeks of years from B. C. 588 to 539, and the sixty-two weeks from thence to B. C. 105, but then assumes a shortening of the latter period of 434 years by seventy (which reduction, it is alleged, was formerly indicated in the text itself by a note after Dan 9:25 or Dan 9:27 that has now been lost), and by this method returns to the year B. C. 175, in which the anointed one was cut off, i.e., in which Seleucus Philopater diedand approximately at the same time, the year in which the momentous last week began, which extends from B. C. 174 to 167 (p. 424 et seq.).Wieseler in substance (in his treatise, Die 70 Wochen, formerly followed the method of parallelism etc., Gttingen, 1839), but at a later period preferred a peculiar modification of the transposing method (in his review of the Times of Daniel, by the duke of Manchester, Gtt. Gel.-Anz., 1846). In the former instance he reckoned the sixty-two weeks from B. C. 606 to B. C. 172, and the last week from 172165, and regarded the seven weeks as not admissible or to be counted beside the other sixty three (pp. 102 et seq.; 123 et seq.); but in the latter, while he continues to reckon the sixty-three weeks from B. C. 606165, he places the seven weeks after them, as representing the period which was to elapse between the week of severe tribulation and the advent of the Messiah (the , Dan 9:25, who is to be carefully distinguished from the mentioned in Dan 9:26, where Onias is intended). This period, which must not be calculated with mathematical exactness, but is to be interpreted spiritually, denotes a jubilee cycle, that has grown from a period of fifty years into one of more than 150 years, since Christ was born 160 years after the date of its beginning (p. 131 et seq.). Wieselers modification of the transposing method may be denominated the lengthening hypothesis, in contradistinction from Ewalds abbreviating method. It obviously forms the point of transition to the Messianic conception of the text, and is intimately connected with the views of several representatives of the typical-Messianic interpretation in the latest times.

6. The most recent Messianic expositors are divided into two classes, who advocate respectively a direct-Messianic interpretation of the prophecy, or one that is merely typically Messianic.[60]

A. To the former class belong Less (Beweis der Wahrheit der christlichen Religion, p. 275 et seq.), Sack (Apologetik, p. 288 et seq.), Scholl (Commentatio de Sept. hebdomadibus Danielis, Francof., 1831), Dereser, Hvernick, Hengstenberg, Allioli, Reinke, Stawars, Sepp, Weigl, Auberlen, Duke George of Manchester, Pusey, Kliefoth, etc. [including the great body of English and American expositors, with the almost sole exception of Moses Stuart]. In general, they are agreed in referring both the Dan 9:25, and the , Dan 9:26, to Jesus Christ, but they differ considerably as to the special terminus a quo of the prophecy, or its terminus ad quem. A majority regard the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or B. C. 455 (Neh 1:1; Neh 2:1) as the starting-point of the seventy weeks or the date of the . They count sixty-nine weeks of years, or 483 years, from that date to the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, twenty-eight r. Dionysius, or 782 a. u. c. (Luk 3:1), when the three and a half years of public activity on the part of our Lord began. They consequently place the Saviours death and resurrection in the middle of the last week, and refer the , Dan 9:26 to his crucifixion. The remaining three and a half years are regarded as a more or less variable terminus, admitting of no precise chronological determination, but rather transpiring indefinitely in the course of the founding of Christianity (so Less, Sack, Scholl, Dereser, Hvernick, Hengstenberg, Allioli, Reinke). Modifications of this theory are advocated (1) by Fr. Stawars (Die Weissaguny Daniels ix. 2427 in Bezug auf das Taufjahr Jesu, in the Tbinger Theol. Quartalschrift, 1868, No. 3, p. 416 et seq.), who translates , Dan 9:25, from the fulfilment of Gods promise to rebuild Jerusalem, and contends that that promise was fulfilled in connection with the rebuilding of Jerusalem as a city, under Nehemiah, in the year 458; from that time to twenty-six r. Dionysius 483 years or sixty-nine weeks elapsed, and immediately afterward, in Jan. 27, Jesus was baptized in the Jordan by John; (2) by Auberlen and Pusey, who begin the seventy weeks in B. C. 458, or the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezr 7:7), instead of the twentieth year of that reign, and thus obtain the twenty-sixth year of our ra as the close of the sixty-nine weeks, or the time of our Lords baptism; (3) by Sepp (Leben Jesu, I., p. 248 et seq., second ed.), who regards Ezra as the spiritual rebuilder of Jerusalem, and therefore reckons from the year B. C. 460, locating the baptism of Jesus in the year 778 a. u. c., or A. D. 25; (4) by Weigl (Ueber das wahre Geburts- und

Sterbe-jahr Jesu Christi, Part I., p. 103 et seq.), who renders the words at the commencement of Dan 9:25 from the execution of the command to rebuild Jerusalem, etc., and begins the seventy weeks with the year B. C. 453, thus obtaining the year 783 a. u. c., or A. D. 30, as the time of our Lords baptism; (5) by Duke George of Manchester (in the work reviewed by Wieseler, The times of Daniel, chronological and prophetical, examined with relation to the point of contact between sacred and profane chronology, Lond. and Edinb., 1845), who takes the first year of Darius Medus as the terminus a quo of the seventy weeksidentifying that monarch with Darius Nothus, like Tertullian, Scaliger, Calvisius, etc.and therefore calculates the 490 years from B. C. 424, which brings him to A. D. 66, the year in which the Christians fled from the besieged city of Jerusalem, and in which the Christian church was really founded. He assumes an entirely different terminus a quo for the sixty-nine weeks, namely B. C. 444, the alleged first year of Cyrus, whom he believes to have lived in the fifth instead of the sixth century before Christ (!!). The sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, intervened tween that year and Christs death on the cross in March, A. D. 38; (6) by Kliefoth, who goes back to the mystical theory of reckoning, and accordingly extends the seven weeks from the edict of Cyrus in B. C. 537 to the advent of Christ, regardless of the fact that that period does not consist of seven weeks of years, nor of seven centuries, nor of any cycle whatever, whose aggregate of years is divisible by seven the sixty-two sevens from Christ to the time of the great apostacy, or of the antichrist at the end of earthly history (during which period of indefinite duration the church is to be built and restored, or brought back to God), and finally, the last week from the great apostacy to the appearing of Christ, the last judgment, and the consummation of the world.

B. Hofmann, Delitzsch, Fller, Ebrard, and Kranichfeld [also substantially Keil] adopt the typically Messianic interpretation. The former three also favor the transposing theory followed by Wieseler (1846), inasmuch as they assign to the seven weeks of years a place after the 62 + 1 weeks. They reckon the latter from B. C. 606 or the fourth year of Jehoiakim to the time of the Maccabees (and more particularly, the sixty-two weeks from 606172, and the one week from 172165), regarding the events of the ra of the Antiochian persecution and the Maccaban revolt as types and prefigurations of the history of the founding of Christianity; and they describe the seven weeks of years as a period of unmeasured length, whose beginning is coincident with the going forth of the word to build Jerusalem, i.e., with the first preaching of the Gospel in the time of Christ and the apostles, while their end is connected with the judgment of the world and the advent of Christ! There is therefore, on this theory, a breaking of the thread, or a hiatus, between the sixty-three and the seven weeks amounting to about 160190 years, and, in addition, an extension of the last seven weeks into periods of mysterious length; in other words, the aid of intercalation and of mystical enumeration is superadded to that of transposition [cf. supra, No. 4, (2), (3), and (8)]. These are employed at least by Hofmann and Delitzsch, who do not even shrink from the venturous experiment of amplifying the seventy weeks into quadratic Sabbatic periods,[61] while Fller, more sober and considerate, but assuredly not less arbitrary, interprets the six weeks as being wholly future, and as belonging to the distant end of the world. He endeavors to render this inordinate hiatus conceivable by the assumption that Daniel saw the post-Macedonian antichrist, Antiochus Epiphanes, and the post-Roman antichrist of the last times perspectively as one.Ebrard avoids every method of transposition, but does not escape violently altering the text (in a review of Fllers Daniel, in the Gterslohe Allgem. literar. Anzeiger, Oct., 1868, p. 267, and earlier, in his Offenbarung Johannis, p. 67 et seq.), in his endeavor to demonstrate the typically Messianic sense of the passage. Supported by the amplifying version of the Sept. (see supra, No. 1), he reads in Dan 9:25 a (soil. ), instead of , or he asserts that was omitted after through the inadvertence of a copyist. He farther holds that Dan 9:24 states, in general terms and round numbers, that seventy weeks of years were to elapse from the beginning of the captivity to Christ, and, by the method described above, obtains the more exact statement in Dan 9:25, that 7 + 70 = 77 weeks of years should intervene between the edict of Cyrus (538) and Christ, and sixty-two weeks between the building of the city with street and wall by Nehemiah (B. C. 440) and Christ (six years earlier than the Christian ra). The time from Christs birth to his death or the thirty-five years of his life on earth, in which he particularly includes the three and a half years of his official activity, are conceived by him as the former half of the last week, the whole of which is said to be a larger mystical week; and its latter half reaches to the mystical three and a half years of the Apocalypse, which extend to the return of Christ.Kranichfeld does less violence to the text than any of those referred to. Avoiding transposition, parallelisms, and emendations, he reckons the first seven weeks of years from the prophecy of Jeremiah, chap. 29, and from the destruction of Jerusalem in B. C. 588 (cf. supra, on Dan 9:25), the sixty-two weeks from the end of the former seven or the time of Daniels vision in B. C. 539, and regards the , Dan 9:25, who stands at the beginning of the sixty-two weeks, as representing Cyrus, while the , Dan 9:26, who appears at their close, is supposed to denote Christ. This theory consequently postulates a gap of more than a century between the Maccaban period, which bounds the sixty-two weeks (and to whose sufferings the prophetic descriptions of Dan 9:26-27 refer), and the time of Christ, the anointed one who was to be cut off, Dan 9:26 a, which interval was unnoticed by the prophet, in harmony with the law of perspective vision.62

The assumption of this interval between the close of the sixty-two weeks and the opening of the New-Test. ra of salvation does hot constitute the feature which forms our only objection to Kranichfelds theory; for, without some such interval the prophecy would lose its genuinely prophetic character, and instead of being an ideal description, possessing the future, it would present a calculation of arithmetical exactness (cf. the following section, No. 1). Our difficulty consists in the circumstance that the anointed one who should be cut off, Dan 9:26 a, is held to be Jesus Christ, the Messiah, who was exalted through humiliation and sufferings to glory, while everything subsequently mentioned in the immediate context (the prince who should destroy the city and the sanctuary, the covenant with many confirmed by him, the interruption of the sacrifice and oblation, the introduction of the abomination of desolation, and the judicial punishment of the destroyer) had its complete historical fulfilment in the events of the period of persecution and oppression under Antiochus, and serves merely as a typical illustration of the times of suffering and of the judgments under the New Covenant. The continuity of the prophetic description appears to be painfully broken by this application of Dan 9:26 a to Christ, when the predictions of Dan 9:26-27 are simultaneously referred [by Kranichfeld, etc.] to the Maccaban epoch. In addition to this contradiction of the context, this method of interpretation involves the logical inconsequence of a vacillation between the typical and the direct Messianic theory of exposition, or of an obscure intermixture of the prefigurative and the antitypical.

EXCURSUS

(by the american revisor.)

[Identification of the Historical Periods comprised within the Seventy Weeks in Dan 9:24-27].

Seventy heptades have been decreed [to transpire] upon thy nation, and upon thy holy city, for [entirely] closing the [punishment of] sin, and for sealing up [the retributive sentence against their] offences, and for expiating guilt, and for bringing in [the state of] perpetual righteousness, and for sealing up [the verification of] vision and prophet, and for anointing Holy of Holies. And thou shalt know and consider [that] from [the time of the] issuing of a command for restoring and building [i. e., for rebuilding] Jerusalem till [the coming of] Messiah prince [shall intervene] seven heptades, and sixty and two heptades; [its] street shall return and be built [i. e., shall be rebuilt], and [its] fosse, and [that] in distress of the times. And after the sixty and two heptades Messiah shall be cut off, and nothing [shall be left] to him; and people of the coming prince shall destroy the city and the holy [building], and his end [of fighting shall come] with [or, like] the flood, and until [the] end of warring [shall occur the] decreed [result] of desolations. And he shall establish a covenant for the many [during] one heptade, and [at the] middle of the heptade he shall cause to cease sacrifice and offering; and over a wing [i. e., eagle as an ensign] of abominations [i. e., idolatrous images], [shall preside the] desolator, and [this shall continue] till completion, and a decreed [one that] shall pour out upon [the] desolate.

I have been unable to satisfy myself of the entire consistency of any of the foregoing interpretations of this remarkable prophecy, and would therefore propose a partly new elucidation, in accordance with the preceding literal translation and the following diagram. In doing this I need not dwell upon the minor peculiarities of phraseology, which have been fully treated already.

In Dan 9:24 we have a general view of the last great period of the Jewish Church (see the middle line in the diagram). It was to embrace four hundred and ninety years, from their permanent release from Babylonian bondage, till and, the time when God would finally cast them off for their incorrigible unbelief. Within this space Jehovah would fulfil what he had predicted, and accomplish all his designs respecting them under their special relation. The particulars noted in this cursory survey are, first, the conclusion of the then existing exile (expressed in three variations, of which the last phrase, expiating guilt, explains the two former, closing the sin and sealing up offences;) next, the fulfilment of ancient prophecy, by ushering in the religious prosperity of Gospel times; and, lastly, as the essential feature, the consecration of the Messiah to his redeeming office.

The only command answering to that of Dan 9:25 is that of Artaxerxes Longimanus, issued in the seventh year of his reign, and recorded in the seventh chapter of Ezra, as Prideaux has abundantly shown, and as many critics agree. At this time, also, more Jews returned to their home than at any other, and the literal as well as spiritual rebuilding of Jerusalem was prosecuted with unsurpassed vigor. The period here referred to extends till the Messiah (see the upper line of the diagram); that is, as far as his public recognition as such by the Voice at his baptism, the anointing of the previous verse; and not to his death,as is commonly supposed, but which is afterward referred to in very different language; nor to his birthwhich would make the entire compass of the prophecy vary much from four hundred and ninety years. The period of this verse is divided into two portions of seven heptades and sixty-two heptades, as if the command from which it dates were renewed at the end of the first portion; and this we find was the case. Ezra, under whom this reformation of the State and religion began, was succeeded in the work by Nehemiah, who, having occasion to return to Persia in the twenty-fifth year after the commencement of the work (Neh 13:6), returned after certain days, and found that it had so far retrograded that he was obliged to institute it anew. The length of his stay at court is not given, but it must have been considerable to allow so great a backsliding among the lately reformed Jews. Prideaux contends that his return to Juda was after an absence of twenty-four years;63 and I have supposed the new reform then set on foot by him to have occupied a little over three years, which is certainly none too much time for the task (see the lower line of the diagram). The rebuilding of the streets and intrenchments in times of distress seems to refer, in its literal sense, to the former part especially of the forty-nine years (compare Nehemiah 4), very little having been previously done towards rebuilding the city, although former decrees had been issued for repairing the temple;64 and, in its spiritual import, it applies to the whole time, and peculiarly to the three years of the last reform.

The sixty-two weeks of Dan 9:26, be it observed, are not said to commence at the end of the seven weeks of Dan 9:25, but, in more general terms, after the distressing times during which the reform was going on; hence, they properly date from the end of that reform, when things became permanently settled. It is in consequence of a failure to notice this variation in the limits of the two periods of sixty-two weeks referred to by the prophet (compare the middle portions of the upper and of the lower line in the diagram) that critics have thrown the whole scheme of this prophecy into disorder in applying to the same event such irreconcilable language as is used in describing some of its different elements. By the ravaging invasion of foreigners here foretold, is manifestly intended the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman troops, whose emperors son, Titus, is here styled a prince in command of them. The same allusion is also clear from the latter part of the following verse. But this event must not be included within the seventy weeks; because, in the first place, the accomplishment would not sustain such a view,from the decree, B. C. 459, to the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, being five hundred and twenty-eight years; secondly, the language of Dan 9:24 does not require it,as it is not embraced in the purposes for which the seventy weeks are there stated to be appointed to Jerusalem and its inhabitants; and, lastly, the Jews then no longer formed a link in the chain of ecclesiastical history in the Divine sense,Christian believers having become the true descendants of Abraham. At the close of the verse we have the judgments with which God would afflict the Jews for cutting off the Messiah: these would be so severe, that the prophet (or, rather, the angel instructing him) cannot refrain from introducing them here, in connection with that event, although he afterwards adverts to them in their proper order. What these sufferings were, Josephus narrates with a minuteness that chills the blood, affording a wonderful coincidence with the prediction of Moses in Deu 28:15-18; they are here called a flood, the well-known Scripture emblem of terrible political calamities (as in Isa 8:7-8; Dan 11:10; Dan 11:22; Nah 1:8).

Dan 9:27 has given the greatest trouble to critics of any in the whole passage; and, indeed, the common theory, by which the seventy weeks are made to end with the crucifixion, is flatly contradicted by the cessation of the daily sacrificial offerings at the temple, in the middle of the week. All attempts to crowd aside this point are in vain; for such an abolition could not be said to occur in any pertinent sense before the offering of the Great Sacrifice, especially as Jesus himself, during his ministry, always countenanced their celebration. Besides, the advocates of this scheme are obliged to make this last week encroach upon the preceding sixty-two weeks, so as to include John the Baptists ministry, in order to make out seven years for confirming the covenant; and when they have done this they run counter to the previous explicit direction, which makes the first sixty-nine weeks come down to the Messiah, and not end at John. By means of the double line of dates exhibited in the above diagram, all this is harmoniously adjusted; and at the same time the only satisfactory interpretation is retained, that after the true Atonement, these typical oblations ceased to have any meaning or efficacy, although before it they could not consistently be dispensed with, even by Christ and his Apostles.

The seventy weeks, therefore, were allotted to the Jews as their only season of favor or mercy as a Church, and we know that they were not immediately cast off upon their murder of Christ (see Luk 24:27; Act 3:12-26). The gospel was specially directed to be first preached to them; and not only during our Saviours personal ministry, but for several years afterward, the invitations of grace were confined to them. The first instance of a turning to the Gentiles proper was the baptism of the Roman centurion Cornelius, during the fourth year after the resurrection of Christ. In this interval the Jewish people had shown their determined opposition to the New Covenant by imprisoning the Apostles, stoning Stephen to death, and officially proscribing Christianity through their Sanhedrim: soon after this martyrdom occurred the conversion of Saul, who was a chosen vessel to bear Gods name to the Gentiles: and about two years after this event the door was thrown wide open for their admission into the covenant relation of the church, instead of the Jews, by the vision of Peter and the conversion of Cornelius. Here we find a marked epoch, fixed by the finger of God in all the miraculous circumstances of the event, as well as by the formal apostolical decree, ratifying it, and obviously forming the great turning-point between the two dispensations. We find no evidence that many of the Jews embraced Christianity after this period, although they had been converted in great numbers on several occasions under the Apostles preaching, not only in Juda, but also in Galilee, and even among the semi-Jewish inhabitants of Samaria; the Jews had now rejected Christ as a nation with a tested and incorrigible hatred, and, having thus disowned their God, they were forsaken by him, and devoted to destruction, as the prophet intimates would be their retribution for that decision, in which the four hundred and ninety years of this their second and last probation in the Promised Land would result. It is thus strictly true that Christ, personally and by his Apostles, established the covenant, which had formerly been made, and was now renewed, with many of the chosen people, for precisely seven years after his public appearance as a Teacher; in the very middle of which space He superseded forever the sacrificial offerings of the Mosaic ritual by the one perfect and sufficient Offering of His own body on the cross.

In the latter part of this verse we have a graphic outline of the terrible catastrophe that should fall upon the Jews, in consequence of their rejection of the Messiah; a desolation that should not cease to cover them, but by the extinction of the oppressed nation; it forms an appendix to the main prophecy. Our Saviours language leaves no doubt as to the application of this passage, in His memorable warning to His disciples, that when they should be about to see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, they should then flee into the mountains (Mat 24:15-16; comp. Mat 23:36; Mat 23:38), in order to save themselves from that awful consummation of ruin, which he also pointed out as the determined fate of that impenitent city, after it should have endured the desolating ravages of a siege unparalleled in rigor and suffering, besides being left desolate by the abandonment of their God. The destined period of fulfilment arrived, and Josephus, who witnessed it, tells us that the standards of the Roman army, who held sacred the shrined silver eagles that surmounted their banners, were actually placed, during the capture, in the temple, opposite the eastern gate, and there sacrificed to (De Bell. Jud., VI. 6, 1). Equally exact, if the view proposed above is correct, are all the specifications of this wonderful prophecy.

In the preceding investigation several chronological points have been partially assumed, which entire satisfaction with the results obtained would require to be fully proved. A minute investigation of the grounds on which all the dates involved rest would occupy too much space for the present discussion; I shall, therefore, content myself with determining the two boundary dates of the entire period, trusting the intermediate ones to such incidental evidences of their correctness as may have been afforded in the foregoing elucidation, or may arise in connection with the settlement proposed.65 If these widely distant points can be fixed by definite data independently of each other, the correspondence of the interval will afford strong presumption that it is the true one, which will be heightened as the subdivisions fall naturally into their prescribed limits; and thus the above coincidence in the character of the events will receive all the confirmation that the nature of the case admits.

1. The date of the Edict. I have supposed this to be from the time of its taking effect at Jerusalem, rather than from that of its nominal issue at Babylon; the difference, however, being only four months,will not seriously affect the argument. Ezra states (Dan 7:8), that he arrived at Jerusalem in the fifth month (Ab, our JulyAugust) of the seventh year of the king Artaxerxes. Ctesias, who had every opportunity to know, makes Artaxerxes to have reigned forty-two years, and Thucydides states that an Athenian embassy, sent to Ephesus in the winter that closed the seventh year of the Peloponnesian war, was there met with the news of Artaxerxes death, ( ), Bell. Pelop., iv. 50. Now this war began in the spring of B. C. 431, as all allow (Thuc. Dan 2:2), and its seventh year expired with the spring of B. C. 424; consequently, Artaxerxes died in the winter introducing that year, and his reign began some time in B. C. 466. This latter historian also states that Themistocles, in his flight to Asia, having been driven by a storm into the Athenian fleet, at that time blockading Naxos, managed to get safely carried away to Ephesus, whence he dispatched a letter of solicitation to Artaxerxes, then lately invested with royalty, [Bell. Pelop., i. 137). The date of the conquest of that island is B. C. 466, which is, therefore, also that of the Persian kings accession. It is now necessary to fix the season of the year in which he became king. If Ctesias means that his reign lasted forty-two full years, or a little over rather than under that length, the accession must be dated prior to the beginning of B. C. 466; but it is more in accordance with the usual computation of reigns to give the number of current years, if nearly full, and this will bring the date of accession down to about the beginning of summer, B. C. 466. This result is also more in accordance with the simultaneous capture of Naxos, which can hardly have occurred earlier in that year. I may add, that it likewise explains the length assigned to this reign (forty-one years) by Ptolemy, in his Astronomical Canon, although he has misled modern compilers of ancient history by beginning it in B. C. 465, having apparently himself fallen into some confusion, from silently annexing the short intermediate periods of anarchy sometimes to the preceding and at others to the ensuing reign. The seventh year of Artaxerxes, therefore, began about the summer of B. C. 460, and the first [Hebrew] month (Nisan) occurring within that twelvemonth, gives the following MarchApril of B. C. 459 as the time when Ezra received his commission to proceed to Jerusalem for the purpose of executing the royal mandate.

2. The date of the conversion of Cornelius. The solution of this question will be the determination of the distance of this event from the time of our Saviours Passion; the absolute date of this latter occurrence must, therefore, first be determined. This is ascertained to have taken place in A. D. 29, by a comparison of the duration of Christs ministry with the historical data of Luk 3:1-23; but the investigation is too long to be inserted here. (See Dr. Jarviss Introduction to the History of the Church.) A ready mode of testing this conclusion is by observing that this is the only one of the adjacent series of years in which the calculated date of the equinoctial full moon coincides with that of the Friday of the crucifixion Passover, as any one may seewith sufficient accuracy for ordinary purposesby computing the mean lunations and week-day back from the present time. This brings the date of Christs baptism to A. D. 25; and the whole tenor of the Gospel narratives indicates that this took place in the latter part of summer. Other more definite criteria of the season cannot be specified here.

The chief chronological difficulties of the Acts occur in the arrangement of the events associated with Corneliuss conversion, and arise from the vague notes of time (or, rather, absence of any definite dates) by Luke, between the account of the Pentecostal effusion (Act 2:1) and the death of Herod Agrippa the elder (Act 12:23); indeed, but for the periods noted by Paul in Galatians 1, 2 it would be utterly impossible to adjust minutely the dates of this portion of the history. As it is, the subject is almost abandoned by most chronologers and commentators as hopelessly obscure and uncertain; but there is no occasion for such despair. The death of Herod is ascertained (by the help of Josephus, Antiq., 19:8, 2) to have occurred in the early part of the year A. D. 44, between which time and the Pentecost of A. D. 29 is an interval of fifteen years, covered by the incidents contained in chapters 211 of the Acts. The visit of Paul, spoken of by him as his second to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1), appears at first sight to be the same with that narrated in Act 2:30, since there is no mention of any intervening visit; it was made in company with Barnabas, and the revelation (Gal 2:2) might answer to the prediction of the famine by Agabus (Act 11:28), which caused the journey. Now in that case it is certain that the date of this visit (fourteen years after) is not reckoned from that of his former visit (Gal 1:18), for then it would have occurred at least seventeen years (14+3) after his conversion, which would be two years more than the whole interval between this second visit and the Pentecost referred to; it is, therefore, reckoned from his conversion, which makes his journey to Damascus, on which he was converted, occur one year (1514) after this Pentecost. This is corroborated by two ancient ecclesiastical traditions, one of which states that Paul was converted in the year after the Ascension, and the other refers the martyrdom of Stephen (which was so connected with Pauls persecuting journey to Damascus, as not to have preceded it many months) to the close of the same year in which Christ suffered. If, on the other hand, as the best authorities mostly agree, the second visit spoken of in Gal. corresponds with that described in Acts 15, as the similarity of the subject debated at the time (the obligation of Mosaism) especially indicates, then we are at liberty to apply the natural interpretation to the intervals there given, and we shall thus have the visit in question occurring seventeen years after the conversion of Paul. Now, the date of the visit referred to in Acts 12 is known to be A. D. 44, and if we allow the reasonable space of three years for the first missionary journey, as recorded in the intervening chapters (Acts 13, 14), and the considerable stay at Antioch upon its close (Act 14:28), we shall still have, as before, an interval of one year between the Crucifixion and Pauls conversiona space, for all that we can see, sufficiently ample for the events related.

Pauls first visit (Gal 1:8) must naturally be reckoned in like manner from his conversion, as it is mentioned to show the length of his stay in Damascus and its vicinity, and is put in contrast with his intentional avoidance of Jerusalem on his conversion (Dan 9:17); we have thus the date of this same visit in Act 9:26 fixed at A. D. 33, four years after the noted Pentecost. I need not here discuss the length nor precise time of the visit into Arabia (Gal 1:17), nor the exact mode of adjusting this passage with Lukes account in the Acts; these points are capable of easy solution, and do not require the supposition of some intervening visit in either narrative. Neither need I stop to reconcile the mention of travels in Syria (Gal 1:21) with the sea voyage direct from Csarea to Tarsus (Act 9:30); the visit to Jerusalem occupied only fifteen days (Gal 1:18), and there is nothing here to disturb the above dates.

Most chronological schemes, blindly following the order of Acts 9, 10, without taking into special consideration this interval of three years spent by Paul at Damascus, have placed the conversion of Cornelius after that apostles return to Tarsus, the arrangers being apparently actuated by a desire to fill up the period of fifteen years by sprinkling the events along as widely apart as possible for the sake of uniform intervals. But several considerations present themselves to my mind which cause me to think this arrangement erroneous. In the outset, the question arises on this supposition, What were the other apostles doing these three years? Was nothing going on at Jerusalem or in Juda worth recording? But this interval is not thus left a blank by the sacred historian. Luke says (Act 9:31), Then had the churches rest, etc.; that is, as I understand it, during these three years, the persecution stirred up by Saul after the martyrdom of Stephen being arrested by the conversion of that enemy, the Christian societies generally enjoyed great quiet and prosperity. I cannot discover any pertinent cause for this remark, unless we suppose it to refer to the period succeeding this event. The same idea is carried by the mention of the travels of Peter through all parts (Act 9:32), evidently during this season of outward peace, when his presence was no longer needed to sustain the Church at Jerusalem. It was during this tour that Peter was called to preach the Gospel to Cornelius; the year succeeding the conversion of Saul was probably spent by Peter in building up the society at the metropolis, his tour apparently occupied the summer of the year following; and in the third year Paul, on his visit to Jerusalem, finds Peter returned thither. This affords convenient time for all these occurrences, and connects them in their natural order. Lastly, under this view we can readily explain the plan of Lukes narrative in these chapters: after tracing the history of the Church (specially under the conduct of Peter) down to the persecution by Saul, he takes up the subject of this opponents conversion, and does not quit him until he has left him in quiet at homehence his omission of all reference to these three years as being unsuitable to his design of continuity; he then returns to Peter, and narrates his doings in the interim. This parallel method of narration is proved by the resumption of Pauls history in chapter Act 11:19, where Luke evidently goes back to the time of Stephen, in order to show what the dispersed evangelists had been accomplishing during the four years succeeding that martyrdom, and thus connect the preaching to the Gentiles with the latter part of that period (Act 9:20); and this again prepares the way for the visit to Antioch of Paul, who had lately returned to Tarsus.

It is true, in this scheme there is made an interval of ten years between the establishment of the Church at Antioch and the visit of Paul to Jerusalem, about the time of Herods death; but it is much better to place such an interval, during which no incident of striking moment occurred, after the Gospel had become in a measure rooted in the community, than to intersperse considerable periods of uninteresting silence in its early planting, when matters which, had they transpired afterward, would be passed by as trivial, were of the greatest importance in the history. Intimations are given of the general prosperity of the cause, and there was no occasion to present the details of this period, until some remarkable event broke the even course of occurrences. Such an event was the visit of Paul, and especially the contemporaneous conduct and fate of Herod; and the latter account is accordingly introduced in the twelfth chapter by the phrase, , always indicative of some fresh occurrence after a period of comparative monotony and silence. Nor is this interval left entirely devoid of incident; it is in fact filled up by the account of the preparation for the famine. It was during those days that the prophet Agabus visited Antioch from Jerusalem; some time after his arrival, he predicted the famine, and it is plainly intimated that the fulfilment did not take place immediately, but several years afterward, in the days of Claudius Csar. That emperor, therefore, was not reigning at the time of its utterance, and as the famine took place in the fourth year of his reign (Josephus, Ant., xx. 5, 2, compared with 1.2), there is here an interval of at least four years silently occurring between two closely related incidents of this period. The whole year during which Paul preached at Antioch (Act 11:26) is reckoned from his call thither by Barnabas, but does not extend to his visit to Jerusalem; it only covers his first labors confined to the city itself (after which he itinerated in the neighboring regions of Syria, Gal 1:21), and extends merely to about the time of the arrival of Agabus. The above interval of ten years was occupied by Paul in such labors as are referred to in 2Co 11:23-27.

We thus arrive at the conclusion, based upon internal evidence, that the admission of the Gentiles by the conversion of Cornelius occurred near the close of Peters summer tour, in A. D. 32; we cannot be far from certainty in fixing it as happening in the month of September of that year.]

ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions

1. A truly unbiassed apprehension of the sense of the prophecy respecting the seventy weeks of years will succeed in demonstrating a typical reference to the Messiah only rather than any direct allusion.[66] The general character of the language in the introductory passage, Dan 9:24, opens a prospect, indeed, of events such as are elsewhere foretold only in prophecies that are directly Messianic in their nature; but these events are here assigned to a time immediately subsequent to the end of the seventy weeks of years, which are made to begin with Jeremiahs concerning the seventy years, or at about the commencement of the captivity (B. C. 600 or 588). The prophet consequently saw the Messianic period of deliverance in a much closer proximity than its actual distance from his time would justify, and he connected it intimately with the ra of persecution under the Seleucid, which he saw in spirit as the closing period of the series of seventy sevens of years, as prophetically revealed to him. The theocratic seer, who could not calculate by centuries, but only by Sabbatic periods or cycles of jubilees, expected the advent of the Messianic deliverance after seventy Sabbatic years should have expired, instead of removing it to the distance of five or six centuries.67 The limit assigned by the prophet certainly testifies to his wonderful range of vision, and exalts him far above his contemporaries in the captivity, none of whom would have been likely to remove the beginning of the Messianic ra to any considerable distance beyond yond the close of the Babylonian captivity; but it still falls below the historical measure of the distance between Jeremiahs prophecy and the New-Test, fulfilment by 100110 years,-or, in other words, instead of extending into the time of Christ, it merely reaches to the age of John Hyrcanus and his immediate successors. The principal stations in the course of pre-Christian development were doubtless sufficiently apparent to the prophet, and upon the whole, were seen as separated from each other by precisely the interval which actually resulted in the progress of events. In his younger contemporary Cyrus, the anointed prince, Dan 9:25, he recognized the introducer and founder of a period of relative salvation for the people of God (a period which should bring a restoration of Jerusalem, although for the time an imperfect, troubled, and oppressed restoration), and therefore saw in that prince a first typical forerunner of the Messiah. He saw a farther prefatory condition to the coming of the Messiah in the religious persecutions and antitheocratic abominations, with which the descendant of a royal Javanic house should afflict Israel in the distant future, slaying the anointed high priest (Onias III., B. C. 172), and even interrupting the theocratic worship for a time and desecrating its sanctuary; and he fixed the interval between the former positive and this later negative preparation for Messiahs coming, with approximate correctness, at sixty-two weeks (i.e., the difference between the first seven, which had already expired at his time, and the momentous last week of the seventya number of years which certainly exceeds the actual historical interval between 539 and 175 or between Cyrus and Epiphanes by seventy years.68 But the additional interval of more than one and a half centuries or twenty-three to twenty-four weeks of years, which, according to the Divine purpose, was to intervene between the typical of the Maccaban age and the advent of Christ, escaped his vision while ranging in the distance. In the limitation of his earthly and human consciousness[69] he did not suspect that the Spirit of prophecy did not reveal to him any immediate, but only indirect preparations and types of the Messianic tera. He does not see the abysmal gap of renewed waiting during nearly two hundred years, which separated the bright exaltation of the victorious Maccaban ra from the still more glorious and heavenly period in which the New Covenant should be established; and the prophets and observers of prophetic predictions immediately subsequent to him, probably noticed no more of that interval than did he (cf. the Eth.-fund, principles on chap. 7 No. 2). The pious theocratic searchers of the Scriptures in the Maccaban period, and probably in the later stages of that period, who had themselves begun to experience a painful consciousness of the descent into the gap which Daniel had overlooked, were probably the first to arrive at an understanding of the merely typical nature of the contents of Dan 9:26-27, thus being taught to look for a more perfect and enduring realization of that oracle. Cf. Kranichfeld, p. Dan 337: This natural difference between the prophets conception of events and their historical reality would ultimately lead to the inference that a farther realization of the prophecy was to be expected,70 inasmuch as the Grecian empire, and more particularly that of Antiochus Epiphanes, did not appear as the last of the heathen monarchies, and the final supremacy of the Messianic kingdom of God was not yet introduced. Instead of charging the prophetic idea as such with being untrue in this respect, or of rejecting it without farther investigation as not having been fulfilled, the thoughtful circles among the people would probably treat that idea as Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. and Daniel himself treated the Messianic hopes of Jeremiah or Isaiah, that were connected with the return from the captivity, since the prophetic description had been so remarkably fulfilled in other respects. The internal evidence demonstrated that the idea was in itself incontrovertibly true, and it was regarded as such, while its realization in the light of historical facts was referred to a more distant future. In like manner Christ unites the description of the Messianic future with its conflict, and its triumphs with his own time, and connects with the latter the thought of the erection of Messiahs kingdom; while the New Test. Apocalypse, from its historical point of view, connects it with a still later time. Christ simply regards the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of all things, joined to the triumph of Gods kingdom, as a comprehensive whole, on the authority of Daniels description; and he consequently designates the present (Mat 24:31 and parallels) as the time in which the picture of the eschatological future should be realized.[71] The apostles imitate him in expecting the end of the world in the age in which they lived;72 but the Revelators field of vision lay beyond that , and beyond the destruction of Jerusalem. That such a transfer and reference from one period to another (which, as compared with its predecessor, is to bring a more complete, and ultimately, a full realization) is possible, without degrading the prophetic idea and destroying its value, is implied in the very character of the genuine prophetic oracle, as being essentially comprehensive in its nature, men though the writer may primarily have intended it to refer only to some particular event in the progress of history.The reference of the prophecy respecting the future tribulation was doubtless accepted in the beginning of the Maccaban epoch, and among others, by the writer of the first book of Maccabees; but the Jewish Sibyl may serve to show that despite such reference, the circumstances of the times might make way for another interpretation in each instance, since, as early as about B. C. 140, and at the time of a newly founded hereditary Jewish-national dynasty, it makes the ten horns of Daniel 7 end beyond the Epiphanes with Demetrius I., finds the little horn in Alexander Balas, who seized the throne of the Seleucid, instead of referring it to Antiochus Epiphanes, and no longer regards the world-controlling power of the Jewish theocracy as bound to the ruin of the dead Hellenic influence, which is characterized in mild terms, but to the power of the hated Roman empire. The Romans, whom the Septuagint substitutes for the in Dan 11:31, are here directly and practically installed in the place of the fourth world-kingdom of Daniel, in which position we afterward meet them in Josephus and the New Testament. Concerning the latter point cf. Hilgenfeld, Die jdische Apokalyptik, pp. 69 et seq., 84 et seq., and also supra, 6, note 3, of the Introd. to this work.

2. Despite the repeated specific references to facts and circumstances in the Maccaban ra, the prophecy before us is no vaticinium ex eventu, that was invented in that age; for the want of agreement between its statements and the actual conditions of that time is far more general than their correspondence.[73] It is (1) a fundamental non-agreement between the prophecy and the fulfilment, that the sixty-two weeks of years, if reckoned from the end of the seven weeks, or from B. C. 538, in harmony with the context and the evident sense of the prophecy, extend down to B. C. 105, while the whole of the Antiochian-Maccaban catastrophe, which forms the contents of the last week of years, was ended at least seventy years earlier; and (against Ewald) the text contains no indication whatever that the period of 434 years or sixty-two weeks is to be shortened by seventy years or ten weeks of years. Further (2), the murder of the high priest Onias, which we are compelled to regard as the Maccaban or typical fulfilment of the , Dan 9:26, did not transpire exactly in the beginning of the sixty-ninth or last week, but somewhat earlier, in the year 141 . Sel., which was still included in the sixty-second week (cf. 2Ma 4:7 et seq.; 2Ma 23:34). The prediction of Dan 9:26, and after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, does not therefore harmonize exactly with the corresponding fact in the Maccaban history (cf. supra, on that passage; also Kranichfeld, p. 309 et seq.); and if not Onias, but Seleucus Philopater is to be understood as denoted by the anointed one who was cut off, as Bleek, Maurer, Roesch, v. Lengerke, Hitzig, etc., contend, the chronological discrepancy becomes still greater. To this must be added (3) that the temple and the altar did not remain in the profaned condition to which Antiochus Epiphanes had reduced them during half a week or three and a half years, but only during three years and a few days (see Eth. fund. principles, etc., on chap. 7. No. 3, b), and finally (4), that the detailed description of this desecrated state and of the abomination of desolation, Dan 9:27, which stood on the sanctuary while thus profaned, does not correspond more exactly to the statements in 1 Maccabees 1, than the allusions to the judicial punishment of the antitheistic madman, which are found in the close of the same and the preceding verse, accord precisely in any way with what history records concerning the end of Antiochus Epiphanes. In order to be understood by his contemporaries, a Maccaban pseudo-Daniel would have clothed his allusions in a very different form, and would have made them, everywhere less equivocal. The surroundings of the vision concerning the seventy weeks, and the preparations for it would likewise have received a different form at his hands; and the fervent penitential and intercessory prayer, by which the Spirit of prophecy was invoked and the Divine exposition of Jeremiahs oracle was secured, this especially would have been different in both contents and form, from what it is in Dan 9:4-19, had it been invented by a pseudo-Daniel. Instead of revealing a relationship to the similar prayers in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which were written immediately after the captivity, it would have displayed a character more nearly like that of the far more verbose and prolix apocryphal writings which originated during the last pre-Christian centuries, such as Baruch, Ecclus., Judith, and the additions to Esther and Daniel; cf., in addition to Bar 1:14 to Bar 2:19 (regarding which see above, on Dan 9:4 et seq.), especially Sirach 51; Judges 9; Tobit 3, 13; Eze 3:1 et seq.; and also the Prayer of Azariah, Dan 3:26 et seq. Nor would the alleged pseudo-Daniel of the Maccaban age have been likely to omit from a prayer written to favor a tendency, every allusion to the raging of the enemies of Gods people, which still continued at his time, since that prayer would unquestionably be designed to contribute to the quickening of the religious and national zeal and courage (cf. e.g., the prayer of Judith, chap. 9 which has already been referred to, and see again the remarks on Dan 9:4 et seq.).

3. The practical fundamental thought, and the central idea of this section is to be looked for neither in Daniels penitential prayer and fervent intercession for his nation only, nor yet merely in the equally serious and comforting disclosures of the vision of the weeks. It is rather contained in the relation of the two constituent elements to each other, i.e., in the causal connection of the prayer, as the expression of a disposition of the heart, that showed it truly prepared to receive Divine revelations concerning the salvation connected with the future of Gods kingdom, with the revelation itself that was thus obtained. Inasmuch as that preparation of the heart reaches its highest point in the disposition which constitutes the prophet a (Dan 9:23), a God-loving favorite of God, a needy, contrite, humble, and therefore worthy object of the yearning love of the Father of mercies, it may be said that this expression in Dan 9:23, which states in a brief and striking manner the reason why the following prophetic disclosures are vouchsafed to the prophet, contains the central and fundamental thought of the whole chapter. Moreover, since by that very expression the prophet is characterized as an anxious searcher after the goal of the history of the Old-Test, empires, and as one of those humble and self-abasing servants of God, to whom He granted the most extended view of the future of His kingdom,74 in reward of their humility and their faithful investigations in the documents containing His revelation of salvation, the nature of genuine prophecy under the Old Dispensation, as being a longing and anxious preparation for the future manifestation of deliverance in Christ may be found to have been characterized in this section, and to have been exemplified in one of the most prominent instances in the collective development of Old Testament. The theme for the homiletical treatment of the chapter as a whole might therefore read: Daniel, the favorite of God; the leader and founder of that series of pious watchers (, Luk 2:25; Luk 2:38) which reached to the time of Christ; the example and teacher of the only Divinely attested method of, searching the Scriptures (Joh 5:39); the model possessor of the Spirit in which the Scriptures are to be read and pondered; the ideal prophet in the sense indicated by Peter (1Pe 1:10-11 : , ). If a proper use were made of the key afforded by 1 Pet., l. c., to arrive at a correct understanding of the chapter and a correct estimate of the Messianic position of the prophet, thus securing the weapons with which to energetically refute the current rationalistic prejudice that Daniel no longer represented a normal and healthful stage of prophetic development, but rather one in which it had already begun to degenerate and to be apocalyptically diseased, a sermon framed on some such plan would be able to achieve truly powerful results, both in a practical and an apologetic point of view. In view of the extraordinary wealth of matter, it might be well to divide it into two themes for sermons, in order to treat it thoroughly; for instance, let one sermon treat of the spirit in which the Scriptures should be read and the mysteries contained in them be approached (Dan 9:1-23), and another bear upon the principal feature disclosed by the Scriptures when thus perused, viz.: the fundamental law of all the history of salvation through sufferings to glory (Dan 9:24-27).

4. Homiletical suggestions on particular pas sages. On Dan 9:2 et seq., Jerome: In cinere et sacco postulat impleri, quod promiserat Deus; non quo esset incredulus futurorum, sed ne securitas negligentiam et negligentia pareret offensam.Melancthon: Etiamsi Deus promisit beneficia corporalia vel spiritualia, tamen precibus vult exerceri fidem, et vult crescere pntentiam, sicut inquit Zacharias: Convertimini ad me, et ego convertar ad vos, etc. Et orat Daniel de restituenda Ecclesia; ita nos quoque officiamur vero dolore propter Ecclesi calamitates et oremus, ut Deus eam augeat, gubernet et servet. Spener: (Penitential sermons on Daniels penitential prayer): All the Divine prophecies are obscure before their fulfilment, and can only be apprehended through special industry in the light of Divine truth; therefore, whoso readeth, let him understand (Mat 24:14).Starke: If Daniel read prophetic writings, although himself a prophet of the Most High, how silly is it to imagine that we can know everything of ourselves! Thence it results that dreams and false imaginings are taken for Gods word (Eze 13:3 et seq.). It is certainly the duty of a Christian to exercise his faith continually in prayer; but when a special promise by God is before him, he should arouse himself to that exercise more fully (Act 4:24); for there are many promises which include the condition of true repentance and obedience to God, either expressed or implied, etc.J. Lange: Promise, prayer, and fulfilment always belong together (Psa 27:8).

V. 4 et seq., Melancthon: Daniel fatetur peccata populi et tribuit Deo laudem justiti, quod juste puniverit populum. Deinde petit remissionem peccatorum et reductionem populi. Est ergo vera contritio, agnoscere iram Dei adversus nostra peccata, expavescere propter iram Dei, dolere quod Deum offenderimus, tribuere in laudem, quod juste nos puniat, et obedire in pnis.Nec tamen satis est peccata noscere, intueri panas, sed accedat quoque consolatio. Ergo Daniel non solum doctrinam contritionis proponit, sed addit partem alteram. Docet suo exemplo petere et expectare veniam propter misericordiam et promissiones.Starke: A conception of Gods punitive justice is necessary, in order that man may more fully recognize the guilt of his sin, and may not lull himself into a mistaken security with the comforting thought of His mercy. But despite this there is no other nor better comfort in the agony of sin, than Gods goodness and mercy, through which alone we can obtain forgiveness by faith.Hvernick: At the same time, the prayer of the prophet was not merely one that proceeded from him as an individual, but one offered by him as a mediator of the whole nation, in whose name he now cried to the Merciful One. We may therefore ascribe a liturgical character to it with entire justice, and thus explain the frequent borrowing of former expressions in which it abounds.

Dan 9:11-14, Calvin: Daniel hic significal, non debere videri absurdum, quod Deus multo sit asperior in electum populum, quam in gentes profanas; quia scilicet major erat impietas illius populi quam gentium omnium, propter ingratitudinem, propter contumaciam, propter indomabilem illam pervicaciam. Quum ergo superarint Israelit gentes omnes et malitia et ingratitudine et omni genere scelerum, Daniel hic prdicat, merito tam, duriter ipsos affligi.Geier: The greater the favor shown by God toward a nation or country, the greater will afterward be the punishment which follows on its ingratitude (Deu 32:13; Deu 32:22 et seq.). Spener: Divine threatenings are recorded in order that man be deterred from sinning, and also that an evidence of Gods righteousness and truthfulness may be drawn from their realization.Without repentance, all other means to avert the wrath of God are useless. He that should endeavor to quench the fire with one hand, while pouring oil on it with the other, would increase the fire more than his attempt to quench it would diminish it (Jer 2:23).

Dan 9:15 et seq., Starke: Where genuine repentance exists it fills the heart, so that it cannot avoid breaking out in humble confession, and that repeatedly (Jer 6:11).When man humbles himself under a sense of Gods wrath, recognizes that the punishment was deserved, and flies to Divine mercy for refuge, God transforms His wrath and displeasure into grace (Psa 81:14-15).If the church, and even every single member belonging to it, bears the name of Christ, it follows that this is the most powerful motive to hear our prayer for the church which we can present to God (cf. Act 4:27 et seq.).Hvernick: As the strongest motive for a father to be careful for his child, is that it is called by his nameand that not in conformity with a custom having no significance, but as a sign that it belongs to him and must be considered as his property,so the prophet here expresses his confidence in the grace of God most beautifully by the feature that he refers to the city which is called by the name of God, the city of Jehovah, the great King, which is founded in eternity (Psa 46:5; Psa 48:2; Psa 48:9; Psa 87:3).

Dan 9:20-23, Jerome: Non populi tantum peccata, sed et sua replicat, quia unus e populo est; sive humiliter, quum peccatum ipse non fecerit, se jungit populo peccatori, ut ex humilitate veniam consequatur.Id. (on Dan 10:11): Congruenter vir desideriorum vocatur, qui instantia precum et afflictione, corporisque jejuniorumque duritie cupit scire ventura et Dei secreta cognoscere.-Starke: The prayer that is poured out before God for our personal wants and the common need is never unheard (Psa 91:15).What will God not do for the sake of man! The princes of heaven are obliged to render Him service and reveal His will to the faithful, that they may be strengthened in faith and hope (Heb 1:14).True Christians imitate the angels, who seek to instruct each other more and more in the ways of God, till they all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph 4:13; 1Pe 1:12). Fller (see the note connected with No. 3).

Dan 9:24-27, Melancthon: Prirnum refutat hic locus errorem Judorum de lege retinenda et de regno politico Christi. Si erit perpetua justitia, item: si Ghristus occidetur, sequitur legem Mosaicam non retinendam esse, nec fore mundanum regnum.Secundo tradit testimonium de passione Christi.Tertio cum politia jam desierit, ita ut nullos habeat duces, nullos prophetas, nulla tribuum discrimina (cfr. Hos 3:4 s.), constat impletum esse dictum Jacob: Non auferetur sceptrum de Juda, donec venerit Salvator (Gen 49:10). Necesse est igitur, venisse Salvatorem.Starke: If everlasting righteousness shall be brought back, it follows that man has once possessed it, but has lost it.While Christ is the true High-priest who atones for all men, and the great Prophet who has revealed the will of God concerning our salvation, He is also the true King, who has the power to place his atoning blood to our credit, and to protect His believing followers.Hvernick: The complete expiation of the great and numerous sins of Israel shall take place in the time of Messiah, the true High-priest; but His coming shall be delayed until after the expiration of the period that was indicated. But precisely because the sins of the people were as the sand of the sea, so that Daniel himself confessed their enormity (Dan 9:4-19), it was necessary to provide a perfect and wholly complete expiation, in contrast with that which had hitherto been made in the temple at Jerusalem, which was the mere foreshadowing of the future reality. The eyes of Daniel and of Israel were not to linger on the temple only, whose restoration the prophet so anxiously desired; they were to lift their eyes up farther, to Him who was to come, who is both the true temple, and the priest who ministers in it. Fller: Meanwhile the principal concern was that Israel should happily escape from the tribulation caused by the Old-Test, antichrist. When that was realized, it might be inquired why the seven weeks of years did not begin (?rather, why Messiah did not come!)At a later period, John, the New-Test. Daniel, appeared with his Revelation, which continued to build on the foundations laid by Daniel, and described the troubled times of the New-Test. antichrist, together with the deliverance from them, being designed to render the same service to the New-Test. people of God, which Daniels prophecy formerly rendered to Gods people under the Old Covenant.

Footnotes:

[1][, used absolutely here, may be taken in the sense of worshipping, which it often bears, or we may supply information from the context.

[2]The form is very intensive. , denoting extreme earnestness.

[3]Not only is this verb, like the others, emphatic, but the pronoun added gives it a reflexive reference, like the Hithp. of the other verbs, i. q., for myself.

[4]The art. prefixed=thy, our, his, my, etc.

[5]The indef. art. here injures the sense by really making the noun definite.

[6]Literally, let fall, i.e., rest or base.

[7]Literally, to make thee wise as to.

[8]Literally, delights.

[9]The verb being in the singular indicates the unity or singleness of this entire period.]

[10][This anachronism results merely from the authors attempt to identify Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach. On the theory which we have adopted this chapter follows in immediate chronological order.]

[11][It is simpler to make it at once an irregular Kal-form, with Gesenius.]

[12][ (number) forms the object to (I understood); cf. Pro 7:7. Neither the placing of (by books) first, nor the Athnach under this word, controverts this view; for the object is placed after by books because a further definition is annexed to it; and the separation of the object from the verb by the Athnach is justified by this consideration, that the passage contains two statements, viz., that Daniel studied the Scriptures, and that his study was directed to the number of the years, etcKeil]

[13][, , is not synonymous with , , but denotes only writings in the plural, yet does not say that these writings already formed a recognized collection, so that from this expression nothing can be concluded regarding the formation of the O.-T. canon.Keil.]

[14][The discrepancy here surmised by the author is entirely imaginary. Daniel reckons the captivity precisely as Jeremiah, namely from the fourth of Jehoiakim, B.C. 606, when he was himself taken away by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 1:1, the invasion having taken place the preceding year). The present vision occurred B.C. 538. when the captivity was near its close. Jerusalem did not lie in ruins for seventy years [the temple, however, certainly did]; the expression is not thus to be interpreted, but is chosen partly with regard to the existing state of Jerusalem, and partly with reference to the words of Jerusalem.Keil.]

[15][Keil combats at length the notion of Bleek and Ewald that it was Daniels uncertainty regarding the termination of the seventy years which moved him to prayer.]

[16]Cf. the similar, but more simple analysis by Melancthon which is adduced below, in connection with the homiletical suggestions. It divides the whole prayer into the two parts (1) of the confessio (vs 414) and (2) of the consolatio (Dan 9:15-19).

[17][The confession of sin divides itself into two sections. Dan 9:4-10 state the transgression and the guilt, while Dan 9:11-14 refer to the punishment from God for this guilt. Dan 9:3 forms the introduction.Keil.]

[18][Against this construction, however, is the difference in gender of and .]

[19][The subject, however, is here rather stated absolutely as concerns all this evil, thus it has come upon us.Keil.]

[20][ means the great deeds done by the Lord for his people, among which the signs and wonders accompanying their exodus from Egypt take the first place, so far as therein Jehovah gave proof of the righteousness of his covenant promise.Keil.]

[21][Keil holds that these terms, , belong from their position to the relative clause, or specially to (I had seen), not to , since no ground can be perceived for placing the adverbial idea before the verb. This is also countenanced by the Masoretic interpunction. Keil accordingly refers the phrase to Daniel himself, as being utterly exhausted; and compares Dan 8:17 et seq., 27, because Gabriel, at his former coming to him not only helped to strengthen him, but also gave him understanding, etc. The epithet, however, as applied to Daniel, seems very inept and vague here, especially following the definite phrase at first. Stuart maintains that essentially means to hasten, and that it bears this signification here; but the usage of the word does not sustain this sense. Under these circumstances we can probably do no better than, with our author, to abide by the interpretation of the old translators, and regard both terms either as directly from or from a cognate of that root.]

[22][The sentence, for thou art a man greatly beloved, does not contain the reason for Gabriels coming in haste, but for the principal thought of the verse, the going forth of the word of God immediately at the beginning of Daniels prayer.Keil].

[23][ stands not for revelation, but is the vision, the appearance of the angel by whom the word of God was communicated to the prophet, is accordingly not the contents of the word spoken, but the form of its communication to Daniel. To boththe word and the form of its revelationDaniel must give heed. This revelation was, moreover, not communicated to him in a vision, but while in his natural consciousness.Keil.]

[24][Keil maintains that neither the gender nor position of is here significant; but it is certain that the masc. plur. nowhere else occurs, except at Dan 10:2-3, where it is defined by the addition of , days. Even Stuart, who does not apply this prophecy to the Messianic age, candidly admits that heptades of years can only be designated by this expression.]

[25][The six statements (represented by the infinitives with ) are divided by Maurer, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others, into three passages of two members each, thus: After the expiration 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 again be consecrated. The Masoretes, however, seem to have already conceived of this threefold division by placing the Athnach under (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 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 thirdthe second and the fifth present even the same verb .Keil. It is not necessary, however, to assume that these results were all to await the expiration of this entire period; they were only to be in the process of taking place during or after it; in a word, this was to be the final period of the Jewish economy, in or at the end of which all these consummations were to take place.]

[26][But for this figurative use of the word to seal no proof-passages are adducted 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 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 (Keil); and correspondingly transgression is sealed, when its further demonstration is prevented. In short, both are to be suppressed after that date; transgression by the Atoning Sacrifice, and prophecy by the close of the O.-T. canon.]

[27][Keil justly objects to this interpretation of the fulfilment that it is opposed by the actual fact, that neither in the consecration of Zerubbabels temple, nor at the reconsecration 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. The term anoint, however, may here be taken in the metaphorical sense of rededicating.]

[28][Keil likewise, after adducing several exegetical reasons against the interpretation of most holy here as referring to the temple, altar, or any of the sacred utensils, finally concludes that the reference is to the anointing of a new sanctuary, temple, or most holy place. This, however, makes the whole expression metaphorical, while all the associated phrases are taken in a sense more or less literal. It seems to us that the rejection of the old reference of the language here to the Messiah, on the ground of the absence of the article, is rather hasty; for surely the words may justly be rendered to anoint a most holy (one as well as thing), and thus really refer to the inauguration of the Head of the New Dispensation. The expression is doubtless to be explained in conformity with the similar phraseology of the verses immediately following.]

[29][Few will be disposed to adopt an interpretation that comes to so vague a conclusion, when the very object of these added verses is evidently to furnish a definite chronological determination of the period spoken cf. Keil, although no advocate of a strict literal fulfilment of this passage, justly remarks that all such references (to Jeremiah) are excluded by the fact that the angel names the commandment for the restoration of Jerusalem as the terminus a quo for the seventy weeks, and could thus only mean a word of God whose going forth was somewhere determined, or could be determined, just as the appearance of the Anointed Prince is named as the termination of the seventy 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 knowna word from God respecting the restoration of Jerusalem, which went forth by means of a man at a definite time, and received an observable historical execution. This last remark effectually disposes of the authors exegesis regarding here.]

[30][This last argument is certainly out of place, for Daniel does not place the personage in question at an interval of only seven weeks, but of seven and sixty-two weeks, i.e., all but at the close of the entire period of the prophecy. So likewise in the next verse. As to the objection against the reference to the Messiah, both here and in the following and preceding verses, on the ground of the absence of the article, this is greatly, if not wholly, made up by the construction of the noun with an adjunct, which in Hebrew often makes a word really definite, so that the article is readily dispensed with. Indeed, the simple term , Messiah, even anarthrous, is so emphatic that none but the Great Prophet of Deu 18:18 (where is in like manner rendered definite only by the adjunct term) can well be thought of Accordingly, those interpreters who have forsaken this old and widely-accepted reference, have signally failed to adduce any other historical personage to whom it can be fitly applied.]

[31]

[Keils remarks on this point seem to us so satisfactory that we transcribe them in full. The words are not to be translated an anointed one, a prince (Bertholdt); for cannot be an adjective to , because in Hebr. the adjective is placed after the substantive, with few exceptions, which are inapplicable to this case; cf. in Ewalds Lehrb., 293 b. Nor can be a participle: till a prince (is) anointed (Steudel), but it is a noun, and is connected with it by apposition; an anointed one (who is at the same time) a prince. According to the O. T., kings and priests, and only these, were anointed. Since then, is brought forward as the principal designation, we may not by think of a priest-prince, but only of a prince of the people; nor by of a king, but only of a priest; and by 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 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 Saadias, Gaon., Bertholdt, Von 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 which is doubted, since from his epithet , His (Jehovahs) anointed, which Isaiah uses of Cyrus, it does not follow, of course, that he should be named the title ought at least to have been , the being an adjective following , because there is no evident reason for the express precedence of the adjective definition.

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 Hvernick, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Auberlen, Delitzsch, and Kliefoth, we here understand by the , because in Him the two essential requisites of the theocratic king, the anointing and the appointment to be the of the people of God (cf. 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 13:14; 1Sa 16:13; 1Sa 25:30; 2Sa 2:4; Dan 9:2 seq.), 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; Isa 55:4, as the person by whom the sure mercies of David (Isa 55:3) shall be realized to the covenant people. The absence of the definite article is not to be explained by saying that , somewhat as , Zec 3:8; Zec 6:12, is used . as a nomen propr. of the Messiah, the Anointed; for in that case ought to have the article, since in Hebrew we cannot say , but only . Much rather the article is wanting, 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 as a personage altogether singular.]

[32][How ill the chronological elements of the prophecy accord with the reference of this anointed one and prince to Cyrus, is evident from the fact that the author is obliged to sever Daniels conjoined statement (7 + 62) in order to effect anything like an agreement. Yet even thus the historical fulfilment has to be vaguely presumed, and cannot be definitely verified.]

[33][The only justification of this translation, which separates the two periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, assigning the former as the terminus ad quem of the Anointed Prince, and the latter as the time of rebuilding, lies in the Masoretic interpunction, which places the Attach between them. Some adduce also the fact that the connective is likewise at the point, and not at . But these arguments, especially the latter, are not conclusive; and the rendering in question involves a harsh construction of the second member, being without a preposition. It is better, therefore, and simpler, to adhere to the Authorized Version, which follows all the older translations. Keil, indeed (although admitting that the Masoretic punctuation is neither authoritative nor decisive), departs from it, but endeavors to extricate himself from the chronological difficulties resulting by his interpretation of these weeks as not being heptades of years. Stuart, too, insists upon the Masoretic separation, but he is thereby led into a maze of interpretation from which he confesses he sees no satisfactory exit.]

[34][These arguments, however, have little weight; for (1) the sixty-two weeks are still an independent period, namely, that following the seven weeks of rebuilding, i.e., covering the whole period of the restored city down to the appearance of the Anointed One and Prince; (2) the pause before the statement of the rebuilding of the street and wall is justified and even required by the fact that this is evidently a resumption of the former declaration of the building of Jerusalem; (3) so far from this period of rebuilding being delayed till some subsequent event, it is set forth as the very initial terminus a quo of the entire prophecy. We may add, that the subdivision of the sixty-nine weeks into two portions of seven and sixty-two weeks respectively perfectly corresponds with the assignment, in the same connection and order, of two distinct events, namely, the completed reconstruction for the former portion, and the Messianic advent for the latter. If, on the contrary view, we appropriate the sixty-two weeks to the reconstruction-period, we fall into several exegetical contradictions: (1) we confound it with the Messiah-period, which is described in very different terms, Dan 9:26; (2) we leave no special transaction for the preceding seven years: (3) we make the Messiah-period vastly too long for its definite limitation in Dan 9:27. Other difficulties of a historical character will be adduced presently.]

[35][We suggest, as best suited to the etymological import of these two terms, as well as their proverbial antithesis and adverbial adjection to the sentence, the sense of court and alley, i.e., broad square, and close street; to denote the complete restoration of the city, with all its places of resort and thoroughfare.]

[36][That the reconstruction of the city wall, however, was completed at this last date is certain from Neh 6:15. This was B. C. 446. The temple had been rebuilt a long time, Ezr 6:15, B. C. 517. During Nehemiahs administration the whole process of restoration was evidently effected. It is impossible, therefore, to protract this period over the sixty-two year-weeks, as the author seeks to do. The historical interpretation here fails completely. From whatever point of time we reckon the first forty-nine years, they certainly included this work of reconstruction.]

[37][The article here only shows that the period in question agrees in general with that similarly stated in the preceding verse. That they do not exactly coincide is clear from the fact that the terminus od quem of the two is differently stated: in the one it is till the Messiah, in the other, down to his cutting off. The difference in time is accurately defined by the following verse.]

[38][This objection to the identification of the Mashiach in both cases is entirely obviated by the above note of the variation in the limits of the two chronological terms.]

[39][Keil insists that does not necessarily denote a violent death. But the passages adduced by the author are sufficient to establish this as the general meaning. The orthodox interpretation of this clause as referring to the crucifixion of the Messiah is certainly well sustained.]

[40][This admission of failure to meet the chronological terms of the prophecy sufficiently points out the fallacy of the authors interpretation. The Anointed one of this verse can be no other than that of the preceding verse. The circumstance that in Dan 9:26 has neither the article nor the addition following it appears to be in favor of this opinion. The absence of the one as well as of the other denotes that , after what 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 sanctuary is so connected with the Mashiach that we must consider this as the immediate or first consequence of the cutting off of the Mashiach, and that the destruction shall be brought about by a Nagid, then by Mashiach we 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 Mashiach 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 Hvernick. Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Kliefoth, who regard the Mashiach of this verse as identical with the Mashiach 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.Keil].

[41][The inconsistency of this explanation of the article after the above statement that = is obvious. It is not a Hebrew idiom to use the article with a participle or adjective in order to point out something well known; for that purpose the article should (also) be prefixed to the associated noun. It is evidently employed here simply in order to render definite the otherwise indefinite , i.e., he is not a present or a past, but a future prince.]

[42][On the contrary, is here rendered definite by the epithet or adjective following, and therefore may properly be translated the prince. It simply omits the article because it is different from that in Dan 9:25, and the article would give a wrong sense, or at least the insertion of it would make it dubious to the reader, inasmuch as it would naturally refer him to the in Dan 9:25. The here is merely a heathen prince acting in a civil (rather military) capacity, in distinction from a who belongs to the people of God.Stuart].

[43][This rendering of ] is quite unjustifiable. It is not a correlative clause appended to as a further definition of the , but an independent statement as to the result of that princes coming. The suffix in doubtless refers to the , but in an objective not a subjective sense: it is the end which he causes, not any which he is to suffer. It is thus precisely parallel with the of the clause immediately following. This view is confirmed by the article in , which commentators have overlooked or misapplied, but which is here, as often, equivalent (like the Greek article) to a personal pronoun, q.d. in his overflowing, evidently the military campaign or immediately subjoined. The whole phrase thus indicates that the invasion should issue in the destruction of Jerusalem. This was certainly not done by Antiochus Epiphanes.]

[44][Keils interpretation is substantially like this, namely: it is not to Him, viz., that which he must have, to be the Mashiach.]

[45][These latter interpretations are refuted in detail by Keil, whose objections, however, do not apply to the explanations which are suggested above.]

[46][Keil admits the grammatical propriety of this rendering, but objects that in the preceding sentence no mention is expressly made of war; and if the war which consisted in the destruction of the city be meant, ought to have the article. These arguments are of no force, as is definite by reason of its construction with and the war itself was already distinctly alluded to in the .]

[47][The connection is unnecessary. The expression properly and fairly signifies: he shall confirm a covenant, which naturally implies one already made.]

[48][On the contrary it seems to us that the subject of this clause is not the just spoken of, but the preceding, or, more definitely, the just before; for (1) this (as Hengstenberg rightly says) is the predominant or principal subject of the entire passage; and (2) each of the other portions of the seventy weeks is directly referred to that personage, so that this final week will not fill up the number appropriately if otherwise referred. The objections of Keil to this interpretation are unimportant. Moreover, the prophecy is not historically applicable to Antiochus, but does correspond to the term of the Messiahs ministry: as we shall endeavor to show.]

[49][The passages adduced by the author, especially Dan 11:22, do not sustain the meaning he here assigns to , which, unless specially qualified, always refers to Jehovahs covenant as contained in the Law. Moreover, as Keil justly observes, , with the article, signifies the many, i.e., the great mass of the people in contrast with the few. But the mass of the Jews did not apostatize in the time of Antiochus. Still more inept is Keils application: 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. The language of the text can only have its appropriate fulfilment in the mission of the Redeemer, which was a completion of Gods covenant with the race of man. How this took place during the last of the seventy weeks we will presently show.]

[50][Or, on the usual Messianic interpretation, Christ shall forever do away with the Levitical sacrifices by the one perfect offering of himself (Heb 7:27; Heb 9:12-14; Heb 9:26). On this view, it matters little whether we render in the midst, or during half, for our Lords ministry was a process of supersedure of the legal sacrifices, which culminated in his death, and (should we even grant the authors position, that the latter half of the week is intended) was finally carried out by the release of Gentiles from the Levitical economy (Act 11:18). The authors objections, as to the sense of , etc., are inconclusive. Stuart thinks that Dan 7:11 settles the question that Antiochus is referred to; but the language there employed is very different.]

[51][The authors construction of the words in question, although sanctioned by such early authority, is wholly ungrammatical. There is but one translation possible: On a wing of abominations shall be a deflator. The aptly designates the eagles of the Roman army, which were used as idolatrous images; and the desolator, which was over them, of course, is the army itself or the commander. This is in pointed agreement with our Lords warning, Mat 24:15; which, of course, must be regarded as a citation of this passage from the Sept., as substantially agreeing with its sense. The fact that the destruction of the city and temple by Titus did not immediately follow the Crucifixion is no objection to this interpretation of the clause, which is altogether parallel, both in import and phraseology, with the close of the preceding verse.]

[52][Bleek, in the passage here cited, shows, as Keil well argues, that is used only of that which is extended horizontally (for end or extremity), but never of that which is extended perpendicularly (for peak). Nor, as Keil continues, can the use of it in the latter sense be proved from the of Mat 4:5; Luk 4:9; for the genitive , not , shows that not a pinnacle or summit of the temple edifice itself is meant, but a wing or adjoining building of the sanctuary. To the latter alone, indeed, could access have been had by our Lord on the occasion referred to.]

[53][Rather, it shows that the abominable object should remain even till the complete desolation. Keils objection to the use of as a conjunction, that though is so used, is not, has little force.]

[54][Such a confusion of Kal and Piel is quite unauthorized. must here, as everywhere else, be treated as passive, desolate. It is certainly parallel with of the preceding verse, as the connection with in both instances shows.]

[55]Cf. the observation of Melancthon on the passage, which is certainly not incorrect upon the whole (p. 882): Ac Judis quidem post Danielem facilis fuit observatio annorum, prsertim quum in eo populo sacerdotes tempora diligenter annotarent et multi; essent longvi. Nehemias, qui Danielem senem viderat adolescens, Alexandrum senex vidit (?). Simeon qui Christum infantem gestavit in sinu, vidit adolescens senes, qui Maccabum viderant. Tales viri tempore, quo Christus natus est, intellexerant, annos hic prjfinitos exacte quadrare ad Christi adventum.

[56][It is perhaps to these prophecies of Daniel in a general way that Josephus likewise alludes in the references to an ancient prediction that the city should be destroyed in a civil war, De Bell, Jud., IV. 6, 3; VI. 2, 1.]

[57]On this point, cf. Reusch, Die patristischen Berechnungen der 70 Jahrwochen Daniels, in the Tbinger Theol. Quartalschrift.1868, No. 4, p. 535 et seq.: also Reinke, Die Messianischen Weissagungen, 4:1, 389 et seq. The statements of the latter are, however, sadly in need of correction and supplementing by those of Reusch.

[In addition to Reuschs treatise, Keil refers to the following summaries; for the period of the Middle Ages and of more modern times, Abr. Colovii theologica de septuaginta septimanis Danielis. in the Biblia illustr. ad Daniel 9, and vernicks History of the Interpretation, in his Comment., p. 386 sq.; and for the most recent period, R. Baxmann, on the Book of Daniel, in the Theolog. Studien u. Kritiken, 1863, III., p. 497 sq.]

[58]Cf. Bertholdt, Daniel, II. p., 567 et seq.

[59]Luther, however, confounds Artaxerxes I., who figures in the book of Nehemiah, with Cambyses, cf. also the work, Von den Juden und thren Lgen, vol. 32, pp. 195 et seq., 212 et seq.

[60]Cf. Kliefoth, Daniel, p. 329 et seq.

[61]Cf. Delitzsch, p. 284, If the seventy weeks are not regarded as simple, but rather as quadrated Sabbatic periods, it follows that 70 X 49 or 3430 years are to intervene between the fourth year of Jehoiakim and Christ, whose parusia is considered as one such period. Consequently, if 3,595 years be added to that aggregate, as having passed from the creation to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the suggestive amount will result in about 7000 years (diminished by only twenty-five years) as the duration of the world. For a criticism of this view cf. Kliefoth, p. 337 et seq.

[62][Keil thus classifies the various interpretations: 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. This view is in our time fully and at length defended by Hvernick (Comm.), Hengstenberg (Christol., III.1, p. 19 sq., 2d ed.), and Auberlen (Der Proph. Daniel, etc., p. 103 sq., 3d ed.), and is adopted also by the Catholic theologian Laur. Reinke (Die Messian. Weissag. bei den gr. u. kl. Proph. des A. T., IV. 1, p. 206 sq.), and by Dr. Pusey, of England. 2. The majority of modern (continental) interpreters, on the other hand, refer the whole passage to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. This view presents itself in the Alexandrian translation of the prophecy, more distinctly in Julius Hilarianus (about A. D. 400) (Chronologia s. libellus de mundi duratione, in Mignes Biblioth. cler. univ., t. 13, p. 1098), and in several rabbinical interpreters, but was first brought into special notice by the rationalistic interpreters Eichhorn, Bertholdt, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Ewald, Hitzig, [Rosenmller], and the mediating theologians Bleek, Wieseler (Die 70 Wochen u. die 63 Jahrwochen des Proph. Daniel, Gtt., 1839, with which compare the retractation in the Gttinger. Gel. Anzeiger, 1846, p. 113 sq.), who are followed by Lcke, Hilgenfeld, Kranichfeld [Stuart], and others. This verse has been defended by Hofmann (Die 70 Jahre des Jer. u. die 70 Jahrwochen des Daniel, Nrnb. 1836, and Weissag. u. Erfllung, as also in the Schriftbew.), Delitzsch (art. Daniel in Herzogs Realencykl. vol. III.), and Zndel (in the Kritischen Unterss.), but with this essential modification, that Hofmann and Delitzsch have united an eschatological reference to 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. 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 at the end of the exile on to the perfecting of the kingdom by the second coming of Christ at the end of the days. Of this view we have the first germs in Hippolytus and Apollinaris of Laodicea, who, having regard to the prophecy of Antichrist, Dan 7:25, refer the statement of Dan 9:27 of this chap. 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 Berteburg Bible. But Kliefoth, in his Comm. on Daniel, was the first who sought to investigate and establish this opinion exegetically, and Leyser (in Herzogs Realenc., XVIII., p. 383) has thus briefly stated it: The seventy . i.e., the of Daniel (Dan 9:24 sq.), measured by sevens, within which the whole of Gods 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 cumenicity. The seventy is again divided into three periods: into seven (till Christ), sixty-two (till the apostasy of antichrist), and one, , the last world, , divided into 2 x 3 times, the rise and fall of antichrist. With the last view Keils own interpretation essentially agrees. The great objection to it is that it mixes the literal with the mystical import of the prophecy, and fails to yield any exact fulfilment of the definite numbers of the text].

[63][See the arguments in his Connection, sub anno 409. I place the whole prophecy a year earlier.]

[64][Namely, by Cyrus, the Medo-Persian conqueror of the Babylonians, who thus put an end to the seventy years captivity, B. C. 536, as in Ezr 1:1; and by Darius Hystaspis, who renewed Cyruss decree (Ezr 4:24), B. C. 518, rescinding its prohibition by his immediate predecessors Cambyses and Smerdis.]

[65][On these chronological elements, see Brownes Ordo Sclorum, pp. 202 and 96107.]

[66][On the contrary, there is good reason to believe that this remarkable prophecy sustained the faith of the pious Jews in their anticipations of the near approach of the Redeemers coming (cf. Mar 1:15; Luk 2:25; Luk 2:38), as it has since been a powerful argument to prove his actual advent at the time predicted (cf. Gal 4:4; 1Pe 1:11).]

[67][The learned and pious author does not seem to be aware how nugatory such a misconception on the part of the holy seer would render this prophecy, the marked peculiarity of which is that it designates the time of the events predicted.]

[68]Cf. Bleek, in the Jahrbcher f. deutache Theologie, 1860. p. 84; Reichel, in Stud. u. Kritiken, 1848, pp. 737, 748 et seq.

[69][It should rather be borne in mind that this is not a question of Daniels subjective intuition into the future; the dates in question were those explicitly given him by Gabriel commissioned direct from heaven for that very purpose.]

[70][It is difficult to see how a discovery of Daniels own error on the point in question should lead his readers either to entertain greater faith in his predictions or to seek for a more correct interpretation of them than he was able to attain himself.]

[71][There is this essential difference, however, as to the point at issue between these eschatological sayings of our Lord and this of Daniel, that Christ expressly disclaimed any revelation or even knowledge of the times and seasons of the events predicted; whereas the prophecy before us is a pure series of such chronological notanda. Indeed our Lord in these very utterances explicitly refers to this identical passage of Daniel as affording the only clue that he gives to the date of their occurrence.]

[72][This assertion is often made by expositors, but it is directly contradicted by Pauls emphatic language in 2Th 2:1 seq.]

[73][This effort of the author to turn to advantage in one direction an acknowledged failure in another, is ingenious, but unfortunately, if true, would prove too much; for if the prophecy does not tally with its alleged fulfilment, it is thereby shown not only to have been not written after the event, but to have been no true prophecy at all.]

[74]Cf. Fller, Der Prophet Daniel, p. 264, We hear Daniel repeatedly characterized as a jewel of great value in the sight of God. Hence, for the reason that Daniel is precious with God. the latter meets his petitions and wishes kindly, and makes disclosures to him which would not otherwise have been imparted. If his nation may find comfort and encouragement in these disclosures at a later day, it is to know to whom it is indebted for them, and to learn that a man upon whom rests the favor of God may be a blessing to his people during subsequent centuries. For Daniel is not merely the instrument through which, but also the man for whose sake God imparts this revelation, which possesses Incalculable value for Daniels nation for centuries to come.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

We have here as interesting a Chapter as in the whole book of prophecy, and which wholly treats of the Lord Jesus Christ. Daniel is taught of God, by books, to count the number of the years determined to the Babylonish captivity. He is deeply engaged in fasting and prayer, when he is favoured with a vision. The exact period to Jerusalem’s bondage is marked out to him.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

The Prophet is particular to set down the precise time of this wonderful and blessed vision. I call it wonderful, because of the grace manifested to the Church at such a season, when suffering captivity for their rebellion. And it is most blessed surely, for the Holy Ghost hath commissioned it with blessedness to thousands of the Lord’s people in all ages. The first year of Darius corresponds to the first year of Cyrus; for Cyrus and Darius, jointly reigned after the death of Belshazzar. And it was that memorable year, in which Cyrus made proclamation for the Jews to return if they wished it, to their own country, about five hundred and thirty-six years before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. See Ezr 1:1 , etc. Daniel was at this time taught concerning the memorable prophecy of Jeremiah. See Jer 25:8-13 and Jer 29:10 . Daniel found, by comparing what the Prophet Jeremiah in those scriptures had said, with what was passed, and then come, that the seventy years were now expired.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Dan 9:3

Fasting is an indispensable condition of a good life; but in fasting, as in self-control in general, the question arises, With what shall we begin? How to fast, how often to eat, what to eat, what to avoid eating? And as we can do no work seriously without regarding the necessary order of sequence, so also we cannot fast without knowing where to begin with what to commence self-control in food. Fasting! and even an analysis of how to fast, and where to begin the very notion of it sounds ridiculous and wild to most men. I remember how, with pride at his originality, an evangelical preacher, who was attacking monastic asceticism, once said to me, ‘Ours is not a Christianity of fasting and privations, but of beefsteaks’.

Tolstoy.

Dan 9:4

The attractive aspects of God’s character must not. be made more apparent to such a being as man than His chastening and severer aspects. We must not be invited to approach the Holy of Holies without being made aware, painfully aware, of what Holiness is We must know our own unworthiness ere we are fit to approach or imagine an Infinite Perfection. The most nauseous of false religions is that which affects a fulsome fondness for a Being not to be thought of without awe, or spoken of without reluctance.

Bagehot.

Dan 9:4

For God is at hand, and the Most High rules in the: children of men…. The same light which lets you see sin and transgression, will let you see the covenant of God, which blots out your sin and transgression, which gives victory and dominion over it, and brings into covenant with God. For looking down at sin and corruption and distraction, ye are swallowed up in it; but looking at the light, which discovers them, ye will see over them.

George Fox to Lady Claypole.

References. IX. 14. J. Bolton, Selected Sermons (2nd Series), p. 229. IX. 14, 23. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlix. No. 2850. IX. 17. Ibid. vol. xlviii. No. 2788.

Dan 9:20

See Miss Rossetti’s lines,’ By the Waters of Babylon’.

Dan 9:20

Do you know, when I see a poor devil drunk and brutal, I always feel, quite apart from my sthetical perceptions, a sort of shame, as if I myself had some hand in it.

W. Morris.

No man’s thoughts ever fell more into the forms of a kind of litany than Mr. Maurice’s…. They were the confessions befitting a kind of litany, poured forth in the name of human nature, the weakness and sinfulness of which he felt most keenly, most painfully, but which he felt at least as much in the character of the representative of a race by the infirmities of which he was overwhelmed, as on his own account…. Whenever you catch that he feels as all the deeper religious natures have always felt a sort of self-reproachful complicity in every sinful tendency of his age, you feel that the litany in which he expresses his shame is not so much morbid self-depreciation as a deep sense of the cruel burden of social infirmity and social sin.

R. H. Hutton.

Thomas Boston of Ettrick, in his Memoirs, mentions the scandal caused by a local minister having been guilty of adultery. ‘I well know,’ he adds, ‘that many a heavy heart it made to me, and remember the place where I was wont heavily to lament it before the Lord in secret prayer.’

Dan 9:23

Remember the rebuke which I once got from old Mr. Dempster of Denny, after preaching to his people: ‘I was highly pleased with your discourse, but in prayer it struck me that you thought God unwilling to give’. Remember Daniel: ‘At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth’.

McCheyne to Bonar.

Dan 9:23

See Keble’s lines on ‘Thursday Before Easter’.

Reference. IX. 24. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii. No. 734.

Dan 9:24

Not long after Phryne’s religious performance at Eleusis came the last days, too, of the national life of the Jews, under the successors of Alexander. The religious conceptions of the Jews of those days are well given by the book of Daniel. How popular and prevalent these conceptions were is proved by their vitality and power some two centuries later at the Christian era, and by the large place which they fill in the New Testament. We are all familiar with them; with their turbid and austere visions of the Ancient of Days on His throne, and the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven to give the kingdom to the saints of the Most High and to bring in everlasting righteousness. Here, then, is the last word of the religion of the Hebrews, when their national life is drawing to an end, when their career has been, for the most part, run; when their religion has had nearly all the development which, within the limits of their national life, belonged to it. This, we say, is its last word: To bring in everlasting righteousness.

Matthew Arnold.

See, further, Literature and Dogma, III. ad init.

References. IX. 24. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxviii. No. 1681. IX. 25. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in a Religious House, vol. ii. p. 440. IX. J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 152.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

THE HISTORY OF DARIUS THE MEDE

Dan 5:31 ; Dan 6:1-28 ; Dan 9:1

The testimony of Daniel concerning Darius the Mede is found in Dan 5:31 ; Dan 6:1-28 ; Dan 9:1 . The Jewish Bible properly places the last verse of Dan 5 at the beginning of Dan 6 . From these passages we gather the following facts:

1. Darius is here said to be the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Modes.

2. Darius, like Pharaoh and Caesar, is a title rather than a name.

3. He “received the kingdom,” i.e., from another. He “was made king,” i.e., by another.

4. He was an old man, “about three score and two.”

5. Only one year of his reign is mentioned (Dan 9:1 ).

6. As elsewhere throughout the book, the Medes and Persians are considered jointly as one government (Dan 6:8 ; Dan 6:12 ; Dan 6:15 ).

7. The reigns of Cyrus and of Darius were contemporaneous (Dan 6:28 ).

On this testimony the following observations are submitted:

1. It is difficult from outside history, whether sacred or profane, to determine definitely the real name and place of this Darius. If we adopt the Jewish method of dividing the chapters so as to make the last verse of Dan 5 the first verse of Dan 6 then there is nothing in Daniel’s account to connect closely in time the death of Belshazzar with the accession of Darius, king of Persia, so often named in the book of Ezra. But while we may accept the chapter division, the conclusion deduced, identifying this Darius with the Darius of Ezra, is every way improbable, not to say impossible. The deduction creates far greater difficulties than it removes difficulties in this book as well as in Ezra, and even greater difficulties in Persian history. So our conclusion is that Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, in this book, is not the Darius, the Persian, the son of Hystaspes, so prominent in the book of Ezra. The testimony of Daniel, even if wholly unsupported from the outside, should be accepted as trustworthy unless better testimony should show it to be impossible. A probable explanation of this history when compared with others is all that we need to show.

The famous Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus, upon which the radical critics so confidently rely, itself alone furnishes the probable explanation. That tablet shows that a certain general of Cyrus, Gobryas by name, led the night assault in which Belshazzar was slain, and was made governor of the province of Babylon by Cyrus, and then as governor appointed all the subordinate rulers in the realm, which harmonizes perfectly with Daniel’s account that (1) Darius “received the kingdom,” “was made king,” and (2) that “it pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps.” Professor Sayce, though so adverse to the historicity of Daniel, thus reads a part of the Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus: “Cyrus entered Babylon. Dissensions were allayed before him. Peace to the city did Cyrus establish, peace to all the province of Babylon did Gobryas, his governor, proclaim. Governors in Babylon he (i.e., Gobryas) appointed.” Professor Driver thus renders another part of the tablet: “Gubaru (same as Gobryas) made an assault, and slew the king’s son.” The king’s son was Belshazzar. Then the tablet goes on to show the national mourning for the king’s son.

Defenders of the historical trustworthiness of the book of Daniel need not commit themselves irrevocably to this identification of Daniel’s Darius with the tablet’s Gobryas. It suggests all that is necessary, a probable explanation. Mr. Pinches, who brought the Annalistic Tablet to light, and many others are quite confident of this identity. Mr. Thomson (“Pulpit Bible,” Daniel) adopts this theory in his exposition. There are several other theories concerning the identity of Daniel’s Darius most plausibly argued by learned men who fully accept the trustworthiness of the history in the book of Daniel. It is not at all necessary to recite them here.

2. It is quite in line with all the probabilities in the case that Cyrus, ruler over two united nations, Medes and Persians, should appoint a Mede as subking over the conquered province of Babylon, while he attended to the general affairs of the whole empire. The reference to both Cyrus and Darius in Dan 6:28 indicates a contemporaneous reign, Darius as subking at Babylon, Cyrus as supreme king over the whole empire.

3. Darius, being an old man when he “received the kingdom,” or “was made king,” did not probably reign long, Daniel specifying only his first year (Dan 9:1 ).

4. The contention of the radical critics that, in Daniel’s mind, the empire of the Medes precedes and is distinct from the empire of the Persians is contradicted flatly by the whole tenor of the book. While everywhere recognizing them as distinct peoples, the book throughout knows them only as a conjoined nation, one government. The laws of the one government are the laws of the Medes and Persians (Dan 6:8 ; Dan 6:12 ; Dan 6:15 ). This unity in duality is manifested in the symbolic features: the silver beast and two arms of Nebuchadnezzar’s image (Dan 2:32 ); the bear with one side higher than the other (Dan 7:5 ); the ram with the two horns, one higher than the other (Dan 8:20 ). This last symbol is expressly interpreted as a unity in duality and named “Medes and Persians.”

This absurd contention of the radical critics is evidently intended to hedge against any possible prophecy in the book concerning Rome, as the fourth world empire, and so to make the prophetic forecast of history culminate in Antiochus Epiphanes, and then by arbitrarily dating the book after his reign, to deny all prophetic element in it. In no other radical criticism do they so utterly betray their atheistic presuppositions, and so clearly manifest their utter untrustworthiness as biblical expositors. The very exploit which they regard as their greatest achievement most overwhelmingly exposes their disqualifications and advertises their shame.

THE CONTENTS OF Dan 6 1. On the fall of Babylon and the death of Belshazzar, Cyrus appoints Darius the Mede, subking over the province of Babylon.

2. Darius districts the kingdom under his jurisdiction and appoints 120 satraps over the several districts. Over these satraps he appoints three presidents, Daniel, one of the three, to whom all the satraps must give account of the king’s matters in their several satrapies. This division of authority and responsibility was common then and is yet common in Oriental countries. The three presidents would constitute the king’s cabinet. From this place Farrar gets his “board of three,” but his arbitrary attempt to transfer it back to a preceding regime in order to break the force of “third ruler in the kingdom” (Dan 6:8 ; Dan 6:12 ; Dan 6:15 ) is merely puerile and amusing. Daniel’s age, wisdom, experience, administrative capacity and character so easily make him the dominant spirit over the two other presidents and over all the satraps that Darius purposes to set over the whole realm a grand vizier.

3. And now comes a development so true to the life and character of Oriental despotism, with their large delegation of powers to subordinates, that its absence from the story would have discounted its credibility. Envy, jealousy, and disappointed greed on the part of the two other presidents and all the satraps, lead them to conspire against Daniel. It was bad enough, in their minds, to have him one of three presidents, but if he be made grand vizier, then there would be no hope of successful fraud and loot. Daniel here brings to mind that great commoner, the elder William Pitt, who, as secretary, stood alone in a corrupt age, whose spotless character and imperious will dominated an unwilling king and a venal ministry, before whom all fraud in politics and peculation in office fled affrighted. One such man in a thousand years is about all the world can produce. And when he appears he is like a solitary, huge, cloud-piercing granite mountain in an almost boundless plain.

What a tribute to Daniel’s purity of life, official integrity and sublimity of character, is their confession that nothing could be found against him except his alien religion! But just here these jackals were most sure of their lion. His record was unequivocal and univocal. Not even the mighty Nebuchadnezzar could shake him in a matter of conscience and religion, but rather bowed before him. On this point he was as God himself before the white-faced, pale-lipped, knee-shaking Belshazzar. Hence the low scheme of cunning, the short-sighted trick of engineering on the unsuspecting Darius the signing of a blasphemous law that for thirty days no man should offer prayer or petition to any god, but to the king alone. To polytheistic Orientals, or even to a Roman Caesar, who was ex officio not only pontifex maximus, but was himself divine, such temporary suspension of empty religious services except through the ruler himself, was a light matter enough. But to a pious Jew recognizing one only true God it was every way blasphemous and horrible.

In all the world history of legislative folly this statue stands unique “without a model and without a shadow.” The suspension of the law of gravitation, the suspension of either the centripetal or the centrifugal force, whose joint powers produce the circling orbits of heavenly bodies, would not introduce more confusion in the material universe than such a law, if capable of execution, would produce in the moral and spiritual realm.

NO PRAYER TO GOD FOB THIRTY DAYS

All connection between the throne of mercy and grace and helpless, hungering, thirsting, dying men, severed for thirty days! For a whole month travailing mothers may not cry to God; cradles must remain unblessed; youth helpless before temptation; widows and orphans at the mercy of oppressions and without appeal; human life unguarded in the presence of assassins; property at the mercy of the thief, the burglar and the incendiary; sinners dying unabsolved and unforgiven, an earthly embargo against angel ministrations or heavenly mercies such a law, if enforceable, would be the climax of insanity. What an ocean-sweeping dragnet to catch one fish!

How clearly the record brings out the weakness of Darius I The mind instantly calls up, in association, Herod’s vain regret for his oath when called upon to surrender John the Baptist to the murderous woman, and Pilate vainly washing his hands as he surrenders Jesus to crucifixion, as if consistency were more than righteousness.

Daniel’s attitude was calm, inflexible. Though he knew that the law was signed, and could not have been ignorant of either its malicious purpose or its result to himself, he kept right on praying to God at the three regular Temple hours of prayer, morning, noon, and evening.

He kept his window open toward Jerusalem. How well he bears in mind the words of Solomon’s great intercession at the dedication of the Temple, preserved in the sacred history of his people: If thy people go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray unto the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house that I have built for thy name: then hear thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause. If they sin against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not), and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication in the land of them that carried them captive, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness; and so return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, toward the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name: then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them. 1Ki 8:44-50 .

But by espionage on his private devotions in his own domicile the most accursed method of tyranny his infraction of human law is clearly established. Peter and John when charged by human authority “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” boldly replied: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things we saw and heard” (Act 4:19-20 ). So Daniel here.

DANIEL IN THE LION’S DEN This miraculous preservation of Daniel, though its miracle sorely grieves the radical critics, is, like the preservation of his three friends in the fiery furnace, certified in the New Testament book of Hebrews, which records among the achievements wrought by Israel’s ancient worthies: “By faith they quenched the violence of fire by faith they stopped the mouths of lions.” The fate of Daniel’s accusers when he was vindicated is fully in line with the history of Oriental nations as well as the law of Moses. The consequent proclamation of Darius is not incredible per se, because in keeping with his character, his times, and his people. It is in line with other proclamations in this book, in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.

I must again call attention to this fact concerning the text: The accepted Hebrew text, Theodotion’s Greek version in the second century A.D., and the Peshito Syriac version of the same century are generally agreed. The important variant readings are in the Septuagint Greek version. That version, for example, makes only the two other presidents (not the satraps) accuse Daniel, and they alone, with their families (not the satraps) are cast in the lions’ den when Daniel is vindicated. I have not thought it necessary to give all the Septuagint variations.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the affirmations in Dan 5:31 ; Daninel 6; Dan 9:1 concerning Darius?

2. Is he the same as the Darius of the book of Ezra? What the proof?

3. State the archaeological proof that he was probably Gobryas.

4. Give the reply to the radical critic contention that, in Daniels mind the kingdom of the Medea was distinct from the Persian kingdom and preceded it. .

5. By whom and why a conspiracy against Daniel, and what their method of destroying him?

6. State the comparison of Daniel with William Pitt.

7. Show the folly of the statute Darius was induced to sign.

8. What the weakness of Darius and with whom compared?

9. From what texts and versions must we get a true text of Daniel, and which of these are in agreement and which one variant?

10. State the most important variations in the Septuagint.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

THE MARVELOUS NINTH CHAPTER OF DANIEL (CONTINUED)

Dan 9:1-27

In this chapter we consider seriatim the items of the exegetical analysis already submitted.

I. God’s great decree concerning the Jewish nation. This decree is the whole prophecy, and by its terms has all the force of an inexorable judicial decision. It covers a long period of time, subdivided into such particular sections, each to be filled with its own appropriate events, these events of such number, magnitude, order and correlation, the parts assigned to particular nations so extraordinary as to defy the inventive audacity of an impostor. On its face are registered the marks of its divine origin. As a phenomenon it is easier to philosophically account for it as a prophecy written by Daniel at the time and under the circumstance claimed, than to stagger credulity by attributing it to an impostor of the Maccabean days An attribution of this prophecy to a pseudo Daniel of the second century before Christ necessitates an incredible miracle.

II. Meaning or duration of the seventy weeks. This means seventy weeks of years, a symbolism already familiar to the Jewish mind, as it afterward became to both Greek and Latin philosophers. It is weeks of years, not days. Laban said to Jacob, “Fulfil her week also,” meaning seven years, and through Daniel’s contemporary, the delivery of the prophecy, and necessarily after its fulfilment, if it be prophecy. It is a characteristic of prophecy to both veil and reveal. Its terms are not those of accomplished history, and there is room for difference of opinion about the time when the matter is to be fulfilled before this fulfilment comes, as is evident from the history of all previous prophecies. But there is a law which finally determines the genuineness of the prophetic element, that is, it must be fulfilled. A prophecy that does not come to pass is no prophecy. This is the definite test. We therefore are acting strictly within the rules governing prophecy when from our late standpoint we seek in the history of the past for historical facts verifying the fulfilment of what is here foretold.

Hence we would be perfectly justified in rejecting any interpretation as a reasonable exegesis of this prophecy which left out the great matters set forth in Dan 9:24 , which is a summary of the greater events of the period. And what are the items of this summary? We must find a rounded and connected period of 490 years. In this period must be located the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, the finishing of the transgression of the Jewish people, the making an end of sin, the making reconciliation for iniquity, the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, the sealing up of vision and prophecy and the anointing of a most holy. These are all extraordinary events. It was one of the matters that gravely troubled Daniel, as evidenced by his prayer, that the transgression of his people had been continuous from the beginning of their history to his time. He was not alone disturbed by the offenses immediately preceding the servitude to Babylon, but on his conscience was an unbroken series of transgressions under Moses, under the judges, under the kings, against the law, and against the messages of the prophets. There must be, in any correct interpretation, a filling up of the measure, or a finishing of the transgression of the Jewish people.

Moreover, up to his time no end to sins had been made by atonement. They were merely passed over through typical animal sacrifices. Yet again, this end of sins, not in figure, but in fact, must be brought about by a real reconciliation for iniquity, i.e., a genuine and permanent atonement. Following this necessarily would be brought in an everlasting righteousness Not a tattered patchwork, such as the best of their worthies in ancient times offered in their lives, but a righteousness whiter than snow and so flawless that not even the omniscience of God when holding it in the light of immaculate holiness could find a spot on it a righteousness that would envelop its subject soul and body and would be impervious to the thrust or stroke of the flaming sword of divine justice. Moreover, a just interpretation would demand the coming of a person on whom all the rays of past prophecy would focus, so that it could be said that up to this date “were the law and the prophets” and since that time a new order of things. Moreover, as the prophecy foretells the total abrogation of sacrifices and offerings, the interpretation must find not some temporary cessation of these offerings but a decree of final annulment, so that an end is made to them forever. Yet again, as the prophecy foretells the destruction of the city and sanctuary and the rejection of the people, any thorough interpretation must find the incoming of a new covenant, the anointing of a new most holy place and a new and spiritual Israel.

All controversies about the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quern are mere byplays, unless within these terminals can be shown fulfilment of the great particulars of the prophecy. That man’s views of the beginning of the period or of the end of it are lighter than air unless within his terminal points he can show the fulfilment of the great events which are to his terminal points as the building is to the scaffolding. Not only must the true interpretation find all of the great particulars of the summary in Dan 9:24 , but it must find the particular things for the subdivision of the period, something definite to occur in forty-nine years, and something more important 434 years later, and again a continuous event for seven years, and yet again the remarkable particulars of each half of the seven years when divided in the middle. And as the prophecy foretells the destruction of Jerusalem and the sanctuary some time after the seventy weeks, or 490 years, and then a long period of wrath upon the rejected people, the true interpretation must find a binding relation between this doom and the cutting off of the Anointed One in the last seven years of the period. This must be the relation of cause and effect. The destruction of the city and sanctuary and rejection of the people must be the result of the cutting off. If an interpreter be unprepared to show such fulfilment, then he ought to refrain from attempting any exposition of the passage. Yet again, two persons at least, neither of them human, must have known about the facts and the dates set forth in the prophecy. These two persons are the angel Gabriel, who brought the prophecy to Daniel, and the God of heaven, who sent it as an answer to Daniel’s prayer. Their testimony as to the fulfilment would be intensely valuable. An interpretation not corroborated by the testimony of Gabriel or of God, the Father, who sent the prophecy, could not stand by mere human argumentation. One more point in this connection: It is not denied that this book and, particularly, this prophecy, exercised a marvelous influence on the subsequent periods of Jewish history. Some definite impression was created by its language, and this impression would naturally take the shape of expectation. We ought to be able to find, therefore, a widespread expectation of fulfilment, generated by the prophecy itself, in the day of its fulfilment, or in the near time preceding its fulfilment. The people generally, without any claims to special scholarship, would receive impressions, ripening into expectation, from the prophecy’s definite time revelation. A date of fulfilment, therefore, without antecedent expectations, would hardly meet the conditions of this prophecy.

III. When the seventy weeks began, or the terminus a quo. The beginning is thus expressed in the text: “Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Anointed One, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks; it shall be built again with street and moat, even in troublous times.” Here begins the subdivision of the seventy weeks, with appropriate events assigned to each section, namely, seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, one week; and just here comes the battle on punctuation which determines the exegesis. According to the radical higher critics, whom the Canterbury revision, after much debate, consented to follow) the punctuation is as follows: “Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Anointed One, the Prince, shall be seven weeks; and three score and two weeks, it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times.” This punctuation assigns the first subdivision of forty-nine years to the coming of the Anointed One, the Prince. And the second subdivision, the three score and two weeks, or 434 years, to the building of the city, and logically necessitates that the Anointed One, who comes at the end of the forty-nine years, shall live 434 years through all the second subdivision, and afterward be cut off. Here are two unspeakable absurdities that not even the pseudo Daniel would perpetrate: (1) That 434 years are required for building Jerusalem, and (2) that the Anointed One is 434 years old before he is cut off. No man in Maccabean times, one degree removed from idiocy, would have made either statement. It is a mere expedient to say that the Anointed One of Dan 9:26 must be a different person from the Anointed One of Dan 9:25 . There is absolutely no warrant in the text for making the Anointed One who is cut off a different person from the Anointed One who comes. A very few words only intervene, and no break in the sense or connection between the Anointed One in Dan 9:25 and the Anointed One in Dan 9:26 . The Anointed One who comes is the Anointed One who is cut off. But what is served by this punctuation murder? It seems to be an effort to make the Anointed One in Dan 9:25 mean Cyrus, and to fix the beginning of the 434 years just forty-nine years before the coming of Cyrus, which of course requires the finding of some one to serve for another Anointed One. True, indeed, in Isa_45:1, 176 years before his time, Cyrus is called an anointed one, but the trouble with the punctuation is to find a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem just forty-nine years before Cyrus, whose first year is 536 B.C., and then to find another anointed one who is cut off just 434 years plus 3.5 years later, i.e., in 98 or 99 B.C. In other words, this absurd punctuation puts both ends of the 490 years out in the air with nothing to mark its coming or exit. Don’t misunderstand me. I am not ignorant of the various expedients of the radical critics in dealing with the prophecy of Daniel, but have studied profoundly in many books their attempts at its exposition. It would be impossible to generalize their contentions, since they are as variant as the number of critics, but doubtless the best and strongest that can be said on their part is to be found in Dr. Driver’s commentary on Daniel in the “Cambridge Bible.” In order to be as fair to him as a brief statement will permit, I will here summarize his interpretation of the matter in hand:

1. He proceeds upon the theory that the book of Daniel was written by some unknown person in the Maccabean days in some part of the second century before Christ, and that the book was written from the standpoint of history, shaped in prophetic form and attributed to Daniel.

2. That the 490 years corrects, interprets, and paraphrases Jeremiah’s seventy years. In other words, that Jeremiah’s seventy years are explained to Daniel as meaning weeks of years, that is to say, that the seventy weeks must commence with Jeremiah’s seventy years.

3. His terminus a quo is Jer 30:18 , which contains a promise to rebuild Jerusalem, which he dates, probably, 458 B.C.

4. That it is only forty-nine years later, 409 B.C., until Cyrus conquered Babylon, and therefore he is the anointed one, the prince of verse 24.

5. That sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, are devoted to rebuilding the city.

6. The anointed one of Dan 9:26 is Onias, the high priest, who, in the apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees, is said to have been assassinated.

7. That the coming prince of Dan 9:26 is Antiochus Epiphanes, who in the period of seven years sets up the abomination of desolation, takes away the daily sacrifice and confirms a covenant with many Jews.

Dr. Driver frankly admits that the time of Onias and Antiochus falls sixty-seven years short of the prescribed date in the prophecy. Nor does he explain how a writer of that very time, and who is simply shaping historical fact in a prophetic form, should have made such an awful mistake in the length of time. We might be willing to accept his probable date of prophecy in Jer 30:18 , but must object to his making the fifty-two years before Cyrus mean forty-nine years, and we find it impossible to accept his 434 years as devoted to the building of the city and his trying to make the time of Onias and Antiochus fit the end of the period. Moreover, it is impossible to find in the period of Antiochus any expectation of the Coming One warranted by this and many other prophecies. Nor do we find the temporary interruption of the sacrifices by Antiochus at all equal to the total abrogation implied in the terms of this prophecy. Indeed, no one of the great particulars of the summary in Dan 9:24 can be identified in the days of Antiochus. Not only does his exposition put both terminal points in the air, without mark of beginning or exit, but it furnishes no body of great extraordinary events to fill in between the dates.

I thought it needful to call attention to this higher critic method of dealing with Daniel, but for ourselves we feel constrained to seek an interpretation more accordant with the terms of the prophecy. The text demands as a starting point, the going forth of a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. The context clearly shows that the restoration here expressed is the restoration from the destruction accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar (605 B.C.)

“The commandment” cannot mean a divine decree, because we have no means of dating God’s purposes. “The going forth” of the commandment cannot refer to a mere prediction of the restoration and rebuilding, for a prediction is not a commandment. It is true Dr. Driver so styles Jeremiah’s prediction Jer 30:18 ): “Behold, I will turn again the captivity of Jacob’s tents and have compassion on his dwelling places; and the city shall be builded up, her heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof.” But his is less definite than the prediction in Isa 44:28 : “That saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying of Jerusalem, she shall be built; and to the temple thy foundation shall be laid.” Both of these predictions are pertinent to the matter in hand, and equally show that God’s purpose is the divine original of the commandment whenever and by whomsoever sent forth. But Isaiah’s prediction (712 B.C.) precedes even the destruction of Jerusalem by more than one hundred years.

On this point Dr. Pusey well says, “The decree spoken of was doubtless meant of a decree of God, but to be made known through his instrument, man, who was to effectuate it. The commandment went forth from God, like that, at which, Gabriel had just said, using the same idiom, he himself came forth to Daniel. But as the one was fulfilled through Gabriel, so the other remained to be fulfilled through the Persian monarch, in whose hands God had left for the time the outward disposal of his people.”

When, therefore, we look for “the going forth of a commandment” of a Persian monarch we find four recorded in the Bible as follows:

1. The Decree of Cyrus (fulfilling Isa 44:28 ), and recorded in 2Ch 36:22-23 ; Ezr 1:1-2 , a copy of which was found later among the archives by Darius Hystaspes (Ezr 6:2-5 ). The date of this decree was 536 B.C. The prediction in Isaiah would lead us to expect some reference to the building of Jerusalem, but all the records of it limit it to the building of the Temple.

2. The decree of Darius Hystaspes (Ezr 6 ), reviving the decree of Cyrus, which had been frustrated by the enemies of the Jews and annulled by the Artaxerxes, who was the pseudo Smerdis (Ezr 4 ). The date of this decree is 519 B.C. But the record limits it also to the rebuilding of the Temple, which was accomplished in the sixth year of Darius.

3. The first decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezr 7 ). The date of this decree was the seventh year of Artaxerxes, 457 B.C. The record shows here an enlargement of powers much beyond the former decrees. This decree has nothing to say of building the Temple (already accomplished) but of beautifying it, nor in itself, as recorded, any reference to building the city, yet in another place this latter is evidently a part of Ezra’s work, but confers on Ezra extraordinary powers in restoring the Jewish polity, both civic and ecclesiastical, according to the law of Moses.

4. The second decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Neb. 1-2). The date of this decree is the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, 445 B.C. The terms of this decree are express in their reference to building Jerusalem.

Now as a starting point for the beginning of the 490 years, we are shut up to the acceptance of one of these four decrees. And candor compels the concession that a priori any one of the four meets the requirements of the terms of the prophecy.

While the record of the Cyrus decree seems limited to the rebuilding of the Temple, the Isaiah prophecy (Isa 44:28 ) demands the inclusion of the building of the city. Especially must this be conceded when we read the letter sent to Artaxerxes, or the pseudo Smerdis, by the enemies of the Jews. (See Ezr 4:11-14 .) And as Darius Hystaspes, the author of the second decree, distinctly revived and ratified the Cyrus decree, which had been frustrated, this, too, would include the building of the city.

For the third decree, the evidence is stronger still, the one issued to Ezra by Artaxerxes Longimanus, 457 B.C. This restores Jerusalem to a civil polity under their own laws and included the country west of the river (Ezr 7:25 ). There are two ideas in the prophecy, “to restore and to build,” and restoration is more important than rebuilding.

The restoration of the civil polity was a necessary preliminary to the entrance of the people on their new probation of 490 years. Without it they could not be responsible. They must be under their own judges and magistrates, with powers of imprisonment, confiscation, banishment, and death, and charged with the administration of their own Mosaic law, in order to enter upon this probation or responsibility. This restoration was more essential than the building of the walls of the city, since it conferred a political status, while the walls only conferred a defense.

The fourth decree (Neh. 1-2), 445 B.C., only carries on the third as the second carried on the first. That is to say, if Artaxerxes Longimanus confers restoration on Jerusalem, in its civil polity, in his first decree, it was but a logical outcome that the city must have walls to protect its status from the encroachment of its bitter enemies. Those 490 years of probation are determined on both the people and on the city. It does not seem that a just probation could commence until the restoration of their civil polity, under their own magistrates and judges, charged with the administration of their own Mosaic law and empowered to enforce it with penalties of confiscation, imprisonment, banishment, and death. These powers came with the restoration of the city under Ezra, and arose from a commandment going forth from Artaxerxes Longimanus, 457 B.C.

Moreover, it is certain, from Ezr 6:14 , that the obstructions to the building, general and special, continued to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and were removed at his commandment. This building was not limited to the Temple, for that was finished in the sixth year of Darius. The Artaxerxes of Dan 6:14 , is Longimanus, who followed Darius, and not the Artaxerxes of Ezr 4:7-24 , who preceded Darius and was Gaumata, the pseudo Smerdis. This passage (Dan 6:14 ) directly connects Ezra with both restoration and building, and confers on this third decree additional probability as the one of the four which best meets the terms of the prophecy. But if any one of the four might reasonably meet the terms of the prophecy, we are justified in allowing the fulfilment to designate which one was intended. This is the final and critical test of prophecy (Deu 18:21-22 ). We have therefore, from our viewpoint of 2,500 years after the prophecy, only to apply the dates of these four decrees, in order to arrive at the coming of

IV. Messiah, the Prince. To the decree of Cyrus, 536 B.C., we add the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, or 483 years, and it brings us to 53 B.C., and no “Messiah, the Prince” in evidence. This might naturally be expected, since the Cyrus decree was expressly annulled by Artaxerxes who was Gaumata, the pseudo Smerdis (Ezr 4:17-24 ), and permission to build the city expressly withheld until new commandment is ordered.

To the Darius decree, 519 B.C. (which renewed the order of Cyrus to build the Temple), we add the 483 years, and it brings us to 36 B.C., with no “Messiah, the Prince,” in evidence, because this decree does not restore civil polity, so necessary to probation.

To the first decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, 457 B.C., which dowered Ezra with such extraordinary powers (Ezr 7:25-26 ), including commandment to build the city (Ezr 6:14 ), we add the 483 years and it brings us to the remarkable scene at the baptism of Jesus, when he was anointed as Prophet, Sacrifice, Priest and King by the Holy Spirit, and was witnessed by the voice of the Father from heaven: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” By this anointing, John the Baptist recognizes the Messiah, and himself witnesses: “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world!” He is the Messiah that himself so remarkably verifies this very prophecy of Daniel (Mat 24:15 ). His is the one who so many times assumes the Daniel title, “Son of man,” whose life and words and death so amazingly expound this prophecy. It was Gabriel who carried the revelation of the Messiah to Daniel, and it was this very Gabriel and other angels who so remarkably identified this Jesus as the Messiah (Luk 1:17-19 ; Luk 1:26-38 ; Mat 1:18-22 ; Luk 2:8-15 ; Mat 2:13-14 ). It was God the Father who sent Gabriel to carry the revelation of the Messiah to Daniel, and it was the Father who three times from the most excellent glory identified him when he came.

We may therefore feel assured that we find the terminus a quo, or beginning of the 490 years, in the going forth of the commandment of Artaxerxes Longimanus, 457 B.C. And what kind of Messiah does Dr. Driver find 483 years from his terminus a quo? None whatever, by his own confession. But allow him to arbitrarily strike off seventy years of his time, and then who? Onias, a high priest, whose cutting off is unknown to history, except in an apocryphal book whose testimony on this point is flatly contradicted by Josephus.

When we come to apply the fourth decree (Neh. 1-2) we have two notable explanations:

1. Sir Robert Anderson, who has two remarkable books on Daniel, The Coming Prince and Daniel in the Critics’ Den, and who accepts the usual date 445 B.C., insists that the Jews reckoned by lunar years of 360 days, instead of 3651/4. In this way, by a very precise calculation, he adds 483 years of 360 days each to 445 B.C., which culminates on the very Palm Sunday when Jesus makes his triumphant entry into Jerusalem and is publicly received as Messiah the King. Sir Robert Anderson’s argument is strong, and particularly his chronological arrangement evinces profound knowledge and skill. In many respects his review of Farrar and Driver surpasses in excellence any other contribution toward the defense of the book of Daniel from the assaults of destructive criticism.

2. Hengstenberg, on the other hand, while agreeing with Sir Robert Anderson in making the Nehemiah decree the terminus a quo of the 490 years, controverts the theory of a year of 360 days, and contests the date usually accepted, 445 B.C. By an elaborate historical argument of great plausibility he seeks to prove that the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus falls upon the date 455 B.C., and then by adding the 483 years he reaches his acknowledgment by the Father as the true coming of Messiah, the Prince. Dr. Hengstenberg’s dissertation on Daniel and his treatment of the Messianic elements of Daniel’s book in his great work, “The Christology of the Old Testament,” are indispensable to the student of the book of Daniel.

For the reasons already given, this author accepts the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the seventh year of his reign, as given to Ezra and with the date 457 B.C., as the terminus a quo or beginning point of the 490 years, and that the coming of the Messiah refers to his public entrance upon his messianic office, which occurred at his baptism.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the nature of God’s decree concerning the Jewish nation?

2. What is the meaning of the seventy weeks? Illustrate.

3. What are two other equal periods of Jewish probation?

4. What must be the characteristics of a satisfactory exposition?

5. What declaration marks the beginning of the seventy weeks?

6. What is the punctuation, what is the theory and what is the difficulty of the theory of the radical critics?

7. What is a summary of Driver’s theory and wherein does it fail?

8. What are the four decrees, from one of which we must date the beginning of the 490 years, and which is accepted?

9. Test each one and show by adding 490 years its end.

10. What are the views of Sir Robert Anderson and Hengstenberg respectively?

THE MARVELOUS NINTH CHAPTER OF DANIEL (CONTINUED)

Dan 9:1-27

This chapter concludes the exposition of Dan 9:24-27 . Commencing where the last chapter ends, we now consider

V. The seven weeks, or forty-nine years. “From the going forth of a commandment to restore and build 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.”

From this language we gather three things concerning Jerusalem: (1) The issuance of a commandment to restore and build. (2) It shall be built again in troublous times. (3) The time assigned for the restoration and building. Had the coming of the Messiah been the first great event of the future, the language would have been, “It shall be sixty-nine weeks (or 483 years) to Messiah, the Prince.” But the time to the Messiah is subdivided into two periods, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, plainly setting apart the first period, or forty-nine years, to the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem.

In our work of verification, therefore, we have two conditions to meet. (1) It devolves upon us to show that from the terminus a quo, 457 B.C., the work of restoration and building was accomplished in forty-nine years; and, (2) we must prove that these were troublous times.

There is no difficulty in identifying the troublous times. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah furnish abundant evidence. There was trouble with the people themselves in keeping them up to the necessary labor and sacrifice, and to the required conformity in morals.

Their neighbors also were ceaseless in hostility and obstructions. The builder had to carry both trowel and sword, and be ready at a moment’s notice for either war or work. Our Colonial fathers had such a time, when every man carried his rifle to the field and to the church.

But we cannot verify the time forty-nine years with such exact precision, and yet the verification can be made reasonably certain. These are the items of the argument: In the book of Ezra we have the statement that he had been in Jerusalem prosecuting the work thirteen years before Nehemiah came. Again, it is stated explicitly that Nehemiah remained in Jerusalem twelve years on his first visit, prosecuting the work, thus making twenty-five years of the required time. It is then shown that he returned to Babylon and remained there a long time before returning to Jerusalem to complete his work. The precise date of his absence in Babylon is not given, but other circumstances are cited which enable us to make out, with reasonable assurance, that this absence was twenty years, during which time Ezra worked alone. This brings up the time to forty-five years, which lacks four years of the full period required. But the work of Nehemiah goes on after his return for a short time, before all the items of the restoration of the Jewish polity and all the regulations of the city life are complete. If, then, we consider this work after his return, and the loss of time from the going forth of the commandment, consumed by Ezra in organizing and conducting his caravan from Babylon to Jerusalem, we need not be troubled to account precisely for the four years needed to fill up the period. The prophecy says forty-nine years, and forty-nine years it must have been.

VI. One week, or seven years, as a whole, proclaiming a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34 ) and confirming it with many Jews. There has been some difference of opinion with reference to the covenant referred to in this prophecy, some holding that it is the old covenant, but this position is certainly untenable. That covenant had long since been confirmed with all the Jews. We take it, therefore, that the covenant in question is the one predicted by Jeremiah in connection with this whole subject. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, -and their sin will I remember no more. Jer 31:31-34 .

That this is the covenant of our context is manifest by Hebrews 8-9, where this text is cited from Jeremiah, with the following comment: But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, Heb 9:11-15 .

The heading of the present division shows that Christ must confirm this new covenant with many Jews for seven years, but the context also shows that he himself dies in the middle of the seven years, so that this confirmation as to the first half of the time is by Christ’s personal ministry. And that the confirmation of the covenant by him extends beyond his death is evident from the beginning of the Acts of the apostles, where Luke affirms that his Gospel was an account of what Jesus began both to do and to teach until the day in which he was taken up) with the intimation that Acts, or the second treatise by him, is to give an account of what Jesus began both to do and to teach after his ascent into heaven. So that it will remain for us to show, in proper connections later, that Christ, after his death, continued to confirm this covenant with many Jews for three and one-half years longer.

VII. One week, or seven years, divided in the middle. The first half of the seven years, commencing with Christ’s baptism, is crowded with the most of the great events foretold in this prophecy of Daniel. The following particulars must be made to fit into this time:

1. As we have already shown, during his public ministry, which lasted three and one-half years, he did confirm the covenant with many Jews.

2. The finishing of the transgression: This refers to the transgression of the Jews as a people, and by “finishing” is meant the filling up of the measure of their sins, just as the Canaanites, their predecessors in the Holy Land, retained it until the measure of their sins was full; so) according to Moses, it would be with the Jews, that when the measure of their iniquities is full, they shall be cut off, lose their title to the land, and be scattered over the whole world.

It is evident from Daniel’s prayer that he realized the magnitude and growing character of the national sins. Now, when we turn to the New Testament, the evidence of the finishing of the transgression is complete. This language of our Lord is decisive: Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily, I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not I Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

This is further evident by the two fig trees. Toward the close of his ministry he publishes the parable concerning the barren fig tree, closing with this language: Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none; cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him. Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it; and if it bear fruit, well, and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. Luk 13:7-9 .

The signification of the parable finds its confirmation at the end of his ministry. When he had entered the city in triumph and had been publicly proclaimed as the Messiah, and had a second time cleansed the Temple, the following event took place: Now, in the morning, as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth forever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, how goon ia the fig tree withered away! Mat 21:18-20 .

This clearly shows that the day of probation for the Jewish nation is about to end. This is further confirmed thus: And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, if thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace I but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground and thy children with thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. Luk 19:41-44 .

And still more notably confirmed by the parable of the vineyard, which closes thus: Then said the Lord of the vineyard, what shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him they reasoned among themselves, saying, this is the heir; come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What, therefore, shall the Lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid Luk 20:13-16 .

Language could not express more forcibly the culmination of the Jewish sins, and from the day these words were uttered to the present time there has been no suspension of the sentence against the Jews. Their last period of probation commenced with the baptism of Christ and closed three and one-half years later, when he entered the city as the Messiah, though for many elect the period lasted three and one-half years longer.

3. The cutting off of the Messiah. The crowning act of their transgression was the cutting off of the Messiah. The language of our prophecy is very significant: “Messiah shall be cut off and shall have nothing,” that is to say, when they betrayed, condemn-ed, and surrendered their Messiah to the ignominious death on the Roman cross, not only was he cut off, but they were cut off. From henceforth he was to have nothing in them or their city until after thousands of years; until they should, in fulfilment of other prophecies, say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” The city remained, indeed, for a little while, but sentence had been passed; the sanctuary remained for a, short period, but it was an empty and desolate house.

4. Making an end of sin. This language refers to the inefficient character of the Jewish sacrifices. Though for ages hecatombs of victims had been sacrificed upon Jewish altars, no sin was actually brought to an end. Because it was impossible, says the letter to the Hebrews, that the blood of bullocks and goats could take away sin; they typified that which would make an end of sin, and passed the transgressions over until the antitype should come. In his prayer, Daniel seems to have a keen sense of the fact that the sins from the days of Moses to his time remained. While the penalty had not been executed, the account had been simply carried or passed over for the time being. He felt that no absolute end had been found for any of the offenses from the beginning of the world until his day. There had been many promises not yet fulfilled many hopes that had not yet reached fruition, and therefore the intense agony of his prayer: “O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not; for thine own sake, O my God, because thy city and thy people are called by thy name.” The letter to the Hebrews, in a remarkable way, shows the shadowy nature of the old covenant which could make nothing perfect, and particularly it could make no end of sin.

5. Making reconciliation for iniquity. The making an end of sin was to be accomplished by a real and not a typical atonement. There was to be an absolute expiation. This expiation, as foreshadowed in the types, was to be through a vicarious sacrifice. There would come a true Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. This atonement was not to be affected by many offerings, but by one offering. As it is expressed in the letter to the Hebrews, “But now, once in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and as it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” This bearing of sin is further set forth in the prophecy of Isaiah:

He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed; all we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . He was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people was he stricken. It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. . .. by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. . . . he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bear the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors. Isa 53:5-12 .

6. Bringing in everlasting righteousness. All the righteousness that Daniel had ever seen was very imperfect, and all the atonements were only shadows, but this coming Messiah, according to Jeremiah, was to be called “The Lord, Our Righteousness.” In him alone was no deceit or guile ever found. His life on earth was perfect from his conception by the virgin to his ascent into heaven. The righteousness that he was to bring in by his expiatory sacrifice of himself was to be a righteousness for his people, and it would be perfect, spotless, eternal! The goodness of the best of the Jews was like the morning dew or the passing cloud, but this righteousness brought in by him was to be so perfect that one justified by it might stand under the unsheathed and flaming sword of divine justice and challenge, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. It is Christ that died.” Hence the remarkable language in the letter to the Corinthians: “God made him to be sin who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

7. Sealing up vision and prophecy. This sealing up seems to mean a closing up by fulfilment, and also to signify the termination of the obligations of the covenant under which these visions and prophecies were given. Therefore our Lord uses the following language: “The law and the prophets were until John and since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.”

8. Causing sacrifice and oblation to cease, or the rejecting of the old, typical Temple and covenant (Mat 27:51 , and Col 2:14-17 ; Hebrews 7-10). The Temple was the house of sacrifice and oblation, but it is recorded that at the very moment that Jesus cried, “It is finished!” and yielded up his spirit at that precise moment, by supernatural power, “The veil of the Temple was rent in twain from top to bottom.” In that death he blotted out the handwriting of all Old Testament ordinances that were against us and contrary to us, and took the whole covenant out of the way, nailing it to his cross. And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them. From that time on the imperious regulations of the Jewish festivals lost their legal force, hence it was said, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of the holy day or of the new moon or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.” The seventh day sabbath, the monthly sabbath, the annual sabbath, the jubilee sabbath, were all taken away, and the institutions of the new covenant take their place. Upon this point let any interested student carefully read the letter to the Hebrews, and particularly Hebrews 7-10.

9. Anointing the most holy, or the consecration of the new antitypical temple (Act 2 ): Upon this point commentators have been hard pressed. They seem to think it necessary for them to prove that this anointing is the anointing of a person, and therefore labor to show that it was fulfilled at Christ’s baptism when he was anointed by the Holy Spirit. It is possible to make a plausible showing in this direction) and the Hebrew would admit, by strained argument, this application. For many reasons, however, I am myself convinced that we should follow the clearer meaning of the Hebrew that it was the anointing of a holy place not a person. When the tabernacle was built, Moses was required to anoint it. Now, as both tabernacle and Temple are superseded, the question arises, has God no temple on earth, no sanctuary? The New Testament is clear that the antitype on earth of the Jewish tabernacle and Temple is the church of Jesus Christ. Paul says to the Corinthians: “Ye are God’s building; ye are the temple of the living God.” And in the letter to the Ephesians he says, with reference to every church: “In Christ each several building fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.” And concerning the church at Ephesus, he says: “In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the spirit.” Jesus himself instituted his church. He took the material that John had prepared for him and added to it other material prepared by himself in confirming the covenant with many Jews during his ministry, established its ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, ordained ita apostles, set them in the church, gave to the church its laws, but said to them, “Tarry ye in Jerusalem until ye are endued with power from on high.” Just as the tabernacle, when it was completed by Solomon became also an habitation of God through the infilling cloud, so now, having condemned and emptied and made desolate the old Temple, it becomes necessary to anoint a new most holy to take its place. This was fulfilled, as recorded in Act 2 , when the church was anointed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Second half. Confirming a new covenant with many Jews for 3% years more, i.e., up to the time of the Gentile, which is the terminus ad quern.

The prophecy would not be complete in its fulfilment unless we were able to show that the confirmation of the new covenant with many Jews continued for three and one-half years after the death of Christ. But here the record is exceptionally clear. On the day that the new most holy was anointed 3,000 Jews were converted. In that three and one-half years it is stated more than once that great multitudes of the Jews, including the priests, were converted. In that three and one-half years one might safely conclude that 100,000 Jews were converted and brought to the knowledge of the truth in the remarkable protracted meeting, which lasted from the day of Pentecost to the persecution under Saul of Tarsus.

But now comes a most significant thing. With that persecution the church is scattered abroad, leaving only the apostles. They go in their dispersion to many lands and preach the gospel of Christ. Philip leads multitudes of the Samaritans to the acceptance of Christ. He also baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch, and he in turn carries the gospel to his own country. Some of them went as far as to Antioch, and there preached the gospel to the Gentiles. From this time on there are no records of great multitudes of Jews being converted. The week is ended: the seven years have reached their terminus. Since Christ’s public ministry commenced, after his baptism, to the end of these seven years, a vast multitude of Jews have been confirmed in the new covenant. From this time on the conversion of a Jew will be the exception, and not the rule. The Bible history itself turns now to the Gentiles, and the close of the three and one-half years of this wonderfully successful Jewish evangelization is the terminus ad quern of Daniel’s 490 years.

VIII. After the seventy weeks. It has been objected by some critics that this prophecy of Daniel points to the destruction of Jerusalem, and that this destruction should be included in the seventy weeks, or 490 years. The answer is obvious. The sentence upon the Jewish people was passed at the death of Christ, but the execution of the penalty upon the city and the sanctuary is another matter, and will soon come. The prophecy itself seems to put that execution in the future beyond the seventy weeks. It notes the fact that “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” It does not say that this Prince will come in the seventy weeks. We may notice, therefore, the following items of the prophecy to be fulfilled after the seventy weeks:

1. The coming of the prince. This prince is Titus. Our Lord himself directs the attention of the condemned Jews to his coming. He tells them that Jerusalem shall be encompassed with armies, and that the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel, in this prophecy, shall be set up. He gives them a detailed description of the destruction of their city and sanctuary, and compares it, as does Daniel, to a flood: “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the Son of man.” The flood came suddenly and took them all away.

2. The prophecy also shows that this flood of wrath on the Jewish people is determined unto the end, i.e., until the times of the fulness of the Gentiles. Nearly 2,000 years have passed away. His words yet receive confirmation. Jerusalem is still trodden under foot by the Gentiles. The kingdom of heaven, taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, is still prosented in power by that missionary people, to whom the oracles of the New Testament are committed. So that we may agree that the marvelous ninth chapter of Daniel is the most remarkable prophecy of the Old Testament.

QUESTIONS

1. Into what divisions is the seventy weeks apportioned?

2. What must be done in the seven weeks, or forty-nine years?

3. What is the proof that this was done?

4. Who comes at the end of the sixty-two weeks following the seven, what does he do, and what the proof?

5. How is the last week, or seven years, divided, and what the culmination marking the division?

6. In the first half of the last week what, says the prophecy, is to be done?

7. What is the meaning of “confirming the covenant with many Jews” in this first half?

8. What is the meaning of “finishing the transgression”? Proof?

9. What is the meaning of “cutting off the Messiah”?

10. What is the meaning of “making an end of sin”?

11. What is the meaning of “making reconciliation for inquiry”?

12. What is the meaning of “bringing in everlasting righteousness”?

13. What is the meaning of “sealing up vision and prophecy”?

14. What is the meaning of “causing the sacrifice, etc., to cease”?

15. What is the meaning of “anointing the most holy”?

16. In the second half of the last week what is done, and when does it end?

17. What events follow the seventy weeks?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

Dan 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

Ver. 1. In the first year of Darius, ] i.e., Of Darius Priseus, who, together with Cyrus the Persian, took Babylon, and with it the kingdom or monarchy of the Chaldeans, Dan 5:31 by the consent of Cyrus, who married his daughter, and had the kingdom of Media with her for a dowry, after Darius’ death, as Xenophon a testifieth.

The son of Ahasuerus. ] Called Cyaxares by the Greek historians. Both these names signify a great prince, an emperor; like as now we say the Great Turk, the Great Cham of Cacaia, &c.

a Cyrop., lib. viii.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Daniel Chapter 9

The fall of Babylon was connected, in the prophecies of Isaiah, as well as in those of Jeremiah, with brighter hopes for the Jew. The partial restoration, that took place in consequence, furnishes the type of the final ingathering of Israel. This accounts for the notion, which has prevailed among some Christians, that what happened then is all that we are to look for in behalf of Israel as such, and that their subsequent sin in rejecting their Messiah, and the mercy of the gospel to the Gentiles, has involved them in irreparable national ruin.

Although there are true elements in such thoughts, they are very far indeed from being the whole truth. God does not abandon the people that He called. Never does He give a gift of grace and then withdraw it utterly. For the same grace which promised deals with the person and heart of the believer, and works till it is brought home morally by the power of the Holy Ghost. Thus, along with the mercy, whether to an individual or to a people that He calls, there is also the long-suffering faithfulness and power, which in the end always triumph.

The history of the past, no doubt, has been a total failure. The reason of this was because Israel chose to stand upon their own strength with God, and not upon the goodness of God towards them. This is always and necessarily fatal for a time. “This generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled.” That is, all that was threatened and predicted must yet befall the generation of Israel, which presumed upon its own righteousness, and which finally showed its real character by rejecting Christ and the gospel. A real sense of moral ruin (that is, repentance towards God) ever accompanies real, living faith. Israel have gone through this phase of self-confidence, or are still going through it. “This generation” has not yet passed away: all things are not fulfilled. They have not yet suffered the full results of their own folly and hatred of God’s Son. They have yet to suffer the severest chastening for it: for, although the past has been bitter enough, there are still more terrible things in the future. But when all has taken place, they will begin a new scene, when it will be, not the Christ-rejecting generation going on, but what Scripture speaks of as “the generation to come”: a new stock of the same Israel, who will be children of Abraham by faith in Christ Jesus – children, not in word only, but in spirit. Then will follow the history, not of man’s failure, but of a people whom the Lord blesses in His grace; when they will joyfully own that same Saviour, whom their fathers with wicked hands crucified and slew.

This chapter is especially occupied with Jerusalem and the Jews. It is a sort of episode in the general history of Daniel, but by no means an unconnected one. For we shall find, that the closing history of Israel peculiarly connects them with these personages that are yet to figure against God and His people, as we have read in previous chapters. It must be evident to any person who reads the chapter intelligently, that its main object is the destiny of Jerusalem and the future place of God’s people. Now Daniel was exceedingly interested in this. He was one that loved them, not merely because they were his people, but because they were God’s people. He resembles Moses in this – that even when the moral condition of the people hindered God from being able to speak of them as His people (He might care for them secretly, but I speak now of God’s publicly owning them), Daniel still continues to plead that they were His people. He never gives up the truth, that Jerusalem was God’s city, and Israel His people. The angel might say, Daniel’s people and city – that was all quite true; but Daniel still holds to the precious truth, which faith ought never to give up – Let the people be what they may, they are God’s people. For that very reason they might be chastened more and more sorely. In truth, nothing brings more chastening upon a soul who belongs to God, and who has fallen into sin, than that he does belong to God. It is not merely a question of what is good for the child. God acts for Himself and from Himself; and this is the very hinge and pivot of all our blessing. What would it be to us if it were merely true that God was working for our glory? We rejoice in hope of the glory of God. We shall have something far better, because it will be God blessing us according to what is worthy of Himself.

Now Daniel was one that emphatically entered into this thought. It is the prominent feature of faith. For faith never views a thing barely in connection with oneself, but with God. It is always thus. If it is a question of peace, is it merely that I want peace? No doubt I do want it, as a poor sinner that has been at war with God all my life. But how infinitely more blessed when we come to find that it is “peace with God”: not merely a peace with one’s own heart and conscience, but with God! He gives a peace that stands in His sight. All His own character comes out in giving it to me, and in putting it upon such a basis that Satan shall never be able to touch. It is to deliver me, to break the very neck of sin; and nothing does it so completely as this – that God met me when I deserved nothing but death and eternal judgment, and spent His beloved Son in giving me a peace worthy of Himself. And He has done it; He has given it; and all Christian practice flows from the assurance, that I have found this blessing in Christ.

Here, then, we have Daniel deeply interested in Israel, because they were God’s people. He consequently seeks in God’s word what He has revealed about His people. This took place “in the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes.” It was not some new communication. “In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.”

Besides being a prophet, Daniel understood that Israel were to be restored to their land, before the event took place. He did not wait to see it accomplished, and then merely say, The prophecy is fulfilled. But he understood “by books,” not by circumstances. No doubt there were the circumstances in the fall of Babylon; but he understood by what God had said, and not merely by what man had done. This is the true way of understanding prophecy. So that it is remarkable that when we are about to enter upon a very distinct prophecy, occupied almost exclusively with the narrow sphere of Israel, God shows us the true key to the understanding of prophecy. Daniel read the prophecy of Jeremiah; and he saw from it clearly, that, Babylon once overthrown, Israel would be allowed to return. And what is the effect of this on his soul? He draws near to God. He does not go to the people whom the prophecy so intimately concerned, telling them the good news, but he draws near to God. This is another feature of faith. It always tends to draw into the presence of God him who thereby understands the mind of God in anything. He has communion with God about that which he receives from God, before even he makes it known to those who are the objects of the blessing. We have seen the same thing in Daniel before, in Dan 2 . Now, we may observe, it is not with thanksgiving, but with confession. We could understand readily, that if the people of Israel were just going into captivity, he must feel it as a deep chastening, and would be before God to acknowledge the sin and bow under His rod. But now God had judged the oppressor of Israel, and was about to deliver the people. Nevertheless, Daniel draws near, and what does he say? When he does speak to God, it is not merely about their deliverance. It is a prayer, full of confession to God.

As to this, I would make another remark of a general kind. If the study of prophecy does not tend to give us a deeper sense of the failure of God’s people upon the earth, I am persuaded we lose one of its most important practical uses. It is because of the absence of this feeling that prophetic research is generally so unprofitable. It is made more a question of dates and countries, of popes and kings; whereas God did not give it to exercise people’s wits, but to be the expression of His own mind touching their moral condition: so that whatever trials and judgments are portrayed there, they should be taken up by the heart, and felt to be the hand of God upon His people, because of their sins. This was the effect on Daniel. He was one of the most esteemed prophets – as the Lord Jesus Himself said, “Daniel the prophet.” And the effect upon him was, that he never lost the moral design in the bare circumstances of the prophecy. He saw the great aim of God. He heard His voice speaking to the heart of His people in all these communications. And here he spreads all before God. For having read of the deliverance of Israel, that was coming on the occasion of the downfall of Babylon, he sets his face unto the Lord God, “to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes. And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to them that keep His commandments, we have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly,” etc.

Another thing observe here. If there was one man in Babylon who, from his own conduct and state of soul, might be supposed to have been outside the need of confession of sin, it was Daniel. He was a holy and a devoted man. More than that, he was carried away at so tender an age from Jerusalem, that, it is clear, it was not because of anything he had taken part in, that the blow had fallen. But not the less he says, “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity.” Nay, I am even bold to say, that the more separate you are from evil, the more you feel it: just as a person emerging into light feels so much the more the darkness that he has left. So Daniel, being one whose soul was with God, and who entered into His thoughts about His people – knowing the great love of God, and seeing what He had done for Israel, (for he does not keep this back in his prayer,) he does not merely notice the great things that God had done for Israel, but also the judgments that He had inflicted upon them. Did he, therefore, think that God did not love Israel? On the contrary, no man had a deeper sense of the tie of affection that existed between God and His people; and for that reason it was, he estimated so deeply the ruin in which the people of God were. He measured their sin by the depth of divine love, and the fearful degradation that had passed upon them. It was all from God. He did not impute the judgments, which had fallen upon them, to the wickedness of the Babylonians, or the martial skill of Nebuchadnezzar. It was God he sees in it all. He acknowledges that it was their sin – their extreme iniquity; and he includes all in this. It was not merely the small people imputing their sorrows to the great, nor the great to the small, as is so often the case among men. He does not dwell upon the ignorance and badness of a few; but he takes in the whole – rulers, priests, people. There was not one that was not guilty. “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity.” And this is another effect wherever prophecy is studied with God. It always brings in the hope of God’s standing up on behalf of His people – a hope of the bright and blessed day when evil shall disappear, and good shall be established by divine power. Daniel does not leave this out. We find it put as a kind of frontispiece to this chapter. The details of the seventy weeks show you the continued sin and suffering of the people of God. But before this, the end, the blessing is brought before the soul. How good this is of God! He takes occasion to give me, first of all, the certainty of final blessing, and then He shows me the painful pathway that leads to it.

I need not enter now upon the thoughts suggested by this beautiful prayer of Daniel, save one thing of practical importance. It is this – that the prophecy came from God as the answer to the state of soul which was found in Daniel. He took the place of humble confession before God, became the expression of the people, the representative of the people, in spreading out their sins before God. Perhaps there was not another soul that did so, certainly there were not many. It is rare, indeed, to find many souls taking the place of real confession before God. How few now have an adequate sense of the ruin of the Church of God! How few feel the dishonour done even by the faithful to the Lord! In Babylon, those who were the most guilty felt it the least; whilst the man, who was the most free from guilt, was he who spread it out the most honestly before God.

In answer to his genuine and deep feeling of Israel’s state, God sends the prophecy. The soul that refuses to examine such words of God as these, knows not the loss it thus sustains. And wherever the child of God is kept from what God communicates as to the future, (I speak not now of mere speculations, which are worthless, but of the grand moral lessons contained in prophecy,) there is always feebleness and want of ability to judge of the present.

But there is another thing to notice, before passing to the seventy weeks. Although Daniel spreads out before God their great failure, and falls back upon His great mercies, yet he never pleads the promises that were given to Abraham. He does not go beyond what was said to Moses. This is of interest and importance. It is the true answer to any who suppose that the restoration of Israel, which took place at that time, was the fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises. Daniel did not take this ground. There was no such thing then as the presence of Christ among His people as their King. Now, the promises made to the fathers suppose the presence of Christ, because Christ is, in the only full and proper sense, the Seed of Abraham. Without Him what were the promises? Accordingly, with divine wisdom, Daniel was led to take the true ground. Whatever restoration was to take place then was not the complete one. This prophecy does bring us to the final blessing of Israel when the seventy weeks are consummated. But the return, after the fall of Babylon, was the accomplishment of what was partial and conditional, not the fulfilment of the promises to the fathers. This is worthy of observation. The promises made to Abraham, etc., were absolute, because they depended upon Christ, who is the true Seed in the mind of God, though Israel were the seed after the letter. So that until Christ came, and His work was done, there could not be the full restoration of the people of Israel. When Israel took the ground of the law, in the time of Moses, they soon broke it and were broken. Even before it was put into their hands, on the tables of stone, they were worshipping the golden calf. The consequence was, that Moses from that time took a new place – the place of a mediator. He goes up again into the mount, and pleads with God for the people. God would not call them His people. He says to Moses, “thy people,” and would not own them as His. Moses, however, will not let God go, but pleads with Him that, let the people have done what they may, they are “Thy people”; rather let me be blotted out than Israel lose their inheritance. This was what God delighted in – the reflex of His own love to them. You may have got some fault to find with one whom you love, but you would not like to hear another person finding it. So Moses’ pleading on behalf of Israel was what met the heart of God. No doubt they had sinned a great sin, and Moses felt and confessed it, but he insists withal that they are God’s people.

God draws out the heart of Moses more and more; puts grand things before him, offers to exterminate the people, and make of him a great nation. No, says Moses, I would rather lose everything than that they should be lost. This was the answer of grace to the grace that was in God’s heart about His people. Consequently, when God gave the law a second time, it was not given as before; but the Lord proclaimed His name as One that was abundant in goodness and truth, while He showed at the same time that He would by no means clear the guilty. In other words, the first time it was pure law, pure righteousness, which terminated in the golden calf, i.e. pure unrighteousness on the part of the people. And they must justly have been destroyed, but that, on the pleading of Moses, God brings in a mingled system, partly law and partly grace.

This was the ground Daniel takes here. He pleads that, although they had broken the law, God had pronounced His name as “abundant in goodness and truth.” He believes that. He does not go back to the promises made to Abraham; on which ground the restoration would have been full and final, whereas this was not. And if you take a man now, who is partly standing upon what Christ has done for him, and partly upon what he does for Christ, will you ever find such a one happy? Never. That was the ground the Israelites were on. Daniel, therefore, does not go beyond it there. Christ was not yet come. On the other hand, when Christ is born, you will find, if you look at the song of Zacharias (Luk 1 ) or of the angels (Luk 2 ), that the ground taken was not what God had said to Moses, but the promises made to the fathers. Up to the moment appointed of God, Zacharias had been dumb, a sign of the condition of Israel. But now that the forerunner is named, on the eve of the coming of Christ, his mouth is opened.

Before we enter upon the prophecy of the seventy weeks more fully, as the Lord may enable us, I would first call your attention to this: – “Whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel.” Observe, all his thoughts are about Israel and about Jerusalem. The prophecy is not about Christianity, but about Israel. There is no understanding it, unless we hold this fast. “Whiles I was speaking . . . and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God; yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.” Then, in verse 24, the prophecy begins. It has to do with Daniel’s people – “upon thy people.” It speaks of a special period that was defined in connection with Israel’s full deliverance. “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city.” Any one must see that the Jews and Jerusalem are meant. It is “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 [or Holy of holies].” From first to last this was a period that was marked out in the mind of God, and revealed to Daniel, touching the future destiny of the city and the people of God here below.

Some are startled, and ask, Have we, then, nothing to do with “reconciliation for iniquity” and “everlasting righteousness”? I ask, Of whom does the verse speak? You will find other scriptures, which reveal our interest in the blotting out of sin, and the righteousness which we are made in Christ. But we must adhere to this golden rule in reading the word of God – never to force Scripture in order to make it bear upon ourselves or others. When a person is converted, but not yet in peace, if he sees something about “an end of sins,” he at once applies that to himself. Feeling his need, he grasps, like a drowning man, at what cannot bear his weight, or at least is not said about him. If directed to the declarations of the grace of God to us poor sinners of the Gentiles, instead of loss, great would be his gain; he would have far more definite Scripture to meet his need, and, if assailed by Satan, he would feel no weakness, nor fear, nor uncertainty. Whereas, if he were taking passages that applied to the Jews, Satan might touch him as to the ground of his confidence, and he would be obliged to say, This is not literally and certainly about me at all. The “seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city.” But I do not belong to them. There is the importance of understanding Scripture, and seeing what God is speaking about.

Had this been borne in mind, the greater part of the controversy that has arisen about the passage never could have taken place. People were hasty and anxious to introduce something about themselves as Gentiles or Christians; whereas the attitude of the prophet, the circumstances of the people, and the words of the prophecy itself, exclude all thought, save of what concerns the Jews and their city. We must look elsewhere to find what relates to the Gentiles. Allow me, however, to remark, that the end of sins for that city and people rests upon exactly the same foundation as our own. Thus the apostle John tells us, Jesus died “not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” (Joh 11:52 ) There I find two distinct purposes in the death of Christ. This prophecy only takes in the first. He died for that nation – the Jewish nation. But He also, in the very same act of death, made provision, not only for the salvation that God has brought in for sinners, but also for gathering together “the children of God that were scattered abroad.”

Thus, if we take the Bible as it is, without being too anxious to find ourselves here or there, instead of losing, we shall always be gainers, in extent, depth, and, above all, in clear firm hold of the blessing; and we shall not feel that we have been taking other people’s property, and claiming goods upon a tenure that can be disputed, but that what we have is what God has freely and assuredly given us. This will never be the case, if I take up prophecies about Israel, and found my title to blessing upon them; for they are neither the gospel for the sinner, nor the revelation of the truth about the Church.

This, then, is the proper bearing of the closing verses of the chapter before us. The details of the weeks follow the first general statement. “Seventy weeks,” he says, “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.” Then, in verse 25, the first particular comes in, after defining the starting-point. “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.” Now, in the Book of Ezra, we have a commandment from the king Artaxerxes, called in profane history Artaxerxes Longimanus, one of the monarchs of the Persian Empire. The first commandment was given to Ezra, the scribe, “in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king.” In the twentieth year of the same monarch’s reign, another commandment was given to Nehemiah. Now it is important for us to decide which of these two is referred to by Daniel. The earlier of them is recorded in Ezr 7 , the second in Neh 2 . A careful examination of the two will show which is meant. Many excellent persons have interpreted it in a way which differs from that which I believe to be correct. But Scripture alone can decide the questions that arise out of Scripture. Foreign elements often lead to perplexity. Remark, that it is not merely a general order to the Jews, like that of Cyrus permitting their return, but a special one to restore their polity. Now, what is the difference between the two in the reign of Artaxerxes? The one to Ezra was mainly with a view to the rebuilding of the temple; the other to Nehemiah looks toward the city. Which is it here? “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.” Evidently the city is intended in Daniel; and if so, then we must see which of the two commandments concerns the city. There can be little doubt it was the second, not the first. It was the commission given to Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, not that to Ezra thirteen years before. A comparison with Nehemiah will confirm this.

What led some to take the first of these decrees, as the one meant here, was the idea, that the seventy weeks were to terminate with the coming of the Messiah. But this is not said. Verse 24 gives us much more than the coming of the Messiah. “Seventy weeks are determined . . . to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity.” There you have at least His work. His suffering and death, we know, are implied. But more than that: “To bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of holies,” by which last every Israelite would understand the sanctuary of God. It is plain that all this did not take place when the Messiah came, nor even when He died. For though the foundation of the blessing was laid in His blood, yet the bringing it in was not yet realized for Israel; and these seventy weeks suppose, that Israel will after them be fully blessed. This shows us the great importance of attending to the prophecy itself; not merely looking at the events, but interpreting the events by the prophecy. “From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince [without defining what time], shall be” – not seventy weeks – but “seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks”; that is, sixty-nine weeks. There at once I learn that, for a reason unexplained at the beginning of the prophecy, sixty-nine weeks out of the seventy are rent from the last week. The chain is broken: one week is severed from the rest. I am told that, from the word to restore and build Jerusalem (which is here made the starting-point, or the time from which we begin to reckon the seventy weeks), there are seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks – somewhat separate periods, but making in all sixty-nine weeks to the Messiah, the Prince. There evidently we have a very notable fact. And why, we may ask, are the seven weeks separated from the sixty-two weeks? The next words show: “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times” The seven weeks, I apprehend, were to be occupied with reconstituting the city of Jerusalem. In the lapse of seven weeks, or forty-nine years (for I suppose no reader will doubt that they are weeks of years), from the point of departure, the building that was begun would be finished. The street was to be built again, and the walls, even in troublous times. Now the accounts of these times of difficulty and strait we have in the Book of Nehemiah, who gives us the latest date that Old Testament history records. Then, taking up the other period, after not only the seven weeks, but the sixty-two weeks, “shall Messiah be cut off.”

Before proceeding, I may observe, that there are several little inaccuracies. It is “after the threescore and two weeks.” The article is left out in verse 26, where it ought to be inserted, and put, where it ought not to appear, in verse 27. “After the threescore and two weeks” – that is, in addition to the seven weeks spent in building the city of Jerusalem – “shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself.” The proper meaning of that last expression, no one can doubt, is “and shall have nothing.” The margin is here more correct than the text, and gives it so. The idea is, that Messiah, instead of being received by His people, and bringing in the blessing promised at the end of the seventy weeks, should, after sixty-nine weeks, be cut off, and have nothing. The entire rejection of the Messiah, by His own people, is intimated in these words. And here is the consequence. The key comes in now, and explains the difficulty, stated at the beginning, why the sixty-nine weeks are severed from the seventieth. The death of Christ rent the chain, and broke off the relations of the people of Israel with God. Hence, the Jews having rejected their own Messiah, the last week is for a time set aside. This week terminates in full blessing; but the Jews are themselves rejected for their sin against their own Messiah. That is the reason why we read, after this, “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.” He had said before, that seventy weeks were determined to make an end of sins, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, etc.; that is, at the end of this appointed time, full blessing should be brought in. Whereas now we find that, so far from the blessing coming in, they have cut off their Messiah, who has nothing; and the consequence is, that the city and sanctuary are not blessed, but on the contrary, “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary,” etc. There will be nothing but wars and desolations upon the Jewish people. The interruption of the seventy weeks takes place after the death of Christ, and the next events related are no accomplishment of that series at all.

None can deny, that a long period elapsed between the death of Christ and the taking of Jerusalem. Until Christ are sixty-nine weeks, and then events occur which the prophecy clearly reveals, but as clearly reveals that they are after the sixty-nine weeks, and before the seventieth. We have another people, belonging to a prince quite different from the already rejected Messiah, and this people come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. It was the Romans who came, spite of the dreadful expedient of Caiaphas – nay, because of it. They came and destroyed the city and the sanctuary. But thus was brought the accomplishment of this part of the prophecy. The Messiah was cut off, and the Romans, whom they had so desired to propitiate, swept them away from off the face of the earth, and there has been nothing but misery in their city up to the present time. Jerusalem was thenceforward to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. There is a period still going on. Since then Jerusalem has only been changing one master for another. In our day we have seen a war undertaken about that very city and sanctuary, and none can say how soon there may not be another. The objects of that war have been anything but gained and at rest. The same elements of strife and combustion still exist. It is an unsettled question. Like Jonah in the ship, such will Israel prove to the Gentiles by-and-bye. There will be no rest for them – nothing but storms, if they meddle with that people with whom the Lord has a controversy. The Jewish people are in a miserable state; they are suffering the consequences of their own sin. But those Gentiles will find their danger who mix up with that city and sanctuary, which God does not destine yet to be cleansed. If we are not arrived at that period of blessing yet, it must be granted, that the seventieth week is not yet accomplished. On the arrival of that week, full blessing comes in for Israel and Jerusalem. But no such blessing is realized; and therefore we may be quite sure, that the last of the seventy weeks has not been fulfilled.

The prophecy itself ought to prepare us for this. There is a regular chain up to the close of the sixty-ninth week, and then comes a great gap. The death of Christ broke the bond of connection between God and His people, and there was now no living link between them. They cut off their own Messiah, and have since lost, for a time, their national place. A deluge of trouble broke upon them. “The king sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” The last part of verse 26 shows us the continuous desolation which has befallen their city and race, and this subsequent to the cross of the Messiah: and, as none can pretend that anything like this occurred within the seven years subsequent to the crucifixion, a gap, more or less extended, must necessarily be allowed between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks.

Mark the accuracy of Scripture. It is not said, that the coming prince was to destroy the city and sanctuary, but that his “people” should. Messiah the Prince had already come, and been cut off. Now we hear of another and future prince, a Roman prince; for all know, that it was the Romans who came and took away both the place and nation of the Jews. It is simply said, “The people of the prince that shall come,” implying, that the people should come before a certain prince who was yet in the future. This I hold to be very important. No doubt there was a prince that led the Roman people to the conquest of Jerusalem, but Titus Vespasianus is not the personage alluded to here. If the people come first, and the prince here intended was to follow at some future epoch, nothing more simple. “The end thereof will be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” A long period of enmity and desolation is intimated. This is exactly where Israel are now. They have been turned out of that city and sanctuary, and have never had it since. It is true, they have made a remarkable footing for themselves in most countries of the earth; their influence extends into every court and cabinet of the world; but they have never obtained the smallest power in their own land and city – they are of all persons the most proscribed there. And there we see these desolations going on.

In verse 27 comes the closing scene. “And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week.” The margin gives it correctly. It is not ” the” covenant. The little word “the” has misled many. It is “a,” or rather the idea is general, meaning to “confirm covenant.” If you read it “the covenant,” the reader is at once apt to infer, that “the prince” means the Messiah, and that He was going to confirm His covenant. But the passage runs, “He shall confirm covenant [or a covenant] with the many for one week.” No doubt the Messiah brought in the blood of the new covenant; but is that meant here? It supposes the desolations going on all this while, after which comes the end of the age, which includes, or occurs in, the seventieth week. The death of the Messiah took place long ago; the destruction of Jerusalem thirty or forty years after. After that followed a long period of desolations and wars in connection with Jerusalem. After all this, again, we have a covenant spoken of. Thus, we must examine the passage to see who it is that makes this covenant. There are two persons mentioned. In verse 25 there is Messiah the Prince; but He has come and been cut off. In verse 26 there is “the people of the prince that shall come.” It is to this future Roman prince that verse 27 alludes. He it is that shall confirm covenant with many, or rather with “the many,” i.e. the mass’ or majority. The remnant will not have any part in it. Observe that now it is, for the first time, that the seventieth week comes forward. “And he shall confirm covenant with the mass for one week.”

Now I ask those who contend for the supposition that Christ was meant, what sense does it give here? One week can mean nothing but a period of seven years. Was the new covenant ever made for seven years? Such a thought involves mere nonsense. Is it not quite plain, that the idea of interpreting this to be the covenant of Christ carries absurdity upon the face of it? For Christ’s is an everlasting covenant – this is only made for seven years. When and how did Christ make a covenant for seven years? “And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” I am aware that persons apply this also to the death of Christ. But we have had Christ’s death long ago – before the seventieth week began; then the desolations of Israel flood in after that; and subsequently another prince comes, who confirms a covenant for one week. He, not Christ, makes it with them for seven years. But, in the midst of the term, he puts an end to their worship. They have got sacrifice and oblation again at this time, and he causes all to cease.

But have we not other light upon this passage? Is it only here that we read of such a covenant, and of the sudden termination of Jewish rites and ceremonies by a certain foreign prince? As to the covenant, if we refer to Isa 28 , it is said, in verse 15, “Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us.” And in verse 18, “And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.” I have no question that this is the covenant referred to here. And the meaning of it is confirmed by another thing: that is to say, that in consequence of this Roman prince having made a wicked covenant with the Jewish people, and then interrupted their sacrifices and brought in idolatry (or what is called in Scripture, “the abomination of desolation”), he will stop the Jewish ritual, and set up an idol, and himself to be worshipped there. When open idolatry is in connection with the sanctuary, God sends a dreadful scourge upon them. They had hoped to escape by making a covenant with this prince they fondly thought, as it is said in Isaiah, to be thus delivered from the overflowing scourge, i.e., I suppose, the king of the north that becomes the great head of the eastern powers of the world arrayed against the western. The mass of the Jews will make a covenant with the great prince of the west, who will then be nominally their friend. And when the half of the time is expired, this personage will introduce idolatry, and force it upon them. Then will come the final catastrophe for Israel.

The stopping of the Jewish ceremonies, be it remarked, does not depend upon this scripture only In Dan 7 the little horn is the emperor of the west or “the prince that shall come.” Of him it is said that “he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times, and the dividing of times.” Mark the analogy between that statement and what we have here. What is meant by “a time and times, and the dividing of time”? Three and a half years, to be sure. And what is meant by half a week? Exactly the same period. In the midst of the term for which the covenant was made with Israel, he will arrest their worship, and will take all their Jewish ceremonials into his own hands. Nor will he allow them to keep their feasts. “They shall be given into his hand” – that is, the Jewish times and laws. God will not own Jewish worship then; and therefore He will not preserve them in it. He will let this man have his own way; who, although he has made a covenant with Israel as a friend, will break it and substitute idolatry. Then will come the overflowing scourge. “In the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.”

But I am obliged to claim another and more correct representation of the words that follow. The English translators were very doubtful of its true meaning. There are different ways of taking it, but the literal version is this: “And for [or, on account of] the wing of abominations, a desolator.” That is, because of his taking idols under his protection, there shall be a desolator, namely, the overflowing scourge, or the Assyrian. “The prince that shall come” does not desolate Jerusalem. At this time he has made a covenant with them; and, although he breaks his covenant, still, being their head and patron, and having his minion, the false prophet, who will have his seat there as the great arch-priest of that day, he will carry on, with the aid of this false prophet, the worship of his image in the temple of God. Compare the abomination of desolation in the holy place. (Mat 24:15 ) In consequence of this, the king of the north shall come down as a desolator. There will thus be two enemies at that time for the righteous Jews. The desolator, or the Assyrian, is the enemy from without. The enemy from within is the Antichrist, or their wilful king, that corrupts them in connection with the Roman prince. Thus, the true meaning of this text is: “Because of the protection of abominations [there shall be] a desolator, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate.” Jerusalem is meant by “the desolate.” And the whole consummation, or what God has decreed against the Jews, must take its course. “That generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled.” These will be the last representatives of the Christ-rejecting portion of Israel, and God will allow all His judgments to come down upon them. They will be swept away, and then will remain the holy seed, the godly remnant, whom God will constitute the great nucleus of blessing to the whole world under the reign of the Lord Jesus.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 9:1-6

1In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans2in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. 3So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes. 4I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed and said, Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments, 5we have sinned, committed iniquity, acted wickedly and rebelled, even turning aside from Your commandments and ordinances. 6Moreover, we have not listened to Your servants the prophets, who spoke in Your name to our kings, our princes, our fathers and all the people of the land.’

Dan 9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of Median descent who was king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans See full note at Dan 5:31.

The real problem in Dan 9:1 versus Dan 5:31 is the addition of the father’s name, Ahasuerus. This name appears in the OT in Ezr 4:6 and Est 1:1 as Esther’s Persian husband, known by his Greek name, Xerxes. The name, like Darius, might be an honorific title (i.e., mighty man or mighty eye, cf. BDB 31). As of this point in time scholarship knows nothing of this Chaldean ruler of Median descent. As has happened so often already, archaeology has shed light on other perceived historical difficulties (i.e. Belshazzar). So, let us keep searching!

of Median descent If Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, is Cyrus, he was qualified to claim both Median and Persian lineage.

who was made king This is similar to Dan 5:31. Was he made king by God or by human authority? Obviously by both (cf. Isa 44:28 to Isa 45:7). Remember Dan 2:20-23!

Dan 9:2 observed in the books the number of years which was revealed asthe word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet This refers to Jer 25:9-13 or Jer 29:10, although another prophecy is made in 2Ch 36:21, where the years of captivity are prophesied as seventy in number because of the Jews’ failure to keep the sabbatical years mentioned in Lev 26:33-35. This time sequence (70 years) is important because it will be picked up on by the angel in Dan 9:24 to describe a new period of 70 units which the people of God must endure.

It is possible that the 70 years refers to a complete life span. As God judged Israel with a forty year wilderness wandering period for their unbelief (the age of those who could have been soldiers at the time of the rebellion), He now judges His people with a judgment that covers the life span of an entire generation of faithless Jews.

This construct, according to the word of YHWH (BDB 182 and 217), is used often in the OT for God’s prophetic communication. YHWH desires and initiates a relationship with humans made in His image for the purpose of fellowship.

for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem’ Jeremiah and Daniel use two different Hebrew words for desolation (BDB 352 and 1031). The one used here in Daniel (BDB 352) is also used in connection with Jeremiah’s prophecy about the exile of Jerusalem (cf. Jer 25:9; Jer 25:11; Jer 25:18). These two terms are both used in this chapter for the destroyed and profaned temple in Jerusalem (cf. Dan 9:2 vs. Dan 9:17-18).

Dan 9:3

NASBI gave my attention

NKJVI set my face toward

NRSVI turned to

TEVI prayed earnestly to

NJBI turned my face to

This is literally I turned my face to the Lord. This idiom shows (1) the personal intimacy of prayer. Prayer is not a monologue, but an intimate dialogue or (2) Daniel faced the ruined temple in Jerusalem when he prayed as if God’s presence remained there (cf. Dan 6:10-11).

This is the first vision which was initiated by Daniel’s questioning (cf. Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, p. 162).

Lord The NASB (1970) has LORD, following some Hebrew manuscripts. Here in Dan 9:3 it is the Hebrew term Adon, which denotes owner, master, husband and is usually translated Lord. The covenant name YHWH (LORD) does occur in Dan 9:4. It occurs seven times in this chapter and nowhere else in Daniel. The NASB (1995 Update) appropriately has Lord here in Dan 9:3.

God See Special Topic: NAMES FOR DEITY .

supplication This Hebrew word (BDB 337) is used several times in chapter 9 (cf. Dan 9:3; Dan 9:17-18; Dan 9:23). This term characterizes Daniel’s prayer for the mercy of YHWH.

with fasting, sackcloth and ashes These are all Jewish signs of mourning (e.g., Isa 58:5; Jon 3:5-6; Est 4:1-3).

1. Fast – Although not mentioned specifically in the writings of Moses, it was understood that on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) that sorrow for sin would be symbolized by a day of fasting by the whole nation. Throughout Jewish history national tragedies were commemorated by an annual fast.

2. Sackcloth – This was a rough, plain cloth worn as a symbol of mourning.

3. Ashes – This seems to have started as a sign of mourning in Jos 7:6 and developed into a tradition (cf. 1Sa 4:12; 2Sa 1:2; 2Sa 13:19). See Special Topic: Grieving Rites .

Dan 9:4

NASB, TEVconfessed

NKJV, NRSV,

NJBmade confession

This is the Hebrew word for to throw (BDB 392, KB 389), used in the Hithpael as an idiom for confess (cf. Lev 16:21; Lev 26:40; Num 5:7; Ezr 10:1; Neh 9:3; Dan 9:3; Dan 9:20). Robert Young, Analytical Concordance, p. 196, says it means to throw out the hand when the term refers to confessing YHWH’s name (cf. 1Ki 8:33; 1Ki 8:35; 2Ch 6:24; 2Ch 6:26). Whether there was a physical gesture denoting the confession of sin is uncertain, but probable.

Oh Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments This is a wonderful description of the covenant God.

1. The great – This is El (God, BDB 42) with the ADJECTIVE great (BDB 152).

2. The awesome – This term’s basic meaning is fear (BDB 431), but it is used here in the Niphal for godly fear, respect or awe (e.g., Deu 7:21; Deu 10:17; Neh 1:5; Neh 4:8; Neh 9:22).

3. Who keeps covenant – YHWH is faithful to His promises (cf. Num 23:19; Mal 3:6).

4. Lovingkindness – This is the special covenant NOUN hesed (BDB 338), used so often of YHWH’s covenant loyalty (e.g., Deu 7:9). See Special Topic: Lovingkindness (hesed)

5. For those who love Him and keep His commandment – This is the essence of the Mosaic covenant (cf. Deu 7:10; Deuteronomy 27-29). Covenant love and loyalty on God’s part is meant to reproduce itself in His covenant people. The NT accentuates God’s faithfulness (cf. 2Ti 3:13) amidst human faithlessness.

Dan 9:5 we have sinned Notice the recurrent theme, Dan 9:5-6; Dan 9:8-11; Dan 9:13-15; Dan 9:17. Daniel identifies himself with his people and makes confession, as did Moses (e.g., Exo 32:32; Num 11:2; Num 21:7) and Isaiah (e.g., Isa 6:5).

What a list of willful covenant disobedience! Israel had violated the covenant over and over again. The Assyrian and Babylonian exiles and the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the temple were the consequences.

1. Sinned (BDB 306, KB 305) – the basic meaning is missing the mark.

2. Committed iniquity (BDB 731, KB 796) – the basic meaning is guilty acts (to be bent or to make crooked).

3. Acted wickedly (BDB 957, KB 1294) – the basic meaning is to be loose or disjointed (cf. Dan 9:5).

4. Rebelled (BDB 597, KB 632) – the basic meaning is bold in acts of known disobedience (cf. Dan 9:9).

5. turning aside (BDB 693, KB 747) – the basic meaning is to knowingly depart from a clear path (cf. Dan 9:11).

This phrase and Dan 9:11 both use an INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE of turning aside (BDB 693, KB 747) to describe Israel’s rebellion and transgression.

from Your commandments and ordinances Psa 19:7-9 lists several names for God’s covenant stipulations. See Special Topic: Terms for God’s Revelation

1. law of the LORD, Dan 9:7

2. testimony of the LORD, Dan 9:7

3. precepts of the LORD, Dan 9:8

4. commandments of the LORD, Dan 9:8

5. fear of the LORD, Dan 9:9

6. judgments of the LORD, Dan 9:9

Psalms 119 also praises the law of the Lord in acrostic form.

Dan 9:6 we have not listened to Your servants the prophets The Jews (kings, princes, ancestors, and all the common people) were not ignorant or uninformed about God’s covenant will. They had the writings of Moses, the miracles of the Exodus, the victories of the conquest and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise of land, but they would not be faithful (cf. 2Ki 17:13-15; Jer 44:4-5; Jer 44:21; Hos 11:2).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

the first year: 426 B. C, Daniel being then eighty-seven. See App-50.

Darius. This is an appellative, and means the Maintainer or Restrainer: i.e. Cyrus. See App-57; and special note on 2Ch 36:21.

Ahasuerus, an appellative = the venerable king Astyages. See App-57.

made king: i.e. Cyrus was appointed king of Babylon by Astyages his father.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

This time let’s turn in our Bible to the book of Daniel, chapter 9.

In the beginning of chapter 9, we have a very keen insight to this man Daniel. And we understand why God has declared of him that was he was greatly loved by God. For Daniel greatly loved God and he loved the Word of God. And his obvious knowledge and love for the Word is revealed here in the ninth chapter. As he understands the plight of the nation Israel and the reason for their plight. He sees behind the issues that caused their being destroyed and now being captives in the Persian Empire, which has supplanted at this point the Babylonian Empire. But yet also, because that he was a man of the Word and studied the scriptures, he realized that the time of their captivity was about over.

The first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made the king over the realm of the Chaldeans; In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by the books the number of years whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem ( Dan 9:1-2 ).

So Daniel was reading the prophecy of Jeremiah. Now you’ll remember that Jeremiah was one of the last prophets in Judah prior to the Babylonian captivity. In fact, he was still prophesying when Nebuchadnezzar came. And Jeremiah in his prophecy was telling the people that God was going to give them into the hand of the king of Babylon, and the reason was, they had forsaken God and that they had forsaken the law of God, and the commandments of God. And therefore, they were going to be captives in Babylon for seventy years. And that particular prophecy was in Jeremiah, chapter 25, verses Dan 9:11 , and Dan 9:12 . And there the Lord said, “And the whole land shall be a desolation and astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years. And it shall come to pass when the seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.”

So the Lord declared that, inasmuch as they had been in the land from the time of Joshua, 490 years, and under the law God had told them that every seventh year they were to let the land rest. The land was to have its own sabbath every seventh year. They were not to plant it, but they were only to eat that which grew wild and so forth and gather up in the sixth year. The Lord would give them such an abundant harvest in the sixth year it would carry them through the seventh.

The people did not obey this law of God. They did not give the land rest. But they planted it every year. And so God said, “You’ve been in the land for 490 years, you’ve never given it its sabbath. It’s got seventy years coming, so I’m going to kick you out of the land for seventy years so that it can have its Sabbaths. And then after seventy years you can come back into the land.” So the seventy years of captivity prophesied by Jeremiah are about over. Daniel realizes this. He’s been reading the prophecy of Jeremiah. He realizes that the time of the captivity is about over.

And so he set himself his face unto the LORD, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes ( Dan 9:3 ):

So he set himself aside for a period of intensive prayer and waiting upon God and seeking God for the nation.

Now the prayer of Daniel is remarkable. And in it he surely sets forth the clear understanding that he has of the ways and the purposes of God, and it is interesting that he does not seek to condemn God at all for the calamities that have befallen the people. But he acknowledges that, “These things have happened unto us because we were guilty, we turned aside from You, we went our own wicked ways.”

Now so many times people want to blame God for the judgments that fall upon them for their own wickedness. As we pointed out a week or so ago, God tells us not to do a particular thing; if you do it, God said you’re going to hurt. So we do it, and then we get hurt, and then we say, “Oh God, that isn’t fair to hurt me.” Well, God didn’t hurt you. He just told you what would be the consequence of a particular action. Now if you want to just defy God and go ahead and do it, then don’t blame God for the fact that you got hurt. And yet, this is what people are so often doing.

Now Daniel did not have any of this recrimination against God. But acknowledged that everything that had happened to them happened to them because they were guilty before God. They had forsaken God. Notice,

I prayed unto the LORD my God, made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; We have sinned ( Dan 9:4-5 ),

Now Daniel isn’t pointing the finger at others in a holier-than-thou kind of a thing, and said, “God, they’re horrible sinners. They did this.” But he places himself, “We have sinned,” and identifies with God’s people who had sinned against God. “We as a nation have sinned.” And surely as we pray, we need to acknowledge the sin of the nation. We as a nation have sinned against God.

we’ve committed iniquity, we’ve done wickedly, we’ve rebelled, even by departing from your precepts and from your judgments: Neither have we hearkened unto your servants the prophets ( Dan 9:5-6 ),

Now, he had of course have been reading Jeremiah. And he read how that when Jeremiah came and prophesied to them, they threw him in the dungeon. And he recognizes how that they so totally failed to listen to the warnings of God. “We have not hearkened to your servants, the prophets,”

which spake in your name to our kings, and our princes, and our fathers, and to all of the people of the land. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces ( Dan 9:6-7 ),

Lord, you’re all right, but we’re the ones that are confused.

as at this day; to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all of Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all of the countries where you have driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee. O Lord, unto us belongs the confusion of face, and to our kings, and princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. To the Lord our God belongs mercies and forgiveness, though we have rebelled against him; And neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. Yes, all of Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured out upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him ( Dan 9:7-11 ).

So he was familiar with the books of Moses and the law of God. He’d been reading them. He says, “God, we’ve transgressed and now You’ve done those things that You said You would do in the law of Moses.” And, of course, the Lord in the law of Moses did declare that if they would turn away from God and seek other gods that He would allow them to be driven out of the land and all. So Daniel recognizes it. “All of these things have happened to us because we are guilty; we have failed.”

You’ve confirmed your word, which you spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us the great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done unto Jerusalem ( Dan 9:12 ).

Actually, no city has been so devastated as was Jerusalem.

As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil has come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth ( Dan 9:13 ).

In spite of all of this, we didn’t turn from our sins.

Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice ( Dan 9:14 ).

Not charging God at all. Accepting the responsibility and the guilt, a very important thing. Not crying out against God when the judgments have befallen us. But to acknowledge honestly, “Hey, God, it’s my fault. I am guilty. You are righteous.” God is a God of judgment, but even in judgment He is so right in His judgments.

In the midst of the Great Tribulation when God is pouring out His judgments upon the earth, there are voices that come from the throne of God declaring, “Holy and righteous and true are Thy judgments, O Lord.” There are a lot of people that are concerned about God not being fair. They say, “But what about the poor people who have never heard about Jesus Christ? Is God going to damn them eternally and all?” I don’t know. I do know God is fair. I do know that God will be righteous in His judgment. And when God makes the disposition of those particular cases, God will be absolutely fair. And when He does it, I’ll say, “All right, I’d never thought of that. Man, that is so right on.” Because God will be fair. Abraham challenged the Lord when he said, “Shall not the Lord of the earth be fair, be just? Lord, would You destroy the righteous with the wicked?” But the whole issue was the righteousness of God in judgment. And yes, God will be righteous in His judgment.

And now, O Lord our God, that thou hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and you’ve gotten renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, according to all your righteousness, I beseech thee, let your anger and your fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for ours sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all of those that are round about us. Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake ( Dan 9:15-17 ).

Lord, not for our sake, but for Your sake, for the Lord’s sake, O God. Shine Thy face upon the sanctuary that is so desolate.

God, I don’t plead this because I’m such a holy guy, but just because You’re so merciful. I’m asking You to do this.

Fabulous prayer of Daniel. It does give to us a keen insight into the spiritual depth of this man. No wonder the Lord said, “O Daniel, you greatly beloved of God.”

And then the final plea:

O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thy own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name ( Dan 9:19 ).

Lord, people call us by Your name, and we’re such a mess. God, hear, do something. For Your name’s sake, because these people are called by Your name.

Now Daniel said,

While I was speaking, and praying, [while he was in the midst of] confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God; Yes, while I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation ( Dan 9:20-21 ).

Gabriel, one of the chief angels of God, named in Daniel, named also in the book of Luke as the angel that appeared to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, and later appeared unto Mary, the mother of Jesus. Gabriel came,

And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give you skill and understanding. At the beginning of your supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Seventy ( Dan 9:22-24 )

And the word weeks there in Hebrew is just sevens. The translators translated it weeks because of seven days in the week, but literally,

Seventy sevens are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city ( Dan 9:24 ),

Notice there are seventy seven-year cycles that are determined upon the nation Israel, thy people and upon the city of Jerusalem. And so this is a prophecy that relates to God’s dealing with the nation of Israel. It will be accomplished in seventy seven-year cycles. And in these seventy sevens, the work of God will be fully established as far as the nation Israel is concerned. Because within the seventy sevens there will first of all be the

finishing of the transgression, making an end of sins, and making reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision in prophecy [or to complete the vision in prophecies], and to anoint the Most Holy ( Dan 9:24 ),

And probably “the most holy place,” the new temple in the kingdom of God. So there are seventy sevens in which all of the prophetic aspects of the nation Israel will be complete. During which time there will be reconciliation made for sins, for iniquities. Finishing of the transgressions, making an end of sins, bringing in the everlasting kingdom of righteousness, and completing the whole prophetic scene.

Now he divides these seventy sevens.

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince, will be seven sevens, and sixty-two sevens: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times ( Dan 9:25 ).

So there’s to be, first of all, seven sevens and sixty-two sevens from the time the commandment goes forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince. Daniel wrote this in the first year of Darius, the year 538 B.C. About ninety-five years later, in the year 445 B.C., the commandment was finally given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Earlier, Ahasuerus and the other Persian kings had given commandments to Ezra to go back and to rebuild the temple. But this prophecy was to be from the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Though the temple was rebuilt, the walls of the city were still torn down and the houses were still destroyed. And you remember that Nehemiah said, “I was a cupbearer to the king.” And the king said, “How come you look so sad?” And Nehemiah said, “How can I be happy when the city that I love lies in ruins?” And so the king gave commandment unto Nehemiah to take a contingent of people and to go back and to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, 445 B.C. In fact, according to records that were found by Sir Rawlinson in the Palace of Shushan, that order was given in March 14, 445 B.C. Now, it is an important date in history because according to the promise here and the prophecy here, from the time that commandment goes forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince will be seven sevens and sixty-two sevens, or sixty-nine seven-year cycles, or 483 years. And so from the year March 14, 445 B.C., according to the prediction here, the Messiah should have come in 483 years from the time of this commandment.

Now the years in the prophecies of Daniel are 360-day years which was predicated upon the Babylonian calendar of a 360-day year. We, of course, compute now with a Julian calendar of 365 and a quarter days a year. But Daniel’s prophecies were predicated upon the Babylonian calendar 360 days a year. And so it would be best to transpose the 483 years into days in order to figure out the time of the coming of the Messiah the Prince. And transposed into days, 483 times 360 would give you 173,880 days. And if you take and then work that out on our calendar, you find it comes out to the date April 6, 32 A.D.

On April 6, 32 A.D., Jesus said to His disciples, “Go over into the city and on a corner you’ll find a colt that is tied. Untie him and bring him to me. And if while you are untying him the master say, ‘What are you doing untying my colt?’ just tell them that the Lord has need of him.” They went over and just where Jesus told them they saw the donkey tied and they untied it. The owner said, “Why are you untying my donkey?” And they said, “Lord the needs him.” And so they brought the donkey to Jesus and they began to lay their garments in the path between Bethany and Jerusalem. And they began to wave palm branches as they cried, “Save now, save now, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord,” Psa 118:1-29 . Psa 118:1-29 is a Messianic Psalm. Psa 118:1-29 declares, “This is the stone which was rejected by the builders, but the same has become the chief cornerstone. This is the Lord’s work and it is glorious in our eyes. Hosanna, hosanna, blessed is He who comes in the name of Lord. This is the day that the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” We so often get up on a beautiful morning and look out and see the sunrise and say, “Oh, this is the day that the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” That was not written for any beautiful morning. That was written for one special day–the day of God’s salvation for the world, the day that the Messiah would come.

Prior to this day, Jesus had never allowed public worship of Himself. When they sought by force to make Him king, He disappeared from their midst. But on this day, He not only set the scene, He is encouraging His disciples. And when the Pharisees said, “Lord, You better cause them to shut up, because they are being blasphemous,” Jesus said, “I’m going to tell you something, fellows, and I want you to get it straight. If these men would at this point hold their peace and be silent, these very stones would start crying out.” This is the day that the Lord hath made. The day of redemption for the world. The day the Messiah would come; 173,880 days from the commandment of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Right on schedule. And as Jesus came on the Mount of Olives, and He looked at the city of Jerusalem, He began to weep and cried, “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, if thou had only known at least in this thy day the things that belong to your peace, but now they are hid from your eyes. And they’re gonna come and they’re gonna encircle the city. They’re gonna destroy you and your children are going to be dashed in the streets.” And He tells of the desolation that is going to transpire upon them for their ignorance, not knowing the day of God’s deliverance.

And so this prophecy of Daniel is one of the most remarkable of all of the prophecies concerning the coming of Jesus Christ, because Daniel here is declaring the very day that the Messiah is to come. “The wall will be built in troublous time.” Read the book of Nehemiah. As they were building the wall they had a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other. Because there were guys constantly, guerrilla attacks against them and the PLO was constantly trying to defeat them in their attempts.

Now after the sixty-two seven-year periods [notice,] the Messiah will be cut off ( Dan 9:26 ),

Not, “The Messiah will be acclaimed and accepted and salvation will come and all of the prophecies will be complete and the everlasting kingdom will come in.” No, “The Messiah will be cut off.” But,

not for himself ( Dan 9:26 ):

That phrase, “but not for himself” is literally, “and receive nothing for himself.” Or, the Messiah will be cut off without receiving this everlasting kingdom at that time. Of course, we know that Jesus was crucified that very week. He was cut off. He was not given the kingdom at that time. He was rejected as was predicted by Isaiah. He is despised and rejected by men.

and the prince of the people that shall come ( Dan 9:26 )

That is, the Roman army that was going to come, which did come–Titus, under the edict of Nero, who died before Jerusalem actually fell completely.

the prince of the people that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof will be with [the dispersion] a flood [or a dispersion] ( Dan 9:26 ),

So here Daniel predicts that the Messiah would come, the Messiah would be cut off, and that a nation would come and destroy the city and the Jews would be dispersed. You read history and you find that’s exactly, of course, what did happen. Christ was crucified, the Roman armies came, the temple and the city of Jerusalem were destroyed. As Jesus said, not one stone was left standing upon another and the Jews at that point were dispersed and remained dispersed throughout the world until 1948. So this portion of the prophecy literally, completely fulfilled. “And unto the end thereof, wars are determined,”

desolations are determined ( Dan 9:26 ).

Now, we have one seven-year cycle that is not yet transpired. Seventy sevens are determined upon the nation Israel. These seventy sevens were to begin at the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, 445 B.C. They were to culminate in the coming of the Messiah. That is, sixty-nine of them. But the Messiah would be cut off. Now in a sense you might say that at that point God’s prophetic time clock was stopped and has remained stopped. But now we have another event which will signal the beginning of the time clock once again, the beginning of the seventieth seven or the last seven-year cycle.

Verse Dan 9:27 ,

he ( Dan 9:27 )

Who? The prince of the people that shall come or the ruler of the revived Roman Empire that would be represented by ten nations federating together which were once a part of the Roman Empire. You have to go back in Daniel, chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the great image, the legs of iron representing the Roman Empire and the feet of iron and clay with ten toes. Iron representing still the Roman Empire but mixed with clays showing that it is not as strong as the Roman Empire was in an autocratic sense, but it was weakened because it was a democracy, nations that were joined together with treaties. Also, you find the same parallel vision of Daniel as he sees them as a beast with ten horns in chapter 7. And this other little horn coming up and devouring three of the horns. So the leader that will arise over this ten-nation confederacy related to the Roman Empire are called by many Bible scholars as a revival of the Roman Empire.

will confirm the covenant with many for one week ( Dan 9:27 ):

Not with all of Israel, but with many of them.

Now there are today in Israel a very divided feeling as far as God is concerned and religion is concerned among the people of Israel. It is not really a religious state, though they do have religious laws and though they do observe religious laws. And though they keep the dietary laws where they will not eat meat with dairy products, and they keep the sabbath, yet the people for the most part are not religious people. The reason why these laws are in effect is because of the whole political setup in Israel with two major parties, the Labor party and the Likud parties. But neither of them strong enough to form a coalition in the government on their own. And in order for either the Labor or the Likud to remain in power, just like this last week they had another meeting in which they sought to oust Begin because he dared to speak out against the big brother who’s trying to control him. I like this spunky little guy. You’ve got to admire him. And they had a vote of confidence. And any time some issue comes up they can call a vote of confidence, and if Begin does not pass in the vote of confidence, then a new election has to be called.

Now to form a coalition in order that he might have a government, because the Likud party does not have a clear majority, they have to depend upon the religious party and its ten votes to be cast with them in order that they might remain in power and have a majority. And the religious men in the Knesset, those from the religious party, charge a high price for their support. They force them to make certain laws that govern the religious aspects of the people. Now for the most part the people hate these religious laws. But there’s something that they realize they have to live with in order to keep a government in power, and so they live with it. But the people really are not wild about the religious aspects of their government. There are only about ten percent of the Jews that are really religious. And, of course, they are divided into reformed, conservative, and orthodox. And, of course, then in the Mea Shearim you have the ultra orthodox. But even they are of the Hasidic or the Sefardim or the Yemenites and they… it’s really a divided issue.

So when he makes his covenant it will not be with everyone in support of it, but with many the leader that arises out of Western Europe is going to make a covenant. Now the covenant, or he’s going to confirm a covenant, not make one; confirm a covenant. No doubt confirming the covenant that God established with the nation whereby they could relate to Him by basis of the sacrifices that they would offer. Now the ultra orthodox desire to rebuild the temple and begin the sacrifices again. But if you ask the most of the Jewish people about rebuilding the temple they’ll say, “Oh, I hope they don’t.” Because if they rebuild the temple then some fool is gonna want to offer a lamb as a sacrifice and that would be horrible.” And that’s the general opinion of the general public, but the ultra-orthodox are desiring greatly to rebuild the temple and to begin sacrifices again. And so that’s a very divisive issue. And so he will confirm the covenant. That is, will allow them the right to rebuild the temple.

Now how can he do that with the Dome of the Rock Mosque? No problem. It would appear that the sight of Solomon’s temple was not there at the Dome of the Rock Mosque as we dealt with Ezekiel, chapter 42. But the Dome of the Rock Mosque sets over what was the outer court of Solomon’s temple.

North of the Dome of the Rock Mosque a large vast flat area, perhaps as much as ten acres, in which they can easily rebuild their temple and never disturb the holy Moslem sight. I’m certain that this will be the suggestion. In John’s vision of the new temple, Revelation, chapter 11, where John is ordered to measure it, the Lord said, “Don’t measure the outer court; it’s been given to the pagans.” In Ezekiel, when he sees the temple, he says, “And there was a wall, five hundred meters to separate the holy place from the profane.” And so I believe that a wall will be put up along the north porticoes of the Dome of the Rock Mosque, and the Jews will be allowed to rebuild their temple and will begin their sacrifices again. And when that covenant is confirmed by this European leader, at that point the last seven-year cycle will begin. The seventieth seven, the final seven-year cycle, which at the end will bring in the everlasting kingdom. It’ll complete the whole prophetic picture and the most holy place will be anointed and the kingdom of God established upon the earth.

So he will make, or he will confirm the covenant with many for one week, the seventieth week or one seven-year cycle.

and in the midst of this seven-year period [or after three and a half years], he shall cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, [or the final consummation of the age] and that which is determined shall be poured upon the desolate ( Dan 9:27 ).

And so this remarkable prophecy of Daniel that deals specifically with the day of the coming of the Messiah and then the seventieth week takes us out to the end of this age in the last twenty-seventh verse.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Dan 9:1-2. In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Daniel was himself a prophet, but he studied the inspired prophecies of Jeremiah. If such a man need read Scripture, how much more ought we! Whatever light we may suppose to dwell within us, we shall do well to walk by the mere sure word of prophecy.

Dan 9:3-5. And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments:

Daniel certainly had rebelled less than any of his countrymen, and yet he is the first to make confession on their behalf. So, my brethren, when we have confessed our own sins, and have found mercy, then we should begin to be intercessors for others. We should make confession for the sins of our families, for the sins of our city, for the sins of our country. If no longer need we plead for salvation for ourselves because we have obtained it, let us give the full force of our prayers for the benefit of others.

Dan 9:6. Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

It greatly increases sin when we sin against warnings sent from God. Daniel confesses this.

Dan 9:7-9. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee. O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him;

What a gracious verse that is! Surely it might be printed in letters of gold, and every trembling, penitent sinner might look at it till at last beams of light should dart into the darkness of his despair.

Dan 9:10-11. Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his ways, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Dan 9:1

Dan 9:1 In the firstH259 yearH8141 of DariusH1867 the sonH1121 of Ahasuerus,H325 of the seedH4480 H2233 of the Medes,H4074 whichH834 was made kingH4427 overH5921 the realmH4438 of the Chaldeans;H3778

Daniel’s Prayer for Deliverance (Dan 9:1-19)

The time of this chapter in Daniel’s life was after the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire by the Medo-Persians. Daniel had been in captivity in Babylon for about sixty nine years and he knew from the writings of Jeremiah that the time for the end of their captivity was near. Daniel was an aged man at this time, probably in his eighties or close to it. He had lived all of his adult life in Babylon in service to various kings and had seen many of them come and go.

Hoping in his heart of hearts for the release of his countrymen and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple, Daniel went to God in fervent prayer on behalf of his people in confession and a petition to God for mercy, forgiveness and deliverance. Daniel’s prayer is a model for people throughout the centuries to learn from and emulate. Daniel’s prayer was answered in a very special way. And while no one today can be be answered in quite the same way Daniel was, we can learn from him how to approach God in our prayers in such a way that we can be assured that our petitions to God can likewise have a similar audience.

Daniel’s prayer was not a spontaneous prayer that he gushed forth with no prior preparation. His prayer was carefully planned and precisely delivered according to instructions contained within the law of Moses concerning their captivity. Daniel’s prayer leads us on a journey through ancient prophecy that reveals just how far God went to try and avoid punishing the Israelites but was left with no other recourse. God did everything He could reasonably have been expected to do and then went above and beyond what anyone would expect in order to give the Israelites every chance to repent and turn from their idolatrous ways. We learn from this study that Israel refused to heed the warnings and refused to repent and in the end, left God with no choice but to punish them. And they were indeed punished. It was severe and bitter and when it was finished, the Israelites hearts were prepared to return and serve God faithfully.

Dan 9:1

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

Darius is a hard individual to identify in history, especially since there were so many called by this name. However here we have a clue that helps to identify who this person is. Nebuchadnezzar carried the first group of Israelites away in approximately 604 BC. Sixty nine years after Daniel was carried away, in about 538 BC, a ruler named Darius, who was also known as Cyaxares II became the ruler of Babylon. This man was brother to Cyrus the Great’s mother, Mandana of Media, thus making him the uncle of Cyrus the Great.

Cyaxares II was the son of Ahasuerus or, Astyages. Ahasuerus was a name shared by more than one of the kings of Medo-Persia and should not be confused with the Ahasuerus of Ezra who was Cambyses, the son of Cyrus who reigned from 530 to 522 BC. Josephus named Astyages as the father of Darius the Mede, thus this Ahasuerus is commonly identified with him. The Ahasuerus of Esther is generally believed to be Xerxes I of Persia who reigned from 485 to 465 BC.

The conclusions drawn among the scholars as to the precise identity of this man are by no means in agreement. It must be noted here that we simply do not know for certain who this man identified as Darius really was. There are difficulties associated with all of them. It is the belief of this Bible student that the Darius of chapter 9 and the Darius of chapter 6 are one and the same. The reasons for this is very simple. Daniel was thrown into the lions den by a king named Darius. The king who threw Daniel to the lions loved Daniel and was tricked into it by the manipulations of those who sought to have Daniel removed from power. Please refer to the study of chapter 6 for details of their relationship and the events surrounding Daniel and the lion’s den.

Daniel and Darius were obviously well acquainted and had a working relationship of trust. There are no records of any Darius prior to this one ruling over Babylon, meaning this Darius was the first. Daniel was at the least near or in his eightieth year when this happened. Please refer to the timeline for additional information. Daniel was an aged man when the first king named Darius came to power at age sixty two (Dan 5:31). He and Daniel were both elderly so they shared that in common with each other. Basically, given the obvious relationship Daniel and Darius shared, it is my conclusion that if these men were not one and the same, Daniel would not have referred to them by the same name. He would have distinguished them from each other, not wanting to confuse a man he obviously shared a close working relationship with for a king he did not. Therefore it is my conclusion that these two kings, both named Darius were one and the same.

However we are still left with uncertainty as to exactly who this man really was. In the study for chapter 6, it was my conclusion that Darius was a man named Gubaru. This conclusion is based on evidence from the Nabonidus Chronicle which named Gubaru as the governor/king of the Babylonian province during this time period. Archaeological evidence from that very time period in history carries much more significance than material written by others at much later dates, however, the validity of the Nabonidus Chronicle is challenged as propaganda by some due to inconsistencies. The conclusion that Gubaru is Darius is arrived at because there simply are no other candidates which fit the facts as closely as he does. There are difficulties with this conclusion and to fair and unbiased, it must be mentioned that the main one is that in history, Gubaru was never called a king, nor was he called Darius.

So the mystery continues as to who this Darius really was. This is what we know about him:

1) His father was Ahauserus (Dan 9:1). The name Ahasuerus is equivalent to Xerxes, both deriving from the Persian Khashayarsha. The form Xerxes has not traditionally appeared in English bibles, but has rather appeared as Ahasuerus. Many other translations and paraphrases have used the name Xerxes. As mentioned earlier, Josephus named Astyages as the father of Darius the Mede and the name Ahasuerus is associated with him. But this is by no means certain.

2) Darius was of the “seed of the Medes” Dan 9:1. Racially, Darius was a Median.

3) In authority, he was called the king over the realm of the Chaldeans, Dan 9:1. That was the province of Babylon, not to be confused with the Babylonian Empire which had fallen at this time and was being absorbed into the Medo-Persian Empire. This is significant in that this man, even though he is called a king in scripture was not ruling over the empire, rather only over one part of it, namely the realm of the Chaldeans. This makes him a co-regent or vassal king to the supreme king who was certainly Cyrus. In the Nabonidus Chronicle, it is established that a governor over a province can be referred to as a king.

4) He was 62 years old, (Dan 5:31).

It can be fairly concluded at this point that the Darius of Daniel 6, 9 is either Astyages or Gubaru.

Astyages succeeded his father, Cyaxares, in 585 BCE, following the Battle of Pteria, which ended a five-year war between the Lydians and the Medes. He inherited a large empire, ruled in alliance with his two brothers-in-law, Croesus of Lydia and Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, whose wife, Amytis, Astyages’ sister, was the queen for whom Nebuchadnezzar was said to have built the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Astyages was married to Aryenis, the sister of King Croesus of Lydia, to seal the treaty between the two empires, Astyages ascended to the Median throne upon his father’s death later that year.

Gubaru is mentioned in the Cyropedia of Xenophon as a general who helped in the conquering of Babylon. Gubaru was placed over Babylon as a governor. See chapter 6.

The case for Gubaru being Darius is the strongest and I would offer an opinion here that is purely speculative. Astyages was much higher up in authority than Gubaru making it more unlikely that he would have the time to form a relationship with Daniel. Gubaru was a more of a local governor, also called a king, who with only the Babylonian province to govern would be in a position where he was more closely associated with Daniel than Astyages. Archaeology continues to make discoveries and it may be that in the future evidence will be discovered that will decisively link the Darius of Daniel to a historical figure. In the meantime, we will leave it to the conclusions of the individuals researching the evidence for themselves. An error over the identity of this individual will not cause our religion to crumble down around our ears and has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the inspired text.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

In the first year of the reign of Darius, Daniel, who was evidently not only a man of prayer, but a diligent student of the prophetic writings, became conscious that the seventy years of judgment on Jerusalem foretold by Jeremiah were drawing to a close. He therefore set himself to seek the Lord by personal prayer and penitence on behalf of his people, making confession of their sin, and pleading their cause. He besought the Lord that the reproaches which had fallen on Jerusalem be put away, and, as men of vision had so often done, he based his plea on the honor of the Lord.

The language of this intercessory prayer reveals a man familiar with God in all the highest meaning of that word, and therefore keenly conscious of the sinfulness of the rebellion and failure of his own people.

During this intercession Gabriel came to him, declaring to him, first of all, that he was “greatly beloved,” urging him to consider the matter, and understand the vision. He then made a revelation to him concerning the divine program. Seventy weeks were decreed on the people and the city. These were divided into three periods, the first of seven weeks, the second of sixty-two weeks, and the third of one week.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Intercession for a Beloved People

Dan 9:1-15

What a prayer is this! In many respects it is a model for us all. It was based on the divine Word. The fact that God had promised to restore the desolations of Jerusalem after seventy years, did not restrain, but prompted and inspired Daniels prayers. Gods promises are not independent of our faith, but await our appropriation. The blank checks are drawn and signed in our favor, but they must be presented at the bank for payment. It was very humble. Fasting, sackcloth, and ashes, were the outward habiliments, but notice the tone. We have sinned and have rebelled; unto us [belongeth] confusion of face. He confessed his sin and the sin of his people. There is such a thing as vicarious confession, in which some holy soul takes to himself the task of bearing the sins of his people, and pouring out the story before God, as though the sins were his own. But we hardly need go to our country or people for sins to confess, for we have plenty of our own, and the nearer we come to Gods infinite light and holiness, the more we abhor ourselves and repent in dust and ashes.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter Nine The Seventy Weeks

The main feature of Daniel 9 is the great prophecy of the seventy weeks. Sir Edward Denny, a noted prophetic student of the last century, commonly called this The backbone of prophecy. This title seems well given, for if the seventy weeks are misunderstood, then an effort must be made to bend all the other prophetic scriptures into accord with that misinterpretation. But if we have a correct understanding of the teaching of this chapter, we can then see readily how all prophecy falls right into place without any forcing, for it is all intimately connected with this greatest of time-prophecies.

We will first note what led up to the giving of this special revelation. Daniel was himself a student of the prophetic Word. He realized deep in his own soul, though the words had not yet been written, that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2Ti 3:16). So in the opening verses we see this devoted man, in the first year of the reign of Darius, bending over the prophetic word in the Holy Scriptures. He did not have the complete Bible as we have, but he valued what he had and searched diligently. In fact the last book that had been added to the Bible was that of Ezekiel. We do not know for certain that this ever came into his hands, but we do know from the opening verses of Daniel 9 that he had the book of Jeremiah. As he studied it carefully, he noticed that twice in that book it was written that God would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

As Daniel looked back over his captivity he reckoned the years he had spent in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, then the days that had followed during the period of Babylons difficulties, succeeded by the triumph of the Medes and Persians. As he counted it all up he evidently realized that the seventy years must have very nearly run out. Therefore, the day of the deliverance of the Jews must have drawn very near. He could probably look back over almost seven decades himself, for he had been carried away as a captive in the reign of Jehoiakim when he was a boy, and he had become an old man.

We find that the study of prophecy exercised the heart and the conscience of Daniel; he was not merely interested in it from an intellectual standpoint. The mere computing of times and seasons could not satisfy this devout man of God. When he learned that the time had almost drawn near for the people of Judah to be restored to their land, it stirred him to the very depths of his soul and brought him down to his knees. He might have said, If it is Gods purpose to restore His people, He will carry that purpose out, whatever their condition, and I need not concern myself about this matter. But Daniel realized that when God is about to work, He begins by exercising His people that they may be restored in soul if they have wandered from Him; then they would be blessed through self-judgment and humiliation before God.

We will be blessed if the study of the book of Daniel has the same effect on us that the study of the book of Jeremiah had on Daniel. If not, I fear it will have a hardening effect and leave us in a worse condition than when we began. The things God has been bringing before us should cause us to bow before Him and cry, O Lord God, we have sinned, we have much reason to be before Thee in confession and brokenness, because of the failure of Thy people, the church of which we form a part. If they have this effect on us and in us, it will be indeed for Gods glory and our blessing.

We have serious cause to be on our knees before God when we think of all the failure and the sin that has marred our testimony. We will not feel much like finding fault with others if we fall before God concerning our own shame in all this. Sometimes I hear people criticizing other denominations and Christians, while glorying in their own position and utterly ignoring their true state. How little such persons enter into the thoughts and feelings that filled the heart of Daniel and brought confession from his lips. Notice that he does not begin by accusing the Jews who had acted so badly in the past, nor his contemporaries at that solemn moment in Israels history. Rather he sets his face to seek Jehovah in prayer and supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes-the outward expression of deep and heartfelt repentance. We are told that he prayed to the Lord his God and made his confession. He said, We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name (5-6, italics added). He acknowledged the righteousness of God in the judgment that had come on Daniels people; yet he dared to appeal to the mercies and forgiveness of the Lord his God, though Israel had so grievously rebelled against Him. In all His dealings with them, God had confirmed His own words and demonstrated the faithfulness of His testimony through Moses His servant.

How much we may learn from all this! When we look around and see the failure in the church, let us not be content to pass our judgment on them. Let us not lift up our hearts in spiritual pride and say, Thank God, we are not as others. But let us remember that we too are part of that church which has failed. We cannot dissociate ourselves from other Christians; we have to take our place with them, bow our heads in the presence of God, and admit that we have sinned. If we would remember this, it would cure us of railing against the people of God who have less light than we have, or think that we have.

I remember the dear servant of God, Paul J. Loizeaux, writing to me a number of years ago from a place where he was laboring in the gospel: Prejudice is very strong here, and I regret to have to feel that in large measure our own dear brethren are to blame for much of it. In times past they have spent so much time stoning what, no doubt, very much deserved to be stoned, but which we have no authority to stone. God has not raised us up to go around stoning His people. We have not been appointed to be the censors of Christendom. He has said: Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth (Rom 14:4).

Let us be diligent in pursuing individual holiness and faithfulness to God and concerned about corporate righteousness and freedom from unholy associations. But let us not seek to sit in judgment on our fellow Christians who may not happen to see eye to eye with us; their love for the Lord Jesus and faithfulness to what they believe might be an example well worthy of our imitation. Let us rather take Daniels place of self-abasement and repentance in the presence of God and throw our arms of love and faith about all His dear people and say: O God, we,-not they,-we have sinned and done this evil in Thy sight. When we are in that place of meekness we can count on His blessing and can look to Him expectantly for a measure of recovery. It is this humility that shines out so beautifully in Daniel. He identified himself, though a man of unusual faithfulness (perhaps the most devoted man of his generation), with his failed and failing nation.

In simplicity and faith Daniel then looked up to God, beseeching Him to turn away His anger and His fury from Jerusalem and to cause His face to shine on the desolate sanctuary. Note the earnestness and pathos of verses 18-19 with which he concludes his touching petition:

O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.

Prayer of such a character could not fail to be answered. While he was speaking and making his confession, the angel Gabriel, being caused to fly swiftly, touched [him] about the time of the evening oblation (21) -that is at the time when the smoking sacrifice, pointing on to the offering of our Lord Jesus Christ, would have been ascending to God had Jerusalem not been in ruins. Gabriel declared that he had been sent to give Daniel skill and understanding in regard to the times, foreknown by God, of Israels blessing. I quote his message in full and ask you to note carefully every word.

Seventy weeks are determined [or, cut off] 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 [or, the Holy of Holies]. 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 [or, the strait, or narrow times]. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself [or, 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 unto the end of the war desolations are determined [or, until the end shall be war and desolations as determined]. 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 [or, upon the wing of abominations shall come one who maketh desolate], even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate [or desolator] (24-27).

In considering this prophecy in detail, it is important to notice that the time period of seventy weeks clearly refers to years. Daniel had been learning from the Scriptures that the Lord would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. But in answer to his prayer God made known to him that in seventy weeks, or sevens of years, all prophecy in connection with His people Israel will be fulfilled. The word here rendered weeks does not necessarily mean weeks of days; it is a generic term (like our word dozen) for a heptad, meaning a series of seven and may be applied to whatever subject is under consideration. On the chart I have used the word heptad, which is the equivalent of weeks, in order to avoid confusion of terms.

It is also important to notice that these seventy sevens or 490 years are cut off from the entire period of time for the Jews and the holy city of Jerusalem. Therefore the seventy weeks are only running on while there is a remnant in Jerusalem acknowledged by God as His people.

This brings me to a third point, which many have not noticed: the cycle of the seventy weeks is divided into three parts. You can see this clearly by referring to the chart. First we have seven sevens, or 49 years. This is the period called the strait or narrow times in which the city and the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt. The second part of the cycle consists of sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, after which Messiah was to be cut off and have nothing. This leaves one week, or seven years, yet to be fulfilled. This period cannot be fulfilled until there is again a remnant of Judah, acknowledged by God as His people, in the city of Jerusalem.

A cycle of 490 years had closed in the Babylonian captivity. Now, God said He was about to give them another period of the same length, at the end of which things would be different. Notice how much was to be accomplished before this period would close: Their transgression would be finished; an end made of sins; reconciliation, or properly, atonement would be made for iniquity; everlasting righteousness, the millennial kingdom, brought in; vision and prophecy all sealed up because fulfilled; and the Holy of Holies anointed in the future temple at Jerusalem. It is very evident that there is a great deal here that has never yet been accomplished, consequently the 490 years have not yet been completed.

But can we tell definitely when the seventy weeks began? Yes, look at verse 25: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks. The going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem is given to us in Nehemiah 2, and there can be no question about the dates. The edict was given in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, a year well known to historians as 445b.c. Observe the commandment that went forth in the days of Cyrus as recorded in Ezra 1. That edict is clearly not the starting point referred to in Daniel because it only had to do with the rebuilding of the house of God at Jerusalem, that is the temple of Zerubbabel. There is nothing said there about rebuilding the city or the wall. It is therefore the order of Artaxerxes that the angel mentioned as the true starting point.

From the time of this decree to the coming of Messiah the Prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks were to elapse, making sixty-nine weeks in all, or 483 years. The 49 years (seven weeks) are distinguished from the rest because in them the city and the wall were rebuilt. This distinction also directs our attention to the fact that the 490 years are divided into three series and do not necessarily run on in direct chronological order. The sixty-two weeks immediately followed the completion of the seven weeks. But God distinctly separates the sixty-two weeks from the seven that went before; just as the last week, or seven years, is separated from all that preceded.

Able chronologists have shown that the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ occurred immediately after the expiration of 483 prophetic years, of 360 days each, from the time of Artaxerxes order. By reference to the other time-prophecies of this book it will become evident that this is the true method of computation. The time, times, and the dividing of time of Dan 7:25 and 12:7 (representing exactly three and a half years, as is evident by a comparison with the seven times in which Nebuchadnezzar was driven out from among men) are clearly identical with the 1260 days of the Apocalypse (Revelation 11-12).

At the expiration of the sixty-nine weeks, therefore, the Messiah for whom Israel had waited so long had actually come only to be cut off and rejected by the very people who should have hailed His advent with joy. Up to this time, the great prophetic clock had been ticking out the years one after another in fulfillment of what we have in this chapter. But with the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ the great clock stopped, and there has not been another tick from it since. It will not begin again until a coming day, when a remnant of Jews in their own land are ready to acknowledge the claims of Gods Christ. Because of Jerusalems rejection of her Prince, He has rejected them; He prophesied before He died that their city and temple would be thrown down and not one stone left on another. This is also foretold in Dan 9:26: 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. These words briefly describe the history of Palestine from the coming of the Roman armies under Titus to the present time. Jerusalem, and Palestine as a whole, have been trodden down of all nations and will be, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (Luk 21:24).

Observe that it is not said in verse twenty-six that the prince will come at that time. In fact it is distinctly stated that the city will not be destroyed by the coming prince, but by his people. The prince is that dreadful character yet to arrive on the scene; he will arrogate to himself supreme power in the days of the ten kingdom period of the Roman empire, which we have seen is still in the future. In other words, he is emphatically the beast of Revelation chapters 13:1 and 17:3.

The beast is the one who becomes prominent in Dan 9:27. He will confirm a covenant with the many for one week. The seventieth week will begin when the Jewish people are restored in unbelief to their land and city and among them is found a faithful remnant that will acknowledge their sin and seek Jehovahs face. The many, that is the apostate mass of the people, will enter into covenant relations with the prince whose people formerly were the instruments of the destruction of their city. That is, this great blasphemous Roman leader will guarantee protection and freedom of religious worship to them for seven years, in return they will promise allegiance to him as their sovereign. In the middle of the week (that is, after three and a half years) he will violate his part of the covenant and cause the sacrifices and offerings to Jehovah to cease. Idolatry of the most dreadful kind will be forced on them. The direct result of which will be to distinguish the remnant from the mass and bring in the great tribulation which will continue for forty-two months-a time, times, and half a time, or 1260 days.

The last clause we may read either as we have it in the King James version as that determined shall be poured upon the desolate, or, as others read it, the desolator. That which God has determined will be poured out on poor desolate Judah because of their rejection of their rightful King and Savior. Then, when their cup has been filled to the brim by the dreadful persecutions of the beast and antichrist, these arch-enemies of God and His people will be punished with everlasting destruction. We have their doom clearly foretold in Rev 19:20: And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. In Rev 20:10 they are shown in the lake of fire a thousand years later when the devil, the instigator of all iniquity, will be cast into the same fiery pit, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

It is clear therefore that this last week of the seventy has not yet been fulfilled. If it had been, the Jews in their land would be a holy people, their temple anointed for divine service, their transgressions finished, and the years of their mourning ended. But God only counts time with Israel while they are owned as His people in the land of Palestine. All the years of their subjection to Gentile rule are viewed as wasted. In this present age of their rejection, God is taking out from among the Gentiles a people in the name of the Lord Jesus- the church, which will be His body and His bride for all eternity. When this great work is over He will build again the tabernacle of David, that is fallen down (Act 15:16) and commence once more to fulfill Old Testament prophecy from the point reached at the cross of Christ. The Lord Jesus gave us the history of Palestine in one pregnant sentence when He said there shall be wars and rumours of wars but the end is not yet (Mat 24:6). This is characteristic of the entire dispensation and will be until the end. When will that end be? When the seventieth week begins, and God once more takes up the nation of Israel and begins to fulfill the promises made through the prophets. He will touch the pendulum of that great prophetic clock, as it were, and set it once more ticking off the years preparatory to ushering in the glorious kingdom of the Son of man when Jerusalem will become the capital city of the world, and Palestine again will be the garden of the Lord.

Before closing I briefly mention a rather peculiar interpretation which is frequently given to Dan 9:27. It is said that the Lord Jesus is Himself to be the prince that shall come who confirms the covenant for one week. His own crucifixion is supposed to be the event which caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease. But this interpretation will not stand either chronologically or doctrinally when examined in the light of other Scriptures. With whom did the Lord Jesus ever confirm a covenant for seven years? His precious blood is called the blood of the everlasting covenant, not a covenant for one week of years. We may rest assured it is not Messiah, but the blasphemous prince who is yet to come who will fulfill what is predicted in this verse.

How near this world may be to entering all these things no man can say, but it is wise to learn from the prophetic scriptures and turn now to Him who alone can save. Own Him as Redeemer and Lord and be certain of being caught up to meet Him when He comes in the clouds, before the time comes for His righteous judgment to be poured out on this poor world.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

CHAPTER 9 The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks

1. The time and occasion of Daniels prayer (Dan 9:1-2)

2. The prayer (Dan 9:3-19)

3. The answer and the prophecy of the seventy weeks (Dan 9:20-27)

Dan 9:1-2. It was in the first year of Darius, of the seed of the Medes, that Daniel understood by the sacred writings of his people, especially by the prophecy of Jeremiah, that the end of the years of the captivity was at hand. The promises in the Word of God led him at once to seek the face of the Lord and he poured out a wonderful prayer in His presence.

Dan 9:3-19. It has three parts: Dan 9:4-10 : Confession of the failure of his people and acknowledgment of Gods covenant mercies. Dan 9:11-14 : The deserved curse as written in the law of Moses. Dan 9:15-19 : Pleadings for mercy to turn away His anger and to remember His city, Jerusalem and His people. Throughout this prayer we read how completely he identified himself with the sins, the failure, the shame and the judgment of the people of God. This is remarkable. As we have seen from the first chapter, he was brought to Babylon when quite young and belonged even then to the believing, God fearing element of the nation. Yet he speaks of the nations sins, their rebellion, their transgressions of the law and their wicked deeds as if they belonged to him. Of all the Bible characters Daniel appears as the purest. The failures of Abraham, Moses, Aaron, David and others are recorded, but Daniel appears with no flaw whatever in his character. As far as the record goes he was a perfect man. Of course he too was a man of like passions as we are, and as such a sinner. Yet this devoted and aged servant with such a record of loyalty to God and to His laws confesses all the peoples sins and the curse and shame, which came upon them, as His own.

Dan 9:20-27. The prayer was not ended. How near heaven is may be learned from Dan 9:20-27. Heaven is not far away, for there is no space and no distance with God. When Daniel began his confession and humiliation the Lord called Gabriel and instructed him what he should tell the praying prophet, and then Gabriel was caused to fly swiftly through the immeasurable space, and before Daniel ever reached the Amen the messenger stood before him and stopped his prayer. What blessed assurance! The moment we pray in the Spirit and in His Name our voices are heard in the highest heaven.

We give a corrected text of the great prophecy, perhaps the greatest in the entire prophetic Word.

Seventy weeks are apportioned out upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal the vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies. Know therefore and understand: From the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem unto Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. The street and the wall shall be built again, even in troublous times. And after the sixty-two weeks shall Messiah 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 overflow, and unto the end war, the desolations determined. And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease and because of the protection of abominations there shall be a desolator, even until the consummation and what is determined shall be poured out upon the desolator (Dan 9:24-27).

The literal translation of the term seventy weeks is seventy-sevens. Now, this word sevens translated weeks may mean days and it may mean years. What then is meant here, seventy times seven days or seventy times seven years? It is evident that the sevens mean year weeks, seven years to each prophetic week. Daniel was occupied in reading the books and in prayer with the seventy years of Babylonian captivity. And now Gabriel is going to reveal to him something which will take place in seventy-sevens, which means seventy times seven years. The proof that such is the case is furnished by the fulfillment of the prophecy itself Now seventy-seven years makes 490 years.

What is to be accomplished. Dan 9:24 gives the great things which are to be accomplished during these seventy-year weeks or 490 years. They are the following: (1) To finish the transgression; (2) To make an end of sins. (3) To cover iniquity, (4) To bring in the righteousness of ages; (5) To seal the vision and prophet; (6) To anoint the Holy of Holies.

It must be borne in mind that these things concern exclusively Daniels people and not Gentiles but the holy city Jerusalem. It is clear that the finishing of transgression, the end of sins and the covering of iniquity has a special meaning for Israel as a nation.

Now, these seventy year-weeks are divided into three parts. The first part consists in seven weeks, that is seven times seven, 49 years. During these 49 years the street and the wall of Jerusalem was to be rebuilt and the complete restoration accomplished. The reckoning of this time begins in the month Nisan, 445 B.C., when the command was given Neh 2:1-20. Then follows the second division consisting of 62 weeks of years, that is sixty-two times seven, 434 years. At the close of these 434 years, or 483 years reckoned from the month Nisan in 445 B. C., Messiah the Prince should be cut off and have nothing. Messiah the Prince is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Here then is a startling prediction of the death of Christ, the Messiah rejected by His people and not receiving the kingdom which belongs to Him as the Son of David. The sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, expired on the day our Lord rode into Jerusalem for the last time; during that week He was crucified. (For full proof see The Coming Prince, by Anderson, and our book on the Prophet Daniel.)

Then we have a remarkable prediction concerning the fate of Jerusalem after the nation rejected the Lord Jesus Christ: And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with an overflow, and unto the end war, the desolations determined. Who is the prince that shall come? Expositors have erred seriously in making of this prince the Lord Jesus Christ. This prince is not our Lord. It is the little horn predicted in Dan 7:1-28 to rise out of the Roman Empire in the time of the end, when the Roman Empire is revived politically and has its ten horns. Therefore the people of the prince that shall come are the Roman people. Here then is a prediction that the Romans were to take the city and burn the sanctuary. How literally this has been fulfilled! And all this was revealed when the Roman Empire was not yet in existence. Such are the marvels of divine prophecy. After that there are to be wars and desolations for Jerusalem and the Jewish people. It is the same that our Lord predicted when He said: They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations Luk 21:24.

But all this leaves seven years, that is one week, unaccounted for. We have up to now 483 years, and there are to be 490 years. The last week of seven years is still future. The course of the Jewish age was interrupted. It is an unfinished age. Between the 483 years which ended when the nation rejected the Lord of Glory and the beginning of the last seven years of the Jewish age, this last year-week is this present age, the unreckoned period of time during which God does His great work in sending forth the gospel of His grace to the Gentile nations, to gather out of them a people for His Name. This age of grace is still on but it will end some day when Gods purpose is accomplished. Then the true Church will be gathered home to glory and the Lord will turn again to His people Israel and the last week of Daniel will pass into history. During these seven years the Prince that shall come, the little horn of Dan 7:1-28, will enter into a covenant with the Jewish people. Not with all of them, for there is a remnant of godly Jews who will not accept this one (indicated by the expression the many–see correct translation). In the middle of the week he breaks that covenant and the result will be the great tribulation, the time, times and half of a time, 1,260 days, 42 months of Dan 7:1-28 and Rev 13:1-18. When this great tribulation ends the Lord Jesus Christ comes back and the great things mentioned in Dan 9:24 will be accomplished.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

am 3466, bc 538

Darius: Dan 1:21, Dan 5:31, Dan 6:1, Dan 6:28, Dan 11:1

Ahasuerus: This was the Astyages of the heathen historians; as we learn from Tobit 14:15, where the taking of Nineveh is ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar and Assuerus, who were the same with Nabopolassar and Astyages.

which: or, in which he, etc

Reciprocal: Est 1:1 – Ahasuerus Jer 51:28 – the kings Dan 5:28 – Thy

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

WHAT IS RECORDED in chapter 9 took place shortly after Darius had overthrown Babylon and taken the kingdom – that is, soon after the experience Daniel had, as narrated in Dan 5:1-31. By this time he was of course an old man, and near the end of his life of service, for he had been amongst the first batch of captives, deported by Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah, an older man, had been left in Jerusalem, prophesying there until its destruction years later.

The fall of Babylon was a tremendous upheaval. What effect had it upon Daniel? It moved him to study that portion of the Word of God that was available under his hand. A first-rate example for us today, since the upheavals among the nations during the past fifty years have been more far-reaching than the fall of Babylon. The prophecies of Jeremiah had been committed to writing and were available to him as, ‘books’. We have the completed Bible, which really means ‘The Book’.

To Daniel these ‘books’ came as ‘the word of the Lord’; that is, he received Jeremiah’s writings as being inspired of God, and hence authoritative, and to be accepted without question. Happy are we if, following his example, we treat our Bible in the same way. The particular passage that affected Daniel so deeply was Jer 25:8-14, where ‘desolations’ lasting 70 years were predicted. Daniel must at once have realized that the 70 years had nearly run their course, and that deliverance of some kind was near at hand. The effect that this discovery had upon him is most instructive and also searching for us.

Had we been in his place we might have felt greatly exhilarated by the discovery, and inclined to have a time of jubilation. But it was not thus with Daniel; but rather the exact opposite. He was moved to fasting, humiliation, confession and prayer, realizing the great sin of his people which had brought all this judgment upon them. This we see, if verses Dan 9:4-19 of our chapter be read. He utterly condemned himself as identified with his people, and he vindicated God in His judgments, proclaiming His righteousness in all He had done.

These words of Daniel should be deeply pondered by each of us. Nowhere in the Bible do we find a finer example of thorough-going confession and prayer, though Ezra’s prayer recorded in Ezr 9:1-15 closely resembles it. He made no allusion to the covenant of promise made with Abraham, but placed himself before God on the basis of the covenant of the law of Moses, and the subsequent ministry through the prophets. As to this he confessed complete breakdown and disaster, though personally he was less implicated in it than any in his day.

But thus it always is. Those deeply implicated in failure and sin are by that very fact rendered insensible to the depths into which they have sunk, while those less involved are painfully alive to the state of things. What is the state of things in the professing church today? A prophetic sketch of church history is given us in Rev 2:1-29; Rev 3:1-22. The last stage is that of Laodicea. Are those deeply involved in its grievous evils likely to bow down in confession and prayer? No. Only those who are lightly involved will do so. May we all take heed to this.

The things that mark true confession come clearly to light here. The evil is acknowledged without any attempt at excuse or extenuation. The rightness of God’s judgments and discipline are fully acknowledged, and the plea that God would grant deliverance, according to His word, is urged, ‘not… for our righteousnesses, but for Thy great mercies’. Let us cultivate these excellent features in our day. We too can ask for nothing on the ground of merit, but only on the ground of mercy. As we contemplate the state of Christendom today, and of our own state too, let us cultivate the spirit of humble confession that marked Daniel.

Such confession and prayer meets with an immediate answer, as we see in verses Dan 9:20-21. Gabriel, the angelic messenger of God, was sent, ‘to fly swiftly’, with an answer that would give Daniel ‘skill and understanding’ as to events that lay ahead, with the assurance that he was in God’s estimation a man ‘greatly beloved’. What other saint was permitted to hear himself so described? Our Lord’s words were, ‘he that shall humble himself shall be exalted’ (Mat 23:12). Here we have an illustration of this. Daniel had humbled himself in exceptional measure, and so he is permitted to know that he is greatly beloved in Heaven. What an exaltation! Had he not been truly humbled such an assurance might have puffed him up to his undoing.

Gabriel was commissioned to reveal to Daniel the prophecy of the ‘seventy weeks’; the word week here indicating a period of seven, it may be of days, or as here it clearly is, of years. We have just seen Daniel stirred to confession and prayer by the discovery of the fact that the seventy years of the desolations had nearly run their course; he is now to learn that seventy years, multiplied by seven, were to pass when according to the Divine reckoning, full release and blessing would be reached, as indicated in verse 24.

The contents of this verse must be carefully noted. In the first place, the time indicated is determined upon ‘thy people and upon thy holy city’, and not upon the world in general; though doubtless what transpires upon Israel and Jerusalem will have great effect upon the world in general. Then, in the second place, the end that is to be reached is the establishment of full millennial blessedness. Then it is that the sad story of transgression and sin will be dosed; then ‘the righteousness of the ages’ (New Trans.), will be brought in; then the vision and the prophecy will be sealed up, since all is accomplished: then ‘the most holy’ or, ‘the holy of holies’ will be anointed, and set apart for God, as is also predicted in such a passage as Eze 43:12. The end of the seventy years of desolations would only be a very faint and imperfect forecast of this.

The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were, however, to be divided into three parts, and they were to start when the commandment was issued to restore and to build Jerusalem as a city. The opening verses of Ezra give us the edict of Cyrus to rebuild the temple: the edict to rebuild the city was that of Artaxerxes, as recorded in Neh 2:1-20. This latter was the start of the seventy weeks, predicted here. The first part – seven weeks, or 49 years, – were to be occupied with the rebuilding, and the re-establishment of Israel in the city and land: that is, about up to the time of Malachi. Then were to come the 62 weeks, or 434 years, completing the period ‘unto the Messiah the Prince’.

Here then we have a very clear and definite prophecy, which has been fulfilled. In checking its fulfilment the main difficulty lies in the fact that the Jews calculated their years in a way different from ourselves, which gives rise to complications. We are content to accept the result of an investigation made years ago by the late Sir Robert Anderson, a competent and reliable person. He showed that not only were the 483 years to Christ correct, but that they expired exactly to the day on which He made His formal presentation of Himself to His people, riding on the foal of an ass, as Zechariah had foretold.

And what was the result of this presentation? Just what we have in verse 26. Messiah was ‘cut off, but not for Himself’, or better, as the margin has it, ‘and shall have nothing’. Thus His rejection was foretold, and though He had the title to everything on the earth, He had nothing: a borrowed stable for His birth; nowhere to lay His head, while He served; a borrowed tomb at the finish. Here then we find the Jews committing themselves to a sin far worse than their breaking of the law and their persistent idolatry. The consequences flowing from this greatest of all sins, are stated at the end of verse 26.

Years ago we heard of a Christian talking to a Jewish Rabbi, and asking him what in their history justified God in condemning them to the disasters and miseries they suffered in Babylon. He admitted at once that it was their law-breaking and idolatry. Then, said the Christian, tell me, what have you done that justifies God in condemning you to far worse disasters and miseries, lasting from A. D. 70, to the present time, with even worse things still in prospect? It was a devastating question, and what could he say? We know what we should at once say; pointing to the Messiah crucified between two thieves.

In this prophecy the result of the cutting off of the Messiah is briefly summed up at the end of verse 26. The more immediate result was to be the destruction of the city and the sanctuary by ‘the people of the prince that shall come.’ Now this prince is the ‘little horn’, of whom we read in Dan 7:1-28, the head of the Roman Empire in its revived and last stage, whom we identified with the first ‘beast’ of Rev 13:1-18. This Roman despot is still to come, but the Roman people were the dominant power in the time of our Lord, and they did destroy Jerusalem in very thorough fashion.

That destruction was but the beginning of God’s disciplinary judgments upon them. So the prophecy moves on to ‘the end thereof’, which is to be ‘with a flood’, or ‘an overflow’, indicating, we judge, that the sorrows and persecutions that have followed the Jews through all these centuries will rise to flood-tide height just before the end. The closing words of this verse may be read, ‘unto the end, war, – the desolations determined’. Here is a state” meet, conveying volumes in a few words.

In the past nineteen centuries war has been the prominent feature. If all reference to it were cut out of our history books, there would be not much history left, and there are wars predicted, that yet have to come. But the Jew and his city are particularly in view in this prophecy, and hence we again meet with the word, ‘desolations’. Our chapter began with a reference to the 70 years’ desolations predicted by Jeremiah; now as we reach its end we find another prediction of desolations, which in length and final severity will surpass the former. So Messiah’s death was to be followed almost immediately by the destruction of Jerusalem, and ultimately, for a long period, but its length not revealed, by war and desolations.

Having mentioned the end in verse Dan 9:26, we are carried on to the events of the end in verse 27. Who is the ‘he’, with whom the verse begins? Clearly the ‘prince that shall come,’ dominating the revived Roman Empire of the last days. He is going to confirm, not ‘the covenant’ but, ‘a covenant with the many for one week’ (New Trans.). And this is evidently the one week which completes the 70 weeks of this prophecy. This covenant, we judge, will permit the Jews of that day to resume ‘the sacrifice and the oblation’ in Jerusalem, for in the midst of the week he will break the covenant, and the desolations will reach their climax.

In the New Translation the close of the verse reads, ‘because of the protection of abominations (there shall be) a desolator, even until that the consumption and what is determined shall be poured out upon the desolate’. This will be the time of the great tribulation, and the ‘desolator’ we should identify as being the ‘king of fierce countenance’, spoken of in the closing verses of Dan 8:1-27. At the end of this seventieth week Messiah will appear in power and great glory, as other scriptures show, and the ‘everlasting righteousness’, or ‘the righteousness of the ages’, will be established. His appearing will completely overthrow the desolator and completely deliver the desolate.

Thus, the day of grace, in which we are living, comes in between weeks 69 and 70. The latter part of verse Dan 9:26 shows that there is to be an undefined period at that point, marked by war and desolations as to world affairs and the Jews, but marked also by the going forth of the Gospel, as the New Testament shows. The rejection and the death of the Messiah was thus plainly predicted, with the sorrows of the world in general and of the Jew in particular, as the result of it.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

Daniel’s Prayer

Dan 9:1-19

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

Prayer should always hold a prominent place in the lives of all Christians. We are to study today the prayer of one of God’s greatest servants. As a prelude, let us seek to think on prayer for a while, considering, especially, some of the outstanding reasons for prayer.

1. Christians should pray because God asks it of them. To the Word and the Testimony: “Pray without ceasing.” “In every thing by prayer.” “Enter into thy closet, and * * pray.”

God knew that we needed to pray. He knew the vital place that prayer would hold in every phase of Christian life and service; therefore He commanded us to pray.

2. Christians should pray because God hears and answers prayer. “And thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” “Ask, and it shall be given you.” “For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

Prayer, therefore, truly brings things to pass. Where is the believer who has not experienced blessed answers to prayer? When we know that He heareth us, we will surely pour out our hearts before His throne of grace.

3. Christians should pray because prayer is a source of fellowship with the Father. Prayer may be voiced in these words: “Draw nigh unto Me.” If we draw nigh to Him, He will likewise draw nigh unto us.

Prayer really is the key that unlocks the presence chamber, where we may go to dwell in His sacred presence.

Abraham “drew near,” when he spake to the Lord in behalf of Sodom. Do you wonder, therefore, that the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do?” If we draw near, God will open unto us many of His secret things.

4. Christians should pray because prayer transforms them that are exercised thereby. “And as He prayed, the fashion of His countenance was altered.” Moses, alone with God, meant Moses with a face that radiated God’s glory.

When we, with open face, behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, we shall be changed into the same image from glory to glory.

He who walks in fellowship and prayer with Christ, will leave the place of prayer with the beauty of the Lord on his countenance and in his life.

5. Christians should pray, because prayer develops praise. Prayer is not the mere making of petitions. Suppose we ask the Lord for something and He grants our request: will we forget to praise Him when we come before Him at the next season of prayer?

Thus we read, “Enter into His gates with thanksgiving.” For our part, we would always praise Him, even before we ask a favor of His grace.

Praise magnifieth the Lord. Praise glorifies Him. Praise is comely.

6. Christians should pray because they have many needs to present before Him. Let us draw near that we may obtain grace to help in the time of need.

It is true that the Lord knoweth the things of which we stand in need, yet for all these things would He have us ask of Him, that He may do it for us. Prayer is not a mere formality, to prove to God that we have a dependent spirit. Prayer actually is effective. “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

7. Christians should pray because prayer is the secret of obtaining Divine guidance. We know not what the day may hold; we know not what to do, nor where we should go. Prayer is the place where we can get our orders. It was as they prayed and fasted that the Lord said, “Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.”

Now, with these things before us, let us follow as the prayer of Daniel is opened up before us.

I. PRAYER IS UNTO THE FATHER (Dan 9:4)

1. “I prayed unto the Lord my God.” The Lord gave the form of prayer when He said, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in Heaven.”

The right manner, then, is to address the Father. We should approach Him in sacred reverence, saying, “Hallowed be Thy Name.” Paul wrote: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” There is another wonderful verse in Ephesians which runs like this: “For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”

Thus, when we pray let us accustom ourselves unto this method of approach. Let us come to the Father by the Spirit and in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why not use the words which signify worship, the “Thee,” and the “Thou”?

2. I said, “O Lord, the great and dreadful God.” Daniel breathed a spirit of holy awe as he came into the presence of the Lord God. He seemed to come as the Spirit wrote, “The Lord is in His holy Temple: let all the earth keep silence before Him.”

We may, to be sure, come to God in all assurance; yet we should come with all honor to His Name, and in all deference to His glory. We must recognize our own weaknesses as worms of the dust, and His supreme greatness as the great God of Heaven and earth.

You remember that when Moses came to the burning bush, where God was, the Lord said, “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”

Do you remember how Abraham said, as he came to the Lord, “Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes”?

You remember how, when Jacob slept with a stone for his pillow, and when he saw the vision of the ladder and heard God speak, then Jacob was afraid and said, “This is none other but the House of God, and this is the gate of Heaven.” And he said, “How dreadful is this place.”

Let us then come into His presence with holy fear and reverence.

II. PRAYER AND CONFESSION OF SIN (Dan 9:5)

1. Daniel prayed and made his confession (Dan 9:4). Whenever we pray we must come to God with clean hands and a pure heart. Our God is a holy God and cannot receive the unholy into His guest chamber. In Isa 1:1-31 this is plainly established: “When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.”

Then follows the admonition: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well.”

2. Daniel prayed and said, “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled.” In this prayer the Prophet was confessing not his own sins alone, but also the sins of his people, Israel.

What then? If we come confessing our sins, and forsaking them, we will find mercy. God will be found faithful and just to forgive us, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Consider the poor publican who prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” I tell you he went home justified.

Whether the sin be that of an evil way, or of the failure to keep God’s precepts and statutes, it must be done away.

In James it is written: “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.”

III. PRAYER AND OBEDIENCE TO THE VOICE OF THE PROPHETS (Dan 9:6)

1. The Prophets brought God’s Word to the people. These men of old were holy men who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Their words were inspired of God. The Spirit which was in them testified the things of God.

Think you that the man who passes up the Word of God can pray acceptably unto the Father? Think you that men may on one hand be faithless to the revealed will and Word of God, and on the other hand claim, withal, the favor of God?

This is what the Spirit had in mind when He wrote that “if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.” That is, the wrestler or runner in the games must keep the rules of the game, or else he is set aside. So must we serve, obedient to the law and the testimony of God, or else we also will be castaways.

2. The Prophets spoke to the kings, the princes, the fathers, and to all the people of the land. Even so they still speak. God’s Word is not to the pastor alone. It is to all. Each one ought to obey the Word of God, and obey it implicitly. The Spirit is given to only them that obey Him.

Shall the humblest member of Christ’s Church, which is His Body, think that his is a position so lowly that the Word of God is not binding upon him? Should he not, the rather, think of the great honor that is his as a Christian? Be he the most insignificant man in the church, in his own estimation, or even in the estimation of the members of said church, he is, nevertheless, the son of God, and an heir of Glory. He is, moreover, the representative of a Heavenly court, and he ought to proclaim the glories of Him who brought him out of darkness, into his marvelous light.

Thus it is that all the people are under obligation to God to keep His precepts, and to fulfill His will.

IV. PRAYER RECOGNIZES THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD (Dan 9:7-9)

1. Righteousness belongeth unto the Lord. When Abraham prayed to God, he said: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” He was asking God not to destroy Lot along with the Sodomites, and in so doing he pleaded God’s righteousness.

Whatever we do or say we must in all events ascribe unto our God righteousness in His every act and in His every command. God is righteous, and we can always depend on His dealing righteously with all His children.

If we do not have this conception of God, we will be weak in our prayer life.

2. Confusion of faces belongs unto us. Daniel was not slow to say, “Righteousness belongeth unto Thee, but unto us confusion of faces.” Their confusion was caused by their trespasses which they had transgressed against Him. Their confusion was caused because they had sinned against Him.

Sin always brings darkness into the soul, sorrow into the life, and shadows into the path. When David had sinned, he was ashamed to face his Lord. He felt himself unworthy of the least of God’s favors. When Peter had sinned, he went out and wept bitterly; he felt that his contact with the Lord was broken.

As we grasp the righteousness of God, we the more deep-ly realize our own shame and wickedness. In the glow of His glory, we cry we are but an unclean thing.

3. Mercies and forgiveness are the Lord’s. How blessed it is, when realizing God’s righteousness, and our own sin, that we can also recognize God’s mercies and forgiveness toward us as sinners. If it were not for this we could never pray even the penitent’s prayer. Because of this, when we have sinned, we may come confessing our sins, and pleading the merits of His Blood, and find access to the Holiest of all, in Christ Jesus, by that new and living way.

V. THE CAUSE OF THE CURSE (Dan 9:10-11)

1. Disobedience is the acme of folly. Yet Daniel wrote of Israel, “Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His Laws.”

No law is worth the paper on which it is written unless there is, with the law, the penalty for disobedience. Disobedience must ever bring punishment and wrath from God.

Why, then, do men break God’s holy laws? It is because they set themselves against Him. They will not that He should reign over them.

God placed the sand as a barrier for the sea, saying to its proud waves, Thou shalt not pass thereby. The sea stays within its bounds, but vain man has revolted and gone.

2. Disobedience is lawlessness. Dan 9:11 says, “Yea, all Israel have transgressed Thy Law, even by departing, that they might not obey Thy voice.”

In John’s Epistle it is written: “Sin is the transgression of the Law.” Transgression means to go across. Men go across the Law of God, and on that Cross so formed, Christ died to sustain the majesty of the Law.

The very essence of sin is my way as against God’s way. “We have turned every one to his own way.” That is Isaiah’s expression of the meaning of sin. David said, “I acknowledge my transgressions.” He knew that he had gone across God’s Law in his sin in the case of Bathsheba.

3. Disobedience brings the curse. The latter part of verse 11 reads: “Therefore the curse is poured upon us.” This is even as it is written in Malachi, “Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from Mine ordinances, and have not kept them.” Then comes the word, “Ye are cursed with a curse.”

Perhaps if many of us who seem to be under the chastening hand of God would look around us, we might find the sin that has brought the curse.

Think you that we can escape the wrath of God if we walk not in His way, to do His will? Never, so long as “whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth.”

VI. DANIEL IS NO APOLOGIST FOR SIN (Dan 9:12-14)

1. Israel was punished more than other nations. Did not God love Israel more than any people? He did. He said, “Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God.” Not only that, but “a special people.” Yes, even more, a people upon whom God set His love. Why, then, should they reap a greater punishment than any other people? It was because they sinned against a greater light.

They had lavished upon them God’s choicest gifts; they had given to them God’s greatest deliverances. To them God gave the best of the lands of the earth. He also gave them laws of equity, and above all peoples. He made them a people above all the people on the earth. Thus, when Israel sinned, they sinned against a greater light. You have read of how our Lord said, “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Then Christ added, “I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.” Even so, he who knew His Master’s will and did it not, shall be beaten with more stripes than he who knew not his Master’s will, and did it not.

That is why Daniel said in his prayer, speaking of God’s judgments, “Under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.”

2. Israel’s sins were augmented by her knowledge of God’s judgments. Let us quote Dan 9:13 : “As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand Thy Truth.”

We are all familiar with the “blessings” and the “curse” which Moses set before Israel, and the causes of the same. Israel had sinned, although she knew that the curse would follow her sins. She was not ignorant of the path she took. Her eyes were enlightened to the evil of her ways.

Let those of us who know God, and the righteous demands of our Heavenly Father, not stray from paths of obedience, lest we suffer the more.

VII. A PLEA FOR MERCY (Dan 9:13-19)

1. A prayer plea based on past blessings. Daniel first of all reminds the Lord that He brought them out of Egypt with a mighty hand. He seems to say, Thou who hast been gracious, be gracious again.

2. A prayer plea based on the Lord’s righteousness. Daniel prayed: “O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, I beseech Thee, let Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thy city Jerusalem.” The Prophet made His plea within, and not apart from, God’s righteousness. He did not excuse Israel’s sins. He laid them bare before God. Yet he pleaded that God might, in righteousness, find some way by which He could save His people, and at the same time remove the reproach they had brought upon His holy Name.

3. A prayer plea based upon the desolation of the Lord’s Sanctuary. Daniel cried, “Cause Thy face to shine upon Thy sanctuary that is desolate.” It is always true that the sins of God’s people cause the Lord’s Name to be blasphemed. When we are wicked, we shame the Name of Him whom we are called to magnify.

No man liveth unto himself. What befalls us, befalls our God. What defiles us, falls back on Him. He is judged by the way we walk and live.

4. A prayer plea based on God’s mercies and not man’s goodness. Daniel did not suggest that he and Israel were worthy of the least of God’s blessing’s. Neither dare we parade any self-centered goodness as the basis for our plea. We come confessing our sins, and seeking His mercy. We plead: “O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for Thine own sake, O my God: for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy Name.”

AN ILLUSTRATION

Daniel was a man of prayer. The first recorded step of his prayers is found in chap. 2, where he with the three Hebrew children together besought the God of Heaven.

There is power in united prayer. Of course, there is power in the prayer of an individual, but there is vastly increased power in united prayer. God delights in the unity of His people, and seeks to emphasize it in every way, and so He pronounces a special blessing upon united prayer. We read in Mat 18:19 : “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My Father which is in Heaven.” This unity, however, must be real. The passage just quoted does not say that if two shall agree in asking, but if two shall agree as touching anything they shall ask. Two persons might agree to ask for the same thing, and yet there be no real agreement as touching the thing they asked. One might ask it because he really desired it; the other might ask it simply to please his friend. But where there is real agreement, where the Spirit of God brings two believers into perfect harmony as concerning that which they may ask of God, where the Spirit lays the same burden on two hearts, in all such prayer there is absolutely irresistible power.-R. A. Torrey.

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

Dan 9:1. Another jump is made in the chronology of dates and the prophet comes down to the year following the taking of Babylon. This is the same Darius named in Dan 5:31, who was explained to be the uncle of Cyrus the Persian, Although Cyrus was the one who actually made the successful attack upon Belshazzar and took over the city, he permitted his uncle to ascend the throne as the ruler as stated in this verse. It was in the first year of the reign of Darius that Daniel was reading the records.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

THE SEVENTY WEEKS

Thus far in Daniel we have been dealing with the prophetic history of the times of the Gentiles, but now we return to that of his own people, the Jews.

Note the time and circumstances, Dan 9:1-2. The prophet is studying such books of the Old Testament as he possessed, especially Jeremiah, and knows the seventy years captivity nears its end, therefore he is moved to offer one of the most notable prayers in the Bible. This prayer is divisible into confession, Dan 9:3-15, and supplication, Dan 9:16-19, and it is remarkable that in the former, holy man as Daniel was, he includes himself as a partaker in the national sins. It is equally remarkable that his supplication is based on desire for Gods glory, Dan 9:17-18. Israel has no merit to claim, but the Lords honor is at stake. We have seen this before in the prayers of the patriarchs, the prophets and the psalmists, and we need to keep its lesson in mind.

GABRIELS VISIT (Dan 9:20-23)

What mystery is shrouded in these verses! The nearness of heaven, the interest of God in the petition of His people, the nature and ministry of angels, the divine estimate of the saints, who can fathom these things?

ANSWER TO THE PRAYER (Dan 9:24-27)

Weeks, Dan 9:24, might be translated sevens, but whether is meant sevens of days, or weeks, or months or years must be determined by the context. The context points to years. Seventy sevens of years, i.e., 490 years, are decreed upon Israel and the city of Jerusalem is the sense of the first phrase of this verse. At the close of this period six things shall have

been accomplished for that people. In other words, Gabriels message is not merely an answer to Daniels prayer about the return from the seventy years captivity, but a revelation of the entire future of Israel from the end of that captivity to the end of the present age. This is evident from the nature of the six things mentioned:

1. To finish the transgression

2. To make an end of sins

3. To make reconciliation for iniquity

4. To bring in everlasting righteousness

5. To seal up the vision and prophecy

6. To anoint the Most Holy

The first three of the above refer to a time still future, for Israels transgression is not yet finished, nor her sins ended, nor her iniquity covered. The time, therefore, is that spoken of by all the prophets, and especially named in Zec 13:1 and Rom 11:26-27. This is the time, moreover, when everlasting righteousness shall be brought in, otherwise the blessings of the millennial age. The vision and prophecy will be sealed then, in the sense that their final accomplishment in the history of Gods earthly people shall have taken place. The most holy place will be anointed then in the new temple to be erected, as we saw in Ezekiel.

THE DIVISION OF THE SEVENS

From the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, Dan 9:25. This is the first of three divisions in this period of 490 years, and covers forty-nine years, seven weeks of years equalling that number. This division begins to be counted from the going forth of the commandment to build Jerusalem, which, it is commonly thought, means the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who gave that authority to Nehemiah, in the month Nisan (Nehemiah 2). Historically, this was 454 B.C. During this period of forty-nine years the street and wall were built again even in troublous times.

But to this period of seven weeks, or forty-nine years, is added another of three-score and two weeks, or 434 years, a total of 483 years, unto the Messiah the Prince, i.e., until Messiah be cut off, Dan 9:26.

Observe that this period extends not merely to the birth but to the death of Christ, when He is cut off, but not for Himself. It is now admitted that our Lord was crucified April A.D. 32, and those competent in such calculations show that this was precisely 483 years of 360 days each, allowing for leap years, changes in the Julian and Gregorian calendars and matters of that sort. That the Messiah was cut off, but not for Himself, has been translated, and there shall be nothing for Him which probably means that He did not then receive the messianic Kingdom.

Anstey maintains that the point of departure for the seventy weeks is the first year of Cyrus. However the outcome is not different so far as the fulfillment of the prophecy is concerned, as the calculation in the other case is based, in his judgment, on an error of eighty-two years in the Ptolemaic chronology.

And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans under Titus, A.D. 70. The Romans are the people of the prince that shall come, but this prince himself is identical, not with the Messiah, but with the little horn of Daniel 7, the terrible despot who will be at the head of the restored empire at the end of this age.

THE END PERIOD

We now come to the last of the seventy sevens, or the closing seven years of this age. In other words, there is a long ellipsis between the close of the sixty-ninth and the beginning of the seventieth week, indeed, the whole of the Christian age, of which more will be said later.

The events of the seventieth week begin with the words and the end thereof shall be with a flood, which should be, as in the RV, his end, not the end, for the allusion is still to the prince that shall come, i.e., the Antichrist. The word flood also might be rendered overflowing, which is doubtless the same overflowing as in Israel 10:22 and as that of the final crisis of Israels history at the end of the age. The interval until this time will be characterized by war and desolation (compare Mat 24:3-8).

And he, i.e., the prince that shall come, shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. The many refers to the people of Israel then to be in their own land, but still in an unconverted state as far as the acceptance of Jesus as their Messiah is concerned. It will be to the mutual interest of the little horn, i.e., the Antichrist, and Israel to enter into this covenant for seven years. There will be a faithful remnant, however, who will not bow the knee to him the covenant will be made with man but not all (compare Isaiah 25:15).

He will break this covenant after three and one-half years and cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, no longer permitting them to worship God in their newly-erected temple. Now begins their great tribulation, a time and times and the division of time named in Dan 8:25 (compare Rev 13:5; Rev 13:11-17).

The latter part of this verse has been translated thus: And upon the wing [or pinnacle] of abominations [shall be] that which causeth desolation, even until the consummation and that determined shall be poured out upon the desolator.

The abominations are doubtless idols that shall be set up by this wicked prince to be worshipped in the temple, when the true God has been set aside. The consummation comes and with it the judgment and desolation of the desolator.

QUESTIONS

1. With whose history are we dealing in this lesson?

2. What great feature marks the prayers of Gods people in the Bible?

3. What are some of the suggestions growing out of Gabriels visit?

4. What period of time is covered by the seventy weeks?

5. To what place and people does this period apply?

6. Name the six important things which will be accomplished in the people at its close.

7. When does this period begin and end?

8. Divide it into its three parts.

9. What event is identified with the first part?

10. With what event does part two close?

11. Explain the allusion to the prince that shall come.

12. What age intervenes between the last two parts?

13. Tell what you know about the covenant of Dan 9:27.

SUPPLEMENT ON BIBLE CHRONOLOGY

The last lesson referred to the lapse of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks, and as other lapses have been noted in the sacred chronology, it is desirable to devote a lesson to that subject.

CYCLES OF YEARS

To take an illustration, Gods dealings with Israel are in cycles of 490 years: (1) the period from Abram to Exodus was 490 years, plus the fifteen years during which the bondwoman and her child (Hagar and Ishmael) dominated in Abrams tent, which are not counted; (2) the period from Exodus to the dedication of Solomons temple was 490 years, plus the 131 years of captivity in the time of the Judges, which are not counted; (3) from the dedication to the return from Babylon was 490 years, plus the seventy years of that capacity not counted; and (4) from the return from Babylon to the beginning of the millennial age is 490 years, plus the dispensation in which Israel is dispersed, which is not counted.

WHEN GOD DOES NOT COUNT TIME

Prophetically speaking, God does not count time with reference to Israel while she is in captivity, or dispersion, or dominated by another nation. In evidence of this, note that 1Ki 6:1 mentions the fourth year of Solomon as being 480 years after the Exodus. But we know from Num 14:33 that they were forty years in the wilderness; then, according to the Book of Joshua, they were thirty-seven years in conquering Canaan and up until the period of the Judges; Act 13:20 shows that they were 450 years under the Judges; then they were forty years under Saul (Act 13:21), and forty years under David (1Sa 5:4-5). These periods total 607 years, to which should be added the four years of Solomon referred to, totalling 611 years.

How shall we explain this discrepancy, of which infidels and others have made so much? The answer has been stated above, that God does not count time prophetically while Israel is in captivity. For example, seven captivities are mentioned in the Book of Judges, one of eight years (3:8); eighteen years (3:14); twenty years (4:3); seven years (6:1); eighteen years (10:8); forty years (13:1), and twenty years (1Sa 7:2), making a total of precisely 131 years. The above is a sufficient illustration of the principle.

We close this lesson with a rough diagram of the 490 years covered by Dan 9:24-27, which may aid in memorizing that important prediction:

Seventy Sevens: 490 Years. From the twentieth year of Artaxerxes to the end of this age.

7 weeks, or 49 years.62 weeks, or 434 years.The Uncounted Period1 week, or 7 years.

The street and wall of Jerusalem builtAt the close of this period the Messiah is cut off and has nothing. A.D. 32.1. Jerusalem destroyed, A.D. 2. Jews dispersed 3. Jerusalem trodden down 4. The church called out. 5. Apostasy of Christendom. 6. Jews in part return to Jerusalem in unbelief. 7. Coming of Christ for the Church.1. The Roman prince, or little horn in covenant with the Jews. 2. The covenant broken in the midst of the week. 3. The great tribulation begins. 4. Antichrist in power. 5. Christ appears to deliver Israel.

QUESTIONS

1. What is peculiar to the chronology of the Bible?

2. What appears to be the central date between creation and the Cross?

3. How are Gods dealings with Israel chronologically identified?

4. Name some of the cycles referred to.

5. When does God not reckon time prophetically in the case of Israel?

6. Can you illustrate this?

7. Name the chief events tied to the four time periods in the following diagram.

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

Dan 9:1-2. In the first year of Darius That is, immediately after the overthrow of the kingdom of Babylon, which was the year of the Jews deliverance from captivity. This Darius was not Darius the Persian, under whom the temple was built, as some have asserted, to invalidate the credibility of this book; but Darius the Mede, who lived in the time of Daniel, and is called Cyaxares, the son of Astyages, by the heathen historians: see note on chap. Dan 6:1. In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books, &c. Namely, by the several prophecies of Jer 25:11-12; Jer 29:10, which are called so many books: see Jer 25:13; Jer 30:2. We may learn from hence, that the later prophets studied the writings of those prophets who were before them, especially for the more perfect understanding of the times when their prophecies were to be fulfilled. The same they did by several of their own prophecies. That he would accomplish seventy years, &c. Concerning the time from whence these seventy years are to be dated, see note on Jer 25:11-12. Daniel saw a part of Jeremiahs prediction fulfilled, by the vengeance which the Lord had taken upon the house of Nebuchadnezzar; but he saw no appearance of that deliverance of the Jews which the prophet foretold. This was the cause of his uneasiness, and the motive of his prayers.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Dan 9:1. In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus. He is also called Cyaxares, the son of Astyages. His father was called by the jews, Ahasuerus. See on Esther.

Dan 9:2. I Daniel understood by books, by Jeremiah, and confirmed by Ezekiel, that the seventy years of the captivity were accomplished. This passage proves how prophecies, even in those irreligious times, were valued by good men, and how widely the writings of the prophets were circulated. Why then should Rome keep the bible from the people? It is like forcing the people to keep their windows closed against the sun which brings us light, and health, and joy.

Dan 9:3. I set my face to the Lord God, to seek him by fasting, by prayer, and by confession of sin. The Spirit of God inspired the prophet with this prayer, that he might hear it.

Dan 9:21. Even the man Gabriel, the archangel who came as a man, and who had revealed the dream of the four monarchies: chap. 7. This is the same heavenly messenger that appeared to Zachariah, and made the annunciation to the virgin Mary. Luk 1:11; Luk 1:26. The church has this glory, that an innumerable company of angels are ever watching over her for good. More are they that are for us, than all those that are against us.

Dan 9:24. Seventy weeks are determined. This revelation has ever been regarded as the sheet anchor of the christian religion, because it fixes the time when Christ should come. Jews and christians are equally divided in calculating the seventy weeks of Daniel; and no wonder, as Beroaldus observes, seeing the pagan historians respecting the Persian empire so constantly and grossly contradict one another. Xenophon makes Astyages the last but one of the Median kings, but Herodotus says he was the last. Xenophon relates that Astyages died in peace when Cyrus was very young, leaving the kingdom to his son Cyaxares; whereas Herodotus affirms that Cyrus subdued Astyages. Xenophon says that the father of Cyrus was one of the princes of Persia, descended from Perseus, and that he received a princely education; but Herodotus makes him the son of one Cambyses, of ignoble birth, and brought up with a shepherd. Xenophon allows no more than eleven years for Cyruss reign, Herodotus twenty nine. The former makes him die peaceably on his bed, the latter says he was slain in a war against Tomyris, queen of the Massaget.

Hence, as this point of the seventy weeks can never be exactly settled for want of evidence in early historians, we should rest satisfied that the jews who lived in our Saviours time really did believe that those weeks were accomplished. Dr. Lightfoot suggests, that the multitude went out to be baptized by John, in expectation of the Messiahs kingdom.

There were four commands or edicts issued to rebuild the city and temple of Jerusalem; but the temple was not begun till the prophet Haggai had reproved the jews for building themselves ceiled houses, and for neglecting the house of God. The last edict was in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, and from that date most christians compute the commencement of Daniels weeks up to the crucifixion of our blessed Lord. And Ptolemys table does not go much beyond this time, nor has the difference any weight, when opposed to the expectation of the jews, those devout men out of every nation under heaven, who really at that time did expect the Messiah. Professor G. Strauchius, of the university of Wirtemburg, has written well upon this subject. I will gratify the rigorous enquirer with the substance of his arguments.

We read, says this learned divine, of four edicts concerning the restoration of the jews, and the rebuilding of the temple and city, in the holy scripture. The first is in Ezr 1:1-3. In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, (that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled) the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 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 a 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. The same words we read also in 2Ch 36:22-23, pursuant to the prophecies of Isaiah in chap. 45.

The second edict concerning this restitution is described likewise by Ezr 6:7-12. This which was issued by Darius in the same year that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah began to prophesy to the governors beyond the river, contains the following words. Let the work of this house of God alone. Let the governor of the jews, and the elders of the jews build this house of God in his place. Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon, and let his house be made a dunghill for this; and the God that hath caused his name to dwell there, destroy all kings and people that shall put their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I, Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed. And the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah cited by Ezra, mention expressly the second year of Darius, and the month. For thus we read in Hag 1:1; Hag 1:8. In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech the highpriest, saying, thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Go up to the mountain and bring wood, and build the house, and I will be glorified, saith the Lord. The same mandate is repeated by Zechariah in Zec 1:1. In the eighth month of the same second year of Darius, then, pursuant to Gods commandment, and the decree of the Persian king, the work was happily brought to perfection, according to the words of Ezra: Ezr 6:15-16. And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king: and the children of Israel, the priests and the levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house with joy.

The third edict is likewise described by Ezr 7:6. This Ezra went up from Babylon, and the king granted him all his requests, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him. And there went up some of the children of Israel, and of the priests, the levites, the singers, the porters, and the Nethinims, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king. And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king. This decree of Artaxerxes grants full liberty to the jews to return to Jerusalem, and exempts all the priests, levites, and other ministers of the house of God from toll, tribute, or custom.

The fourth edict concerned particularly Nehemiah, Ezr 7:13-24, who in the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, got leave to go to Jerusalem with the kings letter to the governors beyond the river, and to Asaph the keeper of the kings forests, that he should give the jews timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertaineth to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house he was to enter into, as may be seen more at large in Neh 2:1-9. These are the four several mandates concerning the restoration of the jews, and the rebuilding of the temple and city, to one of which the beginning of these seventy weeks must be fixed.

There are not a few, both among the ancient and modern interpreters, who would have this epoch of the seventy weeks begin from the time of the edict of Cyrus, of which mention is made in Ezr 1:1, and in 2Ch 36:23. Among the ancients, Clement of Alexandria patronizes this opinion before all others; and of the modern authors, David Parus, Constantine L Empereur, and Johannes Wichmannus, especially Matthus Beroaldus, and Hugh Broughton, an Englishman. To this opinion also the Dutch interpreters seem to incline, as appears out of their original Annotations, but without any probability of truth. For supposing with Beroaldus, that Christ suffered in the thirty third year of his age, in the fourth year of the two hundred and second olympiad, in the year seven hundred and eighty four from the building of the city of Rome, in the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, and in the year of the world 3961. Supposing, I say, that according to the synchronisms of Beroaldus, Christ suffered in the year of the Julian period 4745, the beginning of these seventy weeks, and (according to the hypothesis of Beroaldus) the solution of the Babylonian captivity of the jews must be coincident with the year of the Julian period 4255, when Cyrus was dead; the interval from the beginning of the Babylonian epoch of Cyrus till the eighteenth year of the reign of the emperor Tiberius, comprehending no less than five hundred and sixty nine years, as most evidently appears out of the following table of Ptolemy. But no positive dependence can be placed in this table, because it reckons the reign of Persian, Syrian, Egyptian, and Roman princes in regular succession.

PTOLEMYS TABLE.

Years.

Cyrus reigned 9

Cambyses 8

Darius 1. 36

Xerxes 21

Artaxerxes 1. 41

Darius 2. 19

Artaxerxes 2. 46

Ochus 21

Arostus 2

Darius 3. 4

Alexander the Great 8

Philippus Aridus 7

Alexander 12

Ptolemus Lagus 20

Ptolemus Philippians 38

Evergetes 25

Philopater 17

Epiphanus 24

Philomater 35

Evergetes 2. 29

Soter 36

Dionysius 29

Cleopatra 22

Augustus 43

Tiberius 17

Total = 569

One of the main questions, and the most difficult to be resolved belonging to this point is, which of the three Dariuses is to be understood by that Darius mentioned by Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra. It is well known that the first Darius is commonly surnamed Hystaspes, the second Nothus, and the third Codomanus. Concerning the last, it is put beyond all dispute by the consent of all the chronologers, that he had not the least share in this decree or edict; but about the two first, the most learned interpreters are very different in their opinions. Josephus, Antiq. lib. 9. cap. 4, refers this edict to Darius Hystaspes, who being put in mind by Zerubbabel of his promise, before he was king, of rebuilding the city and temple of Jerusalem, and to restore all the vessels and utensils carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon, he joyfully granted his request, commanding his governors to conduct him and his followers safely to Jerusalem, to perfect the structure of the temple, and ordering those of Phnicia and Syria to furnish them with cedars from mount Lebanon. But though archbishop Usher stands up in defence of the opinion of Josephus, yet his relation renders the whole very dubious: for he describes this edict as an effect of the marriage between Darius Hystaspes and Esther. On the other hand, there are very strong motives which induce belief, that the edict for the rebuilding of the temple was made by Darius Nothus in the second year of his reign. 1. Because it must be understood of the reign of the same Darius, when the jews lived in ceiled houses, and the temple laid waste, which was the reason they were afflicted with a general scarcity. Hag 1:4; Hag 2:16. Now, there being but twelve years betwixt the edict of Cyrus and the second year of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, it seems very improbable that in so short a time, especially under the reign of Cambyses, the jews should have built themselves ceiled houses, and have quite laid aside that zeal they had so lately shown in contributing cheerfully towards the rebuilding of the temple. Ezr 2:68.

2. It is to be understood of the reign of the same Darius, under whose auspicious reign the jews, after they had endured a great deal of misery, began to enjoy the benefit of a more peaceable state, pursuant to the words of God in Zec 8:11-13. But now I will not be unto the residue of this people as in the former days, saith the Lord of hosts. For the seed shall be more prosperous, the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her encrease, and the heavens shall give their dew, and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things. And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, oh house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing.

3. The above cited passages are to be understood of the same Darius who lived and reigned many years after the solution of the Babylonian captivity, it being evident from Ezr 5:6, that the Persian nobles had not the least remembrance of the edict published in behalf of the jews by Cyrus; for which reason it was that they were obliged to search the royal records. But this appears in nowise agreeable to the reign of Darius Hystaspes, there being but a few years betwixt the beginning of the reign of Cyrus and that of this Darius, who was probably one of the chief Persian lords under Cyrus. But this being applied to the reign of Darius 2. surnamed Nothus, there remains not the least difficulty, there being betwixt Cyrus and Darius Nothus above a hundred years. In confirmation of this may be alleged the words of Rupertus,, cap. 5:6, formerly professor in the university of Altorf. If it was Darius Hystaspes that granted leave to the jews to rebuild the temple; how is it possible that the edict of Cyrus, concerning the restoration of the jews, could be so entirely forgotten? For Darius Hystaspes was one of the principal Persian lords under Cyrus; and yet this same Darius is obliged to have recourse to the records. Nehemiah was forced to inspect the genealogies of those that returned with Zerubbabel, when at the time of Darius Hystaspes there were living among them such as were able to give an account of their own descent. What can be more absurd? When we therefore read of Darius, that he ordered the records to be searched; and of Nehemiah, that he was obliged to inspect the genealogies; we may rationally conclude with Scaliger, that the edict of Cyrus was not a thing of a late date, at that time when Darius was petitioned about the rebuilding of the temple; and that consequently it could not be Darius Hystaspes who was coetaneous with Cyrus, but Darius Nothus, who granted liberty to the jews to rebuild the temple.

4. The words in Haggai and Zechariah are to be understood of the same Darius who was at least the third after Cyrus, it being evident from the following words of Ezr 4:5-7, that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes reigned betwixt Cyrus and this Darius; and that under both their reigns the building of the temple was obstructed. These are his words. And the people of the land hired counsellors against the people of Judah, to frustrate their purpose all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, even unto the reign of Darius king of Persia. And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia, and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue. And in the seventeenth and following verses of the same chapter may be read the answer of Artaxerxes, forbidding the rebuilding of the temple. But betwixt Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes there reigned but one lawful king, which was Cambyses; wherefore the words of Ezra, both in this passage and in Ezr 6:1-15, cannot be understood of the son of Hystaspes. Whereas on the other hand, Darius Nothus having reigned betwixt the two Artaxerxes, to wit, Artaxerxes Longimanus, and Artaxerxes Mnemon, all the circumstances of the holy text concur for his reign.

Notwithstanding the unquestionable perspicuity of this argument, Dionysius Petavius found out another objection against Scaliger, which has been embraced and promoted by some of his followers. Among the rest, Periculi has the following words. This Cambyses, this Smerdis, the son of Cyrus, either true or supposititious, we believe to have been the same with Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes mentioned in the scriptures; as appears out of the words of Dan 11:2, That after Cyrus till the time of Artaxerxes there reigned three kings over Persia; which would not be agreeable to the catalogue of the Persian kings, if Smerdis were not numbered among them. The objection that there is to the congruity betwixt Artaxerxes and Cambyses, and Ahasuerus and Smerdis, is of little moment. For Cambyses and Smerdis were their names when they lived yet in a private condition, or perhaps were their surnames, which afterwards, when they attained the royal dignity, were changed and transmuted into those of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. So according to Josephus, lib. 11. cap. 6, the son of Xerxes was by his father called Cyrus, by the Greeks Artaxerxes, and in the scriptures Ahasuerus; and if we may rely upon the testimony of Sedar Olam Rabba, the Persians called all their kings Artaxerxes.

Those who would have Darius, mentioned in Ezra and by the other prophets, to have been the son of Hystaspes, are in no wise agreeable to the true computation of the history. And to make Artaxerxes the same with Cambyses, and Ahasuerus the same with Smerdis, is an unaccountable way of arguing. It is undeniable, that among the Persian kings there was a supposititious or Pseudo-Smerdis; but that he should be the same Ahasuerus mentioned in scripture, is contrary to truth, it being manifest out of Herodotus, that this Magus reigned only a few months; which time he bestowed in settling himself in the throne which he had usurped, not in oppressing the jews. And what is related of Ahasuerus in the book of Esther, has very little or no relation to the Pseudo-Smerdis, this impostor having never appeared in public during his short reign. It is also very evident from all the circumstances of the original text in Ezra, that in those ancient times, all the Persian kings were called Artaxerxes, Artasastas, or Ahasuerus.

There are likewise some who maintain, that Ezra did by Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus understand one and the same king of Persia, contrary to the tenor of the sacred history, which assigns them not only different names, but also different actions. Under the reign of Ahasuerus divers accusations were brought against the jews, but without success; whereas in the time of Artaxerxes the jews were, pursuant to a royal mandate, publicly opposed in the building of the temple by their enemies.

5. If, according to our opinion, by this Darius is to be understood Darius Nothus, and the beginning of these seventy annual weeks be fixed in the second year of his reign, this interval, as described by the angel Gabriel, will by a just computation, founded upon undeniable chronological characters, amount exactly to four hundred and ninety years, till the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Wherefore we conclude with the words of Scaliger, lib. 7. p. 591, It is very apparent that this Darius, in the second year of whose reign the rebuilding of the temple was begun afresh, must be Darius Nothus, who reigned betwixt the two Artaxerxes, viz. Artaxerxes Machrocire or Longimanus, and Artaxerxes Mnemon or Memor. The predecessor of Artaxerxes Longimanus could be no other person but Xerxes, who is called Oxyares in the scripture, which was his name before he obtained the royal dignity.

Those who differ from us in opinion concerning this Darius mentioned by Ezra, make, among others, this objection, that our hypothesis is not agreeable to the age of Zerubbabel and Joshua. But this objection is answered very succinctly by Joshua Scaliger, lib. 6. p. 603. They make, says he, this objection; because from the time of the edict of Cyrus, when Zerubbabel and Joshua were sent to Jerusalem, till the second year of the reign of Darius Nothus, are less or more one hundred and six years. And say they, how could they be living after one hundred and six years? But for my part I see no great occasion why they should so much wonder at it, there being no want of examples in the holy scripture, that several persons, especially those whom God had chosen as instruments to rule his church and people, have lived above one hundred and thirty years. And do we not see in our age some who attain to the age of a hundred and twenty years, and are in their full senses?

But what is most remarkable, is, that Petavius, who is the main champion against our and Scaligers opinion, and looks upon the age of Zerubbabel as a thing very improbable, is very liberal in attributing at least the same age to Sanballat. For Petavius, lib. 13., himself makes Nehemiahs journey into Palestine coincident with the 4259th year of the Julian period; and it is evident from Nehemiah 4., that the beforementioned Sanballat flourished about the same time. Now, according to Petaviuss own hypothesis, Alexander besieged Tyrus in the year of the Julian period 4382; so that from the time of Nehemiahs journey into Palestine, when Sanballat flourished, till the taking of Tyrus after a siege of seven months, are to be accounted one hundred and twenty three years. For the beforenamed Sanballat assisted in the siege of Tyrus, and died not long after in Alexanders camp in the siege of Gaza, as may be seen more at large in Josephus, lib. 12. cap. 8. From whence it is evident, that supposing this Sanballat but twenty seven years old at the time of Nehemiahs journey into Palestine, he was one hundred and fifty years old when he died, and consequently Petavius contradicts his own opinion. But there is something peculiar in the age of Zerubbabel and Joshua, which is so far from carrying with it the least improbability, that long life was promised as a particular benefit from God, to all such as should return from the Babylonian captivity, according to Zec 8:4. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, there shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age. Many examples might be produced of such persons as have lived to a great age, in Scaligers behalf. But for the sake of brevity we are willing to pass them by in silence, and refer the reader to other historians.

Those who are not pleased with Scaligers chronological computation allege, among other matters, that the following passage in Zec 1:12, contradicts his hypothesis concerning Darius. Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, oh Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years. From whence they draw the following consequencethat since from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, till the second year of Darius Nothus, are elapsed above seventy years, the restoration of the temple is not to be referred to that kings reign. But Scaligers answer is, that this passage of Zechariah is as little agreeable to their opinion concerning Darius Hystaspes, since these seventy years differ as well from the time of Darius Hystaspes as from the second year of Darius Nothus. He adds therefore, that those seventy years of which mention is made by the angel in Zechariah, begin about the twenty ninth or thirtieth year of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, when the jews were sorely oppressed by their enemies, and their condition grew worse after the death of the said Darius, about the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, as may be seen more at large in Ezr 4:5.

To finish the transgression. lecallai. Theodotians version, with all the various readings, is now before me, and he follows the LXX, . This reading is nearly as the English, only the Greek prefix syn, marks the full and complete expiation of sin. Liv. 16. Chrysostom has the same remark on the prefix to the word self-denial in the gospel, as equivalent to the injunction that a man should deny himself altogether. pesha, French, pch, sin, crime, transgression. What more can we ask? What greater consummation can we have? Why then should our arians and socinians still give us trouble by reading, To restrain transgression? This rendering, borrowed from Grotius, cohibendo, is illusive and false. Let the English reader refer to places where the word callai occurs, and it will demonstrate the idea, that Christ hath put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and shut and covered it up in his grave. Zedekiah, it is said, shut up Jeremiah in prison. Jer 32:3. They shut up the calves of the cows that drew the ark. 1Sa 6:10. I am shut up, said David, and cannot come forth. Psa 88:8. Ahab said of Micaiah, put this fellow in prison. 1Ki 22:27. The heaven over you is stayed from dew, and the earth is stayed from fruit. Hag 1:10. The preaching of the gospel did not restrain the jews from sin; they filled up the measure of their iniquity by the blood of the saints, as Daniel had foretold in Dan 9:26-27.

The second blessing of the Messiahs coming is, the consummation of his great sacrifice for the sin of the world. Such is the force of the word lechatam; he sealed, he finished on the high altar of the cross, the propitiatory oblation of his body for the sin of the world. He has consequently abolished in his flesh the enmity of ordinances in the ceremonial law, a yoke revolting to the jews, and insupportable to the gentiles. Eph 2:15.

The third blessing is reconciliation, as the Mediator between God and men, as the prophet had foretold. Isa 53:10, 2Co 5:18. Col 1:20.

The fourth blessing is everlasting righteousness, described in the following passages. Jer 23:6. Rom 3:4. Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength. This is literally the righteousness of ages, lasting as the kingdom of God.

The fifth blessing is the obsignation, or sealing up of the vision and prophecy, by fulfilling all the figures of the law, and all that the prophets had foretold. The Mosaic economy lasted till the mission of John. Mat 11:13. After that there was no need of farther visions respecting the glory of his person, he being come the great High Priest, and the light of the world.

The sixth blessing is the anointing of the Most Holy. Literally, the holy of holies, the church of which he is the head. To him the Spirit was given without measure; and on all his members he sheds it down according to his good pleasure. He dwells in the church, of which the temple was a figure, in all the glory of the only-begotten of the Father.

Dan 9:25. From the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. Archbishop Usher reckons the whole of the seventy weeks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes; but here Daniel divides that period into three; seven weekssixty two weeksand one week. Dr. Lightfoot allots the seven weeks, or forty nine years, for the building of the temple; and the one week, or seven years, from the commencement of Johns ministry to the crucifixion.

Dan 9:26. After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. From this text, Tertullian argues against the jews, that the Messiah must be really come, and must have been cut off one hundred and sixty years prior to his writing at the close of the second century; and no rabbi of that age had confidence to refute him. The people of the prince, the Romans shall come, as stated in Deu 28:49-52.

Dan 9:27. For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate. The prophets when contemplating distant objects are always laconic. Montanus reads, and upon the wing of abomination exciting stupefaction. The abominations in the temple brought the Roman eagles with swift wings to desecrate the city and temple, conformably to the determinate counsel of God, that the once holy place should, like Babylon and Nineveh, be desolate till the times of the gentiles should be fulfilled. The ruins of that sanctuary should be warnings to christians against Israels sins.

REFLECTIONS.

What a view of futurity now opened on the prophets mind. How his eyes rolled on judgment, on grace, and on glory. What an admission of a mortal man into the councils and communion of his Maker. Ah, poor Milton, thine access was an intrusion, but Daniel was an invited guest.

Above all, what rocks, what refuges are these predictions for the church, against the puns and sneers of a wicked age. The blaspheming sons of science are all in the labyrinth, while the christian walks at large with the lamp of revelation in one hand, and the shield of faith in the other.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Dan 9:1. Darius: Dan 5:31*.

Dan 9:2. Jeremiah the prophet: the reference is to the prophecies in Jer 25:11 f; Jer 29:10. Daniel is distressed by the apparent failure of these prophecies and seeks to discover an explanation.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

PRAYER AND CONFESSION

Daniel 9

In common with the other prophecies of Daniel, the ninth chapter takes us on to the future, bringing before us the destiny of Jerusalem. But, it does more, for it shows the connection between the revival of God’s people in Daniel’s day and the judgment coming upon Jerusalem in a latter day that will end the time of her desolations.

Daniel is instructed that, though a remnant of God’s people may be restored to the Land, and the Temple and City rebuilt in his day, as recorded in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, yet this revival by no means ends the captivity of Israel, nor delivers Jerusalem from Gentile oppression. There are yet sorrows for God’s earthly people, and desolations for His city, before the end is reached.

As the prophet, Daniel has seen visions and received revelations of the future, now we are to see him as the intercessor on behalf of God’s people, and, in answer to his prayer and supplication, receiving instruction as to the mind of God.

Verses 1 and 2 give the occasion that called forth the prayer.

Verses 3 to 6 record Daniel’s confession of the sin and failure of God’s people.

Verses 7 to 15 set forth his vindication of God in all the governmental chastening that had come upon the people.

Verses 16 to 19 present his supplication to God for mercy on behalf of the people of God.

Verses 20 to 27 bring before us God’s gracious answer to Daniel’s prayer, whereby he is made to understand the mind of God in word and vision.

(a) The occasion of the prayer (Vv. 1, 2).

(V. 1). Sixty-eight years had passed since Daniel had been taken captive at the fall of Jerusalem. Daniel had seen the rise and fall of Babylon, the first great world empire. Persia, the second world empire, had come to the front. In this kingdom Daniel held a high position of authority over the princes of the empire. But, neither the exalted office that he held, nor the engrossing affairs of state, could for one moment dim his ardent love for God’s people, or his faith in God’s word concerning His people.

(V. 2). We have seen that Daniel was a man of prayer; now we learn that he was also a student of Scripture. Though himself a prophet, he is ready to listen to other inspired prophets of God and learn the mind of God from books of Scripture. Thus, as he reads the prophet Jeremiah, he discovers that, after the fall of Jerusalem in the days of Jehoiakim, the land of Israel would be desolate for seventy years, and at the end of the seventy years the king of Babylon would come under judgment and the land of Chaldea become desolate (Jer 25:1; Jer 25:11-12). Moreover, Daniel learns that, not only would Babylon come under judgment, but that the LORD had said to Jeremiah, “that after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place” (Jer 29:10-14).

Daniel makes this important discovery in the first year of Darius. The actual return, we know, took place two years later in the first year of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1). At the moment there could have been nothing in passing events to warrant the hope of a return. That God would visit His people in captivity, and open a way for them to return to their land, he discovers “by books,” not by circumstances. He has just seen the destruction of the king of Babylon and the fall of his empire, but he does not speculate upon the stirring events taking place around him and seek to draw from them conclusions favourable to God’s people. He is guided in his understanding “by books” – God’s word – whether the circumstances appear to favour the predictions of God or otherwise.

The word of God is the true key to prophecy. We are not left to explain prophecies by passing circumstances, nor to await the fulfilment of prophecies in order to interpret them.

(b) Daniel’s confession of the sin of God’s people. (Vv. 3-6).

(V. 3). The immediate effect of learning from the word that God is about to visit His people is to turn Daniel to God. He does not go to his fellow-captives with the good news, but he draws near to God, as he says, “I set my face unto the Lord God.” As another has said, “He has communion with God about that which he receives from God.” The result is that he sees the true character of the moment, and the moral condition of the people, and acts in a way that is suited for the moment.

God is about to stay His chastening hand and grant a little reviving to His people. Nevertheless, Daniel is not elated, nor does he turn to the people with shouting and praise. On the contrary, seeing the true significance of the moment, he turns to God “by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes,” and he makes confession to the LORD his God.

Well acquainted with the Scriptures, Daniel looks back over one thousand years since God delivered His people from the bondage of Egypt (verse 15). He sees that this period has been one long history of failure and rebellion. Already he has been permitted to look into the future and see that failure and suffering still await the people of God (Dan. 7, 8). He has learned, too, that there will be no complete deliverance for God’s people until the Son of Man comes and sets up His kingdom.

To sum up, he sees the past marked by failure, the future dark with the prediction of deeper sorrows and greater failure, and no hope of deliverance for the people of God as a whole until the King comes. In the presence of these truths Daniel was deeply affected, his thoughts troubled him, his countenance was changed, and he fainted and was sick certain days (Dan 7:28; Dan 8:27).

But Daniel made another discovery. He learned from Scripture, that, in spite of all past failure and all future disaster, God had foretold that there would be a little reviving in the midst of the years.

In all this we cannot but see a correspondence between our own day and that in which Daniel lived. We can look back over centuries of the failure of the Church in responsibility. We know from Scripture that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,” and very soon that which professes the Name of Christ upon the earth will be spued out of His mouth. We know, too, that nothing but the coming of Christ will bring the people of God together again, and end all the sorrowful history of failure. But we also know that in the midst of all the failure, the Lord has definitely said there will be a Philadelphian revival of a few who, in the midst of the corruption of Christendom, will be found in great weakness, seeking to keep His word and not deny His Name.

Daniel, in his prayer and confession, shows the spirit which should mark those who, in his day or in our own, desire to answer to the open door of deliverance that God sets before His people.

(V. 4). Turning to God in confession, Daniel gets a deep sense of the greatness, holiness and faithfulness of God. Moreover, he realises that God is true to His word and, if His people will only cherish His Name and keep His word, they will find mercy.

(Vv. 5, 6). With a true sense of the greatness of God before his soul, Daniel at once discerns the low condition of the people. God has been faithful to His covenant, but the people have departed from the precepts and judgments of God. He recognises that this low moral condition lies at the root of all the division and scattering that have come in among the people of God. He does not seek to place the blame for the division and scattering upon certain individuals, who may indeed have acted in a high-handed manner and perverted the truth and led many into error. This, we know, was the case with the kings, priests and false prophets. But, looking beyond the failure of individuals, he sees, and owns, the failure of God’s people as a whole. He says, “We have sinned . . . our kings, our princes, our fathers, and . . . all the people of the land.” Personally Daniel had no direct part in bringing about the scattering that had taken place nearly seventy years before. He could only have been a child at the time of the break-up of Jerusalem, and during his captivity probably no one was more devoted to the Lord than himself.

Nevertheless, the absence of personal responsibility and the lapse of time do not lead him to ignore the division and scattering, nor seek to place the blame upon individuals long since passed away; on the contrary, he identifies himself with the people of God, and owns before God that “we have sinned.”

So, in our day, occupation with the instruments used in breaking up the people of God may blind us to the true cause of the break-up, namely the low condition that accompanied our high profession. We may not have had any definite part in the folly and high-handed action of the few who brought about the immediate scattering of the people of God, but we have all had our part in the low condition that necessitated the break-up.

Daniel does not seek to extenuate their sin: on the contrary, he owns that they had aggravated their sin by their refusal to hearken unto the prophets that God had sent from time to time to recall them to Himself. Nothing is more striking than to see how persistently the people of God, in that day as well as in this, have persecuted the prophets. We do not like to have our conscience disturbed by hearing of our failures. To admit that we are wrong, or have done wrong, (except in the most vague and general terms) is too humbling to religious flesh. Therefore, the prophet who seeks to exercise the conscience – who reminds God’s people of their sins – is never popular. The mere “teacher” will be received with acclaim, for the acquisition of knowledge at the feet of a teacher is rather gratifying to the flesh. To have a great teacher in the midst of a company tends to exalt; but who wants a prophet to arouse the conscience by telling us of our failures and sins? Thus it was that Israel refused to hearken unto the prophets.

(V. 7). Having confessed the sin of “all the people of the land,” Daniel justifies God in having chastened the people. He lays hold of this deeply important principle that, when division and scattering have occurred, these evils must be accepted as from God, acting in His holy discipline, and not simply as brought about by particular acts of folly or wickedness on the part of individual men. This is clearly seen in the great division that took place in Israel. Instrumentally, it was brought about by the folly of Rehoboam, but, says God, “This thing is done of Me” (2Ch 11:4). Four hundred and fifty years later, when the people of God were not only divided but scattered among the nations, Daniel very clearly recognises this great principle. He says “O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto Thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither Thou has driven them”. Then again he speaks of “the Lord our God . . . bringing upon us a great evil”; and yet again, “the Lord watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us” (Dan 9:7; Dan 9:12; Dan 9:14). Thus Daniel loses sight of the folly and wickedness of individual men. He mentions no names. He does not speak of Jehoiachim or “his abominations which he did,” nor of Zedekiah and his folly; nor does he refer to the ruthless violence of Nebuchadnezzar; but, looking beyond these men, he sees in the scattering the hand of a righteous God.

Thus, too, a little later Zechariah hears the word of the Lord to the priests, and all the people of the land, saying, “I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not” (Zec 7:5; Zec 7:14).

So, too, later still Nehemiah in his prayer recalls the words of the Lord by Moses saying, “If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad” (Neh 1:7).

There is no attempt with these men of God to modify their strong statements of God’s dealings in discipline. They do not even say that God has “allowed” His people to be scattered, or “permitted” them to be driven away; but they plainly say that God Himself has driven the people away and brought the evil.

(Vv. 8, 9). But further, if on the one hand confusion of face belongs to every class and each generation of Israel from the fathers onwards, on the other hand “mercies and forgivenesses” belong to the Lord our God. Not only is God righteous, but He is merciful and full of forgiveness. In spite of this the nation had rebelled and again aggravated their guilt.

(V. 10). Thus Daniel sums up the sin of Israel. The nation had not obeyed the voice of the LORD; they had broken His laws and disregarded the prophets.

(Vv. 11, 12). Therefore the curse proclaimed in the law had fallen upon them, and God had confirmed His words which He had spoken against the nation by bringing this great evil upon them.

(V. 13). Furthermore, when the evil came, they did not turn to God in prayer. Apparently, there was no desire to turn from their iniquities and understand the truth.

Has this solemn verse no voice for the people of God in this our day? The people of God are scattered and divided because of their sins, and yet how calmly, even complacently, is this state of division viewed by the people of God. Moreover, not only is the truth of God for the moment little understood, but there is little desire to understand the truth. Oh that we might be so exercised as to the condition of God’s people that we are compelled to make our prayer before the Lord our God, turn from our iniquities, and set our faces to understand the truth of God!

(V. 14). “Therefore,” says Daniel, “hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us.” The Lord had said to Jeremiah “I will watch over them for evil, and not for good;” and again, the same prophet tells us that the Lord had “watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict” (Jer 44:27; Jer 31:28). How solemn! We can better understand the Lord watching over His people to protect, but here we find He watches over them for evil, and Daniel justifies the Lord in so doing. “The LORD our God is righteous in all His works which He doeth: for we obeyed not His voice.”

(V. 15). There was yet a further aggravation of their guilt which Daniel confesses. The people who had sinned and done so wickedly were the redeemed of the Lord – the people that He had brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand. Thus the very people through whom God had gotten Him renown were the very people who, through their sin, had now dishonoured Him. By God’s redeeming power on behalf of Israel, His fame had been spread abroad among the nations; by Israel’s sin His Name had been blasphemed among the Gentiles. Therefore God had vindicated His glory by driving Israel again into bondage.

(d) Daniel’s supplication to God for mercy (Vv. 16-19).

(Vv. 16-19). Having confessed the sin and failure of God’s people and having, moreover, justified God in all His ways, Daniel now prays in the form of supplication. Remarkably enough, as we might think, his first plea is the righteousness of God, and later the “great mercies” of God. He realises that mercy must be based on righteousness. Already he had owned the “righteousness” of God in bringing all this sorrow upon this people (verse 14); now he pleads that in righteousness God would let His anger and fury be turned from Jerusalem.

The subjects of his supplication are the city, the holy mountain, the sanctuary and the people of God. He is not pleading for himself, his own personal interests, or the particular needs of his companions in captivity. His whole heart is concerned in the interests of God upon earth. Would that we knew more of the spirit of Daniel; that our hearts were so filled with that which is nearest and dearest to the heart of Christ that, rising above all personal and local needs, we could cry to God for His Church, His Name, His house and His people, confessing the common failure and feeling the common need.

It is significant that in pleading for the city, the mountain, the sanctuary and the people, he views them not in relation to himself or the nation, but as belonging to God. He does not say our city, or our sanctuary, or our people, but “Thy city,” “Thy holy mountain,” “Thy sanctuary,” and “Thy people.” Rising above all the failure, he turns to God and pleads, “We are Thine.”

First, he pleads the righteousness of God (verse 16). Then he pleads “the Lord’s sake” (verse 17). Following this, he pleads the “great mercies” of God (verse 18). Finally, he pleads the “Name” of the Lord (verse 19). Basing his prayer on such pleas, he can definitely ask the Lord to “hear,” to “forgive,” to “do,” and “defer not” to act on behalf of His people.

It is of the deepest importance to see that the basis of Daniel’s supplication is the fact, again and again emphasised in his confession, that it is God Himself who had broken up the people (verses 7, 12, 14). Until this fact is faced and owned, without any reserve, there can be no recovery. Once it is faced we have good ground on which to turn to God and plead for recovering mercy; and for this reason, God is One who can not only break up. but also can heal; God can scatter, but God can also gather together (Psa 147:2). Refusing to acknowledge that God has broken us up, and seeing only the folly that men have wrought, we shut out all hope of recovery for those who desire to be faithful to God. With men before us we are thinking of those who can break up but have no power to recover; whereas God can break up, and God can recover.

Seeing only men as causing divisions has led many sincere people to the false conclusion that, if men caused divisions, men have the power to remedy them. Hence the efforts that are made to bring the people of God together again are foredoomed to failure, and worse than failure, for they only add to the confusion among the people of God. To bring together is beyond the wit of man; it is God’s work. We can destroy, we can scatter, we can break hearts; but “The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel. He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds” (Psa 147:2-3).

Here, then, in Daniel’s prayer we have the course that should ever guide God’s people in a day of ruin:-

First, to get, in turning to God, a fresh and deepened sense of His greatness, holiness and mercy to those who are prepared to keep His word:

Secondly, to confess our failure and sin, and that the root of all scattering lies in a low moral condition:

Thirdly, to own the righteous government of God in all His dealings in chastening His people:

Fourthly, to fall back on the righteousness of God that can act in mercy towards His failing people, for His Name’s sake.

(e) Understanding in the word and vision (Vv. 20-27).

(Vv. 20-23). Turning to God in prayer and confession, Daniel receives light and understanding in the mind of God. It is significant that he receives the answer to his prayer at the time of the evening oblation, indicating that his prayer is answered on the ground of the efficacy of the burnt offering which speaks to God of the value of the sacrifice of Christ.

At the beginning of Daniel’s supplication, God had given commandment to Gabriel concerning Daniel. God did not wait for a lengthy prayer to hear all that Daniel would say. God knew the desires of his heart, and at the very commencement God heard and began to act. Gabriel’s commission was to open Daniel’s understanding to receive the communications of God, as he says, “to make thee skilful of understanding” (N. Tn.). It was not enough for Daniel to receive revelations; he needed to have his understanding opened to profit by them. At a later date the Lord opened the Scriptures to the disciples and also opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures. We, too, need the opened understanding, as well as the opened Scriptures, even as the Apostle can say to Timothy, as he opens up the truth to him, “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding” (2Ti 2:7).

Moreover, having associated himself with the failure of God’s people, and confessed that “We have sinned,” Daniel is now assured that, in spite of all failure, he is “greatly beloved.”

(V. 24). Daniel had discovered by reading the prophet Jeremiah that at the end of seventy years God was going to judge Babylon and deliver his people from captivity. Because of this prophecy Daniel had turned to God and besought Him to act according to His word. In answer to Daniel’s prayer God makes a further revelation to him. He is told that at the end of “seventy weeks” there would come a much greater deliverance for the Jews – one that would be final and complete.

We must remember that this prophecy wholly concerns the deliverance of the Jewish people and their city. The angel says, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and thy city.” Daniel’s people are the Jews, and his city Jerusalem. The Christian has no continuing city in this world; he seeks one to come.

All that is necessary for the fulfilment of these prophecies has been carried out at the Cross. To secure these blessings Christ has died for the nation (Joh 11:52). The blood has been shed and propitiation has been made. The reception by faith of the work of Christ, so that the nation may enter into the blessings that the work secures, is yet future. When Israel turns to the Lord, the transgression for which the nation has been scattered will be finished, their sins will be forgiven, their iniquities pardoned (Isa 40:2), and God’s righteousness established (Isa 51:4-6). Visions and prophecies will be fulfilled, and, in this sense, sealed up or closed. The holy of holies will be set apart for the dwelling place of God.

What, then, are we to understand by the “seventy weeks”? Do they mean literally seventy weeks of seven days, or four hundred and ninety days? Verses 25 and 26 forbid such a thought. The commencement of the seventy weeks is clearly stated, and we are told that at the end of sixty-nine of the weeks certain events would take place that evidently did not take place at the end of four hundred and eighty three days. All difficulty is removed when we see that the word “weeks” merely means “periods of seven.” The Jew reckoned by periods of seven years, or septenates, as we reckon by periods of ten years, or decades. The seventy weeks, then, are seventy periods of seven years, or four hundred and ninety years.

(V. 25). This period of four hundred and ninety years commences from the going forth of the command to build and restore Jerusalem. From Nehemiah 2 we know that this command to rebuild Jerusalem went forth in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. In the history of the world the twentieth year of Artaxerxes has been calculated to be about 454 or 455 B.C. Four hundred and ninety years after this event we are told that the time of Israel’s sorrow would be over and the blessings of the Kingdom established.

Now it is evident that the foretold blessing did not come at the end of four hundred and ninety years if the years are calculated without a break. But, in these verses, we see that this period is divided into three parts. The first period is one of seven weeks, or forty-nine years, during which Jerusalem is rebuilt in troublous times. How troublous they were we know from the account given in the Book of Nehemiah. The second period of sixty two weeks, or four hundred and thirty four years, is from the completion of the wall of Jerusalem unto the Messiah. The word does not say exactly the birth of the Messiah, or His presentation to the people, or His death. It is left quite general; only it is definitely stated that “after the sixty-two weeks shall Messiah be cut off and shall have nothing” (N. Tn.).

(V. 26). Following upon the prophecy as to the cutting off of the Messiah, we have a statement about the people of the prince that shall come; this, in turn, is followed by statements as to the prince himself. It is stated that the people will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The reference is, doubtless, to the Roman people – the fourth great Gentile power – that ruled the earth when the Messiah came and was cut off. Daniel learns that the Jewish nation, having rejected their Messiah will come under judgment, and their city and sanctuary will be destroyed by the Roman people who, like a flood, will overflow the land, bringing the Jewish occupation to an end. The nation will pass into captivity and the land be left desolate. The Jews will find that every man’s hand is against them until the time of the end. The Lord Himself repeats the prediction of these solemn events when He says, “They (the Jews) shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luk 21:24).

This part of the prophecy was completely fulfilled about seventy years after the birth of Christ when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans under Titus.

(V. 27). At this point the prophecy passes on to speak of events that are yet future, and that will take place during the last week, or seven years, of the prophecy. When Christ was cut off, sixty-nine weeks had run their course. There only remained one week – or seven years – before His kingdom would be set up. But the Jews rejected their Messiah; consequently the fulfilment of the prophecy is deferred. From the time that they rejected their Messiah, God no longer recognised the people as in relation with Himself. During this time there is a great blank in the history of God’s ancient people, a blank of which God gives no account as to its length. During this time we know from the New Testament Scriptures that salvation has come to the Gentiles through the fall of Israel. During this period we also know that God is calling out His heavenly people – the Church. It will therefore be seen that there is an immense and important interval between verses 26 and 27, of which no details are given in the prophecy. The calling out of the Church is a truth reserved for the coming of the Holy Spirit. We are definitely told that this is a truth “which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph 3:4-6; see also Rom 16:25-26). Direct prophecy always refers to earth and God’s earthly people. Any allusion to the calling of the Church would have been wholly incomprehensible to Daniel. We can, then, understand why this immense interval between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week is passed over in silence.

Here, then, we are carried on to events that are still future. These events turn upon the activities, not so much of the Roman people, of whom we have already heard, but the head of the Empire, here called the prince of the people. Of this man we read, “He shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week” (N. Tn.). This head of the revived Roman Empire will enter into a covenant with the mass of the Jewish nation who will be back in their land, though still rejecting Christ as their Messiah. Probably, through fear of being overwhelmed by another enemy – the northern power or “overflowing scourge” – the Jews will enter into an alliance with the imperial head of the Roman Empire.

Then it seems that the one upon whom the Jews will lean for protection from other enemies will himself become their great enemy. False to his own covenant, in the midst of the week, or at the end of three and a half years, “he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” The next clause would seem to indicate the reason for causing the sacrifice to cease, for it speaks of the “protection of abominations” (N. Tn.). This is plainly a reference to that which is stated in other Scriptures, that the coming Antichrist will cause an image to be erected in the holy of holies to whom all are commanded to render divine honours (See Mat 24:15, 2Th 2:4; Rev 13:14-15).

Nevertheless, during this last half week there will be a “desolater,” an overflowing scourge from the north, from which no alliance with the prince of the Roman Empire will avail to protect the Jews. It is during this time that the Jewish nation will pass through the great tribulation. The Lord definitely says, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place . . . then shall be great tribulation” (Mat 24:15-21). During this terrible time the unbelieving Jewish nation will be the object of unceasing judgments until judgment is exhausted by being fully poured out upon the desolate city and nation.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

9:1 In the first year of Darius the son of {a} Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the {b} realm of the Chaldeans;

(a) Who was also called Astyages.

(b) For Cyrus led with ambition, and went about wars in other countries, and therefore Darius had the title of the kingdom, even though Cyrus was king in effect.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. Jeremiah’s prophecy of Jerusalem’s restoration and Daniel’s response 9:1-3

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

What Daniel did and saw in this chapter dates from 538 B.C., the first year of Darius the Mede’s (Cyrus’) rule as king over the former Neo-Babylonian Empire (cf. Ezr 1:1). [Note: See my comments on 5:31 and 6:1 for explanation of the identity of Darius the Mede.] This means that Belshazzar’s feast (ch. 5) occurred between chapters 8 and 9. We cannot date Daniel’s experience in the lions’ den (ch. 6) as accurately. That may have happened before or after the events recorded here.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

THE SEVENTY WEEKS

THIS chapter is occupied with the prayer of Daniel, and with the famous vision of the seventy weeks which has led to such interminable controversies, but of which the interpretation no longer admits of any certainty, because accurate data are not forthcoming.

The vision is dated in the first year of Darius, the son of Achashverosh, of the Median stock. We have seen already that such a person is unknown to history. The date, however, accords well in this instance with the literary standpoint of the writer. The vision is sent as a consolation of perplexities suggested by the writers study of the Scriptures; and nothing is more naturally imagined than the fact that the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire should have sent a Jewish exile to the study of the rolls of his holy prophets, to see what light they threw on the exile of his people.

He understood from “the books” the number of the years “whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet for the accomplishing of the desolation of Jerusalem, even seventy years.” Such is the rendering of our Revisers, who here follow the A.V (“I understood by books”), except that they rightly use the definite article. Such too is the view of Hitzig. Mr. Bevan seems to have pointed out the real meaning of the passage, by referring not only to the Pentateuch generally, as helping to interpret the words of Jeremiah, but especially to Lev 26:18; Lev 26:21; Lev 26:24; Lev 26:28. It was there that the writer of Daniel discovered the method of interpreting the “seventy years” spoken of by Jeremiah. The Book of Leviticus had four times spoken of a sevenfold punishment-a punishment “seven times more” for the sins of Israel. Now this thought flashed upon the writer like a luminous principle. Daniel, in whose person he wrote, had arrived at the period at which the literal seventy years of Jeremiah were-on some methods of computation-upon the eve of completion; the writer himself is living in the dreary times of Antiochus. Jeremiah had prophesied that the nations should serve the King of Babylon seventy years, {Jer 25:11} after which time Gods vengeance should fall on Babylon; and again, {Jer 29:10-11} that after seventy years the exiles should return to Palestine, since the thoughts of Jehovah towards them were thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give them a future and a hope.

The writer of Daniel saw, nearly four centuries later, that after all only a mere handful of the exiles, whom the Jews themselves compared to the chaff in comparison with the wheat, had returned from exile; that the years which followed had been cramped, dismal, and distressful; that the splendid hopes of the Messianic kingdom, which had glowed so brightly on the foreshortened horizon of Isaiah and so many of the prophets, had never yet been fulfilled; and that these anticipations never showed fewer signs of fulfilment than in the midst of the persecuting furies of Antiochus, supported by the widespread apostasies of the Hellenising Jews, and the vile ambition of such renegade high priests as Jason and Menelaus.

That the difficulty was felt is shown by the fact that the Epistle of Jeremy (Dan 9:2) extends the epoch of captivity to two-hundred and ten years (7 X 30), whereas in Jer 29:10 “seventy years” are distinctly mentioned.

What was the explanation of this startling apparent discrepancy between “the sure word of prophecy” and the gloomy realities of history?

The writer saw it in a mystic or allegorical interpretation of Jeremiahs seventy years. The prophet could not (he thought) have meant seventy literal years. The number seven indeed played its usual mystic part in the epoch of punishment. Jerusalem had been taken B.C. 588; the first return of the exiles had been about B.C. 538. The Exile therefore had, from one point of view, lasted forty-nine years- i.e., 7 X 7. But even if seventy years were reckoned from the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B.C. 606?) to the decree of Cyrus (B.C. 536), and if these seventy years could be made out, still the hopes of the Jews were on the whole miserably frustrated.

Surely then-so thought the writer-the real meaning of Jeremiah must have been misunderstood; or, at any rate, only partially understood. He must have meant, not “years ,” but weeks of years-Sabbatical years. And that being so, the real Messianic fulfilments were not to come till four hundred and ninety years after the beginning of the Exile; and this clue he found in Leviticus. It was indeed a clue which lay ready to the hand of any one who was perplexed by Jeremiahs prophecy, means, not only the week, but also “seven,” and the seventh {Lev 25:2; Lev 25:4} and the Chronicler had already declared that the reason why the land was to lie waste for seventy years was that “the land” was “to enjoy her Sabbaths”; in other words, that, as seventy Sabbatical years had been wholly neglected (and indeed unheard of) during the period of the monarchy-which he reckoned at four hundred and ninety years-therefore it was to enjoy those Sabbatical years continuously while there was no nation in Palestine to cultivate the soil.

Another consideration may also have led the writer to his discovery. From the coronation of Saul to the captivity of Zachariah, reckoning the recorded length of each reign and giving seventeen years to Saul (since the “forty years” of Act 13:21 is obviously untenable), gave four hundred and ninety years, or, as the Chronicler implies, seventy unkept Sabbatic years. The writer had no means for an accurate computation of the time which had elapsed since the destruction of the Temple. But as there were four hundred and eighty years and twelve high priests from Aaron to Ahimaaz, and four hundred and eighty years and twelve high priests from Azariah I to Jozadak, who was priest at the beginning of the Captivity, -so there were twelve high priests from Jozadak to Onias III; and this seemed to imply a lapse of some four hundred and ninety years in round numbers.

The writer introduces what he thus regarded as a consoling and illuminating discovery in a striking manner. Daniel, coming to understand for the first time the real meaning of Jeremiahs “seventy years,” “set his face unto the Lord God, to seek prayer and supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.”

His prayer is thus given:-

It falls into three strophes of equal length, and is “all alive and aglow with a pure fire of genuine repentance, humbly assured faith, and most intense petition.” At the same time it is the composition of a literary writer, for in phrase after phrase it recalls various passages of Scripture. It closely resembles the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, and is so nearly parallel with the prayer of the apocryphal Baruch that Ewald regards it as an intentional abbreviation of #/RAPC Bar 2:1. Ezra, however, confesses the sins of his nation without asking for forgiveness; and Nehemiah likewise praises God for His mercies, but does not plead for pardon or deliverance; but Daniel entreats pardon for Israel and asks that his own prayer may be heard. The sins of Israel in Dan 9:5-6, fall under the heads of wandering, lawlessness, rebellion, apostasy, and heedlessness. It is one of the marked tendencies of the later Jewish writings to degenerate into centos of phrases from the Law and the Prophets. It is noticeable that the name Jehovah occurs in this chapter of Daniel alone (in Dan 9:2, Dan 9:4, Dan 9:10, Dan 9:13, Dan 9:14, Dan 9:20); and that he also addresses God as El, Elohim, and Adonai.

In the first division of the prayer (Dan 9:4-10) Daniel admits the faithfulness and mercy of God, and deplores the transgressions of his people from the highest to the lowest in all lands.

In the second part (Dan 9:11-14) he sees in these transgressions the fulfilment of “the curse and the oath” written in the Law of Moses, with special reference to Lev 26:14; Lev 26:18, etc. In spite of all their sins and miseries they had not “stroked the face” of the Lord their God.

The third section (Dan 9:15-19) appeals to God by His past mercies and deliverances to turn away His wrath and to pity the reproach of His people. Daniel entreats Jehovah to hear his prayer, to make His face shine on His desolated sanctuary, and to behold the horrible condition of His people and of His holy city. Not for their sakes is He asked to show His great compassion, but because His Name is called upon His city and His people.

Such is the prayer; and while Daniel was still speaking, praying, confessing his own and Israels sins, and interceding before Jehovah for the holy mountain-yea, even during the utterance of: his prayer-the Gabriel of his former vision; came speeding to him in full flight at the time of: the evening sacrifice. The archangel tells him: that no sooner had his supplication begun than he sped on his way, for Daniel is a dearly beloved one. Therefore he bids him take heed to the word and to the vision:-

1. Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people, and upon thy holy city-

1. to finish (or “restrain”) the transgression;

2. to make an end of (or “seal up,” Theodot.) sins;

3. to make reconciliation for (or “to purge away”) iniquity;

4. to bring in everlasting righteousness;

5. to seal up vision and prophet; and

6. to anoint the Most Holy (or “a Most Holy Place”).

7. From the decree to restore Jerusalem unto the Anointed One (or “the Messiah”), the Prince, shall be seven weeks. For sixty-two weeks Jerusalem shall be built again with street and moat, though in troublous times.

2. After these sixty-two weeks-

1. an Anointed One shall be cut off, and shall have no help(?) (or “there shall be none belonging to him”);

2. the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the cityand the sanctuary;

3. his end and the end shall be with a flood, and war, anddesolation;

4. for one week this alien prince shall make a covenant with many;

5. for half of that week he shall cause the sacrifice and burnt offering to cease;

6. and upon the wing of abominations [shall come] one that maketh desolate;

7. and unto the destined consummation [wrath] shall be poured out upon a desolate one(?) (or “the horrible one”).

Much is uncertain in the text, and much in the translation; but the general outline of the declaration is clear in many of the chief particulars, so far as they are capable of historic verification. Instead of being a mystical prophecy which floated purely in the air, and in which a week stands (as Keil supposes) for unknown, heavenly, and symbolic periods-in which case no real information would have been vouchsafed-we are expressly told that it was intended to give the seer a definite, and even a minutely detailed, indication of the course of events.

Let us now take the revelation which is sent to the perplexed mourner step by step.

1. Seventy weeks are to elapse before any perfect deliverance is to come. We are nowhere expressly told that year-weeks are meant, but this is implied throughout, as the only possible means of explaining either the vision or the history. The conception, as we have seen, would come to readers quite naturally, since Shabbath meant in Hebrew, not only the seventh day of the week, but the seventh year in each week of years. Hence “seventy weeks” means four hundred and ninety years. {Lev 26:34 Eze 4:6} Not until the four hundred and ninety years- the seventy weeks of years- are ended will the time have come to complete the prophecy which only had a sort of initial and imperfect fulfilment in seventy actual years.

The precise meaning attached in the writers mind to the events which are to mark the close of the four hundred and ninety years-namely,

(a) the ending of transgression;

(b) the sealing up of sins;

(g) the atonement for iniquity;

(d) the bringing in of everlasting righteousness; and

(e) the sealing up of the vision and prophet {or prophecy Comp. Jer 32:11; Jer 32:44}-

cannot be further defined by us. It belongs to the Messianic hope. {See Isa 46:3, Isa 51:5; Isa 53:11 Jer 23:6. etc.} It is the prophecy of a time which may have had some dim and partial analogies at the end of Jeremiahs seventy years, but which the writer thought would be more richly and finally fulfilled at the close of the Antiochian persecution. At the actual time of his writing that era of restitution had not yet begun.

But another event, which would mark the close of the seventy year-weeks, was to be “the anointing of a Most Holy.”

What does this mean?

Theodotion and the ancient translators render it “a Holy of Holies.” But throughout the whole Old Testament “Holy of Holies” is never once used of a person , though it occurs forty-four times. Keil and his school point 1Ch 23:13 as an exception; but “Nil agit exemplum quod litem lite resolvit. “

In that verse some propose the rendering, “to sanctify, as most holy, Aaron and his sons for ever”; but both the A.V and the R. V render it, “Aaron was separated that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons forever.” If there be a doubt as to the rendering, it is perverse to adopt the one which makes the usage differ from that of every other passage in Holy Writ.

Now the phrase ” most holy” is most frequently applied to the great altar of sacrifice. It is therefore natural to explain the present passage as a reference to the reanointing of the altar of sacrifice, primarily in the days of Zerubbabel, and secondarily by Judas Maccabaeus after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. {#/RAPC 1Ma 4:54}

2. But in the more detailed explanation which follows, the seventy year-weeks are divided into 7 + 62 + 1.

(a) At the end of the first seven week-years (after forty-nine years) Jerusalem should be restored, and there should be “an Anointed, a Prince.”

Some ancient Jewish commentators, followed by many eminent and learned moderns, understand this Anointed One (Mashiach) and Prince (Nagid) to be Cyrus; and that there can be no objection to conferring on him the exalted title of “Messiah” is amply proved by the fact that Isaiah himself bestows it upon him. {Isa 45:1}

Others, however, both ancient (like Eusebius) and modern (like Gratz), prefer to explain the term of the anointed Jewish high priest, Joshua, the son of Jozadak. For the term “Anointed” is given to the high priest in Lev 4:3; Lev 6:20; and Joshuas position among the exiles might well entitle him, as much as Zerubbabel himself, to the title of Nagid or Prince.

(b) After this restoration of Temple and priest, sixty-two weeks (i.e., four hundred and thirty-four years) are to elapse, during which Jerusalem is indeed to exist “with street and trench”-but in the straitness of the times.

This, too, is clear and easy of comprehension. It exactly corresponds with the depressed condition of Jewish life during the Persian and early Grecian epochs, from the restoration of the Temple, B.C. 538, to B.C. 171, when the false high priest Menelaus robbed the Temple of its best treasures. This is indeed, so far as accurate chronology is concerned, an unverifiable period, for it only gives us three hundred and sixty-seven years instead of four hundred and thirty-four:-but of that I will speak later on. The punctuation of the original is disputed. Theodotion, the Vulgate, and our A.V punctuate in Dan 9:25 “From the going forth of the commandment” (“decree” or “word”) “that Jerusalem should be restored and rebuilt, unto an Anointed, a Prince, are seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks.” Accepting this view, Von Lengerke and Hitzig make the seven weeks run parallel with the first seven in the sixty-two. This indeed makes the chronology a little more accurate, but introduces an unexplained and a fantastic element. Consequently most modern scholars, including even such writers as Keil, and our Revisers follow the Masoretic punctuation, and put the stop after the seven weeks, separating them entirely from the following sixty-two.

3. After the sixty-two weeks is to follow a series of events, and all these point quite distinctly to the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes.

(a) Dan 9:26 -An Anointed One shall be cut off with all that belongs to him.

There can be no reasonable doubt that this is a reference to the position of the high priest Onias III, and his murder by Andronicus (B.C. 171). This startling event is mentioned in #/RAPC 2Ma 4:34, and by Josephus (“Antt.,” 12. 5:1), and in Dan 11:22. It is added, ” and no to him. ” Perhaps the word “helper” {Dan 11:45} has fallen out of the text, as Gratz supposes; or the words may mean, “there is no [priest] for it [the people].” The A.V renders it, “but not for himself”; and in the margin, “and shall have nothing”; or, “and they [the Jews] shall be no more his people.” The R. V renders it, “and shall have nothing.” I believe, with Dr. Joel, that in the Hebrew words veeyn lo there may be a sort of cryptographic allusion to the name Onias.

(b) The people of the coming prince shall devastate the city and the sanctuary (translation uncertain).

This is an obvious allusion to the destruction and massacre inflicted on Jerusalem by Apollonius and the army of Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 167). Antiochus is called “the prince that shall come ,” because he was at Rome when Onias III was murdered (B.C. 171).

(g) “And until the end shall be a war, a sentence of desolation” (Hitzig, etc.); or, as Ewald renders it, “Until the end of the war is the decision concerning the horrible thing.”

This alludes to the troubles of Jerusalem until the heaven-sent Nemesis fell on the profane enemy of the saints in the miserable death of Antiochus in Persia.

(d) But meanwhile he will have concluded a covenant with many for one week.

In any case, whatever be the exact reading or rendering, this seems to be an allusion to the fact that Antiochus was confirmed in his perversity and led on to extremes in the enforcement of his attempt to Hellenise the Jews and to abolish their national religion by the existence of a large party of flagrant apostates. These were headed by their godless and usurping high priests, Jason and Menelaus. All this is strongly emphasised in the narrative of the Book of Maccabees. This attempted apostasy lasted for one week- i.e., for seven years; the years intended being probably the first seven of the reign of Antiochus, from B.C. 175 to B.C. 168. During this period he was aided by wicked men, who said, “Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen round about us; for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow.” Antiochus “gave them license to do after the ordinances of the heathen,” so that they built a gymnasium at Jerusalem, obliterated the marks of circumcision, and were joined to the heathen. {#/RAPC 1Ma 1:10-15}

(e) For the half of this week (i.e., for three and a half years) the king abolished the sacrifice and the oblation or meat offering.

This alludes to the suppression of the most distinctive ordinances of Jewish worship, and the general defilement of the Temple after the setting up of the heathen altar. The reckoning seems to be from the edict promulgated some months before December, 168, to December, 165, when Judas the Maccabee reconsecrated the Temple.

(z) The sentence which follows is surrounded with every kind ofuncertainty.

The R. V renders it, “And upon the wing [or, pinnacle] of abominations shall come [or, be] one that maketh desolate.”

The A.V has, “And for the overspreading of abominations” (or marg., “with the abominable armies”) “he shall make it desolate.”

It is from the LXX that we derive the famous expression, “abomination of desolation,” referred to by St. Matthew {Mat 24:15 cf. Luk 21:20} in the discourse of our Lord.

Other translations are as follows:-

Gesenius: “Desolation comes upon the horrible wing of a rebels host.”

Ewald: “And above will be the horrible wing of abominations.”

Wieseler: “And a desolation shall arise against the wing of abominations.”

Von Lengerke, Hengstenberg, Pusey: “And over the edge [or, pinnacle] of abominations [cometh] the desolator”; -which they understand to mean that Antiochus will rule over the Temple defiled by heathen rites.

Kranichfeld and Keit: “And a destroyer comes on the wings of idolatrous abominations.”

“And instead thereof” (i.e., in the place of the sacrifice and meat offering) “there shall be abominations.”

It is needless to weary the reader with further attempts at translation; but however uncertain may be the exact reading or rendering, few modern commentators doubt that the allusion is to the smaller heathen altar built by Antiochus above (i.e., on the summit) of the “Most Holy”- i.e., the great altar of burnt sacrifice-over-shadowing it like “a wing” (kanaph), and causing desolations or abominations (shiqqootsim) That this interpretation is the correct one can hardly be doubted in the light of the clearer references to “the abomination that maketh desolate” in Dan 11:31 Dan 12:11. In favour of this we have the almost contemporary interpretation of the Book of Maccabees. The author of that history directly applies the phrase “the abomination of desolation” to the idol altar set up by Antiochus. {#/RAPC 1Ma 1:54; 1Ma 6:7}

(h) Lastly, the terrible drama shall end by an outpouring of wrath, and asentence of judgment on “the desolation” (R.V) or “the desolate” (A.V).

This can only refer to the ultimate judgment with which Antiochus is menaced.

It will be seen then that, despite all uncertainties in the text, in the translation, and in the details, we have in these verses an unmistakably clear foreshadowing of the same persecuting king, and the same disastrous events, with which the mind of the writer is so predominantly haunted, and which are still more clearly indicated in the subsequent chapter.

Is it necessary, after an inquiry inevitably tedious, and of little or no apparent spiritual profit or significance, to enter further into the intolerably and interminably perplexed and voluminous discussions as to the beginning, the ending, and the exactitude of the seventy weeks? Even St. Jerome gives, by way of specimen, nine different interpretations in his time, and comes to no decision of his own. After confessing that all the interpretations were individual guesswork, he leaves every reader to his own judgment, and adds: “Dicam quid unusquisque senserit, lectoris arbitrio derelinquens cujus expositionem sequi debeat.”

I cannot think that the least advantage can be derived from doing so.

For scarcely any two leading commentators agree as to details; -or even as to any fixed principles by which they profess to determine the date at which the period of seventy weeks is to begin or is to end; -or whether they are to be reckoned continuously, or with arbitrary misplacements or discontinuations; -or even whether they are not purely symbolical, so as to have no reference to any chronological indications; -or whether they are to be interpreted as referring to one special series of events, or to be regarded as having many fulfilments by “springing and germinal developments.” The latter view is, however, distinctly tenable. It applies to all prophecies, inasmuch as history repeats itself; and our Lord referred to another “abomination of desolation” which in His days was yet to come.

There is not even an initial agreement-or even the data as to an agreement-whether the “years” to be counted are solar years of three hundred and forty-three days, or lunar years, or “mystic” years, or Sabbath years of forty-nine years, or “indefinite” years; or where they are to begin and end or in what fashion they are to be divided. All is chaos in the existing commentaries.

As for any received or authorised interpretation, there not only is none, but never has been. The Jewish interpreters differ from one another as widely as the Christian. Even in the days of the Fathers, the early exegetes were so hopelessly at sea in their methods of application that St. Jerome contents himself, just as I have done, with giving no opinion of his own.

The attempt to refer the prophecy of the seventy weeks primarily or directly to the coming and death of Christ, or the desolation of the Temple by Titus, can only be supported by immense manipulations, and by hypotheses so crudely impossible that they would have made the prophecy practically meaningless both to Daniel and to any subsequent reader. The hopelessness of this attempt of the so-called “orthodox” interpreters is proved by their own fundamental disagreements. It is finally discredited by the fact that neither our Lord, nor His Apostles, nor any of the earliest Christian writers once appealed to the evidence of this prophecy, which, on the principles of Hengstenberg and Dr. Pusey, would have been so decisive! If such a proof lay ready to their hand-a proof definite and chronological-why should they have deliberately passed it over, while they referred to other prophecies so much more general, and so much less precise in dates?

Of course it is open to any reader to adopt the view of Keil and others, that the prophecy is Messianic, but only typically and generally so.

On the other hand, it may be objected that the Antiochian hypothesis breaks down, because-though it does not pretend to resort to any of the wild, arbitrary, and I had almost said preposterous, hypotheses invented by those who approach the interpretation of the Book with a priori and aposteriori assumptions-it still does not accurately correspond to ascertainable dates.

But to those who are guided in their exegesis, not by unnatural inventions, but by the great guiding principles of history and literature, this consideration presents no difficulty. Any exact accuracy of chronology would have been far more surprising in a writer of the Maccabean era than round numbers and vague computations. Precise computation is nowhere prevalent in the sacred books. The object of those books always is the conveyance of eternal, moral, and spiritual instruction. To such purely mundane and secondary matters as close reckoning of dates the Jewish writers show themselves manifestly indifferent. It is possible that, if we were able to ascertain the data which lay before the writer, his calculations might seem less divergent from exact numbers than they now appear. More than this we cannot affirm.

What was the date from which the writer calculated his seventy weeks? Was it from the date of Jeremiahs first prophecy, {Jer 25:12}B.C. 605? or his second prophecy, {Jer 29:10} eleven years later, B.C. 594? or from the destruction of the first Temple, B.C. 586? or, as some Jews thought, from the first year of “Darius the Mede?” or from the decree of Artaxerxes in Neh 2:1-9? or from the birth of Christ-the date assumed by Apollinaris? All these views have been adopted by various Rabbis and Fathers; but it is obvious that not one of them accords with the allusions of the narrative and prayer, except that which makes the destruction of the. Temple the terminus a quo. In the confusion of historic reminiscences and the rarity of written documents, the writer may not have consciously distinguished this date (B.C. 588) from the date of Jeremiahs prophecy (B.C. 594). That there were differences of computation as regards Jeremiahs seventy years, even in the age of the Exile, is sufficiently shown by the different views as to their termination taken by the Chronicler, {2Ch 36:22} who fixes it B.C. 536, and by Zechariah, {Zec 1:12} who fixes it about B.C. 519.

As to the terminus ad quota, it is open to any commentator to say that the prediction may point to many subsequent and analogous fulfilments; but no competent and serious reader who judges of these chapters by the chapters themselves and by their own repeated indications can have one moments hesitation in the conclusion that the writer is thinking mainly of the defilement of the Temple in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, and its reconsecration (in round numbers) three and a half years later by Judas Maccabaeus (December 25th, B.C. 164).

It is true that from B.C. 588 to B.C. 164 only gives us four hundred and twenty-four years, instead of four hundred and ninety years. How is this to be accounted for? Ewald supposes the loss of some passage in the text which would have explained the discrepancy; and that the text is in a somewhat chaotic condition is proved by its inherent philological difficulties, and by the appearance which it assumes in the Septuagint. The first seven weeks indeed, or forty-nine years, approximately correspond to the time between B.C. 588 (the destruction of the Temple) and B.C. 536 (the decree of Cyrus); but the following sixty-two weeks should give us four hundred and thirty-four years from the time of Cyrus to the cutting off of the Anointed One, by the murder of Onias III in B.C. 171, whereas it only gives us three hundred and sixty-five. How are we to account for this miscalculation to the extent of at least sixty-five years?

Not one single suggestion has ever accounted for it, or has ever given exactitude to these computations on any tenable hypothesis.

But Schurer has shown that exactly similar mistakes of reckoning are made even by so learned and industrious a historian as Josephus.

1. Thus in his “Jewish War.” (6:4:8) he says that there were six hundred and thirty-nine years between the second year of Cyrus and the destruction of the Temple by Titus (A.D. 70). Here is an error of more than thirty years.

2. In his “Antiquities” (20. 10.) he says that there were four hundred and thirty-four years between the Return from the Captivity (B.C. 536) and the reign of Antiochus Eupator (B.C. 164-162). Here is an error of more than sixty years.

3. In “Antt.,” 13. 11:1, he reckons four hundred and eighty-one years between the Return from the Captivity and the time of Aristobulus (B.C. 105-104). Here is an error of some fifty years.

Again, the Jewish Hellenist Demetrius reckons five hundred and seventy-three years from the Captivity of the Ten Tribes (B.C. 722) to the time of Ptolemy IV (B.C. 222), which is seventy years too many. In other words, he makes as nearly as possible the same miscalculations as the writer of Daniel. This seems to show that there was some traditional error in the current chronology; and it cannot be overlooked that in ancient days the means for coming to accurate chronological conclusion were exceedingly imperfect. “Until the establishment of the Seleucid era (B.C. 312), the Jew had no fixed era whatsoever”; and nothing is less astonishing than that an apocalyptic writer of the date of Epiphanes, basing his calculations on uncertain data to give an allegoric interpretation to an ancient prophecy, should have lacked the records which would alone have enabled him to calculate with exact precision.

And, for the rest, we must say with Grotius, “Modicum nee praetor curat, nec propheta.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles